Vikings at Panthers

[J. Kapp 11]

What new way to inexplicably lose a game we should win will we resort to this week?

We've done the fumbling through the endzone thing. We've done the "oh nice! INTERCEPTIO---nope it went through his hands, off his helmet and the opposing WR caught it for a TD" routine.... Can't wait to see what's next.

Don't have much room left on the bingo card. FG attempt returned for a TD?

How about watching the game at 7 am from my hotel room in Honolulu?

(Completely true, by the way.)

Or … how about a 99-yard pick-six?

Amazingly enough, the Vikings defense won the game today. No defensive touchdowns allowed, and some huge sacks in the second half. The offense, other than the running game and the usual otherworldliness of Justin Jefferson, did bupkus.

Of course, our defense won’t be facing an inexperienced 5-10 rookie with no weapons every week. To wit … the Kansas City Chiefs and Patrick Mahomes next Sunday.

[ERIK the PURPLE]

Damn….I was THIS close to living in my car. At least they finally won and allowed me to make some Caaaaash.

[Texas Vike]

What new way to inexplicably lose a game we should win will we resort to this week?

We've done the fumbling through the endzone thing. We've done the "oh nice! INTERCEPTIO---nope it went through his hands, off his helmet and the opposing WR caught it for a TD" routine.... Can't wait to see what's next.

Don't have much room left on the bingo card. FG attempt returned for a TD?

This week's folly: score a TD, have it called back due to a penalty, then throw a 99 yard pick six. Swing of 14 points.

The self-sabotage just didn't work this week bc the D played well.

[Raz]

Didn’t get to watch the game today what is up with Addison didn’t even sound like he was even part of the game plan today

[J. Kapp 11]

Didn’t get to watch the game today what is up with Addison didn’t even sound like he was even part of the game plan today

Hard to say. But early on, he whiffed a block on a bubble screen and got JJ blown up. JJ was hurt enough that Fox had to go to commercial. Fortunately he only missed one play, but with the Vikings running the ball more than they threw it, my guess is they wanted Osborn’s blocking in the game.

[soflavike]

Didn’t get to watch the game today what is up with Addison didn’t even sound like he was even part of the game plan today

Hard to say. But early on, he whiffed a block on a bubble screen and got JJ blown up. JJ was hurt enough that Fox had to go to commercial. Fortunately he only missed one play, but with the Vikings running the ball more than they threw it, my guess is they wanted Osborn’s blocking in the game.

Addison only had one target and 0 catches all game. The missed block was not a good moment. He's just a rookie, Gotta be patient with him.

[fiestavike]

Records aside, anybody else think 2023 vikings are better football eam than 2022 vikings?

By week 17, this team would beat last year's team, if only because of the defensive passivity. I know this squad has may weaknesses and has played error filled football, but I think they are better than 0-3 and last year's tea was nowhere near as good as its record.

I think last year's team is better than they get credit for but not as good as their record indicated. This year's defense is no better and on top of it aren't coming through in the clutch.

They're giving up a 76% completion percentage last year's was 66%. We're the worst rushing defense in the league again. They're more exciting to watch because they're so aggressive but the aggressiveness hasn't translated to improvement. Last year they played off and were more fresh in the 2nd half which I think allowed comebacks and much better play. This year's defense seems more tired later in the game to me.

The offense is worse for sure just due to turnovers alone. Throw the other stats out the window. I'm not interested in being the Stafford/Megatron era Lions. Their turnovers have caused missed points from the Vikings side and has kept the defense on the field longer.

The 2022 team was better and so far, I'd still rather have last seasons defense. They didn't do better statistically (though really no worse) while coming through in key moments.

I think you are going a little bit by the outcome rather than the process and the product, which I understand, but which I ultimately reject as an invalid way of assessing until you get to a much larger sample size. This team looks better than last year's team. By better I mean, closer to really being able to compete for a championship, that is, to compete against the best teams in the league. There was no point last year when this team looked like a remotely serious contender. Also, there is no point this season at which this team has looked like a remotely serious contender...granted. but I do see them making philophical changes on D which alone constitute a real improvement.

To go to the basketball analogy which I prefer to illustrate the point, a team might be down 9-0 because they have missed 3 layups and the opposition has hit 3 half court shots. Over the course of the game, I'm going with the team that manufactures good looks over the team that hits low percentage shots over a short period. Stretch that out over a week, a month, a season, and I think it only becomes more compelling. My thesis is that this team is taking better shots, even if they aren't making them than last year's team, which hit a number of low percentage shots.

