ArcticEdge
Footballguy
I don't think so. Discuss.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Minnesota Air Attack! (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter ArcticEdge
- Start date
Velvet Revolver
Footballguy
No - maybe slightly above average . They're deceptive because no one Wr gets all the attention - Favre spreads the ball around to a handful of guys and when you look up he's got 2-3 td passes and 250+ yards.
The true test is this week vs Pitt. Vikes will need to be above average if they are going to win - Pitt will limit AP and then its up to Favre to make it happen.
I doubt they would be undefeated with a below average passing game.
The true test is this week vs Pitt. Vikes will need to be above average if they are going to win - Pitt will limit AP and then its up to Favre to make it happen.
I doubt they would be undefeated with a below average passing game.
ScottyFargo
Footballguy
I know this is offtopic, but I don't expect PGH to be as effective at stopping the run with Smith out, so while they will still key in on Peterson, he'll make his own chances like always. Vikings passing attack is impressive, and it's getting more consistent as the weeks move on. Week 1 was everyone just getting their feet wet and testing the waters. I do appreciate how having a reliable veteran QB certainly exposes how valuable our WR corp really is. They looked so much weaker with Tarvaris as the QB.
ArcticEdge
Footballguy
Berrian/Rice/Harvin/Shiancoe/Favre
List the 3WR, TE, and QB combo's that are better in the NFL. Go.
List the 3WR, TE, and QB combo's that are better in the NFL. Go.
ScottyFargo
Footballguy
I can't imagine anyone agreeing with this, given that HEster, Bennett, and Olsen have all been duds so far.
ArcticEdge
Footballguy
This is ridiculous.
ArcticEdge
Footballguy
We can argue this one.
ScottyFargo
Footballguy
Yep. comparable but still not strictly better, as was the assumption this offseason.
gianmarco
Footballguy
They've been duds?Thru 5 games:
Bennett -- 19/257/0
Knox -- 17/224/3
Hester -- 20/272/2
Olsen -- 15/151/3
Thru 6 games:
Berrian -- 22/234/2
Rice -- 23/409/2
Harvin -- 20/243/2
Shiancoe -- 14/164/5
If they've been duds, then not sure what's so exciting about the Minn guys. Oh, and Chicago's guys put that up in 5 games as they've had their bye already and Minn hasn't. Except for Rice's slightly increased yardage (mostly because of last week) and Shiancoe with 2 more TDs than Olsen (with Kellen Davis sniping 2 of them), it looks pretty similar (and actually worse considering 1 more game) than Chicago's "duds".
But don't let facts get in the way of a good argument.
Last edited by a moderator:
gianmarco
Footballguy
Factoring in for the byes and looking at averages per game and combining the guys:
Chicago's WR trio/TE = 14.2/180.8/1.6 (average of rec/yds/TDs per game)
Minn's WR trio/TE = 13.1/175/1.8 (average of rec/yds/TDs per game)
So, they are averaging more catches, more yds, and 0.2 TDs fewer per game. Yeah, I can see how the comparison is inappropriate
Chicago's WR trio/TE = 14.2/180.8/1.6 (average of rec/yds/TDs per game)
Minn's WR trio/TE = 13.1/175/1.8 (average of rec/yds/TDs per game)
So, they are averaging more catches, more yds, and 0.2 TDs fewer per game. Yeah, I can see how the comparison is inappropriate
Last edited by a moderator:
ArcticEdge
Footballguy
Closer than I thought. Put a poll up, or I will, I bet the Vikes win in a landslide.
gianmarco
Footballguy
Why put up a poll? Most people will vote without looking at the numbers. The numbers are quite clear. So far, Chicago's guys are outperforming Minn's guys on a per-game basis. Both teams are about average as they are ranked 16th (Chicago) and 17th (Minn) in passing stats. At this point, what's the difference? For the future, it's a toss-up when you figure that Favre won't be there much longer. And don't get me wrong, I really like the Minn guys and do think they are doing quite well given preseason conception, but let's not start putting them up in the elite just because those guys are doing average. There are plenty of teams I didn't even list with better combos (Indy, Arizona, Pitt, New Orleans, and others) that have overall much better groups than the Minn group.Believe it or not, both Chicago and Minnesota are outperforming the Packer trio with the exception of yards. Considering we've only played 1/3rd of the season, I'm pretty sure the TDs will come for them and they'll overtake them. That, and if you were to "put up a poll", I can guarantee that GB wins despite being in last of the 3. That's why polls are sometimes flawed. It's also why you can't always look at stats. There's a happy medium. Chicago's guys, however, have been far from duds and are actually doing quite well.
