PDA

View Full Version : Vikings unofficial depth chart



Marrdro
08-11-2011, 02:45 PM
Vikings unofficial depth chart
(http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/blogs/127490248.html)

i_bleed_purple
08-11-2011, 02:47 PM
bit easier to read, direct from vikings.com:

http://i52.tinypic.com/dfbs7d.jpg

i_bleed_purple
08-11-2011, 02:51 PM
should also be taken very lightly.

through the last few practices, Ponder has been running the second team offense, not Webb.

Also, Stephen Burton has been awful at WR, yet he's ahead of Iglacias, Arceneaux and Aromashodu.

marstc09
08-12-2011, 12:30 AM
God that OL looks weak. McNabb might regret coming here come mid season. Can we get a safety.....please!

singersp
08-12-2011, 12:43 AM
God that OL looks weak. McNabb might regret coming here come mid season.

Someone "GETS IT"

singersp
08-12-2011, 12:47 AM
Did Pat Williams retire?

singersp
08-12-2011, 12:50 AM
Also, Stephen Burton has been awful at WR, yet he's ahead of Iglacias, Arceneaux and Aromashodu.

So what does that tell you about Arceneaux and Aromashodu? Do people still feel our current crop of WR's is going to be better without Rice?

The Bears have had pretty much shit for WR's the past few years & we signed one of their rejects? WTF?

Culpepper_4717
08-12-2011, 12:50 AM
Did Pat Williams retire?
Nope. He said he's "Going to go finish elsewhere."

singersp
08-12-2011, 12:57 AM
Vikings unofficial depth chart
(http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/blogs/127490248.html)

And people are claiming the Vikings will be 10-6, 11-5, 13-3?

AYFKM?!

singersp
08-12-2011, 12:59 AM
Did Pat Williams retire?
Nope. He said he's "Going to go finish elsewhere."

Perhaps he sees the handwriting on the wall as to how he thinks this team will perform this year.

delviking
08-12-2011, 04:34 PM
its also the chart for the first game who knows how many will be there on come the third and fourth games. plus we dont know the mechanics they choose for this chart who knows maybe putting guys out there who've underperformed during camp to see them in game situations and if they flop there gone first cut.

but only my speculation to such

i_bleed_purple
08-12-2011, 04:36 PM
Also, Stephen Burton has been awful at WR, yet he's ahead of Iglacias, Arceneaux and Aromashodu.

So what does that tell you about Arceneaux and Aromashodu? Do people still feel our current crop of WR's is going to be better without Rice?

The Bears have had pretty much shit for WR's the past few years & we signed one of their rejects? WTF?

anyone who believes we are better without Rice needs their head examined.

I seem to recall the same thought process happening when we traded Moss

"We'll be better without him since now we can spread the ball around more".

bullshit.

GQVikesFanLV
08-12-2011, 04:59 PM
Also, Stephen Burton has been awful at WR, yet he's ahead of Iglacias, Arceneaux and Aromashodu.

So what does that tell you about Arceneaux and Aromashodu? Do people still feel our current crop of WR's is going to be better without Rice?

The Bears have had pretty much shit for WR's the past few years & we signed one of their rejects? WTF?

anyone who believes we are better without Rice needs their head examined.

I seem to recall the same thought process happening when we traded Moss

"We'll be better without him since now we can spread the ball around more".

bullshit.

I agree, the only time we forgot about Moss was the 2009 season when Sidney finally stepped up and became that big deep threat receiver we've been missing since Moss left.

Now we are back to square one trying to figure out who to replace Sidney with or who will step up next..

kevoncox
08-12-2011, 09:06 PM
Vikings unofficial depth chart
(http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/blogs/127490248.html)

And people are claiming the Vikings will be 10-6, 11-5, 13-3?

AYFKM?!

If you look at our team and the teams we play... 10-6 and 11-5 is very possible. However, I guess its easier to believe the sky is falling.

We play a Chargers team that always start slow - W
Saints and Atlanta are probably losses
Tampa at Home - Win
Carolina - Win
Raiders - Win
Chiefs - W
Broncos - W
Skins - W
Cards - W

Lions - 2 wins
Packs - 2 loss ( although i think we can steal one)
Bears Split - W

Record 9-7 to 11-5. Who on their really scares you? The Raiders? THe Chiefs? Come on man, quit the crying over nothing.

i_bleed_purple
08-12-2011, 09:08 PM
Vikings unofficial depth chart
(http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/blogs/127490248.html)

And people are claiming the Vikings will be 10-6, 11-5, 13-3?

