What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Minnesota Vikings @ Philadelphia Eagles (1 Viewer)

Who do you think will win?

  • Vikings

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Eagles

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

cracKer

Shawn Culcasi
McNabb v. Culpepper

Owens v. Moss (well, maybe not)

The Vikings #4 offense v. The Eagles top 10 defense

Week two matchup saw the Eagles win 27-16

Bringin' it home for Jerome (and Reggie)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
How quick do you have to be to create a game thread in the playoffs?During the regular season I'm posting week in and week out and in come the glory boys for the playoffs :PWe almost had this thread up during the first quarter of the Vikings/Packers game :D

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The key to this game will be how Minnesota performs in the red zone. In the week 2 game, the Vikings moved the ball the entire game, but kept having to settle for field goals and then there was that fumble at the 1. Of course, we all know that Philly's M.O. is to give up lots of yards, but not a lot of points. Should be a good game.

 
Wow, lots of Viking fans still swimming in here after the game. Poll so far:Vikings 12Eagles 11Well the Vikings playoff season has just ENDED!

 
Wow, lots of Viking fans still swimming in here after the game. Poll so far:Vikings 12Eagles 11Well the Vikings playoff season has just ENDED!
:rotflmao: Please post you brilliant predicton for this week.:horns:
 
their points scored & allowed.

----------

Vikings (6th offense, 25th defense) 6+25 = 31

Eagles (7th offense, 1st defense) 7+1 = 8

Translation: Eagles obviously have a big edge on defense here.

Offensive/Defensive Efficienies:

-----------

O:Vikings 6226 yards, 387 points = 16.09

D:Vikings 5894 yards, 395 points = 14.92*

O:Eagles 5398 yards, 376 points = 14.36

D:Eagles 4807 yards, 222 points = 21.65

*includes week 17

Translation: Eagles are better on both sides of the ball here. However, without TO, the Eagles' offense will certainly suffer.

----------

Ints-Ints Thrown

----------

Vikings 10-12 = -2

Eagles 17-8 = +11

Another big edge here for Philly. Yes, TO is out, but do you really think the Vikings should be favored here, even without him? I don't.

Pick: Eagles

 
The Eagles are in trouble without Owens, but the Vikings are in bigger trouble without Moss. I give the nod to the Eagles and their defense.

 
Eagles 27 (Westbrook 2 TDs and an Eagles defensive TD)Vikings 17 (Late Vikings TD to make it look close.)Big day for Westbrook and L.J. Smith

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm a homer but honestly, anyone that watched this weekend's games can't take any combination of STL, SEA, MIN or GB seriously. Those four teams could combine to field one starting defense and it still wouldn't be a top 10 unit. Pathetic.I think Minnesota's offense with a healthy Moss (big If) is a bit more potent than the Eagles offense, but the two defenses are like night and day.Eagles 34-Vikings 19

 
It won't even be close. All this without TO stuff is nonsense. The Eagles are Kearse and Westbrook better than last year and the D is probably plaing better. No team is even close to last year's Panthers. Biggest thing for the Eagles is who they'll play in the Bowl. Eagles- 31Vikings-13

 
The Eagles almost made it to the Super Bowl with the dreck they had at WR last year.This year, they've got the same dreck at WR, but with a MUCH better D-Line and Michael Westbrook.They'll coast until they play the Falcons.

 
I think Minnesota's offense with a healthy Moss (big If) is a bit more potent than the Eagles offense, but the two defenses are like night and day.
A bit more? Um, Philly's number 1 receiver would be lucky to be the number 4 WR on the Vikings. Philly obviously has a much better defense, but don't kid yourself and try to say that the Eagles offense without Owens is even close to as good as Minnesota's.
 
The Eagles almost made it to the Super Bowl with the dreck they had at WR last year.This year, they've got the same dreck at WR, but with a MUCH better D-Line and Michael Westbrook.They'll coast until they play the Falcons.
Michael Westbrook?Are you Stewart Scott from ESPN?
 
The Eagles almost made it to the Super Bowl with the dreck they had at WR last year.This year, they've got the same dreck at WR, but with a MUCH better D-Line and Michael Westbrook.They'll coast until they play the Falcons.
Michael Westbrook?Are you Stewart Scott from ESPN?
An honest mistake...I'm gonna have him come over there and whip you like Stephen Alexander.Brian Westbrook is who I meant....
 
