Which offense is worse...Seahawks or Vikings?

uncle fester

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
1,471
Reaction score
175
Now that Norv Turner has quit, the needle should shift the Vikes way, purely on them not having an OC at all?
 

Hawks46

New member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
7,498
Reaction score
0
RichNhansom":d5po1kqu said:
Fade":d5po1kqu said:
This is why I said Bradford was false hope. He would allow the Vikes to win a few more games in the regular season, but come playoff time they would lose. So in the end they flushed a 1st rd pick, and cap space down the toilet.

More cap space, plus drafting higher in the draft would of made for a stronger team in 2017, but now Minny has to accept just being good (playoff caliber), not great (championship caliber).

Interestingly I did an avg age between the Seahawks D & the Vikings D. Going with each teams Nickel units + the starting NT. So 12 players total. And it came out 319 yrs to 322 yrs. The D's are essentially the same age which surprised me, as I was expecting the Vikings to be significantly younger.

So long story short, the Vikings Super Bowl window is closed for the next 3 yrs. By the time they get Bridgewater heallthy, build an O-Line, find AP's replacement. The D will be long in the tooth. And they have no 1st rd pick, lose another conditional pick, and have less cap space to do it. This is basically why I didn't like the Bradford trade in the 1st place.

Compared to Seattle. Find a LT, get Wilson healthy = Super Bowl contender. That could be done easily in 1 off-season. Really it could be done right now at the trading deadline.

We still need a real RB.


Rawls is coming back. And this is the draft to grab a RB if you need one.
 

Latest posts

Top