You can't make a direct comparison based on that performance, because the Vikes' defense actually had a good game even though the numbers might suggest otherwise.

The problem the Vikes' defense had was that their offense was complete crap the whole game through, which forced the Vikes' defense to be on the field way too much and for way too many snaps. The offense gave up the ball twice - well thrice, but the last INT was in the dying moments - both of which times it led to the Bucs having a short field on their offensive turn. The Vikes' defense did a good job forcing the Bucs to take some field goals, because they had some great starting field positions all game through thanks to Kluwe's horrible day at punting the ball. Also, they made some great halftime adjustments in defending the run. Martin (RB) was pretty much shut down in the second half after having had a stellar first half at running the ball and Blount didn't make an impact on his snaps either, although Martin did score a TD on that screen pass in the beginning of the second half.

Normally, the Vikes' defensive players tackle really well, but for some reason they were missing a lot of tackles against the Bucs, maybe the large amount of snaps they took had something to do with this, but in all honesty they were whiffing on tackles from the get go. Also, their secondary probably had the worst game they've had this season. After Cook hurt his arm and Jefferson replaced him, the Bucs took advantage of the mid-season acquisition and made some big pass plays on the left side of the field.

So the real difference between the Saints playing the Bucs and the Vikes playing them was that one of the teams had an actual offense that was taking some pressure of the defense and the other didn't.


Also, just to clear up one thing... the Vikes have a new defensive coordinator this year, and there have been some scheme changes because of it - most of them positive, but they are not on the 6th year of the same scheme.