The not-so-triumphant return

Hey there. Been a while.

I won't get too heavily into what's been keeping me away from here. Don't worry, it's nothing drastic -- I'm not dying, I'm not in prison, I'm not getting married. I've just been busier at my job than ever before and I just didn't have the energy to try and keep up a blog when I went home in the evenings. I can't guarantee that I will now, but I'd like to still post occasionally, when the mood strikes me, which has been rare as of late. Just don't expect three to four posts per week, like I used to do.

In the meantime, if you're new here, or relatively new, you might have missed out on some of my crude attempts at analysis over the past few years. Now that fantasy football season is nearly upon us again (and I actually work for a company that produces fantasy sports magazines, though not in that department), all the tired old theories are being trotted out again as to why a player will have a better/worse season in 2010. So I thought I'd take a little time to refresh you on what I think on such matters, backed up by more than just selective memory and wishful thinking.

Here are my two most significant findings for you to keep in mind this fantasy football season:

1) The running game has virtually no effect (statistically, at least) on the passing game and vice versa. Don't believe it when someone says, "Running back X will have a great season now that quarterback Y is on his team!" This is often quoted when a RB does have a good year when a new QB arrives (or an old QB does well) and never mentioned when a RB has a bad year with a good QB (or a QB has a bad year with a good RB). For the statement to be true, it must apply in a majority, if not all cases. I got into it a little bit with someone on the PFR blog lately but decided to bow out since my research was a little crusty and spread out.

And here is that old, crusty research! Enjoy!

http://jasonwinter.blogspot.com/2009/06/can-brett-help-adrian.html
http://jasonwinter.blogspot.com/2009/06/brett-adrian-part-2.html
http://jasonwinter.blogspot.com/2009/06/you-cant-un-learn-things.html
http://jasonwinter.blogspot.com/2009/07/non-statistical-opinion-on-great-debate.html

If you can only read one, read the second one. It contains most of the significant data.

2) A wide receiver's performance has nothing to do with other wide receivers on his team. Larry Fitzgerald will probably see his numbers drop this year, but it won't be because Anquan Boldin left. The absence of Kurt Warner will have a much bigger effect. A complimentary wide receiver (or good-hands tight end) has little to no effect on a player's stats. I covered that concept here:

http://jasonwinter.blogspot.com/2009/07/does-great-fantasy-receiver-need-2.html
http://jasonwinter.blogspot.com/2009/07/revisiting-receivers.html

When it comes to premises like these, I still think it's a case of people just trying to sound smarter than they are or, in the case of fantasy football, trying to make it seem like they're getting a great or emergent player as a great draft pick. Don't buy into it. Remember, Matt Forte was supposed to have an awesome year once the Bears landed Jay Cutler.

Oh yeah, speaking of Jay Cutler...

http://jasonwinter.blogspot.com/2009/10/why-broncos-are-6-0.html

And here's one last fun little Cutler/Kyle Orton comparison:

Broncos' #1 QB passer ratings:
2008 (Cutler): 86.0
2009 (Orton): 86.8

Bears' #1 QB passer ratings:
2008 (Orton): 79.6
2009 (Cutler): 76.8

Still think that was a good deal, Bears fans?

Thank you, 49ers

The 49ers gave the Vikings a nice holiday gift this year, in the form of a 24-9 whipping of the Arizona Cardinals. To be fair, the Cards beat themselves, making seven turnovers and making me more confident that, apart from New Orleans and maybe Philadelphia (which just frightens me based on last year), I don't think there's an NFC team the Vikings can't handle, and handle fairly easily at home once the playoffs start. (More on the Vikings' playoff potential seeding at the end of this post.)

Around this time of year, once teams start clinching home-field advantage and other playoff positioning, the inevitably tired conversations pop up about whether teams should rest their players or keep playing hard. This year, with two 13-0 teams, the talk is even more spirited. There are, in effect, four possible outcomes, and three of them are bad:

Team rests its starters:
A) They then win their first playoff game -- Good call, coach, they needed the rest!
B) They lose their first playoff game -- Coach, you were too soft on them!

