Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 43
  1. #21
    Caine's Avatar
    Caine is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    5,135

    Re: TSN prediction: Vikings start strong, fade

    "porplepop" wrote:
    "Caine" wrote:
    The only teams on the schedule I worry about right now are Pittsburgh, New York, Carolina, and Baltimore.
    And depending upon how well the Offense meshes, even they might not be issues.

    New York gets downgraded due to their lack of receiving threats, and Carolina gets an asterisk because you never know which Carolina team will show up.
    That leaves the Steelers and the Ravens, and I worry only about their Defenses.
    If we can crack them, the sky is the limit.

    I don't worry about Arizona because I still don't think they're for real.
    And I don't sweat Green Bay because an impressive Pre-Season seldom translates to an impressive season.
    I think they'll place 2nd in the Division, but more because Chicago will be bad and Detroit will be worse than because of their over-hyped 3-4 transition.

    Chicago and Detroit I just covered above.
    Seattle, they're fading.
    St. Louis, San Fran, Cincinnatti, Cleveland...please.
    There are so many issues on all of those teams.

    IMHO, I believe that 11-5 is the WORST we will do (barring devestating injuries), and actually like us to go 13-3/14-2.


    I also don't see us fading.
    I am hoping that, for the first time in history, we will begin peaking as a TEAM in December, and I attribute our fast start to weaker opponents.

    Caine

    LMAO that you don't think that the Cardinals are for real????? are you kidding, they went to Mother of All Battles and almost won over a 13+ point favorite?

    You were just funnin' right?
    Nope, dead serious.
    As was stated by others above, the Superbowl losers often tank the next season.
    Arizona peaked at the right time last season, and were able to ride that momentum - on top of a weak divison - to the Superbowl.
    But as IMissCris pointed out, we cleaned their clocks last season.
    It wasn't even close.


    No, I don't think Arizona is for real.
    I think they have a couple of awesome receivers, and a solid QB in Warner, but their "D" has gaping holes in it, and that will cost them this season.

    As for everyone sweating Green Bay and Chicago...

    The Bears have virtually no Offense.
    Yeah, they have Cutler, but they have ZIP for receivers...so who's he going to throw to?
    And their Defense has fallen off the past couple of seasons.
    Another Superbowl loser that crumbled afterwards...

    As for Green Bay...keep in mind a couple of things.

    1:
    It's preseason.
    No one is showing anything special.
    IN the "Vanilla Wars" they look good, I don;'t think they'll look so hot in a few weeks when it's for real.

    2:
    Rodgers:
    No one had film on him last year.
    He has some potent receivers, but now people know his reads, his trends, his tendencies.
    I'm looking for a drop off this year - like Ryan Grant had last season.

    3:
    Their corners are old and fragile.
    Whoopie can't cover elite receivers anymore, and Woodson is frickin bionic.


    4:
    They're now going to have to show more in a new defense than preseason dictates.
    I look for a night and day difference from them in a few weeks...and not in a good way (from their point of view).

    Caine

  2. #22
    i_bleed_purple's Avatar
    i_bleed_purple is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Canadialand
    Posts
    16,776
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: TSN prediction: Vikings start strong, fade

    "Caine" wrote:
    "porplepop" wrote:
    "Caine" wrote:
    The only teams on the schedule I worry about right now are Pittsburgh, New York, Carolina, and Baltimore.
    And depending upon how well the Offense meshes, even they might not be issues.

    New York gets downgraded due to their lack of receiving threats, and Carolina gets an asterisk because you never know which Carolina team will show up.
    That leaves the Steelers and the Ravens, and I worry only about their Defenses.
    If we can crack them, the sky is the limit.

    I don't worry about Arizona because I still don't think they're for real.
    And I don't sweat Green Bay because an impressive Pre-Season seldom translates to an impressive season.
    I think they'll place 2nd in the Division, but more because Chicago will be bad and Detroit will be worse than because of their over-hyped 3-4 transition.

    Chicago and Detroit I just covered above.
    Seattle, they're fading.
    St. Louis, San Fran, Cincinnatti, Cleveland...please.
    There are so many issues on all of those teams.

    IMHO, I believe that 11-5 is the WORST we will do (barring devestating injuries), and actually like us to go 13-3/14-2.


    I also don't see us fading.
    I am hoping that, for the first time in history, we will begin peaking as a TEAM in December, and I attribute our fast start to weaker opponents.

    Caine

    LMAO that you don't think that the Cardinals are for real????? are you kidding, they went to Mother of All Battles and almost won over a 13+ point favorite?

    You were just funnin' right?
    Nope, dead serious.
    As was stated by others above, the Superbowl losers often tank the next season.
    Arizona peaked at the right time last season, and were able to ride that momentum - on top of a weak divison - to the Superbowl.
    But as IMissCris pointed out, we cleaned their clocks last season.
    It wasn't even close.


