Vikings better?

jn671 · 11-29-2009, 09:06 PM

Originally Posted by arsaint

Vikings (11 games) = 1262 yards rushing, AP = 999 yds

Saints (10 games) = 1543 yards rushing

i rest my case.

WhoDat1456 · 11-29-2009, 07:12 PM

It just seems to me that the Vikings have done really well the last few weeks because of very poor defenses. I'm not saying that the Saints didn't play any bad defenses but I will keep a close eye on how well the Vikings play down the stretch.

D_it_up · 11-29-2009, 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by WhoDat1456

It just seems to me that the Vikings have done really well the last few weeks because of very poor defenses. I'm not saying that the Saints didn't play any bad defenses but I will keep a close eye on how well the Vikings play down the stretch.

Starting next week in Arizona if Kurt Warner is back.

jn671 · 11-29-2009, 09:07 PM

Originally Posted by D_it_up

Starting next week in Arizona if Kurt Warner is back.

yes true indeed. kurt will rip them up. and plus chicago's line is a joke.

arsaint · 11-29-2009, 07:19 PM

Vikings put a butt-whipping on the Cardinals in AZ with Warner playing and the Bengals, then we can be concerned...

Frederick Smith · 11-29-2009, 07:25 PM

Hard to compare apples and oranges like this just because of match ups that are created with these other teams. The Vikings look impressive as do the Colts and the Pats are not far behind. I think we match up fairly well against these teams and do not think anyone is being disrespectful. If things continue to progress as they are we are going to see the Vikings and find out for sure about that team. Only a Superbowl will tell us how we match up against the Colts. Farve looks like he cannot make a mistake anymore. I am praying for some luck here and to get our players healthy for the playoffs. If we can come back full strength and our secondary come together after all the injuries I like our chances. Tomorrow will tell us loads.

jn671 · 11-29-2009, 09:09 PM

Originally Posted by Frederick Smith

Hard to compare apples and oranges like this just because of match ups that are created with these other teams. The Vikings look impressive as do the Colts and the Pats are not far behind. I think we match up fairly well against these teams and do not think anyone is being disrespectful. If things continue to progress as they are we are going to see the Vikings and find out for sure about that team. Only a Superbowl will tell us how we match up against the Colts. Farve looks like he cannot make a mistake anymore. I am praying for some luck here and to get our players healthy for the playoffs. If we can come back full strength and our secondary come together after all the injuries I like our chances. Tomorrow will tell us loads.

good analysis frederick. true only a ring and our biggest test will tell us how good we truly are. although we did have some hard games prior to the tampa game.

papz · 11-29-2009, 07:33 PM

They're entitled to their opinion but the only way to find out is to play each other heads up. The only thing that irked me what the fact they pointed out that the Vikings are better because they have a better rushing attack, which just isn't the case. There's a difference in having a better running back versus better rushing attack. Peterson is all world but when you stack he and Taylor up against our trio, we have the 4th ranked rushing attack in the NFL as opposed to the Vikings' 10th. So that comment which they made didn't make any sense. If you go to NFL.com and compare basically every offensive statistic, we are superior to them. Heck even our offensive line rates better than them.

In total defense, they're 12th and we're 16th. Their rushing defense is far superior to ours but we haven't had Ellis playing for quite awhile... which definitely hurts that number. As far as our secondaries are concerned, we take the edge on that one. I do believe even if we were completely healthy, their defense is better than ours. With that said, even the best defenses in the league have trouble stopping our #1 ranked offense. The only defense I'd be scared to play in the NFL is a completely healthy Steelers D. I just don't see us having problem putting up enough points to beat anyone else.

If we were to play head to head, it would be a great game to watch. The reason why I think we'd come out on top is the fact Favre has broken down towards the tail end of the last couple of seasons. He's always been prone to making mistakes and we now have a defense that can capitalize on it. Also as good as Peterson is, he too has trouble holding on to the football. This is the same Saints D of old... we've been making people pay when they turn the football over. And because of that, I think we'd come out on top.

They think the Vikes are a better team... fine. I think otherwise... fine. Hopefully we'll be able to meet in the playoffs and fine out.

jn671 · 11-29-2009, 09:13 PM

Originally Posted by papz

They're entitled to their opinion but the only way to find out is to play each other heads up. The only thing that irked me what the fact they pointed out that the Vikings are better because they have a better rushing attack, which just isn't the case. There's a difference in having a better running back versus better rushing attack. Peterson is all world but when you stack he and Taylor up against our trio, we have the 4th ranked rushing attack in the NFL as opposed to the Vikings' 10th. So that comment which they made didn't make any sense. If you go to NFL.com and compare basically every offensive statistic, we are superior to them. Heck even our offensive line rates better than them.

