Assessing the Vikings at the One Quarter Mark

[Mothman]

My assessment:

They've been about what I expected thus far: inconsistent with some great moments and not-so-great moments. I was really angry after the SF game, not so much because they lost (as akvikingsfan pointed out above, in some ways they almost felt doomed from the start in that one) but because of how they lost.

Peterson has been good, as expected. The defense has been solid but I'm waiting for them to take the next step. Maybe that's coming in the next quarter?

Bridgewater's been inconsistent. I remain less impressed with him than most of Vikes fandom seems to be but I do like his poise in the pocket and how effective he can be when he's on his game. I just want to see him "on" a lot more often but I really like that the game doesn't seem too big for him. That's a good sign.

The OL play is obviously disappointing and the passing game as a whole has been disappointing too. They're ranked almost dead last after 4 games. Without Peterson, I fear the team might be 1-3 or 0-4 right now.

I'm somewhat disappointed in the coaching, mainly on offense, though I love the grit the Vikes have shown in the wake of the week 1 loss. It seemed to wake them up and i suspect Mike Zimmer had a pretty big hand in that.

I'm eager to see how they'll play in the next two games, especially when they hit the road again.

[losperros]

My assessment:

Bridgewater's been inconsistent. I remain less impressed with him than most of Vikes fandom seems to be but I do like his poise in the pocket and how effective he can be when he's on his game. I just want to see him "on" a lot more often but I really like that the game doesn't seem too big for him. That's a good sign.

The OL play is obviously disappointing and the passing game as a whole has been disappointing too. They're ranked almost dead last after 4 games. Without Peterson, I fear the team might be 1-3 or 0-4 right now.

I'm somewhat disappointed in the coaching, mainly on offense, though I love the grit the Vikes have shown in the wake of the week 1 loss. It seemed to wake them up and i suspect Mike Zimmer had a pretty big hand in that.

Maybe I'm being too easy on Bridgewater but I think he's been hampered by the things you state in your last two points.

Personally, I think the OL has played two bad road games. I was actually impressed by some of the things TB did while under pressure. Keeping his cool and making a couple nice runs come to mind, not to mention some nice throws in pressure cooker situations. But as for the OL, they need some real improvement, which is why I understand the recent trade.

Regarding the coaching, I think Zimmer has planted some real fire in the team and the D seems to be headed in the right direction. OTOH, I'm not impressed by the way Norv Turner has handled the passing game or Peterson's carry load during the two road games. And again, I think that's a dynamic that hampers Bridgewater's performance.

[Raptorman]

About what I expected. I kinda dismiss the San Fran game. I do think that if they were to have a game like that, the first week was a good one to do it on. Because now, they can look back and say, "Man we don't want to play that ##### again."

[MikethePurple]

I would echo a lot of thoughts that other's have mentioned especially about Bridgewater and the Offensive Line struggles.

In general terms, they are about what I expected in that they are still inconsistent and need to "prove the hype" that they were given over the off season. I think they are showing growth in numerous phases and have really put together more of a "team cohesiveness" that people have mentioned.

-One thing I would like to see Bridgewater focus on would be not holding the ball too long or not getting rid of it when plays aren't developing and the pass rush is coming, specifically in the Denver game. Granted the O Line wasn't doing him any favors but I've noticed that there are times when he should be hitting receivers or getting rid of the ball and that could help with the pass rush and protection problems. Ideally the line would play better.....

-Peterson looks like he was shaking off rust in the first game and didn't have that long range speed. He has progressed in the last few games and I think when he took off for his TD run against Denver he showed the speed, explosiveness, and ability to run away from defenders like we have seen before. He also showed his cutting ability in the San Diego game in his long TD run. I think he will continue to get back into game shape. My concern with him is of course pass protection but moreover play calling which is somewhat out of his control.

