Vikings Message Board.Com

I have a gut feeling this team will surprise people this year. just a hunch. Not expecting much but I think something is going to click overall and I never feel like it is. Pretty optimistic. Just need a mediocre offense to win the division lol

Mothman wrote:From Ben Goessling:

2017 Minnesota Vikings game-by-game predictions

He has them going 2-4 in the division (sweeping the Bears, swept by GB and DET) and 8-8 overall.

I find Gosslings take to be ridiculous. Right now it is probably safe to assume that everything will be equal to last year in terms of players that were in purple last season. So based on what actually changed, this take implies an assumption that Reiff/ Remmers will be as bad or worse than Clemmings /Sirles and that Latavius Murray will not be an improvement over McKinnon/Asiata.

Regardles of if you think Reiff/Remmers will be pedestrian at best or something more, there is no plausible reason barring unforeseen injuries to think that Reiff/Remmers are going to be as bad as the tackle play we saw last season. I do know how many more wins that will equal, but there is no way it is the same.

It is all conjecture at this point, we haven't even had the draft yet, but I find takes like this to be silly. Does anyone here think Reiff will play at the same level as TJ Clemmings?

Boon wrote:I have a gut feeling this team will surprise people this year. just a hunch. Not expecting much but I think something is going to click overall and I never feel like it is. Pretty optimistic. Just need a mediocre offense to win the division lol

That is the positive of the bad press. We fly under the radar. Obviously the TV Network and NFL Schedulers do not think this team will be a bottom feeder given the 4 prime time games.

Holy hell those first four weeks could be brutal. We have to play two top-five offenses, one top-ten offense, and one top-fifthteen offense. With the way the defense regressed down the season too?

I see a 9-7 season. The draft might change my opinion by a game or two however.

HardcoreVikesFan wrote:Holy hell those first four weeks could be brutal. We have to play two top-five offenses, one top-ten offense, and one top-fifthteen offense. With the way the defense regressed down the season too?

I see a 9-7 season. The draft might change my opinion by a game or two however.

I see 11-5 or 12-4. Honestly, either is doable. And they owe BOTH Detroit and Chicago.

If the D plays a complete season this time the O will carry it's weight. Bradford is going to explode and Murray + rookie back + rookie TE/wr + Treadwell year 2.


This team is going to surprise everyone... Mark it down.

mansquatch wrote:I find Gosslings take to be ridiculous. Right now it is probably safe to assume that everything will be equal to last year in terms of players that were in purple last season. So based on what actually changed, this take implies an assumption that Reiff/ Remmers will be as bad or worse than Clemmings /Sirles and that Latavius Murray will not be an improvement over McKinnon/Asiata.

I think it simply implies a different view of the team. Remember, not all of us think the Vikings slide last year was simply attributable to poor OL or tackle play. I certainly don't believe that. The defense wasn't the same unit after the bye week. The passing game had other issues.

I don't think Goessling's take is sillier than any other prediction of how the entire schedule will play out at this point. It's obviously early so when you get right down to it, the exercise is silly on it's surface. However, it looks to me like the Vikes are steering a straight course into continued mediocrity. Barring a Rookie of the Year-like impact from someone they draft or the unexpected emergence of someone on offense into a star, I expect them to finish somewhere between 7-9 and 9-7.

Mothman wrote: I think it simply implies a different view of the team. Remember, not all of us think the Vikings slide last year was simply attributable to poor OL or tackle play. I certainly don't believe that. The defense wasn't the same unit after the bye week. The passing game had other issues.

I don't think Goessling's take is sillier than any other prediction of how the entire schedule will play out at this point. It's obviously early so when you get right down to it, the exercise is silly on it's surface. However, it looks to me like the Vikes are steering a straight course into continued mediocrity. Barring a Rookie of the Year-like impact from someone they draft or the unexpected emergence of someone on offense into a star, I expect them to finish somewhere between 7-9 and 9-7.

Jim you are missing the simplicity of my point. My point was that this team, like it or not, went 8-8 last year. The only changes made as of right now are those made in Free Agency. So if your conclusion is that we are going to go 8-8, then the implication is that the Free Agents additions are a push with what we had at those positions last season. I find THAT to be ridiculous.

Alternatively, if you feel that the roster after free agency is only 8-8, but that the Free Agents were net positives, then you are concluding that other existing players are going to degrade enough to offset the improvement of the Free Agents. Given that one of the guys replaced was TJ Clemmings, I find that to also be ridiculous.

