Why is everyone so high on the Vikings? Their schedule is cake. They have two good teams left, and the Cardinals aren't that hot anyway. The only good teams they beat were the overrated Broncos, an inconsitent Ravens team (that should have won if not for a shitty kicker who lost his job), and I guess average GB and SF.
Originally posted by Pezmerga
Why is everyone so high on the Vikings? Their schedule is cake. They have two good teams left, and the Cardinals aren't that hot anyway. The only good teams they beat were the overrated Broncos, an inconsitent Ravens team (that should have won if not for a shitty kicker who lost his job), and I guess average GB and SF.
First off, the Vikings didn't even play the Broncos, so I'm not sure if I should even take you seriously. 😛
I'll admit their schedule is pretty easy, but they are beating teams they should beat, and pretty handily too. Also, they do everything well, and that was why people like them. Harvin is a great returner, AP is great, Favre is doing great, Harvin/Berrian/Rice/Shaincoe are playing like a great set of weapons, the D-Line is the best, they are one of the best against the run, the only possible flaw is I guess in the secondary, which isn't too bad and they've been without Winfield.
The same can be said about the Colts. If Belicheck didn't go for it on 4th down, they might have lost, if Kris Brown could make a FG they might have lost. Only team the Colts beat that could be considered elite is the Patriots. They also almost lost to the average Jags, 49ers, Miami, and the inconsistent Ravens as you say.
And the Saints? Please, their schedule is probably easier than the Vikes. They beat the Eagles without McNabb, the overrated Giants, and the Falcons. Not to mention almost losing to the Rams. I'm not sure who you think is the best team, but an easy schedule is not enough of a reason to say people shouldn't be high on the Vikes.
Originally posted by Lord Evolution
They do....Patriots have Moss and Welker
Saints have Coltson, Bush, Shockey, Moore, Henderson and Meacham.
First of all Bush and Shockey are not WR's so lets set them aside for the start of this...
#1 WR
Moss: 63 for 925 and 8 TD's
Colston: 44 for 687 and 6 TD's
#2 WR
Welker: 79 for 854 and 4 TD's
Henderson: 31 for 521 and 1 TD
A teams starting 2 WR's are what is most important and anyone trying to claim Colston and Henderson are even remotely close to Moss and Welker (based on their skills or on their production) does not know football.
Meachem has been a nice big play guy as their #3 WR, especially in scoring TD's certainly a bigger impact than Edelman and Aiken have made in that roll for NE but not even close to enough to lay claim to Saints WR's being better overall.
Lance Moore? Really you are going to use him in your argument? The dude has been hurt all year and has 13 catches, he is a non factor in this discussion.
Now going beyond WR, Watson does not get as many looks as Shockey (because the NE WR's do such a better job of getting open and getting the ball) but he has more TD's than Shockey and is still productive.
As far as Bush goes Faulk has been MORE productive than him in the pass game so not sure what your point was there. I am not even sure the Saints believe in Bush anymore, their last 6 games he has failed to touch the ball over 9 times (between rushes and catches)
Just to summarize here for ya... NE's starting WR's have 142 catches, 1,779 yards, and 12 TD's the Saints have 75 catches, 1,208 yards, and 7 TD's.
I realize your homerism prevents you from ever changing your opinion no matter what so I will leave the discussion with just this post.
Receiver = player who catches the ball. You're going to leave out Shockey and Bush because they don't benefit your argument. Shockey and Bush are out there running routes, they are receivers.
Overall as a group, the Saints have better receivers by far. With Shockey, Colston, Bush, Henderson, Meacham and Moore, the Saints easily have the best receiving corps in the entire league. There is not a single weakness in the Saints receiving corp.
*Lance Moore has the best hands on the team, and he's a very reliable target when he's playing. This is a guy who had 79 receptions last season.
Does T.O. do 88 end around's?
High's for Bush and Shockey
Bush - 88 receptions
Shockey - 74 receptions
They are receiving the ball. They are out there running routes and getting the ball thrown to them. Bush is a RB/WR and Jeremy Shockey is a TE/R.
Saints corps has 4 different players who have recorded at least 70 receptions in a single season.
Originally posted by Lord Evolution
Receiver = player who catches the ball. You're going to leave out Shockey and Bush because they don't benefit your argument. Shockey and Bush are out there running routes, they are receivers.
Actually if you read my post instead of just spitting up more stupid you will see I referenced Shockey and Bush. Of course I know you also cant fathom that Faulk has been more productive than Bush but he has (he also does a better job staying healthy and doesnt fumble as much)
Originally posted by Smasandian
You don't understand.Stewart didn't say all receivers, he said WR's.
and yes the original quote was specially about WIDE Receivers not "players who catch the football"
Also what do Shockey and Bush's career highs and Lance Moore's last year have to do with who has the better guys right now lol.
Originally posted by Smasandian
I do believe the Vikings have a pretty easy schedule.
