Here's the thing: I actually think the Vikings are good
Atlanta ends up beating the Eagles. Green Bay beat Chicago. Minnesota should be 2-0. They could have been down by 21 points and beaten Green Bay by 10 by game's end. That's the truth. But of course, that isn't what happened. When is the last time Minnesota came back like that on the road? I can't even think of a time. The team has heart and fight. They have talent. The offensive line can run block like mofos. Kubiak and Dennison have helped in a big way. That Packer D was seconds away from giving up, they were dog tired and the fight was out of them after being pounded on. The Viking D shut them down for three quarters.
I'm not trying to paint a rosy picture, that isn't me. What I'm saying is the team is legitimately good. IMO, I think they will show that over the course of the following weeks. So many dumb penalties, I can't see that happening again to that extent. I think this loss is steely hot now and will sharpen the team. JMO. Nobody is going 16-0. I do not think Cousins is a shit QB....but I do think he has limitations that will/have stopped him from being great with any kind of consistency.
I can't think of any past Viking teams that would have gone down big like that and not just folded up for the day. I give them some credit for having some sand and coming back. Just too many mistakes and not just Cousins though his were the most obvious and painful.
Those 4 missing points (due to missed kicks by Bailey) sure had an impact, too, I think. Maybe Stephanski doesn't make the stupid decision to try for a play-action pass on first down... if he knows that we could run the ball 3 times and- if we don't score a TD- kick a game winning FG. Don't forget: GB only had 1 timeout left. We could've run ALOT of time off of the clock. Even if we do score a TD there, GB can still win with a FG. So, either way, they could've won the game by going down the field and kicking a FG. But if we could've run more time off the clock (instead of trying to score a TD right away), I think we would've had a pretty good chance to win.
One note of extreme frustration;
we still can't pass block for s**t.
5 is con
From some stats I've seen, Cousins was pressured on something like 60% of his dropbacks, and 50% is considered to be pretty terrible. As much as I'm very happy with the lanes created for our 'backs, we killed several QBs with lines that could block for Peterson but not for the passing game.
I'm telling myself (and all who will listen) that it's very early days for the new scheme, for Kubiak's input, etc...but as much as Kirk was a disappointment on Sunday, he was eerily reminiscent of Ponder in that he often had less than 2 seconds to make reads and throws.
Horrible lines destroy the confidence of the QBs they're supposed to protect. This MUST be an area that improves.
Moral victories are no longer acceptable in YEAR 14 of the almighty Richard the Great, and YEAR 6 of Zimmer the Defensive Guru.
An "almost" comeback is a LOSS. Period.
I am sooooooo tired of reading about the minutiae of OL or DL or QB or Kickers or OC's or DC's or STC's or HC's or WR's or....you get the point?
JUST. FUCKING. WIN.
You can NOT claim to be a good or great team if you don't WIN, particularly in the PLAYOFFS. That is something this team has NOT done consistently in a loooong time.
Last Vikings squad to manage 2 consecutive playoff victories? Burnsie and his 1987 squad (both road victories, BTW). You don't want me to list all of the teams that have accomplished that feat since then (and they are MANY, including expansion teams)....the company of teams that join the Vikings on the dubious roster that have NOT managed at least ONE season of 2 or more playoff wins in that same span would make you sick. Or at least SHOULD make you sick.
The Vikings are what their record (the past few decade) says they are. MEDIOCRE.
PROVE it on the field if that record is somehow misleading. The Bucs and Saints were considered historically bad franchises in the '60's, 70's, 80's and 90's...until they won Super Bowls and CHANGED the narrative. In the '70's, the Giants, 49er's and Patriots SUCKED ASS.... until they actually WON Super Bowls and tangibly CREATED dynasties with true-life performances....not some bullshit alternate reality.
If some fans want to comfort themselves with fantasy rankings, or QB ratings, or any other horseshit stats...God Bless. I only judge professional teams, executives, players and coaches on their ACTUAL performance. I don't give 2 shits about their effort or intention. That's not why their annual paychecks (plus endorsements) have 5, 6 (or even 7) ZERO's. Showing up for practice? Expected in the salary. Trying hard? Again, expected. Studying a PLAY book (emphasis on PLAY)? Ummm, a minimum expectation. Not getting arrested? Well, that's kind of a minimum expectation from EVERY civilized person. Doing your fucking JOB on the 16 to 20 DAYS per year that you are expected to perform to the expectations of your salary? DEMANDED. THAT'S why it's called a JOB. No excuses. No one's holding a gun to a player's head forcing them to play in the NFL.
Vikings fans have coddled these under performing fuckers for too long. Another patented "no playoff win season" (2 out of 13 is an @ 85% failure rate) Schpielman Special should not be acceptable.
They SHOULD win at home against the Raiders this Sunday, but I don't want to hear any bullshit excuses if they lose in Soldier Field next week.....especially if fan's are going to continue to label this team's roster as "great".
Spare me the excuses and just win.
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.