PDA

View Full Version : Who should Vikings fans be cheering for in Week 12



NodakPaul
11-24-2009, 03:38 PM
It is very possible that the #1 and #2 seeds in the NFC could come down to a strength of schedule tie breaker.
With that in mind, here are the games from week 12 that would help the Vikings and hurt the Saints as we strive for the #1 seed in the NFC.
The team that we want to see win is in bold.

GB @ DET
- GB (Thu)

JAC @ SF - SF
SEA @ STL - SEA
CHI @ MIN - MIN
ARI @ TEN - ARI
CAR @ NYJ - NYJ
OAK @ DAL - OAK
PIT @ BAL - BAL (Sun night)

NE @ NO - NE (mon)

EDIT: Took the Car vs NYJ game off.
Since we play Carolina once, and the Saints play Carolina twice and the Jets once, it is literally a wash regardless of who wins.

NodakPaul
11-24-2009, 03:44 PM
Here's a little bit of explanation for each game:

GB @ DET
- GB (Thu) - Since we swept both teams, this game does not affect our strength of schedule at all.
However, NO beat the Lions in week 1, and they don't play the Pack.

JAC @ SF - SF - We beat SF
SEA @ STL - SEA - Both teams have played and beaten TB.
However, we play Seattle, and the Saints don't.
CHI @ MIN - MIN - Obviously
ARI @ TEN - ARI - We play Arizona in week 13
OAK @ DAL - OAK - The Saints play Dallas in week 15
PIT @ BAL - BAL (Sun night) - We beat Baltimore, but not Pittsburgh.

NE @ NO - NE (mon) - Another obvious one

midgensa
11-24-2009, 03:47 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


Here's a little bit of explanation for each game:

GB @ DET
- GB (Thu) - Since we swept both teams, this game does not affect our strength of schedule at all.
However, NO beat the Lions in week 1, and they don't play the Pack.

JAC @ SF - SF - We beat SF
SEA @ STL - SEA - Both teams have played and beaten TB.
However, we play Seattle, and the Saints don't.
CHI @ MIN - MIN - Obviously
ARI @ TEN - ARI - We play Arizona in week 13
OAK @ DAL - OAK - The Saints play Dallas in week 15
PIT @ BAL - BAL (Sun night) - We beat Baltimore, but not Pittsburgh.

NE @ NO - NE (mon) - Another obvious one

Eh ... fuck that ... I am definitely pulling for the Lions.

And as a general rule ... I NEVER pull for an NFC team against an AFC team ... so go Titans! Besides ... we would want to keep Arizona as far away as possible, that way IF they do beat us ... we will still get a higher seed than them.

Obviously we want Baltimore to win ... everyone hates the Steelers right?

The strength of schedule tie-breaker is nice to think about and all ... but I am still not going to pull for the Packers EVER.

gagarr
11-24-2009, 03:47 PM
Nice thought, but I'm just hoping NE kicks NO's butts.

The big issue is Vikes are facing a much tougher road with AZ, CIN, and NYG to go when NO only has DAL after NE that has a winning record.

In the end as long as the records are tied, I think MN wins the strength of schedule easy.

midgensa
11-24-2009, 03:49 PM
"gagarr" wrote:


Nice thought, but I'm just hoping NE kicks NO's butts.

The big issue is Vikes are facing a much tougher road with AZ, CIN, and NYG to go when NO only has DAL after NE that has a winning record.

In the end as long as the records are tied, I think MN wins the strength of schedule easy.


+1

With the AFC North instead of the AFC East I think we will be better off with strength of schedule. Though the NFC West might be balanced out by the NFC East.

BloodyHorns82
11-24-2009, 03:50 PM
"midgensa" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


Here's a little bit of explanation for each game:

GB @ DET
- GB (Thu) - Since we swept both teams, this game does not affect our strength of schedule at all.
However, NO beat the Lions in week 1, and they don't play the Pack.

JAC @ SF - SF - We beat SF
SEA @ STL - SEA - Both teams have played and beaten TB.
However, we play Seattle, and the Saints don't.
CHI @ MIN - MIN - Obviously
ARI @ TEN - ARI - We play Arizona in week 13
OAK @ DAL - OAK - The Saints play Dallas in week 15
PIT @ BAL - BAL (Sun night) - We beat Baltimore, but not Pittsburgh.

NE @ NO - NE (mon) - Another obvious one

Eh ... fuck that ... I am definitely pulling for the Lions.

And as a general rule ... I NEVER pull for an NFC team against an AFC team ... so go Titans! Besides ... we would want to keep Arizona as far away as possible, that way IF they do beat us ... we will still get a higher seed than them.

Obviously we want Baltimore to win ... everyone hates the Steelers right?

The strength of schedule tie-breaker is nice to think about and all ... but I am still not going to pull for the Packers EVER.



If the Lions winning means the Vikings getting a #2 instead of the #1 seed than I would definitely want the Packers to win.

midgensa
11-24-2009, 03:51 PM
Also remember that common games and strength of VICTORY come into play before strength of schedule.

Though I think common games looks like it could definitely be a wash in the end.

midgensa
11-24-2009, 03:51 PM
"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"midgensa" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


Here's a little bit of explanation for each game:

GB @ DET
- GB (Thu) - Since we swept both teams, this game does not affect our strength of schedule at all.
However, NO beat the Lions in week 1, and they don't play the Pack.

JAC @ SF - SF - We beat SF
SEA @ STL - SEA - Both teams have played and beaten TB.
However, we play Seattle, and the Saints don't.
CHI @ MIN - MIN - Obviously
ARI @ TEN - ARI - We play Arizona in week 13
OAK @ DAL - OAK - The Saints play Dallas in week 15
PIT @ BAL - BAL (Sun night) - We beat Baltimore, but not Pittsburgh.