    No, I don't think Arizona is for real.
    I think they have a couple of awesome receivers, and a solid QB in Warner, but their "D" has gaping holes in it, and that will cost them this season.

    As for everyone sweating Green Bay and Chicago...

    The Bears have virtually no Offense.
    Yeah, they have Cutler, but they have ZIP for receivers...so who's he going to throw to?
    And their Defense has fallen off the past couple of seasons.
    Another Superbowl loser that crumbled afterwards...

    As for Green Bay...keep in mind a couple of things.

    1:
    It's preseason.
    No one is showing anything special.
    IN the "Vanilla Wars" they look good, I don;'t think they'll look so hot in a few weeks when it's for real.

    2:
    Rodgers:
    No one had film on him last year.
    He has some potent receivers, but now people know his reads, his trends, his tendencies.
    I'm looking for a drop off this year - like Ryan Grant had last season.

    3:
    Their corners are old and fragile.
    Whoopie can't cover elite receivers anymore, and Woodson is frickin bionic.


    4:
    They're now going to have to show more in a new defense than preseason dictates.
    I look for a night and day difference from them in a few weeks...and not in a good way (from their point of view).

    Caine
    one thing to remember, the Vikings have never won all the games they're supposed to.
    Why will we start now?
    Divisional games are always tough games, no matter who we play.
    Hell, we almost lost to the lions twice last year.

  3. #23
    Caine's Avatar
    Caine is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    5,135

    Re: TSN prediction: Vikings start strong, fade

    "i_bleed_purple" wrote:
    "Caine" wrote:
    "porplepop" wrote:
    "Caine" wrote:
    The only teams on the schedule I worry about right now are Pittsburgh, New York, Carolina, and Baltimore.
    And depending upon how well the Offense meshes, even they might not be issues.

    New York gets downgraded due to their lack of receiving threats, and Carolina gets an asterisk because you never know which Carolina team will show up.
    That leaves the Steelers and the Ravens, and I worry only about their Defenses.
    If we can crack them, the sky is the limit.

    I don't worry about Arizona because I still don't think they're for real.
    And I don't sweat Green Bay because an impressive Pre-Season seldom translates to an impressive season.
    I think they'll place 2nd in the Division, but more because Chicago will be bad and Detroit will be worse than because of their over-hyped 3-4 transition.

    Chicago and Detroit I just covered above.
    Seattle, they're fading.
    St. Louis, San Fran, Cincinnatti, Cleveland...please.
    There are so many issues on all of those teams.

    IMHO, I believe that 11-5 is the WORST we will do (barring devestating injuries), and actually like us to go 13-3/14-2.


    I also don't see us fading.
    I am hoping that, for the first time in history, we will begin peaking as a TEAM in December, and I attribute our fast start to weaker opponents.

    Caine

    LMAO that you don't think that the Cardinals are for real????? are you kidding, they went to Mother of All Battles and almost won over a 13+ point favorite?

    You were just funnin' right?
    Nope, dead serious.
    As was stated by others above, the Superbowl losers often tank the next season.
    Arizona peaked at the right time last season, and were able to ride that momentum - on top of a weak divison - to the Superbowl.
    But as IMissCris pointed out, we cleaned their clocks last season.
    It wasn't even close.


    No, I don't think Arizona is for real.
    I think they have a couple of awesome receivers, and a solid QB in Warner, but their "D" has gaping holes in it, and that will cost them this season.

    As for everyone sweating Green Bay and Chicago...

    The Bears have virtually no Offense.
    Yeah, they have Cutler, but they have ZIP for receivers...so who's he going to throw to?
    And their Defense has fallen off the past couple of seasons.
    Another Superbowl loser that crumbled afterwards...

    As for Green Bay...keep in mind a couple of things.

    1:
    It's preseason.
    No one is showing anything special.
    IN the "Vanilla Wars" they look good, I don;'t think they'll look so hot in a few weeks when it's for real.

    2:
    Rodgers:
    No one had film on him last year.
    He has some potent receivers, but now people know his reads, his trends, his tendencies.
    I'm looking for a drop off this year - like Ryan Grant had last season.

    3:
    Their corners are old and fragile.
    Whoopie can't cover elite receivers anymore, and Woodson is frickin bionic.


    4:
    They're now going to have to show more in a new defense than preseason dictates.
    I look for a night and day difference from them in a few weeks...and not in a good way (from their point of view).

    Caine
    one thing to remember, the Vikings have never won all the games they're supposed to.
    Why will we start now?
    Divisional games are always tough games, no matter who we play.
    Hell, we almost lost to the lions twice last year.
    No one ever wins all the games they're supposed to...except the '72 Dolphins.
    Will I get a few of these wrong?
    Sure.
    Prbably not the Packers though...I just don't think they'll match the pre-season hype.
    And I still can't buy into the Bears, because they have no receivers.
    Detroit scares me more because they will be playing with a chip on their shoulder all season long.

