Culpepper's injury = a blessing in disguise (1 Viewer)

[Preacher 1]

In the games that the Vikings lost with Culpepper at QB, here's the halftime score of each game, and who was leading at the half.

Tampa: 17-7 Tampa...1 INT and 2 fumbles by C-Pep...Vikes lead 7-0 after 1 of each.

Cincinnati: 27-0 Cincinnati...1 INT...Vikes already down 20-0 when it happens.

Atlanta: 24-0 Atlanta...1 INT by Pep...Vikes already down 14-0 when that happens.

Chicago: 7-3 Chicago...0 turnovers by Culpepper in the half.

Carolina: 24-0 Carolina...0 turnovers when Culpepper was injured, already down 7-0.

That's a total of 99-10 at the half...care to tell me what QB could win a game from such overwhelming deficits? He had 5 turnovers in the first half of those games, 2 were irrelavant (Vikes lead 7-0 afte both turnovers), 2 came with the team already down by a combined score of 34-0.

Here's the kicker...only one Culpepper turnover in the first half each loss lead to any points...that's right, of the 99 points scored by the opposing teams, Culpepper was responsible for exactly 7 of those points. And that's when his club was already behind by 20 points...

Now please tell me again how Brad is responsible for a 5-0 record and C-Pep is responsible for a 2-5 record?

now, this deserves this : Excellent statistical analysis, that should show beyond any REASONABLE doubt, that the games were not lost by Culpepper but by the TEAM.

For the last time: I agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I don't know how many times I have to say that I agree that the team is playing better under B Johnson. I agree that they were playing worse under Culpepper.

Why do you keep bringing this up when I have only agreed with this.

All I have said was that this team needed a "shot in the arm." They needed either a QB change or a coaching change imho because they were a talented team that wasn't playing well. And their QB wasn't playing very well either. And they had a capable backup QB.....and when I put all of those factors together, I came up with the notion that they should bench their QB. But I knew that would never happen because Culpepper has become so overrated due to playing with Moss. So when Culpepper got hurt I called it a blessing in disguise.

So, please stop trying to "convince" me that the team is playing better around B Johnson and that is a big reason for their winning....because I agree with you there.

We keep arguing the point because you keep trying to blame Culpepper for the losses and the general malaise that surrounded the team. As you can see, Culpepper had little to do with the losses in the games that he started, they were hopelessly out of control when he started to turn the ball over...only the Bears game can be pinned on him specificially. And the Bears seem to be doing that to everyone else as well.You really have no backing to your point whatsoever, but that's fine, you keep believing that the Vikes wouldn't have won the last 5 games with Culpepper at the controls if it makes you feel better. The rest us us can look at it anayliticily and see that it's a combination of factors, Johnson being perhaps 10-20% at most. The rest being the Defense, Special Teams, Offensive Line, and biggest of all, the schedule.

 

[snogger]

In the games that the Vikings lost with Culpepper at QB, here's the halftime score of each game, and who was leading at the half.

Tampa: 17-7 Tampa...1 INT and 2 fumbles by C-Pep...Vikes lead 7-0 after 1 of each.

Cincinnati: 27-0 Cincinnati...1 INT...Vikes already down 20-0 when it happens.

Atlanta: 24-0 Atlanta...1 INT by Pep...Vikes already down 14-0 when that happens.

Chicago: 7-3 Chicago...0 turnovers by Culpepper in the half.

Carolina: 24-0 Carolina...0 turnovers when Culpepper was injured, already down 7-0.

That's a total of 99-10 at the half...care to tell me what QB could win a game from such overwhelming deficits? He had 5 turnovers in the first half of those games, 2 were irrelavant (Vikes lead 7-0 afte both turnovers), 2 came with the team already down by a combined score of 34-0.

Here's the kicker...only one Culpepper turnover in the first half each loss lead to any points...that's right, of the 99 points scored by the opposing teams, Culpepper was responsible for exactly 7 of those points. And that's when his club was already behind by 20 points...

Now please tell me again how Brad is responsible for a 5-0 record and C-Pep is responsible for a 2-5 record?

now, this deserves this : Excellent statistical analysis, that should show beyond any REASONABLE doubt, that the games were not lost by Culpepper but by the TEAM.

For the last time: I agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I don't know how many times I have to say that I agree that the team is playing better under B Johnson. I agree that they were playing worse under Culpepper.

Why do you keep bringing this up when I have only agreed with this.

All I have said was that this team needed a "shot in the arm." They needed either a QB change or a coaching change imho because they were a talented team that wasn't playing well. And their QB wasn't playing very well either. And they had a capable backup QB.....and when I put all of those factors together, I came up with the notion that they should bench their QB. But I knew that would never happen because Culpepper has become so overrated due to playing with Moss. So when Culpepper got hurt I called it a blessing in disguise.

So, please stop trying to "convince" me that the team is playing better around B Johnson and that is a big reason for their winning....because I agree with you there.

We keep arguing the point because you keep trying to blame Culpepper for the losses and the general malaise that surrounded the team. As you can see, Culpepper had little to do with the losses in the games that he started, they were hopelessly out of control when he started to turn the ball over...only the Bears game can be pinned on him specificially. And the Bears seem to be doing that to everyone else as well.You really have no backing to your point whatsoever, but that's fine, you keep believing that the Vikes wouldn't have won the last 5 games with Culpepper at the controls if it makes you feel better. The rest us us can look at it anayliticily and see that it's a combination of factors, Johnson being perhaps 10-20% at most. The rest being the Defense, Special Teams, Offensive Line, and biggest of all, the schedule.

Throw stats at jw and he backs off his "Culpeper sucks and is the reason The Vikes were losing".

 

[Carnifex]

I would rename this thread "The Vikings recent easy schedule of opponents, a blessing in disguise" but that's just me.

this also deserves a A look at the Vikings season

week# Team W-L outcome

1 Tampa 8-4 loss

2 Cincinn 9-3 loss

3 New Or 3-9 win

4 Atlanta 7-5 loss

6 Chicago 9-3 loss

7 Green B 2-10 win

8 Carolina 9-3 loss

9 Detroit 4-8 win

10 NY Giants 8-4 win

11 Green B 2-10 win

12 Cleveland 4-8 win

13 Detroit 4-8 win

Minnesota has only beaten one team that has more than 4 wins after 12 games, that being the Giants, in a game that the offense scored 3 points and defense and special teams scored 21. They have beaten the bad teams and won one that they shouldn't have against the good teams.

Let me summarize a little.The Vikings record: 7-5.

Vikings W/L against teams with a record greater than 7-5: 0-4

Vikings W/L against teams with a record equal to 7-5: 1-1

Vikings W/L against teams with a record less than 7-5: 6-0

Culpepper only started 2 games against teams with losing records (NO and GB) and had ZERO turnovers in those games (both wins of course).

I am willing to bet that this "turn-around" still would have occurred with C-Pep at the helm.

