NFL Talk

I do understand where your coming from (especially the argument that a team lost to a division rival means there shit even though those teams are generally built to defeat other teams in their division) but considering the Vikings have played 5 teams with a win total of 1-2 games (I know Seattle has 4 wins but three of those wins came against teams like the Rams, Lions and Rams again) I would say there schedule is soft.

I'm not saying the Vikings are not good but not 10-1 good, more lik 8-3, or 7-4.

And Smas, I understand your point from a specific standpoint that considers only two teams, the Saints and the Vikings. That's the discussion here, and that's fine.

Bottom line in general: Pick any date on any team's schedule. Whatever date it is, there is a 60-75% chance they will be playing a team for which they will be given minimal to zero credit if they emerge victorious. And if they lose, it's 10 times worse. You are going to be hard-pressed to find any team in any year that has mowed down the monsters of the league on any consistent basis. Or at the very least, even faced them.

Of course, the Browns did manage to beat their bye week, which is a lot better than they are, so they must get credit for that.

That's true.

At least the Cowboys have won more games than what alot of people said they would.

TMQ from ESPN Page 2 said they would win only 6 games. Then again, I'm starting to find TMQ generic as hell and sometimes completely wrong in my opinion.

Originally posted by Lord Evolution
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.

Not sure how you dont get this... Faulk has been MORE productive than Bush this year and he stays healthy and doesnt fumble. Moore is essentially a non-factor as he has been too hurt to contribute at all this year. This brings it down to saying Colston/Henderson/meachem is better than Moss/Welker/Aiken.

Originally posted by DanZeke25
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.

I'd agree with you about the saints if I didn't just watch them crush NE.

As far as the Vikings, I like the team, and really like to see Favre succeed. I am just waiting to see how they play the next two weeks against the Cards and Bengals. Even if they split or lose both they can still be considered a contender, but for me it's how the games play out. Then again they can win both games and then I'd be ready to definately consider them amongst the Elite.

And the reason I like the colts is just their consistency the last decade. They've been one the best for awhile, and they just keep on winning. Which is another reason, that although a Bengals fan, I am not gonna be able to relax this season! Every game is a mystery lol. Liek the Raiders, which was rediculous...I like Marvin Lewis, but man I wish we had a coach with a bit more fire..Someone that could get his team pumped up! i.e. a Bill Cowher type coach.

Anyway I look foward to the Bengals/Vikings game. I think it will be a great barometer for both teams. Even the loser can learn about about themselves. It's gonna be a tough game in Minnesota though!

Originally posted by Smasandian
I do understand where your coming from (especially the argument that a team lost to a division rival means there shit even though those teams are generally built to defeat other teams in their division) but considering the Vikings have played 5 teams with a win total of 1-2 games (I know Seattle has 4 wins but three of those wins came against teams like the Rams, Lions and Rams again) I would say there schedule is soft.

I'm not saying the Vikings are not good but not 10-1 good, more lik 8-3, or 7-4.

Since your counting the Seahawks as a terrible team, I'll also put the Bills in that class for the Saints, and by the end of the year the Vikings will have played the same amount of 1-2 win teams as the Saints. I understand the Vikings schedule is soft, but it's just as soft as the Saints, and IMO Saints have it easier the rest of the way than the Vikings do, so if you're gonna discredit the Vikings for their schedule, you have to do the same for the Saints. I understand they just blew out the Patriots, but they also almost lost to the Rams, so that evens out lol.

Originally posted by DanZeke25
Since your counting the Seahawks as a terrible team, I'll also put the Bills in that class for the Saints, and by the end of the year the Vikings will have played the same amount of 1-2 win teams as the Saints. I understand the Vikings schedule is soft, but it's just as soft as the Saints, and IMO Saints have it easier the rest of the way than the Vikings do, so if you're gonna discredit the Vikings for their schedule, you have to do the same for the Saints. I understand they just blew out the Patriots, but they also almost lost to the Rams, so that evens out lol.

How does almost losing to the Rams, cancel out a huge win over NE? It would be one thing if they lost, but an almost loss doesn't hurt any team 😛.

Originally posted by Pezmerga
How does almost losing to the Rams, cancel out a huge win over NE? It would be one thing if they lost, but an almost loss doesn't hurt any team 😛.

If you want to say a win is a bad win because its a against a bad team for the vikings than barely beating a terrible team has to hurt the Saints... its only fair lol.

This may be the most pointless topic ever though as both teams are clearly talented and on their way to the playoffs. Hopefully we get a great NFC championship game between them.

