Bears are not terrible- good win

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?

@"kmillard" said: So the narrative is that the bears are a good team now?

All you can do is play who's up next...

@"kmillard" said: So the narrative is that the bears are a good team now?

@"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.  

@"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. 

@"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.

@"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.

@"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  :s

@"purplefaithful" said:

@"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...

@"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.

@"MaroonBells" 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.

This is a very interesting post. It's funny how in our memory--in MY memory anyway, as a 12 year old in 1976--it just seemed like we blew out all the bad teams, but clearly that wasn't the case. Thanks for posting this. Adds a lot of perspective. 

@"Skodin" said:

@"MaroonBells" 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.

This is a very interesting post. It's funny how in our memory--in MY memory anyway, as a 12 year old in 1976--it just seemed like we blew out all the bad teams, but clearly that wasn't the case. Thanks for posting this. Adds a lot of perspective. 

And the best run of the franchise in my mind was the 88 team that went 6-1 over the span of 7 7  games scoring 226 to 46 in the victories

The loss was a 3 point loss to the Niners on the infamous Young scramble.

We win that game, the Niners don't make the playoffs and the Vikings are the number 1 seed

I guess it doesn't matter how you win, as long as you do

@"purplefaithful" said:

@"Skodin" said:

@"MaroonBells" 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.

This is a very interesting post. It's funny how in our memory--in MY memory anyway, as a 12 year old in 1976--it just seemed like we blew out all the bad teams, but clearly that wasn't the case. Thanks for posting this. Adds a lot of perspective. 

And the best run of the franchise in my mind was the 88 team that went 6-1 over the span of 7 7  games scoring 226 to 46 in the victories

The loss was a 3 point loss to the Niners on the infamous Young scramble.

We win that game, the Niners don't make the playoffs and the Vikings are the number 1 seed

I guess it doesn't matter how you win, as long as you do

Christ, I remember that scramble too

They win that game in 88? Or at Chicago in 12/09?  They're hosting CG's and not traveling for em. 

15 rookies on their roster

They  traded additional picks  to get for Mack, Tribitsky and Fields,  I think it's caught up with them on the field.

Add all the changes from  a new HC/FO...................?

The Bears are terrible. 

Bears suck. Another really ugly Thursday night game.

@"1VikesFan" said: Bears suck. Another really ugly Thursday night game.

The Bears have been partying like it's 1929.

How did they count that lone TD of the Bears.  The WR clearly bobbled it after the initial "catch" and then only got one foot down.

@"Skodin" said:

@"MaroonBells" 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.

This is a very interesting post. It's funny how in our memory--in MY memory anyway, as a 12 year old in 1976--it just seemed like we blew out all the bad teams, but clearly that wasn't the case. Thanks for posting this. Adds a lot of perspective. 

And the best run of the franchise in my mind was the 88 team that went 6-1 over the span of 7 7  games scoring 226 to 46 in the victories

The loss was a 3 point loss to the Niners on the infamous Young scramble.

We win that game, the Niners don't make the playoffs and the Vikings are the number 1 seed

I guess it doesn't matter how you win, as long as you do