Vikings Message Board.Com

Telling stories are in the stats. The stats tell me that the Vikings are who I thought they were. Average to below to start. Granted it was against divisional opponents on the road but if these stats tell the overall story line to those games, the Vikings are in for a long season.
The Vikings D has given up 65 points in two games(avg 32.5 per). that is 3rd worst in the league. 4th from the bottom in the Yards per game at 440yds. 8th worst in rushing yards per game with 119.5yds, very un-Viking like. In the passing game, the Vikings are 7th from the bottom with 320.5yds per game and a 8.0yds per passing play. NOT GOOD

The offense is middle of the road. Only 226yds per game but a decent average of 8.0yds per play. The rushing offense is only 10th best in the league with 114 per game and imo should be in the top 5 but AP and Co. have not lived up to AP standards as of yet. The Vikings have only 117 scrimmage plays in two games and a paltry 340yds per game. The only QB to throw more INT's than Ponder is Eli Manning . You can see that the Vikings are not very good in just about all important categories leading to success and wins. That being said, all of this leads me to believe that schemes, play calling, coaching, and talent(not necessarily in that order ) could be the root of the problem, which covers about all aspects of a winning or losing team.
The Vikings are who the stats say they are.
It's about time to get their butts in gear. They are paid professionals, correct?
I love my Vikings but good grief!!!

CbusVikesFan wrote:Telling stories are in the stats. The stats tell me that the Vikings are who I thought they were. Average to below to start. Granted it was against divisional opponents on the road but if these stats tell the overall story line to those games, the Vikings are in for a long season.
The Vikings D has given up 65 points in two games(avg 32.5 per). that is 3rd worst in the league. 4th from the bottom in the Yards per game at 440yds. 8th worst in rushing yards per game with 119.5yds, very un-Viking like. In the passing game, the Vikings are 7th from the bottom with 320.5yds per game and a 8.0yds per passing play. NOT GOOD

The offense is middle of the road. Only 226yds per game but a decent average of 8.0yds per play. The rushing offense is only 10th best in the league with 114 per game and imo should be in the top 5 but AP and Co. have not lived up to AP standards as of yet. The Vikings have only 117 scrimmage plays in two games and a paltry 340yds per game. The only QB to throw more INT's than Ponder is Eli Manning . You can see that the Vikings are not very good in just about all important categories leading to success and wins. That being said, all of this leads me to believe that schemes, play calling, coaching, and talent(not necessarily in that order ) could be the root of the problem, which covers about all aspects of a winning or losing team.
The Vikings are who the stats say they are.
It's about time to get their butts in gear. They are paid professionals, correct?
I love my Vikings but good grief!!!

All these stats are worth looking at, but with one important fact in mind: your sample is two (away) games. If things look the same by mid-season and late-season then we have problems. They had better spank the Browns.

Texas Vike wrote:
All these stats are worth looking at, but with one important fact in mind: your sample is two (away) games. If things look the same by mid-season and late-season then we have problems. They had better spank the Browns.

yes, I recognized that fact but if improvement was supposed to be made, road game play should be one of those areas. I haven't seen it so far. We shall see. I hope I am overreacting to these stats.

Jeffbleedspurple wrote:
I'm with you, home or away, does not matter these stats are awful and the team does need to get their butts in gear

If they struggle at home tomorrow although versus a pretty decent defense it will be another telling tale depending on the way the chips fall. I think that the Vikings will show up and AP could have a huge day.

Stats aside, that was the best I've seen them play at Soldier field in a long time. Demoralizing to lose in that way for sure. Everybody from Fraizer on down just needs to tighten things up.

The Breeze wrote:Stats aside, that was the best I've seen them play at Soldier field in a long time. Demoralizing to lose in that way for sure. Everybody from Fraizer on down just needs to tighten things up.

Agreed. It's encouraging that they went in as an underdog and put themselves in position to win the game. I know a win would have been more satisfying but as you said, that was the best they've looked at Soldier Field in years.

Moral victories wooo!

Did they get a participation ribbon? Or maybe the FedEx "Try Hard" award?

Demi wrote:Moral victories wooo!

Did they get a participation ribbon? Or maybe the FedEx "Try Hard" award?

No they get a big L for LOSS.

The point is stats don't tell everything....but yeah 0-2 is 0-2.

Demi wrote:Moral victories wooo!

Did they get a participation ribbon? Or maybe the FedEx "Try Hard" award?

N kidding. Its like the Childress era all over again. And Fraizer's first year. I guess some are just happy with being close.

Personally, I was impressed with the way they played as I thought they would lose convincingly.

The worst part for me is that Ponder played reasonably well in the 2nd half. He was horrid in the first half. OK in the 2nd half.

THat is was is so frustrating about this guy. Honestly, I'd almost rather he be horrid at all times just so there is no doubt and the Vikings brass could just move on. But he always just shows enough that people think he might be OK.

But he's been the same for years......he's either horrid or shows enough that you think he might be "ok". That's his ceiling.....OK.

And remember, this is all with 8-9 man fronts focussing on AD.

VikingPaul73 wrote:
THat is was is so frustrating about this guy. Honestly, I'd almost rather he be horrid at all times just so there is no doubt and the Vikings brass could just move on. But he always just shows enough that people think he might be OK.

I understand this

VikingPaul73 wrote: But he's been the same for years......

But not this

The Breeze wrote: I understand this

But not this

OK, maybe 1 year. Last year he showed some promise at times (last couple games of the year) but looked absolutely horrid in the middle of the year (ie at the Pack)

The Breeze wrote: No they get a big L for LOSS.

The point is stats don't tell everything....but yeah 0-2 is 0-2.

... and it's still possible to enjoy a #@*^%# football game even if the outcome isn't what you wanted.

VikingPaul73 wrote: OK, maybe 1 year. Last year he showed some promise at times (last couple games of the year) but looked absolutely horrid in the middle of the year (ie at the Pack)

I get you man, he's frustrating to watch.They started out by saying he'll wow you one minute then WTF? you the next. He's lived up to that hype thus far.

But you were frustrated when they drafted him if I recall correctly...so, it prolly seems a lot longer than less than 2 full seasons.

I want him to either succeed or not...the shades of gray are making me gray....er

PurpleKoolaid wrote: N kidding. Its like the Childress era all over again. And Fraizer's first year. I guess some are just happy with being close.

Is it happiness with being close, or trying to see good things in a rough start to the season? Not only were they road games, they were division road games in what many consider the strongest division in football top to bottom. Context lends credibility to the idea that these first two games are not necessarily indicative of future performance.