NE @ NO - NE (mon) - Another obvious one

Eh ... fuck that ... I am definitely pulling for the Lions.

And as a general rule ... I NEVER pull for an NFC team against an AFC team ... so go Titans! Besides ... we would want to keep Arizona as far away as possible, that way IF they do beat us ... we will still get a higher seed than them.

Obviously we want Baltimore to win ... everyone hates the Steelers right?

The strength of schedule tie-breaker is nice to think about and all ... but I am still not going to pull for the Packers EVER.



If the Lions winning means the Vikings getting a #2 instead of the #1 seed than I would definitely want the Packers to win.

It doesn't mean that ... it is week 12. It simply means the Lions are 3-8 and the Packers are 7-4.

Formo
11-24-2009, 03:52 PM
Nice work, Paul.
I'll really start paying attention to those teams when it comes down to week 15 or so.

midgensa
11-24-2009, 03:54 PM
"Formo" wrote:


Nice work, Paul.
I'll really start paying attention to those teams when it comes down to week 15 or so.


That is when it all starts to take shape a lot better and be worth really looking at.

Hell ... by then we could be 12-1 and the Saints could be 11-2 and all that matters is winning games anyways.

BloodyHorns82
11-24-2009, 04:02 PM
"midgensa" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"midgensa" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


Here's a little bit of explanation for each game:

GB @ DET
- GB (Thu) - Since we swept both teams, this game does not affect our strength of schedule at all.
However, NO beat the Lions in week 1, and they don't play the Pack.

JAC @ SF - SF - We beat SF
SEA @ STL - SEA - Both teams have played and beaten TB.
However, we play Seattle, and the Saints don't.
CHI @ MIN - MIN - Obviously
ARI @ TEN - ARI - We play Arizona in week 13
OAK @ DAL - OAK - The Saints play Dallas in week 15
PIT @ BAL - BAL (Sun night) - We beat Baltimore, but not Pittsburgh.

NE @ NO - NE (mon) - Another obvious one

Eh ... fuck that ... I am definitely pulling for the Lions.

And as a general rule ... I NEVER pull for an NFC team against an AFC team ... so go Titans! Besides ... we would want to keep Arizona as far away as possible, that way IF they do beat us ... we will still get a higher seed than them.

Obviously we want Baltimore to win ... everyone hates the Steelers right?

The strength of schedule tie-breaker is nice to think about and all ... but I am still not going to pull for the Packers EVER.



If the Lions winning means the Vikings getting a #2 instead of the #1 seed than I would definitely want the Packers to win.

It doesn't mean that ... it is week 12. It simply means the Lions are 3-8 and the Packers are 7-4.


If we finish the season with the same record as NO, which is extremely possible than it would play a role in determining home field advantage.
Notice I said "If" in my original post.

Formo
11-24-2009, 04:04 PM
"midgensa" wrote:


"Formo" wrote:


Nice work, Paul.
I'll really start paying attention to those teams when it comes down to week 15 or so.


That is when it all starts to take shape a lot better and be worth really looking at.

Hell ... by then we could be 12-1 and the Saints could be 11-2 and all that matters is winning games anyways.


Yeah..
That's when I start paying a lot more attention, especially since we've pretty much locked down a first round bye, much less a playoff spot.

jargomcfargo
11-24-2009, 04:05 PM
The Vikings won't need any help this year.

Amen

i_bleed_purple
11-24-2009, 04:13 PM
"jargomcfargo" wrote:


The Vikings won't need any help this year.

Amen


Wrong, we need the Saints to start losing so we have homefield advantage.

snowinapril
11-24-2009, 04:16 PM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


The Vikings won't need any help this year.

Amen


Wrong, we need the Saints to start losing so we have homefield advantage.


Pats and Dallas

Thank you!

i_bleed_purple
11-24-2009, 04:23 PM
"snowinapril" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


The Vikings won't need any help this year.

Amen


Wrong, we need the Saints to start losing so we have homefield advantage.


Pats and Dallas

Thank you!




yep, hopefully Dallas gets out of their little funk.
14-2 is all we need from the Saints.

gagarr
11-24-2009, 04:25 PM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"snowinapril" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


The Vikings won't need any help this year.

Amen


Wrong, we need the Saints to start losing so we have homefield advantage.


Pats and Dallas

Thank you!




yep, hopefully Dallas gets out of their little funk.
14-2 is all we need from the Saints.


Good luck with that... remember it's December and Romo.

NodakPaul
11-24-2009, 04:28 PM
"midgensa" wrote:


Also remember that common games and strength of VICTORY come into play before strength of schedule.

Though I think common games looks like it could definitely be a wash in the end.


I was actually referring to strength of Victory, not strength of schedule.
Sorry for the typo.
The teams I have listed are helping out the Vikes in strength of victory.

jargomcfargo
11-24-2009, 04:34 PM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


The Vikings won't need any help this year.

Amen


Wrong, we need the Saints to start losing so we have homefield advantage.


Wrong.

It would be nice or convenient to have the Saints lose. But this Vikings team will beat them anywhere they play them.

Looking for help is like chasing your tail.

This article is from last year but applies.

Seed Of Doubt, Why Being Number One May Not Be The Best Strategy.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/don_banks/12/19/one-seeds/index.html

BloodyHorns82
11-24-2009, 04:44 PM
"jargomcfargo" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


The Vikings won't need any help this year.

Amen


Wrong, we need the Saints to start losing so we have homefield advantage.


Wrong.

It would be nice or convenient to have the Saints lose. But this Vikings team will beat them anywhere they play them.




Wrong...we need the Saints to lose so that we can all tailgate and watch this game live at the Metrodome!
Wish our boys off to the Super Bowl in person!

jargomcfargo
11-24-2009, 04:47 PM
"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


The Vikings won't need any help this year.