They do, I just don't feel it's easy enough of a schedule to say people shouldn't think they are this good. Plus, the Vikings were typically a team that played down to their opponents, often having close games against bad teams. Last year they almost lost to the Lions twice. This year there was none of that, they basically dominated the teams they should beat. Even the Ravens game they were in complete control until the defense fell asleep for 10 mins in the 4th. Same with the first Packers game. It's inexcusable for that to happen, but still.
Originally posted by DanZeke25
First off, the Vikings didn't even play the Broncos, so I'm not sure if I should even take you seriously. 😛I'll admit their schedule is pretty easy, but they are beating teams they should beat, and pretty handily too. Also, they do everything well, and that was why people like them. Harvin is a great returner, AP is great, Favre is doing great, Harvin/Berrian/Rice/Shaincoe are playing like a great set of weapons, the D-Line is the best, they are one of the best against the run, the only possible flaw is I guess in the secondary, which isn't too bad and they've been without Winfield.
The same can be said about the Colts. If Belicheck didn't go for it on 4th down, they might have lost, if Kris Brown could make a FG they might have lost. Only team the Colts beat that could be considered elite is the Patriots. They also almost lost to the average Jags, 49ers, Miami, and the inconsistent Ravens as you say.
And the Saints? Please, their schedule is probably easier than the Vikes. They beat the Eagles without McNabb, the overrated Giants, and the Falcons. Not to mention almost losing to the Rams. I'm not sure who you think is the best team, but an easy schedule is not enough of a reason to say people shouldn't be high on the Vikes.
Sorry was looking at chargers schedule too when I was typing that lol.
Vikings are a good team, but they have not played many teams that can challenge them so I am not sure they are championship caliber. The only two teams I see that are, are the Colts and Saints.
Now, I'm a Bengals fan and I know we need to get that offense going to even have a chance at a playoff run, nevermind a SB. So I am not saying we are gonna waltz into Minnesota and crush them or anything, but I doubt its gonna be a high scoring affair on either end. Also I Wasn't trying to offend you, I am mainly peeved cuz I keep hearing people chalk up the Vikes as a Bengals loss , though no one on here necessarily, just happened to see a lot of vikings love here. Now the Chargers are a different story for us cuz the Bengals can't play on the West Coast for whatever reason....
Anyway Saints just killed pats, so they are imo the favorites for a SB. At least right now anyway.
As much as you want to take away from the Vikings for their schedule you could poke a lot of holes in the Colts. There were a few weeks where all they could was kick FG's the last like month they have been a few minutes away from losing each and every game. Yes they are getting the W's which is what matters but talking about looking like championship caliber the Vikings overall have looked better than the Colts.
How about Belichick throwing in the towel just under 6 minutes left though?
Nah I wasn't offended lol. And if anybody was chalking up a win for the Vikes against the Bengals it was probably because they just lost to the Raiders.
Saints opponents 47-63
Vikings oppenents 45-65
Do you also think less of the Saints because of they're schedule? It's not much tougher than the Vikings.
IMO, I would rather face the Saints than the Colts, and IMO again, if theres a team in this league that is built to beat a team like the Saints, it's the Vikings.
Even if you were to exclude Shockey, the Saints still have the best receiving corps by a wide margin, and you saw that tonight. There are just no weaknesses. Every receiver they have can play.
The Pats have Moss and Welker. Two very good players, but they are just that, two players. Colston, Bush, Moore, Henderson and Meachem. There is no debate. That's 5 good receivers vs 1 great and 1 good receiver. I would take the 5 good ones all day.
Originally posted by Smasandian
Well, unfortunately I do think less of the Vikings based on their schedule.
Think about it. About 12 of the 32 teams wouldn't be considered challenging at all if they appeared on Team A's schedule. (Bills, Browns, Raiders, Chiefs, Rams, etc...)
Then you have another 6-7 teams that most fans would automatically consider "overrated" once they lost to Team A (Falcons, Eagles, Ravens, 49ers, Texans, etc...) and therefore wouldn't be considered an asset to strength of schedule. This doesn't even include the silly argument that "Duuuuuh...Since Team B lost to Team C who sucks, therefore Team B is overrated."
Then you have about 4-5 teams that are/have been in a funk and played terrible ball at some point in the season and would only be considered a minimal asset to strength to schedule (Steelers, Broncos, Giants, Titans, etc.).
So that leaves about 8 teams that would actually be considered a true asset to strength of schedule. I would say those 8 teams are Indianapolis, New England, New Orleans, Minnesota, San Diego, Dallas, Cincinnati, and (gulp!) Arizona. Note: This post isn't about which team is in which category, but mere numbers, people. Now I don't want to bring out the probability textbooks from college, but when Team A only plays 13 of the other 31 teams in a given season (42%), the odds aren't that great that they will be playing many of the Elite 8 teams (which compromise only 25% of the teams) to justify their schedule as being "tough." To get 2 or 3 of them is realistic, but more than 4 would be considered a long shot.
And if you notice, none of the 8 teams I mentioned above are in the same division, but if that were the case that a team faced an opponent twice, it would help improve their "schedule toughness," but not by much.
Thank you for your patience...I'm not saying it's gospel, but it usually holds true every season.