Vikings Message Board.Com

allday1991 wrote:Seems like they have a lot more delusional fans than realistic, I don't see how any fan could predict a 40-20 blow out from a under performing team without there starting QB. I hope they expect the same old Vikings and that Zimmer and Turner can take advantage of teams excepting the same old.

Well, fans are fans. there's an equal amount of Viking fans predicting a blowout in our direction. I think we will win, but by less than 4 points. I do agree with your point about other teams expecting "the same old Vikings" I really am looking forward to seeing what Zimmer has in store for the back up QB. I expect him to blitz off the corner or out of the slot with the Captain.

Also I expect AD to have more yards catching the ball out of the backfield that rushing between the tackles (at least in this game). look for him to hit a screen or two and to catch some angle routes in front of the deep linebackers.

dkoby wrote: Well, fans are fans. there's an equal amount of Viking fans predicting a blowout in our direction. I think we will win, but by less than 4 points. I do agree with your point about other teams expecting "the same old Vikings" I really am looking forward to seeing what Zimmer has in store for the back up QB. I expect him to blitz off the corner or out of the slot with the Captain.

Also I expect AD to have more yards catching the ball out of the backfield that rushing between the tackles (at least in this game). look for him to hit a screen or two and to catch some angle routes in front of the deep linebackers.

I think we control this game for the most part and win by a touchdown minimum. Id love to see some screens to AD however I see him having a good between the tackles game like last time against the rams , best guess would say he gets shutdown early till the Rams realized Cassel and other parts of the offence deserve respect, excepting a big second half for AD when the rams adjust.

Hello all.

I've been browsing your forum for some time now (can't wait for this season to start), and I decided to chime in.

I want to be respectful, but also blatantly honest. I hope that is received well here. BTW, I'm the one that said "33-14".

The one comment that caught my eye was that Rams fans that are predicting a blowout are delusional. Think about it: we've had the same coach for 3 years now, and along the way we have amassed some serious talent via the RG3 trade. We've been impatiently waiting for that talent to develop, and have seen flashes of brilliance. We destroyed the Colts and Bears last year, and also thoroughly defeated the Saints. Two of those teams made the playoffs and won a playoff game. Those are the flashes we saw. We won those three games without Bradford, and with a QB worse than Shaun Hill. Anyway, analyze the few things below:

The Rams went 7-9 while playing in the best division in football. The Vikings went 5-10-1 while playing in what was probably the worst division in the NFC (8 win division champ).

3rd year with same coach, 3 years of drafting players and several first round picks - talented team that has had time to develop.

Flashes of brilliance last year without Sam Bradford.

The Rams are at home, where only 1 non division rival beat us last year (the Titans, with us coming off a short week), whereas the Vikings didn't win a single road game last year.

The Viking defense was atrocious last year. While bringing in a new coach and a few new players is nice, you also lost quite a few. I realize Jared Allen's best football was behind him, but the fact remains that the Vikes lost their best pass rusher. Along with a few other players on D. I don't want to discount what a new coach/scheme can do for current players, and Linval was a good pick up, but first game in a new system? Odds stacked against you.

The Rams just have more talent. Vikings Oline is solid (although I was surprised to read some of your comments about how it's a question mark), Peterson is Peterson, Jennings is solid and all I've heard this offseason is how Patterson will break out this year. But top to bottom, we are just a better team right now. Even starting Shaun Hill....there are several people out there that, when polled, would say Hill and Cassel are on the same level.

Anyway - that is why the Rams should win this game handily. We might not. But should. This team is ready to explode.

Also, the Falcons are your easiest game in the first 5.

FrantikRam wrote:Hello all.

I've been browsing your forum for some time now (can't wait for this season to start), and I decided to chime in.

I want to be respectful, but also blatantly honest. I hope that is received well here. BTW, I'm the one that said "33-14".

