vikings may be 0-2 and in the division.....

[Orion]

but the upside is that they were both road games and the vikings can even that out with home wins against the lions and bears. Although I think if they lose to the Browns they're done for the year.

[Eli]

I've said it several times - these weren't really games that the Vikings were expected to win. What really sucks is their schedule opening with two division games on the road.

The next three games should be wins. The Vikings just need a good dose of the Browns and they'll be feeling much better. The Steelers and Panthers should be good for them as well. They could easily go into New York on Monday night at 3-2, having won their previous three games.

[Raptorman]

Actually the next three games are crucial to the tiebreakers at the end of the year. As long as they even things up with the Bears and Lions.

[PacificNorseWest]

Vikings are a good football team with a lot of youth. They'll get better and can still win games, with or in spite of, Ponder. The schedule opens up quite nicely here for them to get right back in this.

And if Frazier's demeanor and coaching style has taught this team anything then all the stats for teams starting 0-2 and not making the playoffs should be thrown out the window. Plenty of time to get back in this.

[Captain]

OMG?!?!?! WHAT?!?! is that some positivity I see breaking through?

[Captain]

OMG?!?!?! WHAT?!?! is that some positivity I see breaking through?

[Captain]

OMG?!?!?! WHAT?!?! is that some positivity I see breaking through?

[The Breeze]

This team is middle of the pack at best until the defense proves it can be relied upon to shut other teams down more than 2-3 times per game. The turnovers forced against Chicago were nice, if that can continue it will help for sure, but there's no hiding the talent deficiencies we have.

The offense is getting better and should continue to improve as long as guys stay healthy. They've moved the ball and scored on two decent defenses and haven't come close to firing on all cylinders for more than a drive or two each game.

I wish they would just face it and play the young guys at LB....I don't see the future with Henderson or Mitchell.

[mondry]

This team is middle of the pack at best until the defense proves it can be relied upon to shut other teams down more than 2-3 times per game. The turnovers forced against Chicago were nice, if that can continue it will help for sure, but there's no hiding the talent deficiencies we have.

The offense is getting better and should continue to improve as long as guys stay healthy. They've moved the ball and scored on two decent defenses and haven't come close to firing on all cylinders for more than a drive or two each game.

I wish they would just face it and play the young guys at LB....I don't see the future with Henderson or Mitchell.

I just don't see us getting much better performances from the D though. If they get as many turnovers as they did and score 14 points (including special teams) I would expect us to win those games. For me I see it as a bigger issue for the offense. IF they could score more than 1 TD PER GAME we beat the bears. Heck if Ponder doesn't give the other team 7 points on the pick six we win or if we score even one touchdown. (instead of 3 field goals)

It's kind of like when New Englands defense sucked, or Peyton Mannings in Indy. They didn't say "well the defense needs to get better" but instead it was like "well Peyton just needs to put up 40 points" because that's the more realistic way to try and win heh. Using a Madden like "rating" system Patrick willis is probably like a 97 and I'd put Henderson and Mitchel at like 59 in arguably the most important position of the 4-3 cover 2, MLB. They're just going to get abused by any team with either a pass catching RB or a pass catching TE. So far, both teams we've played have had those kind of guys.

With that said, look for a better performance against the browns, steelers, and panthers, our next 3 opponents. None of them have as potent pass catching backs and outside of James Cameron for the browns none of their tight ends are terribly dangerous. Going forward though, just expect a rough defensive outing for any team who has a combination of guys like Bush, Forte / Bennet, Sproles / Jimmy Graham because they're complete and total mismatches against our guys.

The offense on the other hand has all the personnel it needs now to ascend. Sure you could argue we need better guards but at the end of the day they brought in Jennings, drafted Patterson, Kalil, Ponder, re-signed loadholt, felton, etc and still have a guy named Peterson. That is the unit I expect to be better and it should be!

