Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38
  1. #21
    Benet's Avatar
    Benet is offline Star Spokesman
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,976

    Re: Closer, but not too close

    "duvaldomo" wrote:
    "Benet" wrote:

    The purpose of my post wasn't to shoot down all of your points, but to give you the reasoning behind my scepticism regarding the fact that a lot of people now believe that, without playing a game, the Vikings can beat the Bears hands-down. Until we play them in Chicago in Week 6 I won't get carried away.
    Ok whats makes you think the bears can beat us hands-down? Yeah I know they went to the superbowl and blah blah blah but alot can change in a year. The packers beat us twice last year and they beat the bears in week 17 but that doesnt means that the packers will beat us again this year
    I agree, a lot can change in a year. But until we play them again I'm not going to predict we can spank the Bears. I'm not saying we can't beat them; without poor execution and poor play-calling we would have had them in the Metrodome, but I'm not getting carried away. I'll wait til after Week 6 beofre I make my judgments

  2. #22
    davike's Avatar
    davike is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,750

    Re: Closer, but not too close

    a.
    They will suffer the SB Jinx.

    I can't argue with that.. But to be honest if you asked me which team was more likely to suffer from the jinx.. In terms of expectations I think the Colts are going to underachieve. I look at them and I see the Steelers of 2005; a team so hell-bent on winning the Superbowl that they were emotionally drained and lacking any kind of motivation to do anything the following season. I'm not saying the Cotls are going to tank it up and have a top 10 pick in 2008, but I'd be surprised if they won 10 games next season. (That's underachieving for the Colts). The Bears on the other hand, as long as you have Urlacher, Archuleta is back with the coach that made him a FORCE at Strong Safety, and you could argue a full season's experience for Rex Grossman can only help him next season.. Coupled with the fact that the NFC is far weaker than the AFC and the NFC North is one it's weaker divisions (I'd say only the NFC South - based on Carolina's tanking the last 2 years, Tampa's struggles with an ageing defence and Atlanta's constant mediocrity - and the NFC West are weaker than the NFC North) means the Bears are a good bet to win 8 games: MINIMUM.
    Just like the Bears have Urlacher and Archuleta, the Colts still have Manning, Wayne, Freeney, Addai, Harrison, Sanders....I could go on, I think that the Colts have to many of their key players to not be a good team. A playoff berth for the Colts wouldn't suprise me, there is to many other good teams in the AFC to say they will make it to the SB again though. I think the Bears will win 8 games, but I think we can to if we put it all together.

    b.
    They are already suffering from Inside Out destruction (See player issues i.e holdouts/jail etc)

    Can't argue with that. The Tank Johnson situation will hurt them, but I'm not sure how much the deal with Lance Briggs will affect them. The Tampa 2 defence seems to make seemingly-mediocre OLB's into great ones almost overnight. I wouldn't be surprised if, and this is if Briggs leaves, the Bears plug in some unknown Weakside-Linebacker and he plays well.
    I think that any team, no matter what defense they play, will be affected by the loss of a player like Briggs. He may be a jerk, but he can play some good football.


    c.
    Wrecks isn't gonna be any better.

    Wrecks? Sorry mate, you lost me.
    I am pretty sure he means Rex...I think that Rex has had a few years to put it together and if he doesn't get injured again this year, he will be just as inconsistent.


    Quote
    d.
    Lost thier running back.

    They didn't lose him; they willingly got rid of him. Sure, Jones was productive but they believe Benson can carry the load. And they drafted Garrett Wolfe - who rushed for 1,900 yards and 18 TD's in college last year - to back him up, so I wouldn't ring the death bell on their running game just yet.
    Yes they did lose him...he was getting unhappy and wanted a trade....why wouldn't you want to keep a player like him if you had the chance and the cap? Benson hasn't shown me much yet, he hasn't really taken the reigns yet. I am not saying they will lose their run game, but the offense will be affected by the loss of Jones.



    We on the other hand will have

    a.
    OL playing together under the ZB scheme for the second year.

