PDA

View Full Version : Congrats Vikes, we are the best team in the league.



kevoncox
11-23-2009, 10:24 PM
I know we stand behind the Colts and Saints in most power rankings but hands down we are the best team in the league. We can run the ball better than the either team and our passing game is equal to if not better than both teams. Defensively we are better against the run and our secondary are equally as average. Simply put, I can't wait till playoff time but I hope we don't play the Packers or the Eagles.

Ihave a fear that the Packers will get their ultimate revenge by beating us in the playoffs. How satisfing would it be for them to knock us out, ending Brett's Superbowl run.
:-[

I fear the Eagles because Chilly has never beaten his old friend Reid.

Congrats Vikes, can't wait to hear " with the 32nd pick in the 2010 Nfl draft, the Vikings select.....

Formo
11-23-2009, 10:29 PM
"kevoncox" wrote:


I know we stand behind the Colts and Saints in most power rankings but hands down we are the best team in the league. We can run the ball better than the either team and our passing game is equal to if not better than both teams. Defensively we are better against the run and our secondary are equally as average. Simply put, I can't wait till playoff time but I hope we don't play the Packers or the Eagles.

Ihave a fear that the Packers will get their ultimate revenge by beating us in the playoffs. How satisfing would it be for them to knock us out, ending Brett's Superbowl run.
:-[

I fear the Eagles because Chilly has never beaten his old friend Reid.

Congrats Vikes, can't wait to hear " with the 32nd pick in the 2010 Nfl draft, the Vikings select.....


I kinda agree with you on playing the Pukers in the playoffs..
but the Eagles I actually hope we play them.
I know the Vikings haven't beaten them in quite some time (I think McNabb is undefeated against us, actually).
I think there is no way we can lose to them this year.

duvaldomo
11-23-2009, 10:35 PM
Agreed. I do not want to play the packers in the playoffs either but the eagles I think we can handle. Since Jim Johnson (RIP) Died the defense have not been as dominate and I think we can put them away.

echizen20
11-23-2009, 10:39 PM
"kevoncox" wrote:


I know we stand behind the Colts and Saints in most power rankings but hands down we are the best team in the league. We can run the ball better than the either team and our passing game is equal to if not better than both teams. Defensively we are better against the run and our secondary are equally as average. Simply put, I can't wait till playoff time but I hope we don't play the Packers or the Eagles.

Ihave a fear that the Packers will get their ultimate revenge by beating us in the playoffs. How satisfing would it be for them to knock us out, ending Brett's Superbowl run.
:-[

I fear the Eagles because Chilly has never beaten his old friend Reid.

Congrats Vikes, can't wait to hear " with the 32nd pick in the 2010 Nfl draft, the Vikings select.....


The only team in the NFC i would be worried about in the playoffs are the Saints if they have the homefield advantage.
The Packers have one of the worst if not the worst Oline in the league while we have one of the best Dlines.
They have also lost Kampman and Al harris for the season too so I just don't see them being any threat to us.
I would rather it be the Packers to come play us in the Metrodome rather than the Cowboys or Eagles or Falcons simply because we have beaten the Packers down twice before and know them very well.
You can't deny Favre would have another great day against the Pack can you?

purplejokr
11-24-2009, 06:02 AM
Beating the Packers three times this year would be too much for Favre's old heart to take!
;D

Marrdro
11-24-2009, 08:11 AM
Take the purple glasses off Kevon.
We are not the best team in the league.


Are we close?
Yes, but we need to really play a team with a winning record and beat them to be considered one of the best. ::)

Schutz
11-24-2009, 08:58 AM
I don't know, I'm going to take the middle ground between a couple folks here.
I don't think the Vikings are the top dog in the NFL by any means but I think they are one of the top three.
On the other hand I never buy into this #1 team in the NFL idea.
The Saints and Vikings play 10 games in a row and I honestly don't know who will win more games.
I think calling a team #1 in the NFL is much different than calling someone #1 in another sport.
Back when Ali was the heavy weight champion of the world in his prime he was a #1.
The Yankees in some of their dominate years were clearing #1.
I just think with how close the Colts/Vikings/Saints are without having played each other we can't go around making claims either way.

molineviking
11-24-2009, 09:14 AM
Why aren't we? Both undefeated team have barely squeaked by recently, And the number of mediocre teams is so high that nobody has played a schedule full of winning teams, The Saints have played the exact same opponents as far as records 37-63 for them, 36-64 for us, Colts is 47-53, But it's no secret their running game is bad, And should/could of lost any of the last three games-No they haven't but they don't look unbeatable, Maybe we're barely number 2A, but to keep saying "Theres no way we're the best" is silly, We're 2nd in pts scored, We have a top QB, receiver, RB, Return game, Defense, So if had one more win we could say we're number 1?? By the way, Our one loss-In my opinion was to two fluke plays, I'd say we dominated the defending Super Bowl champs pretty convincingly that game.

kevoncox
11-24-2009, 09:42 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


Take the purple glasses off Kevon.
We are not the best team in the league.


Are we close?
Yes, but we need to really play a team with a winning record and beat them to be considered one of the best. ::)


Who is better?
Pats: Their passing game is tops in the league but their defense isn't very good. They just lost to the Colts
Colts: Missing more and more stars on defense. We have an identical passing game and we are better than running the ball. Our defense is also better.
Aints: Their early success is blinding most to how the team is playing now. They are winning but they are not playing better than we are.
Steelers just lost to the Cheifs, Bengals just lost to Oakland, Gmen just won their first game in 2 months.
I would put our Qb play up against anyones.

marstc09
11-24-2009, 09:50 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


Take the purple glasses off Kevon.
We are not the best team in the league.


Are we close?
Yes, but we need to really play a team with a winning record and beat them to be considered one of the best. ::)


What are you talking about? The Packers are 6-4 and we played them twice. The Saints have also played only two 6-4 teams. The Colts have also only played two 6-4 teams but they played a 7-3 Pats team. Still only one more team. I am sick of all the we have not played anyone talk. No win is guaranteed. It is not crazy to say we are the best team in the league. Period.
::)

gagarr
11-24-2009, 09:57 AM
"molineviking" wrote:



Why aren't we? Both undefeated team have barely squeaked by recently, And the number of mediocre teams is so high that nobody has played a schedule full of winning teams, The Saints have played the exact same opponents as far as records 37-63 for them, 36-64 for us, Colts is 47-53, But it's no secret their running game is bad, And should/could of lost any of the last three games-No they haven't but they don't look unbeatable, Maybe we're barely number 2A, but to keep saying "Theres no way we're the best" is silly, We're 2nd in pts scored, We have a top QB, receiver, RB, Return game, Defense, So if had one more win we could say we're number 1?? By the way, Our one loss-In my opinion was to two fluke plays, I'd say we dominated the defending Super Bowl champs pretty convincingly that game.




+1
It's all level of competition as to why these teams are undefeated.
Vikes didn't lose to a cream puff team, Vikes lost to a full strenght SB champs.
Saints schedule is creampuff, they have faced two teams (PHI, NYG) with winning records and have two left, (NE, DAL).
Vikes have had 3 game (GB, GB, PIT) and have 3 games left (AZ, CIN, NYG) against teams with winning records.
Colts have faced 3 (JAC, AZ, NE) but only have 2 winning team left (JAC, DEN).

The Vikes have the hardest road ahead, so unless something drastic happens I don't see HFA coming the Vikes way.
But I do see the Vikes being able to go toe to toe with NO and beating them in their house.
The only winning team they faced at home is NYG and Eli was playing injured.

If NO can beat NE, then I'll say they are for real, but IMO they are going down.

singersp
11-24-2009, 10:38 AM
"kevoncox" wrote:


I know we stand behind the Colts and Saints in most power rankings but hands down we are the best team in the league. We can run the ball better than the either team and our passing game is equal to if not better than both teams. Defensively we are better against the run and our secondary are equally as average. Simply put, I can't wait till playoff time but I hope we don't play the Packers or the Eagles.

Ihave a fear that the Packers will get their ultimate revenge by beating us in the playoffs. How satisfing would it be for them to knock us out, ending Brett's Superbowl run.
:-[

I fear the Eagles because Chilly has never beaten his old friend Reid.

Congrats Vikes, can't wait to hear " with the 32nd pick in the 2010 Nfl draft, the Vikings select.....


Hey Kevon!

Whatever happened to all that matters is wins & losses?

Colts: 10-0
Saints: 10-0
Vikings: 9-1

Not to mention the combined winning/losing records of our opponents

Colts: 47-53
Saints: 37-63
Vikings: 36-64

Other than the Packers, who are only 1 game over .500, we have yet to beat a team boasting a better than .500 record.