[Mothman]

I just don't see us getting much better performances from the D though. If they get as many turnovers as they did and score 14 points (including special teams) I would expect us to win those games. For me I see it as a bigger issue for the offense. IF they could score more than 1 TD PER GAME we beat the bears. Heck if Ponder doesn't give the other team 7 points on the pick six we win or if we score even one touchdown. (instead of 3 field goals)

It's kind of like when New Englands defense sucked, or Peyton Mannings in Indy. They didn't say "well the defense needs to get better" but instead it was like "well Peyton just needs to put up 40 points" because that's the more realistic way to try and win heh. Using a Madden like "rating" system Patrick willis is probably like a 97 and I'd put Henderson and Mitchel at like 59 in arguably the most important position of the 4-3 cover 2, MLB. They're just going to get abused by any team with either a pass catching RB or a pass catching TE. So far, both teams we've played have had those kind of guys.

With that said, look for a better performance against the browns, steelers, and panthers, our next 3 opponents. None of them have as potent pass catching backs and outside of James Cameron for the browns none of their tight ends are terribly dangerous. Going forward though, just expect a rough defensive outing for any team who has a combination of guys like Bush, Forte / Bennet, Sproles / Jimmy Graham because they're complete and total mismatches against our guys.

The offense on the other hand has all the personnel it needs now to ascend. Sure you could argue we need better guards but at the end of the day they brought in Jennings, drafted Patterson, Kalil, Ponder, re-signed loadholt, felton, etc and still have a guy named Peterson. That is the unit I expect to be better and it should be!

I see your point but to me, it depends on where you would place those offensive players in a similar ratings system. Do they really have all the personnel they need to ascend? Ponder wouldn't be likely to rate much better against elite players at his position than Henderson or Mitchell would against Willis and QB is arguably the most important piece needed for such an ascension. They've invested in the offensive players you mentioned above but they've also invested in Allen, Williams, Greenway, Smith, Floyd, Cook, Williams, Rhodes, etc. The defense has some holes but they've invested time, money and high draft picks into that side of the ball as well. I see no reason to expect any less of them than we do of the offense, which has it's Mitchell and Henderson too (their names are Johnson and Fusco).

I think the Vikes are in the same basic position the vast majority of the league is in: they're caught between having enough championship-level talent to make them an elite contender and between having a roster so talent-deficient that they're a terrible bottom feeder (at least I hope they won't end up fitting the latter description). Right now, we have a fanbase that went into this season with high expectations based on the pleasant surprise of an unexpected 10-6 season and is now frustrated and looking for someone to blame for a disappointing 0-2 start. Both of those games were winnable but they were lost on the road to familiar opponents that, in all likelihood, are also caught in the same gap between elite the terrible. The Bears and Lions may even be a little more complete in terms of talent than the Vikings. It's debatable.

To put it another way, while the first two losses are frustrating, there are missed opportunities and mistakes in every game. The ability to minimize them is a big part of what separates the best from the rest and it's worth nothing that neither the Vikes, Lions or Bears did a great job of minimizing them in the first two games. When the Vikings did a better job of that down the stretch last season, they won. Their margin for error is slim because they aren't significantly more talented than most of the opponents they'll play this year. However, with the talent and coaching they have, they should be competitive and hopefully, they will be. With a little luck, by the end of this weekend they could be tied with 2 of the other 3 teams in their division and just one win behind the Bears. It's a long season and nobody wins a race after 1/8 of it has been run.

[mondry]

I see your point but to me, it depends on where you would place those offensive players in a similar ratings system. Do they really have all the personnel they need to ascend? Ponder wouldn't be likely to rate much better against elite players at his position than Henderson or Mitchell would against Willis and QB is arguably the most important piece needed for such an ascension. They've invested in the offensive players you mentioned above but they've also invested in Allen, Williams, Greenway, Smith, Floyd, Cook, Williams, Rhodes, etc. The defense has some holes but they've invested time, money and high draft picks into that side of the ball as well. I see no reason to expect any less of them than we do of the offense, which has it's Mitchell and Henderson too (their names are Johnson and Fusco).

