Good write up on Vikes

[S197]

My guess is they'll keep 6 due to the lack of experience after Diggs/Thielen.

DL will be interesting, especially if Hercules lives up to the hype. I know he restructured and Zim loves him, but I don't think Everson is guaranteed a roster spot. They still save a ton if they cut him. Hercules and Holmes are both hybrid guys that can provide depth at multiple positions.

I still think most likely scenario is Hercules to the PS but we should know more once camp starts in a week.

[fiestavike]

If the Vikings cut Treadwell this year, does his dead cap number have any effect in 2020 or will it all be eaten up this year?

[VikingsVictorious]

If the Vikings cut Treadwell this year, does his dead cap number have any effect in 2020 or will it all be eaten up this year?

This is his final year on the Vikings and his last year under contract. No impact in the future. 50/50 at best that he makes the team.

[fiestavike]

If the Vikings cut Treadwell this year, does his dead cap number have any effect in 2020 or will it all be eaten up this year?

This is his final year on the Vikings and his last year under contract. No impact in the future. 50/50 at best that he makes the team.

I'd give him less than 50/50 odds. 10 percent chance he makes the roster.

[ERIK the PURPLE]

I’ve been saying this for months: It’s a bounce back year and the Vikes will win the Division with 10/11 wins. As a long time fan (since 1971), I’ve saw last year before. It was 1972. This year it will be like 1973. Success!! Bet the over +9.

[StumpHunter]

I’ve been saying this for months: It’s a bounce back year and the Vikes will win the Division with 10/11 wins. As a long time fan (since 1971), I’ve saw last year before. It was 1972. This year it will be like 1973. Success!! Bet the over +9.

In 1972, the Vikings upgraded at QB and the offense got significantly better. It was the defense that sucked that year.

[CharVike]

They are a solid team and are more than capable of winning 10 games and making the playoffs. Coaching changes should make the offense at least a little better, and Griffen being 100% and not being a distraction should make the D better.

I am curious as to how people feel this roster compares to other good teams around the league though. If there are still 8 teams ahead of us, lets say, did we get good enough to compete for a Super Bowl? I personally am tired of playoff runs that end before the SB, and want more from my team.

Our team is good. Plus I think we have a good roster. We are solid across the board. The OL is a concern but I think we have a chance to be at least an average OL overall. I would like to see more TOs from our D. IMO that is a very important stat. We are middle of the pack and that don't cut it for a Super Bowl. Plus will both Griff and Rhodes get back to what they were. If not who will fill the bill. Also Joesph isn't a kid and he slowed down late in the year. Teams ran the ball on us. That's not a good sign. If we stay healthy we will compete.

[VikingLord]

I’ve been saying this for months: It’s a bounce back year and the Vikes will win the Division with 10/11 wins. As a long time fan (since 1971), I’ve saw last year before. It was 1972. This year it will be like 1973. Success!! Bet the over +9.

In 1972, the Vikings upgraded at QB and the offense got significantly better. It was the defense that sucked that year.

Here are the comparative stats from the 1971, 1972 and 1973 Vikings:

1971 - Offense (23rd), Defense (2nd), Regular season record 11-3
1972 - Offense (12th), Defense (5th), Regular season record 7-7
1973 - Offense (7th), Defense (12th), Regular season record 12-2

And the Vikings from 2017 and 2018:

2017 - Offense (11th), Defense (1st), Regular season record 13-3
2018 - Offense (20th), Defense (4th), Regular season record 8-7
2019 - ?

First, its hard to argue that the defense "sucked" in 1972. Certainly, the offense did improve, going from 23rd the year before to 12th under Tarkenton, and the effectiveness of the passing game improved. But the statistical decline of the defense was marginal, and certainly not enough to explain the change in regular season record by itself. I think it is very reasonable to argue that the 1972 team was better than its final record and that it was reasonable to expect the 1973 team to bounce back sharply from that result, which is exactly what happened.

Second, as to the current era Vikings, the claim you made that the offense improved with the arrival of Tarkenton in 1972 doesn't mesh with the decline observed in 2018 with the arrival of Cousins. But like in 1972, I don't think this result explains the final record, nor does it substantially undermine the claim that the 2019 Vikings are primed to bounce back sharply from their 2018 result. The 2018 result, like the 1972 result, came down to a lot of close games, bad bounces, and semi-unique events that are unlikely to repeat.