AYFKM?!

If you look at our team and the teams we play... 10-6 and 11-5 is very possible. However, I guess its easier to believe the sky is falling.

We play a Chargers team that always start slow - W
Saints and Atlanta are probably losses
Tampa at Home - Win
Carolina - Win
Raiders - Win
Chiefs - W
Broncos - W
Skins - W
Cards - W

Lions - 2 wins
Packs - 2 loss ( although i think we can steal one)
Bears Split - W

Record 9-7 to 11-5. Who on their really scares you? The Raiders? THe Chiefs? Come on man, quit the crying over nothing.

in 2009 we had a better team and an easier schedule and only managed 12-4. You somehow believe that after downgrading multiple positions, we are somehow better with a harder schedule?

kevoncox
08-13-2011, 12:24 AM
Vikings unofficial depth chart
(http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/blogs/127490248.html)

And people are claiming the Vikings will be 10-6, 11-5, 13-3?

AYFKM?!

If you look at our team and the teams we play... 10-6 and 11-5 is very possible. However, I guess its easier to believe the sky is falling.

We play a Chargers team that always start slow - W
Saints and Atlanta are probably losses
Tampa at Home - Win
Carolina - Win
Raiders - Win
Chiefs - W
Broncos - W
Skins - W
Cards - W

Lions - 2 wins
Packs - 2 loss ( although i think we can steal one)
Bears Split - W

Record 9-7 to 11-5. Who on their really scares you? The Raiders? THe Chiefs? Come on man, quit the crying over nothing.

in 2009 we had a better team and an easier schedule and only managed 12-4. You somehow believe that after downgrading multiple positions, we are somehow better with a harder schedule?

Tell me which game, I listed as a win, do you feel is a definite loss?
None. Everyone says this team is a 6-10 team but won't explain where the 11 losses are coming from? Teams like the fucking Raiders are being counted as losses : (. Since when? We can't beat Tampa but we are better than them at every position except Cb and S and Ol. Did I mention it's a home game? Really? We can't beat KC because they are unstopable? Right!
Show me the 11 lossess that are definites. Are we playing the eagles and the Ravens all season long?

kevoncox
08-13-2011, 12:28 AM
I guess no one considered that this team went into Philly and beat them when they had everything to play for. Yeah but we can't hang with Josh Freeman and his allstar team :(

Purple Floyd
08-13-2011, 12:46 AM
They also lost the next week to the lions to secure a seat in the cellar of the division.

kevoncox
08-13-2011, 12:48 AM
They also lost the next week to the lions to secure a seat in the cellar of the division.

This team is better than that team. If for no reason other than our QB and Cb play is improved. Lastly, Madon't williams is gone #additionbysubtraction.

MindCrimes67
08-13-2011, 01:13 AM
Also, Stephen Burton has been awful at WR, yet he's ahead of Iglacias, Arceneaux and Aromashodu.

So what does that tell you about Arceneaux and Aromashodu? Do people still feel our current crop of WR's is going to be better without Rice?

The Bears have had pretty much shit for WR's the past few years & we signed one of their rejects? WTF?

anyone who believes we are better without Rice needs their head examined.

I seem to recall the same thought process happening when we traded Moss

"We'll be better without him since now we can spread the ball around more".



I can not believe how you all think Sidney was the greatest thing since sliced bread! Had one good year that is it, that was because of Favre. Mark my words Sidney Rice will be a non-factor through rest of career. Rest all of a receivers glories upon one year.. Whatever. Complain about our receivers, i see much more of glaring hole in other positions surely not at receiver. Sorry just get a little heated when people think Rice was soooo great, they seem to forget thr other 3 yrs he did nothing!!!!!!

bullshit.

Johnson14
08-13-2011, 01:20 PM
Also, Stephen Burton has been awful at WR, yet he's ahead of Iglacias, Arceneaux and Aromashodu.

So what does that tell you about Arceneaux and Aromashodu? Do people still feel our current crop of WR's is going to be better without Rice?

The Bears have had pretty much shit for WR's the past few years & we signed one of their rejects? WTF?

