Which Team Is Really Actually Our Biggest Divisional Opponent Threat?

[bigbubbatd]

I think people are overlooking the Broncos defense. It's the best in the NFL. Broncos offense may be mediocre but you'd have to imagine it will improve as the players get more used to the new system. That defense on the other hand, man does that team have some crazy good pass rushers along with some good secondary players. I'm not saying the Broncos are the best team in the NFL but defense travels much better than offense (just look at the Packer's home/road splits).

What does it matter how their defense travels when they were playing the Vikings at home? Unless Peyton's arm gets new strength that offense is going to e very limited. They cannot throw more than 15 yards and have a banged up oline and average running backs. I am not trying to undervalue that defense it is the offense that isnt average.

Their defense is special but I think it will get exposed a little of teams can block the edge rush. Their corners looked over matched when the rush didnt get there. The Vikings were able to win a lot of one on one battles with decent but not great receivers. Even still the Vikings were only in that game late because of Manning interceptions which directly lead to 10 of the Vikings 20 points. The Vikings were dead to rights late in the first half down 13-3 with the Broncos driving and the Broncos were going to get the ball at the start of the half. The Vikings had 2 drives over 37 yards. The Broncos defense really kept them in check. It was Manning that kept the Vikings in it. And Bridgewater playing a solid game

Also I love a Viking fan mocking the Packers for not beating a quality opponent for a couple reasons.
1. The Vikings got crushed by SF and the Packers went up to SF and beat them by 14. SF is probably not a quality opponent but what does that say about the Vikings
2. The Vikings two wins have wins of the Lions and Browns who have a combined 1 win
3. The Packers four wins have wins over the Vikings, Lions, Raiders, Bears, and Texans and maybe someone else but I am not sure. It definitely isnt murders row but KC played the Broncos even closer than the Vikings

So I will grant that so far the Packers havent beaten a top end team but they have won every game by double digits with not counting Chicago scoring a garbage touchdown. So while they havent beaten a really good team they have handled their opponents. The Vikings have lost to the hapless 49ers.

 

[Raptorman]

Come on, Raptor, you can do better than that. The Vikings didn´t play the Chargers last season when they were 9-7 nor did they beat the Lions in 2014 when they were 11-5. This season none of them is over .500, that´s why I didn´t include the Packers wins over the Seahawks and the Chiefs either.

I see, so it's who they played last year, not who they played this year. And last year wins have what to do with this year? But then you tell me that the Vikings haven't played any quality opponents while the Packers have this year. Which is it? Are we counting last years wins for quality opponents this year or are we not? Because if we are not, than the Packers have played who as a quality opponent? Seattle? If you count them as quality because of last year, you cannot dismiss the Lions.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I see, so it's who they played last year, not who they played this year. And last year wins have what to do with this year? But then you tell me that the Vikings haven't played any quality opponents while the Packers have this year. Which is it? Are we counting last years wins for quality opponents this year or are we not? Because if we are not, than the Packers have played who as a quality opponent? Seattle? If you count them as quality because of last year, you cannot dismiss the Lions.

Geez, it´s really not that hard to understand. I considered games in 2014 played vs. an opponent that had a winning record last season and games from this season vs. opponents that have a winning record as of now.

Once again, I didn´t include the Seahawks because as of right now they´re at 2-2. They will be over .500 by the end of the season though.

 

[Raptorman]

What does it matter how their defense travels when they were playing the Vikings at home? Unless Peyton's arm gets new strength that offense is going to e very limited. They cannot throw more than 15 yards and have a banged up oline and average running backs. I am not trying to undervalue that defense it is the offense that isnt average.

Their defense is special but I think it will get exposed a little of teams can block the edge rush. Their corners looked over matched when the rush didnt get there. The Vikings were able to win a lot of one on one battles with decent but not great receivers. Even still the Vikings were only in that game late because of Manning interceptions which directly lead to 10 of the Vikings 20 points. The Vikings were dead to rights late in the first half down 13-3 with the Broncos driving and the Broncos were going to get the ball at the start of the half. The Vikings had 2 drives over 37 yards. The Broncos defense really kept them in check. It was Manning that kept the Vikings in it. And Bridgewater playing a solid game

Also I love a Viking fan mocking the Packers for not beating a quality opponent for a couple reasons.
1. The Vikings got crushed by SF and the Packers went up to SF and beat them by 14. SF is probably not a quality opponent but what does that say about the Vikings
2. The Vikings two wins have wins of the Lions and Browns who have a combined 1 win
3. The Packers four wins have wins over the Vikings, Lions, Raiders, Bears, and Texans and maybe someone else but I am not sure. It definitely isnt murders row but KC played the Broncos even closer than the Vikings

So I will grant that so far the Packers havent beaten a top end team but they have won every game by double digits with not counting Chicago scoring a garbage touchdown. So while they havent beaten a really good team they have handled their opponents. The Vikings have lost to the hapless 49ers.

