Vikings Playoff Scenarios

[J. Kapp 11]

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.

So what you're saying, I gather, is that the decision as to whether a winning team is really a winning team is ... your opinion?

Let me ask you this. In 2016, the Vikings went into Philly undefeated at 5-0, but lost to the Eagles. Since the Vikings ended up falling to 8-8, are you telling me that Philly's win over us wasn't against a winning team? We were five-and-freaking-oh.

As for the "much smaller sample size," what's the cutoff? Dallas had 10 games under its belt. That's not enough of a sample size? I could see your point if we were talking about our season-opening win against Atlanta and saying that the Falcons were a playoff team, so we beat a team with a winning record. That was the previous season, and a sample size of one game, which would be bogus. But 10 games? And what if Dallas or Philly turn it around and finish with a winning record? Will you change your mind again?

We're all really smart when we have the benefit of hindsight.

[VikingLord]

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.

I don't know. I've been a fan of this team for a while too and I remember the years when they were Superbowl contenders, the years they had Superbowl talent but didn't play up to that talent level, the years they were good and played above their talent level, and, of course, the years they weren't good.

I'd put the 2019 Vikings in the 2nd category - Superbowl talent that hasn't played up to that level. So while I agree with what you're saying (except I'd extend that to the entire team and not just the defense), the potential is there for this team to get hot.

The closest Vikings team the 2019 squad compares to for me is probably the 1987 team. That team's final record was affected by the strike and the replacement players, but even the regular players under-performed that year and they barely squeaked into the playoffs (IIRC, they actually backed in when another team lost). They ended up as the #6 seed and had to go on the road to face the two best teams in the NFC in back-to-back weeks, and somehow managed to dismantle both. They went from a team everyone thought would rapidly exit the playoffs to being favored on the road against the Redskins. Of course, once they felt the pressure of expectation, they wilted, but that team clearly had all the talent necessary to get to the Superbowl.

For me, this year's team is a lot like that year's team. Of course, if this year's team ends up winning out in dominant fashion, I'll end up comparing them more to the 2009 Vikings (which they also resemble). The good news is, both of those teams had Superbowl-level talent. This one does too. Hopefully they find a way to put it together when it counts.

[mansquatch]

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.

I disagree. Their defense isn't terrible. They also have a solid RB and #1 WR. Losing Stafford and their RB really hurt them. I wouldn't be surprised if they feast on a last place schedule next year and have a winning record assuming they can avoid the injury bug.

[mansquatch]

IMO GB is a product of their schedule and at last count 12 questionable calls that went their way. (One of which gave them their win vs. DET.)

GB has benefited from more favorable calls than any other team this season. Of three playoff teams they have played this season their schedule was quite favorable for two of them. They got us week 2 at home while we were still working to install our offense. They got KC the first week of having Matt Moore as their starting QB. Both of those games were wins. If they happen at different times on the schedule they are probably losses. When they went to SF they got completely handled.

GB, until it proves otherwise, is the biggest poser of all the NFC playoff teams. If they beat us on 12/23 then we are the biggest poser.

Please note that with a losing record, I do not consider Dallas a poser. Even the media acknowledges they are a mess and that they are benefiting from the rules for NFL playoff seeding.

[StumpHunter]

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.

I disagree. Their defense isn't terrible. They also have a solid RB and #1 WR. Losing Stafford and their RB really hurt them. I wouldn't be surprised if they feast on a last place schedule next year and have a winning record assuming they can avoid the injury bug.

By what measure is their defense not terrible? 29th in sack percentage so they don't get after the QB, 30th in yards given up through the air, 23rd in rushing yards given up, and 23rd most points given up per game. They can't stop the run, they can't stop the pass, and they can't sack the QB. In every facet of the game their defense is bad.

[Dames]

I really don't understand why everyone is so down on this team. You know a good indicator of a good team? Point differential. Guess where the Vikings rank? 4th in the NFL!

Here are the teams in front of them:
Ravens
Patriots
49ers

You know what those teams have in common? They're all really good. Guess what? So are the Vikings.

We've lost 4 games. 2 early in the year, and we are a much better team now. The last 2 games we lost were against really good teams, on the road, in very difficult places to win. And we had a great chance to win both of those. There's no shame in those losses.

I understand we have some flaws, but some of you guys act like we don't have a good enough team to make some noise. There is zero logic in that thinking based on the way this team has played this year. This team does not lay down for anyone, and why would they start now?

I, for one, am fairly optimistic about team, and have been really impressed with them. This is really one of the better teams we've seen in years. I know our defense has definitely slipped, but our offense is much better than most years, so there is some equalizing.