The one comment that caught my eye was that Rams fans that are predicting a blowout are delusional. Think about it: we've had the same coach for 3 years now, and along the way we have amassed some serious talent via the RG3 trade. We've been impatiently waiting for that talent to develop, and have seen flashes of brilliance. We destroyed the Colts and Bears last year, and also thoroughly defeated the Saints. Two of those teams made the playoffs and won a playoff game. Those are the flashes we saw. We won those three games without Bradford, and with a QB worse than Shaun Hill. Anyway, analyze the few things below:

The Rams went 7-9 while playing in the best division in football. The Vikings went 5-10-1 while playing in what was probably the worst division in the NFC (8 win division champ).

3rd year with same coach, 3 years of drafting players and several first round picks - talented team that has had time to develop.

Flashes of brilliance last year without Sam Bradford.

The Rams are at home, where only 1 non division rival beat us last year (the Titans, with us coming off a short week), whereas the Vikings didn't win a single road game last year.

The Viking defense was atrocious last year. While bringing in a new coach and a few new players is nice, you also lost quite a few. I realize Jared Allen's best football was behind him, but the fact remains that the Vikes lost their best pass rusher. Along with a few other players on D. I don't want to discount what a new coach/scheme can do for current players, and Linval was a good pick up, but first game in a new system? Odds stacked against you.

The Rams just have more talent. Vikings Oline is solid (although I was surprised to read some of your comments about how it's a question mark), Peterson is Peterson, Jennings is solid and all I've heard this offseason is how Patterson will break out this year. But top to bottom, we are just a better team right now. Even starting Shaun Hill....there are several people out there that, when polled, would say Hill and Cassel are on the same level.

Anyway - that is why the Rams should win this game handily. We might not. But should. This team is ready to explode.

Also, the Falcons are your easiest game in the first 5.

Couldnt disagree more. NFC north is one of the hardest division year in and out.
Falcons beat you guys last year, along with the Cardinals almost both times, Cardinals havnt beat us in years. IMO your 'flashes' are just teams caught on an off day or just underprepaired. For example Bears D took a huge hit last year no surprise they gave up high scoring games, when you beat the colts they where in there worse slump of the season, and no idea about the NO game.

FrantikRam wrote:Hello all.

I've been browsing your forum for some time now (can't wait for this season to start), and I decided to chime in.

I want to be respectful, but also blatantly honest. I hope that is received well here. BTW, I'm the one that said "33-14".

The one comment that caught my eye was that Rams fans that are predicting a blowout are delusional. Think about it: we've had the same coach for 3 years now, and along the way we have amassed some serious talent via the RG3 trade. We've been impatiently waiting for that talent to develop, and have seen flashes of brilliance. We destroyed the Colts and Bears last year, and also thoroughly defeated the Saints. Two of those teams made the playoffs and won a playoff game. Those are the flashes we saw. We won those three games without Bradford, and with a QB worse than Shaun Hill. Anyway, analyze the few things below:

The Rams went 7-9 while playing in the best division in football. The Vikings went 5-10-1 while playing in what was probably the worst division in the NFC (8 win division champ).

3rd year with same coach, 3 years of drafting players and several first round picks - talented team that has had time to develop.

Flashes of brilliance last year without Sam Bradford.

The Rams are at home, where only 1 non division rival beat us last year (the Titans, with us coming off a short week), whereas the Vikings didn't win a single road game last year.

The Viking defense was atrocious last year. While bringing in a new coach and a few new players is nice, you also lost quite a few. I realize Jared Allen's best football was behind him, but the fact remains that the Vikes lost their best pass rusher. Along with a few other players on D. I don't want to discount what a new coach/scheme can do for current players, and Linval was a good pick up, but first game in a new system? Odds stacked against you.

The Rams just have more talent. Vikings Oline is solid (although I was surprised to read some of your comments about how it's a question mark), Peterson is Peterson, Jennings is solid and all I've heard this offseason is how Patterson will break out this year. But top to bottom, we are just a better team right now. Even starting Shaun Hill....there are several people out there that, when polled, would say Hill and Cassel are on the same level.