I havent seen anyone say our WR corps are better without Rice, to be fair.

Im not that worried about the WR position, think we will do ok with what we got, so long as we keep McNabb upright and protected, which is a whole separate matter!

Im not over impressed using D'imperio as FB, think we should go with a proper FB rather than a LB come FB, but saying that, he cant be worse than Tahi! lol

singersp
08-13-2011, 03:42 PM
I havent seen anyone say our WR corps are better without Rice, to be fair.

Then you need to read more.

Johnson14
08-13-2011, 03:45 PM
I havent seen anyone say our WR corps are better without Rice, to be fair.

Then you need to read more.

I make no apologies for not reading every single post on the forum :laugh:

singersp
08-13-2011, 04:22 PM
Vikings unofficial depth chart
(http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/blogs/127490248.html)

And people are claiming the Vikings will be 10-6, 11-5, 13-3?

AYFKM?!

If you look at our team and the teams we play... 10-6 and 11-5 is very possible. However, I guess its easier to believe the sky is falling.

We play a Chargers team that always start slow - W
Saints and Atlanta are probably losses
Tampa at Home - Win
Carolina - Win
Raiders - Win
Chiefs - W
Broncos - W
Skins - W
Cards - W

Lions - 2 wins
Packs - 2 loss ( although i think we can steal one)
Bears Split - W

Record 9-7 to 11-5. Who on their really scares you? The Raiders? THe Chiefs? Come on man, quit the crying over nothing.

No ones crying. Just telling you like it is. Try being realistic for a change. First, we'll probably split with the Lions, not have two gimmies. We aren't talking the Lions of old anymore. We lost to them last year.

Doubt we'll beat the 13-3 Chargers of last year on their turf opening day.

Don't think we'll be beating the NFC West Champion Cardinals either.

The Bronco's game, if led by Orton, could go either way.

We could drop both games to the NFC North Conferance Champion Bears also.

That takes your 9-7 team (which was ALREADY LOWER than the 10-6 you said I was crying about & wouldn't reach, yet you agreed with me LOL!) & makes them 7-9 to 5-11. 7-9 is where I figured they'd be at best.

You're forgetting who we lost, not looking at who we replaced them with, not taking into consideration the short TC, the fact that K-Will probably miss the first 4 games, the fact that our new players, especially our new LT, will take some time getting used to our system & gelling with the rest of the team, not to mention unproven starters at several positions that were backups a year ago.

Lets also not forget we have no idea how well Griffen will play at CB coming back from his 2nd torn ACL surgery. I think it's safe to assume he won't be better than he was before.

singersp
08-13-2011, 04:23 PM
I havent seen anyone say our WR corps are better without Rice, to be fair.

Then you need to read more.

I make no apologies for not reading every single post on the forum :laugh:

And you don't have too.

i_bleed_purple
08-13-2011, 04:51 PM
Vikings unofficial depth chart
(http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/blogs/127490248.html)

And people are claiming the Vikings will be 10-6, 11-5, 13-3?

AYFKM?!

If you look at our team and the teams we play... 10-6 and 11-5 is very possible. However, I guess its easier to believe the sky is falling.

We play a Chargers team that always start slow - W
Saints and Atlanta are probably losses
Tampa at Home - Win
Carolina - Win
Raiders - Win
Chiefs - W
Broncos - W
Skins - W
Cards - W

Lions - 2 wins
Packs - 2 loss ( although i think we can steal one)
Bears Split - W

Record 9-7 to 11-5. Who on their really scares you? The Raiders? THe Chiefs? Come on man, quit the crying over nothing.

No ones crying. Just telling you like it is. Try being realistic for a change. First, we'll probably split with the Lions, not have two gimmies. We aren't talking the Lions of old anymore. We lost to them last year.

Doubt we'll beat the 13-3 Chargers of last year on their turf opening day.

Don't think we'll be beating the NFC West Champion Cardinals either.

The Bronco's game, if led by Orton, could go either way.

We could drop both games to the NFC North Conferance Champion Bears also.

That takes your 9-7 team (which was ALREADY LOWER than the 10-6 you said I was crying about & wouldn't reach, yet you agreed with me LOL!) & makes them 7-9 to 5-11. 7-9 is where I figured they'd be at best.