Team doesn't rest its starters:
A) There's a crucial injury in a "meaningless" game -- What were you thinking playing that guy?
B) There are no injuries -- Whew, we got away with that one!

Remember when the Patriots were 15-0 a few years ago and played all-out in that Saturday game against the Giants? What if Tom Brady or Randy Moss would have been injured during that game? It would have gone down at Bill Belichick's second-worst decision ever (after the 4th and 2 this year, of course).

There are simply so many variables that can happen during a game or games that any talk ascribing any particular meaning or consequences to whether guys play or not during their "meaningless" games is just that -- talk. No matter how it's approached, if something bad happens, it will be because the coach played guys he shouldn't have or didn't give them enough rest.

I especially "love" the argument that guys need to keep playing to stay sharp and if they lose in the first round (result B from above), it was because they got too much rest at the end of the season. Consider this: Suppose that Peyton Manning was hurt in, say, week 8. We'll assume it's a type of injury that wouldn't be expected to linger or otherwise affect his football performance when he comes back, say a poke in the eye or a concussion (which I realize is bad, but once you recover from it, it doesn't generally hamper you like, say, a dislocated shoulder or broken leg). When he comes back in, say, week 12, everybody expects him to be at full strength and to play like he always did. Even Peyton himself, who's been able to work out this entire time and still do pretty much everything expected of him except get out on the field, would think that he'll be perfectly fine when he comes back. And he probably will. If he's a little off or has a bad game, hardly anyone would attribute it to rust or other consequences of missing three weeks.

Ah, but now it's week 15 of the regular season. If Peyton misses the next three games -- strictly on a voluntary basis -- and the Colts lay an egg in their playoff game, it'll be because they "took those three games off," and that will be the beginning and the end of the discussion as to why the team lost. Never mind that most teams that do rest their starters do so because they're good teams that have secured a high seed and have the ability to rest them and usually progress far in the playoffs. It's only the failures that we notice and that we try to ascribe some higher meaning to, other than, "The other team was better."

All of which brings us back to the Vikings. If they can beat Carolina next week and if Philadelphia loses either of its next two games, and the Saints can somehow find a way past Dallas and Tampa Bay at home, then, by the time the Vikings take the field against Chicago on Monday night in 13 days, the NFC standings would look like this:

1) New Orleans: 15-0
2) Minnesota: 12-2
3) Philadelphia: 10-5

No other team in the conference could be better than 10-5 except the Packers, who could be 11-4, but the Vikings would still hold tiebreak over them in the division. Thus, the Vikings would be locked into the #2 seed, with two games left to play, thus allowing them to give vital rest to Brett Favre -- who will probably play enough to keep his streak going -- Adrian Peterson, and other vital members of the team. And if that makes the team go 12-4 and keeps everyone fresh for the playoffs, I'm all for it.

If the Saints lose two of their next three games, the Vikings could run the table and tie them at 14-2 and own a better conference record, thus winning the tiebreaker and securing the #1 seed. There's about zero chance the Saints lose to the Bucs at home in two weeks, so that would require them losing to Dallas at home and one the road against Carolina, an unlikely proposition.

But hey, it doesn't hurt to dream.

Around the Internet on Thursday

In keeping with a tradition on this blog of regurgitating other people's hard work and creativity on a Thursday (going back one whole week!), here's some of what I've been reading this week:

First, the professionals:

* ESPN's Greg Easterbrook had an interesting observation with regards to teams extending mediocre head coaches part of the way through their "breakout" season:

Halfway through his first season as Notre Dame coach, Charlie Weis had a 5-2 record and immediately was offered a 10-year contract extension containing guaranteed payments that the school and its athletic donors now regret. Less than halfway through the 2008 NFL season, Dick "Cheerio, Chaps" Jauron had a 5-1 record and immediately was offered a three-year contract extension containing guaranteed payments that Bills owner Ralph Wilson now regrets. What's going on here? Why grant coaches extensions when they are already under contract, only to fire them later and be stuck with paying off the rest of the deal?