Last edited by a moderator:
BaBastage
Footballguy
Above Average, but not at the very top.I'd nominate Colston, Moore, Henderson, Shockey, and Brees.I'll admit, Favre is in a near-perfect situation, and he's holding up his end of the deal though.And please, for the love of god, don't let another thread devolve between Favre-haters-lovers.
mozzy84
Footballguy
because most people actually go by what they see during the games. Cutler has had waaaaay more rough moments this year than Farve. Not to mention Berrian didnt really play the first few weeks, not to mention the vikes can actually run the ball.Why put up a poll? Most people will vote without looking at the numbers. The numbers are quite clear. So far, Chicago's guys are outperforming Minn's guys on a per-game basis. Both teams are about average as they are ranked 16th (Chicago) and 17th (Minn) in passing stats. At this point, what's the difference? For the future, it's a toss-up when you figure that Favre won't be there much longer. And don't get me wrong, I really like the Minn guys and do think they are doing quite well given preseason conception, but let's not start putting them up in the elite just because those guys are doing average. There are plenty of teams I didn't even list with better combos (Indy, Arizona, Pitt, New Orleans, and others) that have overall much better groups than the Minn group.Believe it or not, both Chicago and Minnesota are outperforming the Packer trio with the exception of yards. Considering we've only played 1/3rd of the season, I'm pretty sure the TDs will come for them and they'll overtake them. That, and if you were to "put up a poll", I can guarantee that GB wins despite being in last of the 3. That's why polls are sometimes flawed. It's also why you can't always look at stats. There's a happy medium. Chicago's guys, however, have been far from duds and are actually doing quite well.Closer than I thought. Put a poll up, or I will, I bet the Vikes win in a landslide.
mozzy84
Footballguy
they attempts are about the same though. Chicago cant run so they pass more and cutler has triple the turnovers also in that 5 game stretch.
ScottyFargo
Footballguy
Do you think that Chicago's running game has anything to do with why they've had to rely on Cutler this season? They're duds man. The Vikes have had 3 more TDs on top of having the leading rusher in the NFL. Gimme a break.Why put up a poll? Most people will vote without looking at the numbers. The numbers are quite clear. So far, Chicago's guys are outperforming Minn's guys on a per-game basis. Both teams are about average as they are ranked 16th (Chicago) and 17th (Minn) in passing stats. At this point, what's the difference? For the future, it's a toss-up when you figure that Favre won't be there much longer. And don't get me wrong, I really like the Minn guys and do think they are doing quite well given preseason conception, but let's not start putting them up in the elite just because those guys are doing average. There are plenty of teams I didn't even list with better combos (Indy, Arizona, Pitt, New Orleans, and others) that have overall much better groups than the Minn group.Believe it or not, both Chicago and Minnesota are outperforming the Packer trio with the exception of yards. Considering we've only played 1/3rd of the season, I'm pretty sure the TDs will come for them and they'll overtake them. That, and if you were to "put up a poll", I can guarantee that GB wins despite being in last of the 3. That's why polls are sometimes flawed. It's also why you can't always look at stats. There's a happy medium. Chicago's guys, however, have been far from duds and are actually doing quite well.
madviking10
Footballguy
I hate when Vikings fans start believing that the Vikings are actually a good team. It's right about time, that the old purple and gold, rip outr hearts out and stomp on them with their cleats. 
werdnoynek
Footballguy
not only do i think that the passing attack is below average, i think that the whole team is below average... the only game they've actually looked good in was vs the packers and they almost let them come back and win it. other than that game, the other two games vs good teams (SF and Baltimore) they won in the last minute of the game. the ravens had the last game won but missed the FG. sure a win is a win, but they have not been pretty whatsoever. they don't look like a 6-0 team. the D is giving up 20+ points each time they've faced a decent team and they've been at home for each of those games. this week when they go to Pittsburgh we'll see how good they really are. i cant see them coming out of pittsburgh victorious, unless the D can start finishing games.
sure the passing game has improved from years past... its been non-existent in the past. but just because they can all of a sudden pass the ball now they have farve, doesn't make them a great passing team. because vikings fans are so unfamiliar with a passing attack in purple, i can understand why its exciting, but as the season goes on, and they start losing games, reality will start setting in... its really nothing special. theres many other teams out there with far superior of a passing attack. when farve retires next year they'll be right back to where they started.