Of course, we could suddenly go to complete crap, but we have not even remotely showed signs of that since week 4... so if it comes, it should be a surprise. We need some breaks, but this team could very easily get hot in the playoffs and make a run. I really can't see them missing the playoffs completely either. We are better than all 3 teams we play to finish the season. None of those games are going to be easy, of course, but they are games we should win.

We'll see, I guess. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but I'm not going to be negative about it in the meantime.

[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.

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.

So what you're saying, I gather, is that the decision as to whether a winning team is really a winning team is ... your opinion?

Let me ask you this. In 2016, the Vikings went into Philly undefeated at 5-0, but lost to the Eagles. Since the Vikings ended up falling to 8-8, are you telling me that Philly's win over us wasn't against a winning team? We were five-and-freaking-oh.

As for the "much smaller sample size," what's the cutoff? Dallas had 10 games under its belt. That's not enough of a sample size? I could see your point if we were talking about our season-opening win against Atlanta and saying that the Falcons were a playoff team, so we beat a team with a winning record. That was the previous season, and a sample size of one game, which would be bogus. But 10 games? And what if Dallas or Philly turn it around and finish with a winning record? Will you change your mind again?

We're all really smart when we have the benefit of hindsight.

To answer your questions:

It is not my opinion, it is their record.

Philly's win against us was not against a winning team. It was against a .500 , deeply flawed team.

The cutoff for a large enough sample size is is 16 games. A 16 game season decides whether a team is a winning team or not.

If Dallas and Philly end up with winning records (which would require a tie when they play each other), the Vikings would have two wins against winning teams.

[VikingLord]

I understand we have some flaws, but some of you guys act like we don't have a good enough team to make some noise. There is zero logic in that thinking based on the way this team has played this year. This team does not lay down for anyone, and why would they start now?

I doubt they'll lose because they "lay down". They'll try to win every game as long as they last.

What has haunted them in all but the loss to the Bears isn't being out-classed per se, but in making too many key mistakes and/or being on the wrong end of some bad calls (or both).

The team has Superbowl level talent. I doubt anyone would deny that, and there are many statistics (including point differential) that suggest the Vikings are more than capable of making a deep playoff run.

But still, there is that nagging sense of dread with this team, that, if the chips are down, they'll blow it via a bad turnover, a defensive failure, a special teams gaffe, a bad penalty, or even a coaching miscue. Those bad breaks seem to go against them in the bigger games and against the better opponents they face.

That's why I just couldn't get too excited after the win over the Lions. That was an opponent they should beat and should dominate.

Now, if they go to LA and get a convincing win over the Chargers, that will be another story. Even though the Chargers have 5 wins and are out of the playoffs, that is a much better overall team, one that beat both the Bears and the Packers.

[Pondering Her Percy]

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.

So what you're saying, I gather, is that the decision as to whether a winning team is really a winning team is ... your opinion?

Let me ask you this. In 2016, the Vikings went into Philly undefeated at 5-0, but lost to the Eagles. Since the Vikings ended up falling to 8-8, are you telling me that Philly's win over us wasn't against a winning team? We were five-and-freaking-oh.

As for the "much smaller sample size," what's the cutoff? Dallas had 10 games under its belt. That's not enough of a sample size? I could see your point if we were talking about our season-opening win against Atlanta and saying that the Falcons were a playoff team, so we beat a team with a winning record. That was the previous season, and a sample size of one game, which would be bogus. But 10 games? And what if Dallas or Philly turn it around and finish with a winning record? Will you change your mind again?

We're all really smart when we have the benefit of hindsight.

Listen Kapp I’ve said the same thing to him a few weeks ago. It only seems to count when stump thinks it should. That’s why I don’t buy this “cousins vs winning teams” bull crap. When he beat both Dallas and philly it “counted” and now that neither have a winning record it doesn’t “count”. Bottom line is, they were both winning teams when we beat them. Does anyone hear people saying Rodgers lost to a “losing team” in the eagles 2 weeks prior to us beating them? No. Like Kapp is saying, part of the reason they were a winning team when we played them is because they beat the packers on the road no less. I don’t care what anyone says, if cousins is beating teams that have winning records at the time, he’s beating a winning team. If you look at it any different you’re just splitting hairs.

But again, both Dallas and Philly (sitting at 6-7) would be winning teams if we lost to them. And the cousins haters would be saying what? “See cousins cant beat a winning team”. But instead they are losing teams because we beat them and what are the haters saying? Well that doesn’t count because they are currently losing teams. It’s just laughable how desperate some fans really get in these situations

[J. Kapp 11]

So what you're saying, I gather, is that the decision as to whether a winning team is really a winning team is ... your opinion?

