Vikings Playoff Scenarios

[Pondering Her Percy]

http://www.startribune.com/vikings-scen ... 565976811/

This article breaks everything down. One thing going for us, neither the Rams or Bears have an "easy" schedule left. I wouldnt say ours is easy either but I'd take ours over the others.

The Bears remaining games: @ Packers, vs. Chiefs, @ Vikings

The Rams remaining games: @ Dallas, @ SF, vs. Arizona

We win out, we're in. We go 2-1, still got a shot as long as the Rams drop one. Going to get interesting!

[mansquatch]

I hate to say it, but it is all about GB losing this Sunday and us winning. Then it sets up the showdown for all the Marbles on MNF. How awesome would that be? (Then agian, that broadcast crew is TERRIBLE... UGH) We'd still need to beat the Bears I think to clinch.

I think the #2 seed is not out of the question. Saints, 49ers, and Seahawks all have much tougher schedules down the stretch than we do. It is likely that they'll lose some in those tough matchups.

I can't recall a December in the NFL being more interesting than this one. I'd love it if we win out and end #2 throwing egg in the face in a lot of sports media know-it-alls.

[VikingLord]

I can't recall a December in the NFL being more interesting than this one. I'd love it if we win out and end #2 throwing egg in the face in a lot of sports media know-it-alls.

That would be beyond shocking, not only if the Vikings end up at 12-4, but if they get the #2 seed and a first round bye.

Equally shocking, but also possible, is the Vikings finish at 9-7 and out of the playoffs.

It's hard to be at this point in the season and those widely disparate results still both be possible, but when I look at the Vikings as they stand right now I see a team that could win the Superbowl and a team that could have January off. Where is this team going to go? Are they going to rise to the challenge and their potential, or disappoint again? Most likely they'll end up somewhere in the middle, making the playoffs but not with a lot of fanfare.

As far as the overall field goes, at least in the NFC I agree with you on how wide open it is near the top. Usually one or two teams emerge with a clear path to the Superbowl, but things are tight late in the season and it's kind of fun to watch how it will all play out.

One thing that continues to puzzle me is how the Packers have 10 wins. I just don't get it as statistically they are average to below average, yet somehow they keep winning games. And they have a pretty favorable schedule to finish out the season, too. Hopefully the Bears do the Vikings a favor this weekend and the Vikings capitalize on it this time.

[StumpHunter]

I am pretty sure the Bears don't win another game barring another complete Viking meltdown in week 17. The Rams will lose to SF.

11 gets us in, but probably means we would have lost to every winning team we have played. A real SB contender would win the next 3 games. A one and done WC team would lose 1 or 2.

[VikingPaul73]

I am pretty sure the Bears don't win another game barring another complete Viking meltdown in week 17. The Rams will lose to SF.

11 gets us in, but probably means we would have lost to every winning team we have played. A real SB contender would win the next 3 games. A one and done WC team would lose 1 or 2.

Ironically, of our remaining 3 games, I think our best chance at a W is against the 10-3 Packers, and not the 5-8 Chargers or 7-6 Bears. I just can't see the Vikings traveling to the West coast and winning against a decent team outdoors on grass.. I know they are only 5-8 but they could easily be 8-5 and they have a good D. I think the Chargers win comfortably, 7+. The Bears' D has absolutely owned us the last couple of years, and I don't see anything changing this time especially since the Bears O has been playing better lately. Packers game is a coin flip.

Rams will beat the Cowboys, lose to SF, and beat AZ to end 10-6.
Vikes will either be 10-6 or 9-7. Either way we lose to the Rams based on tie-breaker. And to be honest, I think the Rams are a better team with a better chance to go on a deep playoff run.

[J. Kapp 11]

I can't recall a December in the NFL being more interesting than this one. I'd love it if we win out and end #2 throwing egg in the face in a lot of sports media know-it-alls.

That would be beyond shocking, not only if the Vikings end up at 12-4, but if they get the #2 seed and a first round bye.

Equally shocking, but also possible, is the Vikings finish at 9-7 and out of the playoffs.

It's hard to be at this point in the season and those widely disparate results still both be possible, but when I look at the Vikings as they stand right now I see a team that could win the Superbowl and a team that could have January off. Where is this team going to go? Are they going to rise to the challenge and their potential, or disappoint again? Most likely they'll end up somewhere in the middle, making the playoffs but not with a lot of fanfare.