 

[Sopranos]

We will never know if Pepper could have had this turnaround.2 things we do know nowPepper has too many turnovers..They wont rush him back...

 

[jurb26]

Um, yeah. Its amazing what a defense can do when your QB doesnt turn the ball over all the time and you can actually sit and rest on the sideline.

Not something they want to hear apparently.

Throwing out the Panthers game where both QBs played and the entire game was a mess, here are the average TOPs for each QB.Brad Johnson: 30.71

Daunte Culpepper: 29.68

That's one extra minute. Sure must have been a refreshing minute.

turnovers also give the other team good field position, which hurts your defense.

I can't believe this actually needed to be said.

 

[Sabertooth]

It's amazing when you get this type of vehement opposition to the fact that Brad Johnson (a super bowl winning QB no less) is better for this team. This team was without a rutter. They had no direction at all. Culpepper was exposed as a great athlete that can't read a defense all that well. He's also a bit of a glory hound with his little arm roll thing. Then lunchbox Brad Johnson comes in and all of a sudden this team is winning. Is this a suprise? Not to me. C-Pep is overrated. It's that simple. Those arguing otherwise have their heads in the sand.

 

[jurb26]

In the games that the Vikings lost with Culpepper at QB, here's the halftime score of each game, and who was leading at the half.

Tampa: 17-7 Tampa...1 INT and 2 fumbles by C-Pep...Vikes lead 7-0 after 1 of each.

Cincinnati: 27-0 Cincinnati...1 INT...Vikes already down 20-0 when it happens.

Atlanta: 24-0 Atlanta...1 INT by Pep...Vikes already down 14-0 when that happens.

Chicago: 7-3 Chicago...0 turnovers by Culpepper in the half.

Carolina: 24-0 Carolina...0 turnovers when Culpepper was injured, already down 7-0.

That's a total of 99-10 at the half...care to tell me what QB could win a game from such overwhelming deficits? He had 5 turnovers in the first half of those games, 2 were irrelavant (Vikes lead 7-0 afte both turnovers), 2 came with the team already down by a combined score of 34-0.

Here's the kicker...only one Culpepper turnover in the first half each loss lead to any points...that's right, of the 99 points scored by the opposing teams, Culpepper was responsible for exactly 7 of those points. And that's when his club was already behind by 20 points...

Now please tell me again how Brad is responsible for a 5-0 record and C-Pep is responsible for a 2-5 record?

Please just stop right now cause this is getting out of hand. Why don't you tell us where on the field these TOs happend as well what potential points and field position were lost in transistion. For example: Cpep fumbeld on 2nd down vs TB when his team had the ball at the 43 yd line. He took away a drive that was already in very good scoring position and gave it right back to TB in even BETTER scoring position. the very next drive, Sharper gets an Int and runs it back for 88 yds. Yeah, the team and D didn't bail his tail out there huh? His 1st turnover of that game came after a long opening on a 1st and 10 from the TB 25. This took again POTENTIAL POINTS OFF THE BOARD FOR THE VIKES! This in NOT good statisical back up to anything. Only statisical backup used in a skewed manor to create an allusion that Cpeps TOs did not hurt his team. THEY DID and in a very bad way. Then latter in that very game with the score 7-7, Cpep fumbles when his team again has the ball 1st and 10 on the TB 48 yd line. Again the very next drive, Smoot ints a pass and bails him out again, but another drive in great scoring posistion was killed and Minn went from having the ball in TB teritory on the 48 to back at their own 29 in the change. Yeah, that doesn't hurt a team by any means....

 

[jwvdcw]

In the games that the Vikings lost with Culpepper at QB, here's the halftime score of each game, and who was leading at the half.

Tampa: 17-7 Tampa...1 INT and 2 fumbles by C-Pep...Vikes lead 7-0 after 1 of each.

Cincinnati: 27-0 Cincinnati...1 INT...Vikes already down 20-0 when it happens.

Atlanta: 24-0 Atlanta...1 INT by Pep...Vikes already down 14-0 when that happens.

Chicago: 7-3 Chicago...0 turnovers by Culpepper in the half.

Carolina: 24-0 Carolina...0 turnovers when Culpepper was injured, already down 7-0.

That's a total of 99-10 at the half...care to tell me what QB could win a game from such overwhelming deficits?  He had 5 turnovers in the first half of those games, 2 were irrelavant (Vikes lead 7-0 afte both turnovers), 2 came with the team already down by a combined score of 34-0.

Here's the kicker...only one Culpepper turnover in the first half each loss lead to any points...that's right, of the 99 points scored by the opposing teams, Culpepper was responsible for exactly 7 of those points.  And that's when his club was already behind by 20 points...

Now please tell me again how Brad is responsible for a 5-0 record and C-Pep is responsible for a 2-5 record?

now, this deserves this : Excellent statistical analysis, that should show beyond any REASONABLE doubt, that the games were not lost by Culpepper but by the TEAM.

For the last time: I agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I don't know how many times I have to say that I agree that the team is playing better under B Johnson. I agree that they were playing worse under Culpepper.

Why do you keep bringing this up when I have only agreed with this.

All I have said was that this team needed a "shot in the arm." They needed either a QB change or a coaching change imho because they were a talented team that wasn't playing well. And their QB wasn't playing very well either. And they had a capable backup QB.....and when I put all of those factors together, I came up with the notion that they should bench their QB. But I knew that would never happen because Culpepper has become so overrated due to playing with Moss. So when Culpepper got hurt I called it a blessing in disguise.

So, please stop trying to "convince" me that the team is playing better around B Johnson and that is a big reason for their winning....because I agree with you there.

We keep arguing the point because you keep trying to blame Culpepper for the losses and the general malaise that surrounded the team. As you can see, Culpepper had little to do with the losses in the games that he started, they were hopelessly out of control when he started to turn the ball over...only the Bears game can be pinned on him specificially. And the Bears seem to be doing that to everyone else as well.You really have no backing to your point whatsoever, but that's fine, you keep believing that the Vikes wouldn't have won the last 5 games with Culpepper at the controls if it makes you feel better. The rest us us can look at it anayliticily and see that it's a combination of factors, Johnson being perhaps 10-20% at most. The rest being the Defense, Special Teams, Offensive Line, and biggest of all, the schedule.

Where am I blaming Culpepper for the losses and general malaise? He was part of the problem, but I never said he was THE problem. I don't blame him anymore than I blame Tony Banks or Drew Bledose in the situations I cited. The team needed a shakeup and they got one....bottom line.Question: If Culpepper was healthy, who do you think would start the next game?

 

[jwvdcw]

In the games that the Vikings lost with Culpepper at QB, here's the halftime score of each game, and who was leading at the half.

Tampa: 17-7 Tampa...1 INT and 2 fumbles by C-Pep...Vikes lead 7-0 after 1 of each.

Cincinnati: 27-0 Cincinnati...1 INT...Vikes already down 20-0 when it happens.

Atlanta: 24-0 Atlanta...1 INT by Pep...Vikes already down 14-0 when that happens.

