Vikings studs n duds

[chemist]

Agree. I think most of us are looking for ways to improve and that might come off as being dissatisfied. While I can't speak for anyone else, I am not dissatisfied with this season. A well informed Packer fan knows that a 7-3-1 record is nothing to scoff at, but IMO, it could be a better record. More importantly, this Packer team, 11 games in, could be a better team. Right now the defense is playing well, but against the top tier teams, with solid defenses, I don't think the Packer offense can compete. That may win you the North, but probably won't get you to a Super Bowl.

IMO I feel the packers offense is capable of 25-30 ppg given the proper handling and play calling. A tricky matter no doubt especially with an apparent stubborn HC. With our D capable of holding opponents to much less than that I dont see why we cant ride this ship to the SB. We have the tools to do this. Its all there for the taking.

 

[OldSchool101]

Agree. I think most of us are looking for ways to improve and that might come off as being dissatisfied. While I can't speak for anyone else, I am not dissatisfied with this season. A well informed Packer fan knows that a 7-3-1 record is nothing to scoff at, but IMO, it could be a better record. More importantly, this Packer team, 11 games in, could be a better team. Right now the defense is playing well, but against the top tier teams, with solid defenses, I don't think the Packer offense can compete. That may win you the North, but probably won't get you to a Super Bowl.

Gave you an agree. We’re reeling from the loss of Kraft just like any team. Go look at LA Rams. Their injury list is miniscule. Probably the least injured team in the league or close to it. It shows up with them. We’re more in the middle of the crowd injury wise. Recently 9 players either out or on IR.

A possible silver lining. Within 1-2 weeks we’re about to return a pair of dynamic Offensive weapons. Lloyd and Reed. While I fully realize Lloyd has been injury prone, if he truly had extra rest and rehab he’s likely close to 100%. Imo we’re going to see a highly motivated Lloyd very shortly. Similar to how players perform against their old team to prove a point. There is a motivating factor by being ridiculed. We’ve only tasted Lloyd’s potential. He reminds me of young Aaron Jones how he injured, but when he comes in it’s instant recognition of his talent. Jones quickly reassumed and established himself over Jamaal.

Reed was our leading producer in consecutive seasons 2023,2024 and appeared to be on track to meet or exceed that production when he injured. I mean he went down catching a TD pass (albeit erased by penalty on OL). It’s not using much imagination to say that Reed being in the Slot is going to spring board the Offense. I think us fans are going to be shocked what having Lloyd and Reed plugged in can do to springboard the Offense. I suspect we’ll be back to 27-28 points a game type O. Reed is our Jordan Addison. Lloyd is our Montgomery.

 

[OldSchool101]

In the meantime we might need to steal another Win. IMO we’re 2-3 weeks from getting + on a health break on Offense. We need a W in at minimum 1 of the next 2 weeks because we should be hitting a health stride by Denver.

 

[SudsMcBucky]

Lloyd is our Montgomery.

Not sure how anyone can say this. He toted the rock like a handful of times last year and none so far this year. JMHO, but he's closer to being replaced than he is being our Montgomery.

 

[Pugger]

It was the series where we ran 3 times in a row and then kicked an easy field goal for a 14 point lead. We couldnd have at least tried to go up by 3 scores. He didn't even try. That lacks the killer instinct to me. He's always overly concerned about burning clock. Hell, I'm very happy with the win. Just don't believe in allowing a team to stick around if you don't have to.

So for argument's sake let's say we have Love throw 3 passes and our WRs drop them killing the clock. Or even worse a pass tips off a receiver's hand for an easy pick for MN and we let them back in the game. Running the ball - in that situation - eats clock and forces MN to call TOs. It would have been nice to score 7 instead of 3 but going up 2 scores puts MN in quite a bind. It forces them to abandon the run and let Micah and friends run wild. IMO I'd rather expand our lead, even by 3, there is a time and plave for aggression but not necessarily there.

 

[milani]

Gave you an agree. We’re reeling from the loss of Kraft just like any team. Go look at LA Rams. Their injury list is miniscule. Probably the least injured team in the league or close to it. It shows up with them. We’re more in the middle of the crowd injury wise. Recently 9 players either out or on IR.

