From a Vikes perspective .... what to expect

[Sgt. Largent]

- I do expect Seattle to win, but due to weather and Zimmer getting another crack at you guys with Smith & Barr will change his gameplan. That being said Wilson is a very talented pain in the ass and that defense is still tops. I doubt we see another blowout, I'm thinking more like 27-17. !

I picked 24-10, so not far off.

While the Vikings are a good young team, I just think the Hawks are the worst matchup for you. We have the #1 run defense, which means AP isn't going off..........which also means Bridgewater is going to have to carry the offensive load. Just can't see that happening.

He's just not the experienced accurate QB that can give the Hawks fits. He NEEDS AP and the run game to give him time to throw.

 

[marko358]

When the temps are that cold I expect very few flags. The refs are human and will not want to prolong this any more than they have to.

 

[Scottemojo]

The cold and the wind scare me the most. Supposedly before this season they installed an underfield heating system, but at zero degrees and wind, I can still see that turf being hard. We have 3 more road games after this one, and dont need the injuries.

Seattle is actually a very good cold weather team, and plays outside consistently. Until this year the Vikings were a dome team, so I really don't see how the Vikings have an innate advantage from the weather (esp given that Russel Wilson played QB in WIS in college). That said, cold weather does slow down the game and it makes the passing game harder (the ball becomes as hard as a rock and manual dexterity is notably reduced). This will affect both teams and that will help the Vikes only because it's a bit of an equalizer. That said, I don't think it's going to be nearly enough. If you have to rely on weather to save you, then you're already behind the 8-ball. Worse I think it's inevitable that the Vikings are going to wind up getting behind, and the cold weather makes a team that's already bad at coming from behind even worse....and that will be fatal for Minnesota.

I'm not worried about the weather. I will be in it, which sucks, but trying to predict who it affects worse is damn difficult.

When the Niners played in GB in the playoffs, the game winning interception bounced off a GB player's hands. A kid who played his college ball in Iowa. Playing in it much of his life gave him no inherent advantage. Big time playmakers make big time plays in big time situations, not when the weather suits them.

It could create some randomness, yes. But predicting who it bothers more is pointless to me. It is a funny shaped ball. This week, a funny shaped, cold, hard ball.

 

[johnnyfever]

The weather worries me from an injury perspective. I dont think there is a big advantage win wise for either team, just hopefully the turf isnt as hard as granite. Maybe cause a few more turnovers, dropped balls, etc. I read somewhere that if it does end up being zero degrees and atleast 20mph winds, it will be the coldest game played in the nfl factoring in wind chill? Any of you stat guys think that is true?

 

[gowazzu02]

The cold and the wind scare me the most. Supposedly before this season they installed an underfield heating system, but at zero degrees and wind, I can still see that turf being hard. We have 3 more road games after this one, and dont need the injuries.

Seattle is actually a very good cold weather team, and plays outside consistently. Until this year the Vikings were a dome team, so I really don't see how the Vikings have an innate advantage from the weather (esp given that Russel Wilson played QB in WIS in college). That said, cold weather does slow down the game and it makes the passing game harder (the ball becomes as hard as a rock and manual dexterity is notably reduced). This will affect both teams and that will help the Vikes only because it's a bit of an equalizer. That said, I don't think it's going to be nearly enough. If you have to rely on weather to save you, then you're already behind the 8-ball. Worse I think it's inevitable that the Vikings are going to wind up getting behind, and the cold weather makes a team that's already bad at coming from behind even worse....and that will be fatal for Minnesota.

I'm not worried about the weather. I will be in it, which sucks, but trying to predict who it affects worse is damn difficult.

When the Niners played in GB in the playoffs, the game winning interception bounced off a GB player's hands. A kid who played his college ball in Iowa. Playing in it much of his life gave him no inherent advantage. Big time playmakers make big time plays in big time situations, not when the weather suits them.

It could create some randomness, yes. But predicting who it bothers more is pointless to me. It is a funny shaped ball. This week, a funny shaped, cold, hard ball.

I think it's pretty obvious that weather games help out the underdog/less talented team more. Because the extreme weather brings everything closer together. Our dynamic passing game wont be as dynamic, our speed rush wont be as speedy. Basically we'll be slower, our entire team will be slower. And our big advantage is our speed...

 

[Sgt. Largent]

The weather worries me from an injury perspective. I dont think there is a big advantage win wise for either team, just hopefully the turf isnt as hard as granite. Maybe cause a few more turnovers, dropped balls, etc. I read somewhere that if it does end up being zero degrees and atleast 20mph winds, it will be the coldest game played in the nfl factoring in wind chill? Any of you stat guys think that is true?

A bunch of players and coaches have talked about cold weather this week so far.

All it means is extra warm up time, and keep themselves loose and warm on the sidelines with heaters inbetween series.