Chicago: 7-3 Chicago...0 turnovers by Culpepper in the half.

Carolina: 24-0 Carolina...0 turnovers when Culpepper was injured, already down 7-0.

That's a total of 99-10 at the half...care to tell me what QB could win a game from such overwhelming deficits?  He had 5 turnovers in the first half of those games, 2 were irrelavant (Vikes lead 7-0 afte both turnovers), 2 came with the team already down by a combined score of 34-0.

Here's the kicker...only one Culpepper turnover in the first half each loss lead to any points...that's right, of the 99 points scored by the opposing teams, Culpepper was responsible for exactly 7 of those points.  And that's when his club was already behind by 20 points...

Now please tell me again how Brad is responsible for a 5-0 record and C-Pep is responsible for a 2-5 record?

now, this deserves this : Excellent statistical analysis, that should show beyond any REASONABLE doubt, that the games were not lost by Culpepper but by the TEAM.

For the last time: I agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I don't know how many times I have to say that I agree that the team is playing better under B Johnson. I agree that they were playing worse under Culpepper.

Why do you keep bringing this up when I have only agreed with this.

All I have said was that this team needed a "shot in the arm." They needed either a QB change or a coaching change imho because they were a talented team that wasn't playing well. And their QB wasn't playing very well either. And they had a capable backup QB.....and when I put all of those factors together, I came up with the notion that they should bench their QB. But I knew that would never happen because Culpepper has become so overrated due to playing with Moss. So when Culpepper got hurt I called it a blessing in disguise.

So, please stop trying to "convince" me that the team is playing better around B Johnson and that is a big reason for their winning....because I agree with you there.

We keep arguing the point because you keep trying to blame Culpepper for the losses and the general malaise that surrounded the team. As you can see, Culpepper had little to do with the losses in the games that he started, they were hopelessly out of control when he started to turn the ball over...only the Bears game can be pinned on him specificially. And the Bears seem to be doing that to everyone else as well.You really have no backing to your point whatsoever, but that's fine, you keep believing that the Vikes wouldn't have won the last 5 games with Culpepper at the controls if it makes you feel better. The rest us us can look at it anayliticily and see that it's a combination of factors, Johnson being perhaps 10-20% at most. The rest being the Defense, Special Teams, Offensive Line, and biggest of all, the schedule.

Throw stats at jw and he backs off his "Culpeper sucks and is the reason The Vikes were losing".

If you really want to look at stats, then post both of their stats this season. But don't bring up excuses like "Well Culpepper was pressing so don't count his INTs against him." I am not saying that Culpepper is the reason they are losing, nor have I ever said that he was the main problem. So I don't know where you are getting that. But since you're so focused on stats, please go ahead and list both of their game logs here this year and we'll analyze them completely objectively.

 

[jwvdcw]

I would rename this thread "The Vikings recent easy schedule of opponents, a blessing in disguise" but that's just me.

this also deserves a A look at the Vikings season

week# Team W-L outcome

1 Tampa 8-4 loss

2 Cincinn 9-3 loss

3 New Or 3-9 win

4 Atlanta 7-5 loss

6 Chicago 9-3 loss

7 Green B 2-10 win

8 Carolina 9-3 loss

9 Detroit 4-8 win

10 NY Giants 8-4 win

11 Green B 2-10 win

12 Cleveland 4-8 win

13 Detroit 4-8 win

Minnesota has only beaten one team that has more than 4 wins after 12 games, that being the Giants, in a game that the offense scored 3 points and defense and special teams scored 21. They have beaten the bad teams and won one that they shouldn't have against the good teams.

Let me summarize a little.The Vikings record: 7-5.

Vikings W/L against teams with a record greater than 7-5: 0-4

Vikings W/L against teams with a record equal to 7-5: 1-1

Vikings W/L against teams with a record less than 7-5: 6-0

Culpepper only started 2 games against teams with losing records (NO and GB) and had ZERO turnovers in those games (both wins of course).

I am willing to bet that this "turn-around" still would have occurred with C-Pep at the helm.

fair point. I can't argue that. However, I will note that the Vikes were getting blown out in those first games, and they did beat a good Giants team with B Johnson. The Vikes didn't look like a team that could win 5 in a row even against bad teams at the beginning of the year.Moreover, I think that winning breeds confidence regardless of who it is against. Take the 1999 Rams for example- they beat zero teams with a winning record in the regular season yet still won the super bowl because of the confidence they garnered from that.

I'll again ask: If Culpepper was healthy next week, who would the Vikes start?

 

[packersfan]

I think the question for jwvdcw is who would he rather start: Johnson ... or Vick?

 

[snogger]

jwvdcw,Dec 5 2005, 04:03 AM

I am not saying that Culpepper is the reason they are losing, nor have I ever said that he was the main problem. So I don't know where you are getting that.

I hate research but here goes:

jwvdcw,Nov 9 2005, 05:28 PM

And why are you so sure that Pepper's job is guaranteed but not Collins'? Collins, imho, is a better NFL QB.

still think that my statement is ridiculous, pal?

Vikings up 24-0 in the first half in the first game without Culpepper. Just for reference, they only put up 24 points in a full game once in 7 games with Culpepper.......so ummmm...you still think my statement that the Vikings might have a better option on the bench is ridiculous?

jwvdcw

The thing is, I was completely laughed at and heckled when I made the comment. So even though its only one game, the fact that he put up a better half in his first action than Culpepper has in 14 halves of football is reason enough to brag imho.

Both of those, in no uncertain terms, have you proclaiming Johnson as the Better QB.. I.E. Culpepper sucks, i.e. He is the reason for the bad start to the season.Guess I could go over the rest of that postings(14 pages) and find many other times where you stated this but that should do for now.

 

[jwvdcw]

In the games that the Vikings lost with Culpepper at QB, here's the halftime score of each game, and who was leading at the half.

Tampa: 17-7 Tampa...1 INT and 2 fumbles by C-Pep...Vikes lead 7-0 after 1 of each.

Cincinnati: 27-0 Cincinnati...1 INT...Vikes already down 20-0 when it happens.

Atlanta: 24-0 Atlanta...1 INT by Pep...Vikes already down 14-0 when that happens.

Chicago: 7-3 Chicago...0 turnovers by Culpepper in the half.

Carolina: 24-0 Carolina...0 turnovers when Culpepper was injured, already down 7-0.

That's a total of 99-10 at the half...care to tell me what QB could win a game from such overwhelming deficits?  He had 5 turnovers in the first half of those games, 2 were irrelavant (Vikes lead 7-0 afte both turnovers), 2 came with the team already down by a combined score of 34-0.

Here's the kicker...only one Culpepper turnover in the first half each loss lead to any points...that's right, of the 99 points scored by the opposing teams, Culpepper was responsible for exactly 7 of those points.  And that's when his club was already behind by 20 points...

Now please tell me again how Brad is responsible for a 5-0 record and C-Pep is responsible for a 2-5 record?