    Again, can't argue much here. I hope, as you do, that the right side of the line can catch up to the quality of play that the left side is capable of. It's all well and good having a dominant left-side if we keep letting Left Defensive Ends and Strongside Linebackers run pretty-much-unhindered into the backfield thanks to sloppy play from our Right Guard and Tackle.
    Can't argue with that at all....did I mention that the Bears offensive line is getting old?


    b.
    A much more potent ground game (i.e ball control / clock control)

    The one thing I can't argue anything with. With Chester and All Day (oh yeah, I like that nickname) running the ball we have a great chance of having the most dominant rushing attack in the NFC, if not the entire NFL.
    Oh yeah...sounds good to me ;D


    c.
    Better special teams than last year.

    The Bears still have Devin Hester last I checked, so our Special Teams will need a BIG improvement for ours to be on par with theirs.
    He never said that ours was on the same level as theirs, he just said it was better. We drafted a PR/KR, so if they work, we should be pretty good on special teams.


    d.
    WR that can catch the ball that actually fit the scheme of the KA WCO.

    Last I checked we signed Bobby Wade as a FA, and we still have Troy Williamson on the roster!
    Seriously tho, I hope Sidney Rice can become that #1 wideout we desperately need, but I'd still have class Mushin Muhammed and Bernard Berrian as better receivers than Bobby Wade, Troy Williamson and Sidney Rice.
    Hopefully Williamson will actually be able to catch this year. Wade is a pretty good WR and has some good potential. I hope Rice and our other rookies work out as well. I think that Muhammed is getting old and Berrian is up and down, fairly inconsistent. The best part of their pass game is their TEs. I think we have a brighter future then they do as far as that goes, I am not saying it will be this year, but I think in a couple years we should have a better group then they do.


    e.
    A coaching staff the has worked together and ironed out the bugs.

    The second point I have no arguments against!
    Childress has a year of experience and he has made some changes already, proving to some people he isn't as hard headed and stubborn as they make him out to be. I think they should be a better group for sure this year.


    Quote
    f.
    Most importantly

    A young ball club playing with fire and determination.
    Not a bunch of washed up has beens who are only worried about why thier org keeps paying them lowball dollars.

    I'd hardly call the Vikings a young ball club. They have been going since 1961!

    Seriously tho, our team is as old as the Bears is. They have young RB's, a young QB, young DB's. We have young QB's, young WR's, and young LB's. Sure Ron Rivera and Lance Briggs are whining about contracts, but name a team that hasn't had to deal with that this off-season? We've even had it with Pat Williams to a certain extent.
    Our team is younger then the Bears... We have young RBs, WRs, QBs, LBs, other then Winfield all our CBs are younger, we have a couple young guys at S, OL, our D line is pretty young other then Phat Pat. Just about every position is young...what I mean by young is 5 or less years in the NFL probably. They have some young players on D but most of their key players on offense are getting up there.


    The purpose of my post wasn't to shoot down all of your points, but to give you the reasoning behind my scepticism regarding the fact that a lot of people now believe that, without playing a game, the Vikings can beat the Bears hands-down. Until we play them in Chicago in Week 6 I won't get carried away.
    We may be a little overly optimistic...but I don't think we are getting carried away, lets face it, the Bears were fairly inconsistent last year, when Harris got injured it really hurt their defense. They could be one of the best in the NFC, but that doesn't take much. I don't think anyone said we will beat them no problem, but I think we will give them a run for their money....we almost beat them twice last year, this year we are a even better team with a little more experience. I think we have a good chance to beat them this year. I agree every team in the NFL seems to come up with suprises and new problems to fix...I am not going to say that we are going to beat them....but I would say if every player plays at the highest of his ability level, we should have a good chance. We are a young and talented team....we just need to put it all together.

    Thanks Josdin00 for the sig!

  3. #23
    Benet's Avatar
    Benet is offline Star Spokesman
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,976

    Re: Closer, but not too close

    I'm not gonna bother sorting out all the quotes and stuff here, frankly cos I'm lazy.. And while I do agree with many of your points davike, I have to call out your implied assumption that just because we have a young team that makes us better than the Bears. It might be because I read a good article on ESPN2.com (and surprise surprise I can't find it now) about how this misplaced belief in "potential" has caused many baffling decisions over the years. Most of the examples were from the NBA but I think it applies here.

