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?

Busy day for the NFC North

As a "final 8" team in this new uncapped year, the Vikings don't look to be too active in free agency this offseason. But the other teams in the division aren't as restricted, as was evidenced by today's flurry of activity by two of the Vikings' divisional rivals.

Well, by one of our divisional rivals and the Lions.

Here's my opinions, in order of increasing importance, of the five free-agent moves made today by the Bears and the Lions.

5) Lions sign WR Nate Burleson. Apparently learning nothing from the Seahawks, who got nine more catches and 31 fewer yards in four years of Burleson than the Vikings got from him in three, the Lions handed Burleson a five-year, $25 million contract. He did have a respectable 63 catches and 812 yards for the Seahawks last year but also missed three games, following a one-game 2008 season. And the Lions continue to show why they're in last place, year after year.

4) Bears sign RB Chester Taylor. If you're surprised I rank this transaction so low, consider this: The Bears already have a decent third-down back in Matt Forte (120 receptions in two seasons), Taylor will turn 31 just after the start of the season, and he's averaged 4.0 and 3.6 yards per carry his last two years with the Vikings. If the Bears plan to make him their featured back, consider that Taylor managed just 4.0 yards per carry his one year as a featured back (2006), which was vastly inflated by his 95-yard run against the Seahawks; he managed just 3.7 yards per carry on his other runs that year. I'm really appreciative of what Taylor did in his four years with the Vikes, but his age, Adrian Peterson's new-found receiving skills, and the presence of Albert Young and Ian Johnson to take over the backup role made him eminently expendable.

(Strange note: In my copy of Madden NFL 2009 that I played four seasons of last year, Taylor signed with the Bears during the 09-10 offseason. Now, if Tarvaris Jackson can just lead us to the Super Bowl, my game will be uncannily accurate...)

3) Lions sign DE Kyle Vanden Bosch. Two years ago, Vanden Bosch was coming off three seasons of 12.5, 6.5, and 12.0 sacks. Since then, he's managed just 7.5 sacks, and the Titans' scoring defense sank to 28th in the league last year. Granted, he instantly improves the Lions' defense -- not a difficult task -- but he's not the playmaker he used to be.

2) Bears sign TE Brandon Manumaleuna. Chester Taylor won't do much to improve the Bears' running game, but Manumaleuna might. He's not much of a pass-catcher, but he's blocked for the likes of LaDanian Tomlinson and Marshall Faulk during some of their biggest years. On the bright side, this means that Greg Olson's career as a Bear is almost virtually done, as he'll likely be traded for a draft pick, so, in the short term, one wonders if the "trade" is a wash.

1) Bears sign DE Julius Peppers. All of the other transactions involve so-so players or don't provide significant upgrades to their teams. This one's the biggie, though, and I, for one, am not looking forward to Peppers making our QBs run for their lives twice a year. My only consolation is that Peppers turned 30 in January (by comparison, Jared Allen is two years younger), but as was evident in the Panthers' game against the Vikings in December, he can still give any offensive coordinator nightmares.

Still, in general, I think that most of these moves -- Peppers excepting -- aren't the kind of big-impact deals that can completely change a team. The only team I'm really worried about in our division going into next year is the Packers, who, in winning seven of their last eight regular-season games last year, might not need much in the free agency market to give the Vikings a run for their money in 2010.

A tale of two halves

I was thinking about the Tennessee Titans last night.

The phrase people used to describe the Titans during their second-half resurgence this season was that they'd "dug a hole" so deep at the start of the season by going 0-6 that even their remarkable 7-2 run since wouldn't be enough to get them into the playoffs.

By that same measure, the Minnesota Vikings dug themselves into a hole in the first half Monday night by playing the worst half of football I'd seen them play all year. Offense, defense, special teams -- absolutely nothing worked for the entire half, in which the team could only manage about 100 yards on offense while allowing the Bears to march up and down the field. At that point I was already thinking of making plans for the third weekend in January, since I knew I wouldn't be watching the Vikings in the playoffs' second week.

Then came the second half. Somehow, the team that had sleepwalked through the last month or so was replaced with the team that we'd seen during the seasons first three months. That team featured Adrian Peterson running free, Brett Favre zinging passes downfield, and Sidney Rice catching everything. That team scored 30 points in the half. That team looked like a playoff-caliber team. That team looked unstoppable, at least on offense.