    That said, I stated a bit further back that I figured we'd go 11-5 at worst, and between 13-3/14-2 at best.
    I assume that we will drop a couple we shouldn't.



    ...Just not to Green Bay.
    Favre will have that team so fired up, we won't see the flat starts we're used to from Chiller's teams.
    I expect Green Bay to be absolutely rocked in week 4...and when they finally figure out what hit them, we'll be back for more in week 8.

    Caine

  4. #24
    Prophet's Avatar
    Prophet is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    17,388

    Re: TSN prediction: Vikings start strong, fade

    "UffDaVikes" wrote:
    http://gnb.scout.com/a.z?s=61&p=2&c=893010


    The Sporting News predicts the Vikings will get off to one of the strongest starts in franchise history, then fade at the finish. A sidebar indicates they have the talent to get it done with 11 “all-division” players.
    Like a Mike Tice 6-0 start and lose to the flailing Cardinals in the last game and not make the playoffs?
    I seriously doubt it.
    Of course there's speculation with a fogey at QB, but, the team is too deep to be taken lightly.
    Of course, the chicken little's will be out in full force after every loss and hiding in their shells when things are going well.
    That is to be expected.
    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  5. #25
    gagarr's Avatar
    gagarr is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,411

    Re: TSN prediction: Vikings start strong, fade

    "Caine" wrote:
    "porplepop" wrote:
    "Caine" wrote:
    The only teams on the schedule I worry about right now are Pittsburgh, New York, Carolina, and Baltimore.
    And depending upon how well the Offense meshes, even they might not be issues.

    New York gets downgraded due to their lack of receiving threats, and Carolina gets an asterisk because you never know which Carolina team will show up.
    That leaves the Steelers and the Ravens, and I worry only about their Defenses.
    If we can crack them, the sky is the limit.

    I don't worry about Arizona because I still don't think they're for real.
    And I don't sweat Green Bay because an impressive Pre-Season seldom translates to an impressive season.
    I think they'll place 2nd in the Division, but more because Chicago will be bad and Detroit will be worse than because of their over-hyped 3-4 transition.

    Chicago and Detroit I just covered above.
    Seattle, they're fading.
    St. Louis, San Fran, Cincinnatti, Cleveland...please.
    There are so many issues on all of those teams.

    IMHO, I believe that 11-5 is the WORST we will do (barring devestating injuries), and actually like us to go 13-3/14-2.


    I also don't see us fading.
    I am hoping that, for the first time in history, we will begin peaking as a TEAM in December, and I attribute our fast start to weaker opponents.

    Caine

    LMAO that you don't think that the Cardinals are for real????? are you kidding, they went to Mother of All Battles and almost won over a 13+ point favorite?

    You were just funnin' right?
    Nope, dead serious.
    As was stated by others above, the Superbowl losers often tank the next season.
    Arizona peaked at the right time last season, and were able to ride that momentum - on top of a weak divison - to the Superbowl.
    But as IMissCris pointed out, we cleaned their clocks last season.
    It wasn't even close.


    No, I don't think Arizona is for real.
    I think they have a couple of awesome receivers, and a solid QB in Warner, but their "D" has gaping holes in it, and that will cost them this season.

    As for everyone sweating Green Bay and Chicago...

    The Bears have virtually no Offense.
    Yeah, they have Cutler, but they have ZIP for receivers...so who's he going to throw to?
    And their Defense has fallen off the past couple of seasons.
    Another Superbowl loser that crumbled afterwards...

    As for Green Bay...keep in mind a couple of things.

    1:
    It's preseason.
    No one is showing anything special.
    IN the "Vanilla Wars" they look good, I don;'t think they'll look so hot in a few weeks when it's for real.

    2:
    Rodgers:
    No one had film on him last year.
    He has some potent receivers, but now people know his reads, his trends, his tendencies.
    I'm looking for a drop off this year - like Ryan Grant had last season.

    3:
    Their corners are old and fragile.
    Whoopie can't cover elite receivers anymore, and Woodson is frickin bionic.


    4:
    They're now going to have to show more in a new defense than preseason dictates.
    I look for a night and day difference from them in a few weeks...and not in a good way (from their point of view).

    Caine
    I agree on the Cards lucking into the SB.
    They made the playoffs because their division was horrible and someone had to win it.

    How the Cards made the SB:
    WC Atlanta's D was weak, it was a score fest 24-30, and a 2 time MVP vs rookie QB.
    Div
    Delhomme FIVE INTs enough said
    Conf
    Arial battle.
    McNabb and Curtis/Jackson vs
    Warner and Fitz/Boldin
    I'm picking the Cards

    The big question with the Cards is Beanie Wells going to give them a running game by Dec?