Anyway - that is why the Rams should win this game handily. We might not. But should. This team is ready to explode.

Also, the Falcons are your easiest game in the first 5.

Welcome to the board.

I think there's a good chance the Rams win this game, for some of the reasons you listed, but "handily"? I think that's only going to happen if the Vikings play turnover-prone, mistake-riddled football and I don't expect them to do that. Both teams have a lot of talent and either could be poised for a breakthrough and a winning season but I doubt either has such a distinct advantage over the other that we should expect a blowout.

To me, the big question is how well the Vikings o-line and blocking hold up against the Rams defense. If the Rams can harass Cassel into making mistakes and contain Peterson, I think they have an excellent chance to win. If they can't handle the Vikings offense, it could the other way, as it did last time these two teams met.

It should be a good opener!

FrantikRam wrote:Hello all.

I've been browsing your forum for some time now (can't wait for this season to start), and I decided to chime in.

I want to be respectful, but also blatantly honest. I hope that is received well here. BTW, I'm the one that said "33-14".

The one comment that caught my eye was that Rams fans that are predicting a blowout are delusional. Think about it: we've had the same coach for 3 years now, and along the way we have amassed some serious talent via the RG3 trade. We've been impatiently waiting for that talent to develop, and have seen flashes of brilliance. We destroyed the Colts and Bears last year, and also thoroughly defeated the Saints. Two of those teams made the playoffs and won a playoff game. Those are the flashes we saw. We won those three games without Bradford, and with a QB worse than Shaun Hill. Anyway, analyze the few things below:

The Rams went 7-9 while playing in the best division in football. The Vikings went 5-10-1 while playing in what was probably the worst division in the NFC (8 win division champ).

3rd year with same coach, 3 years of drafting players and several first round picks - talented team that has had time to develop.

Flashes of brilliance last year without Sam Bradford.

The Rams are at home, where only 1 non division rival beat us last year (the Titans, with us coming off a short week), whereas the Vikings didn't win a single road game last year.

The Viking defense was atrocious last year. While bringing in a new coach and a few new players is nice, you also lost quite a few. I realize Jared Allen's best football was behind him, but the fact remains that the Vikes lost their best pass rusher. Along with a few other players on D. I don't want to discount what a new coach/scheme can do for current players, and Linval was a good pick up, but first game in a new system? Odds stacked against you.

The Rams just have more talent. Vikings Oline is solid (although I was surprised to read some of your comments about how it's a question mark), Peterson is Peterson, Jennings is solid and all I've heard this offseason is how Patterson will break out this year. But top to bottom, we are just a better team right now. Even starting Shaun Hill....there are several people out there that, when polled, would say Hill and Cassel are on the same level.

Anyway - that is why the Rams should win this game handily. We might not. But should. This team is ready to explode.

Also, the Falcons are your easiest game in the first 5.

I respect the Rams greatly, and I believe this game could easily go very badly for the Vikings. That said, your post REALLY makes me hope we win. #### the Rams.

Cheers!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FrantikRam wrote:Hello all.

I've been browsing your forum for some time now (can't wait for this season to start), and I decided to chime in.

I want to be respectful, but also blatantly honest. I hope that is received well here. BTW, I'm the one that said "33-14".

The one comment that caught my eye was that Rams fans that are predicting a blowout are delusional. Think about it: we've had the same coach for 3 years now, and along the way we have amassed some serious talent via the RG3 trade. We've been impatiently waiting for that talent to develop, and have seen flashes of brilliance. We destroyed the Colts and Bears last year, and also thoroughly defeated the Saints. Two of those teams made the playoffs and won a playoff game. Those are the flashes we saw. We won those three games without Bradford, and with a QB worse than Shaun Hill. Anyway, analyze the few things below:

The Rams went 7-9 while playing in the best division in football. The Vikings went 5-10-1 while playing in what was probably the worst division in the NFC (8 win division champ).

3rd year with same coach, 3 years of drafting players and several first round picks - talented team that has had time to develop.

