Vikings Message Board.Com

Better?

I'd answer that yes. They improved in the W-L column, probably could have come out of it with 8-9 wins if they had held those leads against the Lions and Dolphins late in the season, and were definitely competitive.

Good enough?

That I'm not so sure about. Even if the Vikings are improved and expect to improve further next year, they play in a division that the Packers have in a virtual headlock having just recorded their 4th straight division title and the Lions are every bit as potent and also have every reason to believe they're ready to assume the mantle next year. Vikes also face a Bears organization that I think will aggressively move to address their issues, although they've got more than the Vikings IMHO (at least the Vikings appear to have settled down at the QB position finally, while the Bears will most likely be in the market for a new starter).

In short, this division is going to be a tough nut to crack, certainly at least next year and probably several beyond that. If things go their way they could be in the mix, but the bar is set pretty high. Spielman needs to find some more gems in this year's draft, make some astute moves in FA, and hope his current key young players continue to develop.

I agree VIKING LORD with your points .. The NFC NORTH has nothing but good teams ,and teams that want to win it
all. To me that is a plus; if you want to win a championship. Look at Seattle they are very very good. Their division IMO
is better than ours(although I think SF is blowing it badly, right now). The Vikings need to be a team that grind other good teams
up and have teams afraid to play us.

Patriots cruise through their division every year and then get slapped by a hardened and battle tested team..

Purple Reign wrote: Saying we only went 1-5 in the division and didn't beat a team with a winning record IS calling it what it was - how can you argue with the facts? You appear to be the one coloring it with 'what if' stats that don't matter.

First of all, I wasn't arguing with stats. I specifically said this:

cstelter wrote: My point is that 1-5 in the division and never beat a team with a winning record is absolutely true.

That is the *opposite* of arguing with facts. That is unequivocally *agreeing* with facts. What I was arguing was the usage of those particular facts as a way of arguing against the concept that 'better record, better QB play, better defense might give you everything you need to decide the trajectory of the team'.

My point was that Moth was putting a couple of facts out there that sound really bad but to me are really not that telling of a performance. How much better would it be to be 7-9 like NO and be able to say 'but we beat a couple teams with winning records!' or 'at least we won half the games in our division!'. To me it is almost nothing. Going 1-5 and not beating a winning team is lousy. But making a point of it as if going 3-3 in division and beating a couple teams would have made any difference in our assessment of the season seems off the mark to me. It simply sounds *extra* bad to state it that way when in reality it's only (barely imo) marginally worse to be 7-9 (1-5 in division) and not have beaten a team with a winning record than to have gone 3-3 in the division and beaten two teams with winning records.

I don't believe you can tell the trajectory of our team by the fact that in 2013 we were 2.5-3.5 in the division and managed beat one team with a winning record and tied another vs 2014 where we were 1-5 in the division and beat 0 teams with winning records. If we *had* beaten GB and Det this year in weeks 12 and 15 or whatever weeks those were, but instead had lost to CAR and ATL, would *THAT* have made a hill of beans difference?
We'd still be 7-9, we'd have beaten 2 teams with winning records and we'd have improved our division stats from 2.5-3.5 to 3-3. I for one would not see any argument about such a season being positive trajectory-- so why then would I accept the opposite as an indication of us being on a much worse trajectory.

For me, divisional records and 'who did you beat who was good' are very important questions at helping to distinguish the good teams from the very good teams, or very good teams from outstanding teams. They mean diddly at distinguishing the bad teams from the very bad teams. And this argument about 2014 Vikings vs 2013 Vikings is trying to distinguish between bad and very bad and those stats have no place in such a discussion. That's just how I see it.

cstelter wrote:My point was that Moth was putting a couple of facts out there that sound really bad but to me are really not that telling of a performance. How much better would it be to be 7-9 like NO and be able to say 'but we beat a couple teams with winning records!' or 'at least we won half the games in our division!'. To me it is almost nothing. Going 1-5 and not beating a winning team is lousy. But making a point of it as if going 3-3 in division and beating a couple teams would have made any difference in our assessment of the season seems off the mark to me. It simply sounds *extra* bad to state it that way when in reality it's only (barely imo) marginally worse to be 7-9 (1-5 in division) and not have beaten a team with a winning record than to have gone 3-3 in the division and beaten two teams with winning records.

I don't believe you can tell the trajectory of our team by the fact that in 2013 we were 2.5-3.5 in the division and managed beat one team with a winning record and tied another vs 2014 where we were 1-5 in the division and beat 0 teams with winning records. If we *had* beaten GB and Det this year in weeks 12 and 15 or whatever weeks those were, but instead had lost to CAR and ATL, would *THAT* have made a hill of beans difference?
We'd still be 7-9, we'd have beaten 2 teams with winning records and we'd have improved our division stats from 2.5-3.5 to 3-3. I for one would not see any argument about such a season being positive trajectory-- so why then would I accept the opposite as an indication of us being on a much worse trajectory.

