What Vikings Fans Are Saying Before The Game

[T-REX]

I took it as him talking about the Vikings coaching staff because that was the vibe from half the posts in there.

.

 

[Noregar]

FWIW, Strength of Schedule so far according to ESPN. These are the top ten easiest schedules so far this year.

Philadelphia Eagles  .398
Los Angeles Rams     .398
Tennessee Titans     .402
Seattle Seahawks     .410
Dallas Cowboys       .439
Pittsburgh Steelers  .451
Arizona Cardinals    .464
Minnesota Vikings    .469
Indianapolis Colts   .473
Buffalo Bills        .476

The Vikings victory over the Saints is an outlier. The Vikes had a healthy Bradford an the Saints were not in sync yet. If the Saints are taken out of the calculation then the percentage goes way down.

Vikings are going to be tough and have the talent and ability to beat the Rams but Rams also have the talent and ability to beat the Vikings. A few of the Viking fans are pretty hypocritical as they discount what the Rams have achieved yet bemoan the lack of respect their team is getting. I think both teams are good and their records reflect it but the Rams have the edge at the most important position and that is at QB. Some Viking fans also seem to have a misguided view of Goff being a lesser QB so will be nice to see them proven wrong. As Rams fans we think we know what Case is. He can play well in spurts but he is just too limited in arm talent and eventually he will get exposed as he was when he played for our Rams. Son of Bum is the perfect one to expose him and I expect Teddy could finish out the game not in mop up duty but in an attempt to spark the offense and bring the Vikes back from a deficit.

 

[LuvMeThemRams]

I can concede a loss to the Vikings and the Saints as long as we win out the rest. 12 and 4 is way more than any Ram fan could have asked for. But losing to the Eagles will piss me right off, I'm tired of the Rams having to defend Goof over Wentz.

 

[Prime Time]

Goof over Wentz.

Goof?

 

[Zero]

http://www.espn.com/nfl/game?gameId=400951775


Some basic team comparisons,Injuries and so forth

 

[Jorgeh0605]

I can concede a loss to the Vikings and the Saints as long as we win out the rest. 12 and 4 is way more than any Ram fan could have asked for. But losing to the Eagles will tick me right off, I'm tired of the Rams having to defend Goof over Wentz.

I agree with this! This next Vikings game will only irritate me a little if we lose because it is our biggest competition thus far and it would only feed the "Ram's haven't beaten anyone important" narrative.

 

[millardaholic]

I don't think any Viking fans are anykind of confident going into this. What you are reading is an extreme vocal minority, the majority being fans for only a handful of years. As an older fan of the Vikings and living through heartache and disappointment for 40+ years, the Rams have every advantage in this one except home field. Our two most important starting position players are on IR. We have a career backup leading the team and a rusty backup waiting in the wings. Excuse? No, just the facts. I feel fortunate we are 7-2 given the circumstances and give most of the credit to Zim and Shuler.
The Rams are not only getting a ton of media attention but are ranked number 2 in the power rankings behind the eagles. So Viking fans are not disrespecting you and either are the media.

 

[Faceplant]

Do the Vikings fans even factor in how FAR the Rams have traveled for their games thus far??? THAT can NOT be overstated IMO. I would like to see the comparison in miles traveled between all teams to this point in the season.

EDIT: Here are the total travel miles for each team in 2017. Even with a trip to London, the Vikes come in 12k less miles over the course of the season....

2017 NFL Travel Miles
(Road games where team travels over 2,000 miles in parentheses)

1. Raiders: 32,876** (4)
2. Cardinals: 30,414* (1)
3. Rams: 29,167* (2)
4. Dolphins: 27,476* (1)
5. Chargers: 26,938 (4)
6. Seahawks: 25,770 (2)
7. Jaguars: 25,264* (1)
8. 49ers: 23,856 (2)
9. Giants: 22,978 (3)
10. Saints: 22,010*
11. Redskins: 20,754 (3)
12. Eagles: 20,336 (3)
13. Broncos: 18,862
14. Texans: 18,744
15. Ravens: 18,506* (1)
16. Cowboys: 18,004
17. Patriots: 17,868**
18. Vikings: 17, 246*
19. Jets: 16,594 (1)
20. Browns: 16,432 * (1)
21. Chiefs: 15,902
22. Buccaneers: 13,864
23. Bills: 13,236 (1)
24. Colts: 13,088
25. Titans: 13,030
26. Falcons: 12,262
27. Panthers: 12,060 (1)
28. Bears: 8,308
29. Lions: 8,168
30. Packers: 8,064
31. Bengals: 7,662
32. Steelers: 6,818

 

[Riverumbbq]

Goof?

