2022 Vikings Regular Season Thread

[nicksaviking]

1 hour ago, Vanimal46 said:

We’re not going to know that until after our game is over. You would prefer taking the loser mentality and hand them the #2 seed without a challenge?

The Cardinals will not give them a challenge. They’ve only won four games, none in a month and a half and all to other terrible teams. 

The playoffs don’t give you bravery points for playing your starters without a functional offensive line and the entire league has been taking cheap shots at will against your star WR all year long.

Even so, this isn’t a loser mentality, it’s called hedging your bets. The Bears might be the one team the Vikings could beat while starting backups. The coach and GM are safe, weirdly, they will be trying to lose for draft position.

[Vanimal46]

30 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

The Cardinals will not give them a challenge. They’ve only won four games, none in a month and a half and all to other terrible teams. 

The playoffs don’t give you bravery points for playing your starters without a functional offensive line and the entire league has been taking cheap shots at will against your star WR all year long.

Even so, this isn’t a loser mentality, it’s called hedging your bets. The Bears might be the one team the Vikings could beat while starting backups. The coach and GM are safe, weirdly, they will be trying to lose for draft position.

4 win Cardinals team knocked a familiar team out of the playoffs once upon a time. 

Call it what you want. You are advocating for the Vikings to lose. The Bears still have a good rushing attack with Khalil Herbert and David Montgomery. It’s no gimme game for us either. As much as Kirk gets blasted every week, he’s still there the following game. I want to win the game. 

[Mike Sixel]

3 minutes ago, Vanimal46 said:

4 win Cardinals team knocked a familiar team out of the playoffs once upon a time. 

Call it what you want. You are advocating for the Vikings to lose. The Bears still have a good rushing attack with Khalil Herbert and David Montgomery. It’s no gimme game for us either. As much as Kirk gets blasted every week, he’s still there the following game. I want to win the game. 

I'm advocating for them to rest their best players for the playoffs. They might win, they might lose. But they'll be healthy and rested. 

[Vanimal46]

5 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

I'm advocating for them to rest their best players for the playoffs. They might win, they might lose. But they'll be healthy and rested. 

Flawed argument. 

Using data from the past 10 years to see if resting has an impact on the first playoff game a team plays, the data is a bit surprising. 

Comparing the win percentage of teams who rested their starters to those that didn’t, the rested teams had a staggeringly poor .333 win percentage in their first playoff game. The teams who did not rest their starters had a .786 win percentage in their first playoff game.

https://www.si.com/nfl/chiefs/gm-report/the-recent-history-of-resting-starters-in-week-17-provides-a-warning-for-the-chiefs

[Vanimal46]

We’re not talking about a 7 game baseball series. We’re talking about 1 game each week. And what @Mike Sixel and @nicksavikingare advocating is disrupting the athletes’ routine for no real reason besides either wanting to lose so they can play the Giants instead, or some fabricated argument that resting players is good. 

[Mike Sixel]

1 minute ago, Vanimal46 said:

We’re not talking about a 7 game baseball series. We’re talking about 1 game each week. And what @Mike Sixel and @nicksavikingare advocating is disrupting the athletes’ routine for no real reason besides either wanting to lose so they can play the Giants instead, or some fabricated argument that resting players is good. 

It boggles the mind you don't think a week off would help their bodies. Not to mention the injury risk . .... Which you are ignoring.

[Mike Sixel]

5 minutes ago, Vanimal46 said:

Flawed argument. 

Using data from the past 10 years to see if resting has an impact on the first playoff game a team plays, the data is a bit surprising. 

Comparing the win percentage of teams who rested their starters to those that didn’t, the rested teams had a staggeringly poor .333 win percentage in their first playoff game. The teams who did not rest their starters had a .786 win percentage in their first playoff game.

https://www.si.com/nfl/chiefs/gm-report/the-recent-history-of-resting-starters-in-week-17-provides-a-warning-for-the-chiefs

Interesting. Did the study look at how they did compared to how they were expected to do, or just look at the outcome? 

[Vanimal46]

1 minute ago, Mike Sixel said:

It boggles the mind you don't think a week off would help their bodies. Not to mention the injury risk . .... Which you are ignoring.

Yeah, it would make them rusty in the game you want them to play against, the Giants. 

[Mike Sixel]

Just now, Vanimal46 said:

Yeah, it would make them rusty in the game you want them to play against, the Giants. 

One week off would make professionals rusty?