Amen


Wrong, we need the Saints to start losing so we have homefield advantage.


Wrong.

It would be nice or convenient to have the Saints lose. But this Vikings team will beat them anywhere they play them.




Wrong...we need the Saints to lose so that we can all tailgate and watch this game live at the Metrodome!
Wish our boys off to the Super Bowl in person!


I think that it will happen.

TNViking
11-24-2009, 05:07 PM
We basically need the Saints to lose an NFC game so we get the tie-breaker.
Of course I'll take any and all Saint loses that come our way.

Big C
11-24-2009, 05:14 PM
I am rooting for Detroit to beat the Pack. The chances of the Lions winning are very low but the Packers seem (to me at least) like a team primed for a second half surge like the Cards and Giants over the last two years. 4 wins gets them in the wild card and that seems possible with the Lions, Bears and Seahawks still left on their schedule.

NodakPaul
11-24-2009, 05:25 PM
"Big" wrote:


I am rooting for Detroit to beat the Pack. The chances of the Lions winning are very low but the Packers seem (to me at least) like a team primed for a second half surge like the Cards and Giants over the last two years. 4 wins gets them in the wild card and that seems possible with the Lions, Bears and Seahawks still left on their schedule.


Considering the Pack just lost Harris and Kampman, I somehow don't think that they will have any kind of second half surge.

Marrdro
11-25-2009, 09:58 AM
"jargomcfargo" wrote:


The Vikings won't need any help this year.

Amen

I was actually thinking....."We should be cheering for the Vikings" when I saw the thread title.
;)

After reading it, thanks NP.
Good stuff.
I am cheering for the Vikes and any team playing the Saints.
;)

nephilimstorm
11-25-2009, 09:59 AM
Go NE against the Saints.

NodakPaul
11-25-2009, 10:00 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


The Vikings won't need any help this year.

Amen

I was actually thinking....."We should be cheering for the Vikings" when I saw the thread title.

;)

After reading it, thanks NP.
Good stuff.
I am cheering for the Vikes and any team playing the Saints.

;)


That is the safest way to do it.
I would much rather see the Vikes finish 15-1 and the Saints finish 14-2...
Of course that particular record combo brings back some painful memories from just over a decade ago... ;)

C Mac D
11-25-2009, 10:09 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


The Vikings won't need any help this year.

Amen

I was actually thinking....."We should be cheering for the Vikings" when I saw the thread title.

;)

After reading it, thanks NP.
Good stuff.
I am cheering for the Vikes and any team playing the Saints.

;)


That is the safest way to do it.
I would much rather see the Vikes finish 15-1 and the Saints finish 14-2...
Of course that particular record combo brings back some painful memories from just over a decade ago... ;)


Personally, I don't want Home Field advantage. We seem to choke when we're the #1 seed... I'd rather be the underdog team going into the playoffs.

Plus, upsetting someone on their home-turf right before going into the Super Bowl... that's some good momentum right there.

Marrdro
11-25-2009, 10:15 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


The Vikings won't need any help this year.

Amen

I was actually thinking....."We should be cheering for the Vikings" when I saw the thread title.

;)

After reading it, thanks NP.
Good stuff.
I am cheering for the Vikes and any team playing the Saints.

;)


That is the safest way to do it.
I would much rather see the Vikes finish 15-1 and the Saints finish 14-2...
Of course that particular record combo brings back some painful memories from just over a decade ago... ;)

LOL, biggest emotional swing I can remember other than when my daughter was born.

Marrdro
11-25-2009, 10:17 AM
"C" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


The Vikings won't need any help this year.

Amen

I was actually thinking....."We should be cheering for the Vikings" when I saw the thread title.

;)

After reading it, thanks NP.
Good stuff.
I am cheering for the Vikes and any team playing the Saints.

;)


That is the safest way to do it.
I would much rather see the Vikes finish 15-1 and the Saints finish 14-2...
Of course that particular record combo brings back some painful memories from just over a decade ago... ;)


Personally, I don't want Home Field advantage. We seem to choke when we're the #1 seed... I'd rather be the underdog team going into the playoffs.

Plus, upsetting someone on their home-turf right before going into the Super Bowl... that's some good momentum right there.

When was this team the #1 Seed?

Long story short, I don't put much stock in what one team did as compared to another team.
Different time, different players, different situations. etc etc etc.

jmcdon00
11-25-2009, 10:28 AM
"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"midgensa" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"midgensa" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


Here's a little bit of explanation for each game:

GB @ DET
- GB (Thu) - Since we swept both teams, this game does not affect our strength of schedule at all.
However, NO beat the Lions in week 1, and they don't play the Pack.

JAC @ SF - SF - We beat SF
SEA @ STL - SEA - Both teams have played and beaten TB.
However, we play Seattle, and the Saints don't.
CHI @ MIN - MIN - Obviously
ARI @ TEN - ARI - We play Arizona in week 13
OAK @ DAL - OAK - The Saints play Dallas in week 15
PIT @ BAL - BAL (Sun night) - We beat Baltimore, but not Pittsburgh.

NE @ NO - NE (mon) - Another obvious one

Eh ... floop that ... I am definitely pulling for the Lions.

And as a general rule ... I NEVER pull for an NFC team against an AFC team ... so go Titans! Besides ... we would want to keep Arizona as far away as possible, that way IF they do beat us ... we will still get a higher seed than them.

Obviously we want Baltimore to win ... everyone hates the Steelers right?

The strength of schedule tie-breaker is nice to think about and all ... but I am still not going to pull for the Packers EVER.



If the Lions winning means the Vikings getting a #2 instead of the #1 seed than I would definitely want the Packers to win.

