Home Opener : 2017 Edition. Vikings vs Steelers - Week 2 GDT.

[Chieferific]

9 hours ago, warfelg said:

Case Keenum. 

Ouch... Now that'd be a big blow to their offense. 

[MOSteelers56]

51 minutes ago, warfelg said:

Case Keenum. 

We're not the Bengals so we'll be fine against Case.

[Displayname]

anyone remember the London game? Doesn't matter who's their QB. This team needs to show up

[warfelg]

13 minutes ago, Displayname said:

anyone remember the London game? Doesn't matter who's their QB. This team needs to show up

It's also been 3 years since that game.  A lot has changed.  Bell is no longer a rookie in his first year and the Viks no longer have a prime AP.

[bigben07MVP]

 

[MOSteelers56]

20 minutes ago, bigben07MVP said:

 

We need Bud to play and play well. We've got to get some pressure on Bradford and force him into some bad decisions. If we give him time to throw he can pick our secondary apart. The pass rush has to improve from last week. We got a bunch of sacks but for the most part they were of the coverage variety. The Vikes have WR's that can get open and a QB that can get them ball if given time. The Browns currently have neither(not saying Kizer won't be good).

[Magnus-Viktor]

1 hour ago, warfelg said:

It's also been 3 years since that game.  A lot has changed.  Bell is no longer a rookie in his first year and the Viks no longer have a prime AP.

Yeah, a lot has changed since then.  For both teams, but mainly the Vikings, and ALL of it for the better.  

Their OL now looks really solid except Remmers, the RT.

Getting rid of Adrian Peterson is addition by subtraction because now they have a modern offense without the play calling being handcuffed by a one trick pony moron that dictated the QB also be under center only.  He was so over-rated it wasn't even funny.  

Bradford is way better than whomever they had 3 years ago.  Ponder?  Pure scrub from day 1 there.  I checked and it was Matt Cassel.  Same as Ponder.  

They also have a top 3 defense now, assuming they carry over what they had last year.  Newman is 38 and Munnerlyn is gone.  Otherwise nothing changed......but Waynes is in his 3rd year and Alexander in his 2nd, so maybe their development will offset it.  I'm not a fan of either of those guys though.  

Jerome Simpson, Greg Jennings?  vs Adam Thielen, Stefon Diggs?  No contest.  Both of their current guys are much better than both of those guys.

Rudolph is actually productive now with Bradford at QB too.  

 

So basically, what you saw in week 1 should be what the Vikings really are, if they can stay healthy.  Bradford's knee is a concern.  

 

 

 

Basically, I think the Vikings in week 1 are what the Steelers should've been in week 1.  Maybe we'll see a great game this week.  If they stay healthy, both teams look like contenders to me.

[Magnus-Viktor]

I think the key will be Shazier blitzing up the gut.  

[warfelg]

The Vikings played the worst defense in the NFL and went up against a team without it's 2 starting tackles.  Anyone could look good against that.

[Magnus-Viktor]

1 hour ago, warfelg said:

The Vikings played the worst defense in the NFL and went up against a team without it's 2 starting tackles.  Anyone could look good against that.

That is very true.  I saw some Viking fans really hyping them up after that game, and I said much the same thing.  2nd to worst defense and worst pass defense from last year, starting THREE rookies this year.  I doubt it improved much, if any.  I didn't realize they were without 2 tackles.....you talking OTs or DTs?  But they didn't give up much, and no TDs, until garbage time as it were.  They looked great, not just good.  

I know you aren't going to see that kind of production out of the Vikings every week, but you can at least expect good things out of them if healthy, and they played how they were supposed to against a bad opponent.  Some teams, like the Steelers, have a tendency to play down to the level of competition.  

But since I mentioned that the Aints started 3 rookies on D, it's only fair to note that the Vikings had a rookie C, an entirely new offensive line from last year (ALL 5 were new starters, with their RG a starter at C last year), and a rookie RB, along with a starting rookie LB.  In other words, you'd expect those facets of the Vikings to get better as the year goes.  Just like I expect TJ Watt to get better.

[Displayname]

1 hour ago, Magnus-Viktor said:

Yeah, a lot has changed since then.  For both teams, but mainly the Vikings, and ALL of it for the better.  

Their OL now looks really solid except Remmers, the RT.

Getting rid of Adrian Peterson is addition by subtraction because now they have a modern offense without the play calling being handcuffed by a one trick pony moron that dictated the QB also be under center only.  He was so over-rated it wasn't even funny.  

Bradford is way better than whomever they had 3 years ago.  Ponder?  Pure scrub from day 1 there.  I checked and it was Matt Cassel.  Same as Ponder.  

They also have a top 3 defense now, assuming they carry over what they had last year.  Newman is 38 and Munnerlyn is gone.  Otherwise nothing changed......but Waynes is in his 3rd year and Alexander in his 2nd, so maybe their development will offset it.  I'm not a fan of either of those guys though.  

Jerome Simpson, Greg Jennings?  vs Adam Thielen, Stefon Diggs?  No contest.  Both of their current guys are much better than both of those guys.

Rudolph is actually productive now with Bradford at QB too.  

 

So basically, what you saw in week 1 should be what the Vikings really are, if they can stay healthy.  Bradford's knee is a concern.  

 

 

 

Basically, I think the Vikings in week 1 are what the Steelers should've been in week 1.  Maybe we'll see a great game this week.  If they stay healthy, both teams look like contenders to me.

What I'm trying to get at, this(steelers) team needs to show up. They had cassel as a qb(by the way). If Bradford is hurt, the 3 year difference doesn't matter because of the constant thing for the steelers is losing to teams they shouldn't be for at least 5 years.

