Re: nothing

Quote
zn

Quote
Speed_Kills
They have an outstanding defense that was literally carrying that team. The Vikings team just isn't all that great. They have an outstanding coaching staff and fantastic defense but because they have a bad offense they are not normally capable of playing from behind.

They have no run game, an average at best QB, a bad oline, and garbage WRs. Thing is before the season people were saying they had a good oline and and 3 fantastic WRs. Well where are they?

In today's NFL you can be flawed and still win and the Vikings are proof of that last and this year. Denver is another.

There is nothing wrong with the Vikings defense. However, it's unrealistic to expect them to return two pick 6s for TD, or cause TOS every single week to bail the offense out.

And they were demonstrably better before the OL injuries set in.

So right now they have a weak running game, a very banged up OL (with the new injuries), and therefore an extremely high sack percentage.

Last 2 games they averaged a sack percentage of 12.5% with qb ratings below 90. To give some perspective, 12,5% is amazingly bad. Right now the lowest in the league for all 7 games is 9.1%.

First games they averaged a sack percentage of 6.4% with qb ratings above 90 and mostly in the 100s.

Discussing this, it's the same fallacy one often sees discussing the Rams. People neglect the fact that most qbs cannot play as well behind damaged, injured OLs (meaning more than 1 or 2 injuries). They just don't factor it in. When told about it, they dismiss it as if it's not a factor, when invariably it actually is...and demonstrably so.

Some, that is a FEW, qbs can still play well under those conditions. Most good ones can't. Among those few who can, I would list Brady and Wilson.

...