We already did play against Rodgers (and won). It's not our fault he made a less-than-wise decision against this defense and decided to scramble outside the pocket while not throwing the ball away right away. Had he thrown the ball away when he first got outside the pocket, he probably wouldn't have been injured. I don't look at the fact that we knocked Rodgers out of the game (cleanly I might add) early in that game as somehow equating to the Vikings "only facing the backup." I look at it that the Packer's brought their best and limped away as a shell of their previous team when they got "cocky" on their offense.

So I'm neither bummed or happy. I don't think it makes any difference who the Pack play as quarterback in terms of the final outcome of this game.

Why is there seemingly this obsession and excitement over teams' best players not playing? I'm kind of bummed Rodgers isn't going to play. He's one of the best QBs in the league, and I don't understand why we don't want to beat the best that teams have to offer. How good are we? Easier to find out playing Rodgers than Hundley.

If the Vikings play the Rams in the playoffs, and the Rams miss the game winning kick because Zeurlein wasn't kicking, I mean great, we win, but also why were the Rams attempting a game winning kick?

In the Falcons game, Julio Jones was as good as inactive, but the difference is he wasn't. Our team made him inactive, on the field. That's way more impressive, and fun, than him not playing because of a sore hip.

Why is there seemingly this obsession and excitement over teams' best players not playing? I'm kind of bummed Rodgers isn't going to play. He's one of the best QBs in the league, and I don't understand why we don't want to beat the best that teams have to offer. How good are we? Easier to find out playing Rodgers than Hundley.

If the Vikings play the Rams in the playoffs, and the Rams miss the game winning kick because Zeurlein wasn't kicking, I mean great, we win, but also why were the Rams attempting a game winning kick?

In the Falcons game, Julio Jones was as good as inactive, but the difference is he wasn't. Our team made him inactive, on the field. That's way more impressive, and fun, than him not playing because of a sore hip.

Saints' S Kenny Vacaro placed on IR

You can say that again.

I think Cowherd says things just for shock value. Just a couple of weeks ago, he was saying the Vikings are just a good regular season team. Lots of good 'B' players but no 'A' players that can make the big plays during the playoffs.

It's OK, it happens to the best of us.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk

It's OK, it happens to the best of us.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk

Figured I'd post this here since this is the playoff scenario thread. In order for the Vikings to get the #1 seed, the Eagles have to lose both games and the Vikings have to win next week against the Bears. If the Eagles win either game, the Vikings can not get the #1 seed.

To get the number two seed, the Vikings need to either beat the bears or have the Panthers lose one game.

Hypothetical situation:
Eagles beat the Raiders on Monday night (thus Vikings eliminated from #1 seed)
Panthers lose to Bucs today (thus clinching first round bye)

Do you sit some of the starters next week against the Bears (namely Case) because there is nothing to play for? Do you play the starters because having two weeks off could make them rusty plus it's a division game? Or, do you start the starters and pull them at scheduled times (i.e. end of 1st quarter, halftime) regardless of how the game is going?

Personally, I would start Teddy, no need to risk injury to Case, plus Teddy needs some field time just incase something happens in the playoffs. I would also rest about half of the defense. Other starters, mainly the O-Line, I would have playing and would pull them at the start of the third. Any player who is slightly injured would not play at all. Give them a little extra time to heal up before the Super Bowl push.

I think you play it like a preseason game. Rest guys who are questionable, starters play a half or so, then transition in backups.

Is it better for us to have Saints win, to keep Carolina from winning division, or have them lose ?

The Guarantees

TB @ CAR: If the Panthers lose today we clinch a first round bye. Cheer for the Bucs.

OAK @ PHI (Monday night): The only way Minnesota can get the #1 seed is if Philly loses their final 2 games and Minnesota wins next week. Cheer for the Raiders.


The Security Blankets (in case we #### the bed next week and lose to the Bears)

ATL @ NO: If the Saints win their final 2 games they would win the NFC South, cockblocking the Panthers from potentially leaping us for the #2 seed. Cheer for the Saints.

LAR @ TEN: If the Panthers win the NFC South and the Vikings/Rams/Panthers end up in a 3-way tie at 12-4, the Panthers' head-to-head win over us is negated and we would get the #2 seed. Thus, the Rams winning their final 2 games would clinch the #2 seed for us. Cheer for the Rams.


The "who would you rather see in the playoffs?"

DET @ CIN: Detroit lost to ATL, CAR, & NO, so their only chance to make the playoffs is to win out & have Atlanta lose out. A Lions loss eliminates them from contention. Toss up.

SEA @ DAL: This game may ultimately become meaningless, as it's a late afternoon game and if the Falcons & Panthers win earlier in the day both teams will be eliminated. The loser of this game is eliminated from playoff contention, the winner could stay alive but needs to also win week 17 and hope for 2 ATL losses and one Lions loss (either this week or next). Toss up.

Stupid bucs.

Here's the scenario for a bye, if any ONE of these happen, Vikings get a bye with #2 seed:

Vikings beat Chicago
Rams beat 49ers
Saints beat Bucs
Falcons beat Panthers

Will ATL have anything to play for against the Panthers next week?

Yup, one remaining playoff spot on the NFC side. It's either falcons or Seahawks.