Despite the concerns several of us have regarding our defense, it's good enough to win games. If we can't figure out how to start scoring points with the other elite teams in the NFC it won't matter. After the bye week, we averaged 18.9 points per game for the rest of the season which only produced 3 wins. If you throw out the 38 points we scored against the Bears in the last game of the year that was completely meaningless, that average drops down to 17 points per game. That isn't enough to win in this league even with an elite defense. I've seen nothing out of Shurmur that would indicate those scoring averages are going to change. Even Zimmer spoke out about it this preseason that he is frustrated with our lack of scoring. He knows his butt is on the line and his pathetic offense with Shurmur at the helm is just as bad or worse than Turner's.
Despite all their rhetoric about winning is everything, NFL teams don't need to win to make boatloads of money. Franchises like the Browns, Rams, and several others slip into perpetual mediocrity and their owners continue to thrive. The Vikings are beginning to fall into that category it seems.
The Wilf's have made a lot of money. I think they are happy. Sure they would love to win it all, but if they don't, life is good.
Quote: @TBro said:
Despite the concerns several of us have regarding our defense, it's good enough to win games. If we can't figure out how to start scoring points with the other elite teams in the NFC it won't matter. After the bye week, we averaged 18.9 points per game for the rest of the season which only produced 3 wins. If you throw out the 38 points we scored against the Bears in the last game of the year that was completely meaningless, that average drops down to 17 points per game. That isn't enough to win in this league even with an elite defense. I've seen nothing out of Shurmur that would indicate those scoring averages are going to change. Even Zimmer spoke out about it this preseason that he is frustrated with our lack of scoring. He knows his butt is on the line and his pathetic offense with Shurmur at the helm is just as bad or worse than Turner's.
I heard a quote from Wobby a few weeks ago that if the Vikes score 21 points or more in a game their record under Zimmers is like 21-3 or something like that. basically if our O can put up 21 points there is a very high probability for a win. I am not as down on this O yet as some others, I think we will see a pretty marked improvement for this O this year and I think we can see an extra .5 TD per game increase or close to it, if not more.
I know others say that a 3 to 4 point increase is a huge amount for a team to go up in one year on average, but considering we are talking about a team at or near the bottom, that has made (on paper/in theory thus year) some significant strides/changes on offense, I dont think its really out of line to expect to see 22-23 points per game average which IMO should lead to at least 3 more wins over the course of the season over last year.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
It's hard for me to blame him for neglecting the OL since I sort of agree with the school of thought that says you don't need top draft choices on your OL. I've said it many times, but if I were in charge (and damn it, why aren't I? ), I'd never use a 1st rounder on an OL. HOWEVER, I'd use the 2nd and 3rd round as my OL rounds. Spielman's problem is that he used the 4th round and below, which reduces your chances of hitting significantly.
Sounds like he may have adjusted correctly this year, using a 3rd for Elflein. He may have gotten lucky in the 5th round with Isadora as well. My biggest complaint about Spielman (or maybe Zimmer) is that our OL scouts don't seem to be very good at finding down draft OL talent. And our OL coaches haven't been very good at developing them. If one is bad, then the other has to be very good, and that hasn't been the case.
That would be take as well. It isn't that we haven't drafted O-line, we just haven't drafted well. The Baca/Yankey/Beaver type didn't fill spots. IMO, O-line is where you should be able to find guys late, especially for the interior. But we didn't draft well and failed to develop them. Clemmings was a great pick IMO. Had the talent, everything you want, but was very raw and with that mentally unready. Injuries and whatever else happened put him in a spot that he wasn't allowed to develop and lost his confidence.
Quote: @njvike said:
@ comet52 said:
Putting aside the monotony of your endless one note piano posts about RS, who do you think hired him in the first place and have kept him around for 12 years? This notion that the Wilfs are football guys and they just need to "see through Rick's b.s." is LAUGHABLE. They are the idiots who hired Foley, hired Childress without so much as interviewing another candidate, and then did the same with Les Frazier, and only after 7 years of futility (not including one year of rent-a-Favre which was essentially effed up by their hand picked coach Chili) did they decide to ditch the triangle of stupidity and actually put RS in charge of football operations.