You're forgetting who we lost, not looking at who we replaced them with, not taking into consideration the short TC, the fact that K-Will probably miss the first 4 games, the fact that our new players, especially our new LT, will take some time getting used to our system & gelling with the rest of the team, not to mention unproven starters at several positions that were backups a year ago.

Lets also not forget we have no idea how well Griffen will play at CB coming back from his 2nd torn ACL surgery. I think it's safe to assume he won't be better than he was before.

All good except the Cards finished last in the division and the Chargers were 8-8 I believe.

other than that, bang on. People need to take off the purple shades for a minute. If people beleive our players are really taht good, then that means that the teams that are better than us will be even better; and there's going to be alot of them.

singersp
08-13-2011, 04:52 PM
Also, Stephen Burton has been awful at WR, yet he's ahead of Iglacias, Arceneaux and Aromashodu.

So what does that tell you about Arceneaux and Aromashodu? Do people still feel our current crop of WR's is going to be better without Rice?

The Bears have had pretty much shit for WR's the past few years & we signed one of their rejects? WTF?

anyone who believes we are better without Rice needs their head examined.

I seem to recall the same thought process happening when we traded Moss

"We'll be better without him since now we can spread the ball around more".

bullshit.


I can not believe how you all think Sidney was the greatest thing since sliced bread! Had one good year that is it, that was because of Favre. Mark my words Sidney Rice will be a non-factor through rest of career. Rest all of a receivers glories upon one year.. Whatever. Complain about our receivers, i see much more of glaring hole in other positions surely not at receiver. Sorry just get a little heated when people think Rice was soooo great, they seem to forget thr other 3 yrs he did nothing!!!!!!



1. No one said he was the greatest thing since sliced bread! We said we have a worse receiving corp without him.

2. The reason he didn't have a good year last year was because he missed 10 games! Hello!

With that said, in just the 6 games he did play in, he still had more receptions, more yards, more catches, more TD's & 7.5 more yards per catch than Berrian had all year.

It's quite simple really. Answer the following questions;

1. Rice > Berrian. Agree or Disagree?

2. Rice > Michael Jenkins. Agree or Disagree?

3. Rice > Jaymar Johnson. Agree or Disagree?

4. Rice > Emmanuel Arceneaux. Agree or Disagree?

5. Rice > Devin Aromashodu. Agree or Disagree?

6. Rice > Andre Holmes. Agree or Disagree?

7. Rice > Greg Camarillo. Agree or Disagree?

8. Rice > Stephen Burton. Agree or Disagree?

9. Rice > Juaquin Iglesias. Agree or Disagree?

10. Rice > Dominique Johnson. Agree or Disagree?

11. Of the Vikings on that list who weren't with the team last year, how many have you heard of before? How many have names most NFL fans have heard of before?

12. Now, tell me again how you think we improved our WR corp.

singersp
08-13-2011, 05:11 PM
Vikings unofficial depth chart
(http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/blogs/127490248.html)

And people are claiming the Vikings will be 10-6, 11-5, 13-3?

AYFKM?!

If you look at our team and the teams we play... 10-6 and 11-5 is very possible. However, I guess its easier to believe the sky is falling.

We play a Chargers team that always start slow - W
Saints and Atlanta are probably losses
Tampa at Home - Win
Carolina - Win
Raiders - Win
Chiefs - W
Broncos - W
Skins - W
Cards - W

Lions - 2 wins
Packs - 2 loss ( although i think we can steal one)
Bears Split - W

Record 9-7 to 11-5. Who on their really scares you? The Raiders? THe Chiefs? Come on man, quit the crying over nothing.

No ones crying. Just telling you like it is. Try being realistic for a change. First, we'll probably split with the Lions, not have two gimmies. We aren't talking the Lions of old anymore. We lost to them last year.

Doubt we'll beat the 13-3 Chargers of last year on their turf opening day.

Don't think we'll be beating the NFC West Champion Cardinals either.

The Bronco's game, if led by Orton, could go either way.

We could drop both games to the NFC North Conferance Champion Bears also.

That takes your 9-7 team (which was ALREADY LOWER than the 10-6 you said I was crying about & wouldn't reach, yet you agreed with me LOL!) & makes them 7-9 to 5-11. 7-9 is where I figured they'd be at best.

You're forgetting who we lost, not looking at who we replaced them with, not taking into consideration the short TC, the fact that K-Will probably miss the first 4 games, the fact that our new players, especially our new LT, will take some time getting used to our system & gelling with the rest of the team, not to mention unproven starters at several positions that were backups a year ago.

