So it's been a little while since I've done this.
And I'll admit right now that I didn't even watch all of Saints-Vikings season opener - opting instead to play some tennis while I still can in Yellowknife rather than endure the agony of what I figured was a sure defeat for the Vikings.
As it turned out, I only got to watch just over one quarter of the Vikings 14-9 loss to the New Orleans Saints, so I'm hardly qualified to make any in-depth statements about Thursday night's game. Alas, that isn't going to stop me.
Here are a few uninformed thoughts.
1. I think a lot of writers are going to write a lot of words over the next couple of days saying Brett Favre looked old and see, he should have gone to training camp after all.
That's probably true. Favre and the Vikings offence certainly would have benefited from more time together. But Favre didn't look too impressive in his first two games last year either. So let's not write off Mr. Wrangler Jeans and the Vikes offence after one stinker on the road against the Super Bowl champs.
What is worth monitoring over the next four games or so is how Favre performs without Sidney Rice in the lineup.
Rice was Favre's go-to receiver last year. He was the guy Favre trusted to make the big catches and the big plays. Now he injured and isn't around and who knows when he will be. Who is going to emerge as the Vikings Sidney Rice for the first half of this season?
It is a concern that nobody stood out against the Saints other than Visanthe Shiancoe.
2. While I'm on the subject of not standing out, Brad Childress and Darrell Bevell have to figure out a way of utilizing Bernard Berrian's talents – whatever those talents might be.
The Vikings are paying a lot of money for a guy who looks like he belongs on the practice squad. The Vikings have already become easier to defend without Rice. If Berrian continues to be a non-factor, it's not going to get any more pleasant for the Vikings offence.
3. If there is anything out of this game that does gives me hope that the Vikings 2010 season will be an enjoyable one, it was the play of the Vikings defence against the Saints.
Despite all the talk about the sacks, Jared Allen, the Williams Wall and the stout run defence, I thought the unit underachieved in 2009. It wasn't the dominant force I was expecting it would be last season.
Now the sacks and turnovers weren't there against New Orleans. But they limited the Saints to 14 points. That's pretty damn good.
Overall, my feeling is that this was just one loss, and it was a loss that wasn't terribly surprising. Yes, the Vikings won't start the season 6-0 like they did last year. Big deal. The team now gets two home games in a row, against Miami and Detroit, and then a bye week.
Those are two very winnable games - even if the Vikings don't play their best and Favre and the offence are still finding their way during that stretch. The Vikings could be 2-1 in a couple of weeks heading into a bye week. The loss to the Saints will feel like it happened a long time ago if that occurs.
So still I'm leery of the 2010 Minnesota Vikings. I'm still skeptical. But I'm not panicking. Yet.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Good thoughts. I'm leary too. And I totally agree on Berrian. If he put up 900+ yards in 2008 without Favre, he ought to be able to do something this year. He's healthy (unlike '09) and has 6 weeks with no Rice to compete for targets.
I thought Peterson and Camarillo looked good and should have been given more opportunities.
I want to see short passes to Harvin. He's not a polished route-runner yet, and with the lack of practice time for him and Favre, mid-to-long passes are just interceptions waiting to happen. Harvin can run the ball and be an effective screen play guy, not to mention playing a Wes Welker like role running slants and gaining yards after the catch.
Shiancoe's awesome. I wish everyone on the team worked as hard as he seems to.
O-line looked OK. Decent run blocking, which is an improvement over last year.
D-line looked old, but the Saints' guards are pretty darn good.
I'm much less concerned about the secondary than I was before week 1, but let's see what happens when Minnesota tries to protect a lead late in a game.
Miami is a good matchup. Henne hangs on to the ball forever, and so the Vikes should get a handful of sacks. I can't the Dolphins selling the pass well enough to run effectively (not early, at least), and so Minnesota should get and keep the lead if things play out without too many weird turnovers or other anomalies.
Peter:
It's been a while for both of us. I must admit i didn't see enough of last Thursday's game to make any judgements about a lot of things Vikings-related.
I hope to have more on this in a couple of days, but the Dolphins game should be a brutal one. I haven't watched them play much, but they strike me as a physical, tough stubborn team that will give the Vikes mucho problems if the offence struggles like it did against New Orleans.
Thanks for commenting.
Post a Comment