Please just stop right now cause this is getting out of hand. Why don't you tell us where on the field these TOs happend as well what potential points and field position were lost in transistion. For example: Cpep fumbeld on 2nd down vs TB when his team had the ball at the 43 yd line. He took away a drive that was already in very good scoring position and gave it right back to TB in even BETTER scoring position. the very next drive, Sharper gets an Int and runs it back for 88 yds. Yeah, the team and D didn't bail his tail out there huh? His 1st turnover of that game came after a long opening on a 1st and 10 from the TB 25. This took again POTENTIAL POINTS OFF THE BOARD FOR THE VIKES! This in NOT good statisical back up to anything. Only statisical backup used in a skewed manor to create an allusion that Cpeps TOs did not hurt his team. THEY DID and in a very bad way. Then latter in that very game with the score 7-7, Cpep fumbles when his team again has the ball 1st and 10 on the TB 48 yd line. Again the very next drive, Smoot ints a pass and bails him out again, but another drive in great scoring posistion was killed and Minn went from having the ball in TB teritory on the 48 to back at their own 29 in the change. Yeah, that doesn't hurt a team by any means....

agreed. LOL at saying that particular turnovers didn't hurt a team. Either you're across the 50 and you're taking away potential points or you're in your own side of the field and you're giving up great field position.

 

[jwvdcw]

jwvdcw,Dec 5 2005, 04:03 AM

I am not saying that Culpepper is the reason they are losing, nor have I ever said that he was the main problem. So I don't know where you are getting that.

I hate research but here goes:

jwvdcw,Nov 9 2005, 05:28 PM

And why are you so sure that Pepper's job is guaranteed but not Collins'? Collins, imho, is a better NFL QB.

still think that my statement is ridiculous, pal?

Vikings up 24-0 in the first half in the first game without Culpepper. Just for reference, they only put up 24 points in a full game once in 7 games with Culpepper.......so ummmm...you still think my statement that the Vikings might have a better option on the bench is ridiculous?

jwvdcw

The thing is, I was completely laughed at and heckled when I made the comment. So even though its only one game, the fact that he put up a better half in his first action than Culpepper has in 14 halves of football is reason enough to brag imho.

Both of those, in no uncertain terms, have you proclaiming Johnson as the Better QB.. I.E. Culpepper sucks, i.e. He is the reason for the bad start to the season.Guess I could go over the rest of that postings(14 pages) and find many other times where you stated this but that should do for now.

Or I could look up quite a few times where I said that Culpepper is about the 8th or 9th best QB in the league. Just to clarify about those quotes....Someone mentioned "What if Kerry Collins gets benched?" I mentioned "What if Culpepper gets benched?" A few people laughed at me saying how that would never ever happen and they ridiculed me. Now that BJ has played better than Culpepper this year, I went back to gloat.....thats all.

So for the last time, let me state my thoughts:

-Culpepper is not a bad QB.

-I don't dislike Culpepper at all.

-He was, however, tremendously overrated as an NFL QB. Many people had him in their top 5 or even top 3 of NFL QBs. I had him in my top 10. Therefore, it always came across as me "hating" him because I always disagreed with the concensus of him being a top 5 real life QB and a top 3 fantasy QB.

-He was having a bad year, as were the rest of the Vikes.

-They needed a change but wouldn't make it by themselves due to him being overrated.

-Culpepper's injury was a blessing in disguise.

 

[jurb26]

Culpepper is not a bad QB.

-I don't dislike Culpepper at all.

-He was, however, tremendously overrated as an NFL QB. Many people had him in their top 5 or even top 3 of NFL QBs. I had him in my top 10. Therefore, it always came across as me "hating" him because I always disagreed with the concensus of him being a top 5 real life QB and a top 3 fantasy QB.

-He was having a bad year, as were the rest of the Vikes.

-They needed a change but wouldn't make it by themselves due to him being overrated.

-Culpepper's injury was a blessing in disguise.

I would pretty much agree with this at this point of the year. I didn't earlier though.

 

[Maelstrom]

I'm pretty sure I understand what you are claiming now, but you have to admit a title like "Culpepper's Injury, ..." will make people think you blame him for the lack of success. That, and you have had a history of "bashing" Culpepper (by that I mean taking the contrary position, which is fine.) I would, and have, agreed that it caused the coaches to change their gameplan's to an extent, and that change has been one of the reasons for the success. I don't think it should have taken that kinda thing to reevaluate, but we are talking about Tice here.I don't know if I would put CPep in the top 3 QBs. Top 3-7 sure. And I'm a big Culpepper fan. Would he be starting next week if healthy, I think he would. This is different from the Brady situation, for instance, since Johnson is not a youngster being groomed to take over eventually ala Brady, so now it's just a little sooner than expected. No, Cpep is the QB of the Vikings, and if healthy, would be starting, IMO.

 

[FunkyPlutos]

I say that we should rename the thread the following:

SMOOT'S injury = a blessing in disguise

 

[Preacher 1]

In the games that the Vikings lost with Culpepper at QB, here's the halftime score of each game, and who was leading at the half.

Tampa: 17-7 Tampa...1 INT and 2 fumbles by C-Pep...Vikes lead 7-0 after 1 of each.

Cincinnati: 27-0 Cincinnati...1 INT...Vikes already down 20-0 when it happens.

Atlanta: 24-0 Atlanta...1 INT by Pep...Vikes already down 14-0 when that happens.

Chicago: 7-3 Chicago...0 turnovers by Culpepper in the half.

Carolina: 24-0 Carolina...0 turnovers when Culpepper was injured, already down 7-0.

That's a total of 99-10 at the half...care to tell me what QB could win a game from such overwhelming deficits? He had 5 turnovers in the first half of those games, 2 were irrelavant (Vikes lead 7-0 afte both turnovers), 2 came with the team already down by a combined score of 34-0.

Here's the kicker...only one Culpepper turnover in the first half each loss lead to any points...that's right, of the 99 points scored by the opposing teams, Culpepper was responsible for exactly 7 of those points. And that's when his club was already behind by 20 points...

Now please tell me again how Brad is responsible for a 5-0 record and C-Pep is responsible for a 2-5 record?

Please just stop right now cause this is getting out of hand. Why don't you tell us where on the field these TOs happend as well what potential points and field position were lost in transistion. For example: Cpep fumbeld on 2nd down vs TB when his team had the ball at the 43 yd line. He took away a drive that was already in very good scoring position and gave it right back to TB in even BETTER scoring position. the very next drive, Sharper gets an Int and runs it back for 88 yds. Yeah, the team and D didn't bail his tail out there huh? His 1st turnover of that game came after a long opening on a 1st and 10 from the TB 25. This took again POTENTIAL POINTS OFF THE BOARD FOR THE VIKES! This in NOT good statisical back up to anything. Only statisical backup used in a skewed manor to create an allusion that Cpeps TOs did not hurt his team. THEY DID and in a very bad way. Then latter in that very game with the score 7-7, Cpep fumbles when his team again has the ball 1st and 10 on the TB 48 yd line. Again the very next drive, Smoot ints a pass and bails him out again, but another drive in great scoring posistion was killed and Minn went from having the ball in TB teritory on the 48 to back at their own 29 in the change. Yeah, that doesn't hurt a team by any means....

Thanks for proving my point...you take the one game where Turnovers played a part. Not a big part, but a part. No Culpepper turnover lead to the loss, the defense let Williams roll in on a long TD, it happens, tough way to start a season. But notice that despite your vain attempts to connnect the loss to Culpepper, you really can't.And you completely ignore the othe 4 losses when the defense was blown out repeatedly before Culpepper EVER turned the ball over...nice anaylasis on that.

And I think that the question of who would start the next game would be moot...Culpepper would never have been pullled and the team would likely have gone on to the same success that it's currently having. Not a chance that they would start Johnson over Culpepper.

 

[jurb26]

In the games that the Vikings lost with Culpepper at QB, here's the halftime score of each game, and who was leading at the half.

Tampa: 17-7 Tampa...1 INT and 2 fumbles by C-Pep...Vikes lead 7-0 after 1 of each.

Cincinnati: 27-0 Cincinnati...1 INT...Vikes already down 20-0 when it happens.

Atlanta: 24-0 Atlanta...1 INT by Pep...Vikes already down 14-0 when that happens.

Chicago: 7-3 Chicago...0 turnovers by Culpepper in the half.

Carolina: 24-0 Carolina...0 turnovers when Culpepper was injured, already down 7-0.

That's a total of 99-10 at the half...care to tell me what QB could win a game from such overwhelming deficits? He had 5 turnovers in the first half of those games, 2 were irrelavant (Vikes lead 7-0 afte both turnovers), 2 came with the team already down by a combined score of 34-0.

Here's the kicker...only one Culpepper turnover in the first half each loss lead to any points...that's right, of the 99 points scored by the opposing teams, Culpepper was responsible for exactly 7 of those points. And that's when his club was already behind by 20 points...

Now please tell me again how Brad is responsible for a 5-0 record and C-Pep is responsible for a 2-5 record?

Please just stop right now cause this is getting out of hand. Why don't you tell us where on the field these TOs happend as well what potential points and field position were lost in transistion. For example: Cpep fumbeld on 2nd down vs TB when his team had the ball at the 43 yd line. He took away a drive that was already in very good scoring position and gave it right back to TB in even BETTER scoring position. the very next drive, Sharper gets an Int and runs it back for 88 yds. Yeah, the team and D didn't bail his tail out there huh? His 1st turnover of that game came after a long opening on a 1st and 10 from the TB 25. This took again POTENTIAL POINTS OFF THE BOARD FOR THE VIKES! This in NOT good statisical back up to anything. Only statisical backup used in a skewed manor to create an allusion that Cpeps TOs did not hurt his team. THEY DID and in a very bad way. Then latter in that very game with the score 7-7, Cpep fumbles when his team again has the ball 1st and 10 on the TB 48 yd line. Again the very next drive, Smoot ints a pass and bails him out again, but another drive in great scoring posistion was killed and Minn went from having the ball in TB teritory on the 48 to back at their own 29 in the change. Yeah, that doesn't hurt a team by any means....

Thanks for proving my point...you take the one game where Turnovers played a part. Not a big part, but a part. No Culpepper turnover lead to the loss, the defense let Williams roll in on a long TD, it happens, tough way to start a season. But notice that despite your vain attempts to connnect the loss to Culpepper, you really can't.And you completely ignore the othe 4 losses when the defense was blown out repeatedly before Culpepper EVER turned the ball over...nice anaylasis on that.

And I think that the question of who would start the next game would be moot...Culpepper would never have been pullled and the team would likely have gone on to the same success that it's currently having. Not a chance that they would start Johnson over Culpepper.

Anywho, someone took the time to create a very detailed and informative thread on this so....

 

[phrozen]

6-0

 

[jwvdcw]

I'm pretty sure I understand what you are claiming now, but you have to admit a title like "Culpepper's Injury, ..." will make people think you blame him for the lack of success. That, and you have had a history of "bashing" Culpepper (by that I mean taking the contrary position, which is fine.)

I would, and have, agreed that it caused the coaches to change their gameplan's to an extent, and that change has been one of the reasons for the success. I don't think it should have taken that kinda thing to reevaluate, but we are talking about Tice here.

I don't know if I would put CPep in the top 3 QBs. Top 3-7 sure. And I'm a big Culpepper fan.

Would he be starting next week if healthy, I think he would. This is different from the Brady situation, for instance, since Johnson is not a youngster being groomed to take over eventually ala Brady, so now it's just a little sooner than expected. No, Cpep is the QB of the Vikings, and if healthy, would be starting, IMO.

fair enough...you and I don't disgaree a ton here.BTW, 6-0.

 

[Preacher 1]

Thank God Brad was there to add 146 yards and no TDs...otherwise I doubt that the 5 interceptions that the defense had would be enough...

 

[wannabee]

The Minny D as really matured over the last few weeks. It takes several weeks (even months) for a defense made up of several newcomers to gel.

 

[Da Guru]

Thank God Brad was there to add 146 yards and no TDs...otherwise I doubt that the 5 interceptions that the defense had would be enough...

This was like a Mike Vick win!

 

[Preacher 1]

Thank God Brad was there to add 146 yards and no TDs...otherwise I doubt that the 5 interceptions that the defense had would be enough...

This was like a Mike Vick win!

I must have missed the plays where Brad scampered around the defense like they were pylons...

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Thank God Brad was there to add 146 yards and no TDs...otherwise I doubt that the 5 interceptions that the defense had would be enough...

Perhaps 146 yards and no TDs, along with no INTs is all that they needed, which is much better than the multiple INTs Culpepper likes to throw every game to make sure he matches the other team.I mean, c'mon, when you're looking at a team with a 2-5 record with one QB, and a 6-0 record with the other, there's more to it than just pure coincidence as to which games they started.

 

[phrozen]

Thank God Brad was there to add 146 yards and no TDs...otherwise I doubt that the 5 interceptions that the defense had would be enough...

Perhaps 146 yards and no TDs, along with no INTs is all that they needed, which is much better than the multiple INTs Culpepper likes to throw every game to make sure he matches the other team.I mean, c'mon, when you're looking at a team with a 2-5 record with one QB, and a 6-0 record with the other, there's more to it than just pure coincidence as to which games they started.

he is in what they call denial

 

[Preacher 1]

Thank God Brad was there to add 146 yards and no TDs...otherwise I doubt that the 5 interceptions that the defense had would be enough...

Perhaps 146 yards and no TDs, along with no INTs is all that they needed, which is much better than the multiple INTs Culpepper likes to throw every game to make sure he matches the other team.I mean, c'mon, when you're looking at a team with a 2-5 record with one QB, and a 6-0 record with the other, there's more to it than just pure coincidence as to which games they started.

