NFL Prediction League

[Onyxmeth]

Sqrl said:

Onyxmeth said:

 

On the Packers, there is a difference between the 12 sacks in their first 3 games total and the 8 put on them by MIN in a single game, and 6 of those 8 came when the Vikings rushed only 4 with no blitz. So while a qualatative analysis might appear equal, the numbers say we went far beyond what others had done by doubling their previous sacks per game average (which was an already a very high 4 per).  Thats not "just as good" thats phenomenal, I really think you underestimate how sick those numbers are...

But as for letting them stay in the game until the final minutes...I do not agree at all.  For starters they were "in the game" at the end because MIN went into prevent defense with the intent to grind the clock down with their 2 TD lead.  The entire idea being that you have the game in hand so do not open yourself to mistakes that can cost you the game and just grind towards the finish. So yes you will get some padded stats and scores with soft coverage as a result....but you will win more games if you dont mind that your opponent closes the gap a bit.  They were "in it" because the Vikings chose not to take the risks of going tit-for-tat when it was not needed.....not because they couldnt, but because they didnt feel they even needed to. That is pretty standard fare as far as coaching strategies go...and in general when it comes to analyzing how a team played the final score really could not mean less.  Plenty of teams lose when they deserve to win and win when they deserve to lose....the score is important, but its honestly not what is being discussed here so much as how each team played throughout the game.

Just look at how GB did score...all 3 of its touchdowns came on huge plays from 30+ yards out of the end zone.  One was Rodgers beating the blitz, one was the AP strip (which I specifically mentioned as one of the plays they were more physical), and the other came against the prevent (and was accompanied by a failed 2-pt conversion).  For comparison the Vikings drove down the field into the red zone for all of their scores accept the Berrian TD and pounded the ball into the end zone moving it down field pretty much at will for most of the game.  Those are the kinds of things Im looking at when I say the Vikings were more physical.

But as for GB passing yardage.....its pretty obvious for anyone who watched the game that the passing was pretty much all Rodgers making plays in spite of his O-line. And as I said he had a fantastic game all things considered.  But the point being made wasnt about passing yards (which mean nothing by themselves, its all in how you get them), it is about the trench warfare level of the game where the linemen battle it out from down to down.  GB was physically dominated all over the field throughout the game and it is why holding AP to 55 yards, returning a fumble for a TD, and stellar play from Rodgers was not enough for GB to win.

I am not saying this just to be mean to the Packers...its there for anyone to see and honestly a lot of the analysis of the game I have read seems to agree with it...and as I showed above some of it goes even further than I would.

As for the Bears, you should note I agreed with him "as far as the Packers are concerned".....In all honesty I think you are far too gracious to the Bears, but I also think the author was far to tough on them. 

 

There's actually not a difference, since 6 of those 12 other sacks came from Week 2 against Cincinnati. The bears racked up another 4 even after suffering the loss of Urlacher in that game. Even the Rams had 2 against GB. Face it, the Vikes are good, but that GB O-line is also that bad. So yeah, they scored 8 sacks against GB, but they have only another 8 against their first three matchups, and that includes games against the Lions and Browns. That to me sounds more like a good D taking advantage of the worst O-line in the NFL, nothing more. I'm sure this won't be the end of teams taking advantage of that GB O-line.

Secondly, I'm not sure why you're defending the Vikes so much against GB. My original point is that GB isn't that good of a team, so a victory against them is not very telling to the strength of your own team. When they face the Bears and beat them, then we can talk about them dominating the NFC North. Not a moment sooner.

Even if they are or become the best in the NFC North, that's only going to be their own divison. When they had to face SF, they won by the skin of their teeth on a hail mary pass...with Frank Gore out. What it comes down to is that the Vikes are a good team in the NFL right now, but they're among many more in an NFC that is absolutely dominant with great teams, and they're the only supposed divisional leader that doesn't have a true handle on their division like the Giants, Saints and 49ers do.