Mauled by Panthers

It's probably just as well that I didn't go to see the Vikings game last night.

In a game riddled with mistakes, misplays, and poor decisions all around, the Vikings played probably their worst game of the season in a 26-7 loss to the Carolina Panthers. It's no longer a fluke, either: The Vikings officially cannot run the football, and while there are many theories, I think it still starts with the offensive line play. Compare the "holes" Adrian Peterson had to run through last night against an injury-depleted Carolina defensive line to the wide gaps Jonathan Stewart had against the vaunted, all-Pro-studded defense of the Vikings. "Run the ball and stop the run" is a tired old adage, but if it has any value, it's clear that the Vikings can no longer do either, which leaves them one-dimensional on offense and vulnerable on defense.

That one dimension on offense is still pretty good, at least when Brett Favre can find time to throw the ball. Other teams (minus the Packers) have figured out that they need to double-team Jared Allen on every play, but the Vikings were seemingly unable to come to the same conclusion regarding Julius Peppers. Peppers was usually matched up against the rookie Phil Loadholt or, even worse, against Artis Hicks, with little to no help from a guard or running back, and the results were predictable. Even so, Favre and the Vikings can't win by passing every down, but unless they solve what's wrong with the running game, they'll have to.

Then there's the defense, which is no longer the stout run-defense unit that we're used to seeing, giving up 100+ yards on the ground each of the last three games. Jaspar Brinkley has shown that he can read the play and shoot the gap. Now, if he could only wrap up and make the tackle, he might actually be a good player, but in the meantime, the team will continue to miss EJ Henderson. Also, while it may seem shocking to some, a fat 37-year-old defensive tackle isn't playing so great. Or, as I say a year ago:

As for Pat Williams, he ideally only plays on "35 to 40" plays per game, or about half the team's defensive snaps. Hey, I love watching the guy swallow up a running back as much as the next guy, but should we be paying $7 million a year for a part-time player, even if he is a Pro Bowler? That sounds like the epitome of "sell high" to me.

Apparently, the Vikings believe in "keeping a guy one year too late" instead of getting rid of him "one year too soon." Oh, and I hate Steve Smith.

The #1 seed, briefly dangled in front of our eyes, is now just a distant dream that relies on a confluence of miracles to achieve. The #2 seed, once ours for the taking, is now dangerously close to being yanked away from us. And any hopes of resting Brett Favre are all but dashed unless the Eagles misstep next week against Denver.

And just to top off the crappy weekend, I got bounced out of the playoffs of one of my fantasy leagues last week and out of my other league's this week. Great time to have your worst game of the season, Drew Brees!

A distinct lack of Flair

I am such a wimp.

The forecast for Sunday in Charlotte is low of 25 and high of 42. Now, being the good, hardy Minnesota boy that I am, 25 degrees above zero doesn't frighten me. Heck, 25 degrees below zero doesn't frighten me either -- I've gone out in that and worse than that.

But here's the deal. I could go to the Panthers game on Sunday. I know a season ticket holder who's willing to sell me his. So, I could go and watch the Vikings in person, which would entail:

1) A good deal of money spent on the tickets
2) A good deal of money spent on parking and potentially food
3) Sitting on my butt in near- or below-freezing weather for 3-4 hours at night (As everyone knows, the way to deal with cold weather is to keep moving; I was fine walking to school in subzero temps as a teenager but the 15 seconds I had to stop for traffic were excruciating.)
4) Dealing with downtown Charlotte traffic
5) Rooting for my team in a hostile environment; and
6) Probably not getting home until around midnight

All that is weighted against sitting at home and watching a game in the comfort of my own home on national TV. It's really not that hard a decision once you get right down to it. If this game were an afternoon game in October or something, I'd probably be all over it. (I might have been able to get out to the game the last time the Vikings played in Charlotte, in which case, I could have witnessed this infamous game, in which Chris Gamble effectively ended Daunte Culpepper's career and Steve Smith effectively ended Fred Smoot's relevance.)