Several people have done very nice and detailed statistical anyalisis about the Vikings pre and post Culpepper...they debunk the common myth that C-Pep's turnovers lead to losses. Almost all of his turnovers were when the Vikes were hopelessly down...And yeah, there's a lot more to it than pure coincidence...it's called an easy schedule and a defense that gelled. THOSE are the main 2 reasons that the Vikes are 6-0 since Johnson has started...we'll see just how real they are next week when they play a Pittsburgh team that's fighting for it's life.

 

[The_Hunchback]

Thank God Brad was there to add 146 yards and no TDs...otherwise I doubt that the 5 interceptions that the defense had would be enough...

This was like a Mike Vick win!

I must have missed the plays where Brad scampered around the defense like they were pylons...

Since the injury to Pepper here are the rushing stats for Vick. 38/177/3 with 6 fumbles and 4.6avg. while the team is 3-3. Perhaps I am missing where Vick scampering around a defense like they are pylons comes into play

 

[Da Guru]

The players respect Brad Johson more than Peppy. The guy has a ring and is a leads the correct way.

 

[Hinezer]

Thank God Brad was there to add 146 yards and no TDs...otherwise I doubt that the 5 interceptions that the defense had would be enough...

Perhaps 146 yards and no TDs, along with no INTs is all that they needed, which is much better than the multiple INTs Culpepper likes to throw every game to make sure he matches the other team.I mean, c'mon, when you're looking at a team with a 2-5 record with one QB, and a 6-0 record with the other, there's more to it than just pure coincidence as to which games they started.

Team is the key word here. The Vikings were 2-5 when Culpepper QB and now the Vikings are 6-0 with Brad as the QB. The improvement has been more due to the improvement of the defense and the teams the Vikings are playing and not the QB change. The defense intercepted 5 passes including two in the end zone. The fact the game was even close was indictive of how average the offense was today.

 

[Preacher 1]

Thank God Brad was there to add 146 yards and no TDs...otherwise I doubt that the 5 interceptions that the defense had would be enough...

This was like a Mike Vick win!

I must have missed the plays where Brad scampered around the defense like they were pylons...

Since the injury to Pepper here are the rushing stats for Vick. 38/177/3 with 6 fumbles and 4.6avg. while the team is 3-3. Perhaps I am missing where Vick scampering around a defense like they are pylons comes into play

I guess that I miss what you're trying to say with your Michael Vick comparison...Vick, to me is a QB who wins games with his feet...BJ is a caretaker QB, he'll play it safe and won't turn the ball over, that's enough right now.

 

[Hinezer]

Thank God Brad was there to add 146 yards and no TDs...otherwise I doubt that the 5 interceptions that the defense had would be enough...

Perhaps 146 yards and no TDs, along with no INTs is all that they needed, which is much better than the multiple INTs Culpepper likes to throw every game to make sure he matches the other team.I mean, c'mon, when you're looking at a team with a 2-5 record with one QB, and a 6-0 record with the other, there's more to it than just pure coincidence as to which games they started.

Several people have done very nice and detailed statistical anyalisis about the Vikings pre and post Culpepper...they debunk the common myth that C-Pep's turnovers lead to losses. Almost all of his turnovers were when the Vikes were hopelessly down...And yeah, there's a lot more to it than pure coincidence...it's called an easy schedule and a defense that gelled. THOSE are the main 2 reasons that the Vikes are 6-0 since Johnson has started...we'll see just how real they are next week when they play a Pittsburgh team that's fighting for it's life.

I was the one that did the statistical analysis. It didn't debunk the "myth" that Culpepper's turnovers lead to losses. Culpepper's turnovers surely did contribute to the losses, however, it was one of several things that were causing the Vikings to lose with Culpepper as quarterback. Mainly the other factors were the defense wasn't playing like it is now, there wasn't any dedication to the run at all and probably the most important factor, the Vikings were losing to very good teams. They've lost to the Bucs, Bengals, Falcons, Panthers and Bears. All of those teams might make the playoffs and two or three of them will win their division.During the streak the Vikings have beat the Lions twice, the Packers, the Browns, the Giants and the Rams. I can't see the Vikings losing more than one of those games with Daunte as QB.

 

[encaitar]

Wow, unbelievable how people can be so divided on an issue that should be easy to figure out. Brad Johnson is a good QB who doesn't make many mistakes. He makes a few plays and hopes his team plays well enough to let those plays stand.Daunte, on the other hand, is a good QB with the potential to be a great QB if he can learn how to "play smart". He does make mistakes, but most of those mistakes come because he's put in a position where it's up to him to win the game, and he does have the ability to do it himself. Now, to the question of why the Vikings are winning... please, they've played bush league teams that would have trouble beating Texas and USC, much less than a professional football team and the Vikings defense and special teams are doing their jobs(unlike earlier this season). You ask how Daunte would've done had he been playing these piss-poor teams? What was the score of the Saints game again?Who would start next week if Daunte were healthy.... Daunte and it isn't even a question.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Thank God Brad was there to add 146 yards and no TDs...otherwise I doubt that the 5 interceptions that the defense had would be enough...

Perhaps 146 yards and no TDs, along with no INTs is all that they needed, which is much better than the multiple INTs Culpepper likes to throw every game to make sure he matches the other team.I mean, c'mon, when you're looking at a team with a 2-5 record with one QB, and a 6-0 record with the other, there's more to it than just pure coincidence as to which games they started.

Team is the key word here. The Vikings were 2-5 when Culpepper QB and now the Vikings are 6-0 with Brad as the QB. The improvement has been more due to the improvement of the defense and the teams the Vikings are playing and not the QB change.

So basically you're saying exactly what I said you were, that the absolute opposite records are a result more of a coincidence of which games they started than anything else. You're saying that Johnson just happened to step in at the exact right moment when the defense "gelled" and at the exact right moment to play against a softer schedule, as well as the exact right moment for the Vikes to get dedicated to the run game.I mean, the Vikings weren't steadily improving, what we have here is an opinion that Brad Johnson stepped in at the exact moment that over night every one of those things magically changed. Now I'm no statistitcian, but just having taken a few stats classes back in college I can tell you that the probability of all those things happening overnight, and happening independently of the quarterback change is beyond remote.

The defense intercepted 5 passes including two in the end zone. The fact the game was even close was indictive of how average the offense was today.

For starters, we're talking 6-0 here, not 1-0. The defense didn't force 5 turnovers in each of the last 6 games. In regards to the secon comment about the defense forcing all those turnovers and the game still being close (as if 14 pts is really that close) being an indication of how bad the offense is, that's a terrible arguement to make for your sake. Cpepp played in multiple games where the Vikes D forced 3+ turnovers and the Vikings STILL got blown out, how's that for an indication of how bad the offense was then? The difference was Cpepp added 3 or 4 turnovers of his own in those games.So the defense forcing lots of turnovers and the Vikes "only" winning by 14 means the offense is average.