What's going on is that the general manager or athletic director, by offering an extension when the team is winning, essentially says to the world, "I am a genius for picking this guy." Later, when the same coach becomes a flop, the same front office spins things as, "We gave him everything he wanted and he still failed -- this guy is a failure." The extensions are all about the athletic director's, or general manager's, ego.

He doesn't mention Brad Childress in the piece, but I'm sure every Viking fan who read it was thinking of him...

* Joe Posnanski tells us that Brett Favre can actually be honest, when he wants to. I'm still not sure that I'm buying it.

* ESPN's Kevin Seifert thinks the Vikings shouldn't panic after their loss to Arizona. I, for one, am trying to maintain an even keel. A loss at home to the Bengals, though, might send me over the edge...

And now, the talented amateurs:

* Earlier this week, I was thinking that it might behoove the Vikings to spend a little extra coin -- say, $3 million or so -- on a good nickel corner in the offseason. Vikings Gab then reminded me that, in a way, we're already doing that.

* PJD has some ideas for Chad Ochocinco's touchdown celebrations (which we hope he won't have a chance to use) this week.

* And Joe Fischer tells us that the Vikings should both panic (Arizona could beat us out for the #2 seed) and not panic (Super Bowl teams have often absorbed crushing defeats). That's just the kind of schizophrenic "Our team's good but we'll do our best find a way to be bad" thinking I expect from a fellow Vikings fan!

What's wrong with Adrian Peterson?

First, the caveats: I am not a running back, offensive lineman, coach, or even a waterboy, nor have I ever been. What follows are nothing more than observations from a somewhat informed and moderately intelligent (maybe) fan. But it doesn't take much intelligence to realize something has gone terribly wrong with the Vikings' running game for the past month and a half and that the Vikings' star running back has looked more like Adrian Murrell than Adrian Peterson over that span.

First, the numbers: In his first six games, AP accumulated 683 yards at 5.1 yards per carry. In his last six, he's managed just 485 yards and 3.9 per carry -- which doesn't sound too bad until you realize that 133 of those yards came in one game against Detroit (which actually has a surprisingly decent rushing defense this year). Take that one game out and AP has just 352 yards on 105 carries, a 3.4-yard average. That's a far cry from the 5.0 or so a carry we're used to seeing from him and has turned the Vikings into a badly one-dimensional team, which may have finally caught up with them in Arizona.

(Though I again doubt the "wisdom" that says Brett Favre had a bad game because the Cardinals were stopping the run and forcing him to pass a lot. If the Cards are playing eight in the box and stuffing the run, shouldn't that make it easier to pass? Again, the whole "good rushing game helps the passing game and vice versa" argument fails to pass the logic test. The lack of a running game may have forced the team into too many 3rd-and-longs, which would certainly have contributed to a poor passing performance, but that wouldn't explain how the team did on first and most second downs.)

Having watched the Vikings and their suddenly anemic running game over those six games, here are my (likely misguided) on what's wrong with the team and with Peterson himself:

The offensive line isn't opening up holes. Seems obvious enough, but why? How can a team with two road-graders at the tackle position and an all-world left guard suddenly not be able to block? Are John Sullivan and Anthony Herrera (or Artis Hicks) that bad?

I wouldn't say so, because no matter where the team is running, left, right, or center, the blocking is subpar. There's no push up the middle (When's the last time you say the Vikings' O-line move the line of scrimmage two or three yards downfield?) and outside runs are usually stopped before they can get started. Meanwhile, watch any big Chris Johnson run this year, and you'll see either a hole open up for him or a seal on the outside that allows him to turn the corner and run to daylight. Remember when we had an offensive line that could do that?

