For Vikings, winning ugly beats the alternative — just ask the Packers about thatThe Packers and Vikings played similar games on Sunday, with one notable exception: the Vikings survived an opponent's second-half rally to win while the Packers were done in by one.In one of the more underrated scenes in "Bull Durham" — arguably the best sports movie of all-time, at least in my opinion — Tim Robbins' naive young character Nuke LaLoosh explains to Kevin Costner's crusty older character Crash Davis, "I love winning, man. I (expletive) love winning. You know what I'm saying? It's like, better than losing."
Their minor league baseball team, the Durham Bulls, was riding a hot streak after a long stretch of losing.
As Patrick Reusse and I talked about on Monday's Daily Delivery podcast, the Vikings started off winning pretty, grabbing a 21-3 lead over the Bears.
But Minnesota wound up needing a fourth quarter rally (again) for its third win in a row in a 4-1 start. The Packers played a nearly identical game until the end, losing 27-22 to the Giants in London to fall to 3-2.
We have paid a great deal of attention so far this year to the "how" when it comes to the Vikings. I don't think they've played a great full game yet: one great half against the Packers, one great half against the Bears and three really good fourth quarters. They probably need to find another gear at some point to establish more consistency when they face even better teams with more on the line.
But let's not underrate the "what." They're 4-1. Having a 17-play, 75-yard touchdown drive in your fourth-quarter bag is a very nice thing to reach for when you need it.
Winning hard or ugly is the nature of the NFL — and it certainly beats the alternative of losing in any fashion.
Just ask the Packers.
They led the Giants 17-3 in the first half and 20-10 at the break. New York rallied to lead 27-20 late, but Green Bay had the ball deep in Giants territory late with at least a chance to tie. Instead, third- and fourth-down passes from Aaron Rodgers were batted down and the Packers lost.
Contrast these quotes ...
Vikings safety Harrison Smith: "We're winning games, which is awesome. I do not take that for granted."
Packers corner Jaire Alexander: "I ain't worried, but if we lose next week, then I'll be worried."
Packers QB Aaron Rodgers: "Frankly, I don't like all this conversation about losing next week."
A lot can happen between now and the end of a 17-game season. But I can practically guarantee that "how" the Vikings won games in the first five weeks will fade from consciousness. All that matters in the end is results.
And as Nuke LaLoosh can tell you, winning is better than losing.
https://www.startribune.com/vikings-packers-aaron-rodgers-kirk-cousins-randball/600214509/
Vikings, 3-0 in NFC North for first time since 2015, are sole division leadersSo what happened the previous two times the Vikings started 3-0 against the NFC North?
They won the division.
It happened in 2009 when the Vikings won their first five division games. And it happened again in 2015.
After Sunday’s 29-22 win over Chicago at U.S. Bank Stadium, the Vikings again are 3-0 in the NFC North.
“It’s a great start, and that’s all it is, though,’’ said quarterback Kirk Cousins.
The Vikings are 4-1 overall and in sole possession of first place in the NFC North due to Green Bay (3-2) losing 27-22 to the New York Giants on Sunday in London.
It must be said that all three of Minnesota’s division wins have come at home, the previous two over the Packers and Detroit. But first-year head coach Kevin O’Connell had earmarked all three early-season games as being very important.
“We talked a lot to our team in training camp about we’re going to get three opportunities to play in the greatest home environment in the NFL against divisional teams to start the season,’’ O’Connell said. “Let’s make sure we use that. So I’m proud of our guys for doing that.’’
The Vikings were surprised when the schedule came out last May that they would play all three of their home NFC North games early in the season and all three division road games late in the season, including games Jan. 1 at Green Bay and Jan. 8 at Chicago. With that in mind, Cousins knows it will be a long road.
“We’re going to be talking each week here all the way through to January, and that’s where it really matters is we’ve got to finish strong,’’ he said. “But it’s a great start, and we’ve got to build on it.”
https://www.twincities.com/2022/10/09/vikings-3-0-in-nfc-north-for-first-time-since-2015-are-sole-division-leaders/
So the narrative is that the bears are a good team now?
Quote: @kmillard said:
So the narrative is that the bears are a good team now?
I think they were .500 coming in?
All you can do is play who's up next...
Quote: @kmillard said:
So the narrative is that the bears are a good team now?
I really don't think they are...but what do I know
Quote: @purplefaithful said:
@ Riphawkins said:
While I’m satisfied with the win, or at least enjoying it. Why does this team historically let garbage teams with bad or backup QB’s have their best games against them?
It boggles the mind!
DiVISIONAL games...
They are usually close and not pretty. Even in Bud Grants days.
While I agree with Divisional games being a coin toss a lot of the time, the Vikings let other bad teams hang around and bad players have career days against them. It’s not just Divisional games.
Quote: @Riphawkins said:
@ purplefaithful said:
@ Riphawkins said:
While I’m satisfied with the win, or at least enjoying it. Why does this team historically let garbage teams with bad or backup QB’s have their best games against them?
It boggles the mind!
DiVISIONAL games...
They are usually close and not pretty. Even in Bud Grants days.
