FargoBison Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 I think QB play in general was the reason for their terrible year. Since Favre started 14 of the 16 games, you can pin a lot of it on Favre. The Vikings have a better team (without factoring in QBs) than, say, the Colts but Manning is one of the best QBs in the league. The Vikings had a top-10 defense and a top-10 running game. Not really sure how you can say how it isn't mostly Favre's fault... The Vikings also had a horrible secondary, a bad pass blocking OL(both Mckinnie and Loadholt are brutal), below average receivers and of course Chilly. Some of it was Favre but this team had a lot of issues. It all started with Rice not getting surgery, if he was back and healthy in week 1 everything changes. Quote
soohockey15 Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 The Vikings also had a horrible secondary, a bad pass blocking OL(both Mckinnie and Loadholt are brutal), below average receivers and of course Chilly. Some of it was Favre but this team had a lot of issues. It all started with Rice not getting surgery, if he was back and healthy in week 1 everything changes. A horrible secondary, yet they were 10th in pass defense. Favre was one of the worst, if not the worst, QB in the league this year. Pittsburgh has a bad offensive line. Indy has a bad offensive line. Yet those teams both found ways to make the playoffs. Right on about Chili though. He was awful. I'm not sure how the Vikings fix this. They shouldn't draft a QB because they need to win now. But there aren't many (any?) good, experienced QBs available. They're in no-man's land. Quote
Siouxman Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 Favre was one of the worst, if not the worst, QB in the league this year. No one stands alone on a football team (the punter comes closest). Yes, Favre had a poor QB rating but he had a lot of help. The Vikings were pathetic at the receiver position this year, partly due to injuries and partly due to personnel. No QB can make up for a poor receiver core. The Vikings need to get a good receivers coach and add some good receiver depth. The existing guys could be better if they can learn to run routes. The Vikes have absolutely no quality depth on the O-line. Losing Artis Hicks to Washington hurt. Injuries with poor backups spelled doom many times, and the loss of Chester Taylor as a blocking back was huge. I am not a huge Favre fan, but he was pounded into the ground. Quote
FargoBison Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 A horrible secondary, yet they were 10th in pass defense. Favre was one of the worst, if not the worst, QB in the league this year. Pittsburgh has a bad offensive line. Indy has a bad offensive line. Yet those teams both found ways to make the playoffs. Right on about Chili though. He was awful. I'm not sure how the Vikings fix this. They shouldn't draft a QB because they need to win now. But there aren't many (any?) good, experienced QBs available. They're in no-man's land. When you have an OL that is bad at pass blocking and receivers that are below average you are in trouble. The Colts have good receivers, but when they had injuries Manning struggled just like Favre did. Losing Rice was huge, it just completely changed the offense. He was the one guy the team couldn't afford to lose. The secondary couldn't tackle outside of Winfield, I've never seen such terrible safeties. I think the best they can do is bring in Orton, draft Pouncey from Florida to help on the OL(could maybe even move down to get him) and go defensive back or LB in round 2. I'm not really a fan of the QBs in this draft outside of Luck, who should be long gone by the time the Vikes pick. Quote
jodcon Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 The fake sneak wasn't a bad call, it was just poorly executed. Jackson would have walked into the end zone if he would have had a ball he could catch clean. Doesn't matter anymore in hindsight, but you're right, it could have been a tough play to swallow had they lost. I think the play call before that was dumber. They just completely loaded up the center of the field the play the handed it to Kuhn. This also means that the Bears loaded up the box. It's just too many bodies, in my opinion, and doesn't create any opportunities for the runner to find a hole, even if the blocking is decent. Yeah, if that play runs smoothly it would have been a footrace to the corner and he might have made it, like you said it just wasn't executed well. I didn't like the call when I saw it, but now that I think about it the Packers probably didn't have their normal goal line playbook available because they're being careful with Rodgers and his concussion issues, normally he would either spread the field a little more and sneak it, or fake a dive and roll out with a pass/run option. With him coming back from his second concussion of the year, they probably weren't going to call anything that would result in him getting hit by a half-dozen guys at one time, which is understandable, and that's probably why they ran the plays they did. That said, I think if that same situation arises against Philly we'll see the regular goal line offensive plays, he'll have his nose in the middle of the pile. Quote
Oxbow6 Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 Here's who I got next weekend in the NFL playoffs: GB over Philly...close game if weather is bad as GB can't run the ball. Ravens over KC...KC is a fraud and has been so all year IMO. Colts over NY Jets. Rex is tool. Going to be good to see him gone. Saints over Seattle...no brainer. Quote
82SiouxGuy Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 Indy does not have a bad o-line. Maybe their run blocking is weak, but they do a good job of protecting Manning and giving him time to find his open receiver. You don't see Manning running for his life and getting killed back there on a regular basis, so their o-line can't be all that bad. Not nearly as bad as Minnesota's. I believe the Vikings need much more than a QB to turn their team around and the chances of them winning now are slim and none. They need to pretty much rebuild the entire team. They have a foundation to build around in Peterson, Harvin, Rice, and maybe a small handful of defensive starters. But they have a lot of holes in their starting lineup overall. You can point to their 12-4 season and being one game away from the Super Bowl last year, but that was mostly due to Favre's amazing season. Without him they were about an 8-8 caliber team last year, maybe 9-7 at best. I'm pretty sure that they were 10-6 the year before with Tarvaris Jackson and Gus Frerotte taking turns at quarterback. Favre made a difference in 2009, but he was one of the few differences between 2008 and 2009, so they had plenty of other quality players. Quote
soohockey15 Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 Indy does not have a bad o-line. Maybe their run blocking is weak, but they do a good job of protecting Manning and giving him time to find his open receiver. You don't see Manning running for his life and getting killed back there on a regular basis, so their o-line can't be all that bad. Not nearly as bad as Minnesota's. I believe the Vikings need much more than a QB to turn their team around and the chances of them winning now are slim and none. They need to pretty much rebuild the entire team. They have a foundation to build around in Peterson, Harvin, Rice, and maybe a small handful of defensive starters. But they have a lot of holes in their starting lineup overall. You can point to their 12-4 season and being one game away from the Super Bowl last year, but that was mostly due to Favre's amazing season. Without him they were about an 8-8 caliber team last year, maybe 9-7 at best. I disagree. Manning had the lowest yards/attempt since his rookie year and was sacked more than he had been since 2007. He isn't very mobile, but he has a quick release and does a good job avoiding pressure. Just watching the games you'd be able to see how little time he had to throw. The Colts without Manning are 3-13 at best. The Vikings without Favre might have a better record. Quote
soohockey15 Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 Manning does have a quick release, but I'll have to agree to disagree on the Colts being 3-13 without him. The Colts without Manning are mediocre, but not terrible. I'd give them about 8-8. The Vikings without Favre, as we saw over the last four games of this season, are no better than the Vikings with Favre. If anything, they're worse. That team is a mess from top to bottom. Ha, so a team with a bad defense and an awful running game would only lose 2 more games if they didn't have one of the best QBs in the league? Is that what you're saying? That team is awful without Manning. Replacing him with a random QB would make them much worse. Replacing Favre with a random QB would make the Vikings better. A team with a top-10 defense and running game should not be 6-10, plain and simple. Quote
Fetch Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 I'm still liking Web I can just see the Viks trading him or giving him away & he goes on to be superman Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.