    Heck, it applies to the NFL too. Look at the JaMarcus Russell/Brady Quinn argument. Why did the Raiders take Russell? Because he is POTENTIALLY the best QB in the draft; not the best RIGHT NOW (which is what the Raiders need, DESPERATELY), but only potentially.

    Basically, my belief is that youth doesn't automatically equate to ability. If you're good, you're good. Unless you're a Running Back. Then the moment you hit 31 you're basically too banged up be the same player you were at 25.

  4. #24
    davike's Avatar
    davike is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,750

    Re: Closer, but not too close

    I don't mean to say that because we are a young team we are better then the Bears. I may have come across like I meant it that way but I don't believe that. But I think that since we are a young team, we are rebuilding, and if we can make all this young talent work then we will have a dominant team for years to come. But we need to develop it. The Bears have allot of players that are older...so they could be about as good now as they will be for quite a few years. Depends upon how well they draft and bring new players in.

    I think that an all old team is not near as good as a young team. An old team will rapidly decline and a young team only can get better. I think the perfect team is a team that get to the point where they have good middle age players that will be there to help train in the rookies...then when the rookies are ready they can take over from the older players and eventually become the guys to train in the rookies. Most of the time that doesn't usually work out quite as well as that, but I hope the Vikings can get something like that going and be a force for many years to come.

    Right now I am not that impressed with the Bears team. They will be a solid team to deal with as long as they have the talent in defense and special teams that they have, but I still think they are very beatable if you have a good gameplan. I think that if we can actually put it all together, we should have a solid team. I am not saying that we are better then the Bears, we aren't as far as I can see so far, but I think we have the ability to be a better team then the Bears if we can mesh and cut out some of the mistakes. We can only wait and see till we get out on the field though.

    I think one of the biggest keys to beating the Bears is shutting down the run game and blitzing, last year when ever a team threw creative blitzes at Grossman, he fell apart. I think the Bears are very beatable if you play them right.

    As of now I am going to say that the Bears are a better team then the Vikes.


    Thanks Josdin00 for the sig!

  5. #25
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,604
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Closer, but not too close

    Personally, I think we should be optimistic right now.
    That is what the offseason is for!
    Get excited!


    We have the NFL's best RB duo, right now.
    We have the NFL's best run defense, right now.
    We have the NFL's best left side OL, right now.


    What else do we have?

    We have exciting prospects at both QB and WR.
    We have a revamped LB corps.
    We have depth and talent in our secondary.
    Our new DC is a blitzing maniac who has always had strong pass defenses.
    Our DE's are both healthy again, and team up with the league's best DT's.

    Need more?

    We secured the best RB of the draft, and one of the best WRs too!
    Both will likely be starters this year!

    Screw the Bears!
    We are tied for first place with the Bears (and every other team) right now.
    They barely beat us last year, and I think we made bigger strides than they did.
    I can't wait for the MNF game when they come roaring into the Metrodome but go limping out.
    Not in our house, baby!
    I may have purple shades on, but I gotta admit that I like the view!
    Zeus wrote:
    When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?

    =Z=

  6. #26
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,271

    Re: Closer, but not too close

    "davike" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    Top comment is mine at the bottom.

    ;D
    I reported it as a violation ;D

    Post it in here man!
    Nice going numbnuts, now they removed it & I can't read it.

    ;D

    "If at first you don't succeed, parachuting is not for you"

  7. #27
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,271

    Re: Closer, but not too close

    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "Benet" wrote:
    Come on guys, let's take the Purple-Tinted-Shades here.

    We're not as good as the Bears. Any speculation to the contrary is purely that; speculation.
    Even though I am a huge optimist when it comes to the team, I can take my shades off.
    And when I do, I still think we can and will beat them this year for the following reasons:

    a.
    They will suffer the SB Jinx.
    b.
    They are already suffering from Inside Out destruction (See player issues i.e holdouts/jail etc)
    c.
    Wrecks isn't gonna be any better.
    d.
    Lost thier running back.