Lets look at the coaching matchupAndy Reid and crew vs Mike Tice and crew :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: I think this says it all

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Eagles almost made it to the Super Bowl with the dreck they had at WR last year.This year, they've got the same dreck at WR, but with a MUCH better D-Line and Michael Westbrook.They'll coast until they play the Falcons.
Michael Westbrook?Are you Stewart Scott from ESPN?
An honest mistake...I'm gonna have him come over there and whip you like Stephen Alexander.Brian Westbrook is who I meant....
Just kidding.
 
Vikes will score some points, but that defense is laughable and there's a reason they went 8-8.You can ignore that record all you want, but they are a mediocre team. So is St. Louis.Philly-Atl in the NFCCG

 
It won't even be close. All this without TO stuff is nonsense. The Eagles are Kearse and Westbrook better than last year and the D is probably plaing better. No team is even close to last year's Panthers. Biggest thing for the Eagles is who they'll play in the Bowl. Eagles- 31Vikings-13
These are pretty much my sentiments. People think this team is weak without TO and is all of a sudden very beatable. If you flashback to last year the Oline was awful at the end of the year and the run defense was laughable. Couple in no westbrook and that team was very beatable and a good carolina team pulled it off. As echo'd above - no NFC team is as good as the panthers were last year and the eagles are 10x better with Kearse, Trotter and Westbrook ready to go. 31-20 birds
 
A good friend of mine who's a Vikings fan was trying to tell me how awesome they played this week and they had a good chance to beat the Eagles. How are people forgetting that just last week the Vikings couldn't beat the Redskins to gauruntee a playoff birth. The Packers are lousy, neither the Vikes nor the Pack are playoff caliber teams. That team is a bunch of clowns that should enjoy this week while it lasts because they're in for a big dose of reality and what a good NFL team plays like.Eagles 31 Vikings 13

 
The last thing the Iggles needed was to get a hot Culpepper in Rd#2.I think this is a very scary game for the boys in green. I know the defenses are much different, but how can the Eagles WR's scare anyone? One or two pops on Pinkston and he is done. And Westbrook cannot carry this team alone. The Eagles offense is nowhere near as talented as Minny's without Owens.Vikes 24Eagles 21 :eek:

 
The last thing the Iggles needed was to get a hot Culpepper in Rd#2.

I think this is a very scary game for the boys in green. I know the defenses are much different, but how can the Eagles WR's scare anyone? One or two pops on Pinkston and he is done. And Westbrook cannot carry this team alone. The Eagles offense is nowhere near as talented as Minny's without Owens.

Vikes 24

Eagles 21 :eek:
All due respect, but what does "a hot Culpepper" mean?Last time I checked Culpepper had a December for the ages:

89 for 135 (65.9%)

1,258 yards
9 TDs
1 Ints
99 yards rushing...and the Vikings lost 3 of those games, to Seattle, Green Bay and Washington. Their one win was a one point squeaker (thanks to a missed extra point) against Detroit.

Culpepper is a talent, but the Eagles play DEFENSE, something he hasn't seen much of during his "hot streak." Oh, and the Vikings don't play defense, which the Eagles will handily exploit.

UNLESS the Eagles are playing tight to start the game (i.e., not up to their normal level of performance), this game isn't going to be close.

 
All due respect, but what does "a hot Culpepper" mean?Last time I checked Culpepper had a December for the ages:89 for 135 (65.9%)1,258 yards9 TDs1 Ints99 yards rushing
I think Culpepper is hot and if anyone can beat the Eagles, I think he has as much a chance as any. I agree about the defensive differences. All i'm saying is that he has as good a chance as any.With that said, I find the defensive numbers for Philly a little suspect. Who have they played with a top offense and shut down?Giants, Cowboys, and Redskins in their division....all jokesPanthers without their top 2 RB's and WRThey gave up 31 to the Browns, the BROWNSand 38 to the Bungles in a meaningless game. Their backups should not give up 38 to the Colts, let alone the BENGALS!
 
