quote:

ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen

Looked up division tie-breaking procedures. Not sure, but it appears if the Vikings win out and the Lions win out except losing to the Vikings, then the tie-breaker resorts to the 5th one: strength of victory. If that means Points Differential, they all but have it locked up with their 183 to our 99.

Flip the scores of the Jacksonville games (52-6 and 12-7), and the PD between the two teams is TWO points.

A win is a win? Well, that depends.

Doesn't conference record determine things after head to head and division record? Cause Lions would win on that one too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Todd M

I’m not in everything is gravy from here mode.

We have a real opportunity to go to the SB this year.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen

Looked up division tie-breaking procedures. Not sure, but it appears if the Vikings win out and the Lions win out except losing to the Vikings, then the tie-breaker resorts to the 5th one: strength of victory. If that means Points Differential, they all but have it locked up with their 183 to our 99.

Flip the scores of the Jacksonville games (52-6 and 12-7), and the PD between the two teams is TWO points.

A win is a win? Well, that depends.

Doesn't conference record determine things after head to head and division record? Cause Lions would win on that one too.

As the time of posting and assuming we beat Det to get to the tie-breakers, each team would have two conference losses. Of course that was written before yesterday's game, so now the Vikes can win the division.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen

Looked up division tie-breaking procedures. Not sure, but it appears if the Vikings win out and the Lions win out except losing to the Vikings, then the tie-breaker resorts to the 5th one: strength of victory. If that means Points Differential, they all but have it locked up with their 183 to our 99.

Flip the scores of the Jacksonville games (52-6 and 12-7), and the PD between the two teams is TWO points.

A win is a win? Well, that depends.

Doesn't conference record determine things after head to head and division record? Cause Lions would win on that one too.

As the time of posting and assuming we beat Det to get to the tie-breakers, each team would have two conference losses. Of course that was written before yesterday's game, so now the Vikes can win the division.

Buffalo isn't in our conference. The lions have only lost one in conferense, to Tampa Bay.

If we win out they will have 3 losses and we will have just 2 and tie breakers wont matter.

If we lose any game and still beat them we still lose the tie breakers.

So we have to win out. Including beating the Bears tonight, Seattle next week and Green Bay here and the Lions there.l

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen

Looked up division tie-breaking procedures. Not sure, but it appears if the Vikings win out and the Lions win out except losing to the Vikings, then the tie-breaker resorts to the 5th one: strength of victory. If that means Points Differential, they all but have it locked up with their 183 to our 99.

Flip the scores of the Jacksonville games (52-6 and 12-7), and the PD between the two teams is TWO points.

A win is a win? Well, that depends.

Doesn't conference record determine things after head to head and division record? Cause Lions would win on that one too.

As the time of posting and assuming we beat Det to get to the tie-breakers, each team would have two conference losses. Of course that was written before yesterday's game, so now the Vikes can win the division.

Buffalo isn't in our conference. The lions have only lost one in conferense, to Tampa Bay.

If we win out they will have 3 losses and we will have just 2 and tie breakers wont matter.

If we lose any game and still beat them we still lose the tie breakers.

So we have to win out. Including beating the Bears tonight, Seattle next week and Green Bay here and the Lions there.l

Follow along, because you clearly didn't with my reply: the post was posted BEFORE yesterday's games. Buffalo had nothing to do with it. That game hadn't been played yet. The scenario where we'd get to the 5th tiebreaker (scoring/PD) included being tied in conference games. And the way I projected that on SATURDAY was both teams winning out except Minnesota beats Detroit the last week of the season. As such, Det would have two conference losses, to TB and to Minnesota. Minnesota, winning out, would also have two conference losses. Hence, it goes to the next tiebreaker step.

Now (MONDAY), if we win out we win the division.

Do you get that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen

Looked up division tie-breaking procedures. Not sure, but it appears if the Vikings win out and the Lions win out except losing to the Vikings, then the tie-breaker resorts to the 5th one: strength of victory. If that means Points Differential, they all but have it locked up with their 183 to our 99.

Flip the scores of the Jacksonville games (52-6 and 12-7), and the PD between the two teams is TWO points.

A win is a win? Well, that depends.

Doesn't conference record determine things after head to head and division record? Cause Lions would win on that one too.

As the time of posting and assuming we beat Det to get to the tie-breakers, each team would have two conference losses. Of course that was written before yesterday's game, so now the Vikes can win the division.

Buffalo isn't in our conference. The lions have only lost one in conferense, to Tampa Bay.

If we win out they will have 3 losses and we will have just 2 and tie breakers wont matter.

If we lose any game and still beat them we still lose the tie breakers.

So we have to win out. Including beating the Bears tonight, Seattle next week and Green Bay here and the Lions there.l

Follow along, because you clearly didn't with my reply: the post was posted BEFORE yesterday's games. Buffalo had nothing to do with it. That game hadn't been played yet. The scenario where we'd get to the 5th tiebreaker (scoring/PD) included being tied in conference games. And the way I projected that on SATURDAY was both teams winning out except Minnesota beats Detroit the last week of the season. As such, Det would have two conference losses, to TB and to Minnesota. Minnesota, winning out, would also have two conference losses. Hence, it goes to the next tiebreaker step.

Now (MONDAY), if we win out we win the division.

Do you get that?

Alrighty then.