-Defensively they have been so much fun to watch. The pass rush has been great, yet I feel that they are one step away from that sack or hit much of the time. They have pressured and hits qbs well (especially in the SD and Detroit games) but watching the games I get that feeling that I believe Dead Poet mentioned that they are just a step behind. The run D has been inconsistent in that they were torched in SF and played lights out in SD and Detroit. Outside of the big run in Denver they played well but you can't ignore that one big run. Joseph has been great as has Barr and Smith! They've been really fun to watch. For so many years every time the defense came onto the field I've felt that anxiousness that they are not going to be able to hold and it is refreshing to have more confidence in them.

-Griffen and Rhodes have been taking lots of penalties. That needs to get cleaned up, although I would say Rhodes has drawn a number of questionable calls.

-I think my biggest concern is offensive play calling as it is something that we can at least look to change (injuries have kind of tied their hands on the O line). I don't know the exact stats but Peterson has been dramatically more effective in the 7 yards deep vs. the pistol and shotgun. Turner's play calling and amount of times giving Adrian the ball in the SF and Denver games were very different vs. the Detroit and SD games, specifically in the way he was using and focusing on Peterson. Peterson has shown that he is effective when you use him this way and continue to give him the ball and Turner did not use this approach in the two losses. I really hope they analyze the film and focus on what has been successful. I understand the need to be flexible and adjust to various defensive opponent strong suits and weaknesses but Peterson's use in each of these 4 games has really been obvious between the wins and losses.

[Crax]

I put underachieved just due to the fact of how bad the 49ers have been since that first game. I didn't expect to necessarily 4-0 right now, but we should have beat the 49ers. That's one of the games we need to win at this point

[Mothman]

I put underachieved just due to the fact of how bad the 49ers have been since that first game. I didn't expect to necessarily 4-0 right now, but we should have beat the 49ers. That's one of the games we need to win at this point

It's interesting that so many people have made that choice. I absolutely understand it (the Broncos look good, the 49ers look bad). I just find it ironic since the 49ers arguably outplayed the Vikes by the biggest margin and the Vikes lost to Denver in a close game this week.

I guess the quality of the opponent trumps the nature of the losses, eh?

Oh, and MikethePurple: excellent post!

[Crax]

I guess the quality of the opponent trumps the nature of the losses, eh?

Yes and it should I believe. Vikings still looked like a decent team against the Broncos, they just looked like garbage against the 49ers. My expectation was to lose to good/great teams or tough division road games going into this year. Losing to a team that looks like they could end up as one of the worst in the league is not something that should happen and meets the underachieving definition to me. It's easy to brush off a close loss to one of the top defenses in the league, but it's hard to qualify a loss to the 49ers as anything other than a weak excuse(first game of year, unprepared, late night game across the coast, some other excuse).

I'd generally much rather lose by 3 than only score 3 total. If the Broncos held the Vikings to 3 points that loss would also be tough to rationalize

It's interesting that so many people have made that choice. I absolutely understand it (the Broncos look good, the 49ers look bad). I just find it ironic since the 49ers arguably outplayed the Vikes by the biggest margin and the Vikes lost to Denver in a close game this week

I'm not sure how it's ironic. The 49ers are currently the worst team in their division. The Broncos are the best team in their division. Losing to the worst team in any other division at this point is underachieving

[Just Me]

It's interesting that so many people have made that choice. I absolutely understand it (the Broncos look good, the 49ers look bad). I just find it ironic since the 49ers arguably outplayed the Vikes by the biggest margin and the Vikes lost to Denver in a close game this week.

I'm not sure what is ironic about that. The Vikings defense couldn't keep the 49ers from scoring and the Vikings offense couldn't "crack the code" of the SF defense. SF "played better than Denver" (against us) because the Vikings didn't stop them. To use hyperbole: it's like a college basketball team losing by 2 points against a pro basketball team vs losing by 25 to a high school basketball team. Which game seems to be indicative of a better performance, given we are expecting a certain level of performance from a college basketball team?

[Mothman]

Guys, it's ironic because so many people think they should have won the game where the final score wasn't close and the team was less competitive as opposed to the game where the score was close and they were in it right until the end.