As far as the overall field goes, at least in the NFC I agree with you on how wide open it is near the top. Usually one or two teams emerge with a clear path to the Superbowl, but things are tight late in the season and it's kind of fun to watch how it will all play out.

One thing that continues to puzzle me is how the Packers have 10 wins. I just don't get it as statistically they are average to below average, yet somehow they keep winning games. And they have a pretty favorable schedule to finish out the season, too. Hopefully the Bears do the Vikings a favor this weekend and the Vikings capitalize on it this time.

Here's an amazing stat I heard on NFL Radio last week.

When an NFL team outgains its opponent, that team wins 70% of the time.

Green Bay has been outgained by an average of 37 yards per game. Yet they're 10-3.

On the other hand, Dallas outgains its opponents by an average of 112 yards per game. They're 6-7.

Just plain wild. Makes no sense at all.

[Pondering Her Percy]

I am pretty sure the Bears don't win another game barring another complete Viking meltdown in week 17. The Rams will lose to SF.

11 gets us in, but probably means we would have lost to every winning team we have played. A real SB contender would win the next 3 games. A one and done WC team would lose 1 or 2.

Ironically, of our remaining 3 games, I think our best chance at a W is against the 10-3 Packers, and not the 5-8 Chargers or 7-6 Bears. I just can't see the Vikings traveling to the West coast and winning against a decent team outdoors on grass.. I know they are only 5-8 but they could easily be 8-5 and they have a good D. I think the Chargers win comfortably, 7+. The Bears' D has absolutely owned us the last couple of years, and I don't see anything changing this time especially since the Bears O has been playing better lately. Packers game is a coin flip.

Rams will beat the Cowboys, lose to SF, and beat AZ to end 10-6.
Vikes will either be 10-6 or 9-7. Either way we lose to the Rams based on tie-breaker. And to be honest, I think the Rams are a better team with a better chance to go on a deep playoff run.

Quite positive I see. The bears could very well be laying down come week 17. As for the chargers, they are a very underrated 5-8 team. But the thing with them is if we can get after rivers, he’s toast. Talk about someone that crumbles under pressure it’s him. He tends to start turning the ball over. I think the packers are a joke of a 10-3 team. I can see us going 3-0 or at worst 2-1. BUT this defense needs to step up in these games. And we really need Thielen back. Hopefully this week.

[J. Kapp 11]

I am pretty sure the Bears don't win another game barring another complete Viking meltdown in week 17. The Rams will lose to SF.

11 gets us in, but probably means we would have lost to every winning team we have played. A real SB contender would win the next 3 games. A one and done WC team would lose 1 or 2.

That's simply not true.

Dallas was 6-4 when we beat them. Philly was 3-2. Part of the reason both teams have losing records at this time is because the Vikings beat them.

If Chicago wins one more game game, they'll be a winning team at the time we play them. Green Bay will be a winning team when we beat them.

[StumpHunter]

I am pretty sure the Bears don't win another game barring another complete Viking meltdown in week 17. The Rams will lose to SF.

11 gets us in, but probably means we would have lost to every winning team we have played. A real SB contender would win the next 3 games. A one and done WC team would lose 1 or 2.

That's simply not true.

Dallas was 6-4 when we beat them. Philly was 3-2. Part of the reason both teams have losing records at this time is because the Vikings beat them.

If Chicago wins one more game game, they'll be a winning team at the time we play them. Green Bay will be a winning team when we beat them.

Yes, with a much smaller and less accurate sample size Dallas and Philly were winning teams. Turns out neither was a very good team. That was as true when we played them as it is now.

If we do beat GB, that will be a win against a winning team, but like I said, if we are 11-5 at the end of the season, we will most likely not have beaten GB.

[TSonn]

That's simply not true.

Dallas was 6-4 when we beat them. Philly was 3-2. Part of the reason both teams have losing records at this time is because the Vikings beat them.

If Chicago wins one more game game, they'll be a winning team at the time we play them. Green Bay will be a winning team when we beat them.

Yes, with a much smaller and less accurate sample size Dallas and Philly were winning teams. Turns out neither was a very good team. That was as true when we played them as it is now.

That's just a bizarre take. I understand sample size is important in terms of data and science in general, but sports is a bit different. Look at it this way - the Lions looked like a really solid team at the beginning of the year but absolutely fell apart after the bogus penalties that caused them to lose the game at GB. If the refs don't throw those flags, Detroit probably doesn't trade Diggs and doesn't sit Stafford. Sure, their record says they are a bad team now and it will at the end of the year, but in this case the larger sample size is wrong. They caught some terrible luck and then used that to go with a tanking strategy.