I don't know what the solution is, but this is one that's hard to pin on AP, at least. Or is it?

AP's slowing down. At least half a dozen times a game, it seems like AP gets just enough of a crease, starts striding downfield -- and then a tackler emerges from out of nowhere to get a piece of his leg or knock him down and he's limited to a three-yard gain. Again, maybe this is just my feeble observations or my expectation that he could do better, but these kind of plays seem to happen with frustrating regularity these days. If AP just had a little more juice or just could make a slight adjustment to his trajectory, he could avoid that tackler and rip off a big run. Clearly, at this stage of the season, every player is playing hurt, running backs especially, but maybe AP's got a little bit more of a hitch in his get-up than he'd like everyone to know and it's hurting his ability to make those sudden moves when he does have a hole to run through, however small. He's also getting caught from behind more times than I'd like to see. It's neat that he can run over William Gay, but is his physical running style costing him speed?

Cut the cutbacks. His TD run against the Lions notwithstanding, the cutback just hasn't been there for AP, but he keeps trying it anyway. It's a simple premise, really: If you stop running, the defense can catch up to you easier. I know that the line isn't opening up lanes for him to run through, but stopping and then trying to run in another direction where there isn't any room doesn't solve anything. I'd rather see AP run straight ahead into the line and hope that he can squirt through the other side or run over someone than cut back into another defender. And speaking of running straight ahead...

Stop running sideways. Going all the way back to the Steelers game, I was lamenting the stretch play every time it was run. The Vikings have stuck with it, though, to their detriment. It has all the potential of a pass to Naufahu Tahi, and usually can't even match the guaranteed three yards that play gets. In fact, I think this play has lost yardage more often than it's gained any. AP's lack of acceleration and the offensive line's inability to get out and throw blocks -- this isn't Matt Birk pulling from center any more -- have relegated his play to an automatic loss of down.

The next time the Tennessee Titans are on TV, watch how Chris Johnson runs and how his line blocks for him. It's amazing to see someone get that much open space, and I wonder how we can get back to that kind of rushing attack. I hope it happens over the next month or so, or else the Vikings will be in for yet another early preseason exit.

Vikings/Cardinals

Well, that was ugly, on several levels.

* The Vikings' secondary without Antoine Winfield (and, arguably, with him) isn't good enough to shut down opposing passing games without a pass rush. Last night, Kurt Warner barely got a finger laid on him and the results were predictable. Nearly 300 yards, three touchdowns, no interceptions, no sacks, and 8.9 yards per attempt. Toss in 4.5 yards per carry on 25 rushing attempts, and it's a wonder Arizona only put up 30 points. The announcers hyped the Minnesota defensive line, but it was the Arizona offensive line that clearly won the battle in the trenches.

* Meanwhile, Minnesota's offensive line continues to disappoint, again failing to open up any holes for Adrian Peterson, who was held to a season-low 19 yards on 13 carries. It seems like Peterson's good for one of these awful games every season (here's 2008's and 2007's), so hopefully he's got it out of his system, though I'm skeptical. I'll be writing more on AP's sudden collapse later this week.

* E.J. Henderson. Ouch, ouch, ouch. I watched the play where he sustained the injury but didn't see what happened to him. When they replayed it in slow motion, I had to turn away. This makes two season-ending injuries for E.J. in the last two years, and while we can always hope he'll come back next year and regain his form, he was a step down from his usual dominant self for most of the year, and it might be asking too much for him to come back from another devastating injury. The Vikings should definitely be thinking linebacker in the early rounds of the 2010 draft.

* Finally, Brett Favre had that kind of game we all thought he would have. Admittedly, it's hard to fault the guy when the team is so one-dimensional offensively and he has to air it out 45 times because the score is so lopsided. Still, he could have easily doubled his interception total, if Adrian Wilson had held on to a few more ill-advised attempts. Last week, I mused that Favre's low interception total wasn't just the result of luck and that he'd had only three or four of those "oh shit" kind of throws that should have been intercepted all season; he just about matched that total last night.