    Without the WR's and IMO Forte is going to slump the Bears O will struggle.
    The Bears D is going to have to carry the load, but the Bears pass D was ranked #30 last year and the Vikes have a better pass game.
    So the Bears are going to have problems.

    As for GB:
    Rodgers will put up huge #'s, but will continue his inability to close out games.
    Grant put up 1200 yds but with 3.9 per carry and only 4TD's.
    They are not balanced.
    Their D hasn't faced a decent rushing attack in preseason and they beat AZ, but gave up 37 pts and Cards fumbled 7 times.
    IMO they haven't gotten better from last year and the Vikes have.
    [size=12pt]
    Page 148.5 **Doleman 150.5 **Randle 137.5 **Allen 73+
    [/size]

  6. #26
    porplepop's Avatar
    porplepop is offline Training Camp
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    41

    Re: TSN prediction: Vikings start strong, fade

    No doubt the greenies have improved, only question for someone with a shred of football knowledge is:

    When was the last time a team won the superbowl without a top 5 rated defense?

    You can talk about qb and o line all you want, but if you look at greenbay they were ranked like 23 or 24th on defense.

    We were like 13th or something like that...

    So are we improving on defense?

    Are we shoring up holes or just looking for a quick fucking fix with this dumbshit favre?
    Glutenous enjoyer of fantasy and football...hoping that one day the two will be joined...

  7. #27
    Freya's Avatar
    Freya is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Atlantis
    Posts
    2,456

    Re: TSN prediction: Vikings start strong, fade

    "porplepop" wrote:
    No doubt the greenies have improved, only question for someone with a shred of football knowledge is:

    When was the last time a team won the superbowl without a top 5 rated defense?

    You can talk about qb and o line all you want, but if you look at greenbay they were ranked like 23 or 24th on defense.

    We were like 13th or something like that...

    So are we improving on defense?

    Are we shoring up holes or just looking for a quick fricken fix with this dumbshit favre?
    2006 Colts.

    And This is a quick fix with Favre. It addresses all the pressing issues of the moment. How that plays out remains to be seen.


    Personally, I don't think there is intelligent life on other planets. Why should other planets be any different from this one?

  8. #28
    porplepop's Avatar
    porplepop is offline Training Camp
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    41

    Re: TSN prediction: Vikings start strong, fade

    Ok wtf?

    they were 8th in points against with 15.3 which is pretty damn good...

    I know I know I asked right?

    The point is you can't expect to build a winning organization without addressing the long term issues of the team
    Glutenous enjoyer of fantasy and football...hoping that one day the two will be joined...

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Isanti, MN
    Posts
    978

    Re: TSN prediction: Vikings start strong, fade

    I think the bears are going to be better than people think this year. They don't have any big name receivers yes, but they can catch a pass. There D is still solid, and I think it would be a mistake to overlook them.
    I bet you could use a cool one huh Clark...Now you're talkin Eddie...

  10. #30
    tastywaves's Avatar
    tastywaves is online now Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,815

    Re: TSN prediction: Vikings start strong, fade

    "porplepop" wrote:
    Ok wtf?

    they were 8th in points against with 15.3 which is pretty gol 'darnit good...

    I know I know I asked right?

    The point is you can't expect to build a winning organization without addressing the long term issues of the team
    The Giants defense was ranked 17th in 2007 (using pts allowed).
    http://www.pro-football-reference.co...s/nyg/2007.htm

    The Colts were 23rd ranked defense at 22.5ppg. http://www.pro-football-reference.co...s/clt/2006.htm

    It is true that team with #1 defenses have won their share of SB's.
    However, #1 offensive teams have their share of SB victories as well.
    I went through this exercise a while back to try and dispel this myth.
    I'm too lazy to redo it and too retarded to search for it through this forum.
    The results showed that there were almost as many top offenses making it to the SB as there were top defenses.
    In the end the most telling stat was that SB teams had a fairly low combined ranking between offense and defense.
    Not exactly a revelation, it is a team sport.

    Saying that defense wins championships should be restated as "a great defense can win you a championship, but is not required.".


Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Vikings bothered by fourth-quarter fade pattern
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 10-21-2009, 03:08 PM
  2. Vikings team prediction (not a record prediction) part 2
    By duvaldomo in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 05-02-2008, 07:36 PM
  3. Dwight Smith & Darren Sharper - Strong bond, strong safeties
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-01-2007, 06:00 PM
  4. Vikings team prediction (not a record prediction)
    By duvaldomo in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 07-24-2007, 12:30 AM
  5. MOVED: Vikings team prediction (not a record prediction)
    By ultravikingfan in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-23-2007, 05:24 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •