Packers vs. Eagles

[PackyAttacky]

3 minutes ago, Revel8 said:

I'm not too concerned about the missed tackles, I think most were due to roster locks not giving 100% effort right now due to the possibility of injury.

Around the league you hear about missed tackles early on because players get fewer padded practices as per the only thing that the players "won" back when they redid the collective bargaining agreement. Think our own players even talked about it after the game.

[Revel8]

8 minutes ago, PackyAttacky said:

Around the league you hear about missed tackles early on because players get fewer padded practices as per the only thing that the players "won" back when they redid the collective bargaining agreement. Think our own players even talked about it after the game.

I'm sure that plays a part as well.

[justo]

9 hours ago, PackyAttacky said:

I would hope they improved at oline they could not get any worse. What about Bradford that is proven now to check down on and 3rd and long rather than try to move the sticks? Chiefs offense is better and they play in a worse conference. Hell NFC is so stacked they might not have a chance anyway. Atlanta, Seattle, Dallas, and us are all easily ahead of them. Giants, Philly, Arizona, and Carolina give them a run for their money. Tampa Bay is an up and coming team as well. MN will go as far as their D carrys them. They are closer to top five than 8-10 for sure.

Talent=/=schedule

Talent=/=record

I don't think I would take the Giants, Philly, Arizona, Carolina or Tampa Bay ahead of the Vikings. Dallas and the Falcons have a really, really hard road ahead of them. As of right now, I think the Seahawks, Packers and Vikings have the best shots at the 1/2 seed in the NFC. Could be wrong. Hope I am. That's just how I see it today. Their D carried them to the second-most multi-score wins of any team in the NFC other than the Cowboys last year. They had as many multi-score wins as the high-powered Falcons offense...without an offense. That's impressive. I wouldn't sleep on a revamped offense at potentially RB, WR and OL. Sam Bradford's yard per attempt stats didn't really drop until they switched coordinators in Minnesota, either. He was playing to his career averages (insert joke here) under Norv. The Vikings didn't have to play Bradford in a dink/dunk offense. They chose to. I wonder if that opens up more with a running game (action) and an offensive line made up of players not on the verge of retirement.

[PackyAttacky]

2 hours ago, justo said:

Talent=/=schedule

Talent=/=record

I don't think I would take the Giants, Philly, Arizona, Carolina or Tampa Bay ahead of the Vikings. Dallas and the Falcons have a really, really hard road ahead of them. As of right now, I think the Seahawks, Packers and Vikings have the best shots at the 1/2 seed in the NFC. Could be wrong. Hope I am. That's just how I see it today. Their D carried them to the second-most multi-score wins of any team in the NFC other than the Cowboys last year. They had as many multi-score wins as the high-powered Falcons offense...without an offense. That's impressive. I wouldn't sleep on a revamped offense at potentially RB, WR and OL. Sam Bradford's yard per attempt stats didn't really drop until they switched coordinators in Minnesota, either. He was playing to his career averages (insert joke here) under Norv. The Vikings didn't have to play Bradford in a dink/dunk offense. They chose to. I wonder if that opens up more with a running game (action) and an offensive line made up of players not on the verge of retirement.

Whoa you are crowning their D like it is Seattle or Denver. They lost Greenway, and the Captain and Newman is damn near  40, not sure how their D plays as good as last year honestly. The Vikes might not have asked Bradford to dink and dunk in week one pre-season but he did it anyways. How is their offense revamped at WR other than you want it to be? Same guys as last year.

[ugLymayNe]

It's not out of the question that the Vikings D is close to Seattle or Denver's. I actually think moving forward I'd take their defense over the Seahawks tbh. I disagree about the offense though, Justo. They definitely upgraded at LT (not hard to with Kalil, lol) but I don't think it's going to change much for them. The only skill position players that are, at least in my opinion, worth working with are Diggs and Cook. Murray is going to struggle outside of Oakland methinks & Bradford is poopemoji. Maybe Treadwell turns it around, maybe not...I just don't see their offense being top 20.