So, I think I'll go ahead and enjoy this one at home, even if it means missing out on the Ric Flair safety video I saw the last time I went to a Panthers game (a preseason Panthers/Steelers game in 2006); I couldn't find it online, so you'll have to settle with a fan's video of the Nature Boy celebrating a Carolina Panthers goal.

Woooooooo!

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.

Vikes bounce back, bounce Bengals

That's how a team with championship aspirations bounces back from a tough loss against a playoff-caliber team at home!

(Can I just say, too, that I always appreciate the color combination when teams play each other. Dallas blue/silver versus Philadelphia green/white is nice. Green Bay green/gold versus Chicago blue/white is nice. Vikings purple/gold versus Cincinnati orange/black is hideous. I don't know why it bothered me so much.)

I know the Bengals' passing game isn't what it used to be, but limited Carson Palmer to 94 yards passing is sweet.

Adrian Peterson wasn't exactly explosive, and still only managed 3.7 yards per carry, but I'll definitely take it over last week's debacle.

The Vikings' 210 total net yards allowed was their second-lowest total this year, only exceeded by the Chicago game (169).

The last time the Vikings whupped the Bengals this badly in the Metrodome, Vikings' running backs coach Eric Bieniemy was in the building, but as a member of the opposition. As a side note, this was the only game of the 1998 season that I missed, as I was working that weekend. Somehow, I wasn't worried.

I'm still debating whether I want to go to the Panthers game next week. I probably have the chance to get a friend's season tickets, and the stadium is just a few miles down the road. But I'm weighing against it the fact that I'll be sitting at night in 40-ish degree weather for three-plus hours (I know, I know, I've become soft) when I could be sitting at home in relative comfort for a lot less money. If this game were in the afternoon in October, I'd go in a heartbeat. As it is, I'm iffy. Any suggestions?

More receiver talk (OMG Steve Smith!)

I knew something was bugging me about my receivers post from last week, and I think I may have figured it out.

I mentioned that play calling and offensive scheme would have a lot to do with a receiver's total yardage, and that makes sense. A receiver on a team that throws 600 times will have more opportunities for catches and yardage than one who plays on a team that throws 500 times. So I decided to add that wrinkle to my receiver rankings. What follows is the list of the top 25 receivers in the NFL in 2008, ranked by receiving yards divided by team pass plays (pass attempts + sacks):

	Receiver	Yards	TPP	Yds/TPP
1	Steve Smith	1421	434	3.27
2	Roddy White	1382	451	3.06
3	Andre Johnson	1575	587	2.68
4	Calvin Johnson	1331	561	2.37
5	Greg Jennings	1292	575	2.25
6	Derrick Mason	1037	466	2.23
7	Vincent Jackson	1098	503	2.18
8	Larry Fitzgerald	1431	658	2.17
9	Muhsin Muhammad	923	434	2.13
10	Antonio Bryant	1248	594	2.10
11	Wes Welker	1165	582	2.00
12	Brandon Marshall	1265	632	2.00
13	Lee Evans	1017	517	1.97
14	Bernard Berrian	964	495	1.95
15	Reggie Wayne	1145	599	1.91
16	Santana Moss	1044	548	1.91
17	Hines Ward	1043	555	1.88
18	Tony Gonzalez	1058	578	1.83
19	Terrell Owens	1052	578	1.82
20	Dwayne Bowe	1022	578	1.77
21	Donald Driver	1012	575	1.76
22	Randy Moss	1008	582	1.73
23	Michael Jenkins	777	451	1.72
24	Braylon Edwards	873	512	1.71
25	Zach Miller	778	460	1.69

What more needs to be said about Steve Smith? Playing on the team with the fewest pass plays in the league (434), Smith was #3 overall in yardage (10 behind #2 Larry Fitzgerald) and is only one of two receivers to top the 3.00 mark, just ahead of Atlanta's Roddy White, who played for the team with the second-fewest pass plays. The actual leader in yardage, Andre Johnson, comes in third. Meanwhile, the only 1,000-yard receivers to not make the list, Anquan Boldin and Steve Breaston, both played for the pass-happy Cardinals and barely broke the 1,000-yard barrier; in that offense, even Troy Williamson might have managed 500 yards.