It doesn't mean that ... it is week 12. It simply means the Lions are 3-8 and the Packers are 7-4.


If we finish the season with the same record as NO, which is extremely possible than it would play a role in determining home field advantage.
Notice I said "If" in my original post.

But since we don't know how the season will be ending I'll be rooting for the underdog Lions. Though seeing the packers in the playoffs could be fun too.

C Mac D
11-25-2009, 10:33 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


The Vikings won't need any help this year.

Amen

I was actually thinking....."We should be cheering for the Vikings" when I saw the thread title.

;)

After reading it, thanks NP.
Good stuff.
I am cheering for the Vikes and any team playing the Saints.

;)


That is the safest way to do it.
I would much rather see the Vikes finish 15-1 and the Saints finish 14-2...
Of course that particular record combo brings back some painful memories from just over a decade ago... ;)


Personally, I don't want Home Field advantage. We seem to choke when we're the #1 seed... I'd rather be the underdog team going into the playoffs.

Plus, upsetting someone on their home-turf right before going into the Super Bowl... that's some good momentum right there.

When was this team the #1 Seed?

Long story short, I don't put much stock in what one team did as compared to another team.
Different time, different players, different situations. etc etc etc.


Well, 1998 for starters.

Even when we start the season out strong (7-0 for example), we have ended up choking in the end... and that was only a few seasons ago.

NodakPaul
11-25-2009, 10:46 AM
"C" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:




The Vikings won't need any help this year.

Amen

I was actually thinking....."We should be cheering for the Vikings" when I saw the thread title.

;)

After reading it, thanks NP.
Good stuff.
I am cheering for the Vikes and any team playing the Saints.

;)


That is the safest way to do it.
I would much rather see the Vikes finish 15-1 and the Saints finish 14-2...
Of course that particular record combo brings back some painful memories from just over a decade ago... ;)


Personally, I don't want Home Field advantage. We seem to choke when we're the #1 seed... I'd rather be the underdog team going into the playoffs.

Plus, upsetting someone on their home-turf right before going into the Super Bowl... that's some good momentum right there.

When was this team the #1 Seed?

Long story short, I don't put much stock in what one team did as compared to another team.
Different time, different players, different situations. etc etc etc.


Well, 1998 for starters.

Even when we start the season out strong (7-0 for example), we have ended up choking in the end... and that was only a few seasons ago.


I would rather be excited about our team and record now and disappointed later, then never be excited at all...

C Mac D
11-25-2009, 10:56 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:






The Vikings won't need any help this year.

Amen

I was actually thinking....."We should be cheering for the Vikings" when I saw the thread title.

;)

After reading it, thanks NP.
Good stuff.
I am cheering for the Vikes and any team playing the Saints.

;)


That is the safest way to do it.
I would much rather see the Vikes finish 15-1 and the Saints finish 14-2...
Of course that particular record combo brings back some painful memories from just over a decade ago... ;)


Personally, I don't want Home Field advantage. We seem to choke when we're the #1 seed... I'd rather be the underdog team going into the playoffs.

Plus, upsetting someone on their home-turf right before going into the Super Bowl... that's some good momentum right there.

When was this team the #1 Seed?

Long story short, I don't put much stock in what one team did as compared to another team.
Different time, different players, different situations. etc etc etc.


Well, 1998 for starters.

Even when we start the season out strong (7-0 for example), we have ended up choking in the end... and that was only a few seasons ago.


I would rather be excited about our team and record now and disappointed later, then never be excited at all...


I'm definitely excited... but the scenerio seems all too familiar.

Vet QB.

Awesome Rookie WR.

We had the #13th ranked defense (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tabSeq=2&defensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&conference=ALL&role=OPP&season=1998&seasonType=REG&d-447263-s=TOTAL_YARDS_GAME_AVG&d-447263-o=1&d-447263-n=1) (currently ranked #12 (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tabSeq=2&defensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&conference=ALL&role=OPP&season=2009&seasonType=REG&d-447263-s=TOTAL_YARDS_GAME_AVG&d-447263-o=1&d-447263-n=1))



Just saying...

BloodyHorns82
11-25-2009, 11:04 AM
"C" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"C" wrote:








The Vikings won't need any help this year.

Amen

I was actually thinking....."We should be cheering for the Vikings" when I saw the thread title.

;)

After reading it, thanks NP.
Good stuff.
I am cheering for the Vikes and any team playing the Saints.

;)


That is the safest way to do it.
I would much rather see the Vikes finish 15-1 and the Saints finish 14-2...
Of course that particular record combo brings back some painful memories from just over a decade ago... ;)


Personally, I don't want Home Field advantage. We seem to choke when we're the #1 seed... I'd rather be the underdog team going into the playoffs.

Plus, upsetting someone on their home-turf right before going into the Super Bowl... that's some good momentum right there.

When was this team the #1 Seed?

Long story short, I don't put much stock in what one team did as compared to another team.
Different time, different players, different situations. etc etc etc.


Well, 1998 for starters.

Even when we start the season out strong (7-0 for example), we have ended up choking in the end... and that was only a few seasons ago.


I would rather be excited about our team and record now and disappointed later, then never be excited at all...


I'm definitely excited... but the scenerio seems all too familiar.

Vet QB.

Awesome Rookie WR.

We had the #13th ranked defense (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tabSeq=2&defensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&conference=ALL&role=OPP&season=1998&seasonType=REG&d-447263-s=TOTAL_YARDS_GAME_AVG&d-447263-o=1&d-447263-n=1) (currently ranked #12 (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tabSeq=2&defensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&conference=ALL&role=OPP&season=2009&seasonType=REG&d-447263-s=TOTAL_YARDS_GAME_AVG&d-447263-o=1&d-447263-n=1))



Just saying...