The special teams, unfortunately, looked also like a throwback -- a throwback to the 2008 unit. A missed extra point and poor kick coverage allowed the Bears to get back into the game but, oddly, when the Vikings got the ball back with five minutes left to go and needing a touchdown to tie the game, I felt something I hadn't felt in a long time: confidence. Of course Brett Favre was going to lead the team down for a game-tying touchdown. It's what he does. And waiting until fourth down with 16 seconds left to go to do it? Brilliant.

Then came the final stanza. Would we see the first-half Vikings or the second-half Vikings? I didn't know if I should be confident or pessimistic. I figured there was an equal chance of both and, unfortunately, we got the latter. The Bears were in field goal range immediately and it only took a miracle for them not to score on their opening drive. Then, just when I thought a healthy dose of Adrian Peterson would be just what the doctor ordered in OT, it was pass, sack, sack, punt. The next time, the Vikings got the ball to AP for the first time in the extra period, only to have him cough it up yet again and hand the Bears the win.

Certainly, there's more blame to go around to just lump it all on Peterson. The special teams, as mentioned, were horrible. (A bobbled snap and a 15-yard punt? Really, Chris Kluwe?) The announcing team mentioned that Antoine Winfield could be beat one-on-one downfield, which the Bears took full advantage of on the game's last play. And, other than one good tackle, Jaspar Brinkley again looked like a poor replacement for EJ Henderson. And then there was that offensive line that played in the first half, which was definitely not the same five guys who played in the second. I refuse to believe it.

Yet strangely, despite the loss and the fact that the Vikings now need help from Dallas to get a first-round bye, I feel strangely confident. That second half showed me that the team can actually look and play like a good team again, something I didn't think possible after the last few weeks. Yes, they're still fading down the stretch, but they showed at least a little something to give me hope. Maybe it's a false hope, as often is the case with Minnesota Vikings teams, but I'll cling to it for a little while longer. It's all I've got right now.

Vikings get late Christmas present

With the Saints improbably losing to the Bucs on Sunday, the Vikings are suddenly alive for the #1 seed in the NFC again. On the even brighter side, if the Bucs could travel to the Superdome and beat the Saints, I don't feel too bad about the Vikings' chances to do the same, so a #2 seed would also be a nice consolation prize. In any case, if the Vikings can nail down that #2 seed (or better), it guarantees that the only outdoor game they might be playing January will be in Miami for the Super Bowl. Now if only Denver could have come through and beaten the Eagles, our weekend would have been complete...

Oh right, except for that pesky detail of beating the Bears tonight.

The down side to the wacky weekend? It guarantees that Brett Favre will get no rest, as both the Vikings' remaining regular-season games will have impact for the team. To which I say: fine. Every game is expected to be meaningful, and a quarterback is expected to play all 16 games in a season. If the quarterback can't play a full season, then that's a negative that needs to addressed. In a sense, I've found it a trifle odd that everyone was so concerned about Favre's durability this year. I mean, the guy's only probably the most durable player ever. But if part of his playing well was supposed to entail him getting rest at the end of the season, well, most teams don't have the luxury of resting their starters at the end of the year; in fact, apart from the Colts, the only teams that can do that now are making vacation plans for January. Favre's been excellent, but if we only rented a three-month quarterback, then maybe we should have made other plans. At least he'll (probably) get a week off before his first postseason game in purple.

Vikings pass on running -- as they should

The Vikings rolled over the Bears 36-10 yesterday, completely dominating Chicago in every facet of the game (well, minus a couple of special teams gaffes), but, as usual, the run-pass balance was questionable. Counting his one sack, Brett Favre dropped back 49 times while handing the ball off 31 times...

And, based on how the Vikings ran the ball, I almost think we should have passed more.

First of all, don't be deceived by that raw number: 49. Minnesota ran 83 official plays (discounting penalties and including three kneeldowns) to Chicago's 38 and dominated time of possession, 40:55 to 19:05. You're going to have a lot of passes and runs when you run that many plays. To wit, 59% of the play calls on Sunday were pass plays, not far off from the 56.7% league average. So don't look at "49" and think that Brett Favre was overworked.

That said, there's something just not quite right with the Vikings' running game. Adrian Peterson has averaged 4.2 yards per carry over his last five games, but that number is inflated by a 7.4 yards per carry average against Detroit. His averages in the other four games? 3.8, 3.9, 3.4, 3.4. Serviceable, but not what we've come to expect.