For me, divisional records and 'who did you beat who was good' are very important questions at helping to distinguish the good teams from the very good teams, or very good teams from outstanding teams. They mean diddly at distinguishing the bad teams from the very bad teams. And this argument about 2014 Vikings vs 2013 Vikings is trying to distinguish between bad and very bad and those stats have no place in such a discussion. That's just how I see it.

I understand your position, Craig, and I appreciate you clarifying it. I realize you were responding to someone else but it's edifying anyway.

I see the logic behind the idea that 7-9 with a better record in the division and wins over a couple of winning teams would still be 7-9 and in the end, it's the same record, regardless of how the team earned it. Your point about what such wins would tell us about the team's trajectory is well made.

On the other hand, I don't quite see the logic behind your last paragraph above. Why would "divisional records and 'who did you beat who was good'" be important questions in helping to distinguish good teams from very good teams, etc. but mean "diddly" when discussing bad teams? If such distinctions have any relevance at all, why wouldn't they apply to any team?

As an aside, I'm not convinced an argument about the difference between the 2013 and 2014 Vikings is an attempt to distinguish between bad and very bad. They had different strengths and weaknesses, and ultimately different records, but overall, they strike me as teams of uncomfortably similar quality. That's one of the reasons I found Rand's brief column interesting. He referred to the narrative associated with this season's team and although we've been more focused on the "are the Vikings better off than they were a year ago" portion of his question in the majority of this thread, I think the second part of the question is equally interesting. I believe the Vikes are the beneficiaries of a shift in expectations. I don't think it's entirely the either/or situation Rand posed, where the team is either better off or beneficiaries of a shift in expectations, but I have little doubt such a shift has taken place and has influenced the way the team is perceived by many fans and members of the media.

J. Kapp 11 wrote: But if the won-loss record tells it all, then the answer to the question has to be, "Yes, we're better off."

We won 5 games in 2013. We won 7 games this year. It's pretty simple, by that standard.

If you're not going to let people use the "if this would have happened, we'd have won more games" excuse -- and you are correct in that position, IMO -- then wouldn't you agree it's ALSO not fair to say "we didn't beat anybody with a winning record" or other qualifiers?

The question isn't whether we're enough better off than last year. It's whether we're better off, period. If the won-loss record tells it all, then the answer is clear. We are.

Actually, I agree you. We're better off as a team than last year, mostly because the Vikings won more games. When the smoke clears, only the score for the game and W/L for the season counts. There are no asterisks in the standings explaining that a team "could have" a better record if they "would have" done one thing or another.

FWIW, I think the question of this thread really is whether the Vikings team is better off now than last year. But I do see your point and it's valid.

I thought about this question. I was going to point out that the Bears were also 1-5 in the division and that their record was only one game behind the Vikings prior to yesterdays game. Yet, even with the similar records, the Bears and Vikings are two teams going in opposite directions right? Being a Vikings fan, we should know it doesn't matter. We can think the Vikings are in a better position than the Bears. Yes, they don't have a coach right now and their QB is a headcase. But who knows what's going to happen next year? They may find a coach that lights a fire under Cutler and could go 12-4 next year. The Vikings may release Cassel, Bridgewater could get hurt in OTAs, and we could be starting JDB in game 1 for all we know. Cooper could fall into the Vikings lap on draft day, but decides before the season he wants to quit football and become a farmer.

Are the Vikings better off? I think so. But does it really matter?



OK. I had to let that out. I feel better now.

Barely. A little talent, and yes. I think we have a QB, a lot of the rest, including backups, are in the air.

Point differential of -18 this year.

Point differential of -89 last year.

Yes. We are much better off. We finally have a QB, and we have a much improved defense. Bringing in Zimmer and Turner has also given us the first good coaching staff we have had in a long time. We also racked up 2 more wins while dealing with injuries and Peterson's suspension. We've added so much young talent, so once these guys mature into more experienced players, we could be a legitimate playoff team.

Mothman wrote: On the other hand, I don't quite see the logic behind your last paragraph above. Why would "divisional records and 'who did you beat who was good'" be important questions in helping to distinguish good teams from very good teams, etc. but mean "diddly" when discussing bad teams? If such distinctions have any relevance at all, why wouldn't they apply to any team?