Flashes of brilliance last year without Sam Bradford.

The Rams are at home, where only 1 non division rival beat us last year (the Titans, with us coming off a short week), whereas the Vikings didn't win a single road game last year.

The Viking defense was atrocious last year. While bringing in a new coach and a few new players is nice, you also lost quite a few. I realize Jared Allen's best football was behind him, but the fact remains that the Vikes lost their best pass rusher. Along with a few other players on D. I don't want to discount what a new coach/scheme can do for current players, and Linval was a good pick up, but first game in a new system? Odds stacked against you.

The Rams just have more talent. Vikings Oline is solid (although I was surprised to read some of your comments about how it's a question mark), Peterson is Peterson, Jennings is solid and all I've heard this offseason is how Patterson will break out this year. But top to bottom, we are just a better team right now. Even starting Shaun Hill....there are several people out there that, when polled, would say Hill and Cassel are on the same level.

Anyway - that is why the Rams should win this game handily. We might not. But should. This team is ready to explode.

Also, the Falcons are your easiest game in the first 5.

I truly hope the rams come in underestimating the Vikings like you are.

FrantikRam wrote:Hello all.

I've been browsing your forum for some time now (can't wait for this season to start), and I decided to chime in.

Welcome!

Think about it: we've had the same coach for 3 years now

Irrelevant. Many teams have the same coach but still finish with losing records and miss the playoffs.

and along the way we have amassed some serious talent via the RG3 trade.

True. But it's not like the rest of the league hasn't done the same, including the Vikings (who also, through trades, have had multiple first-round picks in recent drafts). Something to note, though, it has to be a bit of a disappointment that Robinson isn't starting yet. Don't get me wrong, he has all the tools and I probably would've drafted him over Barr, but that can't feel great. He'll crack the starting lineup sooner than later, though.

We've been impatiently waiting for that talent to develop, and have seen flashes of brilliance. We destroyed the Colts and Bears last year, and also thoroughly defeated the Saints. Two of those teams made the playoffs and won a playoff game. Those are the flashes we saw. We won those three games without Bradford, and with a QB worse than Shaun Hill.

You also got obliterated by the Cowboys (who had a defense as bad or worse than the Vikings last year, which is saying something) and managed to put up only 7 points and lost by 10+ points in six games. In offensive yards/game, you finished 30th, while the Vikings finished 13th. We were less than a point from being in the top-10 in points/game compared to your 21st ranking. This offense can score points and should do so at a pace greater than yours. Of course, your defense is equally imposing, though. Though for as good as your reputation is on defense, you were middle-of-the-pack in yards allowed/game and allowed teams to score more than 23 points 11 times. Granted, the Vikings were among the worst (if not the worst) in both categories last season.

The Rams went 7-9 while playing in the best division in football.

That's debatable. The AFC West and NFC South would be in that conversation as well. Even the NFC North is one of the tougher divisions.

The Vikings went 5-10-1 while playing in what was probably the worst division in the NFC (8 win division champ).

An 8-win division champ doesn't mean it's a bad division In fact, it could mean the opposite. It could mean there's a lot of parity.

3rd year with same coach, 3 years of drafting players and several first round picks - talented team that has had time to develop.

While stability is usually a good thing, 3 years with the same coach is largely irrelevant. And wasn't Fisher hired in January of 2012? So he's completed two years of coaching with the Rams. This is his third year. And in that time he's amassed a 14-17-1 record, which is not necessarily a bad thing and it can take a few years to turn a squad around, but he's not Jim Harbaugh here. 2013 was Fisher's fourth straight season without a winning record.

And just "drafting players and several first-round picks" doesn't always translate into net success, especially if those draft picks are lousy. How's Tavon Austin doing these days? I'm sure his production and role thus far isn't exactly going as planned. Same for Robinson thus far. Again, it's early. They could be studs in a few years. But so could each of our high-round picks too. I know I'm glad that we have Patterson at this point instead of Austin.

Flashes of brilliance last year without Sam Bradford.