[StumpHunter]

Yes, with a much smaller and less accurate sample size Dallas and Philly were winning teams. Turns out neither was a very good team. That was as true when we played them as it is now.

That's just a bizarre take. I understand sample size is important in terms of data and science in general, but sports is a bit different. Look at it this way - the Lions looked like a really solid team at the beginning of the year but absolutely fell apart after the bogus penalties that caused them to lose the game at GB. If the refs don't throw those flags, Detroit probably doesn't trade Diggs and doesn't sit Stafford. Sure, their record says they are a bad team now and it will at the end of the year, but in this case the larger sample size is wrong. They caught some terrible luck and then used that to go with a tanking strategy.

The Lions lost their QB, but were never a going to be anything better than a 7 win team even with Stafford.

I am willing to listen to the injuries that have occurred to the Eagles and Dallas since we played them that have made them into the below average teams they are now, but apparently weren't then.

[VikingLord]

Here's an amazing stat I heard on NFL Radio last week.

When an NFL team outgains its opponent, that team wins 70% of the time.

Green Bay has been outgained by an average of 37 yards per game. Yet they're 10-3.

On the other hand, Dallas outgains its opponents by an average of 112 yards per game. They're 6-7.

Just plain wild. Makes no sense at all.

The way I see it, the Packers are getting most of the breaks to go their way so far this year.

Take their first win at Chicago. All game long, the Bears pretty much stifled the Packer offense, and then on one drive Rodgers completes two big passes that IIRC were basically 50-50 balls, including one for a TD. Other than that, the Packers did nothing. The Bears also did nothing, but didn't get that "magic carpet drive" for a score.

Or take the Packer win against Minnesota. The Vikings score a TD that is called back after a posthumous penalty for offensive PI is called by someone in New York. The Vikings settle for 3 points instead of 6, and that ends up making a huge difference in the final result.

And that has been going on all year for the Packers. Be it key plays that break their way, or key penalties called (or not called), they're getting the bulk of the breaks and those breaks are resulting in wins instead of losses.

For Dallas, I don't follow that team enough to know how they are losing most of their games, but I'd guess a similar story is playing out for them in reverse - the bulk of the breaks are going against them.

Another team that would appear to be the benefit of more bad breaks than good ones is the Chargers. Their stats suggest they should be at least 8-5 instead of 5-8 heading into this Sunday. In their case, they have a QB who has been throwing a lot of picks and not handling pressure situations very well, so they might very well deserve their record despite the stats, but with that said, if "good" Rivers shows up the Vikings could be in some trouble, while if "bad" Rivers shows up, they'll have an easier time of it.

The thing that worries me the most about this upcoming game is that Rivers is the kind of vet QB and the Chargers have the kind of receiving options that can make mincemeat out of even a solid pass defending team, and the Vikings of 2019 have not been a great pass defending team. They looked better against the Lions, and certainly have the talent and potential to rapidly turn things around, but the track record so far is not good. Hopefully they don't sit back and let Rivers scan the field, because if they do I think he will hurt them repeatedly. They need to pressure him and force mistakes, and then even more importantly, take advantage of those mistakes.

[VikingLord]

The Lions lost their QB, but were never a going to be anything better than a 7 win team even with Stafford.

I am willing to listen to the injuries that have occurred to the Eagles and Dallas since we played them that have made them into the below average teams they are now, but apparently weren't then.

What defines a "below average team"?

Wins and losses obviously matter, but probably don't tell the whole story, especially with a team like Dallas IMHO.

I agree the Vikings haven't established they are going to beat the better teams this season, but I think they have established they can compete with them, and if they stop handing said teams short fields with turnovers and poor execution, I think they are more than capable of winning against those teams.

The only loss I felt the Vikings were outclassed from start to finish was against the Bears.

[ERIK the PURPLE]

Charger game definitely depends on getting pressure on Rivers. Do that and he looks like Unitas in a Charger uniform at the end of his career. Sit back in a zone and we’ll never get off the field.

Funny thing: When I was a boy and we always had the division wrapped up by Thanksgiving, I used to think someday it’ll be more interesting when we have must win games at the end of the season. Now, I long for those bygone days when we had it wrapped up.

[Tark]

Face it, this team is not a Super Bowl contender with its defense. It can't be trusted. Even if we make the POs we will go one and done or two and barbecue at best. I'd be happy with a blowout win over the Slackers at this point. I'm a fan watching since 1972, trust me.