It's the mocking term Walter over at Walterfootball.com had used to describe Goff from his original draft right up to the early part of this season, at one point he even had us taking another high round QB in this years draft. He had to eat his words, but never apologized publicly. It's a pretty poor mock site, they've always been antagonistic towards the Rams.

 

[Dodgersrf]

I've driven more since the season started, than these teams have flown.

28. Bears: 8,308
29. Lions: 8,168
30. Packers: 8,064
31. Bengals: 7,662
32. Steelers: 6,818

 

[Riverumbbq]

Iv'e driven more since the season started, than these teams have flown.

Are you a Trucker ?

 

[Dodgersrf]

Are you a Trucker ?

No. But I work all over So Cal

 

[Raptorman]

Do the Vikings fans even factor in how FAR the Rams have traveled for their games thus far??? THAT can NOT be overstated IMO. I would like to see the comparison in miles traveled between all teams to this point in the season.

EDIT: Here are the total travel miles for each team in 2017. Even with a trip to London, the Vikes come in 12k less miles over the course of the season....

2017 NFL Travel Miles
(Road games where team travels over 2,000 miles in parentheses)

1. Raiders: 32,876** (4)
2. Cardinals: 30,414* (1)
3. Rams: 29,167* (2)
4. Dolphins: 27,476* (1)
5. Chargers: 26,938 (4)
6. Seahawks: 25,770 (2)
7. Jaguars: 25,264* (1)
8. 49ers: 23,856 (2)
9. Giants: 22,978 (3)
10. Saints: 22,010*
11. Redskins: 20,754 (3)
12. Eagles: 20,336 (3)
13. Broncos: 18,862
14. Texans: 18,744
15. Ravens: 18,506* (1)
16. Cowboys: 18,004
17. Patriots: 17,868**
18. Vikings: 17, 246*
19. Jets: 16,594 (1)
20. Browns: 16,432 * (1)
21. Chiefs: 15,902
22. Buccaneers: 13,864
23. Bills: 13,236 (1)
24. Colts: 13,088
25. Titans: 13,030
26. Falcons: 12,262
27. Panthers: 12,060 (1)
28. Bears: 8,308
29. Lions: 8,168
30. Packers: 8,064
31. Bengals: 7,662
32. Steelers: 6,818

Not our fault your team moved to California.

 

[kurtfaulk]

I'm tired of the Rams having to defend Goof over Wentz.

since when have the rams had to defend the pick? they love jared and what he can do. great pick.

.

 

[Prime Time]

https://scout.com/nfl/vikings/Artic...ed-beyond-the-loftiest-expectations-110461801

Offensive line has proved to be unsung heroes for 2017 Vikings
The Minnesota Vikings are off to a strong 7-2 start, but of those who can share the credit for that success, the offensive line has quietly made a statement.
John Holler

As a general rule, the better a team’s offensive line is, the less attention it receives.

When a quarterback completes a pass, credit for the blocking of the offensive line is rarely noted by those on the outside of the organization. When a running back darts through a hole created by offensive linemen successfully accomplishing their job assignment on a given play, it’s usually the back who gets most of the accolades, with a springing block occasionally noted.

Theirs is work that, while critical to the success of an offense, isn’t often noticed unless things go wrong.

In 2016, the Minnesota Vikings offensive line was a constant talking point because, due to a rash of injuries that took away players one by one by one throughout the season, the Vikings’decimated offensive line was seemingly always in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons.

In the offseason, the Vikings took drastic measures to reform and reshape the offensive line. To a lot of outside observers, it got some notice, but not enough. With the exception of expansion teams, it is unprecedented to start a season with five new offensive line at the starting positions.

The Vikings had two centers last season – Joe Berger and Nick Easton – and moved both of them to guards. The drafted center Pat Elflein in the third round, typically a round or two higher than college centers come off the board. They used free agency to bring in bookend tackles Riley Reiff and Mike Remmers.

Of all the questions the Vikings had on offense, while it didn’t get much in the way of attention, there was no bigger cause for internal concern as to how the incredibly new-look O-line would hold up.

When experts start listing the reasons why the Vikings are 7-2 this year, it’s not only the result of an offensive line that has played extremely well, but that it has showed the resiliency this year that it was unable to last season as the injuries mounted and the new faces and new places increased.

The Vikings have had their share of injuries this season along the offensive line. Reiff has missed time. Mike Remmers has missed time, including sitting out Sunday’s game with Washington. Easton has missed three games this season.

