Vikings Message Board.Com

petev_sj wrote:Oh my God have I been waiting for this Revenge game! If we avenge 2009 against the Saint, 1998 against the Falcons, and 1974 Steelers. My life will be set!

Can you imagine? This would be the best Superbowl story line ever if we beat New Orleans, Atlanta, and then Pittsburgh. All of that heartbreak would be washed away.

720pete wrote: Can you imagine? This would be the best Superbowl story line ever if we beat New Orleans, Atlanta, and then Pittsburgh. All of that heartbreak would be washed away.

Agreed. It couldnt be set up better right now. I'd be happy with just beating the Saints then beating the Falcons. The Steelers is just the icing on the cake

The coverage for this game is just amazing. Don't these people understand football? Don't they understand objective reality?

Football - it's a game where the offense goes against a bunch of stationary mannequins, right? The defense of the Vikings is just discounted, as if it doesn't matter in the face of the Saints offense. But it's always been clear to me that a great defense usually has its way when playing great offenses, who aren't accustomed to working so hard for yardage - Brady and the Pats were averaging in the high 30's in points, but got 14 against the stout Giants defense in the Superbowl.

There was one graphic where they were comparing the Saints to the Vikings, and the comparisons were:
Running Backs
Quarterback
Wide Receivers
Defense
Coaching
The Saints got four of those five in that analysis. It's absurd. The defense is worth one-third of the offense? Special teams don't matter?

And that isn't to begin to argue the grades - that Keenum has been the (slightly) better QB over the last half of the season, and that the Vikings receivers are better, and I'd take Zimmer as coach - his worst record is the same as Payton's typical 7-9 record for the three years prior to this. And even running backs - the Saints haven't had a runner over 90 yards in seven weeks. The best runner in 12/16 Vikings games has been a Viking (Cook twice, McKinnon twice, Murray eight times). The best runner in 8/16 Saints games has been a Saint (Ingram seven times, Kamara once).

Objective reality - the last commentator I heard talked about the Saints as the HOT team. Well, of course. They are on that fabulous one-game winning streak. Or we could go back and say they are 3-2 in their last five, or 4-3 in their last seven, dropping all their road games - scorching HOT (maybe if the game was in NOLA...). Meanwhile, the Vikings (hot, cold, who knows, we don't hear about it) are 4-1 in their last five, 6-1 in their last seven, and 11-1 in their last twelve, with a five game home winning streak - frigid!

This is just the worst punditry I've ever seen. Six of eight CBS Sportsline guys picked the Saints. I think six of ten PFF guys too. It would suck SOOOO bad to have them be right in the end. C'mon Vikes!

John_Viveiros wrote:The coverage for this game is just amazing. Don't these people understand football? Don't they understand objective reality?

Football - it's a game where the offense goes against a bunch of stationary mannequins, right? The defense of the Vikings is just discounted, as if it doesn't matter in the face of the Saints offense. But it's always been clear to me that a great defense usually has its way when playing great offenses, who aren't accustomed to working so hard for yardage - Brady and the Pats were averaging in the high 30's in points, but got 14 against the stout Giants defense in the Superbowl.

There was one graphic where they were comparing the Saints to the Vikings, and the comparisons were:
Running Backs
Quarterback
Wide Receivers
Defense
Coaching
The Saints got four of those five in that analysis. It's absurd. The defense is worth one-third of the offense? Special teams don't matter?

And that isn't to begin to argue the grades - that Keenum has been the (slightly) better QB over the last half of the season, and that the Vikings receivers are better, and I'd take Zimmer as coach - his worst record is the same as Payton's typical 7-9 record for the three years prior to this. And even running backs - the Saints haven't had a runner over 90 yards in seven weeks. The best runner in 12/16 Vikings games has been a Viking (Cook twice, McKinnon twice, Murray eight times). The best runner in 8/16 Saints games has been a Saint (Ingram seven times, Kamara once).

Objective reality - the last commentator I heard talked about the Saints as the HOT team. Well, of course. They are on that fabulous one-game winning streak. Or we could go back and say they are 3-2 in their last five, or 4-3 in their last seven, dropping all their road games - scorching HOT (maybe if the game was in NOLA...). Meanwhile, the Vikings (hot, cold, who knows, we don't hear about it) are 4-1 in their last five, 6-1 in their last seven, and 11-1 in their last twelve, with a five game home winning streak - frigid!

This is just the worst punditry I've ever seen. Six of eight CBS Sportsline guys picked the Saints. I think six of ten PFF guys too. It would suck SOOOO bad to have them be right in the end. C'mon Vikes!

I'd love to be able to say "get used to it." That's what everybody tells me. But the truth is that after two months of harping on national media coverage of this team, I've found that it's impossible.

My experience this week has been the same as yours. Balanced analysis of this game doesn't seem to exist. Most pundits are a) squarely in favor of the Saints winning this game, b) wondering what the Vikings can possibly do to stop the dynamic duo of Kamara and Ingram, and c) still viewing Case Keenum as a journeyman whose carriage is about to turn into a pumpkin. They also talk about the Saints' "improved defense," completely overlooking the fact that the Vikings have given up nearly 1,000 fewer total yards and 74 fewer points. Nobody's asking how on earth Kamara, Ingram and the Saints receivers are going to do what NO GROUP OF SKILL PLAYERS HAS DONE TO THE VIKINGS DEFENSE ALL SEASON, especially at US Bank. Nobody's talking about how GOOD the Vikings are at home, having allowed ONE meaningful TD drive of more than 50 yards all season. Or how good Diggs and Thielen are at home.