my
sure the passing game has improved from years past... its been non-existent in the past. but just because they can all of a sudden pass the ball now they have farve, doesn't make them a great passing team. because vikings fans are so unfamiliar with a passing attack in purple, i can understand why its exciting, but as the season goes on, and they start losing games, reality will start setting in... its really nothing special. theres many other teams out there with far superior of a passing attack. when farve retires next year they'll be right back to where they started.
my
Judge Smails
Footballguy
This is the week the Vikings come crashing back to earth. They've played nobody. Packers have been disappointing. Ravens just about lost to KC. San Francisco came back to be horrified by 30 points against the Falcons at home. The rest? Little sisters of the poor. No one can convince me that Brett Favre has forgotten how to be careless with the football. If they light up the Steelers on the road I'll be the first one to give them props. Don't think it will happen. Big Ben will TORCH them through the air, and if the Steelers get up I think Favre will be a turnover machine. We'll see.
ScottyFargo
Footballguy
Remind me who the Steelers have played this year. Have they beat anyone with a winning record? Your options are: Chargers, Tennessee, Browns, Lions.
werdnoynek
Footballguy
pretty poor argument looking at the vikings schedule... they could easily be 4-2 as well... the miraculous victories wont last all season. (see post #23 for additional info)
Last edited by a moderator:
Okay, so we've established that both teams have pretty much played cupcakes the first 6 games, except the Vikings are the only ones bragging about it. Who's next on the list for them? Minneapolis Girl Scout Troop 239?We here in GB have seen this Favre show before for (his last 5 years in a GB uniform): He starts out strong and fades at the end of the season. I'm waiting for the interception party to start too as I don't believe he can simply play game manager. I'll believe it when I actually see the Vikings advance into the playoffs.
werdnoynek
Footballguy
PLAYofffs!? ....... PLAYoffs!??
Last edited by a moderator:
Bears Foursome = 14.2 receptions, 180.8 yards, 1.6 TDsVikings Foursome = 13.2 receptions, 175.0 yards, 1.8 TDs
That's not really a complete picture though, as the RBs should also be included in there (targets/receptions/yards/TDs), but regardless, it shows that Vikings and Bears passing games are essentially a push. I think the only reason you got several quick/strong replies, Gian, was the (probably unintentional) implication that the Bears have a SUPERIOR passing attack. A push I can personally buy. Claiming one has been way better than the other though? Not so much.
ScottyFargo
Footballguy
Bragging, really? What side of the argument tried to denounce a weaker schedule first? Silly. Fave hasn't been a game manager, and he's among the top in the league in passer rating, and only has 2 INT. Keep waiting.
gianmarco
Footballguy
It may not be the complete picture, but go back and read the OP. They specifically mentioned the trio of the the QB, 3 WR's, and the TE. I simply followed along. He asked for a team that is better according to those positions and I did. I agree that it's essentially a push, but on a per game basis, Chicago is overall better even if only by a small amount. And they've done it against a tougher pass schedule to this point. Small sample size, but again, I didn't start this thread claiming how the Vikings pass offense is above average. And, Chicago isn't even that good. As I said in another post, there are a few others I could have easily named but I simply decided to list 2 in the same DIVISION that were equally as good or better (Chicago and GB). They are right in the middle in terms of passing #'s in the NFL. There are easily 6-7 other teams with a better QB/WR trio/TE but I didn't even get into that as it's really pretty obvious. In other words, the original premise that there aren't any that are better than than Minn as implied by the OP is kind of silly, IMO. They aren't even the best in their division and may be as low as 3rd out of 4. I also find it funny that some Vikings fans immediately come and knock the Chicago guys I listed as garbage when the #'s show they've actually outperformed the Vikings in that department.Bears Foursome = 14.2 receptions, 180.8 yards, 1.6 TDsVikings Foursome = 13.2 receptions, 175.0 yards, 1.8 TDs
That's not really a complete picture though, as the RBs should also be included in there (targets/receptions/yards/TDs), but regardless, it shows that Vikings and Bears passing games are essentially a push. I think the only reason you got several quick/strong replies, Gian, was the (probably unintentional) implication that the Bears have a SUPERIOR passing attack. A push I can personally buy. Claiming one has been way better than the other though? Not so much.
Trust me, I actually like the Vikings. As an AP owner in multiple leagues, I find myself rooting for them and they are probably my 2nd favorite team that I root for (even though they are in the NFC with the Saints). I'm buying into the Rice hype this year and I also like Harvin a lot. I've always liked Favre and I haven't turned into a "hater" like many others with his retirement/unretirement crap. All that said, their passing attack has been nice but nothing special as implied in this thread. But they don't need to be. I just don't let my fan-dom and bias cloud my evaluation of them in comparison to those Bears I listed. They really are comparable and actually slightly below them. And they were called duds. I'm just saying.......