[CWood21]

On 8/14/2017 at 7:09 AM, HyponGrey said:

Callahan. Don't care if we lose him

Still need camp arms.  He knows the offense, so he'll stay with the team until cutdowns.

[PackyAttacky]

6 hours ago, ugLymayNe said:

It's not out of the question that the Vikings D is close to Seattle or Denver's. I actually think moving forward I'd take their defense over the Seahawks tbh. I disagree about the offense though, Justo. They definitely upgraded at LT (not hard to with Kalil, lol) but I don't think it's going to change much for them. The only skill position players that are, at least in my opinion, worth working with are Diggs and Cook. Murray is going to struggle outside of Oakland methinks & Bradford is poopemoji. Maybe Treadwell turns it around, maybe not...I just don't see their offense being top 20.

Their D is going to be very good, closer to Seattles or Denvers for sure than bottom of the top ten, not trying to sell them short. I liked them better last year with that trio of corners, I think Newman is getting old and the underrated Captain is gone, maybe Waynes can step in and be great, but we will see. At one point last year those 3 Vikings corners were top 15 on NFL.com for passer rating allowed. They still have Rhodes closed, but Newman is damn near 40 and Captain is gone. I think their D regressed if even a little bit.

 

Oh and love Bradford is poopemoji!!!

[justo]

On 8/15/2017 at 2:31 AM, PackyAttacky said:

Whoa you are crowning their D like it is Seattle or Denver. They lost Greenway, and the Captain and Newman is damn near  40, not sure how their D plays as good as last year honestly. The Vikes might not have asked Bradford to dink and dunk in week one pre-season but he did it anyways. How is their offense revamped at WR other than you want it to be? Same guys as last year.

Must be two Greenways.

 

I don't think you understand this: When Minnesota was at it's peak last year, they were the 2nd-most dominant team in the NFC. What kept them down was injuries to position groups they were already weak in. They didn't need top end talent. They needed baseline talent. They got that this year. People overlooking the Vikings weekly is why they have some insane win rate in Vegas right now. The top end talent was already there for a team that could have made a deep playoff run. 

[justo]

On 8/15/2017 at 7:47 AM, ugLymayNe said:

It's not out of the question that the Vikings D is close to Seattle or Denver's. I actually think moving forward I'd take their defense over the Seahawks tbh. I disagree about the offense though, Justo. They definitely upgraded at LT (not hard to with Kalil, lol) but I don't think it's going to change much for them. The only skill position players that are, at least in my opinion, worth working with are Diggs and Cook. Murray is going to struggle outside of Oakland methinks & Bradford is poopemoji. Maybe Treadwell turns it around, maybe not...I just don't see their offense being top 20.

I think Cooks is gonna get that job instantly, to be honest. Murray struggling is still better than whatever they had last year.

[justo]

Minnesota was in the top quarter of the league in comp %, yards per comp, sack %, interception %, fumble % and average in yards per carry. I'm not quite sure which Vikings team y'all were seeing last year if y'all don't see a top five defense there 

[DocHambone]

2 hours ago, justo said:

Must be two Greenways.

 

I don't think you understand this: When Minnesota was at it's peak last year, they were the 2nd-most dominant team in the NFC. What kept them down was injuries to position groups they were already weak in. They didn't need top end talent. They needed baseline talent. They got that this year. People overlooking the Vikings weekly is why they have some insane win rate in Vegas right now. The top end talent was already there for a team that could have made a deep playoff run. 

Meh. What kept them down wasn't injuries to their position groups. Their peak was an unsustainable mirage. During their first 5 games (their peak), their defense was out of this world. They had an unsustainable amount of points and turnovers. During their peak (adjusting for defense and special teams scores) their offense scored them 18 ppg. After their peak they avg'd 16.9 ppg. The biggest difference was the defense came back to reality. During their first 5 games (when they started 5-0) their defense allowed 12.2 ppg. During their final 11 games they allowed 22 ppg.

 

So, yes, it may be true that they were the 2nd-most dominant team last season during their unsustainable peak, but they didn't lose games because of a decimated offense that changed after the first 5 games. They started to lose because their defense simply wasn't historically great like they were during the first 5 weeks.