Official Vikings vs Pats thread

[rookBoston]

Monday night on the road is always a danger. Look at what Chicago ran into at Arizona. Final score notwithstanding, there are just no gimmes in the NFL. There are plenty of reasons to be concerned.

 

[mgcolby]

I dont care how good Chester Taylor's numbers are, he's still Chester Taylor.

What does that mean?

Other than he is the NFL's leading rusher? He showed that he was good in Baltimore and their idiotic FO chose to keep Lewis.

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

What does that mean?

Other than he is the NFL's leading rusher? He showed that he was good in Baltimore and their idiotic FO chose to keep Lewis.

Actually, he's second in yards not first. But his YPC, while good, is not close to the top. 4.3. Very solid. Just above Maroney's 4.2. But 4.3 is basically above average and no more when you look at the leaders.

For comparison, McGahee is averaging 4.0 against non Patriot defenses but got only 3.0 against us last week.

So while Taylor is rock solid, I'm not hugely concerned about a big game from him.

 

[mgcolby]

Actually, he's second in yards not first. But his YPC, while good, is not close to the top. 4.3. Very solid. Just above Maroney's 4.2. But 4.3 is basically above average and no more when you look at the leaders.

For comparison, McGahee is averaging 4.0 against non Patriot defenses but got only 3.0 against us last week.

So while Taylor is rock solid, I'm not hugely concerned about a big game from him.

I last looked at that yesterday and Tiki had yet to play, thanks for the correction.

4.3 if averaged over the season by the primary back, is a very good average. I am not saying he is going to look like Barry Sanders against us. I was merely pointing out that Taylor isn't a bum. I guess my point is: People shouldn't sit around and have the media tell them who is good and who isn't. Taylor ran well for Baltimore and he has been a very servicable back this season for Minnesota.

I don't think that offense is going to put up more than 17 points against us. I am more curious to see how much our offense can score on them. Their Defense has played very well this season and they are at home on Monday night against an elite team, coming off of a big victory. This will be a meauring stick for them, I expect that they will come out fully prepared and full of energy.

 

[zippo59]

I really don't know what to expect in this one. I don't know much about the Vikings except that they have been a little inconsistent, looking good at times and average at others.

It's also hard to tell with teams in the NFC. You can't really know how good they are because the NFC has been so weak the past few years.

I just hope we get out of this one with a win.

 

[Ahriman]

I'm not too sure I like the Patriots' chances on Monday night.

Some reasons why I think we may lose:

- The running game has struggled against teams who defend the rush well. Statistically speaking, I believe Vikings are the best against the run.

- The Vikings have a notoriously strong homefield advantage. Their fans are loud and the dome seems to reverberate all that noise right at the QB's helmet.

- Brad Johnson doesn't realy make that many mistakes. The Pats will most likely have to create their own turnovers rather than relying on a stupid throw or fumble (*cough* Losman *cough*).

- Chester Taylor has really been coming on strong this year. And with that offensive line to run behind, he'll most likely have continued success every week, regardless of the opponent.

- If injuries keep Graham and Neal out, running the ball might, in fact, be almost impossible against their front 7. As each week goes by without Graham, we really see how much he means to the running game.

Some reasons why I think we'll win:

- Tom Brady. He's starting to see more and more each week that he can, indeed, trust his new cadre of receivers.

- The front 7 is beastly, even without Seymour. Though, it'd be nice to have him there, Jarvis Green is more than an adequate backup.

- Maroney is probably wanting to leave an impression, on the professional level, at his old stomping grounds. He sure was fun to watch in college.

- Coaching.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

I think people are going a little overboard on the Vikings love here.

They lost to the Bills. Odd, there was a report that the Pats nearly lost to the Billson the first meeting.

Carolina, who are terrible offensively without Steve Smith, only lost because of possibly the dumbest turnover all year. Those dumb turnovers, you've got to love them,especially when the game is so close that it makes the difference - a FG victory wasn't it?

Detroit was smacking them around pretty good at 17-3 in the 4th before John Kitna realized who he was and turned it over twice late in the game. Yeh, Kitna, great kid, always good to toss it away - he gave one to Troy once, saved the Pats hash that day. Too bad the Vikes were so bad that they came back from a two TD deficit, with Kitna's help of course

Washington has proven to be a not-so-great team. Yeh, the skins are bi-polar, their secondary started the season in intensive care and things are messy - but you have to admit it was a fun game with the lead changes.

They have played decently against the two best teams they have faced, Chicago and Seattle, so they have that going for them. With Seattle, though, there was the whole "poison pill" issue, so I'm sure that helped psych them up. And Seattle didn't have their own poison pill psyching up? The Vikings were battling Seattle quite well before the Hasselbeck injury.

However, I do feel that NE will struggle partially because it is away, but mostly because it is their MO to not win by much when facing a team for the first time. It doesn't have to be the first time ever, but the first time that season. Bonus struggling occurs when it is a new coach, QB combo. This is why I feel that it will be a 20-17 game either way.