A possible silver lining. Within 1-2 weeks we’re about to return a pair of dynamic Offensive weapons. Lloyd and Reed. While I fully realize Lloyd has been injury prone, if he truly had extra rest and rehab he’s likely close to 100%. Imo we’re going to see a highly motivated Lloyd very shortly. Similar to how players perform against their old team to prove a point. There is a motivating factor by being ridiculed. We’ve only tasted Lloyd’s potential. He reminds me of young Aaron Jones how he injured, but when he comes in it’s instant recognition of his talent. Jones quickly reassumed and established himself over Jamaal.

Reed was our leading producer in consecutive seasons 2023,2024 and appeared to be on track to meet or exceed that production when he injured. I mean he went down catching a TD pass (albeit erased by penalty on OL). It’s not using much imagination to say that Reed being in the Slot is going to spring board the Offense. I think us fans are going to be shocked what having Lloyd and Reed plugged in can do to springboard the Offense. I suspect we’ll be back to 27-28 points a game type O. Reed is our Jordan Addison. Lloyd is our Montgomery.

Now the last 2 years the Rams WERE beat up. We beat them in LA when they had a slew of players out. And we beat the Rams the year before when Stafford was out. How many Ram games were played without Cooper Kupp?

 

[gopkrs]

What ifs are ok but playing scared is not for winners. As I have stated before, I think LaFleur worries about the clock too much. Here is another situation. More common because I really can't believe he didn't go for the jugular in that situation yesterday.
Anyway. Like a game ending situation when we have the ball and a 1st down wins the game. So we run it 3 times to make them use timeouts instead of going for the 1st down win. You almost always have to stop them anyway! Granted it does depend on how much time will be left. But back to the game. Better if we had gone for the 3 score lead. So many what ifs and weird rolls of the ball in football. Yes it's safe to do what we did. And some coaches like safe. jmho

 

[El Guapo]

I dont see how you can make that argument at all or how someone can watch this years bears team and think theyre anything other then a .500 team at best thats getting every bounce

Credit to them for being 8-3 with a negative point differential (dont think thats ever happened before) and there aren't style points in the win column but if the Bears make the POs every other NFC PO team is going to be praying to get them as their matchup WC weekend

Just like the Packers aren't a 9-2 team, the Bears aren't a .500 team. The actual results count no matter how close a team was to winning or losing. The Bears have won the games that they need to win and are clearly improving - both in play and culture. That is my point.

The Bears were 4-7 at this time last year and now they are 8-3. I will not minimalize their improvements by saying that it's due to getting every bounce.

 

[El Guapo]

What ifs are ok but playing scared is not for winners. As I have stated before, I think LaFleur worries about the clock too much. Here is another situation. More common because I really can't believe he didn't go for the jugular in that situation yesterday.
Anyway. Like a game ending situation when we have the ball and a 1st down wins the game. So we run it 3 times to make them use timeouts instead of going for the 1st down win. You almost always have to stop them anyway! Granted it does depend on how much time will be left. But back to the game. Better if we had gone for the 3 score lead. So many what ifs and weird rolls of the ball in football. Yes it's safe to do what we did. And some coaches like safe. jmho

So you'd rather subject our injured QB with a sprained AC joint to a pass rush, when we our run game was working and our pass protection was still average at best? I'd rather trust the safe route, especially when MLF understood that there was a short turnaround for Thursday's game.

In general I think that you're right. MLF is too passive when he needs to close out games. In yesterday's situation though, I think that it was the correct course.

 

[milani]

Just like the Packers aren't a 9-2 team, the Bears aren't a .500 team. The actual results count no matter how close a team was to winning or losing. The Bears have won the games that they need to win and are clearly improving - both in play and culture. That is my point.

The Bears were 4-7 at this time last year and now they are 8-3. I will not minimalize their improvements by saying that it's due to getting every bounce.

They are playing hard and playing good. If someone thinks they are the worst 8-3 team around now they could become the worst 14-3 team in 6 weeks.