The bulk of the blame has to go on the offensive line, as I can't remember the last time I saw it open a hole for Peterson or get a two- or three-yard push on an opposing defensive line. As such, Peterson's only positive runs seem to be on cutbacks (usually after running up the back of his own linemen) or on runs to the outside. Only Peterson's speed and athleticism have allowed him to manage even three-plus yards per carry in those four games. At the start of the year, you could have said that teams were selling out to stop Peterson and were willing to take their chances with the Vikings' passing game, but a) They've been doing that for the last three years; and b) The way Brett Favre is playing, that's really, really, really stupid. A professional football coach can't take that approach and expect to win -- and I guess, 10 out of 11 times this year, they haven't.

And then there's the fumbles. Seriously, can we get Tiki Barber to come in and tell Peterson how to stop fumbling? Oh, you're not comfortable carrying it in your left arm. Well, get comfortable, son. Or ride the bench.

Maybe it's just a temporary stutter in Peterson's so-far majestic career; it's not like Jim Brown and Barry Sanders were great every Sunday. But Peterson seems to go through stretches like this every year, where he looks average at best, and it's hard to figure out why. I haven't run a pass-vs.-run analysis this year like I did each of the last two years because I've been busier and it takes a while to put together, but maybe I'll get to one this week. If I do, for the first time in a while, I'll probably find that the Vikings are passing a lot more than they're running, and it'll be a good thing.

Brett Favre might be good

Now that's the convincing win over a subpar team that everyone was looking for...

Even the most die-hard Brett Favre-backers couldn't have predicted this kind of season. 21 touchdowns versus 3 interceptions and a 112.1 passer rating makes folks like me look pretty silly for dissing him early in the season. And after seeing Tarvaris Jackson play for a quarter-plus and look like the Division 1-AA quarterback that he is, it's pretty clear that Favre's not only an MVP candidate for the league as a whole, but he's probably the most valuable player on the Vikings. I could live with Chester Taylor for a while if Adrian Peterson went down, and Ray Edwards has stepped it up enough to make me feel good if the team lost Jared Allen, and the defense has weathered the loss of Antoine Winfield for the last month or so. But right now, Favre is playing as well as he ever has in his career and Tarvaris Jackson (not to mention Sage Rosenfels) would be a huge step down.

It doesn't hurt that Sidney Rice and Percy Harvin are both also looking like stars, and Visanthe Shiancoe has quietly become one of the better pass-catching tight ends in the league. The only negative in the passing game is the looking-like-a-bust Bernard Berrian, who's a distant fourth option in the passing game. I'm also a little concerned at the lack of explosive plays from Adrian Peterson, but I think that's more the fault of the offensive line, which rarely seems to open up holes these days, and some iffy playcalling -- could we please stop calling that stretch play? I'd rather we passed to Naufahu Tahi, that's at least a guaranteed three yards.

One down, six to go. Remember the "poison pill" contracts the Vikings and Seahawks exchanged four years ago? The Vikings' offer to Steve Hutchinson required the Seahawks to make him the highest paid offensive lineman in the league if they retained him. In retaliation, the Seahawks offer to Nate Burleson -- a seven-year, $49 million deal -- would only pay out the full amount if Burleson played seven games in Minnesota during the length of the contract. This was his first game in Minnesota, so if he can manage six more games there over the next three-plus years...

(Really, not that I'd want it to happen, but I sort of hoped that, if the Vikings did move then the Seahawks would move to Minnesota and Burleson's contract would be paid out. I know, they'd release him first, but it would have been cute.)

Next week is the third of the Vikings' three post-bye home games. As I laid out a little while back, the Vikings can practically wrap up their division with a win against Chicago next week. If Chicago beats Philadelphia tonight to go to 5-5 and the Packers win next week against Detroit to go to 7-4, then a Vikings win next week would make them 10-1 with five games to go and in control of all tiebreakers in the division. Chicago would be 5-6 and effectively six games back, putting them out of contention, while Green Bay would be essentially four games back, meaning they'd have to go 5-0 while the Vikings go 1-4 (or worse) or go 4-1 while the Vikings go 0-5. I like our chances.

Of course, if the Bears beat the Vikings, that changes things a bit, but let's not dwell on that...

An Emmy-winning performance

While there's little outright complaining, there seems to be an undercurrent of mild grousing about the Vikings "only" beating the Lions 27-10 on Sunday and not putting the game out of reach until the 4th quarter. In fact, it seems like the Vikings always struggle with the Lions, despite coming out on top in each of the last five meetings between the teams.

