Login

11-19-2019, 06:36 AM

Better win out if they want the division. They had their oopsie games already.

11-19-2019, 06:52 AM

Based on a lifetime of fanhood, my prediction is that I have absolutely no fucking idea what's going to happen :p

11-19-2019, 11:16 AM

Quote: @Magnus10 said:
Most likely 2 - 3 wins left is my guess.

This.

11-19-2019, 12:26 PM

Depends on if we are playing with pre-Zimmer caliber defense.

11-19-2019, 12:54 PM

One at a time, folks. After what the Broncos did, take none for granted. You want to beat Seattle? Put Wilson on his can and dirty his duds.

That said, after watching the Bolts last night and Chicago over the weekend, we've got to be favored in 3 of the 5 with a push against the Puke.

11-19-2019, 02:34 PM

if we dont win out... we lose the North and any chance of a home playoff game IMO. We go into the playoffs on a 4 game winning streak as the #6 seed.

right now we are 1 game back of the pack, and we have 2 loses in the division. Assuming the Pack loses to the 9ers this week that puts us in a tie, but we wont hold the tie breaker with the pack so even with us beating them in december, another loss would have us back in a tie with them and they would have the better division record so they win the north and we are a wild card.

unfortunately I dont see Zim having the troops ready to go in Seattle so thats an L, and then we win out 4-1. end the season 12-4 and are a wild card.

however I dont see us going in to lameblow in the wild card round, i see the packers at 12-4 and winning the #3 seed by some new tie breaker that will forever be knows as the rogers tie breaker rule, but I think the saints are going to lose at least 2 more and we end up in nawlins for the WC round.

with a loss to the squawks next week I think we end up tied with them at 12-4 as well, but once again we lose the tie breaker and end up as the #6 seed.

11-19-2019, 02:55 PM

Quote: @ArizonaViking said:
Rhodes is not a safety and probably will never play that position. Their have been very few corners moved to safety and been successful.

Most corners don't have the size or tackling ability to play safety. The ones who did transition late in their career (both Woodsons, Aneas Williams, Lott, Barber) tended to be the bigger bodied corners. Like Rhodes.

The thing about Rhodes that is alarming is that 3 years ago he shut down everyone. Then he started having trouble with the smaller, quicker receivers (Adams), but still held his own against the bigger, more physical types. See Julio Jones week 1. So the Vikings put him in mostly shadow coverage against Courtland Sutton on Sunday and the results were not great.

11-19-2019, 02:59 PM

Quote: @MaroonBells said:

@ArizonaViking said:
Rhodes is not a safety and probably will never play that position. Their have been very few corners moved to safety and been successful.
Most corners don't have or tackling ability to play safety. The ones who did transition late in their career (both Woodsons, Aneas Williams, Lott, Barber) tended to be the bigger bodied corners. Like Rhodes.

The thing about Rhodes that is alarming is that 3 years ago he shut down everyone. Then he started having trouble with the smaller, quicker receivers (Adams), but still held his own against the bigger, more physical types. See Julio Jones week 1. So the Vikings put him in mostly shadow coverage against Courtland Sutton on Sunday and the results were not great.

The rule changes on how DBs can play WRs in 2017 is what made Rhodes a much lesser than player.

11-19-2019, 03:07 PM

I can't believe I now have more faith in our passing offense than our pass defense. My how quickly things can change. Wilson, Stafford, Rivers, and Rodgers will have a fairly easy time with our pass D, IMO, but I think we'll probably find a way to win at least two of these games.
The Bears D is still good, but I'm thinking we can handle them. Their offense is just bad.
I'm hoping Zim can find the "fix" needed for his D, but I'm afraid it is what it is. Hope I'm wrong, of course, and they come out flying after the break.
Sitting at 8-3 right now is better than I expected so - SKOL Vikings!

11-19-2019, 03:18 PM

Quote: @MaroonBells said:

@ArizonaViking said:
Rhodes is not a safety and probably will never play that position. Their have been very few corners moved to safety and been successful.
Most corners don't have the size or tackling ability to play safety. The ones who did transition late in their career (both Woodsons, Aneas Williams, Lott, Barber) tended to be the bigger bodied corners. Like Rhodes.

The thing about Rhodes that is alarming is that 3 years ago he shut down everyone. Then he started having trouble with the smaller, quicker receivers (Adams), but still held his own against the bigger, more physical types. See Julio Jones week 1. So the Vikings put him in mostly shadow coverage against Courtland Sutton on Sunday and the results were not great.

Rhodes seems to be getting more rigid in his coverage, he doesnt have much fluidity in his hips and this makes him very susceptible to double moves if he bites on the first move, or flat out late to the party if he doesnt bite and there is no second move, as always with him its becoming a head thing, he is making himself second guess everything instead of just reading and reacting. he is also showing a loss of quicks, he is more like watching a freight train get up to speed instead of a quick burst from a direction change or what ever... for some its a long process, others its just gone, but unless there is a training issue we dont know about, I think Rhodes is showing us the end of his career.