 

[chemist]

So for argument's sake let's say we have Love throw 3 passes and our WRs drop them killing the clock. Or even worse a pass tips off a receiver's hand for an easy pick for MN and we let them back in the game. Running the ball - in that situation - eats clock and forces MN to call TOs. It would have been nice to score 7 instead of 3 but going up 2 scores puts MN in quite a bind. It forces them to abandon the run and let Micah and friends run wild. IMO I'd rather expand our lead, even by 3, there is a time and plave for aggression but not necessarily there.

I can see both sides of this issue but talking in the what ifs universe puts us more into a theoretucal discussion. Fun to talk about but not something that may happen.
What I do know for a fact is that we have a slew of tough games coming up against division opponents and we need to win the majority of them. We have the tools and ability to so but we need everyone on the same page, from HC on down.

I dont want to play scared to lose but I also dont want to be super aggressive a la the favre era. A balanced approach may work best, picking and choosing our spots , when to reign it in a bit with some runs and when to take some shots, keeping the opponents guessing on what may be coming.

 

[gopkrs]

So you'd rather subject our injured QB with a sprained AC joint to a pass rush, when we our run game was working and our pass protection was still average at best? I'd rather trust the safe route, especially when MLF understood that there was a short turnaround for Thursday's game.

In general I think that you're right. MLF is too passive when he needs to close out games. In yesterday's situation though, I think that it was the correct course.

To be honest, I have not worried even a little bit about Jordan's health. He is a bit fragile I guess. But I think mostly when he's running. Which I think he needs to be more decisive about and that could help that situation.

 

[Magooch]

I certainly understand the logic that we should play it safe, keep the clock moving, play the "low-risk" option and ride it out.

Yes, we could have a tipped INT. We could see Love get sacked and hurt. We could have our WRs drop three passes in a row and run virtually no clock and save the opponent their time outs. These are all things that COULD happen. The trouble is that IMO sometimes we come at it with an approach that's so cautious that it feels like we're almost assuming these things WILL happen if we don't err on the side of caution. I am not saying that we should just throw caution into the wind, but at the same time I don't think this sort of "worst-case scenario" preparation/planning is really an approach you see a ton from championship-caliber teams.

And of course there is an argument the opposite direction as well. This year, we are losing fumbles* at a higher rate than throwing interceptions, and we have a higher success rate on passing plays than on running ones - we are *more likely* to keep the chains moving and *less likely* to turn over possession when we go more pass-heavy vs run.
So of course there are merits to both approaches. Pass the ball and you might have an incompletion and stop the clock (without using a timeout), but you're more likely to get a fresh set of downs (is that a wash, then?). Run the ball and you keep the clock going and/or use up timeouts, but you're less likely to move the chains (and consequently more likely to either have to take a field goal or punt and give possession back). Both come with their own pros and cons.

*To be fair some of these lost fumbles have come on dropbacks, I acknowledge that. But passing has generally been relatively "low risk" for us this year on the whole.

 

[milani]

I certainly understand the logic that we should play it safe, keep the clock moving, play the "low-risk" option and ride it out.

Yes, we could have a tipped INT. We could see Love get sacked and hurt. We could have our WRs drop three passes in a row and run virtually no clock and save the opponent their time outs. These are all things that COULD happen. The trouble is that IMO sometimes we come at it with an approach that's so cautious that it feels like we're almost assuming these things WILL happen if we don't err on the side of caution. I am not saying that we should just throw caution into the wind, but at the same time I don't think this sort of "worst-case scenario" preparation/planning is really an approach you see a ton from championship-caliber teams.

And of course there is an argument the opposite direction as well. This year, we are losing fumbles* at a higher rate than throwing interceptions, and we have a higher success rate on passing plays than on running ones - we are *more likely* to keep the chains moving and *less likely* to turn over possession when we go more pass-heavy vs run.
So of course there are merits to both approaches. Pass the ball and you might have an incompletion and stop the clock (without using a timeout), but you're more likely to get a fresh set of downs (is that a wash, then?). Run the ball and you keep the clock going and/or use up timeouts, but you're less likely to move the chains (and consequently more likely to either have to take a field goal or punt and give possession back). Both come with their own pros and cons.

*To be fair some of these lost fumbles have come on dropbacks, I acknowledge that. But passing has generally been relatively "low risk" for us this year on the whole.