My opinion is that a 17-point win is a 17-point win. The Vikings played just fine in Sunday's game, even if it took a while to make the game a pseudo-laugher. Consider some of the other games this past week that matched two teams where one was thought to be clearly superior than the other and yet barely eked out a win:

Miami 25, Tampa Bay 23
New Orleans 28, St. Louis 23

and a few that rank as outright upsets:

Washington 27, Denver 17
Cincinnati 18, Pittsburgh 12
Carolina 28, Atlanta 19
Green Bay 17, Dallas 7

And arguably the New England/Indianapolis and San Diego/Philadelphia games. Against those, I'll take a 27-10 victory any day.

* After the Vikings, my favorite three offenses to watch this season are, in order: Miami (love the Wildcat), New Orleans (for its sheer firepower), and -- wait for it -- Cleveland.

Watching the Browns' "offense" is like watching a good disaster movie, but without the obligatory hot chick. (I will still watch The Day After Tomorrow just to see Emmy Rossum.) I honestly think that Brady Quinn still has some potential in the league and could be a nice pickup for a team (possibly a team in purple) in a couple years when he finishes out his rookie contract, but the combination of terrible play calling (even MNF resident cheerleader Jon Gruden was criticizing the 827th one-yard route the Browns called last night), terrible receivers, and terrible offensive line play give him zero chance to succeed. Until that changes, the Browns offer better comedy than anything Jay Leno can provide on late-night TV.

* 20 carries for 41 yards Thursday for Matt Forte, making his season average 3.4 yards per carry. Good thing Jay Cutler will improve the running game in Chicago!

* Sorry, I'm still thinking of Emmy Rossum. I have to go now...

Vikings win division without even playing

It's not technically over yet in the NFC North. But, thanks to losses by Chicago and Green Bay on Sunday, it would take a few minor miracles for the Vikings not to claim their second straight division crown in 2009.

Here's how things currently stack up:

Minnesota: 7-1
Chicago: 4-4
Green Bay: 4-4

With eight games left to play, Minnesota holds three-game leads over both Chicago and Green Bay and owns the tiebreaker over Green Bay (making for an effective four-game lead over the Packers). Let's assume the Vikings can handle Detroit and Seattle the next two weeks at home. We'll also assume that Green Bay beats Dallas and San Francisco and Chicago beats San Francisco and Philadelphia -- neither of which are sure bets and are, at the very least, a higher caliber of opponents than the Vikings face. That would make the standings:

Minnesota: 9-1
Chicago: 6-4
Green Bay: 6-4

going into Minnesota's home tilt with Chicago in week 12. Now, let's assume the Vikings win that game (and GB wins again vs. Detroit). Now the standings are:

Minnesota: 10-1
Green Bay: 7-4
Chicago: 6-5

With five games left to play, Minnesota has an effective four-game lead over Green Bay and an effective five-game lead over Chicago. Why five games? Simple. If Minnesota beast Detroit and Chicago, Minnesota now owns tiebreaker over Chicago. The Vikings would be 5-0 against their division, while Chicago would be 1-2. Even if the Vikings lose to Chicago later in the year and the Bears win the rest of their divisional games, the Vikings would still have a 5-1 divisional record to Chicago's 4-2.

And all that has to happen for this scenario to play out is for Minnesota to beat Detroit and Seattle (pretty likely) at home. Even if Chicago and Green Bay go 2-0 over their next two contests -- hardly a sure thing -- the Vikings are still sitting pretty. If either team goes 1-1 or, even better, 0-2, it all but sinks their hopes of winning the division. And that's awfully nice to hear before mid-November.

Why the Broncos are 6-0

The simple answer is, of course, "Their amazing defense and a really lucky play against Cincinnati." But consider the following two quarterbacks, each with the same number of pass attempts:

Quarterback A: 4,526 passing yards, 25 TDs, 18 Interceptions, 86.0 passer rating, 6.8 adjusted yards per attempt

Quarterback B: 3,937 passing yards, 24 TDs, 16 Interceptions, 79.6 passer rating, 6.0 adjusted yards per attempt

Which one is better? Quarterback A, but not by a large amount.

Now, suppose my team has quarterback B. I'll trade him to you for quarterback A. Not a good deal for you, but, depending on circumstances, maybe one you would make...

Oh, and I'll also throw in two first-round draft picks and a third-rounder. Can you toss me a fifth-rounder, maybe, just to even things out a bit?

I bet you're taking that deal.

Quarterback A's stat line belongs to Jay Cutler in 2008. B's stat line is Kyle Orton's stat line in 2008, adjusted to have the same number of attempts as Cutler. The reason Cutler's numbers looked better in 2008 was solely because of his high number of attempts. Plug Orton in for another 200-odd attempts in 2008, and his numbers start to look like Cutler's.