38 to the Bungles in a meaningless game. Their backups should not give up 38 to the Colts, let alone the BENGALS!
I'm not sure what year you have come from, but the Bengals are a pretty good offensive team these days. I think that in a meaningless game, with backups in, it would be pretty easy to give up 38.
 
With that said, I find the defensive numbers for Philly a little suspect. Who have they played with a top offense and shut down?Giants, Cowboys, and Redskins in their division....all jokesPanthers without their top 2 RB's and WRThey gave up 31 to the Browns, the BROWNSand 38 to the Bungles in a meaningless game. Their backups should not give up 38 to the Colts, let alone the BENGALS!
I'm not sure what year you have come from, but the Bengals are a pretty good offensive team these days. I think that in a meaningless game, with backups in, it would be pretty easy to give up 38.
That explains one game.
 
The last thing the Iggles needed was to get a hot Culpepper in Rd#2.

I think this is a very scary game for the boys in green. I know the defenses are much different, but how can the Eagles WR's scare anyone? One or two pops on Pinkston and he is done. And Westbrook cannot carry this team alone. The Eagles offense is nowhere near as talented as Minny's without Owens.

Vikes 24

Eagles 21 :eek:
All due respect, but what does "a hot Culpepper" mean?Last time I checked Culpepper had a December for the ages:

89 for 135 (65.9%)

1,258 yards

9 TDs
1 Ints
99 yards rushing...and the Vikings lost 3 of those games, to Seattle, Green Bay and Washington. Their one win was a one point squeaker (thanks to a missed extra point) against Detroit.

Culpepper is a talent, but the Eagles play DEFENSE, something he hasn't seen much of during his "hot streak." Oh, and the Vikings don't play defense, which the Eagles will handily exploit.

UNLESS the Eagles are playing tight to start the game (i.e., not up to their normal level of performance), this game isn't going to be close.
You do realize that in Culpepper's great Decemeber, he played against the #1 defense, the Redskins?I think that the Eagles will have serious problems on offense. By resting their starters since TO got hurt, they really haven't had a chance in a game to figure out how they are going to compensate for TOs production. The Eagles ability to do this will go a long way to deciding the winner.

 
Can the Vikings bandwagon hold all the weight right now? I mean come on - they get one win over a mediocre Packers team and suddenly the Viking fans are coming out of the woodwork. I mean really - how many different ways can the Viking fans pile on Brett Favre? Do we really need another thread talking about how a few bad games by Favre redefines him from being one of the greatest QB's to ever play the game to being an over-rated creation of the media. Funny how different the world looks through purple-tinted glasses...As if that wasn't bad enough, now the Vikings "fans" are starting to talk Super Bowl and already scripting their victory over the Eagles. Why does everyone think that the loss of Owens means that people can now walk all over Philadelphia?!? I could have sworn the Eagles had a pretty damn good team before Owens, and I highly doubt Andy Reid is going to let the team roll over and die just because they lost a wide receiver.The real sad part is, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Vikings make the Super Bowl. The way the NFL has gone lately, and especially the NFC, there is always a surprise team getting an upset in the Championship game only to make it to the Super Bowl and get routed. Hell, Vikings fans should know that better than anyone... can you say "Atlanta Falcons - 1999 NFC Champions"?!?So am I missing something here? How did an 8-8 football team with a pretty pathetic defense, a headcase at wide receiver, and a head coach that most people think is one of the worst in the league become a Super Bowl favorite? Am I drinking from a different pitcher of Kool-aid here?

 
The last thing the Iggles needed was to get a hot Culpepper in Rd#2.I think this is a very scary game for the boys in green. I know the defenses are much different, but how can the Eagles WR's scare anyone? One or two pops on Pinkston and he is done. And Westbrook cannot carry this team alone. The Eagles offense is nowhere near as talented as Minny's without Owens.Vikes 24Eagles 21 :eek:
Whoa, I thought everybody was dogging the Eagles' run defense.I thought the last thing they needed was a big-time RB going up against them and Shaun Alexander and Ahman Green were eliminated this weekend.People want to talk about the injuries to Moss and Owens, but Tice will probably be without his security blanket at RB in Moe Williams. Another thing, the Fox team yesterday kept saying how the Vikings' LBs didn't play well in space.Well, who's gonna cover Westbrook? A safety? OK, then who's cover LJ Smith? Another safety? Then who's gonna spy on McNabb?
 