Lets also not forget we have no idea how well Griffen will play at CB coming back from his 2nd torn ACL surgery. I think it's safe to assume he won't be better than he was before.

All good except the Cards finished last in the division and the Chargers were 8-8 I believe.

other than that, bang on. People need to take off the purple shades for a minute. If people beleive our players are really taht good, then that means that the teams that are better than us will be even better; and there's going to be alot of them.

LOL, I must have looked at 2009 standings, not 2010. Still, the Cards added Kolb & still have Fitzgerald. We barely beat them last year (27-24) winning in OT on a Longwell kick.

Chargers were 9-7. Although he claimed the Chargers started out slow, they started out 2-2 last year & won their home opener while we were 2-8 on the road.

Lets also not forget 5 of our 6 wins last year came against the;

Lions (6-10)
Cardinals (5-11)
Cowboys (6-10)
Redskins (6-10)
Bills (4-12)

Now, while adding McNabb does improve our QB over a year ago, putting him behind the same OL with an unproven/new LT & a RB who can't block well, pretty much brings it back down to almost even.

Marrdro
08-14-2011, 07:04 PM
Vikings unofficial depth chart
(http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/blogs/127490248.html)

And people are claiming the Vikings will be 10-6, 11-5, 13-3?

AYFKM?!
Put me down for 10-6/11-5 and call me optimistic my pesimistic friend.

Marrdro
08-14-2011, 07:07 PM
I havent seen anyone say our WR corps are better without Rice, to be fair.

Then you need to read more.
I haven't seen many that say they are better. I think most say that they will be adequate enough based on the scheme we are going to run.

The ones who are looking for "3 Deep" still are the ones who seem to think the sky is falling. :ohmy:

Purple Floyd
08-14-2011, 07:09 PM
They also lost the next week to the lions to secure a seat in the cellar of the division.

This team is better than that team. If for no reason other than our QB and Cb play is improved. Lastly, Madon't williams is gone #additionbysubtraction.

This team is much worse than that team. No way we are in the playoff hunt after mid season this year.

Marrdro
08-14-2011, 07:11 PM
No ones crying. Just telling you like it is. Try being realistic for a change. First, we'll probably split with the Lions, not have two gimmies. We aren't talking the Lions of old anymore. We lost to them last year.

Doubt we'll beat the 13-3 Chargers of last year on their turf opening day.

Don't think we'll be beating the NFC West Champion Cardinals either.

The Bronco's game, if led by Orton, could go either way.

We could drop both games to the NFC North Conferance Champion Bears also.

That takes your 9-7 team (which was ALREADY LOWER than the 10-6 you said I was crying about & wouldn't reach, yet you agreed with me LOL!) & makes them 7-9 to 5-11. 7-9 is where I figured they'd be at best.

You're forgetting who we lost, not looking at who we replaced them with, not taking into consideration the short TC, the fact that K-Will probably miss the first 4 games, the fact that our new players, especially our new LT, will take some time getting used to our system & gelling with the rest of the team, not to mention unproven starters at several positions that were backups a year ago.

Lets also not forget we have no idea how well Griffen will play at CB coming back from his 2nd torn ACL surgery. I think it's safe to assume he won't be better than he was before.
But we could beat the Chargers. The start slow every year.

The Cards are bringing in a new QB that is better suited to run a dink dunk version of the WCO, not the chuck it deep Air Coryell version the Card run.

The Lions are improved, but not that much. No running game. CB's are iffy. No pass protection.

If you want to play the split game then we can split with the Bores just like we could the Lions. Heck, did you watch the Bores OL last night? WOW.

So yes, 9-7 is more your reality, but 10-6/11-5 is just as realistic depending on how you look at it. :whistle:

Purple Floyd
08-14-2011, 07:13 PM
No ones crying. Just telling you like it is. Try being realistic for a change. First, we'll probably split with the Lions, not have two gimmies. We aren't talking the Lions of old anymore. We lost to them last year.

Doubt we'll beat the 13-3 Chargers of last year on their turf opening day.

Don't think we'll be beating the NFC West Champion Cardinals either.

The Bronco's game, if led by Orton, could go either way.

We could drop both games to the NFC North Conferance Champion Bears also.