This system's got its obvious flaws. It doesn't count QB scrambles that start out as pass plays, and no receiver is on the field for every pass play. Technically, the ranking should be receiving yards divided by team pass plays when the receiver was in the game. I don't have any way of finding out that data, though, and it especially hurts guys like Boldin, who missed time due to injury and, unbelieveably, Steve Smith(!), who was suspended for his team's first two games. Seeing that the Panthers called 66 pass plays in those games and subtracting those from the team's 434 pass attempts, you can credit Smith with an astonishing 3.86 yards/TPP, or a full yard-plus better than every other receiver in the league but one! And living in Charlotte and having watched a good number of Panthers games this year, I'll tell you that covering the man makes no difference.

The only other thing I considered was whether using team passing yardage instead of team pass plays would be a better denominator, but I decided against it partially because I wanted something that "looked" more like a running back's yards per carry stat and a little like a receiver's yards per reception. Nobody rates running backs based on their rushing yardage as compared to their team's rushing yardage.

So again, you can take or leave this stat which says that, this year at least, Randy Moss wasn't much better than Zach Miller. But if Zach Miller's team had thrown another 122 passes, to get them even with Moss's squad, their final numbers might have wound up a lot closer.

Pat Williams hurt; and, first-round bye?

The news regarding Pat Williams' shoulder injury is not as bad as it could be, but it's also not great. Big #94 is expected to miss two to six weeks with a broken right scapula (shoulder), with recovery time expected to be about four weeks. That could put him back on defense by the second week of the playoffs, which could be the Vikings' first or second postseason game (more on this below), depending on how things shake out. Fred Evans will take over at defensive tackle with Williams out, with Ellis Wyms also seeing time.

As I've frequently noted, while Pat Williams is a big part (literally) of the defense, and he's a whole lot of fun to watch, I also think he's a big overrated, as he's a near non-factor against the passing game (when he's in the game at all), which teams tend to use a lot against the Vikings, sometimes to the complete exclusion of the passing game.

Now, I certainly agree that part of the reason for opponents' playcalling is because of Williams' presence, but I would have no problem sacrificing some of the Vikings' ability against the run if it meant improving the pass defense. Granted, this year, the pass defense has been notably better than in years past, and the improved pass rush, led by Jared Allen, has had a lot to do with that. The Vikings' last two games are against the best two rushing teams in the league, Atlanta and New York, but Michael Turner and Jerious Norwood aren't exactly between-the-tackles kinds of guys, and the Giants' Brandon Jacobs has a gimpy knee. The Vikings still have Allen and Kevin Williams on the line, along with Chad Greenway (who could be a dark-horse Pro Bowl candidate) and Ben Leber on the next level, so I don't think the Vikings' run defense will suffer too greatly with Williams sidelined.

The question is, though, what will Williams come back to? He's certainly out for the rest of the two-week regular season but might be available when and if the Vikings make the playoffs. And figuring out exactly where the Vikings will land in the NFC playoff picture is an interesting question, indeed.

Right now, the 9-5 Vikings hold on to the #3 seed in the playoffs. The 11-3 Giants and 11-3 Panthers will play for the #1 seed this Sunday night. For the Vikings to work their way into a first-round by, they would have to win both their remaining games and have one of the Giants or Panthers lose their last two. Both teams would then be at 11-5 -- and the Vikings would automatically hold the tiebreaker.