I do not find it plausible that after adding those two tackles this roster is equal to what we finished 8-8 with last year.

mansquatch wrote:Jim you are missing the simplicity of my point. My point was that this team, like it or not, went 8-8 last year. The only changes made as of right now are those made in Free Agency. So if your conclusion is that we are going to go 8-8, then the implication is that the Free Agents additions are a push with what we had at those positions last season. I find THAT to be ridiculous.

I didn't miss your point. I just don't think football works as simply or smoothly as you're describing. If it did, we'd see far more teams steadily improve year after year because it often looks as if they're shedding expendable players and upgrading in free agency but on the field, each season presents different challenges, new adversity, etc.

They went 8-8 last year but they went 3-8 over the last 11 games. That's easy to overlook if you're inclined to do so but I'm not. They started the season looking like one of the league's best teams but after the bye in week 6, they were one of it's worst, with 2 of their remaining 3 wins coming against the worst.

Alternatively, if you feel that the roster after free agency is only 8-8, but that the Free Agents were net positives, then you are concluding that other existing players are going to degrade enough to offset the improvement of the Free Agents. Given that one of the guys replaced was TJ Clemmings, I find that to also be ridiculous.

I do not find it plausible that after adding those two tackles this roster is equal to what we finished 8-8 with last year.

... and I don't find it likely that adding Reiff and Remmers automatically equates to several more wins. Neither one of them is exactly a world-beater at his position.

If I understand correctly, you're looking at what you consider improvement at a few individual positions on a unit you largely blame for the team's struggles last season and thinking that, all else being equal, that should translate into an overall improvement in the W/L column. Maybe you'll be right about that. However, I see average-to-below average players being added to an average-to-below average team and I doubt that's going to translate into more than continued average performance. In all likelihood, we're reaching different conclusions because we're starting from different perceptions of the team and Goessling probably has a different perception too. Personally, I don't think the Vikings have an elite defense. I don't think the 5-0 Vikes were the "real" Vikes. I don't believe they have great coaching and I don't think the OL was THE reason they struggled last year. It was a significant reason, but they had other issues. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth with those last few comments. I'm just speaking to attitudes and opinions I've seen expressed by some of the more optimistic fans on the board and currently, I'm not among those optimists.

We'll see what the draft brings and then we'll see what the season brings but I don't think anybody predicting an 8-8 record from a team that finished 3-8 last year is being silly. Its reasonable.

I think it's pretty pointless right now to make any kind of predictions because you don't know what the draft is going to bring

RFIP wrote: I see 11-5 or 12-4. Honestly, either is doable. And they owe BOTH Detroit and Chicago.

If the D plays a complete season this time the O will carry it's weight. Bradford is going to explode and Murray + rookie back + rookie TE/wr + Treadwell year 2.


This team is going to surprise everyone... Mark it down.

I'm with you on this. I feel they have the pieces to be a top tier team this year.

Mothman wrote:We'll see what the draft brings and then we'll see what the season brings but I don't think anybody predicting an 8-8 record from a team that finished 3-8 last year is being silly. Its reasonable.

Why do you discount the Vikings' 5-0 start? You keep doing this, as if those games didn't count. They beat the Packers, a playoff team. They beat Houston, a playoff team. They beat Carolina, the defending NFC champions. They beat the Giants, whom many are picking to be a good team. Even Tennessee ended up being an up-and-coming team that people expect great things out of.

I'm not saying the 3-8 finish isn't cause for concern. But the Vikings didn't go 3-8. They went 8-8.

J. Kapp 11 wrote: Why do you discount the Vikings' 5-0 start? You keep doing this, as if those games didn't count. They beat the Packers, a playoff team. They beat Houston, a playoff team. They beat Carolina, the defending NFC champions. They beat the Giants, whom many are picking to be a good team. Even Tennessee ended up being an up-and-coming team that people expect great things out of.

I'm not saying the 3-8 finish isn't cause for concern. But the Vikings didn't go 3-8. They went 8-8.

Yes, that's why I don't think it's silly when a Vikings beat writer predicts the same record for next season and please note, I wrote that I expect them to finish within a game of .500. I'm not expecting them to be awful.

