Forum › The Longship › Are the '23 Vikings better than the '22 Vikings?

Are the '23 Vikings better than the '22 Vikings?

MaroonBells
MaroonBells
Joined Jan 2014
3,235 posts
Rep: 4,468

Are the '23 Vikings better than the '22 Vikings? 

#1 · Sep 15, 2:41 PM
DE
deleted_user
Joined Apr 2026
206,342 posts
Rep: 0

Passing game yes, running game no.

Defense yes, turnover margin no.

So… maybe?

#2 · Sep 15, 2:46 PM
DE
deleted_user
Joined Apr 2026
206,342 posts
Rep: 0

IMO, hard to say. 1st game I'd say no, second game I'd say probably. But they have the exact same problems as last year, albeit the D might be a big better. You aren't going to be a better running team by losing Dalvin Cook. But Addison looks to be a better WR2 than Thielen was last season. Turnovers and injuries are hurting them right now. 

I don't think we've seen enough games to answer that question. But I know one guy who's locked in:

#3 · Sep 15, 2:47 PM
DE
deleted_user
Joined Apr 2026
206,342 posts
Rep: 0
@"StickyBun" said: IMO, hard to say. 1st game I'd say no, second game I'd say probably. But they have the exact same problems as last year, albeit the D might be a big better. You aren't going to be a better running team by losing Dalvin Cook. But Addison looks to be a better WR2 than Thielen was last season. Turnovers and injuries are hurting them right now. 

I don't think we've seen enough games to answer that question. But I know one guy who's locked in:


I mean, Kirk should probably be the leader in the clubhouse for MVP despite us being 0-2. He's been nothing short of incredible through two weeks

#4 · Sep 15, 2:56 PM
DE
deleted_user
Joined Apr 2026
206,342 posts
Rep: 0
@"supafreak84" said:
@"StickyBun" said: IMO, hard to say. 1st game I'd say no, second game I'd say probably. But they have the exact same problems as last year, albeit the D might be a big better. You aren't going to be a better running team by losing Dalvin Cook. But Addison looks to be a better WR2 than Thielen was last season. Turnovers and injuries are hurting them right now. 

I don't think we've seen enough games to answer that question. But I know one guy who's locked in:


I mean, Kirk should probably be the leader in the clubhouse for MVP despite us being 0-2. He's been nothing short of incredible through two weeks


he played a pretty big part in the turnovers week one,  but aside from that he play has been as good as you will get from an immobile QB.  I think he is likely the best passer in the league when making plays on script,  its just unfortunate that our OL doesnt allow him to stay on script often enough without taking that ass kicking.

#5 · Sep 15, 3:20 PM
DE
deleted_user
Joined Apr 2026
206,342 posts
Rep: 0

Defense is better in scheme but weaker at the front 7 (how is that possible??). Other than Hunter, most everyone else in there is a rotational type on a good team, and Bullard probably doesn't make most squads.
Offense is weaker at running the ball and will probably be 32nd in rushing. 
So overall I would say it is a worse team and very talent deficient outside of QB, JA,JJ, Hock.

#6 · Sep 15, 4:56 PM
DE
deleted_user
Joined Apr 2026
206,342 posts
Rep: 0

Run defense - not good. 

#7 · Sep 15, 5:07 PM
DE
deleted_user
Joined Apr 2026
206,342 posts
Rep: 0

Of course you mean play on the field but if you take into account the salary cap in future years, then we're better now. Because make no mistake about it, the product that you're seeing on the field is the direct result of decisions that were made to get the cap in order.

#8 · Sep 15, 5:12 PM
DE
deleted_user
Joined Apr 2026
206,342 posts
Rep: 0

Good question but Kirk Cousins is still getting slammed around. And yes I know he is part of the equation but that is not sustainable 

#9 · Sep 15, 5:18 PM
DE
deleted_user
Joined Apr 2026
206,342 posts
Rep: 0

I think the statement is "you are what your record says you are"  0-2 is not very damn good.   But you need to break eggs to make chocolate cake so I am still hoping for dessert at some point.