Once the body warms up and their running around, it should be fine. I'm more worried about the wind if there is any. THAT'S the QB's worst weather related issue. Not cold.

 

[Uncle Si]

I took the OP as bringing up points from last game to this one that effected and will effect points put on the board. My addition to the conversation was that poor officiating caused a loss of arount 3 to 10 points for the vikes last game. We are going to have players we didnt have active in that game and they are as well. I just think to dismiss the officiating as not effecting the point total last game is incorrect. Just my opinion, but I think it is valid and very pertinent to to OP's original topic. If you read the thread from gameday I referenced earlier, it will surely jog some memories and maybe some can see my point. Just my opinion.

Not sure why polaris took such offense to my opinion, but im done with that conversation as it makes no sense. My original post speaks for itself. He interpreted something that is not written and that I did not say and took offense to it. Thats his deal, not mine.

Bickering about it endlessly is not valid or pertinent however, its just distracting.

 

[johnnyfever]

I took the OP as bringing up points from last game to this one that effected and will effect points put on the board. My addition to the conversation was that poor officiating caused a loss of arount 3 to 10 points for the vikes last game. We are going to have players we didnt have active in that game and they are as well. I just think to dismiss the officiating as not effecting the point total last game is incorrect. Just my opinion, but I think it is valid and very pertinent to to OP's original topic. If you read the thread from gameday I referenced earlier, it will surely jog some memories and maybe some can see my point. Just my opinion.

Not sure why polaris took such offense to my opinion, but im done with that conversation as it makes no sense. My original post speaks for itself. He interpreted something that is not written and that I did not say and took offense to it. Thats his deal, not mine.

Bickering about it endlessly is not valid or pertinent however, its just distracting.

Let it go si, we have. You are the one sidetracking now.

 

[johnnyfever]

Cold blowing in saturday night. Hopefully the forecast is wrong and the front pushes out a day.

 

[johnnyfever]

It will be interesting to see how teddy reacts to the rematch. He is young, and while he has some dangeruss traits, they are quite a bit different. In the last game he was so tentative and fearful of making a big mistake he took no chances. If they go down in points early again, it could get ugly for the vikes if teddy still has doubts.

Both teams will most likely with the weather be running the ball for the lions share anyway, so it might not be a big factor.

 

[Polaris]

It will be interesting to see how teddy reacts to the rematch. He is young, and while he has some dangeruss traits, they are quite a bit different. In the last game he was so tentative and fearful of making a big mistake he took no chances. If they go down in points early again, it could get ugly for the vikes if teddy still has doubts.

Both teams will most likely with the weather be running the ball for the lions share anyway, so it might not be a big factor.

Bridgewater is not like Wilson in the slightest. If you look at the way he plays QB and is asked to play QB, a much better comparison would be Alex Smith. Bridgewater is young and and has the ability to be a decent to good QB, but he really is a game manager and that's what the Vikings want him to be.

 

[johnnyfever]

True on the alex smith comparison. A lot of the pundits talk about teddy and russ, but I agree alex is a much more accurate comparison. He is a bit more mobile, and lacks the short pass accuracy of smith, but you could probably Interchange them and not see much of a difference.

 

[Gametime]

It will be interesting to see how teddy reacts to the rematch. He is young, and while he has some dangeruss traits, they are quite a bit different. In the last game he was so tentative and fearful of making a big mistake he took no chances. If they go down in points early again, it could get ugly for the vikes if teddy still has doubts.

Both teams will most likely with the weather be running the ball for the lions share anyway, so it might not be a big factor.

Bridgewater is not like Wilson in the slightest. If you look at the way he plays QB and is asked to play QB, a much better comparison would be Alex Smith. Bridgewater is young and and has the ability to be a decent to good QB, but he really is a game manager and that's what the Vikings want him to be.

I think they are different and the Alex Smith comparison is pretty solid; but there are similarities to the young Russ.

Not pulling the trigger fast enough. Running too soon. Happy feet in the pocket and too much moving around. Delayed decisions etc.

I saw a lot of the younger Russ on the field in Bridgewater but I didn't see that "flash" that made me feel like it was right around the corner either. Russ is special and I don't think Bridgewater or many QB's in general are at that level. The stats sure speak to that as well.

I think Teddy has potential but man...... it just makes me so appreciative of that moment when Russ was drafted. We as a city will have fond memories of this period of football for a long time.

 

[Hasselbeck]

Your beyond delusional if you think the Vikings were "bent over". But hey at the rate your going you wont last long here. So my advice would be to take your own and dont come at us with your crazytrain.

The Vikings had some awful calls go against them. The roughing the QB call when Wilson GOT BACK UP AND RAN .. was one of the worst calls of the year.

