Did you know that Minn had 3 starters out on D?

When the seahawks played them?

That is all I read about in every article and on every forum on the web. John Lynch and whoever did a disservice saying that every 3 seconds on the broadcast. How many Hawk players have been out? How many on every fricking NFL team.

3 players out or not, they still scored 0 points on offense.

I expect a different game on Sunday, but sheesh....Minnesota didn't lose because 3 were out on D.

They have to make it seem like the match up won't be so one sided. That's about the only "fact" the talking heads can come with as far as excuses go.

Didn't we have Cary Williams out against them? :34853_doh:

Well, I'm sure if they had played, we would have only won by 14 or so.

Kam out, Beast Out, Lost Rawls his back up, give me a break, was Jimmy out then too? You get my point!

That's okay, at least they have secret weapon Cordarrelle Patterson!

[tweet]https://twitter.com/MNSportsDrewM/status/684207649748086784[/tweet]

Did you also know it's going to be cold in Minnesota, in January!?
And apparently this Minnesota cold is devastating to other teams...
Not their team that practices indoors, just the visiting team!
And according to a lot of their fans, that will decide the game!
Their fans sure have a lot of attitude after beating a bad Packers team...
Apparently just the fact that they finally won their division after 5 years, makes them unbeatable.
I hope they enjoy their division title gear.

I'm inclined to cut the Vikings fans a bit of slack here. Sure I've heard the mantra, but I think it's clear that they know in their heart of hearts it's a chimera as much as we do. The brutal fact of the matter is that by winning the NFC North, the Vikings got the booby prize. That is to say they drew the worst possible match up (esp against their team as it's constructed) possible in the NFC playoff picture. Looking at it strictly mathematically, the Vikings would have been much better off losing in week 17 (and that was an actual point of discussion on some Vikings forums).

Seattle has better talent, has more mature and playoff tested talent, and most importantly is one of the best in the NFL at stopping the one thing that Minnesota does well: Run the ball. Give the Vikings credit. They know all this and are quietly building their franchise in the same basic mold as Seattle, but everyone save the most rabid Vikings fan knows they haven't gotten there yet.

I don't think it will be another 30+ blowout (although it could be), but I do think that Seattle wins and wins fairly handily and comfortably. What we are hearing now are the Vikings (encouraged by the National Media that want to sell this as a game worth watching nationwide) telling themselves that "so you mean there's a chance". That's pretty much it. Of course these are NFL franchises and "any given Sunday" fully applies (esp in the playoffs) but outside that, no I don't think MIN has much of a chance.

anyone who watched that game can recall the announcers constantly were talking about who was out up over and over and over.

To be fair, if we were playing a game without Sherman, Wagner, and Bennett, we'd probably think that was a fair explanation of any struggles we had on defense.

And honestly, I'd be surprised if we put up 38 on them again. I still think we win by 10+, but not by 31.

volsunghawk":o43eddbe said:

To be fair, if we were playing a game without Sherman, Wagner, and Bennett, we'd probably think that was a fair explanation of any struggles we had on defense.

And honestly, I'd be surprised if we put up 38 on them again. I still think we win by 10+, but not by 31.

Click to expand...

Plus, it doesn't help the ratings at all if the potential audience thinks the game is going to be another blowout. So, it's not in the networks' best interests to talk about how dominant the Seahawks were, but to make excuses for it and to explain why this matchup will be different.

volsunghawk":2sdewnse said:

To be fair, if we were playing a game without Sherman, Wagner, and Bennett, we'd probably think that was a fair explanation of any struggles we had on defense.

And honestly, I'd be surprised if we put up 38 on them again. I still think we win by 10+, but not by 31.

Click to expand...

Their offense, who weren't out those star players, didn't put up a single point against us. Zero. At home. Against a team without its first and second running backs and only real threat at tight end. Those facts have nothing to do with their defense being shredded.

volsunghawk":bsr5u0jw said:

To be fair, if we were playing a game without Sherman, Wagner, and Bennett, we'd probably think that was a fair explanation of any struggles we had on defense.