Let's be honest here. You don't face sub .500 teams in the playoffs.

marstc09
11-24-2009, 10:40 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


I know we stand behind the Colts and Saints in most power rankings but hands down we are the best team in the league. We can run the ball better than the either team and our passing game is equal to if not better than both teams. Defensively we are better against the run and our secondary are equally as average. Simply put, I can't wait till playoff time but I hope we don't play the Packers or the Eagles.

Ihave a fear that the Packers will get their ultimate revenge by beating us in the playoffs. How satisfing would it be for them to knock us out, ending Brett's Superbowl run.
:-[

I fear the Eagles because Chilly has never beaten his old friend Reid.

Congrats Vikes, can't wait to hear " with the 32nd pick in the 2010 Nfl draft, the Vikings select.....


Hey Kevon!

Whatever happened to all that matters is wins & losses?

Colts: 10-0
Saints: 10-0
Vikings: 9-1

Not to mention the combined winning/losing records of our opponents

Colts: 47-53
Saints: 37-63
Vikings: 36-64

Other than the Packers, who are only 1 game over .500, we have yet to beat a team boasting a better than .500 record.

Let's be honest here. You don't face sub .500 teams in the playoffs.


The Packers are 2 games over .500

molineviking
11-24-2009, 10:44 AM
"marstc09" wrote:




The Packers are 2 games over .500


Don't forget the Steelers, above .500 Two fluke plays and we're 10-0

C Mac D
11-24-2009, 10:45 AM
"molineviking" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:




The Packers are 2 games over .500


Don't forget the Steelers, above .500 Two fluke plays and we're 10-0


Two more fluke plays (49ers and Ravens) and we're 7-3...

marstc09
11-24-2009, 10:47 AM
"C" wrote:


"molineviking" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:




The Packers are 2 games over .500


Don't forget the Steelers, above .500 Two fluke plays and we're 10-0


Two more fluke plays (49ers and Ravens) and we're 7-3...


Obviously missing FGs for Hausk is not a fluke. Where is that unemployment line?

Suick
11-24-2009, 10:49 AM
"C" wrote:


"molineviking" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:




The Packers are 2 games over .500


Don't forget the Steelers, above .500 Two fluke plays and we're 10-0


Two more fluke plays (49ers and Ravens) and we're 7-3...


+1


Last year we wone 2-3 games with smoke an mirrors. But you know what....................I'll take with a $hit eating grin.

molineviking
11-24-2009, 10:50 AM
"C" wrote:


"molineviking" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:




The Packers are 2 games over .500


Don't forget the Steelers, above .500 Two fluke plays and we're 10-0


Two more fluke plays (49ers and Ravens) and we're 7-3...






Saints barely beat the Rams, And the Colts barely beat the Texans, Ravens, and Pats, I'm not arguing that we ARE the best, But that it could be argued we are and it wouldn't be that outlandish.

Suick
11-24-2009, 10:53 AM
This has probably been asked before, but who gets HFA if Vikes and Saints both end up 15-1?

Provide The Pats beat them sensless
;D..............

Both will have zero division losses

Both will have zero conference losses

Bubba Jed
11-24-2009, 10:59 AM
"Suick" wrote:


This has probably been asked before, but who gets HFA if Vikes and Saints both end up 15-1?

Provide The Pats beat them sensless
;D..............

Both will have zero division losses

Both will have zero conference losses





COIN TOSS!!!!!!!
LOL

singersp
11-24-2009, 11:08 AM
"marstc09" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


I know we stand behind the Colts and Saints in most power rankings but hands down we are the best team in the league. We can run the ball better than the either team and our passing game is equal to if not better than both teams. Defensively we are better against the run and our secondary are equally as average. Simply put, I can't wait till playoff time but I hope we don't play the Packers or the Eagles.

Ihave a fear that the Packers will get their ultimate revenge by beating us in the playoffs. How satisfing would it be for them to knock us out, ending Brett's Superbowl run.
:-[

I fear the Eagles because Chilly has never beaten his old friend Reid.

Congrats Vikes, can't wait to hear " with the 32nd pick in the 2010 Nfl draft, the Vikings select.....


Hey Kevon!

Whatever happened to all that matters is wins & losses?

Colts: 10-0
Saints: 10-0
Vikings: 9-1

Not to mention the combined winning/losing records of our opponents

Colts: 47-53
Saints: 37-63
Vikings: 36-64

Other than the Packers, who are only 1 game over .500, we have yet to beat a team boasting a better than .500 record.

Let's be honest here. You don't face sub .500 teams in the playoffs.


The Packers are 2 games over .500


Umm, NO!

The Packers are 6-4

a .500 record would be 5-5

6-5=1 where I went to school. Not 2. Ergo the Packers are 1 game over .500

Take away 1 of their wins & what is their record? It's simple math.

singersp
11-24-2009, 11:09 AM
"C" wrote:


"molineviking" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:




The Packers are 2 games over .500


Don't forget the Steelers, above .500 Two fluke plays and we're 10-0


Two more fluke plays (49ers and Ravens) and we're 7-3...


+1

Zeus
11-24-2009, 11:09 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


I know we stand behind the Colts and Saints in most power rankings but hands down we are the best team in the league. We can run the ball better than the either team and our passing game is equal to if not better than both teams. Defensively we are better against the run and our secondary are equally as average. Simply put, I can't wait till playoff time but I hope we don't play the Packers or the Eagles.

Ihave a fear that the Packers will get their ultimate revenge by beating us in the playoffs. How satisfing would it be for them to knock us out, ending Brett's Superbowl run.
:-[

I fear the Eagles because Chilly has never beaten his old friend Reid.

Congrats Vikes, can't wait to hear " with the 32nd pick in the 2010 Nfl draft, the Vikings select.....


Hey Kevon!

Whatever happened to all that matters is wins & losses?

Colts: 10-0
Saints: 10-0
Vikings: 9-1

Not to mention the combined winning/losing records of our opponents

Colts: 47-53
Saints: 37-63
Vikings: 36-64

Other than the Packers, who are only 1 game over .500, we have yet to beat a team boasting a better than .500 record.

Let's be honest here. You don't face sub .500 teams in the playoffs.


The Packers are 2 games over .500


Umm, NO!

The Packers are 6-4

a .500 record would be 5-5

6-5=1 where I went to school. Not 2. Ergo the Packers are 1 game over .500

Take away 1 of their wins & what is their record? It's simple math.


It will take them 2 games to be .500 (6-4 to 6-6).
That's what "2 games over .500" means.

=Z=

molineviking
11-24-2009, 11:12 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"molineviking" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:




The Packers are 2 games over .500


Don't forget the Steelers, above .500 Two fluke plays and we're 10-0


Two more fluke plays (49ers and Ravens) and we're 7-3...


+1



3 fluke plays and the Colts are 7-3,

kevoncox
11-24-2009, 11:18 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


I know we stand behind the Colts and Saints in most power rankings but hands down we are the best team in the league. We can run the ball better than the either team and our passing game is equal to if not better than both teams. Defensively we are better against the run and our secondary are equally as average. Simply put, I can't wait till playoff time but I hope we don't play the Packers or the Eagles.

Ihave a fear that the Packers will get their ultimate revenge by beating us in the playoffs. How satisfing would it be for them to knock us out, ending Brett's Superbowl run.
:-[

I fear the Eagles because Chilly has never beaten his old friend Reid.

Congrats Vikes, can't wait to hear " with the 32nd pick in the 2010 Nfl draft, the Vikings select.....


Hey Kevon!

Whatever happened to all that matters is wins & losses?

Colts: 10-0
Saints: 10-0
Vikings: 9-1

Not to mention the combined winning/losing records of our opponents

Colts: 47-53
Saints: 37-63
Vikings: 36-64

Other than the Packers, who are only 1 game over .500, we have yet to beat a team boasting a better than .500 record.

Let's be honest here. You don't face sub .500 teams in the playoffs.