In some ways I think there is more reason to be optimistic about the 2019 Vikings than there was about the 1973 Vikings. The '73 team's defense did actually take a significant step back, which was mollified by the continued improvement of the offense. While the 2019 Vikings defense could do the same, I don't see it happening to the same degree, but I think given the 20th rank finish of the offense in 2018, there is a relatively large potential for the offensive unit to significantly improve. I could easily see this group of players, barring injury or something dramatic at key positions, finishing in the top 10 in the NFL. The 2019 Vikings offense doesn't have any question marks at any skill position IMHO. They are set at QB, RB, TE, and WR, and not only set, but at most of those positions they have depth as well. The single big question mark for the 2019 offense is at OL, and there is reason to be optimistic that unit can be at least average overall, if not slightly above.

The notion that Kirk Cousins was going to ride in and make the team a Superbowl contender was not accurate, but neither is the notion that he is a liability that will ultimately cost them a shot at that. Provided he gets adequate play out of the OL, with his experience and the talent the Vikes possess at the skill positions, he could take them deep into the playoffs in 2019.

So I think the notion that the 2019 Vikes share similarities with the 1973 Vikes is not far-fetched or invalid.

[mansquatch]

It is very early, we do not yet know how teams are going to turn out in terms of new player contribution and injuries.

The Vikings, perhaps more than any team in the NFC, have the potential to field a near complete roster. IMO these are the big questions, in no particular order:

1.) Can the ST game remain solid, especially the coverage and return game? How does the coaching change effect this?
2.) What is the upside of the OL given the changes to personnel and the coaching staff? How fast does this come together? (One of the biggest and most obvious questions)
3.) How well will Stefanski / Kubiak work together? what does this mean for the rushing attack?
4.) What is Cousin's topside in a more balanced system? (I think it is higher than most are willing to consider.)
5.) Can the Defense play consistently down the stretch?
6.) Injuries?

For most teams the offense lags the defense early. I think this will be especially true of the Vikings given the coaching changes. the good news is this year everyone will have been in position since last February, so they've had as much time as possible to transition. Still, it is reasonable to expect it to take a few weeks into the regular season for the team to reach it's peak sharpness. (This is true for all teams.) Given the challenge the first half of the schedule, they need to avoid laying an egg early. I think this coaching staff is aware of this issue, so that shouldn't happen.


My off season advice: You can basically disregard the media until the middle of October. They will report based on hype and past performance. Teams do not really gel until week 6 or 7. At that point we'll know what we have. If they stay healthy and the coaching staff delivers it should be a fun season.

[StumpHunter]

In 1972, the Vikings upgraded at QB and the offense got significantly better. It was the defense that sucked that year.

Here are the comparative stats from the 1971, 1972 and 1973 Vikings:

1971 - Offense (23rd), Defense (2nd), Regular season record 11-3
1972 - Offense (12th), Defense (5th), Regular season record 7-7
1973 - Offense (7th), Defense (12th), Regular season record 12-2

And the Vikings from 2017 and 2018:

2017 - Offense (11th), Defense (1st), Regular season record 13-3
2018 - Offense (20th), Defense (4th), Regular season record 8-7
2019 - ?

First, its hard to argue that the defense "sucked" in 1972. Certainly, the offense did improve, going from 23rd the year before to 12th under Tarkenton, and the effectiveness of the passing game improved. But the statistical decline of the defense was marginal, and certainly not enough to explain the change in regular season record by itself. I think it is very reasonable to argue that the 1972 team was better than its final record and that it was reasonable to expect the 1973 team to bounce back sharply from that result, which is exactly what happened.

Second, as to the current era Vikings, the claim you made that the offense improved with the arrival of Tarkenton in 1972 doesn't mesh with the decline observed in 2018 with the arrival of Cousins. But like in 1972, I don't think this result explains the final record, nor does it substantially undermine the claim that the 2019 Vikings are primed to bounce back sharply from their 2018 result. The 2018 result, like the 1972 result, came down to a lot of close games, bad bounces, and semi-unique events that are unlikely to repeat.