We also saw "flashes" with Cassel, and he's looking better under Turner so far.

The Rams are at home, where only 1 non division rival beat us last year (the Titans, with us coming off a short week), whereas the Vikings didn't win a single road game last year.

That's true. The Vikings have historically played poorly on the road. But this is a different regime.

The Viking defense was atrocious last year. While bringing in a new coach and a few new players is nice, you also lost quite a few. I realize Jared Allen's best football was behind him, but the fact remains that the Vikes lost their best pass rusher. Along with a few other players on D. I don't want to discount what a new coach/scheme can do for current players, and Linval was a good pick up, but first game in a new system? Odds stacked against you.

Look at it this way: it couldn't possibly be any worse. Even if they're marginally better, that should still be enough to put up a good fight. Just remember that the Vikings lost a lot of close games last year against opponents on par or tougher than this year's Rams. Increased weaponry on both sides of the ball and allegedly better coaching/playcalling could make them more of a challenge than many realize. I fully expect the Vikings to improve on defense. With an offense that could push for top-10 and a defense that could and should rank in the top-20...they won't be pushovers to marginal teams like the Bradford-less Rams. I don't mean that as a slight, but the Rams minus Bradford (and the Vikings) aren't on par with the Pats, Broncos, Seahawks of the league.

The Rams just have more talent.

Disagree. It's pretty even.

OL: Push/Advantage Vikings
QB: Push/Advantage Vikings
WR: Advantage Vikings
TEs: Advantage Vikings
RB: Advantage Vikings (by a lot)
K: Push/Advantage Vikings
Special Teams: Advantage Vikings
DL: Push/Advantage Rams
LBs: Advantage Rams (by a lot)
CBs: Push/Advantage Vikings with Trumaine Johnson on the shelf
S: Push/Advantage Vikings (Harrison Smith + Blanton > Rodney McLeod & T.J. McDonald
P: Who cares/Advantage Rams?

Vikings Oline is solid (although I was surprised to read some of your comments about how it's a question mark), Peterson is Peterson, Jennings is solid and all I've heard this offseason is how Patterson will break out this year. But top to bottom, we are just a better team right now. Even starting Shaun Hill....there are several people out there that, when polled, would say Hill and Cassel are on the same level.

I just don't think there's as big of a talent gap as you think there might be. I'd still Take Cassel. Hill is 34 and hasn't made a regular season start since 2010. Chances are you try to ride your running game, much like us.

Edit: heck, here's a quote just now from your coach:

@MasterStrib -- #Rams HC Jeff Fisher: Norv's probably walking around w/ a smile on his face right now because of the players he's working with #Vikings

Anyway - that is why the Rams should win this game handily. We might not. But should. This team is ready to explode.

So is our offense. And I haven't even mentioned Adrian Peterson. If our defense can shut down Stacy and force Hill to beat us...I think that bodes well for our chances. It won't be a blowout. No way.

I respect FrantikRam's position, but I would like to point out that we have added just as many quality young players to this team. Our team won the last time they were in St. Louis, too, so I'm not sure your home field advantage is as stout as you might think. Neither team should expect a lopsided victory here.

FrantikRam wrote:The Vikings went 5-10-1 while playing in what was probably the worst division in the NFC (8 win division champ).

I'd argue it's one of the most balanced as the NFC north is always pretty tough. I think it's better than the East. A few years ago the North was the toughest and the West was pretty terrible. It can change quickly

FrantikRam wrote: The Rams just have more talent. Vikings Oline is solid (although I was surprised to read some of your comments about how it's a question mark), Peterson is Peterson, Jennings is solid and all I've heard this offseason is how Patterson will break out this year. But top to bottom, we are just a better team right now.

More talent on the Defense, sure. You're offense isn't all that. I wouldn't be surprised if the Rams won at home, but I would be surprised if you scored over 30.

FrantikRam wrote: Even starting Shaun Hill....there are several people out there that, when polled, would say Hill and Cassel are on the same level.