Name a team that's better.
Lets point out something. Of the Big three (Colts, Vikes, Saints) Which team has a player in the top three players at their position? Answer: Vikes - Favre in QB rating & Tds, AD in yards, Rice in yards(he's actually 4th). Talk about balance. Do we have a better defense than the Colts and Saints? You're damn right we do.
Our Special teams are better and lastly, our defense hasn't suffered devestating injuries to key players( Sharper, Sanders, Porter etc. The saints are starting 2 Cbs that were at home last week. How are they better? We are the best team right now. Period.

molineviking
11-24-2009, 11:22 AM
We're having a once a decade year, (Way longer for some) yet we're bickering about hypotheticals, Can we Viking fans ever be happy?? :)

XTAP59
11-24-2009, 11:27 AM
"molineviking" wrote:









We're having a once a decade year, (Way longer for some) yet we're bickering about hypotheticals, Can we Viking fans ever be happy?? :)


I'm very happy. The Vikings are 9-1, we already got our loss out of the way, (The Saints will falter under the undefeated scenario sooner or later) we are first in the division with a sweep of the packers and the Lions, we are on target for a home field playoff game, Brett Favre is playing the best he ever did, Peterson has a 1000 yards already, Rice has blossomed, Harvin is ROY, Shiancoe is getting better every week, and the team is healthy sans Antoine Winfield, who will be back in a week or so.

Life is good.
And so are the Vikings.

Suick
11-24-2009, 11:28 AM
Honestly, after watching them for ~40 years, and suffering thru 4 SB losses, I'm more than apprehesive about going back to the big stage, only to get my guts ripped out.
:'(

My office mate, a Bills fan, has the same senitment.

But... its better to have loved and lost...yada yada, yada.....................

jmcdon00
11-24-2009, 11:30 AM
"XTAP59" wrote:


"molineviking" wrote:









We're having a once a decade year, (Way longer for some) yet we're bickering about hypotheticals, Can we Viking fans ever be happy?? :)


I'm very happy. The Vikings are 9-1, we already got our loss out of the way, (The Saints will falter under the undefeated scenario sooner or later) we are first in the division with a sweep of the packers and the Lions, we are on target for a home field playoff game, Brett Favre is playing the best he ever did, Peterson has a 1000 yards already, Rice has blossomed, Harvin is ROY, Shiancoe is getting better every week, and the team is healthy sans Antoine Winfield, who will be back in a week or so.

Life is good.
And so are the Vikings.

Peterson is still stuck at 999rushing yards.
:'(

XTAP59
11-24-2009, 11:32 AM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"XTAP59" wrote:


"molineviking" wrote:









We're having a once a decade year, (Way longer for some) yet we're bickering about hypotheticals, Can we Viking fans ever be happy?? :)


I'm very happy. The Vikings are 9-1, we already got our loss out of the way, (The Saints will falter under the undefeated scenario sooner or later) we are first in the division with a sweep of the packers and the Lions, we are on target for a home field playoff game, Brett Favre is playing the best he ever did, Peterson has a 1000 yards already, Rice has blossomed, Harvin is ROY, Shiancoe is getting better every week, and the team is healthy sans Antoine Winfield, who will be back in a week or so.

Life is good.
And so are the Vikings.

Peterson is still stuck at 999rushing yards.
:'(


And if you turn that 999 upside down you got the mark of the antichrist.....

Just saying....

;D

NordicNed
11-24-2009, 11:32 AM
"Suick" wrote:


Honestly, after watching them for ~40 years, and suffering thru 3 SB losses, I'm more than apprehesive about going back to the big stage, only to get my guts ripped out.
:'(

My office mate, a Bills fan, has the same senitment.

But... its better to have loved and lost...yada yada, yada.....................




Your 3 SB losses, are still better than the 4 SB Losses that I sat thru....
::)











This is our year, I said that in "98" also, but one of these times I'll get it correct and so will the Vikings......We have to good of a team right now, not to have a solid chance at winning it all.
GO VIKINGS!

singersp
11-24-2009, 11:33 AM
"kevoncox" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


I know we stand behind the Colts and Saints in most power rankings but hands down we are the best team in the league. We can run the ball better than the either team and our passing game is equal to if not better than both teams. Defensively we are better against the run and our secondary are equally as average. Simply put, I can't wait till playoff time but I hope we don't play the Packers or the Eagles.

Ihave a fear that the Packers will get their ultimate revenge by beating us in the playoffs. How satisfing would it be for them to knock us out, ending Brett's Superbowl run.
:-[

I fear the Eagles because Chilly has never beaten his old friend Reid.

Congrats Vikes, can't wait to hear " with the 32nd pick in the 2010 Nfl draft, the Vikings select.....


Hey Kevon!

Whatever happened to all that matters is wins & losses?

Colts: 10-0
Saints: 10-0
Vikings: 9-1

Not to mention the combined winning/losing records of our opponents

Colts: 47-53
Saints: 37-63
Vikings: 36-64

Other than the Packers, who are only 1 game over .500, we have yet to beat a team boasting a better than .500 record.

Let's be honest here. You don't face sub .500 teams in the playoffs.


Name a team that's better.
Lets point out something. Of the Big three (Colts, Vikes, Saints) Which team has a player in the top three players at their position? Answer: Vikes - Favre in QB rating & Tds, AD in yards, Rice in yards(he's actually 4th). Talk about balance. Do we have a better defense than the Colts and Saints? You're damn right we do.
Our Special teams are better and lastly, our defense hasn't suffered devestating injuries to key players( Sharper, Sanders, Porter etc. The saints are starting 2 Cbs that were at home last week. How are they better? We are the best team right now. Period.


Do I need to go thread dredging were you laughed at QB ratings?

Brees has MORE TD's than Favre, so you are mistaken. Manning & Favre are tied.

Despite those teams lack of defense as you call it & the devastating injuries you said they've had, both those teams are 10-0 & we are 9-1.

You can sit there and claim how poor the Colts defense is, but the fact is that their defense has given up 157 points while ours has given up 193. Ours has given up 36 more points. As to how bad you claim the Saints defense is, they have only given up 11 more than us.

As far as running the ball better, the Saints have 1,543 yards & 18 TD's to our 1,262 & 12 TD's. They also avg. 4.8 yards/carry to our 4.2. So how exactly is ours better?

XTAP59
11-24-2009, 11:36 AM
Don't worry about if Viking fans.
Nostradamus is on our side. He predicted a Super Bowl victory this season.

Suick
11-24-2009, 11:39 AM
"NordicNed" wrote:


"Suick" wrote:


Honestly, after watching them for ~40 years, and suffering thru 3 SB losses, I'm more than apprehesive about going back to the big stage, only to get my guts ripped out.
:'(

My office mate, a Bills fan, has the same senitment.

But... its better to have loved and lost...yada yada, yada.....................





Your 3 SB losses, are still better than the 4 SB Losses that I sat thru....
::)












This is our year, I said that in "98" also, but one of these times I'll get it correct and so will the Vikings......We have to good of a team right now, not to have a solid chance at winning it all.

GO VIKINGS!


Sorry, I meant 4, it was a Foremanian slip, I've deleted Steeler loss from memory. ;)

tastywaves
11-24-2009, 11:47 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


I know we stand behind the Colts and Saints in most power rankings but hands down we are the best team in the league. We can run the ball better than the either team and our passing game is equal to if not better than both teams. Defensively we are better against the run and our secondary are equally as average. Simply put, I can't wait till playoff time but I hope we don't play the Packers or the Eagles.

Ihave a fear that the Packers will get their ultimate revenge by beating us in the playoffs. How satisfing would it be for them to knock us out, ending Brett's Superbowl run.
:-[

I fear the Eagles because Chilly has never beaten his old friend Reid.

Congrats Vikes, can't wait to hear " with the 32nd pick in the 2010 Nfl draft, the Vikings select.....


Hey Kevon!

Whatever happened to all that matters is wins & losses?

Colts: 10-0
Saints: 10-0
Vikings: 9-1

Not to mention the combined winning/losing records of our opponents

Colts: 47-53
Saints: 37-63
Vikings: 36-64

Other than the Packers, who are only 1 game over .500, we have yet to beat a team boasting a better than .500 record.

Let's be honest here. You don't face sub .500 teams in the playoffs.


Name a team that's better.
Lets point out something. Of the Big three (Colts, Vikes, Saints) Which team has a player in the top three players at their position? Answer: Vikes - Favre in QB rating & Tds, AD in yards, Rice in yards(he's actually 4th). Talk about balance. Do we have a better defense than the Colts and Saints? You're gol 'darnit right we do.
Our Special teams are better and lastly, our defense hasn't suffered devestating injuries to key players( Sharper, Sanders, Porter etc. The saints are starting 2 Cbs that were at home last week. How are they better? We are the best team right now. Period.


Do I need to go thread dredging were you laughed at QB ratings?

Brees has MORE TD's than Favre, so you are mistaken. Manning & Favre are tied.

Despite those teams lack of defense as you call it & the devastating injuries you said they've had, both those teams are 10-0 & we are 9-1.