In some ways I think there is more reason to be optimistic about the 2019 Vikings than there was about the 1973 Vikings. The '73 team's defense did actually take a significant step back, which was mollified by the continued improvement of the offense. While the 2019 Vikings defense could do the same, I don't see it happening to the same degree, but I think given the 20th rank finish of the offense in 2018, there is a relatively large potential for the offensive unit to significantly improve. I could easily see this group of players, barring injury or something dramatic at key positions, finishing in the top 10 in the NFL. The 2019 Vikings offense doesn't have any question marks at any skill position IMHO. They are set at QB, RB, TE, and WR, and not only set, but at most of those positions they have depth as well. The single big question mark for the 2019 offense is at OL, and there is reason to be optimistic that unit can be at least average overall, if not slightly above.

The notion that Kirk Cousins was going to ride in and make the team a Superbowl contender was not accurate, but neither is the notion that he is a liability that will ultimately cost them a shot at that. Provided he gets adequate play out of the OL, with his experience and the talent the Vikes possess at the skill positions, he could take them deep into the playoffs in 2019.

So I think the notion that the 2019 Vikes share similarities with the 1973 Vikes is not far-fetched or invalid.

The defense went from #1 in points given up to 11th to #2. Using yards to measure a defenses' effectiveness in helping a team win has always been, imo, a waste of time. Sucked might have been a strong word, but at least compared to the previous year and the next, they did indeed suck.

I know Cousins wasn't going to ride in and make this team a SB contender, they already were one before he got here. He did actually get adequate play from his Oline despite what PFF says, top half in sack % 16th in time to throw. Not adequate in run blocking for sure, but they were not as horrible at pass blocking as PFF's pressure numbers indicate. A more mobile QB or a QB who gets rid of the ball quickly probably has a lot of success throwing to the best WR tandem in football with the #3 scoring defense..

What he needs on Oline isn't adequate pass blocking, it is what Goff had last year. Did we do enough to get him that?

[VikingLord]

So I think the notion that the 2019 Vikes share similarities with the 1973 Vikes is not far-fetched or invalid.

The defense went from #1 in points given up to 11th to #2. Using yards to measure a defenses' effectiveness in helping a team win has always been, imo, a waste of time. Sucked might have been a strong word, but at least compared to the previous year and the next, they did indeed suck.

I know Cousins wasn't going to ride in and make this team a SB contender, they already were one before he got here. He did actually get adequate play from his Oline despite what PFF says, top half in sack % 16th in time to throw. Not adequate in run blocking for sure, but they were not as horrible at pass blocking as PFF's pressure numbers indicate. A more mobile QB or a QB who gets rid of the ball quickly probably has a lot of success throwing to the best WR tandem in football with the #3 scoring defense..

What he needs on Oline isn't adequate pass blocking, it is what Goff had last year. Did we do enough to get him that?

The point I'm trying to make is that there are parallels between the 1972 Vikings and the 2018 Vikings in terms of under-performance in terms of record versus team fundamentals, and thus reason to believe a strong bounce back is more than likely for the 2019 version of the team.

Not sure I agree on the points given up reflecting solely on the defense. Offenses turn the ball over on short fields or outright surrender points on those turnovers as happened to the 2018 Vikings way too often. Special teams can cost points as well, as can fluke plays. Overall yards given up is still a good indicator of the overall consistency and competence of a defense IMHO, and in some ways can correct for the fluky stuff that results in points against but not against the competence of the defense overall. But even granting your point, the 1972 defense still didn't suck, at least not enough to explain the middling record that season.

As for the offensive line, I can't say anything with certainty, but the stats you posted suggest if it improves even marginally over 2018, there is cause to be optimistic the 2019 Vikings offense can be very successful.

One last comment about the QB and his abilities/tendencies. That is something you can lay at the feet of the QB, or you can lay at the feet of the coaches and/or game plan. It's about 50-50 in my view. If the coaches understand the players they have, they ideally design a game plan that maximizes the strengths and minimizes the weakness of the players they have, adjusting for the particulars of the defense they are facing. If Kirk Cousins isn't mobile or holds the ball a bit longer than average, give him a game plan that minimizes his exposure in both areas.

Put another way, Tom Brady isn't particularly mobile, but that doesn't seem to hold the Patriots back on offense. They're able to have success by making Brady's mobility a non-factor for the most part. Some of that comes down to Brady, but a lot of it comes down to effective game planning and play calling. I see no reason why the Vikings can't do something similar with Cousins provided Cousins and the offensive players put in the work needed to efficiently execute those plans.