The last thing the Iggles needed was to get a hot Culpepper in Rd#2.I think this is a very scary game for the boys in green. I know the defenses are much different, but how can the Eagles WR's scare anyone? One or two pops on Pinkston and he is done. And Westbrook cannot carry this team alone. The Eagles offense is nowhere near as talented as Minny's without Owens.Vikes 24Eagles 21 :eek:
Whoa, I thought everybody was dogging the Eagles' run defense.I thought the last thing they needed was a big-time RB going up against them and Shaun Alexander and Ahman Green were eliminated this weekend.People want to talk about the injuries to Moss and Owens, but Tice will probably be without his security blanket at RB in Moe Williams. Another thing, the Fox team yesterday kept saying how the Vikings' LBs didn't play well in space.Well, who's gonna cover Westbrook? A safety? OK, then who's cover LJ Smith? Another safety? Then who's gonna spy on McNabb?
:goodposting:And here I thought three of our four starters in the defensive secondary made the Pro Bowl. It's classic the way people jump on the bandwagon. Carolina started stringing some wins together and everyone said, "The Eagles want no part of Carolina" who then proceeded to finish sub .500 and out of the playoffs. Then we kept hearing about how attrocious the NFC playoff field was and that no team with a .500 record ever won a playoff game...and now that MIN and STL have won their games they've morphed into SB contenders? Pulling off an upset in the Wild Card round is HARDLY indicative of a team that can string together 3 wins on the road.Are you all forgetting that it's 3 dome teams and the Eagles left in the NFC?
 
The Vikings under Tice had won exactly *1* game on natural grass prior to yesterday. What are the odds they can make it 2 in a row? And another thing to keep in mind; GB's top DB is an Eagles' cast-off. Al Harris couldn't crack Philly's starting lineup, yet is the top guy for the Packers. That's where Culpepper's "hot streak" comes from??The Vikings were +4(?) in turnovers, yet needed a late TD to seal the game.If you want to see where Philly's offfense is going to come from, go take a look at their O from the last couple of years. Only this time Westbrook & a healthy McNabb will be in the game :crossesfingers:

 
First off, I'm a Colts fan and not a Vikings bandwaggoner. I am merely trying to discuss the potential for an upset. That's what discussion boards do right, discuss things?Secondly, even with your starters out, did the coaches not coach against the Bengals? Or, did they just let the backups go out and get embarrassed without a gameplan and scheme adjustments?Finally, if you read my posts, I am merely suggesting the Vikes have a chance. The Eagles are the team to beat in the NFC, they are average by AFC standards this year. Their inflated numbers are against a weak conference and will be exposed in these playoffs.Colts Fan out~

 
Secondly, even with your starters out, did the coaches not coach against the Bengals? Or, did they just let the backups go out and get embarrassed without a gameplan and scheme adjustments?
Yes. The Eagles showed nothing in their final 2 games in terms of offensive or defensive game plans.
 
First off, I'm a Colts fan and not a Vikings bandwaggoner. I am merely trying to discuss the potential for an upset. That's what discussion boards do right, discuss things?Secondly, even with your starters out, did the coaches not coach against the Bengals? Or, did they just let the backups go out and get embarrassed without a gameplan and scheme adjustments?Finally, if you read my posts, I am merely suggesting the Vikes have a chance. The Eagles are the team to beat in the NFC, they are average by AFC standards this year. Their inflated numbers are against a weak conference and will be exposed in these playoffs.Colts Fan out~
Hey pizzatyme,Putting aside all the other stuff for a minute, actually the Eagles coaches did essentially not coach the Bengals game. Not only were the starters rested, but Reid and Jim Johnson called the game in the same manner they do in the pre-season, plain vanilla. If you were to watch an Eagles pre-season game, they run the very basic segments of the playbook, particularly on the defensive side.As you probably know, Jim Johnson's defense is predicated on blizting in a variety of manners. Against the Bengals the Eagles backup defenders did not blitz for almost the entirety of the game.Honestly, no one can single out the outcome of either the Bengals or Rams games as indicative of the Eagles defense. You can contend that they're not as elite as their ranking suggest (#2 in points allowed), and I can stomach that, but to not recognize that they are a) a very stout defense and b) significantly better than any other NFC defense in the playoffs would be hard to swallow.
 