You can sit there and claim how poor the Colts defense is, but the fact is that their defense has given up 157 points while ours has given up 193. Ours has given up 36 more points. As to how bad you claim the Saints defense is, they have only given up 11 more than us.

As far as running the ball better, the Saints have 1,543 yards & 18 TD's to our 1,262 & 12 TD's. They also avg. 4.8 yards/carry to our 4.2. So how exactly is ours better?


Agreed that Indy's defense is paying better than ours (they are the #1 scoring defense in the league), no way you give us the nod in that category.
I think Indy's offense is suspect and a bit one dimensional, however, they would match up well against our defense.
No way we could hide between Paymah and Sapp against INdy or the Saints.
The Saints offense on the other hand is a pure scoring machine, where there defense is more suspect.
It would be fun to play either one of them, but no way I would crown one of them over the other at this point.


All that matters is how well you are going to play your next game.
Looking at the past 10 weeks is great, but nobody gets crowned best team until you win the SB.
We are in the mix with the best of them and have as good of a shot to win the whole thing as anyone else.


Come playoff time, there may be a couple other teams that we need to worry more about other than the Colts or Saints.

A better title for the thread would be "Congrats Vikes, your playing as well as anyone in the league right now".
I know, not as sexy.

ThorSPL
11-24-2009, 11:48 AM
"Suick" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"molineviking" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:




The Packers are 2 games over .500


Don't forget the Steelers, above .500 Two fluke plays and we're 10-0


Two more fluke plays (49ers and Ravens) and we're 7-3...


+1


Last year we wone 2-3 games with smoke an mirrors. But you know what....................I'll take with a $hit eating grin.


The fact is, we played the games and we're 9-1.

Suick
11-24-2009, 11:53 AM
"Suick" wrote:


This has probably been asked before, but who gets HFA if Vikes and Saints both end up 15-1?

Provide The Pats beat them sensless
;D..............

Both will have zero division losses

Both will have zero conference losses




As I read it, tie breaker for HFA use the same format as HFA for wildcard teams:

Head-to-head, if applicable.
Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference.
Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games, minimum of four.
Strength of victory.
Strength of schedule.
Best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed.
Best combined ranking among all teams in points scored and points allowed.
Best net points in conference games.
Best net points in all games.
Best net touchdowns in all games.
Coin toss.

BloodyHorns82
11-24-2009, 11:59 AM
"Suick" wrote:


"Suick" wrote:


This has probably been asked before, but who gets HFA if Vikes and Saints both end up 15-1?

Provide The Pats beat them sensless
;D..............

Both will have zero division losses

Both will have zero conference losses




As I read it, tie breaker for HFA use the same format as HFA for wildcard teams:

Head-to-head, if applicable.
Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference.
Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games, minimum of four.
Strength of victory.
Strength of schedule.
Best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed.
Best combined ranking among all teams in points scored and points allowed.
Best net points in conference games.
Best net points in all games.
Best net touchdowns in all games.
Coin toss.


Going to be difficult cheering for the F'ing Patriots on Monday.

jmcdon00
11-24-2009, 12:26 PM
"Suick" wrote:


"Suick" wrote:


This has probably been asked before, but who gets HFA if Vikes and Saints both end up 15-1?

Provide The Pats beat them sensless
;D..............

Both will have zero division losses

Both will have zero conference losses




As I read it, tie breaker for HFA use the same format as HFA for wildcard teams:

Head-to-head, if applicable.
Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference.
Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games, minimum of four.
Strength of victory.
Strength of schedule.
Best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed.
Best combined ranking among all teams in points scored and points allowed.
Best net points in conference games.
Best net points in all games.
Best net touchdowns in all games.
Coin toss.

So it would come down to strength of victory most likely? Makes me wonder if we shouldn't be running up the score. Keep Favre in all 4 quarters regardless of score. Almost makes the Pats seem less classless.

SKOL
11-24-2009, 12:37 PM
I doubt the Saints go undefeated.
They have a meat-grinder of a schedule ahead, including NE at home, and away games at two division rivals Carolina and Atlanta.


That being said we have a tougher schedule including, @ Arizona, @ Carolina, Cinci at home, Giants at home, and @ Chicago.
I'd be happy to go 4-2 the rest of the way and end up 13-3 with a #2 seed.
Hoping to advance to the NFC Championship, I'd take my chances with Favre in a dome @ New Orleans.

Zeus
11-24-2009, 12:39 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"Suick" wrote:


"Suick" wrote:


This has probably been asked before, but who gets HFA if Vikes and Saints both end up 15-1?

Provide The Pats beat them sensless
;D..............

Both will have zero division losses

Both will have zero conference losses




As I read it, tie breaker for HFA use the same format as HFA for wildcard teams:

Head-to-head, if applicable.
Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference.
Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games, minimum of four.
Strength of victory.
Strength of schedule.
Best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed.
Best combined ranking among all teams in points scored and points allowed.
Best net points in conference games.
Best net points in all games.
Best net touchdowns in all games.
Coin toss.


So it would come down to strength of victory most likely? Makes me wonder if we shouldn't be running up the score. Keep Favre in all 4 quarters regardless of score. Almost makes the Pats seem less classless.


I made that mistake, too.
"Strength of victory" simply means "Record of teams that you beat".
There's no margin of victory in that calculation.

=Z=

jargomcfargo
11-24-2009, 12:53 PM
Too early to tell which team is the best.
I feel the Vikings are the most complete team in all three phases of the game.
I also see room for improvement.

The Vikings may be the best team in football now.

But they certainly can become the best team, hands down, when they clean up their mistakes and start putting together complete games.

We saw a little preview of what could be, against a week Seahawk team.

Some of the back ups are gaining experience which bodes well.

And this team will get better than it is now, if we remain healthy.

Before this season started, I said this team was better than even most Vikings fans realized, and would finish 14-2.

I stand by that statement.

SKOL Vikings!

BloodyHorns82
11-24-2009, 12:57 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"Suick" wrote:


"Suick" wrote:


This has probably been asked before, but who gets HFA if Vikes and Saints both end up 15-1?

Provide The Pats beat them sensless
;D..............

Both will have zero division losses

Both will have zero conference losses




As I read it, tie breaker for HFA use the same format as HFA for wildcard teams:

Head-to-head, if applicable.
Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference.
Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games, minimum of four.
Strength of victory.
Strength of schedule.
Best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed.
Best combined ranking among all teams in points scored and points allowed.
Best net points in conference games.
Best net points in all games.
Best net touchdowns in all games.
Coin toss.


So it would come down to strength of victory most likely? Makes me wonder if we shouldn't be running up the score. Keep Favre in all 4 quarters regardless of score. Almost makes the Pats seem less classless.


I made that mistake, too.
"Strength of victory" simply means "Record of teams that you beat".
There's no margin of victory in that calculation.

=Z=


Do teams in your own division count twice since you play them twice?
If that's the case it sucks for us to be punished twice because the Lions play with us.

Suick
11-24-2009, 01:05 PM
"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"Suick" wrote:


"Suick" wrote:


This has probably been asked before, but who gets HFA if Vikes and Saints both end up 15-1?

Provide The Pats beat them sensless
;D..............

Both will have zero division losses

Both will have zero conference losses




As I read it, tie breaker for HFA use the same format as HFA for wildcard teams:

Head-to-head, if applicable.
Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference.
Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games, minimum of four.
Strength of victory.
Strength of schedule.
Best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed.
Best combined ranking among all teams in points scored and points allowed.
Best net points in conference games.
Best net points in all games.
Best net touchdowns in all games.
Coin toss.


So it would come down to strength of victory most likely? Makes me wonder if we shouldn't be running up the score. Keep Favre in all 4 quarters regardless of score. Almost makes the Pats seem less classless.


I made that mistake, too.
"Strength of victory" simply means "Record of teams that you beat".
There's no margin of victory in that calculation.

=Z=


Do teams in your own division count twice since you play them twice?
If that's the case it sucks for us to be punished twice because the Lions play with us.



Playing the Lions twice (and for that matter the Bears) , plus the NFC West Worst is a blessing,
and a lot of the reason we are 9-1.

marstc09
11-25-2009, 11:11 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


I know we stand behind the Colts and Saints in most power rankings but hands down we are the best team in the league. We can run the ball better than the either team and our passing game is equal to if not better than both teams. Defensively we are better against the run and our secondary are equally as average. Simply put, I can't wait till playoff time but I hope we don't play the Packers or the Eagles.