If you are going to make comments about who the Vikings have beat. At least take the time to find out. The Vikings don't play the Browns this year. They beat the Chargers and Lions.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Including this season Manning is actually 24-2 at home since joining the Broncos. You have to admit though that Denver´s offense has taken a step backwards this season and that this team is carried by the defense. As I´ve said repeatedly the Vikings will have to beat a quality opponent before I even consider them as a threat for the Packers in the NFC North division, something they haven´t been able to do since Zimmer took over as head coach.

There is a little trouble in Denver paradise. Manning's reservations about the Kubiak offense have grown from mumblings and are approaching demands. He wants his shotgun hurry-up back. But you're right...even without a meeting of the minds, the defense is keeping it together.

 

[Raptorman]

Geez, it´s really not that hard to understand. I considered games in 2014 played vs. an opponent that had a winning record last season and games from this season vs. opponents that have a winning record as of now.

Once again, I didn´t include the Seahawks because as of right now they´re at 2-2. They will be over .500 by the end of the season though.

No, but you did say the the that Seattle was a quality opponent. I made the statement.

When the Packers beat a quality opponent this year, let me know.

And your response was.

I guess the two-time defending NFC champion should qualify as a quality opponent.

So which is it? Is Seattle a quality opponent or not? Because right now, you have contradicting statements.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

So which is it? Is Seattle a quality opponent or not? Because right now, you have contradicting statements.

There´s no doubt Seattle is a quality opponent. For the sake of the argument I set the standard of a quality team at a winning record as of now which doesn´t include the Seahawks at 2-2. They will have a winning record at the end of the regular season though.

 

[ExpatPacker]

Oh yeah, quality opponent. They fit right in with Denver not being as good because Manning has lost a step. Seattle's two wins against a 1-3 Bears team, and a 0-4 Lions team. That's a quality team. Pretty much all I have heard on Packer forums the last 4 months is how the Seahawks are not the same team they were last year. Now you want to pump them up? LOL

Seahawks aren't as good as they were last year, but they're still a quality team. A quality team in my estimation is one that is good enough to make the playoffs.

Not sure what the hell you mean by a quality team.

 

[bigbubbatd]

If you are going to make comments about who the Vikings have beat. At least take the time to find out. The Vikings don't play the Browns this year. They beat the Chargers and Lions.

I said the Vikings two wins (Chargers and Lions) have a combined two in wins over the lowly lions and browns.

 

[Raptorman]

There´s no doubt Seattle is a quality opponent. For the sake of the argument I set the standard of a quality team at a winning record as of now which doesn´t include the Seahawks at 2-2. They will have a winning record at the end of the regular season though.

I need time to digest this. Seattle is no doubt a quality opponent. But you didn't count them because they are 2-2. But they are quality enough for this discussion because they will surely be above .500 by the end of the year. The Lions and Chargers on the other hand are not quality opponents because well the Lions are 0-4 and they more than likely will be below .500 and the Chargers are not because they are 2-2 and well, they may or may not have a winning season.

 

[ExpatPacker]

I need time to digest this. Seattle is no doubt a quality opponent. But you didn't count them because they are 2-2. But they are quality enough for this discussion because they will surely be above .500 by the end of the year. The Lions and Chargers on the other hand are not quality opponents because well the Lions are 0-4 and they more than likely will be below .500 and the Chargers are not because they are 2-2 and well, they may or may not have a winning season.

Lions no. Chargers possibly. Denver definitely.

 

[HardRightEdge]

True, but aside of Minnesota they haven´t faced a good rushing attack so far (Lynch didn´t play for the Seahawks yesterday).

It dropped to 3.6 after Seattle for a 5th. ranking, while holding Wilson to 10 for 40 yds., well below his career average. The league average is running around 4.0, so I'd consider that the benchmark for a mediocre running game. 3.6 or 3.7 is a good number.

 

[Raptorman]

I said the Vikings two wins (Chargers and Lions) have a combined two in wins over the lowly lions and browns.

Sorry misread that. Let's see.

