Are we better than Favre-less Vikings?

Originally posted by BETTERDAYZ9ERS:
One first down away from beating them with Shaun Hill in their house. Or if Dre Bly could catch a damn ball

Originally posted by valrod33:

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:

Originally posted by 5280High:
I'm not hating but seriously? Vikes are better. Yeah we were one miracle away from beating them, but we also lost to the Seahawks. Being good in the NFL is consistency, and until we show that we aren't as good, Farve or not. We are very similar teams but the Vikings just are a better more consistent version.

They lost to the Cards, Panthers and Bears.

oh my

Originally posted by valrod33:

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:

Originally posted by 5280High:
I'm not hating but seriously? Vikes are better. Yeah we were one miracle away from beating them, but we also lost to the Seahawks. Being good in the NFL is consistency, and until we show that we aren't as good, Farve or not. We are very similar teams but the Vikings just are a better more consistent version.

They lost to the Cards, Panthers and Bears.

oh my

And beat GB twice, split with Bears, Baltimore, Cincy (who was actually good), Completely destroyed dallas, and beat themselves in losing to the Saints.

With Smith still being an unknown commodity and Farve gone (supposedly)... we are virtually identical teams, but they still have a better complete team. They have better overall personnel groupings than us at every position except TE and LB's in my opinion. Secondary is probably a split, but they got 2 legit RB's and a top 5 O-line and D-line.

Originally posted by 5280High:

Originally posted by valrod33:

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:

Originally posted by 5280High:
I'm not hating but seriously? Vikes are better. Yeah we were one miracle away from beating them, but we also lost to the Seahawks. Being good in the NFL is consistency, and until we show that we aren't as good, Farve or not. We are very similar teams but the Vikings just are a better more consistent version.

They lost to the Cards, Panthers and Bears.

oh my

And beat GB twice, split with Bears, Baltimore, Cincy (who was actually good), Completely destroyed dallas, and beat themselves in losing to the Saints.

With Smith still being an unknown commodity and Farve gone (supposedly)... we are virtually identical teams, but they still have a better complete team. They have better overall personnel groupings than us at every position except TE and LB's in my opinion. Secondary is probably a split, but they got 2 legit RB's and a top 5 O-line and D-line.

But your initial argument was that they were more consistent. I think that their record belies that.

Originally posted by superman49er:

Positional Breakdown (Being ultra conservative) :

QB: I'll give Tavaris a slight edge for now, only bc hes been to the playoffs, but by the end of this year I think Alex will be viewed by everyone as better

Ummm ya standing on the sideline in the post season doesn't mean anything. Tavaris didn't get them into the post season.

I guess we should have kept Dilfer over Smith. I mean Dilfer did win a SB!!!

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:

Originally posted by 5280High:

Originally posted by valrod33:

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:

Originally posted by 5280High:
I'm not hating but seriously? Vikes are better. Yeah we were one miracle away from beating them, but we also lost to the Seahawks. Being good in the NFL is consistency, and until we show that we aren't as good, Farve or not. We are very similar teams but the Vikings just are a better more consistent version.

They lost to the Cards, Panthers and Bears.

oh my

And beat GB twice, split with Bears, Baltimore, Cincy (who was actually good), Completely destroyed dallas, and beat themselves in losing to the Saints.

With Smith still being an unknown commodity and Farve gone (supposedly)... we are virtually identical teams, but they still have a better complete team. They have better overall personnel groupings than us at every position except TE and LB's in my opinion. Secondary is probably a split, but they got 2 legit RB's and a top 5 O-line and D-line.

But your initial argument was that they were more consistent. I think that their record belies that.

huh? They were more consistent... in any argument.

Originally posted by 5280High:

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:

Originally posted by 5280High:

Originally posted by valrod33:

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:

Originally posted by 5280High:
I'm not hating but seriously? Vikes are better. Yeah we were one miracle away from beating them, but we also lost to the Seahawks. Being good in the NFL is consistency, and until we show that we aren't as good, Farve or not. We are very similar teams but the Vikings just are a better more consistent version.

They lost to the Cards, Panthers and Bears.

oh my

And beat GB twice, split with Bears, Baltimore, Cincy (who was actually good), Completely destroyed dallas, and beat themselves in losing to the Saints.

With Smith still being an unknown commodity and Farve gone (supposedly)... we are virtually identical teams, but they still have a better complete team. They have better overall personnel groupings than us at every position except TE and LB's in my opinion. Secondary is probably a split, but they got 2 legit RB's and a top 5 O-line and D-line.

But your initial argument was that they were more consistent. I think that their record belies that.

huh? They were more consistent... in any argument.

They played a pretty easy schedule. Their 1st 3 road games were Detroit, St Louis, and Cleveland. It allowed them to get off to a fantastic start and play with alot of confidence.

Without Favre I think they're slightly worse than us, but more than capable of knocking us out. If you can play turnover free football, run the ball and stuff the run like they can you compete in almost every game you play.

I think we are slightly better than the Favre-less Vikings. With Favre they might have a slight edge. They where just more consistent last year. We played down to some bad teams and up to some great teams.

Originally posted by valrod33:

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:
1000000% yes.

we have depth at RB?

Originally posted by BETTERDAYZ9ERS:
One first down away from beating them with Shaun Hill in their house. Or if Dre Bly could catch a damn ball

You got that right.... i really hope he's gone this time though. I've had it with him.

As far as answering this thread... i believe we are better than a Favre-less Vikings at this time.

were better then the vikings with favre.

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by 5280High:

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:

Originally posted by 5280High:

Originally posted by valrod33:

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:

Originally posted by 5280High:
I'm not hating but seriously? Vikes are better. Yeah we were one miracle away from beating them, but we also lost to the Seahawks. Being good in the NFL is consistency, and until we show that we aren't as good, Farve or not. We are very similar teams but the Vikings just are a better more consistent version.

They lost to the Cards, Panthers and Bears.

oh my

And beat GB twice, split with Bears, Baltimore, Cincy (who was actually good), Completely destroyed dallas, and beat themselves in losing to the Saints.

With Smith still being an unknown commodity and Farve gone (supposedly)... we are virtually identical teams, but they still have a better complete team. They have better overall personnel groupings than us at every position except TE and LB's in my opinion. Secondary is probably a split, but they got 2 legit RB's and a top 5 O-line and D-line.

But your initial argument was that they were more consistent. I think that their record belies that.

huh? They were more consistent... in any argument.

They played a pretty easy schedule. Their 1st 3 road games were Detroit, St Louis, and Cleveland. It allowed them to get off to a fantastic start and play with alot of confidence.

Without Favre I think they're slightly worse than us, but more than capable of knocking us out. If you can play turnover free football, run the ball and stuff the run like they can you compete in almost every game you play.

Again, not hating in the least, I love me my niners... but they are better in all areas except for TE and LB... (ok ok and we have better punters and long-snappers). But with Shiancoe and Chad Greenway, its not the same drop off as if you compare their OL to ours. On top of that they have a legit play-makers on both sides in Harvin & Allen, where we are searching for one on the other side of Willis. The teams are VERY comparable (AP to Gore, Rice to Crabs, the Williams's to Franklin & Smith, Clements to Winfield) but they have more established depth and talent, where we are still trying to recognize potential. Until we prove that our potential isn't just hype then they are still a better all around team but the gap is close and closing.

Slightly better imo.