Several rams fans? Cassel was up and down last year, but with a better OC and better situation this year, I'm sure he'll be fine. I don't remember anyone on the Vikings being all that sad when they cut Hill.

dead_poet wrote: Welcome!
Irrelevant. Many teams have the same coach but still finish with losing records and miss the playoffs.
True. But it's not like the rest of the league hasn't done the same, including the Vikings (who also, through trades, have had multiple first-round picks in recent drafts). Something to note, though, it has to be a bit of a disappointment that Robinson isn't starting yet. Don't get me wrong, he has all the tools and I probably would've drafted him over Barr, but that can't feel great. He'll crack the starting lineup sooner than later, though.
You also got obliterated by the Cowboys (who had a defense as bad or worse than the Vikings last year, which is saying something) and managed to put up only 7 points and lost by 10+ points in six games. In offensive yards/game, you finished 30th, while the Vikings finished 13th. We were less than a point from being in the top-10 in points/game compared to your 21st ranking. This offense can score points and should do so at a pace greater than yours. Of course, your defense is equally imposing, though. Though for as good as your reputation is on defense, you were middle-of-the-pack in yards allowed/game and allowed teams to score more than 23 points 11 times. Granted, the Vikings were among the worst (if not the worst) in both categories last season.
That's debatable. The AFC West and NFC South would be in that conversation as well. Even the NFC North is one of the tougher divisions.
An 8-win division champ doesn't mean it's a bad division In fact, it could mean the opposite. It could mean there's a lot of parity.
While stability is usually a good thing, 3 years with the same coach is largely irrelevant. And wasn't Fisher hired in January of 2012? So he's completed two years of coaching with the Rams. This is his third year. And in that time he's amassed a 14-17-1 record, which is not necessarily a bad thing and it can take a few years to turn a squad around, but he's not Jim Harbaugh here. 2013 was Fisher's fourth straight season without a winning record.

And just "drafting players and several first-round picks" doesn't always translate into net success, especially if those draft picks are lousy. How's Tavon Austin doing these days? I'm sure his production and role thus far isn't exactly going as planned. Same for Robinson thus far. Again, it's early. They could be studs in a few years. But so could each of our high-round picks too. I know I'm glad that we have Patterson at this point instead of Austin.
We also saw "flashes" with Cassel, and he's looking better under Turner so far.
That's true. The Vikings have historically played poorly on the road. But this is a different regime.
Look at it this way: it couldn't possibly be any worse. Even if they're marginally better, that should still be enough to put up a good fight. Just remember that the Vikings lost a lot of close games last year against opponents on par or tougher than this year's Rams. Increased weaponry on both sides of the ball and allegedly better coaching/playcalling could make them more of a challenge than many realize. I fully expect the Vikings to improve on defense. With an offense that could push for top-10 and a defense that could and should rank in the top-20...they won't be pushovers to marginal teams like the Bradford-less Rams. I don't mean that as a slight, but the Rams minus Bradford (and the Vikings) aren't on par with the Pats, Broncos, Seahawks of the league.
Disagree. It's pretty even.

OL: Push/Advantage Vikings
QB: Push/Advantage Vikings
WR: Advantage Vikings
TEs: Advantage Vikings
RB: Advantage Vikings (by a lot)
K: Push/Advantage Vikings
Special Teams: Advantage Vikings
DL: Push/Advantage Rams
LBs: Advantage Rams (by a lot)
CBs: Push/Advantage Vikings with Trumaine Johnson on the shelf
S: Push/Advantage Vikings (Harrison Smith + Blanton > Rodney McLeod & T.J. McDonald
P: Who cares/Advantage Rams?
I just don't think there's as big of a talent gap as you think there might be. I'd still Take Cassel. Hill is 34 and hasn't made a regular season start since 2010. Chances are you try to ride your running game, much like us.

Edit: heck, here's a quote just now from your coach:
So is our offense. And I haven't even mentioned Adrian Peterson. If our defense can shut down Stacy and force Hill to beat us...I think that bodes well for our chances. It won't be a blowout. No way.

