Re: Packers foe - Vikings Zygi Wilf set on a Super Bowl win.

[superfan]

Their losses in the reg season last year were all on grass. That's a big deal to their style of play.(this has been detailed on by the beat writers as well so it isn't just me)

No question the team is built for turf. Schedule isn't nearly as kind this year, with 4 away games on grass, 2 of those after Thanksgiving in potentially cold cities and traditionally difficult places to win - Washington and Philly.

That Miami game was a huge loss. Vikes will only likely be favored in 2 of their next 5 games (Detroit, @NYJ, Dallas, @GB, @NE). If they go 2-3 and then win at home vs Arizona, that's 3-5 over the first half of the season, and they will likely need to go at least 6-2 to have a shot at the playoffs over the last half of the season. Schedule is much easier over the 2nd half, but still not a cakewalk. I predict a Vikings victory in the last game of the season at Detroit since Detroit will probably be resting their starters.

[Scott Campbell]

Viking record over the past 9 games:

3-6



Miami L

@ N.O. L

@ N.O. L

DAL W

NYG W

@ CHI L

@ CAR L

CIN W

@ ARI L

what's your point?

That a winning percentage of .333 isn't likely to get you to the Superbowl.

[Scott Campbell]

Viking record over the past 9 games:

3-6



Miami L

@ N.O. L

@ N.O. L

DAL W

NYG W

@ CHI L

@ CAR L

CIN W

@ ARI L

what's your point?

It seems to me his point would be that the Vikings are 3-6 over their last 9 games!

Seriously, that should be of concern to the staff. When a bad streak stretches over an off-season it does change things a little, but that is still more than a half-seasons worth of games with limited success. To compound the urgency, they have a difficult schedule facing them for the next 5 games. Just as success breeds confidence, failure breeds doubt. At some point, some players will doubt themselves, doubt their teammates, doubt their coaches. If can spread and snowball.

The psyche of a team can be a fragile thing. It will be interesting to see how they handle it. The Vikings might be at a critical juncture, even though it is very early in the season.

I don't know how many times I have to say this same thing. ......................

I'd guess 6 times in the last 9 games.

[ThunderDan]

I don't know how many times I have to say this same thing. Their losses in the reg season last year were all on grass. That's a big deal to their style of play.(this has been detailed on by the beat writers as well so it isn't just me) Their loss in NO during playoffs, they played very well other than turnovers and should have killed NO. This year, they are starting out, out of sync on offense just like they did last year. I think it was the end of the SF game last year when it all started coming together. And, the fact that they are missing their #1 WR along with their #3 missing all of camp is likely going to cause it to string along further than last year.

So their last 3 losses have been on turf and even a slow starting Favre last year didn't lose a game in the Humptydome!

[Kiwon]

In the end, everyone plays the game where and when it is scheduled. Justifying losses because the games were played on grass is, well, just an excuse that doesn't really mean much to me. Can it have some impact? Sure, but a reason to lose? No, not really. Every team has challenges to face. Good teams overcome them.

I used to run in to that sort of thing all the time in hockey. Its fast ice, its slow ice, its a big sheet, its a small sheet. In the end, its still hockey, same rules, same plays. My advice was always to forget finding excuses for a loss and just play the game and win.

Yeah.....what he said.

Besides, the Vikes can't win the Super Bowl this year because it's played in Dallas and Farve never wins in Dallas

[sharpe1027]

I don't know how many times I have to say this same thing. Their losses in the reg season last year were all on grass. That's a big deal to their style of play.(this has been detailed on by the beat writers as well so it isn't just me) Their loss in NO during playoffs, they played very well other than turnovers and should have killed NO. This year, they are starting out, out of sync on offense just like they did last year. I think it was the end of the SF game last year when it all started coming together. And, the fact that they are missing their #1 WR along with their #3 missing all of camp is likely going to cause it to string along further than last year.

I completely agree that losing messes with minds and this wknds game with Det is a critical juncture. The coaches are off the hook due to the WR situation and that it seems to most that they are trying everything possible to remedy that. The doubt will be aimed at people like Favre, Berrian. Although really, Berrian is not a #1 and Favre may be given the excuse of the WR problem as well. And if your talking about fans doubt, they're all idiots anyways. I'm the only smart one.

Boo fricken hoo. If you can't win on grass, you don't deserve to go to the Super Bowl.

The Packers have started out of synch on offense, lost their #1 back, #2 DB, two back up DL, their best returner couldn't recover from knee problems, their best LBer didn't practice all training camp despite having to switch positions, and their probowl LT is struggling so bad with knee problems he got benched. They still won both of their games.

[Patler]

Their loss in NO during playoffs, they played very well other than turnovers and should have killed NO.

Isn't that sort of like saying they played very well except that they didn't play very well? When you have two interceptions and 6 fumbles, its kind of hard to say you played well, I think. They racked up some yardage, but turned the ball over 5 times.

Lots of teams "should have" won games, but didn't. In the end, they are all losses even if you "should have" won.

[ThunderDan]

Their loss in NO during playoffs, they played very well other than turnovers and should have killed NO.