To casual fans, their absence has been scarcely noticed. Tackle Rashod Hill has taken both the place of Remmers and Reiff and has held up well, especially Sunday when he replaced Remmers in the starting lineup. Jeremiah Sirles has started two games at left guard. Rookie Danny Isadora has started one game at left guard when Sirles was banged up, too.

While remaining largely intact, in their last three games, the Vikings have started three different line combinations. They haven’t been collectively gutted simultaneously like they were last season, but they have faced new faces.

As tenuous as starting five new players at the five offensive line positions was from the outset, little thought was given to whether those numbers would be depleted. They were more concerned about the starters meshing together than a worst-case scenario.

A case can be made that the Vikings are 7-2 because of their defense. A case can be made that the offense has done enough in both the passing game and the ground game to deserve some credit for the record they have.

But, when it comes right down to it, all of those other aspects of the Vikings’ roster could be intact and, if the offensive line stunk like it did last year, the Vikings would be 5-4 or worse.

If you’re looking for a team MVP right now on a team that is loaded with potential candidates, the play of the offensive line – both those on the first line of the depth chart and those on the second line – should get more than nominal consideration, because the team wouldn’t be where they are without the level of play they’ve showed over the first nine weeks of the season.

https://www.foxsports.com/watch/speak-for-yourself/video/1095084099539

Colin Cowherd thinks the Minnesota Vikings are for real, despite lack of star power

Bucky Brooks and Jason McIntyre join Jason Whitlock and Colin Cowherd to discuss the rise of the Minnesota Vikings and whether they can make a playoff run in 2017.

- Cowherd, are you taking the Vikings seriously?

- Absolutely. No question. But they don't have any stars. If you asked the average NFL fan who even likes the game, and you said, who-- the five best players for the Vikings, you'd get Stefon Diggs. Does Adrian Peterson still play for them?

- I literally had to think that through.

- Yeah, they just-- they are just one of these teams, like the Astros before the playoffs. Now we know the Astros. But unless you lived in Houston, the national dialogue is, yeah, they got good young players, Altuve.

Minnesota's just really good with a bunch of really good players. None of them have posters or shoe deals. But when I watch Minnesota-- that game in Washington yesterday, it wasn't close for-- it was really--

JASON WHITLOCK: No, no, it was a dominant performance.

- --they pushed a very good-- [INAUDIBLE] a Washington team that won in Seattle, won in LA. That's the first time I've watched Washington this year get pushed around for most of that game.

So I think Minnesota-- you know, I mean, we live in a world where more people know the Packers' backup Brett Hundley than know the third best player on the Vikings. Because the Packers are a big franchise and Aaron Rodgers got replaced.

JASON WHITLOCK: They got a issue, though, Colin.

- What?

- They don't know who their quarterback is based off the head coach right now saying, we're not going to announce until later in the week. They don't have-- Sam Bradford, Case Keenum, Teddy Bridgewater. None of them are under contract next year. They've got some hopes at a draft pick tied up in Teddy Bridgewater.

Clearly, they're sitting there saying, damn, if we don't play him this year, how can we offer him a contract extension? Or are we just going to let him go? And they may be stuck with Case Keenum, who I actually like.

COLIN COWHERD: So do I.

- Case Keenum--

COLIN COWHERD: He's OK.

- --is playing much better than I ever anticipated.

- He has a expiration date on him.

- That's what I think, too.

- Look, guys, come on. He's going to turn into a pumpkin eventually.

- No, but again-- but you're 9, 10 games into the season. And you're going to bring Teddy Bridgewater off--

BUCKY BROOKS: I'm not saying you pull the plug. I think with the Minnesota Vikings, they're one of the few teams that are not solely dependent on the quarterback. The surrounding pieces are really, really good. The defense is outstanding. Mike Zimmer does a great job of keeping those guys in the mix, and they will be engaged.

I think their two wide receivers, quietly, are one of the best combinations that you'll see. Adam Thielen, Stefon Diggs. They get it done. Kyle Rudolph in the middle of the field. They control it.

The thing about the quarterback, Case Keenum, he played well, but he also has some hiccups. Can he avoid reverting back to the Case Keenum that we all know?

Pat Shurmur has done a great job of building this offense. We'll see if Teddy Bridgewater plays. But if they keep winning games, I think Zimmer has to keep Keenan in the mix and they deal with Bridgewater down the road.

- I don't know. I lean toward Bridgewater. I mean, how do you feel-- Case Keenum, fourth team, I believe, in six seasons, OK? Nine TDs, 12 picks last year. This is a journeyman. That's what he is. Now he's going to be looking over his shoulder at the guy everybody loves. The media making a big deal out of Bridgewater coming back.

