The Baltimore Ravens and Minnesota Vikings are both 3-0 to start the year, two of just five undefeated teams remaining in the NFL. But given the way that both teams have played so far, there are a lot of questions about how sustainable their success will prove to be as the season continues.
The Vikings’ success so far is based on equally unsustainable performances. They’ve compiled their 3-0 mark despite gaining only 796 yards of total offense, becoming only the fifth team since 1990 to start 3-0 with fewer than 800 offensive yards.3 Only one other team this year has played three games4 and produced fewer than 800 yards of offense: Los Angeles, with 788 — and it’s never a good thing to be compared with the Rams’ lowly offense.
In terms of fluky scoring, so far this season, Minnesota has scored as many return touchdowns5 (three) as it has offensive touchdowns, and that trend is unlikely to continue. Even good defenses and special-teams units can’t produce return touchdowns every week. Last year, Seattle and Arizona were the only teams with at least three return touchdowns through three games, and they combined for just five more the rest of the season. Digging deeper into history, from 1990 to 2015, there were 22 teams with exactly three return touchdowns after three games, and those teams averaged only 3.3 more return touchdowns the rest of the year.
The good news for Minnesota? Last year’s Broncos showed that a defense-driven team can still win a Super Bowl, even when paired with a below-average offense.
More at the link. Please don't shoot the messenger.
If the offense doesn't improve, there is no question it will bite the Vikings at some point. Of course, there are the obligatory examples of teams with stout defenses and terrible offenses that manage to win the Super Bowl, but I'd much prefer to see the Vikings get their ground game going, and see Bradford get in sync with the protections. He's got the physical ability to excel (I haven't watched a ton of Bradford in the past) but I wonder if what seperates him from more elite QBs is a lack of awareness and ability to play in a phone booth. Obviously he's not fleet of foot, but he needs to create room and time for himself in the pocket. Contrast Shaun Hill's ability to do that in week 1 with Bradford the last two weeks. There's no question who the better thrower is, but both aspects are traits common to the elite QBs in this league. Its almost like we have two halves of a great QB. I hope Bradford proves he has that ability, and its just a matter of getting in sync with the protections. If so, I think the result will be dramatic improvement. If not, I don't think we'll be better than middle of the pack, but that could be enough of an improvement with this defense.
More at the link. Please don't shoot the messenger.
Can we stomp on him with a hammer?
Just kidding, I agree entirely. Our offense is the elephant in the room and has been ever since Zimmer-Turner got here. I understand why one of them is still here, but one of these things is not like the other. I just don't get it. As I've said before, If a defensive player performed like Norv Turner has he would be unemployed. We keep making excuses for him and they seem to come from a bottomless well.
Mothman wrote:... a good completion percentage in a performance like that is like putting lipstick on a pig.
I don't think they can sustain the exact statistical trend, but they certainly can sustain the success.
The writer took into account the Ravens bottom feeder opponents as a reason to be extra concerned about their low point differential, but negelcted to take into account the run defenses the vikes have faced while bashing them for their rushing game.
Obviously, off the chart numbers tend to trend toward the middle over time. The article came off as kind of a nerdy fluff piece to me. Like he hasn't watched many games...just looks at #'s
Anyway, Barnwell wrote a long piece on how trading for Bradford was a horrible move before he played a snap, basing his opinion mostly off past numbers.
I always see posters griping about the team not getting 'enough' national coverage. I never undrstand that. Who cares? It's kinda weird actually. Besides the pieces written by writers who don't have an in depth knowledge of the teams issues are usually pretty far off the mark and based soley on numbers that anyone idjit could dig up and paste into a paragraph.
So, to finish my preaching to the choir, the Vikes D will most likely not continue to compile the same numbers over the course of the year. But they will continue to keep this team in every game and make it very tough on opposing QBs. The Vikings offense by the same accord will most likely not continue to post the same lowly numbers over the course of the season. Meanwhile the teams rate of success stands an excellent chance of continuing. I'd say it's likely in fact.
The rest of the story on our offense....9 days before the season we lost our starting QB. Enter Shuan Hill, he done enough to get us the win. Then bring in a replacement QB who has a whole system to learn.
Not to mention our running back and left tackle sustained season ending injuries.
I'm hoping we will get better as the season goes on.
And that is one of the reasons our output has been so low in my opinion.
I think Sammy Bradwater and the o line will round into a semblance of a passable entity as time goes by. In the mean time the defense will keep us afloat. Zimmer may have to take Turner out back the woodshed and work things out to get it going.
Purple Martin wrote:
Can we stomp on him with a hammer?
Or maybe beat him with a stick?