Originally posted by DanZeke25
Since your counting the Seahawks as a terrible team, I'll also put the Bills in that class for the Saints, and by the end of the year the Vikings will have played the same amount of 1-2 win teams as the Saints. I understand the Vikings schedule is soft, but it's just as soft as the Saints, and IMO Saints have it easier the rest of the way than the Vikings do, so if you're gonna discredit the Vikings for their schedule, you have to do the same for the Saints. I understand they just blew out the Patriots, but they also almost lost to the Rams, so that evens out lol.

All I'm saying is that Vikings schedule is pretty easy. If the Saints have a easy schedule then they do.

Originally posted by forumcrew
If you want to say a win is a bad win because its a against a bad team for the vikings than barely beating a terrible team has to hurt the Saints... its only fair lol.

This may be the most pointless topic ever though as both teams are clearly talented and on their way to the playoffs. Hopefully we get a great NFC championship game between them.

It may have looked bad but how does it cancel out the win over NE?
Many people had New England as a Superbowl contender.

Originally posted by Pezmerga
It may have looked bad but how does it cancel out the win over NE?
Many people had New England as a Superbowl contender.

It has nothing to do with the win over NE. But you cant say the Vikings wins over bad teams mean they are not that good and then say the Saints almost losing to one of the 3 worst teams in the league is a good win is all.

PS I still would not sleep on the Patriots. They are still a superbowl contender and I would not want to be Miami this week as I imagine some NE vengeance might get unleashed.

The way I see it right now there are 3 groups:

At the top:
#1 Saints
#2 Vikings
#3 Colts

Then it would be Bengals, Patriots, Cardinals (in no particular order) and then Chargers, Eagles, Cowboys (also in no particular order) Ravens would be right on the bubble.

Originally posted by forumcrew
It has nothing to do with the win over NE. But you cant say the Vikings wins over bad teams mean they are not that good and then say the Saints almost losing to one of the 3 worst teams in the league is a good win is all.

PS I still would not sleep on the Patriots. They are still a superbowl contender and I would not want to be Miami this week as I imagine some NE vengeance might get unleashed.

The way I see it right now there are 3 groups:

At the top:
#1 Saints
#2 Vikings
#3 Colts

Then it would be Bengals, Patriots, Cardinals (in no particular order) and then Chargers, Eagles, Cowboys (also in no particular order) Ravens would be right on the bubble.

Well Patriots are still a factor, but definately are very beatable. That Defense is not that good.

I personally just see more from the Saints then the Vikings.

Originally posted by forumcrew
But you cant say the Vikings wins over bad teams mean they are not that good

Strength of Schedule debate = lousy argument for people who don't pay attention to:

-- AFC DIV / NFC DIV scheduling rules with regards to divisional alignment
-- Quality of play
-- The fact that EVERY team in the league plays more cupcakes than powerhouse teams in a given season.

And for the record, the only different teams the Vikings play that the rest of the NFC North doesn't play are the Giants and the Panthers. Not exactly the Buccaneers and the Redskins.

And also for the record, I counted 6 cupcakes on the Saints schedule and 4 high-quality teams. Those percentages (150% more cupcakes than Elite) completely mirror the 12 Cupcake and 8 Elite teams analysis presented in an earlier post.

Is that your tribute to the Seahawk's season?

Originally posted by botankus
Exactly right. Can we please get off the schedule debate unless someone really, really, really wants to label themselves as Mr. Sportscenter?

Strength of Schedule debate = lousy argument for people who don't pay attention to:

-- AFC DIV / NFC DIV scheduling rules with regards to divisional alignment
-- Quality of play
-- The fact that EVERY team in the league plays more cupcakes than powerhouse teams in a given season.

And for the record, the only different teams the Vikings play that the rest of the NFC North doesn't play are the Giants and the Panthers. Not exactly the Buccaneers and the Redskins.

And also for the record, I counted 6 cupcakes on the Saints schedule and 4 high-quality teams. Those percentages (150% more cupcakes than Elite) completely mirror the 12 Cupcake and 8 Elite teams analysis presented in an earlier post.

I dont mean that the Vikings aren't good, I just don't know how good they are because they haven't been tested yet.

The Vikings moved the ball at will against a Steelers defense that featured a healthy Polamalu and Kirschke. And that was back when the Steelers D was actually playing with some swagger, unlike recently.

Jared Allen, on the other hand, was completely shut down by LT Max Starks. I was baffled by that one, but it happened.

Jared Allen is a great player but he definitely has his weaknesses. One is that you can run at him pretty well.

Originally posted by Smasandian
Jared Allen is a great player but he definitely has his weaknesses. One is that you can run at him pretty well.

Yeah, but you can't run on the Williams, which in turn makes Jared Allen a monster. That dude is never tired and I would imagine everybody HATES going against him.

I wouldn't bet against it.