Whether you like him as some do, or have some obsessive hatred of him as you do, doesn't really matter, because if your wish that he be gone comes true after this season, you'd better hope that idiot Zygmunt somehow has learned after 12 years of ownership to hire someone better. I don't see it. Be careful what you wish for, you might someone a whole lot worse. And if one playoff win in 12 years is the most important criteria, then why have the brilliant Wilfs you are so confident in sat on their hands for 12 years putting up with that? Maybe the truth is they are mediocre owners and you'll just be crying about the next g.m. they hire after he's failed to make improvements over time.
Lol! Piss off you little weenie.
Once again you Ricky fluffers side step his LOSING record.
Spin it any way you want, Schpielman is a documented LOSER. As the Wilf's idol, Bill Parcells, says, " You are what your record says you are"
And in Dicky's case, the record proves he's a loser.
But you Rychophants keep desperately trying to defend him! It's actually become comical....please keep it up, because YOUR one note "Ode to Saint Richard" should be coming to an end following a patented Schpielman Special, aka a .500 season with ZERO playoff wins.
Nighty Nite, Slappy. A note to consider, lose the name calling. Name calling other posters is unacceptable. Spielman is a public figure and can handle/ignore the heat, but stop the personal stuff.
Spielman is averaging 7.8 wins a season, which while
technically “losing” is pretty middle of the road and one 10-6 season would put
him into the “winning” category.
You can also break down his time as Viking based on how the
team performed with specific coaching staffs.
I see two coaches that had winning records and one coach
that sucked, with the current coach having the best performing teams out of the
3.
|
Wins
|
Losses
|
Spielman
|
86
|
89
|
Zimmer
|
26
|
22
|
Frazier
|
21
|
32
|
Childress
|
39
|
35
|
Vikings gave up 31 TD's last year or 217 pts including PAT.
72 of those pts (33%!!) can be traced to just 2 really bad games vs Colts and Packers.
Take those out? Pretty damn good D all year with an anemic offense.
http://www.espn.com/nfl/team/stats/_/typ...ta-vikings
Quote: @purplefaithful said:
Vikings gave up 31 TD's last year or 186 pts.
72 of those pts (38%!!) can be traced to just 2 really bad games vs Colts and Packers.
Take those out? Pretty damn good D all year with an anemic offense.
http://www.espn.com/nfl/team/stats/_/typ...ta-vikings
That's just it. No way to know what is going to happen at this point. Preseason Vikings look just like they did at the end of last year. But some solid play by the offensive line and good play calling by Shurmur, along with a solution to the slot corner problem on defense, and this team could look like they did at the start of last season, and that was pretty darn good.
We shall soon find out.
Quote: @jargomcfargo said:
@ purplefaithful said:
Vikings gave up 31 TD's last year or 186 pts.
72 of those pts (38%!!) can be traced to just 2 really bad games vs Colts and Packers.
Take those out? Pretty damn good D all year with an anemic offense.
http://www.espn.com/nfl/team/stats/_/typ...ta-vikings
That's just it. No way to know what is going to happen at this point. Preseason Vikings look just like they did at the end of last year. But some solid play by the offensive line and good play calling by Shurmur, along with a solution to the slot corner problem on defense, and this team could look like they did at the start of last season, and that was pretty darn good.
We shall soon find out.
Corrected my math after your quote....But yah, I agree with yah! And if they start out hot great, we need to looking at the schedule in Nov/Dec.
Quote: @jargomcfargo said:
Despite all their rhetoric about winning is everything, NFL teams don't need to win to make boatloads of money. Franchises like the Browns, Rams, and several others slip into perpetual mediocrity and their owners continue to thrive. The Vikings are beginning to fall into that category it seems.
The Wilf's have made a lot of money. I think they are happy. Sure they would love to win it all, but if they don't, life is good.
These guys are all ready loaded, and make most their money outside the NFL, if you don't think they want to win your mistaken.
|