Bears have beat Oakland 2-2
Seattle has beat the Bears and Lions. Combined 1-7
KC has beat Houston. 1-3
San Fran beat the Vikings.

All strong teams for sure.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I need time to digest this. Seattle is no doubt a quality opponent. But you didn't count them because they are 2-2. But they are quality enough for this discussion because they will surely be above .500 by the end of the year. The Lions and Chargers on the other hand are not quality opponents because well the Lions are 0-4 and they more than likely will be below .500 and the Chargers are not because they are 2-2 and well, they may or may not have a winning season.

OK, seems like the resident Viking is a bit slow today. To make it easier on you let me put it a bit differently. The Vikings didn't win a game against a team which finished with a winning record last season nor haven't won a game vs. a team currently with a winning record in 2015.

The Seahawks, while not having a winning record as of now, are a quality team.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

It dropped to 3.6 after Seattle for a 5th. ranking, while holding Wilson to 10 for 40 yds., well below his career average. The league average is running around 4.0, so I'd consider that the benchmark for a mediocre running game. 3.6 or 3.7 is a good number.

Wilson normally benefits of playing with Lynch, defenses don't have to account for Thomas Rawls that much. The numbers are currently pretty good for the Lions, let's wait till the end of the season though to make an objective evaluation about their run defense.

 

[Raptorman]

OK, seems like the resident Viking is a bit slow today. To make it easier on you let me put it a bit differently. The Vikings didn't win a game against a team which finished with a winning record last season nor haven't won a game vs. a team currently with a winning record in 2015.

The Seahawks, while not having a winning record as of now, are a quality team.

Right got it. The Seahawks are a quality team because in your view they are most likely going to have a good year based on being 2-2 this year and 12-4 last year. While the Lions are not a quality team based on your estimation that because they are 0-4 this year and even though they were 11-5 last year they don't stand a chance of having a winning season.

Now, the Packer have won 4 games against team with winning records last year, but they have not won against any team that has a winning record this year. But they did beat Seattle who for all practical purposes is a quality team, even though they are only 2-2. So, when Seattle gets kicked around by the Bengals next week, will they still be a quality team at 2-3? And at what point does Seattle become not a quality team? Because I see them going 1-2 the next three games.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Wilson normally benefits of playing with Lynch, defenses don't have to account for Thomas Rawls that much. The numbers are currently pretty good for the Lions, let's wait till the end of the season though to make an objective evaluation about their run defense.

Fair enough, but I will remind you that you started this discussion by saying the Detroit run defense stinks, to paraphrase.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Right got it. The Seahawks are a quality team because in your view they are most likely going to have a good year based on being 2-2 this year and 12-4 last year. While the Lions are not a quality team based on your estimation that because they are 0-4 this year and even though they were 11-5 last year they don't stand a chance of having a winning season.

Now, the Packer have won 4 games against team with winning records last year, but they have not won against any team that has a winning record this year. But they did beat Seattle who for all practical purposes is a quality team, even though they are only 2-2. So, when Seattle gets kicked around by the Bengals next week, will they still be a quality team at 2-3? And at what point does Seattle become not a quality team? Because I see them going 1-2 the next three games.

It's true that I consider the Seahawks to be a quality team while I don't feel the same way about the Lions.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Fair enough, but I will remind you that you started this discussion by saying the Detroit run defense stinks, to paraphrase.

To be fair I said average.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Is Seattle a quality team? Absolutely.

Even if the refs had not hosed Detroit, with Seattle now sitting a 1-3, I see a team every bit the threat they were last season. A 1-3 start might have cost them a bye, but as it stands I would not say that's out of the question.

In the Chicago shutout, the Bears had 10 possessions and punted 10 times, never getting past the Seattle 45. Even if it was Jimmy "Frickin'" Clausen, that's one impressive defensive display.

Detroit's lone TD was on a fumble recovery. On their 10 offensive possessions, they punted 8 times, managed a FG, and then count the fateful play however you wish...that's 18 punts in the opponents last 20 possessions. And that's 3 opponents' offensive points over 8 quarters (or a theoretical 10 points) while not having generated a turnover!

This defense is hitting on all cylinders now. And lets face it, except for the fateful 5 minutes this is a ball control offense that often doesn't score many points. As a reminder, Seattle started 3-3 last season; after that they won games by scores of 13-9, 19-3, 19-3, 17-7 and 20-6.

The Seattle defense, and thereby the team as a whole, look to be ahead of last year at this time despite the 3-1 record at that juncture last season.