Ihave a fear that the Packers will get their ultimate revenge by beating us in the playoffs. How satisfing would it be for them to knock us out, ending Brett's Superbowl run.
:-[

I fear the Eagles because Chilly has never beaten his old friend Reid.

Congrats Vikes, can't wait to hear " with the 32nd pick in the 2010 Nfl draft, the Vikings select.....


Hey Kevon!

Whatever happened to all that matters is wins & losses?

Colts: 10-0
Saints: 10-0
Vikings: 9-1

Not to mention the combined winning/losing records of our opponents

Colts: 47-53
Saints: 37-63
Vikings: 36-64

Other than the Packers, who are only 1 game over .500, we have yet to beat a team boasting a better than .500 record.

Let's be honest here. You don't face sub .500 teams in the playoffs.


The Packers are 2 games over .500


Umm, NO!

The Packers are 6-4

a .500 record would be 5-5

6-5=1 where I went to school. Not 2. Ergo the Packers are 1 game over .500

Take away 1 of their wins & what is their record? It's simple math.


What school did you go to? LMFAO! Simple math must not have been taught there.

6-4 = 2

Marrdro
11-25-2009, 11:18 AM
"marstc09" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


Take the purple glasses off Kevon.
We are not the best team in the league.


Are we close?
Yes, but we need to really play a team with a winning record and beat them to be considered one of the best. ::)


What are you talking about? The Packers are 6-4 and we played them twice. The Saints have also played only two 6-4 teams. The Colts have also only played two 6-4 teams but they played a 7-3 Pats team. Still only one more team. I am sick of all the we have not played anyone talk. No win is guaranteed. It is not crazy to say we are the best team in the league. Period.
::)

The Pack has played the same cupcake schedule. What does that prove?

BloodyHorns82
11-25-2009, 11:24 AM
"Suick" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"Suick" wrote:




This has probably been asked before, but who gets HFA if Vikes and Saints both end up 15-1?

Provide The Pats beat them sensless
;D..............

Both will have zero division losses

Both will have zero conference losses




As I read it, tie breaker for HFA use the same format as HFA for wildcard teams:

Head-to-head, if applicable.
Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference.
Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games, minimum of four.
Strength of victory.
Strength of schedule.
Best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed.
Best combined ranking among all teams in points scored and points allowed.
Best net points in conference games.
Best net points in all games.
Best net touchdowns in all games.
Coin toss.


So it would come down to strength of victory most likely? Makes me wonder if we shouldn't be running up the score. Keep Favre in all 4 quarters regardless of score. Almost makes the Pats seem less classless.


I made that mistake, too.
"Strength of victory" simply means "Record of teams that you beat".
There's no margin of victory in that calculation.

=Z=


Do teams in your own division count twice since you play them twice?
If that's the case it sucks for us to be punished twice because the Lions play with us.



Playing the Lions twice (and for that matter the Bears) , plus the NFC West Worst is a blessing,
and a lot of the reason we are 9-1.


Favre is a lot of the reason we are 9-1.


ALso, we haven't even played the Bears yet so they have absolutely nothing to do with our 9-1 record.

jmcdon00
11-25-2009, 11:34 AM
"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"Suick" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:






This has probably been asked before, but who gets HFA if Vikes and Saints both end up 15-1?

Provide The Pats beat them sensless
;D..............

Both will have zero division losses

Both will have zero conference losses




As I read it, tie breaker for HFA use the same format as HFA for wildcard teams:

Head-to-head, if applicable.
Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference.
Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games, minimum of four.
Strength of victory.
Strength of schedule.
Best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed.
Best combined ranking among all teams in points scored and points allowed.
Best net points in conference games.
Best net points in all games.
Best net touchdowns in all games.
Coin toss.


So it would come down to strength of victory most likely? Makes me wonder if we shouldn't be running up the score. Keep Favre in all 4 quarters regardless of score. Almost makes the Pats seem less classless.


I made that mistake, too.
"Strength of victory" simply means "Record of teams that you beat".
There's no margin of victory in that calculation.

=Z=


Do teams in your own division count twice since you play them twice?
If that's the case it sucks for us to be punished twice because the Lions play with us.



Playing the Lions twice (and for that matter the Bears) , plus the NFC West Worst is a blessing,
and a lot of the reason we are 9-1.


Favre is a lot of the reason we are 9-1.


ALso, we haven't even played the Bears yet so they have absolutely nothing to do with our 9-1 record.

Still I'm very glad we play the Lions twice a year, home field advantage be damned.

C Mac D
11-25-2009, 11:39 AM
I find this thread funny... aren't there two undefeated teams in the NFL?

We are not the best... yet.

This is why Vikings fans get disappointed so easy, we're so fast to anoint ourselves the best, then so fast to jump off the bandwagon after we lose. Vikings fans are fickle... notice how many people joined the site just because we signed Favre?

Anyways, we are not the best. Both the Colts and the Saints have had tougher schedules and have better records than us.

NodakPaul
11-25-2009, 11:42 AM
"molineviking" wrote:









We're having a once a decade year, (Way longer for some) yet we're bickering about hypotheticals, Can we Viking fans ever be happy?? :)


Almost everyone is happy.
Just because there a couple of people who can't enjoy success for one reason or another, doesn't take away from the fact that this is one of the very best Vikings teams we have seen in a long time, and the vast majority of Vikings fans are elated right now.

NodakPaul
11-25-2009, 11:44 AM
"C" wrote:


I find this thread funny... aren't there two undefeated teams in the NFL?

We are not the best... yet.

This is why Vikings fans get disappointed so easy, we're so fast to anoint ourselves the best, then so fast to jump off the bandwagon after we lose. Vikings fans are fickle... notice how many people joined the site just because we signed Favre?

Anyways, we are not the best. Both the Colts and the Saints have had tougher schedules and have better records than us.


The Colts and Saints strength of schedule is fairly similar to ours, but I will give you that they have better records than us.

If better records are all that was needed to determin the best team, we wouldn't need the playoffs, or the Superbowl.
If better records meant the best team, then the 18-1 Patriots were clearly much better than the Giants, and the epic SuperBowl XLII should have never been played...

C Mac D
11-25-2009, 11:51 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:


I find this thread funny... aren't there two undefeated teams in the NFL?

We are not the best... yet.

This is why Vikings fans get disappointed so easy, we're so fast to anoint ourselves the best, then so fast to jump off the bandwagon after we lose. Vikings fans are fickle... notice how many people joined the site just because we signed Favre?

Anyways, we are not the best. Both the Colts and the Saints have had tougher schedules and have better records than us.


The Colts and Saints strength of schedule is fairly similar to ours, but I will give you that they have better records than us.

If better records are all that was needed to determin the best team, we wouldn't need the playoffs, or the Superbowl.
If better records meant the best team, then the 18-1 Patriots were clearly much better than the Giants, and the epic SuperBowl XLII should have never been played...


It's not just better records though, they've had a tougher schedule too... even if it's only "Fairly" tougher.

Honestly, if people would take off the purple shades for a minute, we're the 3rd best team in the league. There's nothing wrong with that. I'm sure I'll be labeled as a "negative fan" for saying this, but it's the truth. Injuries on the Colts' defense may change that soon, but as it stands today... we're not the best.

Saints and Colts both have tougher schedules.

Saints and Colts both have better records.

Sorry guys, I love this team too... but we're not the best... yet.

Marrdro
11-25-2009, 11:59 AM
"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


Favre is a lot of the reason we are 9-1.


ALso, we haven't even played the Bears yet so they have absolutely nothing to do with our 9-1 record.

Credit is given when credit is due and he has helped, but damn, why not include the likes of:

a.
El Syd.
Have you seem some of the balls he has caught.
Even our current starter under C has said things like (that was a floater), (I threw up a prayer and you caught it) kindof stuff.
b. PH.
Same same. Kid catches it if it is close.
Hell, he turns those into big ones.
Then add the whole ST's dynamic he has added.
Our starting QB can't get any credit for those efforts no matter how big your 4's are on your glasses my friend.
;D
c.
Sully.
Again, direct quotes from the one you give credit to lavishes high praise for young Sully and his play calling at the line.
d.
JA. Nuff said.
e.
Ray.
This cat is actually getting mentions by the talking heads of late.
f.
LB'rs.
Even though most caveat thier statement that EJ is having an off year, they say our LB'r crew is one of the best.
With the evolution of Chad late last year and this year, one can't overlook thier play as having a huge part in this season.
ect ect ect

Comeon my friend.
Give credit when credit is due..... You'll feel much better..... This team is a team of ballers.
Because of that, we are 9-1.
Annnnnnnnnnd, by the way, the reason our starting QB is having his best year EVER......;) ;D ;D ;D

NodakPaul
11-25-2009, 12:08 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


Favre is a lot of the reason we are 9-1.