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, ArcticEdge probably has had a few too many on a Saturday evening if he thinks the Vikings have the BEST combination of QB, WR and TE in the league...but his first posting said:
"Minnesota Air Attack! Still below average? I don't think so. Discuss."
No longer below average means in the top 16 in the NFL. Average between 16 and 17 OA in that ranking? Average. 1-16? Above averge. 17-32? Below average. But yeah, ArcticEdge then got a little too enthusiastic in his later assertion.
"Minnesota Air Attack! Still below average? I don't think so. Discuss."
No longer below average means in the top 16 in the NFL. Average between 16 and 17 OA in that ranking? Average. 1-16? Above averge. 17-32? Below average. But yeah, ArcticEdge then got a little too enthusiastic in his later assertion.
Last edited by a moderator:
<<totalhijack>>
Off topic, but seeing the team affiliations hanging out in this thread, seems as good a place as ever.
All the Packers fans laughed at me whenI suggested they should re-sign Darren Sharper instead of releasing him. Too much $, over the hill.
I would guess some Vikings and Saints fans can appreciate that "wisdom". Wait, who was that GM again?
<<almostdonehijacking>>
Off topic, but seeing the team affiliations hanging out in this thread, seems as good a place as ever.
All the Packers fans laughed at me whenI suggested they should re-sign Darren Sharper instead of releasing him. Too much $, over the hill.
I would guess some Vikings and Saints fans can appreciate that "wisdom". Wait, who was that GM again?
<<almostdonehijacking>>
ScottyFargo
Footballguy
I am very pleased to see Sharper doing so well in N.O., the Vikings defensive gameplan really took away his opportunities to be the ballhawk that he is. It goes without saying that I am not an expert, but I never understood why they signed him if they weren't going to let him do what he was good at. The Vikings held Sharper back. He's still making things happen, to his credit.
gianmarco
Footballguy
I must have missed this post.1. What does Chicago's run game have to do with the question in the OP? The question was simply to name a better QB/WR trio/TE. Of course the run games have impacted both teams (positively and negatively).2. Who are duds, man?3. They have 3 more TDs but they've also played 1 more game. See the per game #'s as I broke them down for you. 1.6 TDs per game vs. 1.8 TDs per game. 4. Give you a break for what?Do you think that Chicago's running game has anything to do with why they've had to rely on Cutler this season? They're duds man. The Vikes have had 3 more TDs on top of having the leading rusher in the NFL. Gimme a break.Why put up a poll? Most people will vote without looking at the numbers. The numbers are quite clear. So far, Chicago's guys are outperforming Minn's guys on a per-game basis. Both teams are about average as they are ranked 16th (Chicago) and 17th (Minn) in passing stats. At this point, what's the difference? For the future, it's a toss-up when you figure that Favre won't be there much longer. And don't get me wrong, I really like the Minn guys and do think they are doing quite well given preseason conception, but let's not start putting them up in the elite just because those guys are doing average. There are plenty of teams I didn't even list with better combos (Indy, Arizona, Pitt, New Orleans, and others) that have overall much better groups than the Minn group.Believe it or not, both Chicago and Minnesota are outperforming the Packer trio with the exception of yards. Considering we've only played 1/3rd of the season, I'm pretty sure the TDs will come for them and they'll overtake them. That, and if you were to "put up a poll", I can guarantee that GB wins despite being in last of the 3. That's why polls are sometimes flawed. It's also why you can't always look at stats. There's a happy medium. Chicago's guys, however, have been far from duds and are actually doing quite well.Closer than I thought. Put a poll up, or I will, I bet the Vikes win in a landslide.
ScottyFargo
Footballguy
1. If you compare only the stats of CHI and MIN at this point, it looks even. When you consider that the Vikings have played 1 more game, you weight CHI #'s more heavily than MIN. The fact that the Vikings are holding true to the "run first" mentality while CHI intended too but has been unable due to O-line issues means they've had to fall back on the pass more than the Vikings, who have been more successful with both passing and running this season. I think you may have simply been playing devil's advocate when naming CHI's QB/WR/TE as a candidate for being a better combination than MIN, but I still don't think they measure up.2. Hester, Bennett, and Olsen. Knox is pretty fiery, but his stepping up hardly makes a case for the rest of the crew.
3. 1.6 =25.6 TDs over 16 games, 1.8 = 28.8 over 16. Is one clearly better than the other? Looks like it to me. Either way that doesn't make the case that the Bears corp is superior.