I think the Vikes are in the same basic position the vast majority of the league is in: they're caught between having enough championship-level talent to make them an elite contender and between having a roster so talent-deficient that they're a terrible bottom feeder (at least I hope they won't end up fitting the latter description). Right now, we have a fanbase that went into this season with high expectations based on the pleasant surprise of an unexpected 10-6 season and is now frustrated and looking for someone to blame for a disappointing 0-2 start. Both of those games were winnable but they were lost on the road to familiar opponents that, in all likelihood, are also caught in the same gap between elite the terrible. The Bears and Lions may even be a little more complete in terms of talent than the Vikings. It's debatable.

To put it another way, while the first two losses are frustrating, there are missed opportunities and mistakes in every game. The ability to minimize them is a big part of what separates the best from the rest and it's worth nothing that neither the Vikes, Lions or Bears did a great job of minimizing them in the first two games. When the Vikings did a better job of that down the stretch last season, they won. Their margin for error is slim because they aren't significantly more talented than most of the opponents they'll play this year. However, with the talent and coaching they have, they should be competitive and hopefully, they will be. With a little luck, by the end of this weekend they could be tied with 2 of the other 3 teams in their division and just one win behind the Bears. It's a long season and nobody wins a race after 1/8 of it has been run.

I just view it differently, I think the problem on offense comes from formations, play calling, but mostly the philosophy that we have to use Peterson early and on first and second down to the point where it might as well be the Randy Ratio, two runs for one pass. The idea that we expect Ponder to just dominate when he's cold, has no rhythm, and such a tiny part of the game plan frustrates me and I've stated before I think in todays NFL you have to pass to set up the run. I think they need to go out of the way to come out early and get Ponder going. Another issue is If they have 9-10 guys in the box and our QB has no audible at the line with a called run play what is Ponder suppose to do about that?

For the defense, I just think the two LB's and Sanford are so bad that it negates the talent we do have there. The front four and pass rush just doesn't matter if Staffords dumping the ball off to pettigrew / bush within 1.5-2.5 seconds off the snap because they're so open and that's such an effective play. Harrison Smith and the Corners do a decent enough job but when you can just bank on picking up huge yardage on routine / easy plays over the middle it doesn't matter. Not to mention the run defense has also been frustrating and the front 7 play a much larger role in that too. I just don't see that changing unless Bishop or Mauti are the answer.

Mean while, the offense showed last week in the 2nd half that if they open it up a little bit and get Ponder going, the pass protection was there so I just don't see Johnson / Fusco as the same. They're barely average for sure but I think guards are a bit different than (M)LB's in a 4-3. IF you have poor backers and sanford you can't stop the run either.

coaching deserves an honorable mention as it was pretty bad / costly against the bears. But again I see coaching improvements as more likely than defensive improvements but they coincide to be mutually beneficial.

[The Breeze]

@Moth & Mondry

When all is said and done, they just as easily could be 2-0 or 1-1 as they are 0-2. Until a few different things gel on both sides of the ball they are going to need to be more on the flawless side of things to beat the better teams.

They have invested a lot on the defensive side of the ball and I know that BPA is the soundest way to draft, however, not having the LB position solid for this scheme is a giant issue. For years they lacked the safety and when Smith got here it was a huge difference. That fact that Winfield virtually did the job of a cover 2 LB is just emphasizing the importance of that piece in his absence.

I really don't see how our starting LBs are supposed to develop skills they don't have in the first place. So, while it is only week 3, I think we have a systemic issue there that effects the whole defense's efficiency and something different needs to be done. Like throwing the young guys out there against teams that struggle to exploit that area to begin with....perhaps.

If the offense, even with it's limitations at QB and Guard, can reach the type of play during it's best weeks last season (and I believe there is a good chance of that), they'll be able to put points on the board. Especially when you consider the additions at WR. All the pieces are there to compete...like them or not. They can't turn the ball over of course.

I don't feel that way about the D.

Still, there are lots of different ways to win or lose football games...and winning them makes everything look and feel better.

[mondry]

@Moth & Mondry

When all is said and done, they just as easily could be 2-0 or 1-1 as they are 0-2. Until a few different things gel on both sides of the ball they are going to need to be more on the flawless side of things to beat the better teams.