Purple Martin wrote:Just kidding, I agree entirely. Our offense is the elephant in the room and has been ever since Zimmer-Turner got here. I understand why one of them is still here, but one of these things is not like the other. I just don't get it. As I've said before, If a defensive player performed like Norv Turner has he would be unemployed. We keep making excuses for him and they seem to come from a bottomless well.
I pretty much agree about Norv. Most of the offensive skill player problems are fixable IF Norv opens his mind. A big "IF."
As for the offensive line, I'm hoping it can improve as the season progresses.
The team also needs its players to remain healthy. That's one intangible nobody can predict.
Nunin wrote:I don't think they can sustain the exact statistical trend, but they certainly can sustain the success.
The writer took into account the Ravens bottom feeder opponents as a reason to be extra concerned about their low point differential, but negelcted to take into account the run defenses the vikes have faced while bashing them for their rushing game.
Obviously, off the chart numbers tend to trend toward the middle over time. The article came off as kind of a nerdy fluff piece to me. Like he hasn't watched many games...just looks at #'s
Anyway, Barnwell wrote a long piece on how trading for Bradford was a horrible move before he played a snap, basing his opinion mostly off past numbers.
I always see posters griping about the team not getting 'enough' national coverage. I never undrstand that. Who cares? It's kinda weird actually. Besides the pieces written by writers who don't have an in depth knowledge of the teams issues are usually pretty far off the mark and based soley on numbers that anyone idjit could dig up and paste into a paragraph.
So, to finish my preaching to the choir, the Vikes D will most likely not continue to compile the same numbers over the course of the year. But they will continue to keep this team in every game and make it very tough on opposing QBs. The Vikings offense by the same accord will most likely not continue to post the same lowly numbers over the course of the season. Meanwhile the teams rate of success stands an excellent chance of continuing. I'd say it's likely in fact.
To be fair they do point out our opponents have been better and they expect us to do well this year and better than the Ravens. I generally agree. As much as we can agree that Rodgers and the Pack were absurdly lucky to be recovering their own fumbles. We cant depend on several turnovers per game. our offense needs to use the chances its given. Even if it is just a couple more field goals a game its important for the defense to see something for the effort they put in, in forcing a 3 and out.
The Danger is that our defense falters and we end up in a game where we need our offense to win it for us. I feared that Cam Newton would put us in such a fix and our OLINE would be our downfall. Instead our Defense stoned the CAR offense hard. If it wasn't for PI calls they basically did the same thing to the Packers.
So yes, the offense is our weakness. However, the question still remains, who is going to put one over on our D?
Winning is not a sometime thing it is an all of the time thing - Vince Lombardi
mansquatch wrote:The Danger is that our defense falters and we end up in a game where we need our offense to win it for us. I feared that Cam Newton would put us in such a fix and our OLINE would be our downfall. Instead our Defense stoned the CAR offense hard. If it wasn't for PI calls they basically did the same thing to the Packers.
So yes, the offense is our weakness. However, the question still remains, who is going to put one over on our D?
My guess is it will be a team that can run effectively on them, play solid defense and take care of the football. That team will still need a decent passing game but that's a combination that could beat the Vikings by forcing a lot of short possessions for the Vikes offense and then wearing the defense out.
Mothman wrote:
My guess is it will be a team that can run effectively on them, play solid defense and take care of the football. That team will still need a decent passing game but that's a combination that could beat the Vikings by forcing a lot of short possessions for the Vikes offense and then wearing the defense out.
So far, the Vikings run defense may perhaps be the most improved aspect of this team. If they lose that edge, it will open up a lot more for opposiing offenses.
I reread it and didn't see any mention of the guy saying anything about us playing superior defensive teams or ultimately being better than the Ravens.(maybe i missed it) Only that Denver showed you can win with a less than average offense (not like they were the 1st to do it) and that both the Ravens and Vikes pose real doubts as far as being serious title contenders. He did say the Vikings victories may not have been as fluky as they appeared. Basically an article stating the obvious based solely on stats.
In the end I hope it's people writing these types of pieces who get the biggest awakening...especially around the Bradford trade.
-
Interesting point about the Packer game and how many times they fell on their own fumbles. If Sendejo and Munnerlin hold on to those fumbles, this team would be +11 after 3 games. That's insane IMO....ohh and not sustainable. lol
-
The only team I worry about getting a significant edge on this D, based on how it is currently playing, is NE.
I'm more concerned about them staying healthy in the backfield.
PacificNorseWest wrote:It's purely statistical. Takes no context into account whatsoever.
Yeah, if the offense doesn't get better, they won't win every game.
That's what they do though, its not an insult. They are basically saying, statistically it would be a first for us to keep up this pace on defense and our offense can't pick up slack right now. Seems about right.