But make no mistake. Minnesota is a team that NE would then go on to beat 27-6 the second time they faced.

I'm excited you trust the team to pull it out in this meeting, but the trend I notice is one of making excuses for their wins. I'm reluctant to excuse their wins, it just smacks of rose colored lenses in a pink room. Their defense was strong in pre-season and hasn't done much to change that impression. Brad Johnson is no flash in the pan, he has a pretty good RB, a pretty good if expensive O-line, a decent receiving TE, and some speed at WR. I can't speak to their Special Teams, but 2 out of 3 ain't bad on a club with a winning record and some confidence.

 

[SackMeIfYouCan]

I'm excited you trust the team to pull it out in this meeting, but the trend I notice is one of making excuses for their wins. I'm reluctant to excuse their wins, it just smacks of rose colored lenses in a pink room. Their defense was strong in pre-season and hasn't done much to change that impression. Brad Johnson is no flash in the pan, he has a pretty good RB, a pretty good if expensive O-line, a decent receiving TE, and some speed at WR. I can't speak to their Special Teams, but 2 out of 3 ain't bad on a club with a winning record and some confidence.

Sometimes you have to disregard the "Luck' aspect of football.
Every team has luck, bad and good, so it should be even in that category.

Take the Bears win over the Cards on Monday Night.
Did they get lucky?
I don't know, but what I do know is that they never bowed their heads...not one player.
Therefore, they kept trying until they won.

Luck?

No.

That's Determination.

Had they hung their heads, that "Luck" would'nt have paved a way for a win.


Sackman

 

[JR4]

I think people are going a little overboard on the Vikings love here. ......

I tend to agree. But this is a hard one. With a quick look at the stats you
might think these teams are about even. So the outcome is a toss.

But if you just look at points scored and allowed over just last 3 games
each team played you get a different picture.
( Ignoring first few weeks as teams are making mistakes and correcting )

1. I see a PATs Offense scoring more against better defenses.
2. I see a PATs Defense allowing less points against offenses which are
compareable to the offenses Vikes played.

Above is just based on points allowed and made with an adjustment on
points for the Hawks game as Hasselbeck was out the 2nd half. If
Hasselbeck played my guess is that the outcome would have been closer to
24-20 Vikes still winning.

On Monday, I see both teams scoring less than their current average but PATs shouldn't be off their average by a huge amount.

Now comes the home field advantage. That could close the gap
quite a bit. However, Brady does very well in domes and that could offset
the home field advantage to some extent.

I wouldn't be surprised to see PATs win by 10 points if there are no dumb
mistakes made by either team and if they both have no major injury losses.

 

[SackMeIfYouCan]

Originally Posted by Oswlek
I think people are going a little overboard on the Vikings love here. ......

It's because of the blasting they did against the Seahawks.
One game and every1 thinks they are Gods...
I cant understand why people do that...

Belichick is probably the brightest coach in the league, if there are any flaws in the Vikings defense, he should be able to find it.


Sackman

 

[njpatsfan]

It's because of the blasting they did against the Seahawks.
One game and every1 thinks they are Gods...
I cant understand why people do that...

Belichick is probably the brightest coach in the league, if there are any flaws in the Vikings defense, he should be able to find it.
Sackman

Two points:

- They won against a team without Hasselbeck or Alexander
- They are an NFC team for christsake

R

 

[nukin]

Unless I've gone crazy, he was a FA...

I don't mean to be a jerk, but I'm surprised at how much respect you guys are giving the Vikes. I don't want to slight them much either, they did just kick the snot out of the Seahawks, but it's just not the Colts we're talking about here. I've never been overly concerned about this game. It could be tough if the Vikes bring their very best A game, but we are talking about the team that lost to the very same Buffalo team we just smashed.

That makes sense as to why I couldn't remember.

 

[SackMeIfYouCan]

Two points:

- They won against a team without Hasselbeck or Alexander
- They are an NFC team for christsake

R

Did my post get deleted?
Or did I just forget to hit SUBMIT?

Anyways, The loss of Alexander was a big deal for the Vikes.
He most likely would have changed the game a bit.

Hasselbeck was a non-factor, even if he would have played more than 2+ quarters.
Without the one pass for 72 yards, he would have been 6 for 16, 55 total yards, for more than half of the game.

We were on the QB all day.
4 sacks and several others that were only inches from being counted.

Speaking of sacks...how many times this year has Brady been sacked?
I tried to find it online and couldnt see it anywhere.


Thanx,
Sackman
www.NFCNORTH.net

 

[JR4]

.........

Speaking of sacks...how many times this year has Brady been sacked?
I tried to find it online and couldnt see it anywhere.


Thanx,
Sackman
www.NFCNORTH.net

Stats I read say PATs have allowed 9 sacks in 6 games and
have dished out 14.

Vikes have allowed 11 and dished out 15 in 6 games.

 

[mgcolby]

I believe he has been sacked 9 times. I also think Buffalo has 7 of them. Someone should be able to confirm or correct that.