Week 10 Predictions: Vikings at Raiders

[fiestavike]

According to PFF, he has not been good (39.6 grade) entering week 9.

Vikings beat guys saying that Murray/Cooper expected to play but Hudson (listed as doubtful) is not. Joseph + Floyd vs. Webb/Bergstrom. I like it. Too bad Gabe Jackson (89.1) is well above average.

Not a good week for Oak to be without their center. Hopefully Zimmer can exploit that.

[MarineRaider]

Hopefully Hudson can go-we had TJ Carrie listed as out on a friday and he played that sunday apparently we can upgrade players prior to the game.

[dead_poet]

Hopefully Hudson can go-we had TJ Carrie listed as out on a friday and he played that sunday apparently we can upgrade players prior to the game.

Was he listed as doubtful or questionable?

[MarineRaider]

Was he listed as doubtful or questionable?

Doubtful

[John_Viveiros]

carr has 19 touchdowns to teddy's 6 and you guys are debating what it will take to win? i say its simple; for our qb to start living up to expectations. without the type of defensive play we've had this team would be 2-6. bridgewater can't continue to play 1 good game followed by 2 or even 3 bad ones.

Funny. I thought 6-2 is better than 4-4. Which QB has what it takes to win?

Rather than go into a long discussion of QB play and the like, I'll just use the Matt Stafford reference to win this argument. Take all the stats you want, I want a QB who will win games.

[kurtkeoki]

On the one hand, Vegas has us as a 3 point underdog, and the Vegas guys are both impartial and really good at what they do. On the other hand, aren't we 7-1 against the spread this year? I think we've covered in all our wins, as well as the Denver game. If it weren't for the point spread being what it is, I'd say the Vikings are the better team, but I certainly don't claim to know better than the pros.

I think it's reasonable that we can be the better team while still being an underdog, outside of the fact that we're playing on the road on the west coast. I think we match up fairly poorly against the Raiders. They have a very weak pass D, which we aren't really built to exploit. We run the ball well, and use it to set up play action. Teddy has been a game manager, and can't necessarily be counted on to put up 300 yds. The Raiders are probably an average Run D, but teams don't run very often against them because they throw instead. As for the Raiders O vs our D, again, we match up poorly relative to how we would matchup against most teams. That's not to say that we're going to get run over, but our strength is stopping the run and getting pressure on the QB. The raiders have a decent running game, but they have really good WRs, a QB that is on fire, and an O-line that prevents pressure on the QB. In a nutshell, we likely can't fully exploit their biggest weakness, while they should do a reasonable job of containing ours biggest strength.

[J. Kapp 11]

Let's just say they tackle better than they cover.

Pay no attention to our resident curmudgeon.

Just kidding. My take is they tackle better than they cover, but they do both pretty well.

[J. Kapp 11]

On the one hand, Vegas has us as a 3 point underdog, and the Vegas guys are both impartial and really good at what they do. On the other hand, aren't we 7-1 against the spread this year? I think we've covered in all our wins, as well as the Denver game. If it weren't for the point spread being what it is, I'd say the Vikings are the better team, but I certainly don't claim to know better than the pros.

If we're a 3-point dog, that's essentially Vegas saying these teams are even on a neutral field. It's a pick-em game.

[J. Kapp 11]

Funny. I thought 6-2 is better than 4-4. Which QB has what it takes to win?

Rather than go into a long discussion of QB play and the like, I'll just use the Matt Stafford reference to win this argument. Take all the stats you want, I want a QB who will win games.

Not disagreeing ... but I suspect Oakland's awful defense has something to do with it.

I haven't mentioned our offense against this terrible defense, however. Until we start showing the ability to score, I'm not talkin' any junk!

[IndyRaider]

Another Raider guy here.

Just a quick thanks for letting me post on your message board.

I'm not going to slag the Vikings, or disrespect the board or it's members. That kind of stuff is pretty bush league.

I've been seeing my guys get hammered pretty good here, and not without some real reasons.

The defense which appears to be awful at this point, really isn't that bad. Yes, they indeed were awful last week in Pittsburgh, and they are just going to have to wear that one. But they have improved a lot as the season has gone on. I know the numbers might not look that way, but there is a little more to it than just numbers. If you look at week three against Cleveland the Raiders jumped out to a big lead early and McCown had to throw like crazy in the second half to make a game out of it. The Raiders were playing pretty soft by then, so while the numbers look bad at the end of the game, the D played OK.

