Quote: @"purplefaithful" said:
I do think it's highly likely there will be a learning curve for the offense. D is going to have to carry the load for a while.
FSU may be right with the Vikings starting off 2/2; SF, @ GB, Bills, @ Rams (on a Thursday). I dont want to go 0/2 vs GB and Rams though. 2 teams highly likely to be vying for playoff spots/position vs us.
Ironically the 1st game of the season against the 49ers may end up being a back breaker if they can't pick up a win at home. If they can't win the division and struggle against LA / PHI that NFC record is going to really come into the equation for wildcard tie-breakers.
Quote: @"purplefaithful" said:
I do think it's highly likely there will be a learning curve for the offense. D is going to have to carry the load for a while.
FSU may be right with the Vikings starting off 2/2; SF, @ GB, Bills, @ Rams (on a Thursday). I dont want to go 0/2 vs GB and Rams though. 2 teams highly likely to be vying for playoff spots/position vs us.
I don't know about learning curve. Either we got a smart capable QB or we don't. How much of a learning cureve did Sam have in 10 days to run the offense better then it was. Case had one offseason and did ok. We've had nothing but turnover and OC changes for 3 years. Won 2 division titles and averaged 10.6 wins per year.
I agree Zim doesn't care. We shouldn't either. But WTF this is a slap in the face of our fans just to prop up fans of the golden few...So yeah I care. Even if I should be used to it.
Quote: @"Geoff Nichols" said:
@"purplefaithful" said:
I do think it's highly likely there will be a learning curve for the offense. D is going to have to carry the load for a while.
FSU may be right with the Vikings starting off 2/2; SF, @ GB, Bills, @ Rams (on a Thursday). I dont want to go 0/2 vs GB and Rams though. 2 teams highly likely to be vying for playoff spots/position vs us.
Ironically the 1st game of the season against the 49ers may end up being a back breaker if they can't pick up a win at home. If they can't win the division and struggle against LA / PHI that NFC record is going to really come into the equation for wildcard tie-breakers.
Yup, that too...And strange things happen around the league week 1.
History isnt kind the next season to teams blown-up in CG's too.
But my expectations and anticipation remain sky high this year...
These preseason power rankings are always "fun"...
Personally, I think it's a joke that the Jaguars are #3. I get it... great defense and Leonard Fournette is a very good RB. But that team still has Blake freakin' Bortles as its starting QB... and the Vikings get penalized for upgrading from Keenum to Kirk Cousins? Tough crowd.
I agree with Sticky and have been saying it most of the offseason. I think the Rams are being overhyped and I think they are the most likely NFC team to take a step back. I'm not completely sold on Goff and they lost two of their best defenders in Trumaine Johnson and Robert Quinn. Yes, they replaced those guys with Marcus Peters, Aqib Talib, and Suh... but those guys were available for a reason.
The 49ers look like a team on the rise, but excuse me if I don't completely buy-in. They seem like Tampa Bay from a few years ago... exciting new young QB and some good young players. But where's the defense and offensive skill players to compete in a loaded NFC?
I'm somewhat surprised the Giants aren't getting any love... I think they moved ahead of the Cowboys this offseason and should have been a late mention. I would have the Texans somewhere in the back end too with a chance to move much higher if Deshaun Watson is fully recovered from his ACL and Watt and a few other key defenders are back healthy from last season.
So here you go... Wetlander's 2018 NFL Pre-Season Rankings:
#1 - Eagles
#2 - Patriots
#3 - Vikings (didn't want to be a homer at put them #1...)
#4 - Steelers
#5 - Falcons
#6 - Jaguars
#7 - Saints
#8 - Chargers
#9 - Packers
#10 - Rams
#11 - Texans
#12 - Panthers
#13 - Giants
#14 - Seahawks
#15 - Chiefs
#16 - Titans
Quote: @"Geoff Nichols" said:
@"StickyBun" said:
@"suncoastvike" said:
So we are ranked behind 4 teams that account for 6 of our 14 wins last season. That makes Viking sense.
All we ask for is a little respect...that's exactly how much we get.
For me, the media's rationale for stuff like this is always interesting (one way to put it, I suppose). But here, its an issue of not fully buying into Kirk Cousins and then conversely, all-in on Aaron Rodger's return to the lineup in Green Bay. We'll find out here in not too long.