Sound improbable? Well, hang on. Assume the Vikings beat the Falcons at home this weekend, to improve to 10-5. Since the Giants and Panthers play each other, the loser of that game would be 11-4. If the Giants lose, they then have a trip to Minnesota in the last week of the season. That game would then become extremely important to both teams, as the winner would be the #2 seed (the Vikings would hold the tiebreaker, thanks to their victory over the Giants) and get a first-round bye.

If the Panthers lose instead, the Vikings can still clinch the #2 seed if they beat the Giants (who, with home field wrapped up, might have little to play for and rest their starters) and if Carolina loses its final game of the season at New Orleans. Both teams would then finish 11-5 and, thanks to the Vikings' 20-10 win over Carolina in week three, the Vikings would take the #2 seed.

In either situation, as long as the Vikings win this week, they'll win their division and be in the running for the #2 seed -- and might even have a chance to control their own destiny in playoff seeding. Who would have thought that after the team's awful start? Heck, I'm even optimistic that Tarvaris Jackson's looking like he'll make his second straight start this Sunday.

And the full moon was four days ago.

It's not just the offense

So maybe a 1-3 record after four games isn't the end of the world, especially when you consider that the Vikings are only one game behind 2-2 Green Bay and Chicago for the division lead in the NFC North. In general, people are pointing to two reasons for the Vikings' slow start: a lackluster offense (accompanied by some of the worst play calling in the league) and the rough opening schedule: road games at Green Bay and undefeated Tennessee and home against Peyton Manning and the Indianapolis Colts. Next week, the team plays at New Orleans, where Drew Brees figures to throw for at least 350 yards.

But here's another theory: Apart from a dismantling of the Carolina Panthers, the defense, pumped up by high-priced free-agent acquisitions, has looked mediocre at best, forcing very few turnovers, rarely hassling the opposing quarterback and, in general, looking just like the defense of the past few years: solid against the run, porous against the pass, and unable to make a stop or make the big play when it needs to. So, just how has the defense looked the first four games?

Here are some of the key defensive stats from Minnesota's first four games:

	Yards	Sacks	Turnovers	Points
Green Bay	317	0	0	24
Indianapolis	321	2	2	18
Carolina	204	5	2	10
Tennessee	275	0	1	30
Average	279.25	1.75	1.25	20.5

Now, here are the offensive stats for those four teams over the 11 games they've played (three for each except Indianapolis) against non-Vikings teams and their per-game averages:

	Yards	Sacks	Turnovers	Points
Green Bay	962	9	2	85
Indianapolis	618	3	3	34
Carolina	1005	4	2	70
Tennessee	947	2	4	72
Average	321.09	1.64	1.00	23.73

Looking at that, you'd say, for the most part, that the Vikings defense has performed well, doing better than average in yards, turnovers, and points allowed, while only being a smidge off the sack rate.

However, as you can see from the first table, much of the Vikings' statistical defensive success comes from a thrashing of Carolina in week 3, when they established or tied their highs in yards allowed, sacks, turnovers, and fewest points allowed. Let's take out Carolina's stats -- the team's only win -- from each chart. I'll abbreviate the charts by just presenting the Vikings' average defensive stats and the average per-game stats of their three opponents in the eight other games they've played:

	Yards	Sacks	Turnovers	Points
Minnesota actual (Avg vs. non-Car)	304.33	0.67	1.00	24.00
GB/Ind/Tenn (Avg vs. non-Min)	315.88	1.75	1.13	23.88

So, what can we say about this comparison? The first thing is that it is a small sample size -- only, in effect, 11 games total, so any analysis has to come with a grain of salt.

That said, it's clear that the Vikings defense has, at best, performed at an average level against the three teams it lost to so far this year, at least from this limited data. Yards, turnovers, and points are nearly equal, and the sack totals are way off. The Vikings managed just two sacks in three games against Green Bay, Indianapolis, and Tennessee, while other defenses have sacked those teams' QBs 14 times in eight games. And this is with the Vikings boasting what's supposed to be the best defensive front (if not front seven) in the league.

