Sam Bradford's a Viking

[mansquatch]

Watch the games and not just Vikings games. Teams that might be statistically comparable are not necessarily the same. Some teams can play stifling defense that shuts down opponents, others are more offensive driven and rely more on takeaways resulting from an opponent having to play catch up and thus throw more due to being down. Examples of the former are the Broncos, Panthers, Seahawks, and yes, the Vikings. Teams in the latter category are the Cardinals and the Packers.

The problem is that the defenses in the latter category are not going stand up when you get into a game where the other team has a dominant defense in the former category and can slow down or even shut down your dominant offense, assuming the other team does not make costly mistakes, ie turnovers. If you can combine the dominant defense with a potent rushing attack you can further suffocate your opponent by limiting his offensive snaps and time of possession. This is exactly Zimmer's model as well as that of Pete Carrol's Seahawks.

The above playoff scenario is what has happened to the Packers in the playoffs since 2010, it is also what happened to the Cardinals in the NFFCG. It is what happened to the Broncos in that Superbowl blowout a few years ago that put the Legion of Boom on the map after Manning set all those single season records on offense.

Why do people think that offenses are suddenly so much better in 2016 as to invalidate the approach used successfully until recently deep in the playoffs? If you think offenses are on the rise then you should consider our own local superbowl aspirations ill-fated since we are apparently using the out-dated model. Is that really what you all think?

[Mothman]

Watch the games and not just Vikings games. Teams that might be statistically comparable are not necessarily the same. Some teams can play stifling defense that shuts down opponents, others are more offensive driven and rely more on takeaways resulting from an opponent having to play catch up and thus throw more due to being down. Examples of the former are the Broncos, Panthers, Seahawks, and yes, the Vikings. Teams in the latter category are the Cardinals and the Packers.

The problem is that the defenses in the latter category are not going stand up when you get into a game where the other team has a dominant defense in the former category and can slow down or even shut down your dominant offense, assuming the other team does not make costly mistakes, ie turnovers.

If you can combine the dominant defense with a potent rushing attack you can further suffocate your opponent by limiting his offensive snaps and time of possession. This is exactly Zimmer's model as well as that of Pete Carrol's Seahawks.

The above playoff scenario is what has happened to the Packers in the playoffs since 2010, it is also what happened to the Cardinals in the NFFCG. It is what happened to the Broncos in that Superbowl blowout a few years ago that put the Legion of Boom on the map after Manning set all those single season records on offense.

Why do people think that offenses are suddenly so much better in 2016 as to invalidate the approach used successfully until recently deep in the playoffs?

Do they? I'm not sure people feel that offense suddenly invalidates defense. They might just think a few teams with high-powered offenses have enough going for them as a whole to win it all.

If you think offenses are on the rise then you should consider our own local superbowl aspirations ill-fated since we are apparently using the out-dated model. Is that really what you all think?

I don't love our chances to win the Super Bowl this season but it's not because I think "offenses are on the rise". I think Super Bowls tend to be won by really good teams so for me, it's not about defense or offense or one particular strategy being the right flavor of the day. It's about finding a combination that works well enough to be that successful. Over the past decade, we've seen teams with great defenses win it all, teams with great offenses win it all and teams that weren't necessarily great in either department but were good enough as a whole to win the Super Bowl. More often than not, there's a solid balance at work. The Vikes have the potential to achieve championship-level quality and find that kind of balance this year but I see no good reason to believe teams like Pittsburgh and Green Bay couldn't do likewise.

[losperros]

Why do people think that offenses are suddenly so much better in 2016 as to invalidate the approach used successfully until recently deep in the playoffs? If you think offenses are on the rise then you should consider our own local superbowl aspirations ill-fated since we are apparently using the out-dated model. Is that really what you all think?

Do people really think that?

Or are they justifiably becoming more concerned about team balance?

[mansquatch]

If you are picking a GB/PIT superbowl you are implying that offensively driven teams are the favorites. If you are defending that proposition, as some here are, then you are implying that this is the preferred or most likely model for superbowl victory.