[Mike Sixel]

7 minutes ago, Vanimal46 said:

Flawed argument. 

Using data from the past 10 years to see if resting has an impact on the first playoff game a team plays, the data is a bit surprising. 

Comparing the win percentage of teams who rested their starters to those that didn’t, the rested teams had a staggeringly poor .333 win percentage in their first playoff game. The teams who did not rest their starters had a .786 win percentage in their first playoff game.

https://www.si.com/nfl/chiefs/gm-report/the-recent-history-of-resting-starters-in-week-17-provides-a-warning-for-the-chiefs

That data is useless. So few data points and we don't know if those teams were favored or not 

[Vanimal46]

3 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

Interesting. Did the study look at how they did compared to how they were expected to do, or just look at the outcome? 

Do you expect the #1 seed in the playoffs to win? If so, there’s your answer. 

[Vanimal46]

3 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

One week off would make professionals rusty?

Clearly. .333 win percentage resting vs. .786 win percentage not resting. 

[Mike Sixel]

Backing you up .... Teams have an overall losing record the last three years after their bye. That's an actual number of data points with statistical meaning. The SI study is garbage. 

[Parfigliano]

14 minutes ago, Vanimal46 said:

Flawed argument. 

Using data from the past 10 years to see if resting has an impact on the first playoff game a team plays, the data is a bit surprising. 

Comparing the win percentage of teams who rested their starters to those that didn’t, the rested teams had a staggeringly poor .333 win percentage in their first playoff game. The teams who did not rest their starters had a .786 win percentage in their first playoff game.

https://www.si.com/nfl/chiefs/gm-report/the-recent-history-of-resting-starters-in-week-17-provides-a-warning-for-the-chiefs

Interesting and surprising.

[Mike Sixel]

5 minutes ago, Parfigliano said:

Interesting and surprising.

It's a useless study with less data points than home runs Nick Gordon hit last year. The bye week data is much more useful

[Vanimal46]

9 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

Backing you up .... Teams have an overall losing record the last three years after their bye. That's an actual number of data points with statistical meaning. The SI study is garbage. 

I don’t think the SI study is garbage at all. But as long as you came to the same conclusion, welcome aboard. 

[Vanimal46]

1 minute ago, Mike Sixel said:

It's a useless study with less data points than home runs Nick Gordon hit last year. The bye week data is much more useful

They looked at #1 seeds who rest their starters or not over the last 10 years. What #2 or #3 seeds advocated resting their starters in that time frame? Or in @nicksaviking’s words “hedged their bets” by intentionally losing? 

[nicksaviking]

51 minutes ago, Vanimal46 said:

They looked at #1 seeds who rest their starters or not over the last 10 years. What #2 or #3 seeds advocated resting their starters in that time frame? Or in @nicksaviking’s words “hedged their bets” by intentionally losing? 

I wasn’t advocating intentionally losing, because they should still beat a terrible Bears team that’s already motivated to lose.

I also wasn’t advocating for resting players as is normally the case this time of year, just keeping them out of an unusually dangerous situation. Cousins is being protected by an Arena League quality line at the moment.

If the data says play him go ahead, but the data points surely also say that this upcoming game is more likely than any other game to see him end up injured.

[Vanimal46]

14 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

I wasn’t advocating intentionally losing, because they should still beat a terrible Bears team that’s already motivated to lose.

I also wasn’t advocating for resting players as is normally the case this time of year, just keeping them out of an unusually dangerous situation. Cousins is being protected by an Arena League quality line at the moment.

If the data says play him go ahead, but the data points surely also say that this upcoming game is more likely than any other game to see him end up injured.

You’re back pedaling faster than Cam Dantzler in soft coverage here. 
 

“The playoffs don’t give you bravery points for playing your starters without a functional offensive line and the entire league has been taking cheap shots at will against your star WR all year long.“

So what do you want? For the starters to play and win? Or “hedge their bet” and lose?

[nicksaviking]

11 hours ago, Vanimal46 said:

You’re back pedaling faster than Cam Dantzler in soft coverage here. 
 

“The playoffs don’t give you bravery points for playing your starters without a functional offensive line and the entire league has been taking cheap shots at will against your star WR all year long.“

So what do you want? For the starters to play and win? Or “hedge their bet” and lose?

What are you talking about? My concern clearly is that there is no offensive line. This isn't a normal end-of-year sit-the-starters situation and you know it. And why do you keep saying I want them to lose? I've said in every post, they can still beat the Bears with backups. 