Or put one more way, If the vikings can run off a few wins in a row and get in position to make the playoffs, I think they have a better chance to actually become the sort of team that has a legit chance than last year's team ever did.

[VikingLord]

To go to the basketball analogy which I prefer to illustrate the point, a team might be down 9-0 because they have missed 3 layups and the opposition has hit 3 half court shots. Over the course of the game, I'm going with the team that manufactures good looks over the team that hits low percentage shots over a short period. Stretch that out over a week, a month, a season, and I think it only becomes more compelling. My thesis is that this team is taking better shots, even if they aren't making them than last year's team, which hit a number of low percentage shots.

I like the way you look at this, but I'm just not sure I can get on board that this year's team is any better at creating the looks. Offensively, they've been statistically good passing it, not so great running it (although it seems to be a point of emphasis on the part of KOC to fix that, so results may change in that facet of the offense), and terrible at protecting it. They also continue to allow Cousins to be used as a tackling dummy for opposing defenses, so while he seems to be able to take the punishment, that isn't a good indicator for this year's team's chances.

Defensively, they've seemed more willing to change things up, but then again, the results are marginally better than last year's futility on that side of the ball. The defense continues to struggle in certain situations, the secondary continues to have huge question marks, and overall I just don't trust the defense. They have made some key stops and plays and I have to give them credit for that, but they've also blown some things that have left me scratching my head.

I see where you're coming from and admit they've had a lot of really bad breaks with turnovers and such. They probably could have won every game absent those and if so, we'd likely be talking about them completely differently. But still, this seems to be fundamentally the same team, only with less luck than last year's team. They have an excellent chance in this upcoming game against the Chiefs to begin to change that narrative.

[fiestavike]

To go to the basketball analogy which I prefer to illustrate the point, a team might be down 9-0 because they have missed 3 layups and the opposition has hit 3 half court shots. Over the course of the game, I'm going with the team that manufactures good looks over the team that hits low percentage shots over a short period. Stretch that out over a week, a month, a season, and I think it only becomes more compelling. My thesis is that this team is taking better shots, even if they aren't making them than last year's team, which hit a number of low percentage shots.

I like the way you look at this, but I'm just not sure I can get on board that this year's team is any better at creating the looks. Offensively, they've been statistically good passing it, not so great running it (although it seems to be a point of emphasis on the part of KOC to fix that, so results may change in that facet of the offense), and terrible at protecting it. They also continue to allow Cousins to be used as a tackling dummy for opposing defenses, so while he seems to be able to take the punishment, that isn't a good indicator for this year's team's chances.

Defensively, they've seemed more willing to change things up, but then again, the results are marginally better than last year's futility on that side of the ball. The defense continues to struggle in certain situations, the secondary continues to have huge question marks, and overall I just don't trust the defense. They have made some key stops and plays and I have to give them credit for that, but they've also blown some things that have left me scratching my head.

I see where you're coming from and admit they've had a lot of really bad breaks with turnovers and such. They probably could have won every game absent those and if so, we'd likely be talking about them completely differently. But still, this seems to be fundamentally the same team, only with less luck than last year's team. They have an excellent chance in this upcoming game against the Chiefs to begin to change that narrative.

All fair, and I'm not bullish about this team so much as I was bearish about last year's team. Still, I think this team does have more upside.

They are likely about to be 1-4, and their potential upside is reaching the point of irrelevance.

[Cliff]

Don't have much room left on the bingo card. FG attempt returned for a TD?

How about watching the game at 7 am from my hotel room in Honolulu?

(Completely true, by the way.)

Or … how about a 99-yard pick-six?

Amazingly enough, the Vikings defense won the game today. No defensive touchdowns allowed, and some huge sacks in the second half. The offense, other than the running game and the usual otherworldliness of Justin Jefferson, did bupkus.

Of course, our defense won’t be facing an inexperienced 5-10 rookie with no weapons every week. To wit … the Kansas City Chiefs and Patrick Mahomes next Sunday.

That sounds great to me! Hope you're having fun.

The team definitely doesn't have what it takes to compete. Like you pointed out, the defense isn't likely to hold up that kind of performance and if the offense doesn't live up to it's potential the team can't win.