That takes your 9-7 team (which was ALREADY LOWER than the 10-6 you said I was crying about & wouldn't reach, yet you agreed with me LOL!) & makes them 7-9 to 5-11. 7-9 is where I figured they'd be at best.

You're forgetting who we lost, not looking at who we replaced them with, not taking into consideration the short TC, the fact that K-Will probably miss the first 4 games, the fact that our new players, especially our new LT, will take some time getting used to our system & gelling with the rest of the team, not to mention unproven starters at several positions that were backups a year ago.

Lets also not forget we have no idea how well Griffen will play at CB coming back from his 2nd torn ACL surgery. I think it's safe to assume he won't be better than he was before.
But we could beat the Chargers. The start slow every year.

The Cards are bringing in a new QB that is better suited to run a dink dunk version of the WCO, not the chuck it deep Air Coryell version the Card run.

The Lions are improved, but not that much. No running game. CB's are iffy. No pass protection.

If you want to play the split game then we can split with the Bores just like we could the Lions. Heck, did you watch the Bores OL last night? WOW.

So yes, 9-7 is more your reality, but 10-6/11-5 is just as realistic depending on how you look at it. :whistle:

5-10 is more like it.

Marrdro
08-14-2011, 07:23 PM
No ones crying. Just telling you like it is. Try being realistic for a change. First, we'll probably split with the Lions, not have two gimmies. We aren't talking the Lions of old anymore. We lost to them last year.

Doubt we'll beat the 13-3 Chargers of last year on their turf opening day.

Don't think we'll be beating the NFC West Champion Cardinals either.

The Bronco's game, if led by Orton, could go either way.

We could drop both games to the NFC North Conferance Champion Bears also.

That takes your 9-7 team (which was ALREADY LOWER than the 10-6 you said I was crying about & wouldn't reach, yet you agreed with me LOL!) & makes them 7-9 to 5-11. 7-9 is where I figured they'd be at best.

You're forgetting who we lost, not looking at who we replaced them with, not taking into consideration the short TC, the fact that K-Will probably miss the first 4 games, the fact that our new players, especially our new LT, will take some time getting used to our system & gelling with the rest of the team, not to mention unproven starters at several positions that were backups a year ago.

Lets also not forget we have no idea how well Griffen will play at CB coming back from his 2nd torn ACL surgery. I think it's safe to assume he won't be better than he was before.
But we could beat the Chargers. The start slow every year.

The Cards are bringing in a new QB that is better suited to run a dink dunk version of the WCO, not the chuck it deep Air Coryell version the Card run.

The Lions are improved, but not that much. No running game. CB's are iffy. No pass protection.

If you want to play the split game then we can split with the Bores just like we could the Lions. Heck, did you watch the Bores OL last night? WOW.

So yes, 9-7 is more your reality, but 10-6/11-5 is just as realistic depending on how you look at it. :whistle:

5-10 is more like it.
Were is that ROTFLMAO emitcon when I need it.

Purple Floyd
08-14-2011, 07:38 PM
No ones crying. Just telling you like it is. Try being realistic for a change. First, we'll probably split with the Lions, not have two gimmies. We aren't talking the Lions of old anymore. We lost to them last year.

Doubt we'll beat the 13-3 Chargers of last year on their turf opening day.

Don't think we'll be beating the NFC West Champion Cardinals either.

The Bronco's game, if led by Orton, could go either way.

We could drop both games to the NFC North Conferance Champion Bears also.

That takes your 9-7 team (which was ALREADY LOWER than the 10-6 you said I was crying about & wouldn't reach, yet you agreed with me LOL!) & makes them 7-9 to 5-11. 7-9 is where I figured they'd be at best.

You're forgetting who we lost, not looking at who we replaced them with, not taking into consideration the short TC, the fact that K-Will probably miss the first 4 games, the fact that our new players, especially our new LT, will take some time getting used to our system & gelling with the rest of the team, not to mention unproven starters at several positions that were backups a year ago.

Lets also not forget we have no idea how well Griffen will play at CB coming back from his 2nd torn ACL surgery. I think it's safe to assume he won't be better than he was before.
But we could beat the Chargers. The start slow every year.

The Cards are bringing in a new QB that is better suited to run a dink dunk version of the WCO, not the chuck it deep Air Coryell version the Card run.