Isn't that sort of like saying they played very well except that they didn't play very well? When you have two interceptions and 6 fumbles, its kind of hard to say you played well, I think. They racked up some yardage, but turned the ball over 5 times.

Lots of teams "should have" won games, but didn't. In the end, they are all losses even if you "should have" won.

My cousin's husband came up with a term for that. He was extremely competitive, he would make games out of how many times you could flip a toothpick in your mouth in a minute and bet nickles.

He called it being the "moral" victor when you didn't win but you really should have but everything lined up against you.

[mngolf19]

Their losses in the reg season last year were all on grass. That's a big deal to their style of play.(this has been detailed on by the beat writers as well so it isn't just me)

No question the team is built for turf. Schedule isn't nearly as kind this year, with 4 away games on grass, 2 of those after Thanksgiving in potentially cold cities and traditionally difficult places to win - Washington and Philly.

That Miami game was a huge loss. Vikes will only likely be favored in 2 of their next 5 games (Detroit, @NYJ, Dallas, @GB, @NE). If they go 2-3 and then win at home vs Arizona, that's 3-5 over the first half of the season, and they will likely need to go at least 6-2 to have a shot at the playoffs over the last half of the season. Schedule is much easier over the 2nd half, but still not a cakewalk. I predict a Vikings victory in the last game of the season at Detroit since Detroit will probably be resting their starters.

I concur

[mngolf19]

I don't know how many times I have to say this same thing. Their losses in the reg season last year were all on grass. That's a big deal to their style of play.(this has been detailed on by the beat writers as well so it isn't just me) Their loss in NO during playoffs, they played very well other than turnovers and should have killed NO. This year, they are starting out, out of sync on offense just like they did last year. I think it was the end of the SF game last year when it all started coming together. And, the fact that they are missing their #1 WR along with their #3 missing all of camp is likely going to cause it to string along further than last year.

So their last 3 losses have been on turf and even a slow starting Favre last year didn't lose a game in the Humptydome!

Because his slow start last year came on the road vs. Clev and Det.

[mngolf19]

In the end, everyone plays the game where and when it is scheduled. Justifying losses because the games were played on grass is, well, just an excuse that doesn't really mean much to me. Can it have some impact? Sure, but a reason to lose? No, not really. Every team has challenges to face. Good teams overcome them.

I used to run in to that sort of thing all the time in hockey. Its fast ice, its slow ice, its a big sheet, its a small sheet. In the end, its still hockey, same rules, same plays. My advice was always to forget finding excuses for a loss and just play the game and win.

Yeah.....what he said.

Besides, the Vikes can't win the Super Bowl this year because it's played in Dallas and Favre never wins in Dallas

Also because Jerry Jones said the Cowboys were going to play in that.

[mngolf19]

I don't know how many times I have to say this same thing. Their losses in the reg season last year were all on grass. That's a big deal to their style of play.(this has been detailed on by the beat writers as well so it isn't just me) Their loss in NO during playoffs, they played very well other than turnovers and should have killed NO. This year, they are starting out, out of sync on offense just like they did last year. I think it was the end of the SF game last year when it all started coming together. And, the fact that they are missing their #1 WR along with their #3 missing all of camp is likely going to cause it to string along further than last year.

I completely agree that losing messes with minds and this wknds game with Det is a critical juncture. The coaches are off the hook due to the WR situation and that it seems to most that they are trying everything possible to remedy that. The doubt will be aimed at people like Favre, Berrian. Although really, Berrian is not a #1 and Favre may be given the excuse of the WR problem as well. And if your talking about fans doubt, they're all idiots anyways. I'm the only smart one.

Boo fricken hoo. If you can't win on grass, you don't deserve to go to the Super Bowl.

The Packers have started out of synch on offense, lost their #1 back, #2 DB, two back up DL, their best returner couldn't recover from knee problems, their best LBer didn't practice all training camp despite having to switch positions, and their probowl LT is struggling so bad with knee problems he got benched. They still won both of their games.

Sharpe, nobody's crying here. I'm saying that the comment of 6 losses in 9 tries has no merit. And by the way, they were 1 play away from the SB last year even though they lost 4 on grass. And I didn't say they lost all their games on grass, they did win 2.

[mngolf19]

Their loss in NO during playoffs, they played very well other than turnovers and should have killed NO.

Isn't that sort of like saying they played very well except that they didn't play very well? When you have two interceptions and 6 fumbles, its kind of hard to say you played well, I think. They racked up some yardage, but turned the ball over 5 times.

Lots of teams "should have" won games, but didn't. In the end, they are all losses even if you "should have" won.

I'll agree with you as long as I can use this quote sometime later this year after a Packer loss.

[Tony Oday]

During the Favre Glory Era here Favre couldnt win on AstroTurf!

[Patler]

Sharpe, nobody's crying here. I'm saying that the comment of 6 losses in 9 tries has no merit. And by the way, they were 1 play away from the SB last year even though they lost 4 on grass. And I didn't say they lost all their games on grass, they did win 2.

The comment of 6 losses in 9 tries "has no merit"? Huh? Why not? Did they not really lose 6 of their last 9 games?

There are always reasons for losses, and many if not most NFL games are so close that either team could have won. Whether they should have won is an entirely different matter.