On the bright side, Dallas losing keeps the Vikings two games up in the fight for a #2 seed and first round bye, though we'll have to outpace Arizona, who now holds the tiebreak edge. New Orleans is virtually out of reach at this point, though they've shown vulnerability the last few weeks. Here's hoping Cincinnati isn't as good as their record indicates and that the 'dome crowd can help the Vikings get back on a winning track next week.

I don't mean to alarm anyone...

But here's what happened the last time the Vikings started 6-0.

That won't happen again, of course.

We play the Cardinals in week 13, not week 17. And Nate Poole, may he burn in whatever hell he fears, hasn't played in the NFL since 2005. And there's no more push-out rule. And we have the most fun-loving quarterback in the league, who would never let his defense fall asleep like that.

(The guy's been great, I'll admit. But three hours of Dan Dierdorf praising him is more than anyone should be subjected to. Even Nate Poole.)

The 2004 version of the Vikings fared about the same, getting off to a 5-1 start before going into a nosedive and finishing the season 8-8. Beating the Packers at Lambeau Field in the playoffs was sweet, but it was still another case of the Vikings being just good enough to avoid embarrassment, but not enough to be actually good -- a hallmark of the Mike Tice ".500 and out" regime. In total, the 2003-04 Vikings were 11-1 through week 6 and 6-14 after.

Could they face a similar fate this season? We all want to say "of course not" because all we see is a very good team now and can't imagine a 3-7-like finish. But we felt the same way in 2003 and 2004, and every team that starts out well (like this one and this one) can't possibly fathom the ridiculous notion that they'll collapse down the stretch. "All that matters is wins," they'll say, no matter how ugly the wins or how weak the opposition, only to earn their "overrated" label in the second half.

(That is, by the way, a corollary of my NFL Predictions Rule. In addition to "Always pick four new division winners every year," I espouse "At the midway point, a team at 6-2 or better will fade down the stretch and finish at 9-7 or so." Last year, I picked the Redskins, the year before the Lions. The Broncos are looking mighty tempting this year.)

The questionable play of the defense the last few weeks is a major red flag that teams quarterbacked by Ben Roethlisberger, Jay Cutler, Kurt Warner, and Eli Manning might exploit better than teams quarterbacked by Shaun Hill, Kyle Boller, Brady Quinn, and Matthew Stafford did. And then there's Aaron Rodgers -- wait, I think Jared Allen just sacked him again. Still, at this point, I think even JaMarcus Russell could complete half his passes for 150 yards against us. And that's saying something.

In short, the Vikings are ripe for a fall. (And please don't tell me it won't happen because you-know-who is in purple. Remember the Jets last year?) With two tough road games on the slate next, we could be in for a little disappointment after a hot start, though I'll admit I would have been overjoyed to be 6-2 going into the bye. The second-half schedule looks reasonably soft, but that 2003 team lost to four teams with 4-12 records, so anything is possible. I really hope they won't be "that team," but after years like 2003, 2004 (not to mention 1996 and 1997), I won't truly feel good about our record until we've played 16 games.

Then Gary Anderson can miss a field goal in overtime in the NFC Championship Game.

Not so bad after all

Given the deal the Falcons just gave Roddy White (6 years, $50 million, $18.6 million guaranteed) and the Cardinals gave Larry Fitzgerald (4 years, $40 million) last offseason, suddenly the 6-year, $42 million ($16 million guaranteed) for Bernard Berrian doesn't seem so bad. Certainly, Berrian's not in Fitzgerald's (who seems dramatically underpaid) league, but he might be on par with White, assuming the Vikings get better quarterback play.

Of course, long contracts for wide receivers -- and, admittedly, any player -- can be dicey. Two years ago, this article quoted Steve Smith's new deal as putting him "among the five highest-paid receivers in the league, along with Marvin Harrison, Terrell Owens, Javon Walker and Deion Branch."