Don't get so uptight about it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Todd M

KOC has to be looking at strong consideration for COY.

Taking a reclamation project to these heights.
Dealt with the death of a rookie.
Lost our all pro LT.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Richard Neussendorfer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Todd M

I’m not in everything is gravy from here mode.

We have a real opportunity to go to the SB this year.

I'm not there yet but I get where you're coming from. JC used to say sometimes you have to be ready before you think you are. I loved that saying because you just never know how long before the next opportunity. Dan Marino comes to mind. If we win the division I'm sure everyone will have high expectations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Todd M

The Lions are getting ready to limp off in to the Serengeti and die.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeff Jesser

quote:

ORIGINAL: Todd M

The Lions are getting ready to limp off in to the Serengeti and die.

JMO but they aren't the concern for us. It's Philly with their style of play and if we have to play at the Linc, it could be another ugly loss to them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeff Jesser

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brad H

You've got three quarterbacks to choose from for next year.

One has never played a down in the NFL and comes from a run-first college offense. One has had a disastrous start to his NFL career. The third is 11-2 in 2024 with the #3 passer rating among starters.

If we are going to pay anyone next season, it should be the guy currently playing quarterback. I would pay Darnold $50-million a year (for three years) and keep McCarthy as a backup. Anything else should be considered general manager malpractice. The other two options are completely unproven commodities.

If your talking $50M a year, I'm sure we can get him for lower.

I was higher on Darnold than most before the season but I can't go there. 50 Mil? IF they decide to stick with him (which I'm not convinced they will, yet). i cap out around a Baker Mayfield type contract. Inflation considered. 35 mil a year for 3 with about 60 in guarantees and even that would make my stomach churn.

Their whole plan was to model after the 9-ers. Cheap QB and build a monster roster around him. We'd be back to a "KC-lite" model.

Yep.

The 49ers were lucky that Purdy showed up out of nowhere guns a'blazing. I don't know what happened to them, but the monster roster led to the monster contract years coming due.

Everyone is probably sitting back and waiting to see what Darnold does as the pressure to play well increases. But man, LEAD the team to a SB win and he will own the franchise, be the mayor, pillage when and where he wants, and be the centerpiece on the Vikings Mt. Rushmore.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brad H

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeff Jesser

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brad H

You've got three quarterbacks to choose from for next year.

One has never played a down in the NFL and comes from a run-first college offense. One has had a disastrous start to his NFL career. The third is 11-2 in 2024 with the #3 passer rating among starters.

If we are going to pay anyone next season, it should be the guy currently playing quarterback. I would pay Darnold $50-million a year (for three years) and keep McCarthy as a backup. Anything else should be considered general manager malpractice. The other two options are completely unproven commodities.

If your talking $50M a year, I'm sure we can get him for lower.

I was higher on Darnold than most before the season but I can't go there. 50 Mil? IF they decide to stick with him (which I'm not convinced they will, yet). i cap out around a Baker Mayfield type contract. Inflation considered. 35 mil a year for 3 with about 60 in guarantees and even that would make my stomach churn.

Their whole plan was to model after the 9-ers. Cheap QB and build a monster roster around him. We'd be back to a "KC-lite" model.

Yep.

The 49ers were lucky that Purdy showed up out of nowhere guns a'blazing. I don't know what happened to them, but the monster roster led to the monster contract years coming due.

Everyone is probably sitting back and waiting to see what Darnold does as the pressure to play well increases. But man, LEAD the team to a SB win and he will own the franchise, be the mayor, pillage when and where he wants, and be the centerpiece on the Vikings Mt. Rushmore.

12-2 with the #4 passer rating in the league. At the end of the day, the guy has looked very good and is playing without his left tackle and a mediocre offensive line in front of him.

Personally, I think the Vikings have played a bit of a soft schedule and the offensive line is eventually going to be the undoing of any deep playoff run. But, you have to give the guy his due and he looks like he is getting more comfortable every game.

If you ask me to choose between Darnold and McCarthy, that's an easy choice at this point. I didn't like the McCarthy pick to begin with, so I'm a but bias.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer

David Montgomery feared out for the year with MCL injury.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brad H

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer

David Montgomery feared out for the year with MCL injury.

Addition by subtraction for the Lions. Gibbs is a much more dangerous weapon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brad H

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer

David Montgomery feared out for the year with MCL injury.

Addition by subtraction for the Lions. Gibbs is a much more dangerous weapon.

You need 2 to stay fresh...Montgomery did a lot of dirty work. They are 2 different backs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brad H

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brad H

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer

David Montgomery feared out for the year with MCL injury.

Addition by subtraction for the Lions. Gibbs is a much more dangerous weapon.

You need 2 to stay fresh...Montgomery did a lot of dirty work. They are 2 different backs.

Agreed, but they now have the star on the field for every down when it matters. If it was game two of the season I would say it's a problem. It's now crunch time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brad H

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brad H

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer

David Montgomery feared out for the year with MCL injury.

Addition by subtraction for the Lions. Gibbs is a much more dangerous weapon.

You need 2 to stay fresh...Montgomery did a lot of dirty work. They are 2 different backs.

Agreed, but they now have the star on the field for every down when it matters. If it was game two of the season I would say it's a problem. It's now crunch time.

Not sure if Gibbs can run it 20 times a game though or is as good at the goal line....they will find out.