Vikings Message Board.Com

First of all-- I don't watch a ton of ESPN, but I do watch more NFLN and ESPN when the Vikings are doing very well.

A couple weeks ago I had ESPN on and I heard one of these. Later I googled around to see if I could find more, and now there are three discussions on this 'First Take' show. Pretty clear Stephen A Smith is a bit of a <fill in the blank -- it's probably on point>. But the rebuttals are strong. SAS made the crazy assertion this week that if only Bradford was *worse* and the Vikings were still winning, only then would he concede we may be superbowl contenders. He seems to think that SB's play is unsustainable and that once his play falls off, we can no longer be considered anything more than a playoff team. That may be a well-founded concern, but is wholly unsubstantiated at this point. Seems if he were truly informed, he'd be hammering the 5 guys in front of SB rather than SB himself.

Anyway-- lots of Viking (dare I say love) here as well as some SAS FUD:

ESPN First Take - Did the Vikings Win Or Panthers Lose?
ESPN First Take - How Far Can the Vikings Go With Sam Bradford?
ESPN First Take - Are Minnesota Vikings The Best Team In NFL?

cstelter wrote:First of all-- I don't watch a ton of ESPN, but I do watch more NFLN and ESPN when the Vikings are doing very well.

A couple weeks ago I had ESPN on and I heard one of these. Later I googled around to see if I could find more, and now there are three discussions on this 'First Take' show. Pretty clear Stephen A Smith is a bit of a <fill in the blank -- it's probably on point>. But the rebuttals are strong. SAS made the crazy assertion this week that if only Bradford was *worse* and the Vikings were still winning, only then would he concede we may be superbowl contenders. He seems to think that SB's play is unsustainable and that once his play falls off, we can no longer be considered anything more than a playoff team. That may be a well-founded concern, but is wholly unsubstantiated at this point. Seems if he were truly informed, he'd be hammering the 5 guys in front of SB rather than SB himself.

Anyway-- lots of Viking (dare I say love) here as well as some SAS FUD:

ESPN First Take - Did the Vikings Win Or Panthers Lose?
ESPN First Take - How Far Can the Vikings Go With Sam Bradford?
ESPN First Take - Are Minnesota Vikings The Best Team In NFL?

I agree with what you are saying but in SAS defense, what I think he was getting at is this team (this year) hasnt had to respond to a punch in mouth via a turn over or gut wrenching plays. Barring, say the first half against Carolina which just seemed like general sub par play, we haven't really had to respond to a gut check.

I didn't watch the videos but to some degree the performance, at least in terms of turnovers, is probably unsustainable. But that's why even good teams lose games. I think as a whole, if the Vikings can continue to take the ball away more than give it up, it bodes well for the team as a playoff contender. What I like from this team is they've showed they can come from behind (Titans), win close games (GB), and dominate (CAR, HOU, NY).

We'll likely see this team down against a better team than the Titans, that will be a good litmus test as to how strong this team really is.

The next two games should probably provide some sort of litmus test, especially the next one vs. the Eagles. The Bears have been bit bad by the injury bug, but Soldier Field is never an easy place for the Vikings to win so I expect a good challenge.

We also play at Washington in a few weeks. That should also provide a tougher opponent for us.

We play DAL and AZ at home, but those are two games that should provide stiffer competition. Still, the way teams are playing, overall the rest of our schedule isn't as brutal as the last half was in 2015. I highly doubt we'll go undefeated, but it isn't totally drink the kool-aid to predict us rolling into Lambeau on Christmas Eve with a 14-0 record. None of the remaining games on the schedule look completely insurmountable.

IrishViking wrote:I agree with what you are saying but in SAS defense, what I think he was getting at is this team (this year) hasnt had to respond to a punch in mouth via a turn over or gut wrenching plays. Barring, say the first half against Carolina which just seemed like general sub par play, we haven't really had to respond to a gut check.

I came away with the same impression.