We are in agreement that the Eagles have the best NFC defense. I would only suggest that the Vikings offense is no slouch and therefore they stand a chance to beat the Eagles.For the record, I do not like the Vikings. I detest Moss. I like McNabb. and I hope for a good game. or else it will be 3 hours wasted.But, for all Eagles "fans" to completely dismiss the chance for an upset is absurd! Isn't that what they were telling Mr. Namath a few years back??

 
I see the big factors coming into this game as:1) It has been 4 weeks since the Eagles played any meaningful football. Will they be rested and sharp or look "out-of-synch" on offense? This is the same issue that a college team has going into a bowl game.2) Can the Vikings find a way to contain the speed of McNabb and Westbrook.3) The Eagles have a BIG edge in special teams with Akers over Andersen. That could be a difference maker.Here's how I see it:The Eagle defense comes out fired up and constant blitzing gives the Vikings fits. The Philly offense sputters for most of the game but gets the job done with a few big plays from the legs of Donovan and Westbrook. Final of 23-10 with Akers knocking three FG's home.

 
The Vikings better savor the moment because this time next week we'll be discussing Moss walking off the field at the end of the third quarter.I agree Philly's D is not as dominating as the statistics however it's still a pretty damn good unit. Sure the Vikings have talent on offense but they're not smart enough to call a balanced game. Once Culpepper realizes every receiver running a route isn't wide open he'll have some decisions to make. Mike Tice would be wise to make sure he doesn't abandon the running game as he usually does.I see Philly winning by about 17 in this one. The Vikings aren't in the same class.

 
:rotflmao: From Len Pasquerelli's The Morning After column:

...The Minnesota victory on Sunday means the Vikings have now won three of their last 23 games outdoors. In case no one has checked lately, the Eagles, whom the Vikings face next Sunday, haven't put a dome on Lincoln Financial Field.
 
Another Toss up and another D that does not look up to the task in the Vikings.The question is can they stop Westbrook? I'll go out on a limb and say Yes. Vikings win even though deep down I feel the Eagles take this one/

 
Well first just let me say, I'm not a bandwagon Vikings fan! I happen to own the tractor that pulls the wagon! Now on to my theory. I think the Eagles will line Westbrook up as a WR more often than not. If they do that they will win..... :yucky: Now as to not jinx the Vikes with any type of homerisms..... ;) That is all... :popcorn:

 
Of course, we all know it's MUCH better to have a good defense than it is to have a good offense because "a good defense wins championships".Mr. ColtsFan, care to chime in on this conversation on how you feel about that philosophy? :bag: :popcorn:

 
The problem playing Min is that with a healthy Moss, there is no score that CulPep and company cannot overcome. If our defense continues to play as well as they have the second half of the season, the game wont be close. I see a lot of running and short passing from Phi with 3 deep passes making the difference in the Phi offense.Good luck this week Vikings,JAA

 
I'll add that I can see the Vikes pulling it off, but that win Sunday was HUGE for them. It will be interesting to see if they can stay focused on not have a let down. That win was their Super Bowl IMO.

 
2002- Eags fans said TB had "no chance"last year, the Pathers had "no chance"now the Vikes have "no chance"remember, the the Eagles have not played particualry well in the playoffs the last few years.... ANYONE has a chance!That said, I call it Eagles 27 Vikes 23..

 
:rotflmao: From Len Pasquerelli's The Morning After column:

...The Minnesota victory on Sunday means the Vikings have now won three of their last 23 games outdoors. In case no one has checked lately, the Eagles, whom the Vikings face next Sunday, haven't put a dome on Lincoln Financial Field.
I prefer to view it slightly differently.... the Vikings are unbeaten in playoff games outside on the road this year! I'd say playing at Phili is an advantage for the Vikes!
 
Might as well add it's the ever famous 3rd in a row on the road for the Vikes also...Eagles by 20.

 
The Eagles are one of my most hated teams, and I'm trying to convince mself that they lose this game, but I just can't. The Vikings are a very average team, plain and simple. They lost to the Redskins, who had nothign to play for in week 17! I'm gonna say its a route: Eagles 41-10.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top