I see what your saying but I think you misunderstood marr's post.

He said when was THIS team the 1st seed?
We have all different players, all different coaches, new ownership, etc.
Nothing is the same as it was then, other than we might be playing in the same building...but even that is different now
(new turf, new name, etc).

Marrdro
11-25-2009, 11:06 AM
"C" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:




The Vikings won't need any help this year.

Amen

I was actually thinking....."We should be cheering for the Vikings" when I saw the thread title.

;)

After reading it, thanks NP.
Good stuff.
I am cheering for the Vikes and any team playing the Saints.

;)


That is the safest way to do it.
I would much rather see the Vikes finish 15-1 and the Saints finish 14-2...
Of course that particular record combo brings back some painful memories from just over a decade ago... ;)


Personally, I don't want Home Field advantage. We seem to choke when we're the #1 seed... I'd rather be the underdog team going into the playoffs.

Plus, upsetting someone on their home-turf right before going into the Super Bowl... that's some good momentum right there.

When was this team the #1 Seed?

Long story short, I don't put much stock in what one team did as compared to another team.
Different time, different players, different situations. etc etc etc.


Well, 1998 for starters.

Even when we start the season out strong (7-0 for example), we have ended up choking in the end... and that was only a few seasons ago.

This team isn't the 98 team.
Hell, believe it or not, we even have new coaches, a new FO, and a new Ownership group.
;)

Again I ask.
When was this team the #1 seed?

Marrdro
11-25-2009, 11:06 AM
"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


I see what your saying but I think you misunderstood marr's post.

He said when was THIS team the 1st seed?
We have all different players, all different coaches, new ownership, etc.
Nothing is the same as it was then, other than we might be playing in the same building...but even that is different now
(new turf, new name, etc).

Lots of Whinky Smiley's my friend.
;)

NodakPaul
11-25-2009, 11:12 AM
"C" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"C" wrote:








The Vikings won't need any help this year.

Amen

I was actually thinking....."We should be cheering for the Vikings" when I saw the thread title.

;)

After reading it, thanks NP.
Good stuff.
I am cheering for the Vikes and any team playing the Saints.

;)


That is the safest way to do it.
I would much rather see the Vikes finish 15-1 and the Saints finish 14-2...
Of course that particular record combo brings back some painful memories from just over a decade ago... ;)


Personally, I don't want Home Field advantage. We seem to choke when we're the #1 seed... I'd rather be the underdog team going into the playoffs.

Plus, upsetting someone on their home-turf right before going into the Super Bowl... that's some good momentum right there.

When was this team the #1 Seed?

Long story short, I don't put much stock in what one team did as compared to another team.
Different time, different players, different situations. etc etc etc.


Well, 1998 for starters.

Even when we start the season out strong (7-0 for example), we have ended up choking in the end... and that was only a few seasons ago.


I would rather be excited about our team and record now and disappointed later, then never be excited at all...


I'm definitely excited... but the scenerio seems all too familiar.

Vet QB.

Awesome Rookie WR.

We had the #13th ranked defense (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tabSeq=2&defensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&conference=ALL&role=OPP&season=1998&seasonType=REG&d-447263-s=TOTAL_YARDS_GAME_AVG&d-447263-o=1&d-447263-n=1) (currently ranked #12 (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tabSeq=2&defensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&conference=ALL&role=OPP&season=2009&seasonType=REG&d-447263-s=TOTAL_YARDS_GAME_AVG&d-447263-o=1&d-447263-n=1))



Just saying...


Lightning doesn't strike the same place twice...



OK, actually it does.
In fact, if the conditions are favorable for lightning to strike once, it is almost a certainty that it will strike again relatively soon.
Crap, now I'm depressed... ;)

C Mac D
11-25-2009, 11:12 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


I see what your saying but I think you misunderstood marr's post.

He said when was THIS team the 1st seed?
We have all different players, all different coaches, new ownership, etc.
Nothing is the same as it was then, other than we might be playing in the same building...but even that is different now
(new turf, new name, etc).

Lots of Whinky Smiley's my friend.

;)


That's a silly question... "THIS" team is the Vikings. We were a #1 seed in '98.

Using your logic, you can't compare this team to any other year because of the turnover in NFL rosters.

I listed the similarities between this team and the '98 team... if you chose to ignore those, that's fine. But as the saying goes, those who don't study history...

Marrdro
11-25-2009, 11:21 AM
"C" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


I see what your saying but I think you misunderstood marr's post.

He said when was THIS team the 1st seed?
We have all different players, all different coaches, new ownership, etc.
Nothing is the same as it was then, other than we might be playing in the same building...but even that is different now
(new turf, new name, etc).

Lots of Whinky Smiley's My Farvish Friend.

;)


That's a silly question... "THIS" team is the Vikings. We were a #1 seed in '98.

Using your logic, you can't compare this team to any other year because of the turnover in NFL rosters.

I listed the similarities between this team and the '98 team... if you chose to ignore those, that's fine. But as the saying goes, those who don't study history...

LOL, you seriously are gonna use the "Those who don't study history" line on me?


Using your logic, you can't compare this team to any other year because of the turnover in NFL rosters.
Thats exactly what I'm saying.
Everything, except the team name and the state they hail from is different regardless of how much "Historical" data you throw out there and none of it, absolutely none of it will come into play this season if we get to the NFC Championship game, regardless of seeding.

Ever hear the ole Cliche'..........."A player has to forget the past and move on"?
Ever wonder why?

C Mac D
11-25-2009, 11:31 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


I see what your saying but I think you misunderstood marr's post.

He said when was THIS team the 1st seed?
We have all different players, all different coaches, new ownership, etc.
Nothing is the same as it was then, other than we might be playing in the same building...but even that is different now
(new turf, new name, etc).