ALso, we haven't even played the Bears yet so they have absolutely nothing to do with our 9-1 record.

Credit is given when credit is due and he has helped, but gol 'darnit, why not include the likes of:

a.
El Syd.
Have you seem some of the balls he has caught.
Even our current starter under C has said things like (that was a floater), (I threw up a prayer and you caught it) kindof stuff.
b. PH.
Same same. Kid catches it if it is close.
Hell, he turns those into big ones.
Then add the whole ST's dynamic he has added.
Our starting QB can't get any credit for those efforts no matter how big your 4's are on your glasses My Farvish Friend.
;D
c.
Sully.
Again, direct quotes from the one you give credit to lavishes high praise for young Sully and his play calling at the line.
d.
JA. Nuff said.
e.
Ray.
This cat is actually getting mentions by the talking heads of late.
f.
LB'rs.
Even though most caveat thier statement that EJ is having an off year, they say our LB'r crew is one of the best.
With the evolution of Chad late last year and this year, one can't overlook thier play as having a huge part in this season.
ect ect ect

Comeon My Farvish Friend.
Give credit when credit is due..... You'll feel much better..... This team is a team of ballers.
Because of that, we are 9-1.
Annnnnnnnnnd, by the way, the reason our starting QB is having his best year EVER......;) ;D ;D ;D


Points a - f are all valid.
But that doesn't take away from the inital point that BH made:
Favre is a lot of the reason we are 9-1.


As an example, points d - f were all valid last year too.
Edwards was quiter, but that was leaving Allen open more often.
Now that they are focusing on Allen, Edwards is having a career year.
That hasn't changed.
Our LB corps was one of the best last year too, and EJ, while I love him, hasn't been better than Leber and Greenway.

So what has changed?
Well, our offense has.
And while Rice and Harvin have been instrumental in making that change happen, I absolutely disagree that they have had more of an impact than Favre.

Suick
11-25-2009, 12:12 PM
"C" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:


I find this thread funny... aren't there two undefeated teams in the NFL?

We are not the best... yet.

This is why Vikings fans get disappointed so easy, we're so fast to anoint ourselves the best, then so fast to jump off the bandwagon after we lose. Vikings fans are fickle... notice how many people joined the site just because we signed Favre?

Anyways, we are not the best. Both the Colts and the Saints have had tougher schedules and have better records than us.


The Colts and Saints strength of schedule is fairly similar to ours, but I will give you that they have better records than us.

If better records are all that was needed to determin the best team, we wouldn't need the playoffs, or the Superbowl.
If better records meant the best team, then the 18-1 Patriots were clearly much better than the Giants, and the epic SuperBowl XLII should have never been played...


It's not just better records though, they've had a tougher schedule too... even if it's only "Fairly" tougher.

Honestly, if people would take off the purple shades for a minute, we're the 3rd best team in the league. There's nothing wrong with that. I'm sure I'll be labeled as a "negative fan" for saying this, but it's the truth. Injuries on the Colts' defense may change that soon, but as it stands today... we're not the best.

Saints and Colts both have tougher schedules.

Saints and Colts both have better records.

Sorry guys, I love this team too... but we're not the best... yet.


Not the best, but the most balanced.

BloodyHorns82
11-25-2009, 12:17 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


Favre is a lot of the reason we are 9-1.


ALso, we haven't even played the Bears yet so they have absolutely nothing to do with our 9-1 record.

Credit is given when credit is due and he has helped, but damn, why not include the likes of:

a.
El Syd.
Have you seem some of the balls he has caught.
Even our current starter under C has said things like (that was a floater), (I threw up a prayer and you caught it) kindof stuff.
b. PH.
Same same. Kid catches it if it is close.
Hell, he turns those into big ones.
Then add the whole ST's dynamic he has added.
Our starting QB can't get any credit for those efforts no matter how big your 4's are on your glasses my friend.
;D
c.
Sully.
Again, direct quotes from the one you give credit to lavishes high praise for young Sully and his play calling at the line.
d.
JA. Nuff said.
e.
Ray.
This cat is actually getting mentions by the talking heads of late.
f.
LB'rs.
Even though most caveat thier statement that EJ is having an off year, they say our LB'r crew is one of the best.
With the evolution of Chad late last year and this year, one can't overlook thier play as having a huge part in this season.
ect ect ect

Comeon my friend.
Give credit when credit is due..... You'll feel much better..... This team is a team of ballers.
Because of that, we are 9-1.
Annnnnnnnnnd, by the way, the reason our starting QB is having his best year EVER......;) ;D ;D ;D


I agree with everything you said, but still stand by my post.
;)

Marrdro
11-25-2009, 12:17 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


Favre is a lot of the reason we are 9-1.


ALso, we haven't even played the Bears yet so they have absolutely nothing to do with our 9-1 record.

Credit is given when credit is due and he has helped, but gol 'darnit, why not include the likes of:

a.
El Syd.
Have you seem some of the balls he has caught.
Even our current starter under C has said things like (that was a floater), (I threw up a prayer and you caught it) kindof stuff.
b. PH.
Same same. Kid catches it if it is close.
Hell, he turns those into big ones.
Then add the whole ST's dynamic he has added.
Our starting QB can't get any credit for those efforts no matter how big your 4's are on your glasses My Farvish Friend.
;D
c.
Sully.
Again, direct quotes from the one you give credit to lavishes high praise for young Sully and his play calling at the line.
d.
JA. Nuff said.
e.
Ray.
This cat is actually getting mentions by the talking heads of late.
f.
LB'rs.
Even though most caveat thier statement that EJ is having an off year, they say our LB'r crew is one of the best.
With the evolution of Chad late last year and this year, one can't overlook thier play as having a huge part in this season.
ect ect ect

Comeon My Farvish Friend.
Give credit when credit is due..... You'll feel much better..... This team is a team of ballers.
Because of that, we are 9-1.
Annnnnnnnnnd, by the way, the reason our starting QB is having his best year EVER......;) ;D ;D ;D


Points a - f are all valid.
But that doesn't take away from the inital point that BH made:
Favre is a lot of the reason we are 9-1.


As an example, points d - f were all valid last year too.
Edwards was quiter, but that was leaving Allen open more often.
Now that they are focusing on Allen, Edwards is having a career year.
That hasn't changed.
Our LB corps was one of the best last year too, and EJ, while I love him, hasn't been better than Leber and Greenway.

So what has changed?
Well, our offense has.
And while Rice and Harvin have been instrumental in making that change happen, I absolutely disagree that they have had more of an impact than Favre.

But you missed my point if that is what you think.

Quick question, do you think our current starter would be #4 or would it be TJ at this point if Birk was under Center or Cook was out at RT?
How bout #4's INT numbers......Would he be this low if PH and El Syd weren't taking balls away?
Conversly, thier numbers wouldn't be as high if TJ was back there hesitating with his throws either.

Again, to get back to the "Team" theme here.
Without anyof them, including number 4, we wouldn't be at 9-1.
None more, none less.

midgensa
11-25-2009, 12:22 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


Take the purple glasses off Kevon.
We are not the best team in the league.


Are we close?
Yes, but we need to really play a team with a winning record and beat them to be considered one of the best. ::)


I know that this has been commented on already.

And while I agree that we might not be the best team in the league ... the opponents record thing is a stale argument when a team is 9-1. This is not College Football and we are not playing FBS teams instead of FCS teams.

By the way ... the Packers are 6-4 ... and we beat them TWICE ... so we have beaten teams with winning records.

NodakPaul
11-25-2009, 12:24 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


Favre is a lot of the reason we are 9-1.


ALso, we haven't even played the Bears yet so they have absolutely nothing to do with our 9-1 record.

Credit is given when credit is due and he has helped, but gol 'darnit, why not include the likes of:

a.
El Syd.
Have you seem some of the balls he has caught.
Even our current starter under C has said things like (that was a floater), (I threw up a prayer and you caught it) kindof stuff.
b. PH.
Same same. Kid catches it if it is close.
Hell, he turns those into big ones.
Then add the whole ST's dynamic he has added.
Our starting QB can't get any credit for those efforts no matter how big your 4's are on your glasses My Farvish Friend.
;D
c.
Sully.
Again, direct quotes from the one you give credit to lavishes high praise for young Sully and his play calling at the line.
d.
JA. Nuff said.
e.
Ray.
This cat is actually getting mentions by the talking heads of late.
f.
LB'rs.
Even though most caveat thier statement that EJ is having an off year, they say our LB'r crew is one of the best.
With the evolution of Chad late last year and this year, one can't overlook thier play as having a huge part in this season.
ect ect ect

Comeon My Farvish Friend.
Give credit when credit is due..... You'll feel much better..... This team is a team of ballers.
Because of that, we are 9-1.
Annnnnnnnnnd, by the way, the reason our starting QB is having his best year EVER......;) ;D ;D ;D


Points a - f are all valid.
But that doesn't take away from the inital point that BH made:
Favre is a lot of the reason we are 9-1.