The discussion they're having isn't unlike some of the discussions we're having here on the board.

S197 wrote:I didn't watch the videos but to some degree the performance, at least in terms of turnovers, is probably unsustainable. But that's why even good teams lose games. I think as a whole, if the Vikings can continue to take the ball away more than give it up, it bodes well for the team as a playoff contender. What I like from this team is they've showed they can come from behind (Titans), win close games (GB), and dominate (CAR, HOU, NY).

We'll likely see this team down against a better team than the Titans, that will be a good litmus test as to how strong this team really is.

Remember now, the Vikings were down 10-2 at the half in the CAR game. That game should be counted as a come from behind victory as well. The Vikings themselves were being pushed around and couldn't get anything going in the first half. Imo, that was their most impressive win so far. On the road, getting shutout in the first half, and to make everyone (media and fans included) forget how dominate the Panthers were in the first half. That is impressive.

all you need to do is look at how Flacco and Baltimore won a Super Bowl.....its all VERY possible (and I am the most cynical Vike fan you will meet)....parity has become a crushing reality in the NFL. With the exception of the Patriots, I don't think there is a team in the league that would be a sure bet to defeat the Vikes.....Its all very encouraging. BUT (there is always a but) the paper thin quality of our OL is a SCREAMING weak point.

I dont like SAS. At all. Dont agree with him on 65% of thing that come out of his. And he is a pain profrofession that come of as if he know a lot mopre then he willing to tell us.

Would love to win the SB. Remember when the Gains did a few years ago? I think this team could beat them by 10.

I love how finally they have someone to beat SaS at his own game. Kellerman destroys him lol, its so funny to watch

I absolutely could not watch first take when it was SAS and Skip Bayless. Both of them annoy the crap out of me.

If Dilfer can win a SB, If Brad Johnson can win a super bowl, why can't we?

chicagopurple wrote:all you need to do is look at how Flacco and Baltimore won a Super Bowl.....its all VERY possible (and I am the most cynical Vike fan you will meet)....parity has become a crushing reality in the NFL. With the exception of the Patriots, I don't think there is a team in the league that would be a sure bet to defeat the Vikes.....Its all very encouraging. BUT (there is always a but) the paper thin quality of our OL is a SCREAMING weak point.

Good post. You're right, parity has changed the NFL game. I also think given their W/L record after 5 games, no one is playing better than the Vikings right now. Very impressive. But the loss of depth on the OL (plus the fact they were average at best from the start) means there is an important part of the puzzle still missing. That concerns me.

I'm with all of you in wanting the Vikings to win a Super Bowl. I'm hoping the 5-0 record is indicative of how they'll be playing the rest of the season and into the playoffs. If it is, I believe this will be the biggest year for the Vikings in their franchise history.

Norv Zimmer wrote:I absolutely could not watch first take when it was SAS and Skip Bayless. Both of them annoy the crap out of me.

If Dilfer can win a SB, If Brad Johnson can win a super bowl, why can't we?

It's certainly possible.

Poor Brad Johnson always gets lumped in with Dilfer. Brad was a pretty good quarterback!

Mothman wrote: It's certainly possible.

Poor Brad Johnson always gets lumped in with Dilfer. Brad was a pretty good quarterback!

He wasn't terrible, but his defense did carry him that year.

Norv Zimmer wrote:He wasn't terrible, but his defense did carry him that year.

The Bucs defense was definitely the main strength of that team but I think Brad Johnson was more of a missing piece that helped them win the Super Bowl than a guy who just came along for the ride. It wasn't a situation like the one in Baltimore, where Dilfer was just sort of out there to avoid mistakes and manage games. Johnson was a genuinely good QB at that point in his career. He was a Pro Bowl-caliber QB (and not in the "5th alternative who was willing to go to Hawaii for the game" sense).

I just always feel bad for the guy when I see him placed in the "Hey, if a team could win with this guy" category, if you know what I mean.

He started for the '98 team baby!