And honestly, I'd be surprised if we put up 38 on them again. I still think we win by 10+, but not by 31.

Click to expand...

except barr, joesph and the other guy are not the same as mentioned above.... it also has no bearing on the offense putting up a goose egg.

volsunghawk":19w1hg89 said:

To be fair, if we were playing a game without Sherman, Wagner, and Bennett, we'd probably think that was a fair explanation of any struggles we had on defense.

And honestly, I'd be surprised if we put up 38 on them again. I still think we win by 10+, but not by 31.

Click to expand...

Our O was missing 3 starters, including an all pro RB and pro bowl TEz

SPOHAWK":24z98hdv said:

Kam out, Beast Out, Lost Rawls his back up, give me a break, was Jimmy out then too? You get my point!

Click to expand...

Actually Rawls and Kam played that game. Rawls got hurt the week after in Baltimore. Jimmy was out and Lynch had been out.

Only thing I don't like about this game is getting my head bloated and thinking were going to win it. happened against the rams (although they made me nervous anyways so I guess it evened out) but I guess since I asked for the 10th and the 17th off that pretty much sums up what I think of this week. just hope im not wrong.

Ambrose83":iix5dca2 said:

volsunghawk":iix5dca2 said:

To be fair, if we were playing a game without Sherman, Wagner, and Bennett, we'd probably think that was a fair explanation of any struggles we had on defense.

And honestly, I'd be surprised if we put up 38 on them again. I still think we win by 10+, but not by 31.

Click to expand...

except barr, joesph and the other guy are not the same as mentioned above.... it also has no bearing on the offense putting up a goose egg.

Click to expand...

While it has not direct connection to the blow out. it does help how the Vikes play. they may have ran the ball more that game had their D kept it close. there Offense is sad when he isn't producing so hopefully that's still the case this sunday.

Last year, our defense was in a funk when Wagner was out. Can't fault a teams fan base for pointing out they were missing 3 of their higher profile players on D.

Doesn't change the ultimate outcome obviously. I think minne gets steamrolled this week.

rain7":r2p81ec4 said:

Last year, our defense was in a funk when Wagner was out. Can't fault a teams fan base for pointing out they were missing 3 of their higher profile players on D.

Doesn't change the ultimate outcome obviously. I think minne gets steamrolled this week.

Click to expand...

it was and we still always kept games close and never lost by 30...... they are not on our level on either side on the ball....

Seahawk Sailor":2ct9gd5v said:

volsunghawk":2ct9gd5v said:

To be fair, if we were playing a game without Sherman, Wagner, and Bennett, we'd probably think that was a fair explanation of any struggles we had on defense.

And honestly, I'd be surprised if we put up 38 on them again. I still think we win by 10+, but not by 31.

Click to expand...

Their offense, who weren't out those star players, didn't put up a single point against us. Zero. At home. Against a team without its first and second running backs and only real threat at tight end. Those facts have nothing to do with their defense being shredded.

Click to expand...

Which is why I didn't say anything about their offense.

Ambrose83":3ctuu0k4 said:

volsunghawk":3ctuu0k4 said:

To be fair, if we were playing a game without Sherman, Wagner, and Bennett, we'd probably think that was a fair explanation of any struggles we had on defense.

And honestly, I'd be surprised if we put up 38 on them again. I still think we win by 10+, but not by 31.

Click to expand...

except barr, joesph and the other guy are not the same as mentioned above.... it also has no bearing on the offense putting up a goose egg.

Click to expand...

For you to say this means you know little about Barr, Joseph, and the other guy ( harrison smith ).
All three would be probowl bound if they didn't get injured. As if that means anything, the pro bowl is the 2nd biggest joke of the NFL.... behind Roger Goodell.