When the deal was made, I was skeptical of both sides. The conventional wisdom of Cutler as a franchise quarterback still lingered in my brain, despite my certainty that his "big numbers" were more the result of his number of pass attempts. Orton, meanwhile, while not great, was reasonably efficient in 2008, few people could dispute that he enjoyed a better receiving corps (Brandon Marshall and Eddie Royal) in Denver than Orton did (Devin Hester and Greg Olson/Matt Forte) in Chicago.

(The Vikings also were supposedly interested in Cutler, and he probably would have been an upgrade over Tarvaris Jackson and Sage Rosenfels, but I was hoping we wouldn't give up the house to acquire him.)

Admittedly, we're only looking at one season's worth of stats here, but that's about all we can do. Orton was awful in his rookie year, starting for the Bears in place of the injured Rex Grossman, and played sparingly in his second year. For Cutler, one year looks pretty much like the other. I'm too lazy to compute all sorts of advanced stats, but his passer rating his first four years in the league (counting this one) are 88.5, 88.1, 86.0, and 86.9. Decent, but not something I'd want to give up three high draft picks and a reasonable quarterback for.

So far, Cutler's performed reasonably well (the opener in Green Bay aside), but he's still looking like about the same passer he was in Denver -- willing to put it up all the time, but interception-prone. Meanwhile, we do harp on Denver's defense, and it's amazing, but Orton has nine touchdowns versus just one interception and a passer rating over 100. I don't think he's that good, but far too many people were just thinking of him as subpar, if not outright bad, going into this season.

But hey, look at how much Cutler is helping the Bears' running game. Matt Forte's 3.4 yards per carry is clearly the result of improved quarterback play.

So the next time you hear someone say Denver's just having a good season because of their defense, know that that's just part of the story. For years, it seemed like the Broncos could make any running back into a 1,000-yard back. Nowadays, maybe they can make any quarterback into a Pro Bowler...

The apocalypse is nigh

And the Chicago Bears inch ever-closer to securing the 2009 NFC North crown.

Schedule day!

It's like Christmas in April! Only without the snow and scary Santas in malls.

First, the schedule itself:

Week 1: @ Cleveland
Week 2: @ Detroit
Week 3: San Francisco
Week 4: Green Bay (Mon.)
Week 5: @ St. Louis
Week 6: Baltimore
Week 7: @ Pittsburgh
Week 8: @ Green Bay
Week 9: Bye
Week 10: Detroit
Week 11: Seattle
Week 12: Chicago
Week 13: @ Arizona
Week 14: Cincinnati
Week 15: @ Carolina (Sun. Night)
Week 16: @ Chicago (Mon.)
Week 17: NY Giants

The Vikings start off on the road for their first two games and play three of their first five on the road, but there's certainly potential for a strong start, as none of the Vikings' first five opponents finished with a record better than .500 last year. In total, those five teams managed just a 19-61 combined record in 2008. And the two "best" teams in that bunch, 7-9 San Francisco and 6-10 Green Bay, will play in the Metrodome. 3-2 should be automatic, 4-1 clearly attainable, and 5-0 not out of the question.

Then come the defenses of Baltimore and Pittsburgh. The loss of Bart Scott could hurt the Ravens, and if Joe Flacco has to beat us -- and he will, considering the Vikings' run defense -- I like our chances at home. The only good thing about playing at Pittsburgh is that it'll be in October, so weather at least shouldn't be a factor. And speaking of weather, you gotta love going to Green Bay on the first of November!

Then the Vikings don't have to leave Minneapolis for a full month, with a bye week and three straight home games. It's not a bad stretch for the five post-bye games, with Arizona likely to come down significantly from last year, but the final three games could be brutal: road games against Carolina and Chicago and, like last year, a home finale against the Giants.

Finally, there's the weather issue. After the Green Bay game on Nov. 1, the Vikings have three road games. Arizona will be nice, but anything could go in that Chicago game -- freezing rain, snow, wind, anything. And don't be too optimistic about that Carolina game. I can say, from experience of living in Charlotte for four years, that it can get a little nippy in late December. Not Chicago or Green Bay nippy, but 40-degree temperatures at night are not uncommon. A cold snap could drop the weather down near freezing.

Still, it's overall a rather soft-looking schedule, at least on paper. Thanks to two games against the Lions and a run against the NFC West and AFC Central bottom-feeders Cleveland and Cincinnati, the Vikings boast one of the league's easiest schedules, based on last year's records. Fully half of the Vikings' opponents (8 of 16) come against teams that lost 10 or more games in 2008. Of course, the rest of the division gets a similar break, so it wouldn't be surprising to see two (or more) playoff teams come from the division. If Green Bay can get their 3-4 defense running smoothly and Jay Cutler's a hit in Chicago, the NFC North might just be the class of the league in 2009.

