Thread: Vikings 2007 Opponents

Our so called easy schedule this season was TOUGH (for us)!

"The" wrote:

"ec179299" wrote:

"PurpleGator" wrote:

That schedule looks pretty tough.
Maybe we will catch a break and some of these teams won't be as good next year.

Everyone in the NFC North plays the exact same teams as the Vikes do next year(Other than the two record based games).
If the schedule is tough for Minnesota it is tough for everyone in the division.

Yeah, but the games differ on whether they're played home or away, and I think we got probably the worst case scenario for the AFC West. It would be far more advantageous if we'd got what the Bears did-the complete opposite

What I mean is that the outcomes of the Oakland and San Diego games would probably be the same whether the games were played home, away, or in a parking lot (Win against Oakland; lose to San Diego).

However, Denver and Kansas City are two of the most difficult stadiums to play at in the NFL (with Denver pretty much being number one). If we were playing these two teams at home instead of away, I'd say we'd have a fighting chance at wins depending on our off-season moves. But in their houses? I'd say wins are dubious at best.

Well the Vikings were 0-4 against the AFC this year and had the Pats at home.
If they are a good team they should be able to win anywhere.
Plus, the flights to Denver and KC are better than trips to San Diego and Oakland.

"NodakPaul" wrote:

Adding on to Acumen's post... with the two intraconference game scenarios.

HOME GAMES

Green Bay
Detriot
Chicago
Eagles
Redskins
Raiders
Chargers
San Francisco (or St. Louis)*

AWAY GAMES

Green Bay
Detriot
Chicago
Cowboys
Giants
Broncos
Chiefs
Atlanta (or Carolina)**

* If San Francisco wins and St Louis loses
** If Atlanta wins and Carolina loses

A little off. This is the actual schedule that is on NFL.com...

Home
1.Chicago
2.Green Bay
3.Detroit
4.Philadelphia
5.Washington
6.Atlanta
7.Oakland
8.San Diego

Away
1.Chicago
2.Green Bay
3.Detroit
4.Dallas
5.N.Y. Giants
6.San Francisco
7.Denver
8.Kansas City

Yeah, I realized once the official schedules were released that I had San Fran and Atl flipped.
Thanks for posting it correctly.

"ec179299" wrote:

"The" wrote:

"ec179299" wrote:

"PurpleGator" wrote:

That schedule looks pretty tough.
Maybe we will catch a break and some of these teams won't be as good next year.

Everyone in the NFC North plays the exact same teams as the Vikes do next year(Other than the two record based games).
If the schedule is tough for Minnesota it is tough for everyone in the division.

Yeah, but the games differ on whether they're played home or away, and I think we got probably the worst case scenario for the AFC West. It would be far more advantageous if we'd got what the Bears did-the complete opposite

What I mean is that the outcomes of the Oakland and San Diego games would probably be the same whether the games were played home, away, or in a parking lot (Win against Oakland; lose to San Diego).

However, Denver and Kansas City are two of the most difficult stadiums to play at in the NFL (with Denver pretty much being number one). If we were playing these two teams at home instead of away, I'd say we'd have a fighting chance at wins depending on our off-season moves. But in their houses? I'd say wins are dubious at best.

Well the Vikings were 0-4 against the AFC this year and had the Pats at home.
If they are a good team they should be able to win anywhere.
Plus, the flights to Denver and KC are better than trips to San Diego and Oakland.

Well, I guess I just disagree. I don't think an extra hourr or two on an airplane will make nearly as much of a difference as playing good teams on your own field. And sure, a good team should be able to win anywhere, but umm....

At any rate, as I said, I still think we could beat Oakland anywhere and San Diego nowhere. Denver and Kansas City are tossups (assuming we improve somewhat and they stay relatively the same), but having homefield advantage sure would help.