In total defense, they're 12th and we're 16th. Their rushing defense is far superior to ours but we haven't had Ellis playing for quite awhile... which definitely hurts that number. As far as our secondaries are concerned, we take the edge on that one. I do believe even if we were completely healthy, their defense is better than ours. With that said, even the best defenses in the league have trouble stopping our #1 ranked offense. The only defense I'd be scared to play in the NFL is a completely healthy Steelers D. I just don't see us having problem putting up enough points to beat anyone else.

If we were to play head to head, it would be a great game to watch. The reason why I think we'd come out on top is the fact Favre has broken down towards the tail end of the last couple of seasons. He's always been prone to making mistakes and we now have a defense that can capitalize on it. Also as good as Peterson is, he too has trouble holding on to the football. This is the same Saints D of old... we've been making people pay when they turn the football over. And because of that, I think we'd come out on top.

They think the Vikes are a better team... fine. I think otherwise... fine. Hopefully we'll be able to meet in the playoffs and fine out.

coudn't agree with you any less. our rushing attack is indeed one of the best. i mean even are receivers, hence henderson and meachem have a couple of rush yards thanks to our reverses. but i do agree by what you mean. they do have two talented backs but we have 3 and we have receivers that can run a bit too.. the only players im impressed with from the viks are receivers, them being sydney rice and percy harving. as for AP i feel he is still one of the best but has been running mediocre compared to our 3 backs.

arsaint · 11-29-2009, 08:12 PM

Take a look at SOS (which is the 5th tiebreaker breaker on HFA)

Vikings opponents: 45-76 (.372)

Saints 1st 10 opponents: 41-69 (.372)
Saints beat Patriots: 48-72 (.397)
Saints lose to Pats: 49-71 (.405)

No matter what happens on MNF, the Saints have played a harder schedule...

11-29-2009, 07:12 PM	#2
WhoDat1456 Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 17	Re: Vikings better? It just seems to me that the Vikings have done really well the last few weeks because of very poor defenses. I'm not saying that the Saints didn't play any bad defenses but I will keep a close eye on how well the Vikings play down the stretch.
WhoDat1456 Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 17

11-29-2009, 07:18 PM	#3
D_it_up Faqda Falcons Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Ruston, Louisiana Posts: 3,465 Blog Entries: 3	Re: Vikings better? Originally Posted by WhoDat1456 It just seems to me that the Vikings have done really well the last few weeks because of very poor defenses. I'm not saying that the Saints didn't play any bad defenses but I will keep a close eye on how well the Vikings play down the stretch. Starting next week in Arizona if Kurt Warner is back.

11-29-2009, 09:07 PM	#4
jn671 Guam Saints Fan Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Guam, USA Posts: 411 Blog Entries: 2	Re: Vikings better? Originally Posted by D_it_up Starting next week in Arizona if Kurt Warner is back. yes true indeed. kurt will rip them up. and plus chicago's line is a joke.

11-29-2009, 07:19 PM	#5
arsaint Saint Historian Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: deep in the bowels of a hidden bunker, somewhere under the brick & steel of a nondescript building.. Posts: 2,732	Re: Vikings better? Vikings put a butt-whipping on the Cardinals in AZ with Warner playing and the Bengals, then we can be concerned...

11-29-2009, 07:25 PM	#6
Frederick Smith SaintsFan101 Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 217	Re: Vikings better? Hard to compare apples and oranges like this just because of match ups that are created with these other teams. The Vikings look impressive as do the Colts and the Pats are not far behind. I think we match up fairly well against these teams and do not think anyone is being disrespectful. If things continue to progress as they are we are going to see the Vikings and find out for sure about that team. Only a Superbowl will tell us how we match up against the Colts. Farve looks like he cannot make a mistake anymore. I am praying for some luck here and to get our players healthy for the playoffs. If we can come back full strength and our secondary come together after all the injuries I like our chances. Tomorrow will tell us loads.

11-29-2009, 09:06 PM	#1
jn671 Guam Saints Fan Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Guam, USA Posts: 411 Blog Entries: 2	Re: Vikings better? Originally Posted by arsaint Vikings (11 games) = 1262 yards rushing, AP = 999 yds Saints (10 games) = 1543 yards rushing i rest my case.

11-29-2009, 09:09 PM	#7
jn671 Guam Saints Fan Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Guam, USA Posts: 411 Blog Entries: 2	Re: Vikings better? Originally Posted by Frederick Smith Hard to compare apples and oranges like this just because of match ups that are created with these other teams. The Vikings look impressive as do the Colts and the Pats are not far behind. I think we match up fairly well against these teams and do not think anyone is being disrespectful. If things continue to progress as they are we are going to see the Vikings and find out for sure about that team. Only a Superbowl will tell us how we match up against the Colts. Farve looks like he cannot make a mistake anymore. I am praying for some luck here and to get our players healthy for the playoffs. If we can come back full strength and our secondary come together after all the injuries I like our chances. Tomorrow will tell us loads. good analysis frederick. true only a ring and our biggest test will tell us how good we truly are. although we did have some hard games prior to the tampa game.