The Rams dline is the best in the NFL. Certainly a huge advantage of the Vikings Dline.

Our Special Teams were around the best in the NFL last year. I think we even set a record for fewest punt return yards allowed, and I can't remember allowing a big kick return. Punter is the best in the league, and while Blair Walsh was better than GZ as a rook, GZ was very good last year.

I'd look at it like this:

QB - push/advantage Vikings

RB - Vikings big

WR - push - Patterson hasn't done it YET. Everyone just thinks he will. If you look at his stats, they are virtually identical to Tavon Austin's stats....and while I'm sure stuff like this happened to CP, Tavon had two big TDs called back. So CP and TA are a push. Simpson is out, which means we're comparing Greg Jennings to Kenny Britt and Brian Quick - who have looked phenomenal thus far. Jennings is better but Rams have more depth, which is why I call this a push.

OL - advantage Rams. Go look at various sites for Oline rankings, most have Rams ranked ahead of Vikes

DL - Rams big

LB - Rams

CB - Push, even with TruJo on the shelf. Vikes secondary was putrid last year, Rams wasn't great either

S - Vikes

ST - Rams - again go look up non biased rankings, and the Rams are ahead. Also as I said above, we had the best ST units last year.

So the Vikings have a big advantage at RB....and that's about it.

Austins numbers were identical to CP's because CP only started the last 4 games of the season at WR

Dirtyswabby wrote:Austins numbers were identical to CP's because CP only started the last 4 games of the season at WR

Yeah....this thread over there is interesting: http://www.realramsfans.com/viewtopic.php?t=83010

They're arguing that Austin is just as good or better than Patterson since their stats finished close to the same. I'm not sure they realize that Patterson hardly played at the start of the season.

Crax wrote: Yeah....this thread over there is interesting: http://www.realramsfans.com/viewtopic.php?t=83010

They're arguing that Austin is just as good or better than Patterson since their stats finished close to the same. I'm not sure they realize that Patterson hardly played at the start of the season.

Yup any Viking fan knows CP had to beg the first 8 games of the year to get on offence plays. Just goes to show you actually have to watch the game rather than just check the numbers.

FrantikRam wrote:The Rams dline is the best in the NFL. Certainly a huge advantage of the Vikings Dline.

Our Special Teams were around the best in the NFL last year. I think we even set a record for fewest punt return yards allowed, and I can't remember allowing a big kick return. Punter is the best in the league, and while Blair Walsh was better than GZ as a rook, GZ was very good last year.

I'd look at it like this:

QB - push/advantage Vikings

RB - Vikings big

WR - push - Patterson hasn't done it YET. Everyone just thinks he will. If you look at his stats, they are virtually identical to Tavon Austin's stats....and while I'm sure stuff like this happened to CP, Tavon had two big TDs called back. So CP and TA are a push. Simpson is out, which means we're comparing Greg Jennings to Kenny Britt and Brian Quick - who have looked phenomenal thus far. Jennings is better but Rams have more depth, which is why I call this a push.

OL - advantage Rams. Go look at various sites for Oline rankings, most have Rams ranked ahead of Vikes

DL - Rams big

LB - Rams

CB - Push, even with TruJo on the shelf. Vikes secondary was putrid last year, Rams wasn't great either

S - Vikes

ST - Rams - again go look up non biased rankings, and the Rams are ahead. Also as I said above, we had the best ST units last year.

So the Vikings have a big advantage at RB....and that's about it.

Unit-to-unit comparisons like that are fun but with the exception of special teams, those units don't match up against each other so in the end, it doesn't really matter how the Rams DL compares to the Vikings DL. What matters is how those d-lines match up against the opposing o-lines, how receivers match up against DBs, and so on.

Bottom line; the Vikes and Rams are pretty evenly matched. The Rams are are favored in this one because they're playing at home but there are some potential mismatches for both teams and that's where the outcome of this one will likely be determined, especially with two journeymen at QB.