So what does that make the offense when the D forces lots of turnovers and the Vikes LOSE by 14+?

 

[The_Hunchback]

Thank God Brad was there to add 146 yards and no TDs...otherwise I doubt that the 5 interceptions that the defense had would be enough...

This was like a Mike Vick win!

I must have missed the plays where Brad scampered around the defense like they were pylons...

Since the injury to Pepper here are the rushing stats for Vick. 38/177/3 with 6 fumbles and 4.6avg. while the team is 3-3. Perhaps I am missing where Vick scampering around a defense like they are pylons comes into play

I guess that I miss what you're trying to say with your Michael Vick comparison...Vick, to me is a QB who wins games with his feet...BJ is a caretaker QB, he'll play it safe and won't turn the ball over, that's enough right now.

I didn't compare Vick to Johnson, that was someone else. Someone made a comment about it being a Vickesque game then someone said they missed his moves. There isn't a connection to the two yet a couple people did that before me.

 

[Preacher 1]

Thank God Brad was there to add 146 yards and no TDs...otherwise I doubt that the 5 interceptions that the defense had would be enough...

Perhaps 146 yards and no TDs, along with no INTs is all that they needed, which is much better than the multiple INTs Culpepper likes to throw every game to make sure he matches the other team.I mean, c'mon, when you're looking at a team with a 2-5 record with one QB, and a 6-0 record with the other, there's more to it than just pure coincidence as to which games they started.

Team is the key word here. The Vikings were 2-5 when Culpepper QB and now the Vikings are 6-0 with Brad as the QB. The improvement has been more due to the improvement of the defense and the teams the Vikings are playing and not the QB change.

So basically you're saying exactly what I said you were, that the absolute opposite records are a result more of a coincidence of which games they started than anything else. You're saying that Johnson just happened to step in at the exact right moment when the defense "gelled" and at the exact right moment to play against a softer schedule, as well as the exact right moment for the Vikes to get dedicated to the run game.I mean, the Vikings weren't steadily improving, what we have here is an opinion that Brad Johnson stepped in at the exact moment that over night every one of those things magically changed. Now I'm no statistitcian, but just having taken a few stats classes back in college I can tell you that the probability of all those things happening overnight, and happening independently of the quarterback change is beyond remote.

The defense intercepted 5 passes including two in the end zone. The fact the game was even close was indictive of how average the offense was today.

For starters, we're talking 6-0 here, not 1-0. The defense didn't force 5 turnovers in each of the last 6 games. In regards to the secon comment about the defense forcing all those turnovers and the game still being close (as if 14 pts is really that close) being an indication of how bad the offense is, that's a terrible arguement to make for your sake. Cpepp played in multiple games where the Vikes D forced 3+ turnovers and the Vikings STILL got blown out, how's that for an indication of how bad the offense was then? The difference was Cpepp added 3 or 4 turnovers of his own in those games.So the defense forcing lots of turnovers and the Vikes "only" winning by 14 means the offense is average.

So what does that make the offense when the D forces lots of turnovers and the Vikes LOSE by 14+?

OK, lets make this as simple as possible then and stop all of the beating around the bush...you seem to be saying that Johnson becoming the QB is the catalyst that changed the defense from absolute frauds who rolled over at the slightest hint of pressure, to the current ballhawking group that wins games seeemingly by themselves? You're saying that BJ becoming QB is the catalyst that changes the special teams into great performers? Is that what you're saying? Yes or no...

 

[Preacher 1]

And just to bump this up, here's exatly how "responsible" the Culpepper turnovers were for the losses that they suffered.

In the games that the Vikings lost with Culpepper at QB, here's the halftime score of each game, and who was leading at the half.Tampa: 17-7 Tampa...1 INT and 2 fumbles by C-Pep...Vikes lead 7-0 after 1 of each.Cincinnati: 27-0 Cincinnati...1 INT...Vikes already down 20-0 when it happens.Atlanta: 24-0 Atlanta...1 INT by Pep...Vikes already down 14-0 when that happens.Chicago: 7-3 Chicago...0 turnovers by Culpepper in the half.Carolina: 24-0 Carolina...0 turnovers when Culpepper was injured, already down 7-0.That's a total of 99-10 at the half...care to tell me what QB could win a game from such overwhelming deficits? He had 5 turnovers in the first half of those games, 2 were irrelavant (Vikes lead 7-0 afte both turnovers), 2 came with the team already down by a combined score of 34-0.Here's the kicker...only one Culpepper turnover in the first half each loss lead to any points...that's right, of the 99 points scored by the opposing teams, Culpepper was responsible for exactly 7 of those points. And that's when his club was already behind by 20 points...

 

[Hinezer]

So basically you're saying exactly what I said you were, that the absolute opposite records are a result more of a coincidence of which games they started than anything else. You're saying that Johnson just happened to step in at the exact right moment when the defense "gelled" and at the exact right moment to play against a softer schedule, as well as the exact right moment for the Vikes to get dedicated to the run game.

I mean, the Vikings weren't steadily improving, what we have here is an opinion that Brad Johnson stepped in at the exact moment that over night every one of those things magically changed. Now I'm no statistitcian, but just having taken a few stats classes back in college I can tell you that the probability of all those things happening overnight, and happening independently of the quarterback change is beyond remote.

Yeah, that is exactly what I'm saying. What happened the week when Culpepper got hurt and Brad finished the game? The Panthers blew them out and the defense played terribly.Then after that they played the Lions and the defense played very good and there was a dedicated running game. That continued for the entire win streak.

What exactly are you saying? That Brad becoming the QB made the schedule easier? That the Packers, Lions, Browns and Rams suddenly went from good teams to bad teams? That Brad Johnson is willing the defense to be better?

Look back at the games that Daunte won. The Saints game they won and the defense played great and created turnovers and there was a dedicated running game. In the Packers game, the defense still sucked and the Vikings managed to win because the offense had a near perfect 2nd half.

For starters, we're talking 6-0 here, not 1-0. The defense didn't force 5 turnovers in each of the last 6 games. In regards to the secon comment about the defense forcing all those turnovers and the game still being close (as if 14 pts is really that close) being an indication of how bad the offense is, that's a terrible arguement to make for your sake. Cpepp played in multiple games where the Vikes D forced 3+ turnovers and the Vikings STILL got blown out, how's that for an indication of how bad the offense was then? The difference was Cpepp added 3 or 4 turnovers of his own in those games.

So the defense forcing lots of turnovers and the Vikes "only" winning by 14 means the offense is average.

So what does that make the offense when the D forces lots of turnovers and the Vikes LOSE by 14+?

Look in this thread and read when Culpepper's turnovers have happened. Only in the Bucs game did his turnovers have a direct impact on the outcome of the game. Most of his turnovers did not result in points.And if you think the Vikings offense was good today, you didn't watch the game. They were something like 2 for 11 on 3rd downs.