I'm critical of the viewpoint as I feel that Defensively driven teams have been more dominant since 2010.

This is not to say you do not also need enough "juice" on offense to make plays to win, if that was the case the Rams would be a serious playoff team. However, my contention is that teams with elite defenses are winning the big game more frequently in recent history than not, therefore such a model is likely NOT the surest way to a championship.

As an aside I am also contending the offensive driven teams like the Packers and Cardinals are not favorites to make win the Superbowl so long as teams like Seattle, Carolina, and the Broncos are also in they playoffs.

To me the more pressing question is can this Vikings unit be an elite defense? I think if you remove our three poor performances from last season (SF, GB @ Home, SEA @ Home) and this team is very close. Then it comes down to the other hot topic (as it should be) which is whether or not the offense can have enough juice to get us over the top.

[Jordysghost]

Watch the games and not just Vikings games. Teams that might be statistically comparable are not necessarily the same. Some teams can play stifling defense that shuts down opponents, others are more offensive driven and rely more on takeaways resulting from an opponent having to play catch up and thus throw more due to being down. Examples of the former are the Broncos, Panthers, Seahawks, and yes, the Vikings. Teams in the latter category are the Cardinals and the Packers.

The problem is that the defenses in the latter category are not going stand up when you get into a game where the other team has a dominant defense in the former category and can slow down or even shut down your dominant offense, assuming the other team does not make costly mistakes, ie turnovers. If you can combine the dominant defense with a potent rushing attack you can further suffocate your opponent by limiting his offensive snaps and time of possession. This is exactly Zimmer's model as well as that of Pete Carrol's Seahawks.

The above playoff scenario is what has happened to the Packers in the playoffs since 2010, it is also what happened to the Cardinals in the NFFCG. It is what happened to the Broncos in that Superbowl blowout a few years ago that put the Legion of Boom on the map after Manning set all those single season records on offense.

Why do people think that offenses are suddenly so much better in 2016 as to invalidate the approach used successfully until recently deep in the playoffs? If you think offenses are on the rise then you should consider our own local superbowl aspirations ill-fated since we are apparently using the out-dated model. Is that really what you all think?

Ok, just because YOU say a Defense is only on a certain level, doesn't make it fact my dude, you are simply believing what you want to in that regard.

The Packers D completely carried our #### 25th ranked passing game last year, constantly gave them short fields, got sacks, turnovers, and all in all completely spearheaded the team to the playoffs, and here you are, trying to tell me they aren't as good as the stats indicate, based upon nothing more then 'I want to think that'. You obviously didn't watch many Packers games last year.

I don't advocate trying to win a SB with O alone, I don't think anyone is, where are you getting that? I think the Packers (And Cardinals) can compete for SB titles with O and D being a strength. (Like in 2010 when the Packers had the 2nd best scoring D and 3rd best O.)

[Jordysghost]

If you are picking a GB/PIT superbowl you are implying that offensively driven teams are the favorites. If you are defending that proposition, as some here are, then you are implying that this is the preferred or most likely model for superbowl victory.

I'm critical of the viewpoint as I feel that Defensively driven teams have been more dominant since 2010.

This is not to say you do not also need enough "juice" on offense to make plays to win, if that was the case the Rams would be a serious playoff team. However, my contention is that teams with elite defenses are winning the big game more frequently in recent history than not, therefore such a model is likely NOT the surest way to a championship.

As an aside I am also contending the offensive driven teams like the Packers and Cardinals are not favorites to make win the Superbowl so long as teams like Seattle, Carolina, and the Broncos are also in they playoffs.

To me the more pressing question is can this Vikings unit be an elite defense? I think if you remove our three poor performances from last season (SF, GB @ Home, SEA @ Home) and this team is very close. Then it comes down to the other hot topic (as it should be) which is whether or not the offense can have enough juice to get us over the top.

Yea, to say GB or Pitt is to imply offensively driven teams are the favorites, except for, you know, when GB and Pitt met in the SB with top 3 Ds on both sides.