Normally when one looks at those stats it is in relationship to tie breakers. How do you decide which 10-6 team wins the division? Divisional record. Eventually strength of schedule plays into it as well. For myself, if I want a sense of how two 11-5 teams compare, and one of them was 4-4 against teams with winning records while the other was 1-5, then that tells me something. It tells me one had an easier schedule and that the other did much better against winning teams. But there is a certain level of 'noise' in any win/loss combo. A team can be without their starting QB for a game and drop one to an OK team and that OK team suddenly gets credit for beating a team with a winning record. Sometimes good teams implode and lose the game moreso than the other team winning it. Sometimes a team is very good against 90% of the teams out there, but a couple create real matchup problems for them and sometimes those matchup problems can come against teams that otherwise are mediocre. That amount of noise can easily account for 1-2 games a year for any team to have beaten a team with a winning record.

When you have a 12-4 team, you can pretty much bet 3-4 of those wins were probably against teams with winning records, assuming on average that a team will play 8 teams with winning records and 8 teams with out winning records. So with better teams we generally see numbers above the noise level and we can compare those numbers and find meaning without having to dig in and see how many of those games were noisy games.

But when you have a 7-9 team-- odds are quite high that they no such team will have beaten more than 2 teams with winning records and trying to separate any such wins as being 'in the noise' becomes very difficult without going back and looking at specific situations, so the stat alone becomes less meaningful. You need more info than just the raw number to overcome the fact that nearly all such stats will be 'in the noise'.

I don't have any hard facts to support my position, but it seems common sense to me. If I knew of a good quick way to calculate the win/loss against winning teams for every team from the past 5 years, I suspect one would be able to calculate the true 'noise' based on standard deviations and such. But I'm not really up to that challenge right now. If someone can disprove my assertions, I'll be happy to yield. But the above logic is how I came to that idea.

Mothman wrote: As an aside, I'm not convinced an argument about the difference between the 2013 and 2014 Vikings is an attempt to distinguish between bad and very bad. They had different strengths and weaknesses, and ultimately different records, but overall, they strike me as teams of uncomfortably similar quality. That's one of the reasons I found Rand's brief column interesting. He referred to the narrative associated with this season's team and although we've been more focused on the "are the Vikings better off than they were a year ago" portion of his question in the majority of this thread, I think the second part of the question is equally interesting. I believe the Vikes are the beneficiaries of a shift in expectations. I don't think it's entirely the either/or situation Rand posed, where the team is either better off or beneficiaries of a shift in expectations, but I have little doubt such a shift has taken place and has influenced the way the team is perceived by many fans and members of the media.

I agree with everything you note above.

I should have stated that as the difference being bad vs bad, bad vs very bad, or very bad vs bad or very bad vs very bad. I must confess that I did not read the actual article being discussed but only the quoted portions and the following discussion. But my take on what I read was that the debate was over one of those 4 options. I wasn't trying to conclude that 2013 was very bad and 2014 was bad.

For me, this sums up my thoughts:

A successful coach needs a patient wife, a loyal dog, and a great quarterback -- and not necessarily in that order
-- Bud Grant

C Ponder 2013/2014
Games: 10
Games above 100 QB Rating: 2 (20%)
Games above 75 QB Rating: 5
Games below 75 QB Rating: 5
TD: 7
INT 11

M Cassel 2013/2014
Games: 12
Games above 100 QB Rating: 3 (25%)
Games above 75 QB Rating: 6 (50%)
Games below 75 QB Rating: 6 (50%)
TD: 14
INT: 13

T Bridgewater 2013/2014
Games: 13
Games above 100 QB Rating: 3 (23%)
Games above 75 QB Rating: 11 (85%)
Games below 75 QB Rating: 2 (15%)
TD: 14
INT: 12

T Bridgewater Final 8 games
Games: 8
Games above 100 QB Rating: 3 (37.5%)
Games above 75 QB Rating: 8 (100%)
Games below 75 QB Rating: 0 (0%)
TD: 12
INT: 7

Are the Vikings better off then they were a year ago?
Honestly?? Yes

And if you want to talk about shifts in expectations-- you better believe my expectations for next year represent quite a shift from what they were for this year

Its kinda like asking if PBR is better then Keystone.

cstelter wrote: Normally when one looks at those stats it is in relationship to tie breakers. How do you decide which 10-6 team wins the division? Divisional record. Eventually strength of schedule plays into it as well. For myself, if I want a sense of how two 11-5 teams compare, and one of them was 4-4 against teams with winning records while the other was 1-5, then that tells me something. It tells me one had an easier schedule and that the other did much better against winning teams. But there is a certain level of 'noise' in any win/loss combo. A team can be without their starting QB for a game and drop one to an OK team and that OK team suddenly gets credit for beating a team with a winning record. Sometimes good teams implode and lose the game moreso than the other team winning it. Sometimes a team is very good against 90% of the teams out there, but a couple create real matchup problems for them and sometimes those matchup problems can come against teams that otherwise are mediocre. That amount of noise can easily account for 1-2 games a year for any team to have beaten a team with a winning record.