While I agree with Divisional games being a coin toss a lot of the time, the Vikings let other bad teams hang around and bad players have career days against them. It’s not just Divisional games.
No doubt about it...Cooper Rush (who's proving to be decent) was the last I can remember.
Quote: @Chuckf said:
@ purplefaithful said:
@ Riphawkins said:
While I’m satisfied with the win, or at least enjoying it. Why does this team historically let garbage teams with bad or backup QB’s have their best games against them?
It boggles the mind!
DiVISIONAL games...
They are usually close and not pretty. Even in Bud Grants days.
Go look at 1976 results. The last Super Bowl year and one of the Vikings better teams albeit getting long in the tooth. Beat Detroit 10-9 due to a blocked extra point. Beat the Bears at home 20-19 ALSO due to a blocked extra point. Lost at Chicago 13-14. Lost at SF 16-20. Only losses of a season of which they tied the Rams, beat a 100% healthy Pittsburgh and went to the Super Bowl. Almost lost to Green Bay 17-10 up in Milwaukee. Vikings didn't roll anybody back in that era either. People are going to have to realize 1998 was an outlier that has only happened a few times in NFL history.
Different era, different style offenses were being ran then. Bud Grant was the early Zimmer. Get a lead and let his defense keep it. The rules hadn’t been bent towards the offense.
I have no reason to think ‘98 should happen every year, or every game, but in ‘09 they beat the Lions 27-13, and 27-10, Packers 30-23 and 38-26, and Bears 36-10 and then lost 30-36, which honestly was them shitting the bed.
So, I guess they don’t always play down to their competition, but seem to do more often than not. Specially when a major player is hurt and replaced by a nobody.
Quote: @Riphawkins said:
@ Chuckf said:
@ purplefaithful said:
@ Riphawkins said:
While I’m satisfied with the win, or at least enjoying it. Why does this team historically let garbage teams with bad or backup QB’s have their best games against them?
It boggles the mind!
DiVISIONAL games...
They are usually close and not pretty. Even in Bud Grants days.
Go look at 1976 results. The last Super Bowl year and one of the Vikings better teams albeit getting long in the tooth. Beat Detroit 10-9 due to a blocked extra point. Beat the Bears at home 20-19 ALSO due to a blocked extra point. Lost at Chicago 13-14. Lost at SF 16-20. Only losses of a season of which they tied the Rams, beat a 100% healthy Pittsburgh and went to the Super Bowl. Almost lost to Green Bay 17-10 up in Milwaukee. Vikings didn't roll anybody back in that era either. People are going to have to realize 1998 was an outlier that has only happened a few times in NFL history.
Different era, different style offenses were being ran then. Bud Grant was the early Zimmer. Get a lead and let his defense keep it. The rules hadn’t been bent towards the offense.
I have no reason to think ‘98 should happen every year, or every game, but in ‘09 they beat the Lions 27-13, and 27-10, Packers 30-23 and 38-26, and Bears 36-10 and then lost 30-36, which honestly was them shitting the bed.
So, I guess they don’t always play down to their competition, but seem to do more often than not. Specially when a major player is hurt and replaced by a nobody.
I believe they went 1/3 that December, including that loss to the Bears. Cost them home-field and won them a trip to the Superdome 1/2010.
I would have loved to have played the CG in the Metrodome instead...OH well 
Quote: @purplefaithful said:
@ Riphawkins said:
@ Chuckf said:
@ purplefaithful said:
@ Riphawkins said:
While I’m satisfied with the win, or at least enjoying it. Why does this team historically let garbage teams with bad or backup QB’s have their best games against them?
It boggles the mind!
DiVISIONAL games...
They are usually close and not pretty. Even in Bud Grants days.
Go look at 1976 results. The last Super Bowl year and one of the Vikings better teams albeit getting long in the tooth. Beat Detroit 10-9 due to a blocked extra point. Beat the Bears at home 20-19 ALSO due to a blocked extra point. Lost at Chicago 13-14. Lost at SF 16-20. Only losses of a season of which they tied the Rams, beat a 100% healthy Pittsburgh and went to the Super Bowl. Almost lost to Green Bay 17-10 up in Milwaukee. Vikings didn't roll anybody back in that era either. People are going to have to realize 1998 was an outlier that has only happened a few times in NFL history.
Different era, different style offenses were being ran then. Bud Grant was the early Zimmer. Get a lead and let his defense keep it. The rules hadn’t been bent towards the offense.
I have no reason to think ‘98 should happen every year, or every game, but in ‘09 they beat the Lions 27-13, and 27-10, Packers 30-23 and 38-26, and Bears 36-10 and then lost 30-36, which honestly was them shitting the bed.
So, I guess they don’t always play down to their competition, but seem to do more often than not. Specially when a major player is hurt and replaced by a nobody.
I believe they went 1/3 that December, including that loss to the Bears. Cost them home-field and won them a trip to the Superdome 1/2010.
I would have loved to have played the CG in the Metrodome instead...OH well
Yeah, that December was brutal. Not sure if they got big heads and thought they just needed to show up, but I wasn’t feeling very good about the playoffs.
But, they gave us just enough hope to suck us back in, specially how the offense played early in the New Orleans game.
Still hurts!
|