As an example, points d - f were all valid last year too.
Edwards was quiter, but that was leaving Allen open more often.
Now that they are focusing on Allen, Edwards is having a career year.
That hasn't changed.
Our LB corps was one of the best last year too, and EJ, while I love him, hasn't been better than Leber and Greenway.

So what has changed?
Well, our offense has.
And while Rice and Harvin have been instrumental in making that change happen, I absolutely disagree that they have had more of an impact than Favre.

But you missed my point if that is what you think.

Quick question, do you think our current starter would be #4 or would it be TJ at this point if Birk was under Center or Cook was out at RT?
How bout #4's INT numbers......Would he be this low if PH and El Syd weren't taking balls away?
Conversly, thier numbers wouldn't be as high if TJ was back there hesitating with his throws either.

Again, to get back to the "Team" theme here.
Without anyof them, including number 4, we wouldn't be at 9-1.
None more, none less.


I respectfully disagree.
All of them are making a significant impact on this team, but to try and pretend that impact is equal among all players is futile.
Hell, even if they were players of identical skill, impact isn't even equal across all positions.

Every player makes an impact on their team.
Some more than others.
That is the nature of team sports.
Favre's impact is, IMHO, bigger than Rice, Harvin, Sullivan, or any of our DL or LB corps.
His impact this year is bigger than any other current Vikings.
I think some, particularly Rice and Harvin, will go on to have more career impact on the Vikings than Favre - but right now, this year, Favre is leading the way.

midgensa
11-25-2009, 12:26 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


Favre is a lot of the reason we are 9-1.


ALso, we haven't even played the Bears yet so they have absolutely nothing to do with our 9-1 record.

Credit is given when credit is due and he has helped, but gol 'darnit, why not include the likes of:

a.
El Syd.
Have you seem some of the balls he has caught.
Even our current starter under C has said things like (that was a floater), (I threw up a prayer and you caught it) kindof stuff.
b. PH.
Same same. Kid catches it if it is close.
Hell, he turns those into big ones.
Then add the whole ST's dynamic he has added.
Our starting QB can't get any credit for those efforts no matter how big your 4's are on your glasses My Farvish Friend.
;D
c.
Sully.
Again, direct quotes from the one you give credit to lavishes high praise for young Sully and his play calling at the line.
d.
JA. Nuff said.
e.
Ray.
This cat is actually getting mentions by the talking heads of late.
f.
LB'rs.
Even though most caveat thier statement that EJ is having an off year, they say our LB'r crew is one of the best.
With the evolution of Chad late last year and this year, one can't overlook thier play as having a huge part in this season.
ect ect ect

Comeon My Farvish Friend.
Give credit when credit is due..... You'll feel much better..... This team is a team of ballers.
Because of that, we are 9-1.
Annnnnnnnnnd, by the way, the reason our starting QB is having his best year EVER......;) ;D ;D ;D


Points a - f are all valid.
But that doesn't take away from the inital point that BH made:
Favre is a lot of the reason we are 9-1.


As an example, points d - f were all valid last year too.
Edwards was quiter, but that was leaving Allen open more often.
Now that they are focusing on Allen, Edwards is having a career year.
That hasn't changed.
Our LB corps was one of the best last year too, and EJ, while I love him, hasn't been better than Leber and Greenway.

So what has changed?
Well, our offense has.
And while Rice and Harvin have been instrumental in making that change happen, I absolutely disagree that they have had more of an impact than Favre.

But you missed my point if that is what you think.

Quick question, do you think our current starter would be #4 or would it be TJ at this point if Birk was under Center or Cook was out at RT?
How bout #4's INT numbers......Would he be this low if PH and El Syd weren't taking balls away?
Conversly, thier numbers wouldn't be as high if TJ was back there hesitating with his throws either.

Again, to get back to the "Team" theme here.
Without anyof them, including number 4, we wouldn't be at 9-1.
None more, none less.

Without ANY of them? That is a little ridiculous.

I think we could be 9-1 without Winfield. We could be 9-1 without even Edwards or maybe even Berrian. So there is a good handful of players that are on the team that we could win without.

Personally ... I do not want to try to win without them. But to say that without ANY of the players we would not be 9-1 is not absolute truth considering we lost our best secondary man and have been pretty great without him.

The quarterback position is CLEARLY the most important position in ALL OF SPORTS. So, it is fair to heap praise upon praise on our quarterback as the main catalyst in our teams jump for goodness to greatness.

I agree that a lot of other cats are stepping up, manning up and making this team a blast to watch. But there is definitely nothing wrong with pointing to the fact that a good portion of it is coming from Favre.

BloodyHorns82
11-25-2009, 12:29 PM
"midgensa" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


Favre is a lot of the reason we are 9-1.


ALso, we haven't even played the Bears yet so they have absolutely nothing to do with our 9-1 record.

Credit is given when credit is due and he has helped, but gol 'darnit, why not include the likes of:

a.
El Syd.
Have you seem some of the balls he has caught.
Even our current starter under C has said things like (that was a floater), (I threw up a prayer and you caught it) kindof stuff.
b. PH.
Same same. Kid catches it if it is close.
Hell, he turns those into big ones.
Then add the whole ST's dynamic he has added.
Our starting QB can't get any credit for those efforts no matter how big your 4's are on your glasses My Farvish Friend.
;D
c.
Sully.
Again, direct quotes from the one you give credit to lavishes high praise for young Sully and his play calling at the line.
d.
JA. Nuff said.
e.
Ray.
This cat is actually getting mentions by the talking heads of late.
f.
LB'rs.
Even though most caveat thier statement that EJ is having an off year, they say our LB'r crew is one of the best.
With the evolution of Chad late last year and this year, one can't overlook thier play as having a huge part in this season.
ect ect ect

Comeon My Farvish Friend.
Give credit when credit is due..... You'll feel much better..... This team is a team of ballers.
Because of that, we are 9-1.
Annnnnnnnnnd, by the way, the reason our starting QB is having his best year EVER......;) ;D ;D ;D


Points a - f are all valid.
But that doesn't take away from the inital point that BH made:
Favre is a lot of the reason we are 9-1.


As an example, points d - f were all valid last year too.
Edwards was quiter, but that was leaving Allen open more often.
Now that they are focusing on Allen, Edwards is having a career year.
That hasn't changed.
Our LB corps was one of the best last year too, and EJ, while I love him, hasn't been better than Leber and Greenway.

So what has changed?
Well, our offense has.
And while Rice and Harvin have been instrumental in making that change happen, I absolutely disagree that they have had more of an impact than Favre.

But you missed my point if that is what you think.

Quick question, do you think our current starter would be #4 or would it be TJ at this point if Birk was under Center or Cook was out at RT?
How bout #4's INT numbers......Would he be this low if PH and El Syd weren't taking balls away?
Conversly, thier numbers wouldn't be as high if TJ was back there hesitating with his throws either.

Again, to get back to the "Team" theme here.
Without anyof them, including number 4, we wouldn't be at 9-1.
None more, none less.

Without ANY of them? That is a little ridiculous.

I think we could be 9-1 without Winfield. We could be 9-1 without even Edwards or maybe even Berrian. So there is a good handful of players that are on the team that we could win without.

Personally ... I do not want to try to win without them. But to say that without ANY of the players we would not be 9-1 is not absolute truth considering we lost our best secondary man and have been pretty great without him.

The quarterback position is CLEARLY the most important position in ALL OF SPORTS. So, it is fair to heap praise upon praise on our quarterback as the main catalyst in our teams jump for goodness to greatness.

I agree that a lot of other cats are stepping up, manning up and making this team a blast to watch. But there is definitely nothing wrong with pointing to the fact that a good portion of it is coming from Favre.


Take away any one player on this team and we'd still be 9-1.
Well, with the large exception of Favre that is.
Take away Favre and we are absolutely not 9-1.
(argument could be made for Lewis of all people,
;D)

midgensa
11-25-2009, 12:29 PM
"C" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:


I find this thread funny... aren't there two undefeated teams in the NFL?