11-29-2009, 07:33 PM	#8
papz Problem? Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New Orleans Posts: 11,768	Re: Vikings better? They're entitled to their opinion but the only way to find out is to play each other heads up. The only thing that irked me what the fact they pointed out that the Vikings are better because they have a better rushing attack, which just isn't the case. There's a difference in having a better running back versus better rushing attack. Peterson is all world but when you stack he and Taylor up against our trio, we have the 4th ranked rushing attack in the NFL as opposed to the Vikings' 10th. So that comment which they made didn't make any sense. If you go to NFL.com and compare basically every offensive statistic, we are superior to them. Heck even our offensive line rates better than them. In total defense, they're 12th and we're 16th. Their rushing defense is far superior to ours but we haven't had Ellis playing for quite awhile... which definitely hurts that number. As far as our secondaries are concerned, we take the edge on that one. I do believe even if we were completely healthy, their defense is better than ours. With that said, even the best defenses in the league have trouble stopping our #1 ranked offense. The only defense I'd be scared to play in the NFL is a completely healthy Steelers D. I just don't see us having problem putting up enough points to beat anyone else. If we were to play head to head, it would be a great game to watch. The reason why I think we'd come out on top is the fact Favre has broken down towards the tail end of the last couple of seasons. He's always been prone to making mistakes and we now have a defense that can capitalize on it. Also as good as Peterson is, he too has trouble holding on to the football. This is the same Saints D of old... we've been making people pay when they turn the football over. And because of that, I think we'd come out on top. They think the Vikes are a better team... fine. I think otherwise... fine. Hopefully we'll be able to meet in the playoffs and fine out.
	Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege. All little common sense goes a long way.

11-29-2009, 09:13 PM	#9
jn671 Guam Saints Fan Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Guam, USA Posts: 411 Blog Entries: 2	Re: Vikings better? Originally Posted by papz They're entitled to their opinion but the only way to find out is to play each other heads up. The only thing that irked me what the fact they pointed out that the Vikings are better because they have a better rushing attack, which just isn't the case. There's a difference in having a better running back versus better rushing attack. Peterson is all world but when you stack he and Taylor up against our trio, we have the 4th ranked rushing attack in the NFL as opposed to the Vikings' 10th. So that comment which they made didn't make any sense. If you go to NFL.com and compare basically every offensive statistic, we are superior to them. Heck even our offensive line rates better than them. In total defense, they're 12th and we're 16th. Their rushing defense is far superior to ours but we haven't had Ellis playing for quite awhile... which definitely hurts that number. As far as our secondaries are concerned, we take the edge on that one. I do believe even if we were completely healthy, their defense is better than ours. With that said, even the best defenses in the league have trouble stopping our #1 ranked offense. The only defense I'd be scared to play in the NFL is a completely healthy Steelers D. I just don't see us having problem putting up enough points to beat anyone else. If we were to play head to head, it would be a great game to watch. The reason why I think we'd come out on top is the fact Favre has broken down towards the tail end of the last couple of seasons. He's always been prone to making mistakes and we now have a defense that can capitalize on it. Also as good as Peterson is, he too has trouble holding on to the football. This is the same Saints D of old... we've been making people pay when they turn the football over. And because of that, I think we'd come out on top. They think the Vikes are a better team... fine. I think otherwise... fine. Hopefully we'll be able to meet in the playoffs and fine out. coudn't agree with you any less. our rushing attack is indeed one of the best. i mean even are receivers, hence henderson and meachem have a couple of rush yards thanks to our reverses. but i do agree by what you mean. they do have two talented backs but we have 3 and we have receivers that can run a bit too.. the only players im impressed with from the viks are receivers, them being sydney rice and percy harving. as for AP i feel he is still one of the best but has been running mediocre compared to our 3 backs.

11-29-2009, 08:12 PM	#10
arsaint Saint Historian Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: deep in the bowels of a hidden bunker, somewhere under the brick & steel of a nondescript building.. Posts: 2,732	Re: Vikings better? Take a look at SOS (which is the 5th tiebreaker breaker on HFA) Vikings opponents: 45-76 (.372) Saints 1st 10 opponents: 41-69 (.372) Saints beat Patriots: 48-72 (.397) Saints lose to Pats: 49-71 (.405) No matter what happens on MNF, the Saints have played a harder schedule...