It's ok to admit we got some breaks in that game.

 

[Polaris]

The Vikings had some awful calls go against them. The roughing the QB call when Wilson GOT BACK UP AND RAN .. was one of the worst calls of the year.

It's ok to admit we got some breaks in that game.

Sure, but did that really have an effect on the game? Not really. Did Seattle get good "penalty luck" that game? Yes (for once), but that's a long way from saying the Vikings were "bent over". Ask a Lion's fan.

 

[Hasselbeck]

The Vikings had some awful calls go against them. The roughing the QB call when Wilson GOT BACK UP AND RAN .. was one of the worst calls of the year.

It's ok to admit we got some breaks in that game.

Sure, but did that really have an effect on the game? Not really. Did Seattle get good "penalty luck" that game? Yes (for once), but that's a long way from saying the Vikings were "bent over". Ask a Lion's fan.

I don't think the result of the game changes but to deny there weren't some really bad calls in that game to prolong drives is nothing short of homerism.

 

[Polaris]

The Vikings had some awful calls go against them. The roughing the QB call when Wilson GOT BACK UP AND RAN .. was one of the worst calls of the year.

It's ok to admit we got some breaks in that game.

Sure, but did that really have an effect on the game? Not really. Did Seattle get good "penalty luck" that game? Yes (for once), but that's a long way from saying the Vikings were "bent over". Ask a Lion's fan.

I don't think the result of the game changes but to deny there weren't some really bad calls in that game to prolong drives is nothing short of homerism.

I don't believe I did; I simply deny that it's a meaningful enough effect to talk about when predicting what to expect this weekend. At best I think Minny gets a fieldgoal on offense without some of those horrid calls and maybe Seattle scores four fewer points.

Not a meaningful difference.

 

[SFVikeFan]

I think both of those posters bickering over officials are both right.

First off, officiating didn't lose the game for us. We just got blown out in all phases. No calls would have salvaged a win for us. But jeeez cut the motorcycle guy some slack, nowhere did he even try insinuate that refs gave Seattle the game. And let's be honest, I did post here after that game just to get your guys opinion on the refs that game. The officiating that game was ridiculous, one of the worst games I've seen in terms of refs blowing calls. So about that - looking at it in a vacuum no there wasn't any one single call that would have changed the outcome by 3-7 points IMO. However, mentally it demoralizes a team. The ticky-tack crap on Robison's roughing call, the 1st & 40 drive of phantom calls when even Sherman looked at Wallace like "wait, they called that on you?" killed that drive, even the fact a blatant fumble had to be challenged just to get the call right. The whole game's officiating just seemed inconsistent - I have no problem with calling a tight game with ticky tack crap if it goes both ways, but that's not the way it went. Refs did have a huge impact on 3-4 drives extending drives for Seattle while burying us on others.

Now that being said don't get your feathers ruffled - Seattle was going to pound us by 4 TD's regardless. But officiating does impact the game to an extent. JMO, but for those of you who have played sports and it's just one of those days with the refs, it starts to affect you mentally. Vets can shake it off but young guys start hesitating, playing scared because they're now worried about ticky tack flags. But again, please don't single out one line of my comments above and act like I'm using refs as an excuse for losing because again - Seattle owned our butt that day with or without refs, but IMO yes the refs absolutely bent us over that day. It's just that as Vikings fans, we are accustomed to it (Cowboys Drew Pearson pushing off, Saints bountygate on Favre in 2009, and just about every Packers game every year lol). But, I'm not on your board to whine about refs - only commenting on it because others brought it up - so let's all agree it was a bizarrely called game, but officiating wouldn't have changed the outcome by more than 3-7 points. Getting beat 31-10 isn't a lick of difference.


- I will say this to people who say Vikings have no chance .... in the words of Lee Corso, "not so fast my friend". Look I do expect Seattle to win by 2-3 scores, but any given Sunday. I'm pretty sure you just got swept by a mediocre Rams team that we beat on the road. And tell that to the Packers, who dominated us in the first game, but just got beat in their house with the NFCN title on the line. Who knows. I don't believe in guarantees and absolutes in football.

- Lockett is a good player and could impact ST's, don't get me wrong. But we have a pretty good guy too in Patterson, who is #1 in NFL KR with a 31.8 average and 2 TD's. He's also a bit of a lunkhead and had a costly fumble vs. GB, but he can take it to the house from anywhere. Our PR Sherels is under-rated and also very dangerous. IMO ST's even out, you just never know which team can pop a big one.

- I get that Seattle is #1 in Rush D, but don't underestimate A.P. It wasn't too long ago that Seattle had a top-flight defense and AP went off for 17 carries and 180 yards. If you look at his stats, he is usually fairly quiet early in games. He is a freak that gets stronger as the game goes on.