The steelers and browns game was trash from the ref stand point, but that doesn't make me ignore the fact that the parts weren't moving accordingly. I didn't expect Bell and Bryant to be at their best. I'm not sure how true this is, but Ben was flustered with the offense during the game.

yes, the Vikings played against a horrible saints D but they did their job sharply. looking at the steelers performance offensively, it was more self inflicted then the browns keeping up. If we have a performance like that again it's not going to be pretty. 

If the steelers show up, we're in for a treat. 

[warfelg]

1 hour ago, Magnus-Viktor said:

That is very true.  I saw some Viking fans really hyping them up after that game, and I said much the same thing.  2nd to worst defense and worst pass defense from last year, starting THREE rookies this year.  I doubt it improved much, if any.  I didn't realize they were without 2 tackles.....you talking OTs or DTs?  But they didn't give up much, and no TDs, until garbage time as it were.  They looked great, not just good.  

I know you aren't going to see that kind of production out of the Vikings every week, but you can at least expect good things out of them if healthy, and they played how they were supposed to against a bad opponent.  Some teams, like the Steelers, have a tendency to play down to the level of competition.  

But since I mentioned that the Aints started 3 rookies on D, it's only fair to note that the Vikings had a rookie C, an entirely new offensive line from last year (ALL 5 were new starters, with their RG a starter at C last year), and a rookie RB, along with a starting rookie LB.  In other words, you'd expect those facets of the Vikings to get better as the year goes.  Just like I expect TJ Watt to get better.

They were missing their starters at LT and RT out there.

Not saying you can't expect good thing from them,   just they got the perfect team to see in week one.  It will be a little more interesting to see what happens as they face some better defenses and stronger front 7's.  Same for us, as our OL is one of the better ones and we struggled last week so there's a possibility that facing a stronger DL can make them come together.  In fact they didn't play as a full unit much in PS.

[Magnus-Viktor]

50 minutes ago, Displayname said:

What I'm trying to get at, this(steelers) team needs to show up. They had cassel as a qb(by the way). If Bradford is hurt, the 3 year difference doesn't matter because of the constant thing for the steelers is losing to teams they shouldn't be for at least 5 years.

The steelers and browns game was trash from the ref stand point, but that doesn't make me ignore the fact that the parts weren't moving accordingly. I didn't expect Bell and Bryant to be at their best. I'm not sure how true this is, but Ben was flustered with the offense during the game.

yes, the Vikings played against a horrible saints D but they did their job sharply. looking at the steelers performance offensively, it was more self inflicted then the browns keeping up. If we have a performance like that again it's not going to be pretty. 

If the steelers show up, we're in for a treat. 

 

I said it was Cassel if you go read it again.  I was guessing at Ponder until I looked it up.  He started 9 games that year, but not that one.  

Bradford is supposed to play.  If he doesn't, then yes I think the Steelers are the heavy favorites.  If he is healthy and plays like he is, I don't consider either team a favorite.  The Vikings have a much better defense.  The Steelers, theoretically since we almost never see it, have an elite offense when everyone is actually available.  The Vikings have a much improved offense.  The Steelers have an improving defense.  In other words, neither of them should be so lopsided this year, with the Steelers being all offense and the Vikings being all defense.  Sounds strange saying that doesn't it, since 20 years ago it was the opposite.  

I read an article the other day where Ben was saying the Browns are going to surprise a lot of people.  They're a lot better than expected.  I'm guessing he might be right.  But the Steelers definitely shot themselves in the foot, early and often in that game.  But any way you look at it, you can't say the Vikings played against a horrible D, while neglecting the fact the Steelers played an even worse one.  Meanwhile, the Vikings scored 29 points (30 if not for a missed extra point).  The Steelers, scored 14?  The Vikings gave up 12 points minus a garbage TD.  Steelers gave up 18.  The Aints have a good O, the Browns don't.  So I mean if you're going to be fair here, lets be fair.  You can't have it both ways.  

 

Oh and I definitely agree that Ben looked flustered.  He played like crap most of the game.  Tentative is how I put it before.  Hesitant.  Idk why, but he was.  

I hope both teams show up,  we see a good game and can really evaluate how both teams are going to be this year.  In week 1 the Steelers got lucky they played a cupcake.  The Vikings also had the luxury of starting out against a weak opponent at home, so they could break in all their new pieces.  

[warfelg]

7 minutes ago, Magnus-Viktor said:

 But any way you look at it, you can't say the Vikings played against a horrible D, while neglecting the fact the Steelers played an even worse one.

Not true.  That Saint's D is going to finish much lower than the Browns D.  Between players, system, and DC that Browns defense is at least average.

[Magnus-Viktor]

3 minutes ago, warfelg said:

They were missing their starters at LT and RT out there.

Not saying you can't expect good thing from them,   just they got the perfect team to see in week one.  It will be a little more interesting to see what happens as they face some better defenses and stronger front 7's.  Same for us, as our OL is one of the better ones and we struggled last week so there's a possibility that facing a stronger DL can make them come together.  In fact they didn't play as a full unit much in PS.

Ok thanks.  I didn't realize they were without their OTs.  

I think both teams got lucky they had cupcakes in week 1.  A lot of people are downplaying the Aints as an easy team, but I wasn't.  7-9 the last 3 years running and a horrible defense starting 3 rookies.  The days of them winning a lot of games and going to SBs is ancient history by NFL standards.  I do know that week 1 was the firs ttime that Vikings' OL had ever played together.  The OTs were hurt in preseason and Boone was pencilled in at LG for a lot of it.  They experimented all preseason but ended up going with their best OL, much to my surprise.  

 

I'm really excited for this game.  I was going to go to it, but got the flu on Wednesday.  I feel decent now, but I think it's a it too late to go now.