4. This
Last edited by a moderator:
encaitar
Footballguy
I understand what you're trying to say gianmarco, but it's a failed argument if you include the first few games of the season. Hell, Favre is STILL learning the playbook and hasn't quite gotten on the same page with Berrian yet. Stats are nice to fall back on, but in this type of question stats mean very little. You can have an above average passing attack and still have low numbers because you're a run first team(like Minnesota), or because of the scheme you use. You have to judge based on skill and that can only be quantified by an eye test. I'm not going to try and convince you that the Vikings passing attack is better than any other teams because frankly I don't care. I just care that it's good enough to win games and so far it has been.
gianmarco
Footballguy
1. Well, I gave the per game #'s in a post above. On a per game basis, as I said, Chicago is averaging more receptions and more yards and slightly less TDs. Secondly, I understand that Minn may not be throwing as much as Chicago overall, so I looked at the targets:--The targets for the 4 Minnesota players combined is 123. That's 20.5 targets/game
--The targets for the 4 Chicago players combined is 122. That's 24.4 targets/game
So yes, on a per target basis, Minnesota is slightly ahead. In the end, as datonn was pointing out, it's pretty much a push between these 2. I actually see it the same way. I was more playing a devil's advocate and pulling out a team in your own division that isn't considered a passing juggernaut but they actually compare pretty similarly to Minnesota's crew. As for comparing the run games, you don't think AP/Chester helps open up some of those guys in the passing attack? AP is STILL facing 8 in the box often which has allowed Favre to do what he's doing.
2. I don't see why you keep saying the other guys aren't stepping up. They are all performing about the same and Knox hasn't outperformed any of them really. And, they are all performing about the same as Minnesota's guys. I don't see how you can keep arguing that they're terrible when their per game #'s are better than your beloved Minn crew. I really think you need to take the Minnesota Vikings glasses off and look at this objectively. I'm not a Packer fan or Chicago fan or Detroit fan. I actually LIKE the Vikings quite a bit. I just don't let that cloud my evaluation. I've put the #'s out there pretty clearly yet you keep trying to see they're not even close. I don't know what else to say
3. One out of the 3 in favor of Minn.
4.
burgundy and gold
Footballguy
The X-Factor here seems to be Sidney Rice. Is it me, or does this guy seem like he might be something VERY special?!?
KoolKat
Footballguy
Come on Gian, I am all about empirical evidence, but it is pretty obvious that the increase in WR production is due to a lack of a runnuing game, and the arrival of Cutler.
Would you argue that Hester is a better WR than Steve Smith, Earl Bennett is better than TO and Lee Evans, and Johnny Knox is about the same as Greg Jennings and Calvin Johnson?
Obviously stats are extremely important in proving a point, but they do not tell the entire story. For you to pretend like they do seems uncharacteristic of you, in my opiniion.
Would you argue that Hester is a better WR than Steve Smith, Earl Bennett is better than TO and Lee Evans, and Johnny Knox is about the same as Greg Jennings and Calvin Johnson?
Obviously stats are extremely important in proving a point, but they do not tell the entire story. For you to pretend like they do seems uncharacteristic of you, in my opiniion.
gianmarco
Footballguy
Of course I wouldn't argue those guys are as good as Steve Smith, TO, Jennings, or Calvin.Now, I'll ask you the same question.Do you think Berrian is as good as those guys?Do you think Harvin is?Do you think Sidney Rice is?I like those guys and all, but they are not Jennings. They are not Calvin. They are not Steve Smith. Not yet, at least. Just like the Chicago guys aren't.And to listen to some Vikings fans call the Chicago guys duds seems a bit ingenuous to me as those guys are performing on par with the Vikings guys. In the end, they are all pretty average or slightly above average. Nothing more. And again, that's the entire point of my response. I didn't even bother listing teams with definitively better groups. There are plenty of them. I pulled a seemingly average group and show they are performing similarly to the Minnesota group. I don't see why that point is so hard to grasp. I am NOT heralding the Chicago trio as the next coming. Likewise, I think it's foolish to do the same for the Minnesota group. They simply aren't that great (at least not yet). Yet, that's what was implied and why this thread was started to begin with. I'll add that I think ALL of those guys (both the Chicago group and the Minn group) have some potential to do some nice things this year and in the future. And finally, yes, the Chicago production has a lot to do with the arrival of Cutler. But, wasn't the QB listed above as part of the group to compare? Why would I ignore him? And yes, the RB situation has to do with it, but again, it wasn't listed above so I just followed suit.