#10 · Sep 15, 5:27 PM
DE
deleted_user
Joined Apr 2026
206,342 posts
Rep: 0

https://www.si.com/nfl/vikings/news/the-vikings-can-be-great-if-they-can-just-hold-onto-the-football

#11 · Sep 15, 5:47 PM
DE
deleted_user
Joined Apr 2026
206,342 posts
Rep: 0

I think the Flores mystique has created the illusion that the defense has to be improved, in reality it may be worse.  Not sure even last year that we would have allowed a team to run every single down without making one adjustment.  I don't see things improving and if they continue to underperform look for the Flores who the Miami players did not like to appear.  

#12 · Sep 15, 5:54 PM
DE
deleted_user
Joined Apr 2026
206,342 posts
Rep: 0

Until they fix the lines, they are the same old team!

#13 · Sep 17, 1:30 AM
DE
deleted_user
Joined Apr 2026
206,342 posts
Rep: 0

I'll reserve judgment for now. I can't say for certain by just two games. There are definitely some positives, and a handful of negatives so far.

#14 · Sep 17, 11:21 AM
DE
deleted_user
Joined Apr 2026
206,342 posts
Rep: 0
@"JimmyinSD" said: I think the statement is "you are what your record says you are"  0-2 is not very damn good.   But you need to break eggs to make chocolate cake so I am still hoping for dessert at some point.

I think that was started by Bill Parcells but I'm not sure. Either way it is a very stupid statement.Let's suppose two teams lose to the same teams and both their records are identical. One team lost by one point in a few games and was leading the games with one minute left and the other games went to OT.
The other team lost by 30 points in all those games.
Their records are identical, which is really all that matters unless a tie-breaker is needed.

Now, I ask you, are these teams actually equal? Or Which team would you rather play if it came down to a must win?

#15 · Sep 17, 2:35 PM
DE
deleted_user
Joined Apr 2026
206,342 posts
Rep: 0
@"FLVike" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said: I think the statement is "you are what your record says you are"  0-2 is not very damn good.   But you need to break eggs to make chocolate cake so I am still hoping for dessert at some point.

I think that was started by Bill Parcells but I'm not sure. Either way it is a very stupid statement.Let's suppose two teams lose to the same teams and both their records are identical. One team lost by one point in a few games and was leading the games with one minute left and the other games went to OT.
The other team lost by 30 points in all those games.
Their records are identical, which is really all that matters unless a tie-breaker is needed.

Now, I ask you, are these teams actually equal? Or Which team would you rather play if it came down to a must win?



There can be degrees of bad,  I mean a little turd is still shit,  in the end will any rational person look at close loses and say at least we weren't blown out?  A loss is a loss is a loss.  I dont care if we are the best of the 0-2 teams,  we are still an 0-2 team which is not good.  In your scenario its seems akin to saying somebody is the smartest kid on the short bus.

#16 · Sep 17, 3:27 PM
DE
deleted_user
Joined Apr 2026
206,342 posts
Rep: 0
@"JimmyinSD" said:
@"FLVike" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said: I think the statement is "you are what your record says you are"  0-2 is not very damn good.   But you need to break eggs to make chocolate cake so I am still hoping for dessert at some point.

I think that was started by Bill Parcells but I'm not sure. Either way it is a very stupid statement.Let's suppose two teams lose to the same teams and both their records are identical. One team lost by one point in a few games and was leading the games with one minute left and the other games went to OT.
The other team lost by 30 points in all those games.
Their records are identical, which is really all that matters unless a tie-breaker is needed.

Now, I ask you, are these teams actually equal? Or Which team would you rather play if it came down to a must win?



There can be degrees of bad,  I mean a little turd is still shit,  in the end will any rational person look at close loses and say at least we weren't blown out?  A loss is a loss is a loss.  I dont care if we are the best of the 0-2 teams,  we are still an 0-2 team which is not good.  In your scenario its seems akin to saying somebody is the smartest kid on the short bus.

But you didn't answer my question. There are only two choices; The team that was blown out in all it's losses or the team that was leading at the end of all those losses?