Lots of Whinky Smiley's My Farvish Friend.

;)


That's a silly question... "THIS" team is the Vikings. We were a #1 seed in '98.

Using your logic, you can't compare this team to any other year because of the turnover in NFL rosters.

I listed the similarities between this team and the '98 team... if you chose to ignore those, that's fine. But as the saying goes, those who don't study history...

LOL, you seriously are gonna use the "Those who don't study history" line on me?


Using your logic, you can't compare this team to any other year because of the turnover in NFL rosters.
Thats exactly what I'm saying.
Everything, except the team name and the state they hail from is different regardless of how much "Historical" data you throw out there and none of it, absolutely none of it will come into play this season if we get to the NFC Championship game, regardless of seeding.

Ever hear the ole Cliche'..........."A player has to forget the past and move on"?
Ever wonder why?



Aren't you a Bengals fan?

Marrdro
11-25-2009, 11:37 AM
"C" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


I see what your saying but I think you misunderstood marr's post.

He said when was THIS team the 1st seed?
We have all different players, all different coaches, new ownership, etc.
Nothing is the same as it was then, other than we might be playing in the same building...but even that is different now
(new turf, new name, etc).

Lots of Whinky Smiley's My Farvish Friend.

;)


That's a silly question... "THIS" team is the Vikings. We were a #1 seed in '98.

Using your logic, you can't compare this team to any other year because of the turnover in NFL rosters.

I listed the similarities between this team and the '98 team... if you chose to ignore those, that's fine. But as the saying goes, those who don't study history...

LOL, you seriously are gonna use the "Those who don't study history" line on me?


Using your logic, you can't compare this team to any other year because of the turnover in NFL rosters.
Thats exactly what I'm saying.
Everything, except the team name and the state they hail from is different regardless of how much "Historical" data you throw out there and none of it, absolutely none of it will come into play this season if we get to the NFC Championship game, regardless of seeding.

Ever hear the ole Cliche'..........."A player has to forget the past and move on"?
Ever wonder why?



Aren't you a Bengals fan?

One will never know?

http://laribee.com/files/blog-images/HowManyObjectstoRepresentanEntity_7A70/image.png

BloodyHorns82
11-25-2009, 11:41 AM
"C" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


I see what your saying but I think you misunderstood marr's post.

He said when was THIS team the 1st seed?
We have all different players, all different coaches, new ownership, etc.
Nothing is the same as it was then, other than we might be playing in the same building...but even that is different now
(new turf, new name, etc).

Lots of Whinky Smiley's my friend.

;)


That's a silly question... "THIS" team is the Vikings. We were a #1 seed in '98.

Using your logic, you can't compare this team to any other year because of the turnover in NFL rosters.

I listed the similarities between this team and the '98 team... if you chose to ignore those, that's fine. But as the saying goes, those who don't study history...


This team's NAME is the Vikings.
It is not the same team from 11 years ago.


I would agree that it is very difficult to compare this team to any other...with the exception of recent years since most of the roster/coaching/scheme is similar.
But comparing this 2009 team to Denny Green's vertical passing game is a terrible comparison.

At one point players used leather helmets and the field goal was near the goal line.
Seems silly to compare historical teams with today's...but that's just my opinion.

Marrdro
11-25-2009, 11:47 AM
"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


I see what your saying but I think you misunderstood marr's post.

He said when was THIS team the 1st seed?
We have all different players, all different coaches, new ownership, etc.
Nothing is the same as it was then, other than we might be playing in the same building...but even that is different now
(new turf, new name, etc).

Lots of Whinky Smiley's My Farvish Friend.

;)


That's a silly question... "THIS" team is the Vikings. We were a #1 seed in '98.

Using your logic, you can't compare this team to any other year because of the turnover in NFL rosters.

I listed the similarities between this team and the '98 team... if you chose to ignore those, that's fine. But as the saying goes, those who don't study history...


This team's NAME is the Vikings.
It is not the same team from 11 years ago.


I would agree that it is very difficult to compare this team to any other...with the exception of recent years since most of the roster/coaching/scheme is similar.
But comparing this 2009 team to Denny Green's vertical passing game is a terrible comparison.

At one point players used leather helmets and the field goal was near the goal line.
Seems silly to compare historical teams with today's...but that's just my opinion.

Comaring them is hard, but trying to say they would choke if they were the #1 seed cause a couple of other Vikes teams did back in the day is even harder.


At least for me it is.
;D

C Mac D
11-25-2009, 11:48 AM
"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


I see what your saying but I think you misunderstood marr's post.

He said when was THIS team the 1st seed?
We have all different players, all different coaches, new ownership, etc.
Nothing is the same as it was then, other than we might be playing in the same building...but even that is different now
(new turf, new name, etc).

Lots of Whinky Smiley's my friend.
;)


That's a silly question... "THIS" team is the Vikings. We were a #1 seed in '98.

Using your logic, you can't compare this team to any other year because of the turnover in NFL rosters.

I listed the similarities between this team and the '98 team... if you chose to ignore those, that's fine. But as the saying goes, those who don't study history...


This team's NAME is the Vikings.
It is not the same team from 11 years ago.


I would agree that it is very difficult to compare this team to any other...with the exception of recent years since most of the roster/coaching/scheme is similar.
But comparing this 2009 team to Denny Green's vertical passing game is a terrible comparison.

At one point players used leather helmets and the field goal was near the goal line.
Seems silly to compare historical teams with today's...but that's just my opinion.


Terrible comparison? I disagree.

Vet QB.

Stud rookie WR.

98: 13th ranked defense

09: 12th ranked defense


And we've been airing it out more than running it... considering we have 326 passing attempts and only 297 rushing attempts... and we lead the league in passing plays over 40 yards.