I think the goal of MLF was to win the game and get it done as safely and as quickly as possible. And he accomplished that. Why? We have a banged up team. We have a road game against a very tough opponent in 4 days. We need to be physically and mentally ready. Now the Lions are at home but they did not help themselves by taking the lowly Giants to OT in a track meet.
Notice that our game finished so early that we enjoyed more bonus coverage on Fox that usually is just a tidbit.

 

[chemist]

I think the goal of MLF was to win the game and get it done as safely and as quickly as possible. And he accomplished that. Why? We have a banged up team. We have a road game against a very tough opponent in 4 days. We need to be physically and mentally ready. Now the Lions are at home but they did not help themselves by taking the lowly Giants to OT in a track meet.
Notice that our game finished so early that we enjoyed more bonus coverage on Fox that usually is just a tidbit.

I have to say something about the giants. They very much remind of the lions from 3 or 4 years ago who had a low win season but were losing many close games to very good teams. That was a signal they were on the verge of breaking out and becoming a top contender.
Thats the season the giants are having. They have taken many good teams to the mat this year before yielding the win to their opponent. They on the verge .... so getting a win over the giants this year is nothing to sneeze at. They are much tougher than their record indicates.

 

[Poppa San]

your future QB was there

I don't think Willis will be in Minny haha next season

call plays and manage the overall game with all that entails.

Isn't this why Bisaccia has the extra title & pay in his paycheck?

The Packers offense still bogged down due to weak 3rd down calls and settled for FG's

I don't know of many games that the offense scores a TD every drive

it just feels like in most our games this year (win or lose) we've left a lot on the table, so to speak.

I would bet fans of every team feels the same way after every game, no matter the outcome.

IMO I feel the packers offense is capable of 25-30 ppg given the proper handling and play calling.

And they scored 23. Close enough for me being at least in the blast zone.

 

[OldSchool101]

Not sure how anyone can say this. He toted the rock like a handful of times last year and none so far this year. JMHO, but he's closer to being replaced than he is being our Montgomery.

Oh it doesn’t bother me saying that at all, but I’ve studied up on him so pretty comfortable there. Although I think Montgomery gets more hype than he deserves. So imo we’re talking about a slightly overrated player there vs. a slightly underrated player. I said the exact thing about Justin fields and a few in here ridiculed me for that so I’m already batting .1000! Once you’ve been a Bear it’s like a curse.

Listen. Fans like yourself are always MUCH quicker to give up on a player than the actual team is. Funny story today listening to an analysis of Christian Watson being quote “the best hands guy on the team” THAT drew a chuckle from me. I similarly defended him when many in here were hyper critical of his college high drops season (%). Yet very few considered his target count was very low. Kinda hard to get things going with such a tiny sample. Now you’ve got some NFL aficionado saying he our best hands guy. Just total full circle. Shows you what casual drive by brand fans know.

Put this on record. But promise to remind me either way. There’s a 4 to 1 chance Marshawn Lloyd is at minimum a RB2 while on his Rookie contract vs him being asked to leave (straight out cut) like you’re suggesting.

 

[Poppa San]

Stud: Anyone else notice Watson lining up in the backfield just behind and between the TE and Zack Tom on all those running plays many are whining about? Like he was the third or fourth TE.
Whelan -- is he a ProBowl caliber punter this season?
Whoever replaced Nixon after he hit the wall. I never heard his name called which for a CB is a good thing.

Dud: Brooks gotta be able to pick up the blitzer.

 

[DoURant]

Whoever replaced Nixon after he hit the wall. I never heard his name called which for a CB is a good thing.

That unmentioned players name, was Kamal Hadden... also, Vikings WR's had 4 catches all day, all by Justin Jefferson

 

[OldSchool101]

Stud: Anyone else notice Watson lining up in the backfield just behind and between the TE and Zack Tom on all those running plays many are whining about? Like he was the third or fourth TE.
Whelan -- is he a ProBowl caliber punter this season?
Whoever replaced Nixon after he hit the wall. I never heard his name called which for a CB is a good thing.

Dud: Brooks gotta be able to pick up the blitzer.