The part that is puzzling is that IF Cousins 'isn't that much of an upgrade over Keenum', isn't the logic still that the team has improved at the position, even if slightly under this opinion? I think the Rams are being seriously overhyped, although I think they will be a good team.
I think the media will want to see Cousins in a new environment before they completely buy in. The truth is that with a new QB and OC there may be a learning curve early in the season that ultimately puts the Vikings in 10-15 range until everything comes together. I can neither agree nor disagree personally since there is literally nothing to base an opinion on at this point.
Ok, but at the same time, look what Keenum did: his first year in Minnesota, just like Cousins. New coordinator for Case. Same scenario. And he excelled. Had even less time/reps to gain rapport than Cousins will have as he was the backup.
If the Vikings are the 12th-15th best team in the NFL early, they really were a fluke last season. And there's no excuse losing to San Francisco first game of the year at home: they've got many more holes than the Vikings.
Yeah, there probably will be a learning curve for Cousins, Flip, and company. I expect there to be anyway, but we should have the running game and defense to help mitigate that to a degree.
But if you believe in the notion that players need time together, then you should love this defense. Folks are underestimating what Richardson is going to mean for us, but what they're really underestimating is that the key parts of this defense is between year 3 and year 5 of this defense.
Quote: @"StickyBun" said:
@"Geoff Nichols" said:
@"StickyBun" said:
@"suncoastvike" said:
So we are ranked behind 4 teams that account for 6 of our 14 wins last season. That makes Viking sense.
All we ask for is a little respect...that's exactly how much we get.
For me, the media's rationale for stuff like this is always interesting (one way to put it, I suppose). But here, its an issue of not fully buying into Kirk Cousins and then conversely, all-in on Aaron Rodger's return to the lineup in Green Bay. We'll find out here in not too long.
The part that is puzzling is that IF Cousins 'isn't that much of an upgrade over Keenum', isn't the logic still that the team has improved at the position, even if slightly under this opinion? I think the Rams are being seriously overhyped, although I think they will be a good team.
I think the media will want to see Cousins in a new environment before they completely buy in. The truth is that with a new QB and OC there may be a learning curve early in the season that ultimately puts the Vikings in 10-15 range until everything comes together. I can neither agree nor disagree personally since there is literally nothing to base an opinion on at this point.
Ok, but at the same time, look what Keenum did: his first year in Minnesota, just like Cousins. New coordinator for Case. Same scenario. And he excelled. Had even less time/reps to gain rapport than Cousins will have as he was the backup.
If the Vikings are the 12th-15th best team in the NFL early, they really were a fluke last season. And there's no excuse losing to San Francisco first game of the year at home: they've got many more holes than the Vikings. Power rankings are a big pendulum based on what is known / unknown. Personally, I wouldn't put the Vikings in the top 5 right now. I think they have the potential to be a top 3 team in the NFL. But until I see that coming together there is no reason to assume. Maybe somewhere in the 8-12 range is right for the time being. Cousins should be able to elevate the offense but I don't think you can say its a sure thing until they are playing on the field.
Quote: @"Geoff Nichols" said:
@"StickyBun" said:
@"Geoff Nichols" said:
@"StickyBun" said:
@"suncoastvike" said:
So we are ranked behind 4 teams that account for 6 of our 14 wins last season. That makes Viking sense.
All we ask for is a little respect...that's exactly how much we get.
For me, the media's rationale for stuff like this is always interesting (one way to put it, I suppose). But here, its an issue of not fully buying into Kirk Cousins and then conversely, all-in on Aaron Rodger's return to the lineup in Green Bay. We'll find out here in not too long.
The part that is puzzling is that IF Cousins 'isn't that much of an upgrade over Keenum', isn't the logic still that the team has improved at the position, even if slightly under this opinion? I think the Rams are being seriously overhyped, although I think they will be a good team.
I think the media will want to see Cousins in a new environment before they completely buy in. The truth is that with a new QB and OC there may be a learning curve early in the season that ultimately puts the Vikings in 10-15 range until everything comes together. I can neither agree nor disagree personally since there is literally nothing to base an opinion on at this point.