People clearly give more weight to who the team played than how they played. I understand why but there is a certain irony in thinking they should have won a game they lost 20-3 and they shouldn't have won a game they lost 23-20.

[fiestavike]

Guys, it's ironic because so many people think they should have won the game where the final score wasn't close and the team was less competitive as opposed to the game where the score was close and they were in it right until the end.

People clearly give more weight to who the team played than how they played. I understand why but there is a certain irony in thinking they should have won a game they lost 20-3 and they shouldn't have won a game they lost 23-20.

I give weight to who they played and how they played. In one game they played terribly against a terrible team. In the other they played well against a good team. One of those scenarios reflects well on them. The other reflects very poorly.

this seems pretty clear. Perhaps I am missing the thread of this conversation?

[Mothman]

I give weight to who they played and how they played. In one game they played terribly against a terrible team. In the other they played well against a good team. One of those scenarios reflects well on them. The other reflects very poorly.

this seems pretty clear. Perhaps I am missing the thread of this conversation?

Yes, I think so.

Then again, I thought the irony I referred to was readily apparent and nobody else even seems to see it.

[PurpleMustReign]

Then again, I thought the irony I referred to was readily apparent and nobody else even seems to see it.

[Mothman]

Picard feels my pain.

[DK Sweets]

Jim, I respect you greatly. I hope you know this, and just in case, I want to state it again. I respect you. I also happen to disagree with you in this matter.

The Vikings could have beaten the Broncos. We all would have been happy if they had, and it would have been a huge feather in their cap. That said, I feel like your desire to see them succeed is clouding your judgement on this one.

Good teams lose to other good teams, especially when they are playing on the road. To be so upset that the Vikings lost by three points and to hold it against them so strongly seems unfair.

In my mind, if the Vikings played well and lost to a good team on the road, it is disappointing, but it is not entirely surprising. Somebody had to win. This time, it was the Broncos.

I feel like it's obvious that the 49ers game was a bigger loss. You HAVE to beat bad teams if you want to make the playoffs, and from then on its "any given Sunday". You can afford a loss to a good team as long as you play hard and improve. You can't afford to get destroyed by a bad team.

To suggest that the Vikings thus far are a disappointment (based on projections/potential/etc) because of the Broncos loss more than the 49ers loss feels to me like an overreaction based on the most recent game.

I feel like there are a lot of positives to reflect on after the Broncos loss, we just require some fine tuning. I didn't feel that way after week one. That's why I think most of us give more weight on the disappointometer to the first game than the most recent one.

[Just Me]

Yes, I think so.

Then again, I thought the irony I referred to was readily apparent and nobody else even seems to see it.

This is one of those cases where I might truly be failing to see what you are saying (or you are failing to see what I'm saying).

This is not a case of who they are playing (at least in my mind). It is a case of how they played. They played very poorly against a team that (had they played as well against them as they played against Denver) they would have beaten SF handily. The played pretty well (overall) against Denver (Giving up the sacks notwithstanding) and lost. Had they played Denver with the same intensity/execution/game plan as they did in SF, Denver likely would have won 40 to 0.

So, yes the team they played does matter within the context that Denver is a much tougher opponent, so I would expect a more narrow margin of victory. The fact that the Vikings came out and stunk up the place doesn't make me respect SF more because they beat the Vikings by more points than Denver, it simply makes me respect the Vikings performance less. (at least on that night). That actually has less to do with Denver/SF and more to do with how the Vikings can (vs did) play.

If the irony is simply that we think the team that had a greater margin of victory is the one we should have beaten, I'd refer you back to the Basketball analogy I made earlier in this thread. If a High School Basketball team beats my college team by 25 (when my college team has one of it's worst nights ever ) and then the College team only loses to a pro team by 2 points when it plays like it's supposed to, I don't find it ironic that I expected the college team to beat the HS basketball team and lose to the Pro Team (even though the HS team beat the college team by a greater margin of victory). I think I understand what you are trying to say, but I'm not agreeing with it.