We are not the best... yet.

This is why Vikings fans get disappointed so easy, we're so fast to anoint ourselves the best, then so fast to jump off the bandwagon after we lose. Vikings fans are fickle... notice how many people joined the site just because we signed Favre?

Anyways, we are not the best. Both the Colts and the Saints have had tougher schedules and have better records than us.


The Colts and Saints strength of schedule is fairly similar to ours, but I will give you that they have better records than us.

If better records are all that was needed to determin the best team, we wouldn't need the playoffs, or the Superbowl.
If better records meant the best team, then the 18-1 Patriots were clearly much better than the Giants, and the epic SuperBowl XLII should have never been played...


It's not just better records though, they've had a tougher schedule too... even if it's only "Fairly" tougher.

Honestly, if people would take off the purple shades for a minute, we're the 3rd best team in the league. There's nothing wrong with that. I'm sure I'll be labeled as a "negative fan" for saying this, but it's the truth. Injuries on the Colts' defense may change that soon, but as it stands today... we're not the best.

Saints and Colts both have tougher schedules.

Saints and Colts both have better records.

Sorry guys, I love this team too... but we're not the best... yet.

I think you can make a strong case for us. But I do agree that it is tough to just outright label us as the best.

I do think that over the last couple of weeks we have looked REALLY good and the other two teams mentioned here have struggled ... at times quite a bit.

I personally think that we are a better all around team than both of these teams. But by no means do I think we could blast either one of them out of even the Metrodome, much less beat them on the road.

Could be a VERY exciting final four if it comes down to Saints v. Vikings and Patriots v. Colts.

C Mac D
11-25-2009, 12:30 PM
"midgensa" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


Take the purple glasses off Kevon.
We are not the best team in the league.


Are we close?
Yes, but we need to really play a team with a winning record and beat them to be considered one of the best. ::)


I know that this has been commented on already.

And while I agree that we might not be the best team in the league ... the opponents record thing is a stale argument when a team is 9-1. This is not College Football and we are not playing FBS teams instead of FCS teams.

By the way ... the Packers are 6-4 ... and we beat them TWICE ... so we have beaten teams with winning records.


If not record... what do you want to measure them by?

Offense? Saints and Colts are better.

Defense? There are 11 better defenses in the league.

Strength of Schedule? We have the second easiest schedule in the league. Both Colts and Saints face tougher opponents.

Marrdro
11-25-2009, 12:32 PM
"midgensa" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


Favre is a lot of the reason we are 9-1.


ALso, we haven't even played the Bears yet so they have absolutely nothing to do with our 9-1 record.

Credit is given when credit is due and he has helped, but gol 'darnit, why not include the likes of:

a.
El Syd.
Have you seem some of the balls he has caught.
Even our current starter under C has said things like (that was a floater), (I threw up a prayer and you caught it) kindof stuff.
b. PH.
Same same. Kid catches it if it is close.
Hell, he turns those into big ones.
Then add the whole ST's dynamic he has added.
Our starting QB can't get any credit for those efforts no matter how big your 4's are on your glasses My Farvish Friend.
;D
c.
Sully.
Again, direct quotes from the one you give credit to lavishes high praise for young Sully and his play calling at the line.
d.
JA. Nuff said.
e.
Ray.
This cat is actually getting mentions by the talking heads of late.
f.
LB'rs.
Even though most caveat thier statement that EJ is having an off year, they say our LB'r crew is one of the best.
With the evolution of Chad late last year and this year, one can't overlook thier play as having a huge part in this season.
ect ect ect

Comeon My Farvish Friend.
Give credit when credit is due..... You'll feel much better..... This team is a team of ballers.
Because of that, we are 9-1.
Annnnnnnnnnd, by the way, the reason our starting QB is having his best year EVER......;) ;D ;D ;D


Points a - f are all valid.
But that doesn't take away from the inital point that BH made:
Favre is a lot of the reason we are 9-1.


As an example, points d - f were all valid last year too.
Edwards was quiter, but that was leaving Allen open more often.
Now that they are focusing on Allen, Edwards is having a career year.
That hasn't changed.
Our LB corps was one of the best last year too, and EJ, while I love him, hasn't been better than Leber and Greenway.

So what has changed?
Well, our offense has.
And while Rice and Harvin have been instrumental in making that change happen, I absolutely disagree that they have had more of an impact than Favre.

But you missed my point if that is what you think.

Quick question, do you think our current starter would be #4 or would it be TJ at this point if Birk was under Center or Cook was out at RT?
How bout #4's INT numbers......Would he be this low if PH and El Syd weren't taking balls away?
Conversly, thier numbers wouldn't be as high if TJ was back there hesitating with his throws either.

Again, to get back to the "Team" theme here.
Without anyof them, including number 4, we wouldn't be at 9-1.
None more, none less.

Without ANY of them? That is a little ridiculous.

I think we could be 9-1 without Winfield. We could be 9-1 without even Edwards or maybe even Berrian. So there is a good handful of players that are on the team that we could win without.

Personally ... I do not want to try to win without them. But to say that without ANY of the players we would not be 9-1 is not absolute truth considering we lost our best secondary man and have been pretty great without him.

The quarterback position is CLEARLY the most important position in ALL OF SPORTS. So, it is fair to heap praise upon praise on our quarterback as the main catalyst in our teams jump for goodness to greatness.

I agree that a lot of other cats are stepping up, manning up and making this team a blast to watch. But there is definitely nothing wrong with pointing to the fact that a good portion of it is coming from Favre.
In no way am I doing this.
His role is significant this year.
Truth be told, I think his role will be felt for years to come especially when you look a it with respect to how he has helped with the maturation of:

a.
The OL.
Especially our C.
b.
The WR's.
Our QB's pre-#4 have held them back. Anyone who says otherwise is crazy or doesn't understand the game.
c.
TJ.
If in fact this cat becomes our backup, watching the current starter work this offense will be the direct reason for his success. As with the WR's the Vets that have been brought in were poor substitutes as examples of how things should be executed.
Truth be told, if given enough beer you could almost get me to admit that other than a certain cat named Joe M, our current starter is the best cat to bring in as a example for TJ.

Again, not taking away from what he has done.
Only want to stress that others have had a significant role as well.
;)

jargomcfargo
11-25-2009, 12:42 PM
"C" wrote:


"midgensa" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


Take the purple glasses off Kevon.
We are not the best team in the league.


Are we close?
Yes, but we need to really play a team with a winning record and beat them to be considered one of the best. ::)


I know that this has been commented on already.

And while I agree that we might not be the best team in the league ... the opponents record thing is a stale argument when a team is 9-1. This is not College Football and we are not playing FBS teams instead of FCS teams.

By the way ... the Packers are 6-4 ... and we beat them TWICE ... so we have beaten teams with winning records.


If not record... what do you want to measure them by?

Offense? Saints and Colts are better.

Defense? There are 11 better defenses in the league.

Strength of Schedule? We have the second easiest schedule in the league. Both Colts and Saints face tougher opponents.


I measure by head to head play. That's why we just have to wait until the season plays out to say who is the best.
The team playing the best at the end of the season usually wins it all.
Nobody cares or remembers who's the best at mid season.

Best now or not, I like our chances because we have room for improvement. And we are pretty darn good right now.

Marrdro
11-25-2009, 12:45 PM
"jargomcfargo" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"midgensa" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


Take the purple glasses off Kevon.
We are not the best team in the league.


Are we close?
Yes, but we need to really play a team with a winning record and beat them to be considered one of the best. ::)


I know that this has been commented on already.

And while I agree that we might not be the best team in the league ... the opponents record thing is a stale argument when a team is 9-1. This is not College Football and we are not playing FBS teams instead of FCS teams.

By the way ... the Packers are 6-4 ... and we beat them TWICE ... so we have beaten teams with winning records.


If not record... what do you want to measure them by?

Offense? Saints and Colts are better.

Defense? There are 11 better defenses in the league.

Strength of Schedule? We have the second easiest schedule in the league. Both Colts and Saints face tougher opponents.


I measure by head to head play. That's why we just have to wait until the season plays out to say who is the best.
The team playing the best at the end of the season usually wins it all.
Nobody cares or remembers who's the best at mid season.

Best now or not, I like our chances because we have room for improvement. And we are pretty darn good right now.

In the end, the best team will be the one holding up the Mirror Ball trophy.
Wait, thats Dancing With the Stars......Shame KO didn't win.
:'(

In the end the best team will be the winner of the SB.
That is what all will be gauged by.
;)