Assuming everyone forgets about Detroit.

Vikings 34, Bears 14

OK, so maybe I was a little premature in my consideration of Kyle Orton as future quarterback of the Vikings. The Vikings defense dominated Orton and the Bears for most of the game, forcing three interceptions and putting up an amazing goal-line stand in the 34-14 win. The three Bears turnovers resulted in 17 Vikings points, but it was the stop at the Vikings one that resulted in the most exciting play of the game -- if not of the season.

When the Vikings took over inside their own 1, I thought, "A pass might not be the worst thing in the world here." After being harassed much of the first quarter, Gus Frerotte had received decent protection the last few drives, so a safety wasn't much of a concern. When he launched the ball deep down the near sideline, my only thought was "Just complete it." When I saw Bernard Berrian running free, I thought, "Can he catch up with it?" When he caught it in stride and kept going, I leaped out of my chair and, if they were sleeping, I woke up the neighbors. 99 yards later, and the game had completely changed in just a few plays, and the Bears never recovered.

How big a turnaround was it? Before that play, the Bears had 171 yards of offense to the Vikings' 117. After that play, the Bears managed just 94 yards the rest of the game. The Vikings outdid that on the next play and amassed 268 total yards the rest of the game.

How did the Vikings stuff the Bears so completely in the second half, limiting them to just 6 yards on 7 plays in the fourth quarter? Would you believe by running the ball? Yes, Brad Childress finally appears to have figured out that it's good for the Vikings to run the ball, exclusively when they have the lead. The Vikings' play calls in the fourth quarter? Two passes against 16 runs, including 15 handoffs in a row to close out the game. Overall, in the second half, the Vikings ran 23 times while putting it up only 9 times, the perfect formula for sitting on a team's throat and throttling them, especially with the talent the Vikings have on offense.

The defense wasn't too shabby either, picking off Orton three times and limiting the Bears to just 228 yards of total offense. Nearly a third of that yardage came on one play, the quick slant that Devin Hester took 65 yards for a touchdown (which even John Madden called as being Darren Sharper's fault, further indicating that he's likely done with the Vikings after this season). Though Matt Forte ran the ball surprisingly well (22 carries for 96 yards), the goal-line stand will be what people remember from this game from the defense.

So, what does this leave for the Vikings now? The good news is they're at 7-5, a full game up on 6-6 Chicago and two up on 5-7 Green Bay. The bad news is that the Vikings clearly have the toughest schedule remaining of the three teams. After a visit to 0-12 Detroit, the Vikings travel to 7-5 Arizona, followed by home games against 8-4 Atlanta and 11-1 New York (which, hopefully, will have everything sewn up and can rest some of its starters). The Bears have three straight home games, and all of their opponents are under .500, while the Packers' only .500 or better opponent down the stretch is Chicago -- and they get to play Detroit again, too. Then there's the Kevin Williams/Pat Williams suspensions, which the league is expected to come to a decision on Tuesday, though it's said that the players could ask for an injunction against the suspension, allowing them to continue playing.

But that's all in the future. For now, let's just bask in the glow of another win over a division rival, a one-game lead in the division, and a league-record-tying 99-yard touchdown pass. It was about as complete a win as a Viking fan could hope for, so let's not spoil the moment.

Vikings vs. Bears -- Sorta-hafta-win game

Big showdown with the Bears Sunday night...with a win, the Vikings would be 7-5 with a one-game lead in the division and only Detroit remaining on the divisional schedule. If we assume the Vikings beat Detroit next week (even if the Williams boys are suspended), then they'd be looking at an 8-5 record, 4-2 in the division, and a surprisingly good chance of winning the division, even with a slip down the stretch during that tough December schedule.

If the Vikings lose the game, however, that pretty much ends their division-title chances for the year and puts a serious crimp in their overall playoff plan. At 6-6, the Vikings would be essentially two games behind the 7-5 Bears, who would have swept the Vikings for the season. With at least three other +.500 teams in the NFC that aren't leading their divisions, that would put the Vikings at least in fourth place in competition for two wild-card spots. Not good.

So while I loathe the term "must win" (If the Vikings lose this week, everyone will say that next week's game is a "must win" to keep their faint playoff hopes alive, and so on, and so on, every week until they're actually eliminated from playoff contention. If you can lose a "must win" game and still stay alive, then guess what? It wasn't a "must win"!), this game is pretty close. Fortunately, it's at home, where the Vikings are 4-1 this season, and while the Bears are 3-3 on the road, two of those road wins came against Detroit and St. Louis. All signs would seem to point to a Vikings victory, but you know how that usually goes with this team. Here's hoping for another 14-0 lead in the first two minutes!