And if you don't think the defense forcing turnovers has made a significant difference in the Vikings W-L record, you are wrong. In the 5 losses they've forced 1.4 TOs per game. In the 6 wins with Brad as QB, they've forced 3.5 TOs per game. The defense has also knocked off about 12 points per game along with around 60 yards per game.

 

[Maelstrom]

6-1Offense lost the game today - 3-4 trips into the red zone = 0 points. Defense gave them a number of chances, and kept them in the game, but the offense couldn't capitalize. I give Pitts defense credit for shutting down the Vikings O, but Vikings OF was pretty atrocious, especially the O-Line, from what I could tell by listening to the game / watching NFL.com gamecenter.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Another game against a good team, another loss for the Vikings. Unfortunately for C-Pep the majority of his games were against better competition. Johnson is far from a savior.

 

[jwvdcw]

Another game against a good team, another loss for the Vikings. Unfortunately for C-Pep the majority of his games were against better competition. Johnson is far from a savior.

Hey, as a Skins fan, I'm thrilled that they lost. But just know that I'm not the only one on the Johnson bandwagon, as I heard a few announcers mention him as MVP. Anyway, like I said, I'm very happy that the winning streak ended today.

 

[Donnybrook]

I also think it is a blessing in disguise that the Vikings lost today because the Vikes probably won’t make the playoffs. That will put an end to the “Tice coach of the year” nonsense and his reign of stupidity will end. It’s time to move on.

 

[snogger]

I also think it is a blessing in disguise that the Vikings lost today because the Vikes probably won’t make the playoffs. That will put an end to the “Tice coach of the year” nonsense and his reign of stupidity will end. It’s time to move on.

With Dallas getting blown out and tonights game Vikes could still be in it.If Bears lose, then Vikes are still only 1 game out of 1st place for The North.

If the Cowboys and Falcons lose, then Cowboys, Redskins, Falcons and Vikings are all at 8-6 for the final Wild card slot, with The Bucs 1 Game up on them for the other spot.

 

[snogger]

Another game against a good team, another loss for the Vikings. Unfortunately for C-Pep the majority of his games were against better competition. Johnson is far from a savior.

Hey, as a Skins fan, I'm thrilled that they lost. But just know that I'm not the only one on the Johnson bandwagon, as I heard a few announcers mention him as MVP. Anyway, like I said, I'm very happy that the winning streak ended today.

MVP?? Over Barber, Alexander, LT2, Carson Palmer, Manning???

 

[jwvdcw]

Another game against a good team, another loss for the Vikings.  Unfortunately for C-Pep the majority of his games were against better competition.  Johnson is far from a savior.

Hey, as a Skins fan, I'm thrilled that they lost. But just know that I'm not the only one on the Johnson bandwagon, as I heard a few announcers mention him as MVP. Anyway, like I said, I'm very happy that the winning streak ended today.

MVP?? Over Barber, Alexander, LT2, Carson Palmer, Manning???

I'm not saying it. Just reporting what I heard. On ESPN's pregame show last week, they asked the panel who the MVP was. 2 out of the 4 said BJ. Like I said, I don't agree...just reporting.

 

[Hinezer]

Another game against a good team, another loss for the Vikings.  Unfortunately for C-Pep the majority of his games were against better competition.  Johnson is far from a savior.

Hey, as a Skins fan, I'm thrilled that they lost. But just know that I'm not the only one on the Johnson bandwagon, as I heard a few announcers mention him as MVP. Anyway, like I said, I'm very happy that the winning streak ended today.

Well it's the old rule of thumb that the QB gets too much credit for winning and and too much blame for the losses. During the telecast, there were a couple of times that the announcer talked about Johnson's stats and wondering how the Vikings were winning. Instead of saying something about the improvement of the defense or the easy schedule, he talks about how Brad has a calming effect.It's been what I've been saying all along, the easy schedule and improvement of the defense were the reasons for the turnaround, not the quarterback switch. Johnson's play has been very similar to Culpepper's after those terrible first two weeks. But the turnovers also play a big part as witnessed today when Johnson had problems with that.

The Vikings aren't a bad team. The defense has played very good even this week. They really gave up three plays today, a long pass to Miller, a long run to Parker and a long play by Randle El (can't remember if it was a run or a catch). Other than those plays they really shut down Bettis, Parker and Rothlisberger.

And as odd as it might seem, the Vikings are still in the driver's seat for a playoff spot. If the Redskins don't fall apart against the Cowboys and the Bears beat the Falcons tonight, the Vikings will be in a 4-way tie for the last wild card spot. Next week the Redskins, Cowboys and Falcons all have games they very well could lose, while the Bears play the Packers in GB. As bad as the Packers are this season, they always play the Bears tough, especially at home.

If the Vikings beat the Ravens and Bears, they very likely will be in the playoffs. If the Bears lose to the Packers, it will be as a division champ. If the Bears beat the Packers, it would be as the 2nd wild card. With wins by the Bears tonight and the Panthers, Bucs and Giants on Christmas Eve, the Vikings control their own destiny.

 

[BassNBrew]

jw...Good thread. In the win column, BJ blew away C-pep.

 

[Hinezer]

I also think it is a blessing in disguise that the Vikings lost today because the Vikes probably won’t make the playoffs.  That will put an end to the “Tice coach of the year” nonsense and his reign of stupidity will end.  It’s time to move on.

With Dallas getting blown out and tonights game Vikes could still be in it.If Bears lose, then Vikes are still only 1 game out of 1st place for The North.

If the Cowboys and Falcons lose, then Cowboys, Redskins, Falcons and Vikings are all at 8-6 for the final Wild card slot, with The Bucs 1 Game up on them for the other spot.

The weird thing is, the Vikings need to be cheering for the Bears tonight. The Bears losing tonight really is no help to the Vikings in the division. The Bears can lose tonight and still clinch the division if they beat the Packers on Christmas. And a Bears win tonight will leave the Vikings tied for the final playoff spot, though it isn't the end of the world of the Falcons do win because they could very well lose their last two games.

 

[snogger]

I also think it is a blessing in disguise that the Vikings lost today because the Vikes probably won’t make the playoffs. That will put an end to the “Tice coach of the year” nonsense and his reign of stupidity will end. It’s time to move on.

With Dallas getting blown out and tonights game Vikes could still be in it.If Bears lose, then Vikes are still only 1 game out of 1st place for The North.

If the Cowboys and Falcons lose, then Cowboys, Redskins, Falcons and Vikings are all at 8-6 for the final Wild card slot, with The Bucs 1 Game up on them for the other spot.

The weird thing is, the Vikings need to be cheering for the Bears tonight. The Bears losing tonight really is no help to the Vikings in the division. The Bears can lose tonight and still clinch the division if they beat the Packers on Christmas. And a Bears win tonight will leave the Vikings tied for the final playoff spot, though it isn't the end of the world of the Falcons do win because they could very well lose their last two games.

I'll be cheering for the Falcons tonight.. and if they pull out the upset I'll be hiding my head as I cheer on the Packers next week.Packer fans here in Wisconsin hate it when I jump on their Bandwagon..