- The key to Seattle beating MN is the recipe from last game - bottle up A.P. on 1st & 2nd. Turner is so dang predictable trying to force runs on 1st down so often you can bet the house on it coming. If Seattle can win the battle on 1st & 2nd, they will win the game. If you force the Vikes into 3rd & long, it puts too much pressure on the O-line and QB and we're not built to convert those.

- The other key factor for Seattle is to jump out to an early lead, just like earlier this year. IMO everyone is right - we don't match up well with Seattle at all but the discrepancy is widest in the situations where MN has to come from behind. We're not built to air it out. It's one of the reasons Seattle was able to shut down A.P. so well last game - it's not so much that Seattle's defense shut him down, it's that Seattle's offense forced our gameplan to go away from A.P. He only had 8 carries, a season low, because the game got out of hand so quickly we had to throw a ton. That's exactly what Seattle has to do to win and exactly what MN can't afford to allow to happen.

- If the Vikings can keep it close - and let's be honest with 0 degree temps it could very well be a dogfight for the offense's to move the ball - they will have a chance. If the Vikes keep it close, they can continue to run the football with A.P. And I get that Seattle has the #1 Rush D, but I can tell you that A.P. is a different beast who has the ability to make even great defense's look bad. I'm not saying that will happen, just saying it CAN happen. 0 degree temps might mean a slippery surface, and teams that stack the box to stop the run are playing with fire vs. Vikes because sometimes it just takes one guy to slip and A.P. is gone.

- I know on message boards that people tend to pick out single sentences out of context, but please understand I'm not trying to be argumentative or think the Vikings are going to win. I don't think they will. And I didn't suggest that Vikings are so young and Seattle is so old, they're not old farts at the end of their careers. My point is Seattle is chock full of veteran starters who have Super Bowl experience - Wilson, Lynch, Sherman, Thomas, Wagner, Bennett, Baldwin, Irvin, etc. are all badass dudes who have been to Super Bowls and won. Wilson has 4 seasons under his belt and loads of playoff experience. He's a rare bird that has played well since Day 1. Most QB's go through a learning curve, that's where Teddy is.

- Vikings are a work in progress. IMO they are a year or 2 away from being ready to compete with elite teams like Seattle. But interesting - Vikings are the only team in NFL history to make playoffs while playing in a temporary stadium (TCF past 2 years while the new indoor US Bank Stadium is being built). And don't sleep on Zimmer - if there's one horn I am going to toot, it's the immediate impact Zimmer has had on our defense. He built Cincy's defense from joke to annual playoff contender, they are still running all of his schemes over there. In just 2 years under Zimmer Vikes went from #31-#32 in defense to #5. Vikings still need another Safety to pair with Harrison Smith, as the weakest link by far is #34 Sendejo, but overall the defense is the main reason we made it to 11-5.

- Should be a good game, but overall Seattle is by far the worst matchup we could have drawn for playoffs. Our offense will struggle unless Turner pulls a rabbit out of his hat and calls his 1st slant of the year and other short passes. I expect a final score of Seattle winning 27-17. Who knows with this weather, but I'd be pretty surprised if it's another blowout.

 

[Polaris]

I won't say that the Vikings have "no chance" especially not in a cold weather game where scores will tend to be lower (for reasons I've already explained). Any given Sunday certainly applies especially in the playoffs.

That said, I don't see a single matchup that favors the Vikings. As for AP going off on Seattle's D, while possible, we've seen that movie. Also Bridgewater is most effective from the shotgun, and AP is a disaster from anything other than the deep tailback position with the QB under center. What that means for a strong defensive team (and Seattle is that), you're broadcasting whether or not you're handing off to AP just by your formation as well as down and distance.

Barring any given Sunday, I don't see how the Vikings win this one. I do think the game will be closer.

 

[johnnyfever]

That was my point. It wasnt just a run of the mill, couple bad calls thing, you guys were bent over. I remember that drive that was 1st and 40 or something like that. If I was a vikes fan I would have come unhinged. It was one of the worst ive seen ever. If you figure you guys lost by 31. Just straight up poor coaching snd execution had to be responsible for at least 21 of those points. The other ten a combination of referee incompetence lack of one of your best starters at game time, and lose 2 more first quarter.

My original point was, in addressing this in a bullet point fashion like your thread starting post, that while officiating did not cause the loss, and better officiating would not have allowed you to win, it did impact the score. If you come out this time and the coaches and players do a better job, that bad ref 3 to 10 point swing might matter.

When we played against the rams in week 16, it looked similar in that our players were not executing, and our coaches were not adjusting. Next wee against the cards we play lights out. After watching a few more vikes games, that game we drubbed you in was an anomoly not the norm. You guys play better than that. I think we are the better team, and I think we win, but I dont expect the walk in the park we had last time.