Let me ask you this. In 2016, the Vikings went into Philly undefeated at 5-0, but lost to the Eagles. Since the Vikings ended up falling to 8-8, are you telling me that Philly's win over us wasn't against a winning team? We were five-and-freaking-oh.

As for the "much smaller sample size," what's the cutoff? Dallas had 10 games under its belt. That's not enough of a sample size? I could see your point if we were talking about our season-opening win against Atlanta and saying that the Falcons were a playoff team, so we beat a team with a winning record. That was the previous season, and a sample size of one game, which would be bogus. But 10 games? And what if Dallas or Philly turn it around and finish with a winning record? Will you change your mind again?

We're all really smart when we have the benefit of hindsight.

To answer your questions:

It is not my opinion, it is their record.

Philly's win against us was not against a winning team. It was against a .500 , deeply flawed team.

The cutoff for a large enough sample size is is 16 games. A 16 game season decides whether a team is a winning team or not.

If Dallas and Philly end up with winning records (which would require a tie when they play each other), the Vikings would have two wins against winning teams.

OK. Got it. Basically, my first suspicion was accurate. The decision as to whether a team is a winning team is exclusively your opinion.

Thanks for the clarification.

[StumpHunter]

To answer your questions:

It is not my opinion, it is their record.

Philly's win against us was not against a winning team. It was against a .500 , deeply flawed team.

The cutoff for a large enough sample size is is 16 games. A 16 game season decides whether a team is a winning team or not.

If Dallas and Philly end up with winning records (which would require a tie when they play each other), the Vikings would have two wins against winning teams.

OK. Got it. Basically, my first suspicion was accurate. The decision as to whether a team is a winning team is exclusively your opinion.

Thanks for the clarification.

Yes, it is my opinion that how many games a team wins in a season decides whether they are a winning team or not. It is also a cold, hard, indisputable fact.

[CharVike]

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.

Yes Dallas is 6-7. They can't beat a good team. We went into their house and beat them. The Packers did the same thing and most feel they are so so. They feast on a garbage division. The stats get tilted big time. They got yards during garbage time last week. Dak was looking for the stats and not the win. He needed to strike quick and wouldn't do it. The Pack appear to be an avg team. Yes they caught some breaks. Just look how they started the year off. Playing the div champ in their house and beat them. That's hard to do. Then they beat us. That's not easy. They made a big play at the end to beat us. They are finding a way to win. We haven't done that enough. Yes we have had a good season. We couldn't beat that Seahawk team in their house. Most felt they won some close games and weren't as good as the record. It's not easy but we couldn't find a way. Every phase didn't play well. That may cost us a playoff spot. Yes the Pack were blown out a few games and that will shift the stats. The Chargers destroyed them. They could do that to us and I wouldn't be shocked. That team can play some D and are at home. West coast trip. Don't sound to good. I hate that Packer team but they have changed. They could still fall apart but they play one garbage game and have a lead.

[J. Kapp 11]

OK. Got it. Basically, my first suspicion was accurate. The decision as to whether a team is a winning team is exclusively your opinion.

Thanks for the clarification.

Yes, it is my opinion that how many games a team wins in a season decides whether they are a winning team or not. It is also a cold, hard, indisputable fact.

So again, when the Vikings were 5-0 in '16, they were a .500 team?

Got it.

It's a shame you can't see the utter nonsense of your so-called logic.

Good bye.

[StumpHunter]

Yes, it is my opinion that how many games a team wins in a season decides whether they are a winning team or not. It is also a cold, hard, indisputable fact.

So again, when the Vikings were 5-0 in '16, they were a .500 team?

Got it.

It's a shame you can't see the utter nonsense of your so-called logic.

Good bye.

You are arguing that you can't go off of a team's record to know whether a team is a losing or winning team, yet my argument is utter nonsense? You derail your very own thread to argue against reality. Nice job.

[Pondering Her Percy]

So again, when the Vikings were 5-0 in '16, they were a .500 team?

Got it.

It's a shame you can't see the utter nonsense of your so-called logic.

Good bye.

You are arguing that you can't go off of a team's record to know whether a team is a losing or winning team, yet my argument is utter nonsense? You derail your very own thread to argue against reality. Nice job.

Dude just stop. You've made it clear that wins and losses vs. winning/losing teams only count when you want them to count. They only count when it benefits your argument. That's your opinion but it's nobody else's. And please take notice that your opinion on many things regarding this team (wins/losses, Cousins in primetime, Cousins vs. winning teams, Cousins coming back from a deficit, Cousins in general, Rhodes, this defense, this OL, etc.) is often being disagreed with by others on this board including myself. If you cant deal with it and want to continue burning bridges with everyone, be my guest because you'll just end up getting banned eventually. If you can get by it, take it for what it is and move on, then please do.