* Probably the most cringe-inducing moments in Sunday night's game will come when the Vikings punt to Devin Hester. Interestingly, though, Hester's averaging just a mediocre 6.3 yards per punt return, and has actually been taking off kickoff returns. Nevertheless, expect every announcer and every fan in the Metrodome to expect Chris Kluwe to kick away from Hester, regardless of how effective he actually is.

* The pro-football-reference.com blog recently had a post about unique game scores in the NFL, prompted by that 11-10 Pittsburgh/San Diego game a few weeks ago, and in the process introduced a bunch of neat new toys for finding game scores. Read the post to get all the links, but, for instance, here's the list of all 30-12 games in NFL history, including last week's Vikings/Jaguars game. (That Chicago Bears/Pottsville Maroons game in 1927 was a real barnburner!) Specifically, as it relates to the Bears/Vikings, their earlier 48-41 contest was the first in NFL history with such a score.

My favorite "WTF?" score has to be 5-0, which has occurred three times, including twice in fairly recent times. And then there's this 7-2 gem from 1993, the third of its kind, appropriately between two teams with a combined record of 3-23.

* Another possibility for the Vikings' 2009 QB I hadn't considered: Tim Tebow. Granted, he'll have to declare for the draft and he'd have to slip to the Vikings' pick, but after the Brady Quinn incident in the 2007 draft, anything's possible.

And count me as someone who's not interested. I think Tebow, like Alex Smith in Utah, is a product of Urban Meyer's spread offense and think it unlikely that he'll be even remotely as good in the pros as he is in college. Might be that he could be successful as a part-time QB/part-time WR/slash/Wildcat type of player, but until an NFL player with quarterbacking skills officially declares himself to be that type of player, as opposed to a full-time QB, I don't see it happening.

41 not quite enough

Well, at least you can't blame that one on the coaching.

Notable for its high scoring and surprisingly good play-calling from Brad Childress, the Vikings lost to the Bears 48-41 yesterday in a game riddled with miscues and gaffes in all three phases of the game: offense, defense, and special teams. And when you lose out in all three of those categories, it's awfully tough to win.

Yet even behind by 17 early in the fourth quarter, I had a feeling the Vikings could still pull this one out, and they nearly did. But this game was sabotaged by a number of fluke plays and bad decisions by the players, rather than the coaching staff:

* Gus Frerotte threw four interceptions, and three of them were Tarvaris-Jackson-ugly. The fourth, a long pass down the sideline that was a bit underthrown, wasn't the worst thing you could do, but in the end four picks are four picks.

* Poor Chris Kluwe. Two weeks after being publicly ripped by his head coach, he botched the snap and then (illegally) kicked it straight to the Bears' Garrett Wolfe, who scampered 24 yards for the touchdown. It was Kluwe's first blocked punt ever in the NFL.

* Honestly, I'm not sure what to make of the Charles Gordon play. On the one hand, you always see punt returners try to block off opposing players after the fair catch signal so they can't down the ball. On the other hand, the punt was near enough to the sideline that it probably wouldn't have mattered one way or the other. On the third hand, it was ridiculously unlucky that the bouncing ball should hit Gordon's outstretched arm. On the fourth hand (we're getting into Indian goddess territory here), when you plan not to catch the punt, you should run to the next county if you have to. I'm really just willing to chalk this one up to awful, awful luck.

* The Marty Booker 51-yard touchdown was unconscionable. You can't let a guy run through your whole defense like that.

* When the Bears did try to hand us an opportunity, we couldn't cash in. We recovered a Kyle Orton fumble around midfield but failed to convert on the opportunity. And that Desmond Clark fumble at the goal line could have either rolled out of bounds through the end zone or been recovered by a Viking. Instead, a Bear player jumped on it for the six points.

Yet even for all that went wrong in the game, a fair number of things went well.

* I commented on the play calling earlier, and was amazed that, in almost every situation when I said, "Well, they should do X here, but they probably won't" -- where "X" was "go for it on fourth down" or "kick a field goal" or "run the ball" -- they made the seemingly right call. My only beef was with not kicking off deep to Devin Hester (when he was still in the game). Instead, they gave the Bears good field position several times, and they converted that advantage into points. The one time they did kick deep to Hester, before he left the game with an injury, he managed just a mediocre 20-yard return.