When you have a 12-4 team, you can pretty much bet 3-4 of those wins were probably against teams with winning records, assuming on average that a team will play 8 teams with winning records and 8 teams with out winning records. So with better teams we generally see numbers above the noise level and we can compare those numbers and find meaning without having to dig in and see how many of those games were noisy games.

But when you have a 7-9 team-- odds are quite high that they no such team will have beaten more than 2 teams with winning records and trying to separate any such wins as being 'in the noise' becomes very difficult without going back and looking at specific situations, so the stat alone becomes less meaningful. You need more info than just the raw number to overcome the fact that nearly all such stats will be 'in the noise'.

I don't have any hard facts to support my position, but it seems common sense to me. If I knew of a good quick way to calculate the win/loss against winning teams for every team from the past 5 years, I suspect one would be able to calculate the true 'noise' based on standard deviations and such. But I'm not really up to that challenge right now. If someone can disprove my assertions, I'll be happy to yield. But the above logic is how I came to that idea.

I'm not looking to disprove your assertions, I just wondered about the logic behind what you said and you've done a nice job of explaining that. Thanks.

cstelter wrote:T Bridgewater Final 8 games
Games: 8
Games above 100 QB Rating: 3 (37.5%)
Games above 75 QB Rating: 8 (100%)
Games below 75 QB Rating: 0 (0%)
TD: 12
INT: 7

Are the Vikings better off then they were a year ago?
Honestly?? Yes

And if you want to talk about shifts in expectations-- you better believe my expectations for next year represent quite a shift from what they were for this year

Of those seven interceptions in the last eight games, two were Hail Mary passes against the Jets and Bears, and then two were passes that the receiver got two hands on in the last two games. Teddy only deserved three of those, and the extra TD from Chase Ford. How much better would the number have looked if he had just gotten sacked on the Hail Mary's and the receivers had held on - 13:3 ratio would remove all doubt about his learning curve.

Comparing 2013 and 2014, I'd say they are pointing in the right direction now more so than they were after 2013, but there is still work to be done -- the areas of trouble just shifted.

The major step forwards are the overall contribution of the defense and quarterback play.

TB was thrown into the starting role behind an offensive line that was struggling and having major injury concerns, without the best offensive weapon on the team, without a reliable running game, playing in a temporary home field and under a rookie head coach. And throughout it, he continued to improve. The poise he displayed, especially under those circumstances, gives me hope. He isn't a finished product, but he showed the qualities that are musts in a starting QB: playing well in crunch time, not getting rattled under duress and keeping his eyes down field under pressure.

After 2013, the QB situation was the biggest -- and most open -- question on the team. At least we aren't starting from square one on that front.

The running game now is a huge issue. McKinnon shows promise, but they have to find a compliment RB to couple him with -- unless the unlikely happens and Peterson remains on the roster.

The line DEFINITELY needs work, and that unit took a step back. The receivers are capable, but unspectacular. That is another area that needs improvement.

Having a new head coach almost always casts that season as a transitional year -- but having a rookie head coach always pushes said season in the rebuilding category. And, I liked what I saw. There were bumps in the road, and some very big surprises for Zimmer and I think he handled them well. He learned as the season went on, and the team kept playing when it was possible that the season could have gone off the rails.

He also revamped the defensive line, and as a unit, they were better than I anticipated they would be. Linebacker is still a work in progress, but Barr looks like he could be a game-changer. The secondary was much improved, although they still lack a few pieces -- but Rhodes took a giant leap, Smith picked up right where he left off before being injured and they were able to get off the field on third down with far more regularity.

Given all the adjustments a team must make when the regime changes and the problems that popped up over the course of the season, I'd say the arrow is pointing up. They aren't quite ready for prime time, but I'm more optimistic now than I was at the end of 2013.

John_Viveiros wrote: Of those seven interceptions in the last eight games, two were Hail Mary passes against the Jets and Bears, and then two were passes that the receiver got two hands on in the last two games. Teddy only deserved three of those, and the extra TD from Chase Ford. How much better would the number have looked if he had just gotten sacked on the Hail Mary's and the receivers had held on - 13:3 ratio would remove all doubt about his learning curve.

I really disklike all the 'what if' speculations. The stats are what they are, whether they are fair or not that's the way it is. You can also say Teddy could have easily had at least 2 more interceptions, the one towards the end of the Tampa Bay game and Jared Allen should have had one this past week. And the 80+ yard td by Jarrius Wright against the Jets wasn't so much because of the pass since it was behind the line of scrimmage but due more to great blocking and a missed tackle. These stats tend to even out over time, so I really don't see any point in bring up 'what if' scenarios.