How bad can a tie F us up in playoff seedings?

Yeah it could have implications. But an L would have been worse both in getting there and seeding

The mere fact that it's not a loss helps us. It's not as gloomy as it sounds from a playoff picture POV. The only issue us we did not put GB at avdisadvantaged position since they will also be vying for the same spot

@"Mike Olson" said: Yeah it could have implications. But an L would have been worse both in getting there and seeding

It just makes it imperative that we beat GB here at home.

So incredibly frustrating. Carlson had two game winners and missed them both. Missed his 3rd attempt too. 16 point differential on special teams.  19 if you factor in Treadwell's gift. 

If we and another team have the same # of victories, the tie basically puts us ahead.   Say we go 13-2-1 and another team is 13-3 and those are the two best NFC records.  We then have the # seed.   The tie is like 1/2 a win/loss, 13.5-2.5 vs. 13-3.   

It's kind of a glass half empty or half full deal.  Say we're 10-5-1 and some other squad is 11-5, then yeah we can't overtake them in playoff seeding.   I guess you could look at it either way.   Of course if it comes down to the us vs. the Packers, the winner of the 2nd game gets the advantage in seeding.

I'm remarkably calm after that game. I saw too much great stuff from Cousins to be down. He was sling'in it. 

@"StickyBun" said: I'm remarkably calm after that game. I saw too much great stuff from Cousins to be down. He was sling'in it. 

We will have to let the season play out. One thing seem almost certain. Don't think we can afford more then 3 loses now in a stacked conference if we hope to get a bye let alone home field.

In the good old days when ties were more common, it could be very good or very bad.  Nothing like winning the division by a half game.  where i see it becom8ng really tight is when you get to the playoffs and want home field advantage all the way through. Good teams may only have 2 or 3 losses.

I dont think many had us sweeping green bay this year,  I dont usually do that even with my purple shades in full tint.  so IMO this is a half game win.   yes by the way the game played out it could be considered a loss,  but really IMO its not nearly as dire as some want to think it could be.  coming out of lambeu with a point is a good game.

@"JimmyinSD" said: I dont think many had us sweeping green bay this year,  I dont usually do that even with my purple shades in full tint.  so IMO this is a half game win.   yes by the way the game played out it could be considered a loss,  but really IMO its not nearly as dire as some want to think it could be.  coming out of lambeu with a point is a good game.

I like the way the Vikes fought back.  The tie sucks, but it does feel better than a loss to GB.  Rodgers and the rest of the Packers feel fortunate today, I'm sure.

@"HappyViking" said:

@"JimmyinSD" said: I dont think many had us sweeping green bay this year,  I dont usually do that even with my purple shades in full tint.  so IMO this is a half game win.   yes by the way the game played out it could be considered a loss,  but really IMO its not nearly as dire as some want to think it could be.  coming out of lambeu with a point is a good game.

I did, Jimmy.  I thought the Vikes were going to win by 10 going into yesterday's game.  If not for the special teams (block punt and 3 missed FGs), and Treadwells's tip ball turnover, the Vikes would've stomped them.

I like the way the Vikes fought back.  The tie sucks, but it does feel better than a loss to GB.  Rodgers and the rest of the Packers feel fortunate today, I'm sure.

If we can play like that the rest of the way, I'm not sure who is going to beat us.  (Not counting Special Teams, of course...)