Smith, Harrison, Owens: Worth big money.

Walker, Branch: Not so much.

Hey, at least Fred Smoot's off the Vikings' books!

The best 2009 NFL Draft grade goes to...

Minnesota. Or Jacksonville. Or Tampa Bay. Or maybe Buffalo. Dallas, perhaps?

Because predicting who'll get the most out of their draft class a day before the event is about as reliable as predicting it the day after the draft.

Consider this article, from ESPN's 2005 draft archive, titled "Solid drafts move Cardinals, Vikings forward," which provides us with the following excerpt:

The Vikings got playmakers on both sides of the ball in the first round, surprising some pundits by choosing wide receiver Troy Williamson over Mike Williams and adding to a fast-improving, young defensive front with pass-rush end Erasmus James. But the Vikes not only started fast, they finished nicely as well, adding "value board" prospects such as offensive lineman Marcus Johnson (who could replace right guard David Dixon), corner Dustin Fox (a potential "nickel" contributor as a rookie) and tailback Ciatrick Fason. If coach Mike Tice is as serious as he claims to be about returning to the power run game that Minnesota abandoned in 2004, Fason could be a factor.

Ciatrick Fason wasn't a factor anywhere except maybe in the unemployment line. Dustin Fox I barely remember; Troy Williamson and Erasmus James I want to forget. And Marcus Johnson just signed with the Raiders a month ago.

Didn't know that? Neither did I, until I read this article, titled "Vikings aim to flip lesson of '05 flops."

Seven players were taken by the Vikings that spring, and four years later, as the team prepares for another draft, none remain.

Ouch.

Obviously, the Vikings have done a much better job of improving their team via free agency the last few years than through the draft. Jared Allen was our pseudo-#1 pick last year and played better than any rookie would have and, Fred Smoot aside, our big-name free-agent or trade targets have panned out reasonably well or better. The draft is important (and finding Adrian Peterson helps), but it's not the only way to build, and, with the salaries commanded by top-of-the-draft, unproven rookies, its arguably not even cheaper any more.

(Meanwhile, what about the Cardinals' 2005 draft? Antrel Rolle looks like the only truly useful player in that bunch. The ESPN article goes on to question Seattle's "reach" for Lofa Tatupu and Denver's pick of Darrent Williams, who looked good in his two years in the league before being shot and killed in 2007.)

So, just keep in mind when you see "Draft grades" and other immediate post-draft coverage that the "experts" have about as good an idea as how a team's draft picks will pan out as you do. Of course, that won't stop me (and everyone else) from giving our views on the best and worst picks, especially for our chosen teams, next week. But as long as you acknowledge it's more fun than serious, you'll be all right.

Vikes win Card game

OK, who all started Tarvaris Jackson in their fantasy league? Yeah, that's what I thought.

Exiled to the sports bar, the Vikings/Cardinals game was on the same TV as the Kansas City/San Diego game, which ran forever. I tuned in just in time to see a 3rd and 14 play (great) and see T-Jack drop back (uh-oh), heave a ball down the right sideline (going to be in the third row), which floats down to Bernard Berrian (great coverage, he'll never get it), who hauled it in (he'll go out of bounds), who then took it in for the touchdown (uhhh....).

What the hell do I know?

The game went pretty much exactly as I called it on Thursday, and Arizona was good enough to comply with our plans. The Cardinals completely ignored the run (seven called runs) while the Vikings played the pass and pressuring Kurt Warner (who was sacked four times and knocked down about 20 times) while running the ball down Arizona's throat all day long, to the tune of 44(!) runs for 239 yards. Adrian Peterson and Chester Taylor combined for 231 yards and a 6.1 yard-per-carry average.