The Lions are improved, but not that much. No running game. CB's are iffy. No pass protection.

If you want to play the split game then we can split with the Bores just like we could the Lions. Heck, did you watch the Bores OL last night? WOW.

So yes, 9-7 is more your reality, but 10-6/11-5 is just as realistic depending on how you look at it. :whistle:

5-10 is more like it.
Were is that ROTFLMAO emitcon when I need it.

- We lost our LDE and replaced him with a guy will not be a good
- We lost PWill and have an inexperienced replacement who will take a good chunk of the year to get up to speed.
- KWill more than likely will miss the first 1/4 of the season to suspension
- The old washed up QB who was here last year was replaced by another old washed up QB that is not near as good as the old old one.
- We went backward at the WR position.
- the secondary is still porous as swiss cheese.
- The coaching staff is new and is now operating under Wilf 2.0 which may prove eerily similar to Red 2.0.
- We released our RT and his replacement looks to be less capable, RG is questionable and C is in shambles and the young guys we have on the OL will take most of the year in a perfect world to get in sync.


Other than the fact that we will not be scoring points with this offense and we won't be stopping teams with the defense I cannot see any reason why we can't win the SB.;)

Zeus
08-16-2011, 01:49 PM
They also lost the next week to the lions to secure a seat in the cellar of the division.

This team is better than that team. If for no reason other than our QB and Cb play is improved. Lastly, Madon't williams is gone #additionbysubtraction.

This team is much worse than that team. No way we are in the playoff hunt after mid season this year.

I don't know about much worse, but I don't really think they're any better.

=Z=

Zeus
08-16-2011, 01:54 PM
But we could beat the Chargers. The start slow every year.

What chance do you actually give the Vikings to win this? If you're forecasting a W, then I'd have to assume it's greater than 50%.

And I just don't see that. Sure "Any given Sunday" always holds true in the NFL, but the Chargers had the top-rated defense in the NFL last year and the Vikings have a new offense, coordinator, QB and #1 WR. That's not a recipe for a big upset on the road.

=Z=

Marrdro
08-16-2011, 02:36 PM
But we could beat the Chargers. The start slow every year.

What chance do you actually give the Vikings to win this? If you're forecasting a W, then I'd have to assume it's greater than 50%.

And I just don't see that. Sure "Any given Sunday" always holds true in the NFL, but the Chargers had the top-rated defense in the NFL last year and the Vikings have a new offense, coordinator, QB and #1 WR. That's not a recipe for a big upset on the road.

=Z=
Based on what they've done since Turner took over in week one, I give us better than a 50-50 shot of pulling this one out over them.

Again, they start slow every year. Does that mean they will this year? If you watched them against the Seachickens one would say no based on how they tore up that secondary with Jackson on the field.

Some things to be considered.......

a. Will the "Zone Press" work with our CB's? I think it will if Griff and Cook are the starters. If we have to go with Winny, maybe not.

b. Will we have K-will for week one and will the combination of Guion and Ballard behind him and Remi be enough to push the pocket back into Rivers face.

In the end, it will all come down to our Defenses ability to limit the Chargers from scoring cause I don't think our Offense will be quite ready to match them point for point in a shootout.

I, for one, will be picking the Vikes on my football pools my friend. ;)

Marrdro
08-16-2011, 02:48 PM
- We lost our LDE and replaced him with a guy will not be a good

If Griff keeps playing like he did week one at RDE, he will be more than sufficient to fill in for Ray at RDE week one.

If not, and we go with Rob, Erin showed that he is good enough to make the tackle with limited yards after the back clears the line.


- We lost PWill and have an inexperienced replacement who will take a good chunk of the year to get up to speed.
I wouldn't say that Remi has no experience.


- KWill more than likely will miss the first 1/4 of the season to suspension
That one I will give you. Just hope that Ballard continues to show what we saw week one. Might turn out to be a very very very nice suprise.


- The old washed up QB who was here last year was replaced by another old washed up QB that is not near as good as the old old one.
Obviously you are basing this on his 10 production.


- We went backward at the WR position.
Agree, but will the TE's increased role along with the use of our DB's out of the backfield replace that production?


- the secondary is still porous as swiss cheese.
Relax, we saw the backups playing man to man as they worked on their cloud coverage. Any offensive coordinator could see that and say, hey, if they are going to do it, lets work on our deep stuff.