Ok, but at the same time, look what Keenum did: his first year in Minnesota, just like Cousins. New coordinator for Case. Same scenario. And he excelled. Had even less time/reps to gain rapport than Cousins will have as he was the backup.
If the Vikings are the 12th-15th best team in the NFL early, they really were a fluke last season. And there's no excuse losing to San Francisco first game of the year at home: they've got many more holes than the Vikings. Power rankings are a big pendulum based on what is known / unknown. Personally, I wouldn't put the Vikings in the top 5 right now. I think they have the potential to be a top 3 team in the NFL. But until I see that coming together there is no reason to assume. Maybe somewhere in the 8-12 range is right for the time being. Cousins should be able to elevate the offense but I don't think you can say its a sure thing until they are playing on the field.
you have to assume the defense doesnt back slide by improving the 3T position and all other starters returning right? with what should be positive additions to the depth and an extra year of experience for the younger players. and the D really was what carried the team last year.
I would also have to think that even if the offense doesnt improve, it certainly shouldnt suffer with the addition of Cousins and the return of Cook does it?
so if the O and D are no worse, not saying better, but no worse... and we have what should be a better kicker.. how does the team go from 3-4 last year to outside of the top 10?
Is losing Shurmer really a 10 position swing?
Good, lack of respect going into the season is a good thing. Keep the boys motivated.
Quote: @"JimmyinSD" said:
@"Geoff Nichols" said:
@"StickyBun" said:
@"Geoff Nichols" said:
@"StickyBun" said:
@"suncoastvike" said:
So we are ranked behind 4 teams that account for 6 of our 14 wins last season. That makes Viking sense.
All we ask for is a little respect...that's exactly how much we get.
For me, the media's rationale for stuff like this is always interesting (one way to put it, I suppose). But here, its an issue of not fully buying into Kirk Cousins and then conversely, all-in on Aaron Rodger's return to the lineup in Green Bay. We'll find out here in not too long.
The part that is puzzling is that IF Cousins 'isn't that much of an upgrade over Keenum', isn't the logic still that the team has improved at the position, even if slightly under this opinion? I think the Rams are being seriously overhyped, although I think they will be a good team.
I think the media will want to see Cousins in a new environment before they completely buy in. The truth is that with a new QB and OC there may be a learning curve early in the season that ultimately puts the Vikings in 10-15 range until everything comes together. I can neither agree nor disagree personally since there is literally nothing to base an opinion on at this point.
Ok, but at the same time, look what Keenum did: his first year in Minnesota, just like Cousins. New coordinator for Case. Same scenario. And he excelled. Had even less time/reps to gain rapport than Cousins will have as he was the backup.
If the Vikings are the 12th-15th best team in the NFL early, they really were a fluke last season. And there's no excuse losing to San Francisco first game of the year at home: they've got many more holes than the Vikings. Power rankings are a big pendulum based on what is known / unknown. Personally, I wouldn't put the Vikings in the top 5 right now. I think they have the potential to be a top 3 team in the NFL. But until I see that coming together there is no reason to assume. Maybe somewhere in the 8-12 range is right for the time being. Cousins should be able to elevate the offense but I don't think you can say its a sure thing until they are playing on the field.
you have to assume the defense doesnt back slide by improving the 3T position and all other starters returning right? with what should be positive additions to the depth and an extra year of experience for the younger players. and the D really was what carried the team last year.
I would also have to think that even if the offense doesnt improve, it certainly shouldnt suffer with the addition of Cousins and the return of Cook does it?
so if the O and D are no worse, not saying better, but no worse... and we have what should be a better kicker.. how does the team go from 3-4 last year to outside of the top 10?
Is losing Shurmer really a 10 position swing?
I think the need to approach each season with a degree of "show-me" apprehension is hard-wired into all Viking fans. Even me. But I truly believe that any objective review of this roster against all others easily shows a top 3 to 5 team. I personally think it's the best in the NFL, and I say that at the risk of pissing off those who think it's somehow bad karma to say so out loud.
Yeah, these are meaningless rankings written by people who clearly don't spend a lot of time on them...but to put us below Kansas City, for example--a team that boasts the 28th ranked defense and a completely unproven QB--is just batshit crazy. Looking at Mahomes stats I realized I had it wrong. He doesn't have 1 TD. The "1" on his stat sheet was an INT.
|