 

[HardRightEdge]

To be fair I said average.

So you did.

 

[bigbubbatd]

Sorry misread that. Let's see.

Bears have beat Oakland 2-2
Seattle has beat the Bears and Lions. Combined 1-7
KC has beat Houston. 1-3
San Fran beat the Vikings.

All strong teams for sure.

I acknowledge that. The teams that the packers have beat haven't really beaten any good teams

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

Is Seattle a quality team? Absolutely.

Even if the refs had not hosed Detroit, with Seattle now sitting a 1-3, I see a team every bit the threat they were last season. A 1-3 start might have cost them a bye, but as it stands I would not say that's out of the question.

In the Chicago shutout, the Bears had 10 possessions and punted 10 times, never getting past the Seattle 45. Even if it was Jimmy "Frickin'" Clausen, that's one impressive defensive display.

Detroit's lone TD was on a fumble recovery. On their 10 offensive possessions, they punted 8 times, managed a FG, and then count the fateful play however you wish...that's 18 punts in the opponents last 20 possessions. And that's 3 opponents' offensive points over 8 quarters (or a theoretical 10 points) while not having generated a turnover!

This defense is hitting on all cylinders now. And lets face it, except for the fateful 5 minutes this is a ball control offense that often doesn't score many points. As a reminder, Seattle started 3-3 last season; after that they won games by scores of 13-9, 19-3, 19-3, 17-7 and 20-6.

The Seattle defense, and thereby the team as a whole, look to be ahead of last year at this time despite the 3-1 record at that juncture last season.

This is true, but I think the Cards coulda taken that division had Carson Palmer not gone down. Im keeping my fingers crossed he finishes the season this time and if he does, AZ takes it.

Still a little concerned about the vikes though cuz even if Bridgewater stunk up the last drive by holding onto the ball too long, they still almost stole one in Denver. Hopefully our sack happy team can put the heat on him enough to disrupt their O.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

What does it matter how their defense travels when they were playing the Vikings at home? Unless Peyton's arm gets new strength that offense is going to e very limited. They cannot throw more than 15 yards and have a banged up oline and average running backs. I am not trying to undervalue that defense it is the offense that isnt average.

Their defense is special but I think it will get exposed a little of teams can block the edge rush. Their corners looked over matched when the rush didnt get there. The Vikings were able to win a lot of one on one battles with decent but not great receivers. Even still the Vikings were only in that game late because of Manning interceptions which directly lead to 10 of the Vikings 20 points. The Vikings were dead to rights late in the first half down 13-3 with the Broncos driving and the Broncos were going to get the ball at the start of the half. The Vikings had 2 drives over 37 yards. The Broncos defense really kept them in check. It was Manning that kept the Vikings in it. And Bridgewater playing a solid game

A couple of points. First, I think the Packers are better than the Broncos. For whatever reason some people think that when you talk about the good aspects of another team, you're saying the other team is better than the Packers (that's not directed at you, just at those that might also read this).

Second, there aren't really a lot of teams that have proven able to stop Von Miller coming off the edge and Ware is pretty much the same way at this point. I honestly think that most offenses won't be able to stop the Bronco's edge rushers without help and that handicaps the offense. Third, I'm not sure how many receivers won one-on-one battles. Bridgewater threw 41 passes for 269 yards and Diggs was the leading receiver with 87 yards so I'm not sure how many corners were beaten that badly, especially when the number one concern with playing the Vikings is stopping AD, which the Broncos did (with the exception of one play which is basically just Peterson being Peterson).

Finally, and this is what I don't understand, why is everyone so concerned with Manning's arm strength? The Patriots just won the Super Bowl with Brady not throwing the ball more than 15 yards downfield. Now, the Pats have Gronk to compensate but Thomas is really good for the Broncos and the Bronco's defense is MUCH better than the Pat's D was last year. Manning's arm strength at this point is not appreciably worse than Brady's.

 

[Raptorman]

It's true that I consider the Seahawks to be a quality team while I don't feel the same way about the Lions.

So in other words, a quality team is who you believe it to be.

This is true, but I think the Cards coulda taken that division had Carson Palmer not gone down. Im keeping my fingers crossed he finishes the season this time and if he does, AZ takes it.

Still a little concerned about the vikes though cuz even if Bridgewater stunk up the last drive by holding onto the ball too long, they still almost stole one in Denver. Hopefully our sack happy team can put the heat on him enough to disrupt their O.

Well considering that Seattle is currently third in the division they have an uphill climb the rest of the way.