    We on the other hand will have

    a.
    OL playing together under the ZB scheme for the second year.
    b.
    A much more potent ground game (i.e ball control / clock control)
    c.
    Better special teams than last year.
    d.
    WR that can catch the ball that actually fit the scheme of the KA WCO.
    e.
    A coaching staff the has worked together and ironed out the bugs.
    f.
    Most importantly

    A young ball club playing with fire and determination.
    Not a bunch of washed up has beens who are only worried about why thier org keeps paying them lowball dollars.

    That my friend equates to a fired up fan down here in South Eastern VA.
    ;D

    c.
    Better special teams than last year.
    Until we actually see the special teams play this year & they prove it, it is nothing more than speculation.


    d.
    WR that can catch the ball that actually fit the scheme of the KA WCO.
    Again, speculation. Seeing is believing. There hasn't even been one ball caught in the 2007 season yet.

    e.
    A coaching staff the has worked together and ironed out the bugs.
    We finished dead last in pass defense, 26th in passing yards per attempt & had the most penalties of any team. Not to mention we lost our defensive coordinator Tomlin.

    Exactly what bugs were worked out?

    I see a lot more bugs that need to be ironed out & our defensive coordinator has yet to work with the new coaching staff, except for a mini camp or two. Plus we still do not even know for sure who our starters are on the right side of the OL.

    "If at first you don't succeed, parachuting is not for you"

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,185

    Re: Closer, but not too close

    WOW! is he basing the secondary on return ability also?!?! we have a WAY better secondary than the bears! Winfield (should have been a pro bowler), Cedric Griffin (had a great rookie season), Darren Sharper (FREAKIN ball hawk), and Dwight Smith (who sucks, and needs to leave).

    how do you give the offensive line edge to the bears, i dont care that he thinks that the bears are MORE COMPLETE! they have Olen Kreutz.... and how can he say that Ryan Cook isn't a sure fire answer at RT!?!? HE WAS A FREAKIN CENTER IN COLLEGE!! i went to training camp last season, and he was playing all over the offensive line!!! THIS GUY IS A BEARS FAN!!!
    http://www.myspace.com/pooptin


  9. #29
    vikes2456's Avatar
    vikes2456 is offline Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,656

    Re: Closer, but not too close

    Guys calm the hell down, there is no need for a point by point evaluation of anybodies post.
    We simply do not know which team will be better this year. While we may be better than the Bears next year, it is perfectly feasible that we may not. There is no reason to get so heated when it's still the freakin' offseason

  10. #30
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,271

    Re: Closer, but not too close

    "PurplePeopleEaters89" wrote:
    WOW! is he basing the secondary on return ability also?!?! we have a WAY better secondary than the bears! Winfield (should have been a pro bowler), Cedric Griffin (had a great rookie season), Darren Sharper (FREAKIN ball hawk), and Dwight Smith (who sucks, and needs to leave).

    how do you give the offensive line edge to the bears, i dont care that he thinks that the bears are MORE COMPLETE! they have Olen Kreutz.... and how can he say that Ryan Cook isn't a sure fire answer at RT!?!? HE WAS A FREAKIN CENTER IN COLLEGE!! i went to training camp last season, and he was playing all over the offensive line!!! THIS GUY IS A BEARS FAN!!!
    Um, probably because he has only had limited playing experience at RT.


    Being a center in college does not = a sure fire answer at RT.

    "If at first you don't succeed, parachuting is not for you"

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 55
    Last Post: 08-17-2009, 07:08 PM
  2. Bring in the " Closer QB "
    By NordicNed in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 07-27-2009, 06:19 AM
  3. Closer To The Action
    By COJOMAY in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-26-2007, 09:22 PM
  4. It's getting closer!
    By PurpleRide in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 07-17-2005, 07:23 AM
  5. One step closer!!!
    By smootpepper in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 06-09-2005, 04:07 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
  •