And the truly sad part? When we win this game, they'll do it again next week. And when we win that game, they'll do it for the two weeks of Super Bowl workup. The only credit we'll get is if we win the Super Bowl, and that will be reluctant.

Then we'll get the forecast for next season. And of course, that will be Green Bay re-establishing dominance in the NFC North.

I'm with you. I wish I could laugh it off. But I can't.

Agree with both of you guys, but, like a lot of guys on our team (Thielen, Keenum, etc.), I cherish the snubs. I welcome it. Puts a chip on our shoulder. Tell me I can't.... go ahead...

John_Viveiros wrote:The coverage for this game is just amazing. Don't these people understand football? Don't they understand objective reality?

Football - it's a game where the offense goes against a bunch of stationary mannequins, right? The defense of the Vikings is just discounted, as if it doesn't matter in the face of the Saints offense. But it's always been clear to me that a great defense usually has its way when playing great offenses, who aren't accustomed to working so hard for yardage - Brady and the Pats were averaging in the high 30's in points, but got 14 against the stout Giants defense in the Superbowl.

There was one graphic where they were comparing the Saints to the Vikings, and the comparisons were:
Running Backs
Quarterback
Wide Receivers
Defense
Coaching
The Saints got four of those five in that analysis. It's absurd. The defense is worth one-third of the offense? Special teams don't matter?

And that isn't to begin to argue the grades - that Keenum has been the (slightly) better QB over the last half of the season, and that the Vikings receivers are better, and I'd take Zimmer as coach - his worst record is the same as Payton's typical 7-9 record for the three years prior to this. And even running backs - the Saints haven't had a runner over 90 yards in seven weeks. The best runner in 12/16 Vikings games has been a Viking (Cook twice, McKinnon twice, Murray eight times). The best runner in 8/16 Saints games has been a Saint (Ingram seven times, Kamara once).

Objective reality - the last commentator I heard talked about the Saints as the HOT team. Well, of course. They are on that fabulous one-game winning streak. Or we could go back and say they are 3-2 in their last five, or 4-3 in their last seven, dropping all their road games - scorching HOT (maybe if the game was in NOLA...). Meanwhile, the Vikings (hot, cold, who knows, we don't hear about it) are 4-1 in their last five, 6-1 in their last seven, and 11-1 in their last twelve, with a five game home winning streak - frigid!

This is just the worst punditry I've ever seen. Six of eight CBS Sportsline guys picked the Saints. I think six of ten PFF guys too. It would suck SOOOO bad to have them be right in the end. C'mon Vikes!

Here's one question no one has asked the talking heads on the "coaching" aspect. How well would the Saints have done had Brees been out most of the year and they had to play their backup, Daniel Chase? Ever hear of him? Yeah, me neither.

I found this an interesting read: http://sportswagers.ca/nfl/picks.php?pid=20404

So we (in Hawaii) just got alerts an imminent missile attack was coming. And all I was thinking is, "dammit they better not cancel the playoffs." Yeah, my priorities need some work.

S197 wrote:So we (in Hawaii) just got alerts an imminent missile attack was coming. And all I was thinking is, "dammit they better not cancel the playoffs." Yeah, my priorities need some work.

Not "C'mon, not until after the Vikings win a Super bowl!"?

S197 wrote:So we (in Hawaii) just got alerts an imminent missile attack was coming. And all I was thinking is, "dammit they better not cancel the playoffs." Yeah, my priorities need some work.

Pretty scary this morning. Someone needs to be fired. How can they now say it was just a drill when the text alert clearly said "This is not a drill".

But yeah, same here. While I was gathering the kids together, I was thinking to myself, "Just when the Vikings have a shot at the SB, this had to happen."

Realized there's really nothing you can do from a nuclear attack. 10-20 minute warning, nowhere to hide.

Dawg, I get that missile warning message, I'm walking over to my cabinet and pouring myself a tall stiffie.

S197 wrote:So we (in Hawaii) just got alerts an imminent missile attack was coming. And all I was thinking is, "dammit they better not cancel the playoffs." Yeah, my priorities need some work.

I'm glad that warning was a false alarm.

Well, today is the day, fellow Vikings fans. I am READY for this game and I love the Vikes chances to advance and play the Eagles next week. I don't expect today's game to be easy at all but the Vikes are well-equipped to win if they play their best football. Enjoy the game!

Mothman wrote:Well, today is the day, fellow Vikings fans. I am READY for this game and I love the Vikes chances to advance and play the Eagles next week. I don't expect today's game to be easy at all but the Vikes are well-equipped to win if they play their best football. Enjoy the game!

Well said!,My son and I are going to the game today and when we got up this morning he said" today is our day",I believe it is!!!

Husker Vike wrote: Well said!,My son and I are going to the game today and when we got up this morning he said" today is our day",I believe it is!!!

Have a blast and please bring home a win!