Historically, How Does This 8-2 Team Rate?

Time will tell, but what a ride this is
Good post, thanks

I'm still shocked at the big play capability, both run & pass by this O & the D gets more solid every year

I got to hear Rudolph on NFL Rdio today and he talked about last years 5-0 start and how it didn't mean anything & I really believe that is fueling the fire for a strong finish
He was asked about losing Bradford & Cook & he brought up last years nightmare of injuries, including the Coach even missing a game and how that is helping this years team overcome 

Nice job Happy! 

Boy, I would have thought a few of Burnsie's teams might have sniffed 8/2. 

Yup, enjoy the ride...

Very insightful Happy, but aren't you missing one of the Super Bowl years?  We were in four and I only count three.

@"Montana Tom" said: Very insightful Happy, but aren't you missing one of the Super Bowl years?  We were in four and I only count three.

Thanks.  That '74 team was 7-3, so it didn't make the cut. 

Good post Happy! Is interesting that the Vikes have started 8-2 (or better) only 10 times. 

This is most certainly a legit team, hopefully the ball bounces our way this time!

I don't trust anything historical. One game at a time. I'm still just hoping Minnesota makes the playoffs. I'll worry about the playoff seeding in January, not now. Too many games to be played yet to be thinking what an 8-2 record might mean. 

1992 team was stacked. Unfortunately we lost close games to good teams at home (vs Washington, vs San Fran) in a conference that was stacked

@"HappyViking" said:  This defense is about as tough as I remember seeing a Viking D, and is comparable to any going way back to the 70s and 80s.  

Good defense for sure, but I'm not sure I would take it that far. I think the defense of the late 60s, early 70s was more dominant, and I remember a defense in the 80s when they played the Lions (I think on Thanksgiving even) where that defense didn't give up a 1st down until the 4th quarter. It was just stifling. 

I will say this though. Offense are better now, more diverse, and harder to defend. You don't see those dominating defenses as much. It's more cerebral, analytical, and reactive. Especially with the Vikings. It's about figuring out what an offense is planning to do against you and then adjusting to it.

You watch the game and you don't see a lot of sacks or picks or tackles for loss (like you used to), but you wake up the next morning and discover that after the first series the Vikings held the NFL's top offense scoreless and it's rushing leader to 25 yards on 13 carries. 

So what you're REALLY saying, Happy, is that the Vikings have a 66% chance to make the NFC Championship Game and a 33% chance to reach the Super Bowl?
SOUNDS GOOD TO ME!!!
BOOM

@"MaroonBells" said:

@"HappyViking" said:  This defense is about as tough as I remember seeing a Viking D, and is comparable to any going way back to the 70s and 80s.  

Good defense for sure, but I'm not sure I would take it that far. I think the defense of the late 60s, early 70s was more dominant, and I remember a defense in the 80s when they played the Lions (I think on Thanksgiving even) where that defense didn't give up a 1st down until the 4th quarter. It was just stifling. 

I will say this though. Offense are better now, more diverse, and harder to defend. You don't see those dominating defenses as much. It's more cerebral, analytical, and reactive. Especially with the Vikings. It's about figuring out what an offense is planning to do against you and then adjusting to it.

You watch the game and you don't see a lot of sacks or picks or tackles for loss (like you used to), but you wake up the next morning and discover that after the first series the Vikings held the NFL's top offense scoreless and it's rushing leader to 25 yards on 13 carries. 

@"StickyBun" said: I don't trust anything historical. One game at a time. I'm still just hoping Minnesota makes the playoffs. I'll worry about the playoff seeding in January, not now. Too many games to be played yet to be thinking what an 8-2 record might mean. 

Yup, nothing won yet but a gaudy record and some fun along the way. No trophies for 8/2.

Rubber hits the road now, seat-belts on and it feels good to be a top NFC contender!!

December for dough$, September for show.  Lets go Vikes...

@"StickyBun" said: I don't trust anything historical. One game at a time. I'm still just hoping Minnesota makes the playoffs. I'll worry about the playoff seeding in January, not now. Too many games to be played yet to be thinking what an 8-2 record might mean. 

I agree you have to take it one game at a time.  Something can happen at any time to change the momentum from a positive one to a negative one.  

I think this years team could beat the '09, and possibly the '98.  While the '98 team was unbelievable at scoring, it was vulnerable on defense.  Teams that could run the ball, and control the clock beat them (Bucs and Dirty Birds).

That '09 team was great too, but also flawed on defense.  They were great stopping the run (Williams Wall), but it had trouble against great passing teams.

This defense seems to be balanced where it can stop the run then get after the QB on passing downs.  Zimmer's scheme is working, and it's about as well rounded defense that I can remember.  Now, the "No Name" offense is clicking, and scoring on big plays as well as time consuming drives.

This is an interesting team, but based on other 8-2 Viking teams, I'd expect us to not only see the playoffs, but have a real shot at winning those games.