I also said that if your numbers say they should play the starters, they can go ahead and play the starters. But nobody should be shocked if this the game that where Cousins finally goes down and doesn't get up.

[gunnarthor]

I don't want the starters to sit. I want to watch a good football game. I want the Vikings to win and get the 2 seed. I think the injury risk to JJ and Cousins is overstated. Both have shown to be quite durable. And, after last week, it would be nice to have the offense clicking going into the playoffs. 

[gunnarthor]

O'Neil has a partially torn ACL and won't be back this season. Team is hopeful he can be ready to start next season. Pretty rough. O'Neil and Darrisaw are a really nice tandem of book ends but if they can't stay healthy, we're in a bit of trouble, long term. 

I don't know what the draft looks like in regards to interior linemen but I would assume that's an area the Vikes would focus on.

[Mike Sixel]

34 minutes ago, gunnarthor said:

O'Neil has a partially torn ACL and won't be back this season. Team is hopeful he can be ready to start next season. Pretty rough. O'Neil and Darrisaw are a really nice tandem of book ends but if they can't stay healthy, we're in a bit of trouble, long term. 

I don't know what the draft looks like in regards to interior linemen but I would assume that's an area the Vikes would focus on.

They have so few picks, they have to go D. 31st in points allowed.....

[Aggies7]

Im not sure why the giants are so much more preferable to play than any of the other possible opponents. That game was headed for overtime without a fluky record setting field goal, and they outplayed us from about midway through the second quarter on. We’re terrible at stoping the run and saquon is a dynamic back capable of breaking off big runs. Giants got the 6th seed playing in the toughest division in the NFC. They don’t have big name guys but they are every bit as capable of beating the Vikings as the packers or lions.

I think if you’ve got a shot to still get the 2 seed you have to try for it. I know the cardinals are horrible, but raiders should have beaten the niners last week with a backup QB.  Punting on a chance at two home games (and maybe 3) is an odd strategy. We don’t have a running game. This team does not play as well on the road, outdoors and on grass because it’s built around chucking the ball for 350+ yards through the air, which never plays well in January. It’s not even debatable 

[Vanimal46]

7 hours ago, Aggies7 said:

Punting on a chance at two home games (and maybe 3) is an odd strategy.

Finally there’s some logic in this discussion. Couldn’t agree with you more. Even if the Packers end up being the 7 seed, I am not scared of them at home in a controlled dome environment. 

We may end up being the #3 seed regardless, but handing it to San Fran on a silver platter is weird. 

[Aggies7]

1 hour ago, Vanimal46 said:

Finally there’s some logic in this discussion. Couldn’t agree with you more. Even if the Packers end up being the 7 seed, I am not scared of them at home in a controlled dome environment. 

We may end up being the #3 seed regardless, but handing it to San Fran on a silver platter is weird. 

It’s tough because week 18 would be an ideal time to rest some hobbled guys and protect some others if the game were meaningless, which it isn’t. It would be nice if just one time, the Vikings could take care of business early on and maybe pull some guys in the second half. I mean, Nathan peterman is starting for the bears.

i understand you have to win the first game before you get a second one, but a trip to SF (or even Philly/Dallas at this point) would not, in any way shape or form be an ideal scenario. I’d guess the Vikings would be 10 point dogs.

[Danchat]

It sounds like the plan is to play the starters for a set amount of time, then put the backups in. I wouldn't be shocked if some veterans get the whole game off, perhaps Thielen/Z Smith/Tomlinson. Give Reed / Udoh the whole game at C and RT to determine things for the next week.

Let's not forget the Bears are going to be starting Nathan freaking Peterman at QB, and the rest of their roster is only slightly better than the average practice squad. I'll post the depth chart later, it was really bad back when we played them in September and now it's historically bad. Plus they need to lose to get the #1 pick in the draft, and the Texans might actually be able to beat the Colts and lose the #1 overall pick... Lovie Smith's last gift to the Bears!

[Danchat]

Holy cow, this is the worst defense I have ever seen in my 7 or so years of doing these:

Their CB group outside of Gordon has fewer than 50 snaps on this team, combined! Even our backups should feast on them.

[stringer bell]

What's left of da Bears is dreadful, especially now that Fields is out. A win probably means little to the Vikings, but means even less to Chicago. 

[Aggies7]

Greg Joseph back to his old self since the fluky 61 yarder against the giants. 2 missed FGs and now a missed XP