They have invested a lot on the defensive side of the ball and I know that BPA is the soundest way to draft, however, not having the LB position solid for this scheme is a giant issue. For years they lacked the safety and when Smith got here it was a huge difference. That fact that Winfield virtually did the job of a cover 2 LB is just emphasizing the importance of that piece in his absence.

I really don't see how our starting LBs are supposed to develop skills they don't have in the first place. So, while it is only week 3, I think we have a systemic issue there that effects the whole defense's efficiency and something different needs to be done. Like throwing the young guys out there against teams that struggle to exploit that area to begin with....perhaps.

If the offense, even with it's limitations at QB and Guard, can reach the type of play during it's best weeks last season (and I believe there is a good chance of that), they'll be able to put points on the board. Especially when you consider the additions at WR. All the pieces are there to compete...like them or not. They can't turn the ball over of course.

I don't feel that way about the D.

Still, there are lots of different ways to win or lose football games...and winning them makes everything look and feel better.

Love your point about winfield, he was a rare breed. He probably made guys like Brinkley / Henderson and what not look more serviceable than they were providing so much help against the run / short passing game with his tackling.

As for the rest that's pretty much where I'm coming from too. It's a huge fundamental problem for the defense to be so weak at 2 out of 3 LB positions to the point where it's going to compromise the scheme's effectiveness and consistency.

And for the record, I think the defense CAN do better, and what I was trying to get at is it will be some what match up dependent. Like the lions as long as bush is healthy will just be a nightmare for us. I just don't expect them to shut those kind of teams down but against weaker offenses they can and should do better.

[Mothman]

Love your point about winfield, he was a rare breed. He probably made guys like Brinkley / Henderson and what not look more serviceable than they were providing so much help against the run / short passing game with his tackling.

As for the rest that's pretty much where I'm coming from too. It's a huge fundamental problem for the defense to be so weak at 2 out of 3 LB positions to the point where it's going to compromise the scheme's effectiveness and consistency.

The loss of Winfield is definitely big and that's arguably the most significant difference on defense. I just can't buy that losing Brinkley, moving Henderson to his spot and playing Mitchell on the weak side has transformed a defense that was pretty effective at times last year into a mess that can't be saved. Henderson isn't such a drop off from Brinkley, or such an upgrade over Mitchell, that I can buy those changes as the big difference. Losing Winfield might be that difference.

The defense started shaky last year too. Maybe they'll find their game.

I was being generous in just naming Fusco and Johnson on offense. Let's face it, the story of Ponder's season and the story of the o-line's season have been similar so far. The both had a pretty good second half in Chicago. They both had bad games in Detroit. The line was manhandled for most of 4 quarters by the Lions. Mondry wrote that you can't stop the run with poor 'backers but we all know you can't run with poor blocking either.

I think OL and QB problems have been as detrimental to the offense as LB and DB problems have been to the defense. I'm not denying the personnel issues on defense. I'm just saying I won't give them a pass because of those issues. That unit is capable of playing better, as is the offense. They both have to find their groove soon.

Regarding the coaching, it could be better too but I don't think perception of how much the Vikings run 1 WR formations or call "run-run-pass" sequences from first to third down necessarily matches reality. For example, against Chicago, the Vikes ran 24 first down plays. They only went run-run on first and second down 4 times in the game, which doesn't seem excessive or predictable to me. Their results on those 4 run-run-pass series were:

+3, +2, Ponder scramble for 2
+6, +3, and then Peterson for +2and a first down
+4, +4, 15 yard pass to Jennings for a first down
-13, +4, pass to Rudolph for 14 (the second run on this series was a little hard to understand).

That's doesn't strike me as a "Randy Ratio" use of Peterson. Looking back over the game, they tried to get Ponder involved from the start too. It just didn't work.

[BGM]

I've said it several times - these weren't really games that the Vikings were expected to win. What really sucks is their schedule opening with two division games on the road.

The next three games should be wins. The Vikings just need a good dose of the Browns and they'll be feeling much better. The Steelers and Panthers should be good for them as well. They could easily go into New York on Monday night at 3-2, having won their previous three games.

Upon reflection, I agree. There are definitely issues, but some confidence is just what this young team needs.