I don't discount their 5-0 start and I've never suggested those games don't count. However, I said even as it was happening that the way they were winning probably wasn't sustainable. They were relying too heavily on returns and turnovers. The defense was playing at a level that was going to be incredibly difficult to maintain as the season progressed and as we saw, they couldn't maintain it. Put simply, I think they were overachieving early in the season.

I'm all too aware they were 8-8 and I keep bringing the 3-8 finish up because I sense that's being discounted and because their trend for the season was downward, which concerns me. If they had started 3-8 but finished with an impressive 5-0 run, I'd probably be feeling a lot more encouraged.

Mothman wrote: Yes, that's why I don't think it's silly when a Vikings beat writer predicts the same record for next season and please note, I wrote that I expect them to finish within a game of .500. I'm not expecting them to be awful.

I don't discount their 5-0 start and I've never suggested those games don't count. However, I said even as it was happening that the way they were winning probably wasn't sustainable. They were relying too heavily on returns and turnovers. The defense was playing at a level that was going to be incredibly difficult to maintain as the season progressed and as we saw, they couldn't maintain it. Put simply, I think they were overachieving early in the season.

I'm all too aware they were 8-8 and I keep bringing the 3-8 finish up because I sense that's being discounted and because their trend for the season was downward, which concerns me. If they had started 3-8 but finished with an impressive 5-0 run, I'd probably be feeling a lot more encouraged.

We'll disagree on the early-season success and whether it was sustainable, but it's all a matter of opinion, and I respect yours.

By contrast, here's what I saw.

Against the Bears and Colts, the Vikings laid an egg. Horrible, disappointing performances. No chance of winning. Same with the Packers at Lambeau. Those three games were losses no matter how you look at it.

The other five losses could have gone either way. Could have beaten Dallas, probably SHOULD have beaten Detroit both times, and we had Philly on the ropes early and let them off the hook because the offense couldn't put the ball in the end zone from 20 yards out TWICE. Put up 20 points in the first half against the Redskins before the offense decided to hibernate. In every case, the Vikings could have won if the offense had been even slightly productive.

Green Bay won the division with 10 wins. With any kind of offensive line play, the Vikings easily could have matched that total.

Anyway, I just view the season a little differently than you. It could have been another playoff appearance. Actually, it should have been IMO. But I can also see your point of view.

As for predictions, journalists might as well write them on toilet paper. They're worthless, especially in April.

J. Kapp 11 wrote:We'll disagree on the early-season success and whether it was sustainable, but it's all a matter of opinion, and I respect yours.

Thank you. I respect yours as well.

By contrast, here's what I saw.

Against the Bears and Colts, the Vikings laid an egg. Horrible, disappointing performances. No chance of winning. Same with the Packers at Lambeau. Those three games were losses no matter how you look at it.

The other five losses could have gone either way. Could have beaten Dallas, probably SHOULD have beaten Detroit both times, and we had Philly on the ropes early and let them off the hook because the offense couldn't put the ball in the end zone from 20 yards out TWICE. Put up 20 points in the first half against the Redskins before the offense decided to hibernate. In every case, the Vikings could have won if the offense had been even slightly productive.

Green Bay won the division with 10 wins. With any kind of offensive line play, the Vikings easily could have matched that total.

Anyway, I just view the season a little differently than you. It could have been another playoff appearance. Actually, it should have been IMO. But I can also see your point of view.

I see yours too and it may surprise you to learn the view you expressed above isn't much different than mine. I agree: they lost several games that could have gone the other way. Had they won them, they could have returned to the playoffs but as we both know, they didn't win them. They ended up 8-8. They've had many seasons where they lost close games and missed the playoffs when a few of those games could have put them in the postseason but that's what mediocre teams do: they hover near the middle. It sounds harsh but it's the truth. Sometimes enough goes right for them to get to the wild card round. Sometimes enough goes wrong that they end up with a losing season or at .500 but most of the time, they're playing within that range.

I seem to come at the same information from a different angle than many Vikes fans here and I sometimes wonder if that creates the illusion of more disagreement than actually exists.Once the results are in the books I tend to focus on those established outcomes much more than the wouldas, couldas and shouldas. I got tired of moral victories for the Vikings a long time ago.

As for predictions, journalists might as well write them on toilet paper. They're worthless, especially in April.

I said more or less the same thing upthread in response to mansquatch.

akvikingsfan wrote:I'm counting four prime time games? Not bad. It'll be an interesting season.

I got 3 Prime time games. The London game is in the morning.