I'd say those are some good comparisons to the 98 team.

jargomcfargo
11-25-2009, 11:50 AM
"C" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


I see what your saying but I think you misunderstood marr's post.

He said when was THIS team the 1st seed?
We have all different players, all different coaches, new ownership, etc.
Nothing is the same as it was then, other than we might be playing in the same building...but even that is different now
(new turf, new name, etc).

Lots of Whinky Smiley's My Farvish Friend.
;)


That's a silly question... "THIS" team is the Vikings. We were a #1 seed in '98.

Using your logic, you can't compare this team to any other year because of the turnover in NFL rosters.

I listed the similarities between this team and the '98 team... if you chose to ignore those, that's fine. But as the saying goes, those who don't study history...


This team's NAME is the Vikings.
It is not the same team from 11 years ago.


I would agree that it is very difficult to compare this team to any other...with the exception of recent years since most of the roster/coaching/scheme is similar.
But comparing this 2009 team to Denny Green's vertical passing game is a terrible comparison.

At one point players used leather helmets and the field goal was near the goal line.
Seems silly to compare historical teams with today's...but that's just my opinion.


Terrible comparison? I disagree.

Vet QB.

Stud rookie WR.

98: 13th ranked defense

09: 12th ranked defense


And we've been airing it out more than running it... considering we have 326 passing attempts and only 297 rushing attempts... and we lead the league in passing plays over 40 yards.


I'd say those are some good comparisons to the 98 team.


Here's one you may like!

98 Denny Green

09 Childress

;D

BloodyHorns82
11-25-2009, 11:51 AM
"C" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


I see what your saying but I think you misunderstood marr's post.

He said when was THIS team the 1st seed?
We have all different players, all different coaches, new ownership, etc.
Nothing is the same as it was then, other than we might be playing in the same building...but even that is different now
(new turf, new name, etc).

Lots of Whinky Smiley's my friend.
;)


That's a silly question... "THIS" team is the Vikings. We were a #1 seed in '98.

Using your logic, you can't compare this team to any other year because of the turnover in NFL rosters.

I listed the similarities between this team and the '98 team... if you chose to ignore those, that's fine. But as the saying goes, those who don't study history...


This team's NAME is the Vikings.
It is not the same team from 11 years ago.


I would agree that it is very difficult to compare this team to any other...with the exception of recent years since most of the roster/coaching/scheme is similar.
But comparing this 2009 team to Denny Green's vertical passing game is a terrible comparison.

At one point players used leather helmets and the field goal was near the goal line.
Seems silly to compare historical teams with today's...but that's just my opinion.


Terrible comparison? I disagree.

Vet QB.

Stud rookie WR.

98: 13th ranked defense

09: 12th ranked defense


And we've been airing it out more than running it... considering we have 326 passing attempts and only 297 rushing attempts... and we lead the league in passing plays over 40 yards.


I'd say those are some good comparisons to the 98 team.


I take back my terrible comparison remark...but I still don't think it is by any means a "fair comparison.

Marrdro
11-25-2009, 11:55 AM
"jargomcfargo" wrote:


Here's one you may like!

98 Denny Green

09 Childress

;D

.....snicker......

I absolutely hated Denny (Joey Joey Joey) and grew to love the cat.

I started out liking the Chiller, started to dislike the Chiller, started to like the Chiller, started to dislike the Chiller......See the difference.
;D

gagarr
11-25-2009, 12:34 PM
The same could happen as the '98 team or Longwell could nail the FG.

What I don't want to repeat is the '69, '73, '74, and '76.
To get there and lose would piss me off more than not getting there.

Most don't even remember the '98 Vikes, but all would remember if the '09 Vikes to set a record with 5 SB loses.

V4L
11-25-2009, 12:43 PM
"gagarr" wrote:


The same could happen as the '98 team or Longwell could nail the FG.

What I don't want to repeat is the '69, '73, '74, and '76.
To get there and lose would piss me off more than not getting there.

Most don't even remember the '98 Vikes, but all would remember if the '09 Vikes to set a record with 5 SB loses.



Or we win one with Bretts first year

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


The same could happen as the '98 team or Longwell could nail the FG.

What I don't want to repeat is the '69, '73, '74, and '76.
To get there and lose would piss me off more than not getting there.

Most don't even remember the '98 Vikes, but all would remember if the '09 Vikes to set a record with 5 SB loses.

I remember them all ('69, '73, '74, '76 and '98 plus a few more).
Each one, even the 98 team, hurt worse than the one before.

jargomcfargo
11-25-2009, 12:47 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"gagarr" wrote:


The same could happen as the '98 team or Longwell could nail the FG.

What I don't want to repeat is the '69, '73, '74, and '76.
To get there and lose would piss me off more than not getting there.

Most don't even remember the '98 Vikes, but all would remember if the '09 Vikes to set a record with 5 SB loses.

I remember them all ('69, '73, '74, '76 and '98 plus a few more).
Each one, even the 98 team, hurt worse than the one before.


Me too. And I'd rather go and lose than not go, any day.
Gotta get there to win one.
Nice to say this team could.
Haven't been able to say that for some time.

Marrdro
11-25-2009, 12:55 PM
"jargomcfargo" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"gagarr" wrote:


The same could happen as the '98 team or Longwell could nail the FG.

What I don't want to repeat is the '69, '73, '74, and '76.
To get there and lose would piss me off more than not getting there.

Most don't even remember the '98 Vikes, but all would remember if the '09 Vikes to set a record with 5 SB loses.

I remember them all ('69, '73, '74, '76 and '98 plus a few more).
Each one, even the 98 team, hurt worse than the one before.


