| Onyxmeth said: 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. |
I'm not sure what you want me to face....I wasn't claiming that the Vikings were way ahead of every team in the league...I never even discussed teams outside the division in fact. I pointed to the fact that they dominated the GB O-line and that it was in large part due to how bad they are....so when you say "Face it, the Vikes are good, but that GB O-line is also that bad." you might as well say "Yeah I agree with everything you just said.". As for 8 sacks in the previous 3 games...yeah that was good enough to put the Vikings at ~4th in the league going into week 4...so they are a good pass rushing team..I don't know what you were trying to say there because you really haven't seemed to disagree with me on the sacks issue but in fact seem to be agreeing with me...only you're downplaying MIN significantly.
As for your second point, I'm not defending the Vikes.....because I wasn't really even focusing on them at all until you made it about them. I posted an article about how the Vikes dominated the Pack and you replied to it by talking about the Bears (a point I never actually contended) and saying that the Pack was struggling...which is actually the point I was making. You seemed to have thought I was overselling the Vikings but I was really never focused my analysis on MIN, and instead focused on GB so I'm not sure how you got that impression.
As for your final paragraph....I get the impression you're trying to downplay MIN far more than I am trying to play them up. If its rankings you're interested in I can just point to the power-rankings where fans and experts alike are placing them 4th or 5th in the league. The bears meanwhile are ~10th on those rankings and GB is down in the late teens. So yeah I do think MIN is the best team in the NFC North right now...but I don't know how you got the impression I was declaring them the best team in the league...I never even alluded to it.
You've read way into what I've posted so I'll just be blunt. Yes GB has serious problems and that is the exact reason I said they got dominated physically by MIN...I made the point repeatedly and always with respect to the GB matchup specifically. I do think MIN ranks in the top tier of teams this year and I think the 4th or 5th ranking is about spot on right now. If you want to address something I've said other than that please quote it because I feel like I'm being asked to defend things I never said (you do know that was an article I posted and not my own words right?).
 |
| To Each Man, Responsibility |
