Vikings @ Rams Week 1 Predictions

[radar55]

We win, a lot across the middle and AP is worked like a dog this weekend. I see us getting some turnovers against Hill, which will help as long as Cassel doesn't play like Ponder and we protect the ball. I could also see Patterson getting a few rushes to take the load off AP, Rudolph being underestimated by the Rams and scoring at least a TD. Their LB's are good but they are not going to be able to shut down Rudolph.

I am thinking it is a 10 - 24 game - vikings win, hill has had limited reps with first team and will play like... Hill always played

Normally with the opposing Q/B out one would think advantage Vikings but.......the Vikings tend to make 2nd string reject Q/B's look like the 2nd coming of Joe Montana in his prime more times than not so, until I see improvement on the Defense I have to go with St. Louis......23 -20 with another loss late in the 4th quarter

[PurpleMustReign]

I think this should be a really good game but the Rams are at home and I think they win in the trenches. Rams by 4.

Unfortunately I am in the same boat as you... Someday the Vikings will win one of these games they are supposed to lose, but I don't think it will be this week.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[Orion]

Unfortunately I am in the same boat as you... Someday the Vikings will win one of these games they are supposed to lose, but I don't think it will be this week.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

@New Orleans is a game we're supposed to lose. I don't see @St Louis as such a game by any means. Probably will be a close game (hopefully will be a repeat of the last time we played in St louis though) that can go either way.

[Reignman]

Normally with the opposing Q/B out one would think advantage Vikings but.......the Vikings tend to make 2nd string reject Q/B's look like the 2nd coming of Joe Montana in his prime more times than not so, until I see improvement on the Defense I have to go with St. Louis......23 -20 with another loss late in the 4th quarter

That mindset is so 2013 man. This defense is completely different and I think we're finally going to make mediocre QB's look very mediocre. If we keep their front 4 in check, we win this game easy. 26-13

[dkoby]

I think we win this one. I just can't see Hill beating us. I don't see Stacy running for over 90 yards which puts all the onus on Hill. Norv is known for running screens and that will all but nullify an above average pass rush. We have Adrian Peterson...healthy and fresh.

The Rams coaching staff can only guess how Norv will deploy our offensive weapons and how Zimmer will deploy our new defensive schemes. There's no film on any of this.

I also think we will be a better road team because of the improved mental toughness Zimmer brings. He won't accept excuses.

In another thread I said we would win by less than 4 but after really considering it, I will say by 7 or more.

[Fran the Man]

I think we vastly improved our defense this season and our offense isn't far behind.
This is a totally different team from years past and I look forward to quite a few wins this year, including our first game; 28-17 Vikings.

[Mothman]

See my thing is we have not won an away game since what, 2012? Well Zimmer is going to end that nonsense on Sunday. There is a reason why we lost games in the 4th and our defense sucked last year... it's called not starting your best players because you are like a father figure to them(C'mon man)

... and yet the defense continued to struggle and give up late leads after they started Cole, Rhodes, moved Henderson back outside, etc. so that theory doesn't really hold up.

I am so glad that is over with. When you have guys competing day in and day out for the starting job, they play 4 quarters and they play to keep the job.

I can't wait to watch Harrison Smith become one of the best Safeties in the NFL this season. #thehitman

Ironically, it sure didn't look like he had to compete for his starting job this offseason.

[Hunter Morrow]

I hope it won't be like the Browns game where we made Hoyer look great.

[Mothman]

So moving those few guys in towards the end of the year in a losing season debunks the idea that having players compete from the start of camp to get the best players on the field is good?

No, it refutes the idea that the reason they lost games in the 4th and their defense sucked last year was just because they didn't have the right players on the field but did have them on the roster.

Throwing players in last minute with the mindset that it no longer matters because the season is lost already, does not make players feel that they are going in because they are the better player or that they have won the competition for starting job. That was not putting the better players on the field, that was trying different players because our team sucks and I(Frazier) lost my job already.

Either they were better players or they weren't.

Most of the time, they were putting in players to replace injured players or (in some cases with rookies, perhaps because the staff apparently felt they were ready for a bigger role). I doubt they were just putting them in because the team sucked and Frazier had already lost his job. Who are these defensive players that didn't play earlier in the season and were supposedly the difference between winning and losing in the 4th quarter and having a good defense or a lousy one?

This whole idea that Frazier played guys because of some fatherly relationship he had with them seems like nothing but fan theorizing. I'm unaware of any compelling evidence to support it or, for that matter, to support the idea that the players he did start on defense didn't have to earn their starting spots 9at least to the degree that players on any team have to earn them).

And of course Harrison Smith didn't have to compete for his job, he is a better safety than any other on our team...

You just posted that asking players to compete day in and day out for a starting job gets them to "play 4 quarters and they play to keep the job". If that's the case, if that's the right approach, why should there be exceptions and if there are, how is Zimmer any different from Frazier in that regard? Isn't he playing favorites like a "father figure" too?

I'm just saying, the argument you're putting forth is inconsistent.

We could barely find someone to play next to him, and he played harder this preseason then almost anyone else on the defense. he was everywhere - go back and watch the games.

No need. I understand why he's starting. However, if Zimmer and his staff "could barely find someone to play next to him" was Frazier supposed to be able to find someone who could last year? Either the defensive personnel was good enough and Frazier didn't play the right guys or it wasn't good enough. I think it was the latter and I think that's why they were aggressive about upgrading their defensive personnel during the offseason and why they will have a bunch of new starters on Sunday, several of whom weren't even on the team last year.

[PurpleKoolaid]

A quick look at who picked who in week 1 (straight up). Surprisingly, 52% of the media has picked the Vikings to win.

2014 NFL EXPERT PICKS – WEEK 1


FYI, Don't bother watching NFLN's Playbook. 4 seconds of expert analysis on the Rams-Vikings game. No mention of Peterson at all.

I saw that. Wonder if they think just because he didn't play in pre-season, he isn't going to play in week 1 lol.

[jackal]

I see a win without Bradford 24_ 14

The rams have a good defense but should
Wear down chasing Peterson, McKinon, Patterson
and company by the second half.

[PacificNorseWest]

I just don't see the Rams winning this game. I think Shaun Hill is a suitable backup, but he's also been in the league for eons now and we don't really know if he's that same Shaun Hill that at least made some Lions and 49er teams respectable on offense.

I've been hearing a lot about their defense having some of the best young talent in the game. Well, people have been saying that for 3 years now and they still haven't hit their stride as an elite defense. Good, but not great. And when matched up against the likes of AP, CP, Rudolph, Jennings and co., I just find it hard to see Minnesota being stopped enough times to allow a suspect Rams offense to pull ahead in the game for the win.

I think most teams have something to prove in week 1, but I sense it's especially so for the Vikings. New coaches do that to a ball club, especially someone like Zimmer. The defense will be flying around and in Hill's face all day. I don't see St. Louis having the weapons to pull too far ahed in this one and because I think Minnesota is much more talented on offense, I'm really confident that the Vikings start the season 1-0.