[Cliff]

I think you are going a little bit by the outcome rather than the process and the product, which I understand, but which I ultimately reject as an invalid way of assessing until you get to a much larger sample size. This team looks better than last year's team. By better I mean, closer to really being able to compete for a championship, that is, to compete against the best teams in the league. There was no point last year when this team looked like a remotely serious contender. Also, there is no point this season at which this team has looked like a remotely serious contender...granted. but I do see them making philophical changes on D which alone constitute a real improvement.

Outcome does matter, but that's not what I'm talking about. You say they "look" better and I think you're the one being fooled by the difference between "exciting" and "effective". I think the defense is more fun to watch because they're so aggressive but that's not leading to better results overall. I'm not just talking wins and losses.

I'm talking about giving up a 76% completion percentage (66% last year). We're giving up 6.7 yrds/attempt rather than 7.3 which is a decent improvement but not great. 1 INT and 2 Fumble recoveries. Last year's team laid back more but they also averaged nearly1 INT a game. This team so far is getting 1 every 5 games. Despite being so much more agreesive they're only average .5 extra sacks per game. Last year's defense averaged 2.2 sacks per game this years is 2.6. On the run game they're both equally terrible in different ways.

People were annoyed watching the defense last year play so far back but it yielded better results with the level of talent on defense. The 2023 defense has traded turnovers for aggressiveness and they haven't gotten any significant gains from doing so.

To go to the basketball analogy which I prefer to illustrate the point, a team might be down 9-0 because they have missed 3 layups and the opposition has hit 3 half court shots. Over the course of the game, I'm going with the team that manufactures good looks over the team that hits low percentage shots over a short period. Stretch that out over a week, a month, a season, and I think it only becomes more compelling. My thesis is that this team is taking better shots, even if they aren't making them than last year's team, which hit a number of low percentage shots.

Or put one more way, If the vikings can run off a few wins in a row and get in position to make the playoffs, I think they have a better chance to actually become the sort of team that has a legit chance than last year's team ever did.

I think you've got your analogy reversed. With their aggressiveness the 2023 Vikings defense is going for the big play often. They're running up and taking that 3-pointer every other play. The 2022 picked their spots and as a result ended up more big plays. More INTs by far, .58 fumble recoveries per game in 2022 and .4 this season.

In what way is the 2023 team actually better?

[fiestavike]

I think you are going a little bit by the outcome rather than the process and the product, which I understand, but which I ultimately reject as an invalid way of assessing until you get to a much larger sample size. This team looks better than last year's team. By better I mean, closer to really being able to compete for a championship, that is, to compete against the best teams in the league. There was no point last year when this team looked like a remotely serious contender. Also, there is no point this season at which this team has looked like a remotely serious contender...granted. but I do see them making philophical changes on D which alone constitute a real improvement.

Outcome does matter, but that's not what I'm talking about. You say they "look" better and I think you're the one being fooled by the difference between "exciting" and "effective". I think the defense is more fun to watch because they're so aggressive but that's not leading to better results overall. I'm not just talking wins and losses.

I'm talking about giving up a 76% completion percentage (66% last year). We're giving up 6.7 yrds/attempt rather than 7.3 which is a decent improvement but not great. 1 INT and 2 Fumble recoveries. Last year's team laid back more but they also averaged nearly1 INT a game. This team so far is getting 1 every 5 games. Despite being so much more agreesive they're only average .5 extra sacks per game. Last year's defense averaged 2.2 sacks per game this years is 2.6. On the run game they're both equally terrible in different ways.

People were annoyed watching the defense last year play so far back but it yielded better results with the level of talent on defense. The 2023 defense has traded turnovers for aggressiveness and they haven't gotten any significant gains from doing so.

To go to the basketball analogy which I prefer to illustrate the point, a team might be down 9-0 because they have missed 3 layups and the opposition has hit 3 half court shots. Over the course of the game, I'm going with the team that manufactures good looks over the team that hits low percentage shots over a short period. Stretch that out over a week, a month, a season, and I think it only becomes more compelling. My thesis is that this team is taking better shots, even if they aren't making them than last year's team, which hit a number of low percentage shots.

Or put one more way, If the vikings can run off a few wins in a row and get in position to make the playoffs, I think they have a better chance to actually become the sort of team that has a legit chance than last year's team ever did.

I think you've got your analogy reversed. With their aggressiveness the 2023 Vikings defense is going for the big play often. They're running up and taking that 3-pointer every other play. The 2022 picked their spots and as a result ended up more big plays. More INTs by far, .58 fumble recoveries per game in 2022 and .4 this season.

In what way is the 2023 team actually better?

They are playing a style that has the potential to actually be successful in today's NFL. Last year they were not.