Gotta love what Whelan has done to salvage a pretty tough Teams season thus far. He’s got the 4th best Punt average, but what remarkable is doing it at a high level in NY during brutal winds.

 

[Poppa San]

all by Justin Jefferson

He's getting a feel this season for what Sterling Sharpe went through for several years.

Forgotten stud: Erik Wilson. He played like a man possessed even though it was for those people.

 

[milani]

I have to say something about the giants. They very much remind of the lions from 3 or 4 years ago who had a low win season but were losing many close games to very good teams. That was a signal they were on the verge of breaking out and becoming a top contender.
Thats the season the giants are having. They have taken many good teams to the mat this year before yielding the win to their opponent. They on the verge .... so getting a win over the giants this year is nothing to sneeze at. They are much tougher than their record indicates.

With Dart and a decent coach they could get beyond the blue horizon.

 

[RRyder]

Just like the Packers aren't a 9-2 team, the Bears aren't a .500 team. The actual results count no matter how close a team was to winning or losing. The Bears have won the games that they need to win and are clearly improving - both in play and culture. That is my point.

The Bears were 4-7 at this time last year and now they are 8-3. I will not minimalize their improvements by saying that it's due to getting every bounce.

I will. They are +16 in turnovers and have a negative point differential on the season. Like how is that even possible if theyre "clearly improved on offense"

TOs are high variance so that speaks to an average team catching breaks. If you want to argue their D deserves credit for those TOs I agree but no matter how good a defense is TOs are still not something to bank on.

And just to so we are clear. I dont think theyre "clearly" Improving as a team. In fact id argue this is pretty much the same team they had last year to finish out and id be kinda shocked if they win more then 1 of their final 6.

And come on. We've all seen plenty of teams over the years not as good as their record and the same for other teams being better then their records. Its not a novel idea to have that conversation

 

[Magooch]

The bears are really an anomaly. Have they improved in some ways? Yeah, sure. Have they improved to the degree that their record suggests? Not a chance.

In spite of their great turnover margin their defense is still a bottom-third one and their offense is at best middle-of-the-pack.

If I showed a random neutral observer a random sampling 100 plays from this season and 100 plays from last season I doubt many would be able to A. Discern which came from which season (beyond obvious factors like unique opponents, time/weather, that sort of thing. Just speaking on quality of play) and B. point to any appreciable difference or noticeable improvement with any consistency.

Interestingly if you look at per play EPA, while their offense has improved in a noticeable way, they have also seen a significant decline defensively. So it’s kind of a wash in some ways.

They have also had the 31st-most difficult schedule for the season thus far, and (depending on whose metric you use) anywhere from the 1st- to 3rd-most difficult remaining schedule. I suspect this will be a “regression to the mean” type of situation, but I guess you never know. Sometimes mediocre teams finish with a better-than-mediocre record, it is what it is. As mentioned I suspect if they make the playoffs I would reckon most other teams would be hoping for that draw.

 

[milani]

The bears are really an anomaly. Have they improved in some ways? Yeah, sure. Have they improved to the degree that their record suggests? Not a chance.

In spite of their great turnover margin their defense is still a bottom-third one and their offense is at best middle-of-the-pack.

If I showed a random neutral observer a random sampling 100 plays from this season and 100 plays from last season I doubt many would be able to A. Discern which came from which season (beyond obvious factors like unique opponents, time/weather, that sort of thing. Just speaking on quality of play) and B. point to any appreciable difference or noticeable improvement with any consistency.

Interestingly if you look at per play EPA, while their offense has improved in a noticeable way, they have also seen a significant decline defensively. So it’s kind of a wash in some ways.

They have also had the 31st-most difficult schedule for the season thus far, and (depending on whose metric you use) anywhere from the 1st- to 3rd-most difficult remaining schedule. I suspect this will be a “regression to the mean” type of situation, but I guess you never know. Sometimes mediocre teams finish with a better-than-mediocre record, it is what it is. As mentioned I suspect if they make the playoffs I would reckon most other teams would be hoping for that draw.

The Bears clearly play with a higher intensity than the last 2 years. And they do it for 60 minutes. A reflection of the new head coach. And they realistically have a good chance to make the playoffs and possibly the division. Right now they have same record as Philly.