Comon bruh, do you not realize the Cards at the 7th best D in the league and probably the best secondary? Do you not realize the Packers averaged barely a point more then you 'Vaunted Vikes D' did? Do you really plan on just handwaving it away because it doesn't fot your terribly ill conceived narrative?

Yea, wouldn't all pur teams be awesome if you remove the bad performances?

If the Vikings having enough juice on O to get you over the top is a possibility, how could you possibily think otherwise about the Packers D and Cards D?

[Mothman]

If you are picking a GB/PIT superbowl you are implying that offensively driven teams are the favorites. If you are defending that proposition, as some here are, then you are implying that this is the preferred or most likely model for superbowl victory.

I wasn't trying to imply that at all so I'm sorry you came away with that impression. I think the most likely model for a Super Bowl victory is simply to have a really good team. In other words, I don't believe that either an offense-driven team or a defense-driven team is more likely to win than the other. I tried to make that clear in my previous post. I think all that matters is that a team is good enough as a whole to reach and win the game.

I defended the idea that some people would consider Green Bay and Pittsburgh favorites to win the Super Bowl because they are reasonable, legitimate picks. The two teams met in the Super Bowl just 6 years ago. They both have Super Bowl-winning coaches and quarterbacks. Green Bay was an overtime loss away from appearing in the Super Bowl after the 2014 season. Both teams were playoff teams last year and both teams advanced past the first round. Clearly, they are capable of contending at a pretty high level. They wouldn't be MY top picks to win the next Super Bowl but as I said from the outset, I was playing the devil's advocate role.

To me the more pressing question is can this Vikings unit be an elite defense? I think if you remove our three poor performances from last season (SF, GB @ Home, SEA @ Home) and this team is very close.

Unfortunately, we can't just remove them. They happened... and two of them were against playoff teams.

If the defense can improve against the run, they have a chance to become elite but they clearly aren't elite yet. I think the step from where they are now to elite is difficult to take.

[mansquatch]

Yea, to say GB or Pitt is to imply offensively driven teams are the favorites, except for, you know, when GB and Pitt met in the SB with top 3 Ds on both sides.

Comon bruh, do you not realize the Cards at the 7th best D in the league and probably the best secondary? Do you not realize the Packers averaged barely a point more then you 'Vaunted Vikes D' did? Do you really plan on just handwaving it away because it doesn't fot your terribly ill conceived narrative?

Yea, wouldn't all pur teams be awesome if you remove the bad performances?

If the Vikings having enough juice on O to get you over the top is a possibility, how could you possibily think otherwise about the Packers D and Cards D?

The 7th rated Cards are another example that proves the same point. They lack a truly dominant pass rusher and have to rely on blitzes to produce effective QB pressure. Their secondary is excellent. However, could their great ranking have ANYTHING to do with their offensive production making opposing teams one dimensional? Is it a stretch to conclude that scoring lots of points makes it easier to play defense with less talent just the same as having a lot of defensive talent makes it easier to be less explosive on offense? At any rate, I believe the Cardinal defense's performance in Charlottte when all the chips were down speaks volumes to their efficacy at the top of the pack where it really mattered. They get destroyed by a team with a relatively modest passing attack, vaunted secondary and all.

The basis of your argument is that because teams are statistically similar they are somehow the same. This would not be that dissimilar from me making a case that Tom Brady plays QB the same way Aaron Rogers does because statistically they are close. Does anyone believe this to be true after watching both of them play? When you watch Denver or Seattle play defense and then your much beloved Packers do you really feel that GB (or even AZ) are even close to their level of play despite being somewhat nearby statistically? If you do, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Norv Zimmer]

Yea, can't take that next step against elite Defenses, except for, you know, when they won the SB.

I don't think to negatively about the ARI playoff game, our D held there top ranked O quite decently and our 5th and 6th WRs were thrust into starting roles and absolutely took the Cards top ranked secondary (A D that is 'just good enough' in your words) to the woodshed.