* The run-pass balance was good, despite the team attempting 42 passes to 32 runs. Going into the fourth quarter, the mix was 27 runs to 21 passes, but when you're down by 17, you have to air out out.

* The ugly 48 on the opposing scoreboard might not indicate it, but the defense played surprisingly well, giving up just 327 yards. Only two of the Bears' touchdown drives went for longer than 55 yards, and three of their six touchdowns on the day were the result of special teams plays and a six-yard "drive" following a Gus Frerotte interception.

* Another blocked field goal? Cool, but couldn't you have deflected this one to Antoine Winfield like the last time? I know, picky, picky, picky...

When all is said and done, I really don't have any choice but to chalk this one up to a series of fluke plays that, nine times out of 10, don't happen. Then again, considering how we "stole" our last two wins, it seemed inevitable that we would lose a crazy one. I won't be voting down Chilly this week -- I'll abstain instead and see if he can head into the bye week with a game plan that is similar to the blueprint he used against the Bears, minus the crazy mistakes.

But hey, if we could score 41 when our offense commits five turnovers and has a blocked punt returned for a TD, imagine what we could do without those?

My poor, bleeding eyes!

Those wacky Madden '09 folks are at it again.

Warning: The following image may be too graphic for young viewers, especially those in the upper Midwest.

Read the story here. In essence, a Madden '09 season with Brett Favre as QB put the Vikings at 10-6. Without him, the team goes 5-11.

(And besides, John David Booty is wearing #4. You think the rookie fifth-round draft pick is going to give up his hard-fought number for a nobody like Favre? Pfeh!)

Now I'm as big a Tarvaris Jackson critic as anyone. But 5-11? Three wins fewer than last year? The article's author seems to agree:

Unless Jared Allen is mauled by bears on one of those hunting trips and the rest of the defense catches polio, that team isn't going 5-11.

With one defensive player already sidelined for the season by leukemia, I don't know that I'd be tempting fate like that.

* Ever wonder who would win between the 1998 Vikings and the 1996 Packers? Of course you have. Maybe you've even simulated the game in some version of John Madden Football. But have you ever wondered who would win if the two teams faced off in Tecmo Super Bowl?

I have to hand it to the creators of this video, and others like it, playing a full season of games pitting top historical teams against each other. (The Vikings/Packers game comes around the 5:30 mark. I won't spoil it for you, but justice is served later in the video, when the 1998 Falcons lose.) The editing and commentary are far better than I would have expected, too. Now, if I only knew how they did it...

* Continuing the video-game theme, what player holds the all-time record for the two-minute drill in Madden 2002? If you guessed, Daunte Culpepper, you'd be right. But I'm not talking about someone using Daunte in the game.

Actually, I am. Sort of. Nice to see the man's keeping busy, no?

* Imagine if, midway through the season, the Vikings lost Adrian Peterson, Jared Allen, and Steve Hutchinson to injury. Then you'd know what the Atlanta Braves feel like, having lost their three best players (Tim Hudson, Chipper Jones, and Brian McCann) all in the last few days. McCann should only miss a few days after suffering a concussion Sunday, while Chipper's been placed on the 15-day DL and Hudson is likely done for the season.

Oh, toss in that John Smoltz's last pitch for the season was on June 2 and that'd be like losing Kevin Williams around week 6, too. And they'll probably trade away Mark Teixeira (Vikings equivalent: Matt Birk?) in the next few days. OK, then the team might go 5-11.

* While I think that paying Joe Nathan -- a player who will pitch approximately 1/20 of his team's total innings -- $11 million per year is a little ridiculous, it's not as bad as paying $7.5 to $10 million a year to a guy with 112 touches last year and whom opposing teams can purposely avoid. But I guess when you're the Bears and you have only one actual scoring threat on your team, you need to make sure he's happy.

Congratulations, Devin Hester. Now that you're financially set for life, feel free to follow Dante Hall's career path from "godlike return man" to "fifth wide receiver."

* Finally, after starting this post with such a disturbing image, I thought I'd end it with something nicer:


That's Jenn Sterger, who, in addition to looking good in a referee's uniform (insert "I'd like to commit a personal foul on her" joke here), was a regular columnist for SI.com in 2006 and 2007...aaaaaaaaaand, she posed for Playboy. I try to maintain a PG-13 blog here, but you shouldn't have too much trouble finding more...interesting...pictures of her, if you so desire.

Jenn, if you're reading this, I'd be open to the idea of a guest columnist some day, especially one with your, ah, experience...