Vikings Message Board.Com

And, prior to the Panthers losing today, the two longest active winning streaks began after losing to the Vikings (CAR last season, KC this season).

Raptorman wrote:Green Bay gave up more sacks, 9, than points scored, 8.

I'm a little surprised no one seemed to make the connection that Green Bay got dominated at Arizona, while two weeks earlier, the Vikes played them pretty darn even. I'm not saying the Vikings are 27 points better than the Packers (although I'd love to be saying that next Monday), but the comparative scores there (and maybe with the Giants last two games, 38-35 loss to Carolina, 49-17 loss to us) are at least interesting, even if they are admittedly of small (but not zero) statistical significance.

John_Viveiros wrote: I'm a little surprised no one seemed to make the connection that Green Bay got dominated at Arizona, while two weeks earlier, the Vikes played them pretty darn even. I'm not saying the Vikings are 27 points better than the Packers (although I'd love to be saying that next Monday), but the comparative scores there (and maybe with the Giants last two games, 38-35 loss to Carolina, 49-17 loss to us) are at least interesting, even if they are admittedly of small (but not zero) statistical significance.

Going into our last matchup you could say this exact same thing about our games at Denver.

Jordysghost wrote: Going into our last matchup you could say this exact same thing about our games at Denver.

I personally think matchups are more important than a single "strength rating" of some sort. The Vikings get chewed up by a strong pass rush, especially if it's from just four rushers - it's just the way it is this year. It's possible that they can get a lead, get some creative playcalling, and let their defense stop the other team's passing attack. Arizona attacks Green Bay on offense and defense in the way that seems to be most effective, whereas the Vikings match up a little better against the Cards (Bridgewater threw for over 300 yards against them, often burning their blitz, according to articles I've read).

The evidence is that the Packers match up well against the Vikings. If you guys run effectively, and can get to Bridgewater with four rushers (and this is probably likely), we're toast. But I think the Vikings would have a better shot against some of the tougher teams in the league, based on matchups, than the Pack.

Just for discussion - my evaluation of relative strengths of the two teams against common opponents: Does this mean anything? I don't know. Please don't misinterpret this as talking smack. Why almost all the NFC West in favor of the Pack?