To answer your question about the Defense, Yes that is the hope, the D was ranked higher then the Vikes D for much of last year, and only fell from top 7 to 12th after we played ARI without our top two corners. Our 'good enough' D? it was ranked slightly over a point less then the Vikes in terms of average ppg.

Our O line? Sitton was a year away from being gone anyway, our O line when healthy is was amongst the best in the league with Sitton, I doubt his absence will knock them out, besides, its not like we don't have multiple options in regards to guard, we already know Tretter can play Guard fantastically but we also were readying Lane Taylor for a starting position for some time now.

Lacy was solid even in is worst year last year, he looks and is in far better shape so a return to his rookie form would certainly be encouraging, why wouldn't it be?

McCarthy was also the playcaller in 2010, what is your point?

To pretty much sum it all up, the 2014 Packers were the best Packers team in the Rodgers era, and they would have easily cruised to a SB win had Rodgers not sustained a crippling injury he had to play through, I think this O can be easily just as good (Jordy comes back, but we also have Jared Cook now) as the 2014 teams O, but the D has the wherewithall to be way, way better then that, I think our secondary is the best, most talented in the league, and it is going to catapult the Packers D to top 5. (Where they straddled most of last year)

But most of all, we have Aaron Rodgers, and when you put Aaron Rodgers on a team with even an average D, they are going to rightfully be Division, and SB favorites.

The last paragraph makes no sense to me. Green Bay had Rodgers last year and didn't win the division or the SB.

Imo rodgers is on the decline and this year will show it.

[IrishViking]

Imo rodgers is on the decline and this year will show it.

Shots fired. Shots fired. All hands brace for Jordyghost impact. Repeat all hands brace for impact!

[Norv Zimmer]

I think the Jaguars defense is going to be good this season and they will show it Sunday. In week 2 I think the Vikings defense will sack Rodgers at least 4 times possibly 7. He is gonna get beat up and I am going to love it!

[Texas Vike]

I think the Jaguars defense is going to be good this season and they will show it Sunday. In week 2 I think the Vikings defense will sack Rodgers at least 4 times possibly 7. He is gonna get beat up and I am going to love it!

Linval HUNGRY!

[IrishViking]

I see Hunter and Barr having big years in the sack department.

[Jordysghost]

The 7th rated Cards are another example that proves the same point. They lack a truly dominant pass rusher and have to rely on blitzes to produce effective QB pressure. Their secondary is excellent. However, could their great ranking have ANYTHING to do with their offensive production making opposing teams one dimensional? Is it a stretch to conclude that scoring lots of points makes it easier to play defense with less talent just the same as having a lot of defensive talent makes it easier to be less explosive on offense? At any rate, I believe the Cardinal defense's performance in Charlottte when all the chips were down speaks volumes to their efficacy at the top of the pack where it really mattered. They get destroyed by a team with a relatively modest passing attack, vaunted secondary and all.

The basis of your argument is that because teams are statistically similar they are somehow the same. This would not be that dissimilar from me making a case that Tom Brady plays QB the same way Aaron Rogers does because statistically they are close. Does anyone believe this to be true after watching both of them play? When you watch Denver or Seattle play defense and then your much beloved Packers do you really feel that GB (or even AZ) are even close to their level of play despite being somewhat nearby statistically? If you do, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

You comparison with Rodgers and Brady really isn't apt, furthermore, Rodgers stats are a fair amount better then Bradys.

I saw the Packers D carry their terribly dissapointing O all the way to the playoffs, so while I don't feel they are on par with Den or Seattle Defensively quite yet, they are younger then both of them and I think they can ascend to that level, the Vikes D is on similar footing with the Packers in that regard, they certainly aren't Den or Seattle ye Defensivley either.

[Jordysghost]

The last paragraph makes no sense to me. Green Bay had Rodgers last year and didn't win the division or the SB.

Imo rodgers is on the decline and this year will show it.

But they have won a SB with Rodgers and more often then not win the division with him as well, therefore they should be favorite, they Packers had a collosall Offensive down year that I find very unlikely to occur again.

Bwaha yea, I won't even comment on Rodgers 'declining', but I think he'll compete for MVP this year rather easily.