Next game they were at Chicago, and while they didn't really do much, they weren't awful either. Just a young team still finding out who they were. Next up was Denver and The D did pretty well. They only gave up 3 field goals and had 2 picks. They had their by week and then went to San Diego. The Chargers I believe at that time was the number 1 offense in the league. Once again the Raiders jumped out to a big lead and were up big in the 4th quarter. At that time Rivers only had a bit over 150 yards passing, no touchdowns, and 2 picks. So while they did come back in the 4th quarter that game was over, so all the big numbers by their offense came in garbage time. They were at home against the jets next and again jumped out to a big lead, and once again they gave up yards and points late in the game when it was basically over. Yes they pooped the bed against the Steelers, but I think they were trying to run the same scheme they had against the Chargers. Big problem was there best secondary player was out and they are thin back there. Mack played hurt as well so he didn't get a lot of pressure. And just going off the top of my head here I believe they were 2nd against the run. I know teams have had to throw a lot against them, but none the less they were really stout against the run.

I guess what I'm saying here is just don't look at last weeks game and their numbers and just assume they are week on D. They have played quite well at times this year.

[Mothman]

Funny. I thought 6-2 is better than 4-4. Which QB has what it takes to win?

Rather than go into a long discussion of QB play and the like, I'll just use the Matt Stafford reference to win this argument. Take all the stats you want, I want a QB who will win games.

Detroit won 11 games last year with Stafford as their starter.

Winning and losing is primarily a function of team play, not just QB play. Sometimes a QB plays a huge role in wins, sometimes he doesn't but suggesting Bridgewater "has what it takes to win" and Carr doesn't because there's a 2 game difference in the win column between the Vikings and Raiders is, like the ""Matt Stafford reference", overly simplistic.

[kurtkeoki]

Detroit won 11 games last year with Stafford as their starter.

Winning and losing is primarily a function of team play, not just QB play. Sometimes a QB plays a huge role in wins, sometimes he doesn't but suggesting Bridgewater "has what it takes to win" and Carr doesn't because there's a 2 game difference in the win column between the Vikings and Raiders is, like the ""Matt Stafford reference", overly simplistic.

Well said. While a QB is the most important player on the field, they aren't the only player. They get too much credit when things are going well, and too much blame when things are going badly. A guy like Stafford is probably average, but because of the huge swings in the Lion's fortunes with him at QB, he's been anywhere from fringe top 5 to worst 5 starting QB in the league in people's minds. The fact that we give too much credit to qbs is how you end up with guys like Bradshaw and Aikman being probably the two most overrated athletes in sports. Good qbs that were game managers on exceptional teams.

[kurtkeoki]

If we're a 3-point dog, that's essentially Vegas saying these teams are even on a neutral field. It's a pick-em game.

I agree, but since this game is in Oakland, I think it would be illogical of me to go against the experts in Vegas. I have to pick the Raiders to win because of that, but we have done really well against the spread this year which leaves me hoping that Vegas continues to underrate the Vikings.

[J. Kapp 11]

I guess what I'm saying here is just don't look at last weeks game and their numbers and just assume they are week on D. They have played quite well at times this year.

I haven't seen too much trashing of your team here. If anything, we've shown a lot of respect.

Please don't take offense, but the things you're saying sound a lot like the things we used to say. "We're not as bad as the stats. The only reason it looks bad is THIS." But honestly, if you'd have checked this board in 2008 through last year, you'd have found that all these same excuses were being made. And those years include the 2009 team, which was 12-4, and the 2012 team, which was 10-6.

The bottom line is that for ANY team, you are what your record says you are. Your Raiders have given up nearly 27 points per game. They're dead last in pass defense. Yes, the numbers were skewed a bit by Pittsburgh, but the Steelers RAN for nearly 200 yards, which is supposed to be your defensive strength. How many times have your opponents run up 400+ yards of total offense? It can't ALL be attributable to holding big leads -- if it were, you'd be better than 4-4.

I could say the same things about our offense. "Well, we scored all 21 points last week in the half of the game we were with the wind. Nobody could move the ball against the wind." Both those things are true, but that doesn't make us a great offense.

I'm not trashing your team. The Raiders are among the most improved teams in the league, and David Carr is playing at a Pro Bowl level. But no matter how you slice it, your defense is not ready for prime time. We know. We've been in the position of having a stout run defense and a last-in-the-league pass defense, which is what the record says your pass defense is.

Now, do the Vikings have enough offense to take advantage? Many of us have our doubts. Like you, we are what our record says we are. And it says we struggle to score.

[IndyRaider]

I can't really disagree with what Kapp is saying. They are what their record says they are.

I guess in a long winded way I wanted to say the D isn't awful from start to finish in every game. The do occasionally play pretty well. But I would agree they aren't there yet, and we knew darn well before the season started the secondary was going to be a problem.

As far as this game goes here is my thought on it. If the Raiders want to be taken seriously and be considered a playoff team, they need to be able to beat good teams at home. The Vikings are a good team, and they need to win this game.