#17 · Sep 17, 7:47 PM
DE
deleted_user
Joined Apr 2026
206,342 posts
Rep: 0
@"FLVike" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
@"FLVike" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said: I think the statement is "you are what your record says you are"  0-2 is not very damn good.   But you need to break eggs to make chocolate cake so I am still hoping for dessert at some point.

I think that was started by Bill Parcells but I'm not sure. Either way it is a very stupid statement.Let's suppose two teams lose to the same teams and both their records are identical. One team lost by one point in a few games and was leading the games with one minute left and the other games went to OT.
The other team lost by 30 points in all those games.
Their records are identical, which is really all that matters unless a tie-breaker is needed.

Now, I ask you, are these teams actually equal? Or Which team would you rather play if it came down to a must win?



There can be degrees of bad,  I mean a little turd is still shit,  in the end will any rational person look at close loses and say at least we weren't blown out?  A loss is a loss is a loss.  I dont care if we are the best of the 0-2 teams,  we are still an 0-2 team which is not good.  In your scenario its seems akin to saying somebody is the smartest kid on the short bus.

But you didn't answer my question. There are only two choices; The team that was blown out in all it's losses or the team that was leading at the end of all those losses?



Its a dumb question,  obviously you would want to face the weaker of the two,  but ithat doesn't mean the other team is somehow a good team,  there is room for more than 1 bad team,  and 0'2 is a sign of a bad team based on all the turn overs,  and the pathetic defense,  even of they aren't the worst team in the league  

#18 · Sep 17, 10:12 PM
DE
deleted_user
Joined Apr 2026
206,342 posts
Rep: 0
@"JimmyinSD" said:
@"FLVike" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
@"FLVike" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said: I think the statement is "you are what your record says you are"  0-2 is not very damn good.   But you need to break eggs to make chocolate cake so I am still hoping for dessert at some point.

I think that was started by Bill Parcells but I'm not sure. Either way it is a very stupid statement.Let's suppose two teams lose to the same teams and both their records are identical. One team lost by one point in a few games and was leading the games with one minute left and the other games went to OT.
The other team lost by 30 points in all those games.
Their records are identical, which is really all that matters unless a tie-breaker is needed.

Now, I ask you, are these teams actually equal? Or Which team would you rather play if it came down to a must win?



There can be degrees of bad,  I mean a little turd is still shit,  in the end will any rational person look at close loses and say at least we weren't blown out?  A loss is a loss is a loss.  I dont care if we are the best of the 0-2 teams,  we are still an 0-2 team which is not good.  In your scenario its seems akin to saying somebody is the smartest kid on the short bus.

But you didn't answer my question. There are only two choices; The team that was blown out in all it's losses or the team that was leading at the end of all those losses?



Its a dumb question,  obviously you would want to face the weaker of the two,  but ithat doesn't mean the other team is somehow a good team,  there is room for more than 1 bad team,  and 0'2 is a sign of a bad team based on all the turn overs,  and the pathetic defense,  even of they aren't the worst team in the league  


I agree, it is a dumb question. It goes right along with the stupid statement.

#19 · Sep 17, 10:34 PM
DE
deleted_user
Joined Apr 2026
206,342 posts
Rep: 0

To answer the question, This years Vikings show potential to be better than last. Their woes so far have mostly been self inflicted. It's not entirely unexpected when you don't play your starters at all in the preseason.
Even at 0-2 I still predict the Vikings will win the division. They need to get their poop in a group soon to do it.

#20 · Sep 17, 10:46 PM
DE
deleted_user
Joined Apr 2026
206,342 posts
Rep: 0

Yes.  

#21 · Sep 18, 11:30 AM
Log in to reply.

Edit Post (mod action — author will see a notice)

Warn Poster

Suspend User (3 days)

The user will be suspended for 3 days and will receive an email with the reason and information about how to appeal.

Forum › The Longship › Are the '23 Vikings better than the '22 Vikings?

Welcome to VikeFans!

Welcome back, Skol fans! This is our new home. Log in with your username or email and your existing password.


Be sure to check out the How To's and Questions forum for guides on getting around the new site, and use the Help Request forum if you run into anything that you need help with. Skol!