It's too early to give up on the season (and we do still have two games against Detroit, always a plus), but it's also a bit of a fallacy to blame the Vikings' early struggles entirely on the offense or on a tough schedule. Other teams have played the same teams we've played and, in general, done the same or better defensively than the Vikings. The Vikings' defense wasn't supposed to be league-average, and its pass rush certainly wasn't supposed to be below average. But that's what they are right now, and it's a big reason the team is 1-3.

All aboard the Gus Bus

It was about midway through the third quarter of yesterday's Vikings game that I noticed something. Gus Frerotte dropped back and my heart did not instantly leap up into my throat. For the first time in two years, I was not deathly afraid of something awful happening when a Vikings quarterback dropped back to pass. Oh sure, it wasn't all because of Frerotte that the team won its first game of the season, nor was it entirely Tarvaris Jackson's fault that they lose their first two. And Frerotte is a short-term band-aid, at best. But for one week at least -- and hopefully a few more to come -- the passing game wasn't a weakness of a team with one of the best running games and defenses in the league.

The mantra at the start of the season, quoted by coaches, media, and fans was that the Vikings didn't need much from the quarterback position. They just needed a "game manager" (one of my least favorite terms, as it's synonymous with "quarterback who's not good enough to actually win games"). But through his first two starts, Jackson was flinging the ball all around the field, trying to force the ball deep when short passes would have sufficed and seemingly never finding the open receiver -- and when he did, often firing above him, behind him, or at his feet. And coach Brad Childress was going to have to call plays that adhered to this philosophy, running often and throwing safe, short passes to keep the clock moving and meticulously drive the ball down the field.

After the Vikings' first two drives, where they passed the ball six times (with the only running play being called back by a penalty), and ending with Frerotte whizzing a high bullet through Bernard Berrian's hands and into Chris Gamble's, I thought we were in for more of the same. Then came the 14-play, eight-minute second-quarter drive where Frerotte marched the team down the field with a mix of runs and easy passes that was a delight to watch.

As good as that drive was, the Vikings had an even better drive in the late third/early fourth quarter, an 18-play behemoth that consumed over 11 1/2 minutes. Even though each drive only netted a field goal, and I'm usually not a huge fan of ball-control, dink-and-dunk offenses (since it prevents your offense from running more plays just as much as it does the opponents') but these couple of drives were just what this team needed to show that it could run an efficient offense with its new quarterback, who showed the willingness to simply move the chains instead of trying to go for a play beyond his talent level.

The defense did its fair share, as well. It seemed like it took Antoine Winfield -- not the world's fastest cornerback -- about 10 minutes to get to Jake Delhomme on that second-quarter sack/fumble/touchdown. Delhomme was harassed all day, sacked five times, and the running game was, as usual, stuffed to the tune of 47 yards on 20 carries. Thanks to the pressure up front, Delhomme was only able to find the returning Steve Smith four times to the tune of 70 yards. The strong defensive showing, combined with the revitalized passing game led to an oddity on recent Vikings teams: Discounting sacks, the Vikings had more raw passing yards (204) than the Panthers (191) yesterday. That happened exactly once last year, in the second Chicago game, and you'd have to go back to December 3, 2006 -- another Chicago game -- for the last time before that.

To be certain, the game wasn't perfect. Too many penalties stunted drives, though the Panthers were just as complicit and were actually penalized more times (12 to 9) than the Vikings, though for less total yardage (67 to 100). The officials were a little flag-happy, though, and some of the flags seemed nitpicky, so maybe it wasn't entirely the team's fault. Still, it's always nicer to have a win than a loss and Brad Childress is already feeling the love, up to 32% in this week's poll. Next up is a Tennessee team looking very much like our own: a tough defense, good two-headed running game, and a veteran quarterback who took over for a young scrambler. Should be an interesting matchup, even if the over/under on total points is about 20.