I would start Bridgewater this week against a Rams defense-- remember, 28th, I believe, in sacks, 24th in interceptions. They're not a great defense. I know you like the Rams a lot. Their defense is not great. There's a chance here for Bridgewater in a big spot to come in and start.

JASON WHITLOCK: You got to outscore the Rams. And I don't know if Teddy dusting off Teddy Bridgewater means I'm outscoring the Rams.

COLIN COWHERD: But you brought up a point on my show today that I think's a real point, is that-- you see this in baseball where the guys come into the league, first time around, people throw them a diet of fastballs. Then everybody gets tape on the hitter. Second time around the league, the average drops. Case Keenum, expiration date.

- Oh, it's coming. It's coming. I mean, we know what he is in the league. He's a-- let's say, he's a high-end backup. He's not a long-term starter.

And right now, it's been good. They dropped some picks the other day that should have been picks. They had two go the other way for the Redskins. How long can he continue to play like that?

The one thing that plays well in his favor, he gets the ball out. He allows his playmakers on the outside to do work. And as long as he plays like that, he's going be fine. He can't forget who he is--

COLIN COWHERD: By the way--

- --and try to be something that he's not.

- --he did make a couple of bad throws late.

- Yes.

- The one off the back foot that got picked. He got exposed a little bit late.

JASON WHITLOCK: I've seen-- and Bucky has seen this before. He just doesn't remember.

- Rich Gannon, Elvis Grbac.

- Yeah. Yeah.

- And I agree with you. Like, you ride Case Keenum until it runs out. But when you get to a certain point in the season, you have to say Case Keenum is our guy, because there's not going to be enough time to get Teddy Bridgewater ready for when it changes in the playoffs.

You're absolutely right. Because we messed it up in Kansas City with Rich Gannon and Elvis Grbac. And it cost them the ring.

- And Rich Gannon ended up going on late in his career to become a great quarterback. I'm not saying that's going to happen to Case Keenum. But I'm saying it can happen.

And I just wonder if I'm the Rick Spielman and the Vikings front office, if I've got this draft pick invested in Teddy Bridgewater, will they make the decision from up high, we want Terry on the field before it's too late, if that's the pressure.

Because I'm just-- if I'm Mike Zimmer, I'm not-- there's no debate about who I'm starting against the Rams. Case Keenum's going to be motivated. The Rams ran him out. And he's playing relatively well.

- Yeah.

- There's no question.

- But we're also seeing a Denver Broncos team right now-- you guys are watching the Broncos-- where the quarterback situation is so murky and ugly that you've lost the defense. That defense is now getting shredded multiple weeks in a row.

Do you want to run the risk of starting Keenum, couple bad picks, they're in a hole, and then the defense, and then you kind of lose-- run the risk--

JASON WHITLOCK: He put up 38 points or something this weekend.

- Eh, it's one game against a tired Redskins team. I would go Bridgewater.

- I can't believe I'm saying it. But--

- Go ahead. Say it.

- --he has played well enough that I was like, well, they have no choice but to keep him out there and move--

BUCKY BROOKS: They have to keep him in. You can't pull him out of the lineup. Where he is right now, coming off the performance that he just had, even though he had the two interceptions, he's played well enough to be the starter. And unless he has two monumental meltdowns, I can't see removing him and keeping the credibility within the locker room.

 

[LARAMSinFeb.]

I'll give them credit. They beat the Saints and the Redskins.

And I get their confidence. We lost to the 'skins. The 'skins beat the Seahags which we also fell to. They just beat the 'skins. So they're feeling confident like they've already beaten us.

But one thing they keep overlooking. Just like the Saints they beat in week 1 aren't the same team, we're not the same team as we were in week 2. We're playing stronger football in all 3 phases of the game than we did against the Redskins.

The Redskins aren't the same team we played either.

 

[Faceplant]

I would start Bridgewater this week against a Rams defense-- remember, 28th, I believe, in sacks, 24th in interceptions. They're not a great defense. I know you like the Rams a lot. Their defense is not great. There's a chance here for Bridgewater in a big spot to come in and start.

Lolz. How do these fucktards have jobs???

 

[jrry32]

Lolz. How do these fucktards have jobs???

View attachment 22777 View attachment 22778

The guy confused our offensive stats with our defensive stats. We're 28th in sacks ALLOWED and 27th in interceptions THROWN. What a dumb-dumb.

 

[kurtfaulk]

.

what do you expect from talking heads that do no research, as in watch the actual games, and just look at numbers handed to them.

.

 

[Merlin]

Amazing. So tired of incompetent MFing talking heads man. So many of these guys have their heads up their @$$es it's ridiculous.