Me too. And I'd rather go and lose than not go, any day.
Gotta get there to win one.
Nice to say this team could.
Haven't been able to say that for some time.

Awfull exciting isn't it.
Makes me think of my Uncle Joel who passed 2 years ago.

I spent many a Sunday afternoon down in his basement "Man Cave".
Had a cool bar along one side. A vast assortment of Ducks, Bear, Deer, Turkey, Fox mounts and pool table.
Watching the games, talking about the game (mostly crap to my PUKER uncle fans).

First time I was ever allowed to have a "Cold One" with the guys that didn't involve "Haying" and sore muscles.

He would be in his glory my friend.
In his glory.

thorshammer
11-25-2009, 09:59 PM
I see some valid comparisons to the 98 team but I think the mental aspect of this years team is different .... much more calm confidence in this years team .... more business like wins ... no panic. I think the 98 team would loose confidence if they weren't running away with the score .... This years team seems more solid and mature. Just my impression. I think Favre has brought one intangible .... veteran calmness to a critical position ... don't think there is much he hasn't seen and he is surrounded with some potent weapons. He is calm and confident and the other players sense that and are also calm and confident. This team knows they can win. I think the 98 team thought they could win and if they got up by a lot fed off that.... but if things got rocky they weren't so sure they could win. The proof of this theory will come in the post season.

SharperImage42
11-25-2009, 10:03 PM
I am not cheering for the Packers.. I want them out of the playoffs, I don't want them to even smell a playoff berth.

i_bleed_purple
11-25-2009, 10:15 PM
"thorshammer" wrote:


I see some valid comparisons to the 98 team but I think the mental aspect of this years team is different .... much more calm confidence in this years team .... more business like wins ... no panic. I think the 98 team would loose confidence if they weren't running away with the score .... This years team seems more solid and mature. Just my impression. I think Favre has brought one intangible .... veteran calmness to a critical position ... don't think there is much he hasn't seen and he is surrounded with some potent weapons. He is calm and confident and the other players sense that and are also calm and confident. This team knows they can win. I think the 98 team thought they could win and if they got up by a lot fed off that.... but if things got rocky they weren't so sure they could win. The proof of this theory will come in the post season.


in 98, they lived by getting up quickly, and forcing other teams to start passing, making them one dimensional, similar to what the Saints are doing this season.

I think our Defense is better, in that we don't need a team to go one dimensional to stop them.
We can stop the run, and still get pressure on the QB.
I think the Offense was better then, but we're still pretty damn good this year.

raptorman
11-25-2009, 10:25 PM
"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"midgensa" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"midgensa" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


Here's a little bit of explanation for each game:

GB @ DET
- GB (Thu) - Since we swept both teams, this game does not affect our strength of schedule at all.
However, NO beat the Lions in week 1, and they don't play the Pack.

JAC @ SF - SF - We beat SF
SEA @ STL - SEA - Both teams have played and beaten TB.
However, we play Seattle, and the Saints don't.
CHI @ MIN - MIN - Obviously
ARI @ TEN - ARI - We play Arizona in week 13
OAK @ DAL - OAK - The Saints play Dallas in week 15
PIT @ BAL - BAL (Sun night) - We beat Baltimore, but not Pittsburgh.

NE @ NO - NE (mon) - Another obvious one

Eh ... floop that ... I am definitely pulling for the Lions.

And as a general rule ... I NEVER pull for an NFC team against an AFC team ... so go Titans! Besides ... we would want to keep Arizona as far away as possible, that way IF they do beat us ... we will still get a higher seed than them.

Obviously we want Baltimore to win ... everyone hates the Steelers right?

The strength of schedule tie-breaker is nice to think about and all ... but I am still not going to pull for the Packers EVER.



If the Lions winning means the Vikings getting a #2 instead of the #1 seed than I would definitely want the Packers to win.

It doesn't mean that ... it is week 12. It simply means the Lions are 3-8 and the Packers are 7-4.


If we finish the season with the same record as NO, which is extremely possible than it would play a role in determining home field advantage.
Notice I said "If" in my original post.
If the Lions win it will make no difference in the strength of victory. Since both MN and NO would get a win for it.
However, if they add all the wins then they would count Detroit twice and it would benefit MN. No matter what, a Detroit win won't hurt the SOV for MN.

PhillyVikes
11-25-2009, 11:42 PM
Wow things on here have changed!!!
:P

I only cheer for the Vikings!!!!

Could care less how other teams perform. As long as we keep playing as well as we are, I dont think there is a team in the NFL we don't have a chance of beating.

As the the whole MVP talk give it to Breese or Manning after they lose the first play-off game.

SKOL!!!!!!

199

Marrdro
11-26-2009, 09:14 AM
"PhillyVikes" wrote:


Wow things on here have changed!!!
:P

I only cheer for the Vikings!!!!

Could care less how other teams perform. As long as we keep playing as well as we are, I dont think there is a team in the NFL we don't have a chance of beating.

As the the whole MVP talk give it to Breese or Manning after they lose the first play-off game.

SKOL!!!!!!

199

LOL.

Been a "Kindof" a culture change around here my friend.

gregair13
11-26-2009, 10:48 AM
Lets go Lions!...

Oh wait. Packers win 26-0

http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/5306/pack260.jpg

V4L
11-26-2009, 11:35 AM
"gregair13" wrote:


Lets go Lions!...

Oh wait. Packers win 26-0

http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/5306/pack260.jpg



I can't see that at all? What is it?

gregair13
11-26-2009, 11:39 AM
"V4L" wrote:


"gregair13" wrote:


Lets go Lions!...

Oh wait. Packers win 26-0

http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/5306/pack260.jpg



I can't see that at all? What is it?

Yahoo said that the packers won 26-0 and already gave me a point for the win.