What I didn't expect was the good performance by Tarvaris Jackson. I'm not completely ga-ga over four TD passes -- the passes to Taylor and Sidney Rice were nondescript enough -- but the other two were beautiful. The two TD passes to Berrian and Bobby Wade couldn't have been thrown any better and while they required a nice play by each receiver to go for six, those are passes T-Jack simply doesn't make last year (or earlier this season). Again, 11 for 17 for 163 yards aren't eye-popping numbers, but T-Jack played basically error-free football, the kind he needs to play if he's going to be the Vikings quarterback going forward.

And you know, that might not be a bad thing. Not if he plays like he has the last game and a half and the Vikings commit to the run while playing good defense. That's a recipe for "Uh oh, NFC, watch out for the Vikings."

Now the Vikings are in the catbird's seat with regards to the NFC North. At 9-5, they still own a one-game lead over the 8-6 Bears, but they also own the tiebreaker with the Bears. That means they will win the division unless the Vikings go 0-2 down the stretch and the Vikings go 2-0. I can't believe I'm saying this, but...

Go Pack, go! Beat those Bears!

In the larger picture, the Vikings are in good position to secure the #3 seed in the NFC, now holding a one-game advantage over the 8-6 NFC West champion Cardinals, as well as the head-to-head tiebreaker. And, if things break incredibly well -- if the Vikings finish 2-0 (11-5) and the Carolina Panthers finish 0-2 (to also go 11-5), the Vikings would own tiebreaker over the Panthers, thanks to their victory over Carolina earlier in the season.

But that's all a ways off. Right now, let's just revel in the fact that the Vikings went into Arizona and emerged with their playoff dreams intact. Take that, Nate Poole.

T-Jack back in the saddle

It's official...Gus Frerotte will miss at least two weeks with a fractured bone in his back (ouch). That means Tarvaris Jackson will take over as the team's starting quarterback and, as mentioned before, that's not the end of the world. And there's a chance, however slight, that 12 weeks on the bench have improved T-Jack to the point where he won't be the same inaccurate, error-prone quarterback we've come to know and not love in his time with the club.

Certainly, his half of football against Detroit was promising. And yes, it was "just" the Lions, but it was the same defense that picked off Gus Frerotte twice in the first half and limited that Frerotte-led offense to just three points. If head coach Brad Childress sticks with a run-first game plan that mixes in short, high-percentage passes, Jackson could be a moderately effective quarterback, or at least effective enough to let the defense and running game get the job done.

Regardless of who plays quarterback, however, the bigger challenge against the Cardinals might be in stopping their potent offense, which leads the league in points scored. The Cardinals play right into the Vikings' weaknesses on defense. No team has thrown more passes than the Arizona Cardinals, and they're the only team in the league with fewer than 1,000 yards rushing and one of two with fewer than 300 rushes. They'll pass first and pass often, mixing in just a few runs. Both last week against Detroit and two weeks ago against Chicago, the Vikings frequently used a nickel package on first and second down and, even after seeing what passes for Benny Sapp's defense, I'd still rather have him on the field than Napoleon Harris against a heavy passing team like the Cardinals.

Still, regardless of how the defense plays, most of the attention will be directed at Tarvaris Jackson and how he performs against a relatively soft (23rd in points allowed) Cardinals D. The Cards are only 10th in yards allowed, though, which might lead one to believe that the offense tends to turn it over fairly often and give up a short field. Sure enough, Kurt Warner has 12 interceptions and nine fumbles. With all his pass attempts, though, Warner's only been sacked 20 times on the season, a very good 3.8% clip.

The worst-case scenario for the Vikings would be falling behind early and having to rely on the passing game and Tarvaris Jackson to beat the Cards. Jared Allen and the rest of the Vikings' D will need to get pressure on Warner to prevent him from finding receivers downfield, which could lead to a long day for the Purple and Tarvaris Jackson.

John David Booty, anyone?

Four years too late

Sigh...

Hate forceouts? They're gone.

Double sigh.



Triple *#&^#$^ sigh.

Why yes, I do hate forceouts. Good riddance.