Besides, lets not forget were our DB's graded out last year with those very same backups in and without a pass rush the first half of the season.


- The coaching staff is new and is now operating under Wilf 2.0 which may prove eerily similar to Red 2.0.
Again, I will give you this one. Still not sure what firing the Chiller did except to make a bunch of ticket buyers happy, even though I am very happy to have Pagac in charge of the defense instead of Leslie.


- We released our RT and his replacement looks to be less capable, RG is questionable and C is in shambles and the young guys we have on the OL will take most of the year in a perfect world to get in sync.
Most people would hack on you for the typo. I on the other hand know what you meant.

This whole OL thing has me worried especially considering how they addressed it in the draft and then in FA. It was like they were looking to do one thing (drafting inside to change the blocking scheme) and then did something else based on FA goings on.

They look absolutely clueless in this regard. In essence they took a 15th ranked (13th is probably correct) OL and made it worse. Lets hope Johnson figures it out and Herrera gets back on the field in enough time to get reps cause Degeare (even though he looked good at LG) is getting owned at RG.


Other than the fact that we will not be scoring points with this offense and we won't be stopping teams with the defense I cannot see any reason why we can't win the SB.;)
I think we will score points with this offense. Issue will be that it will take time to move down the field and I think that if in fact we are going to run a "Zone Press" type of scheme we will confuse alot of teams.

Again, take alook around the league. Alot of 3-4 teams are converting this year to what we already have going on. ;)

Zeus
08-16-2011, 02:57 PM
But we could beat the Chargers. The start slow every year.

What chance do you actually give the Vikings to win this? If you're forecasting a W, then I'd have to assume it's greater than 50%.

And I just don't see that. Sure "Any given Sunday" always holds true in the NFL, but the Chargers had the top-rated defense in the NFL last year and the Vikings have a new offense, coordinator, QB and #1 WR. That's not a recipe for a big upset on the road.

Based on what they've done since Turner took over in week one, I give us better than a 50-50 shot of pulling this one out over them.

Again, they start slow every year. Does that mean they will this year?

2007 - Week 1 - at home - 14-3 Win over the Bears
2008 - Week 1 - at home - 26-28 Loss to the Panthers
2009 - Week 1 - on the road - 24-20 Win over the Raiders
- Week 2 - at home - 26-31 Loss to the Ravens
2010 - Week 1 - on the road - 14-21 Loss to the Chiefs
- Week 2 - at home - 38-13 Win over the Jaguars

2-2 in Week 1 games. 2-2 in Home openers.

None of the losses were blowouts.

Just to add some facts into the anecdotal.

=Z=

Zeus
08-16-2011, 02:58 PM
I, for one, will be picking the Vikes on my football pools my friend. ;)

Big deal. I always pick the Vikes - even if I don't think they're going to win.

=Z=

Johnson14
08-16-2011, 03:03 PM
I, for one, will be picking the Vikes on my football pools my friend. ;)

Big deal. I always pick the Vikes - even if I don't think they're going to win.

=Z=

Yup, i also let my heart rule my head :cheer:

jmcdon00
08-16-2011, 03:22 PM
They also lost the next week to the lions to secure a seat in the cellar of the division.

This team is better than that team. If for no reason other than our QB and Cb play is improved. Lastly, Madon't williams is gone #additionbysubtraction.

This team is much worse than that team. No way we are in the playoff hunt after mid season this year.

I don't know about much worse, but I don't really think they're any better.

=Z=
Overall I'm not sure they are much better. I am confident thought that we will get much better QB play.
Last year Washington had 800 more passing yards, 7 more TD passes, 7fewer interceptions than the vikings.
I predict this year the Vikings have 500+ more passing yards, 5+ more TD passes, 10+ fewer interceptions than a year ago.
I don't know how many wins that will result in, but we should be better.

Freya
08-16-2011, 03:58 PM
Any. Given. Sunday.

That goes for players, teams, divisions, conferences and leagues....

Of course, you all know that already, right?!

Marrdro
08-16-2011, 04:33 PM
I, for one, will be picking the Vikes on my football pools my friend. ;)

Big deal. I always pick the Vikes - even if I don't think they're going to win.

=Z=
Not many that I know don't follow that line of thinking. Problem is, I think they can win each and every week, especially now that....welllll......you know why. ;)