Make no mistakes about it. The Minnesota Vikings are one of the most disrespected teams in recent memory.
Sitting at 11-3, they are still viewed poorly by the sportsbooks, analytical models and a lot of analysts. Some of what they say has merit but every stat needs to have context. In my opinion, that is what’s missing.
ESPN released an article by Dan Graziano to try and determine who were pretenders and who were contenders. He pegged the Vikings as pretenders and his rationale is quite disappointing.
“The Vikings are 11-3 and have outscored their opponents by two points for the whole year. Yes, they have scored 351 points and allowed 349. Which means they win, on average, by 0.14 points per game. That, folks, is simply not sustainable — especially against the kind of competition they’ll face in January. The Colts aren’t going to be there, for example. The Eagles, Cowboys and maybe the Detroit Lions will be there, and their three losses are to those three teams by a combined score of 98-33.
Sure, they beat the Bills and the Miami Dolphins (and the Lions, the first time they played them), and those are good wins. I once watched Cousins beat a talented Drew Brees-led New Orleans Saints team in the postseason in the Superdome, so I’m not one of those people who thinks they can’t win with Cousins. I think they’re tough and resilient and could probably win a game against any team. But two or three of them against the best teams in the NFC? I don’t see how the Vikings’ margin for error survives the postseason gauntlet.”
Of course, it’s not sustainable in a vacuum, but this analysis gives no context as to how they have won these close games. It doesn’t include the elements of coaching that have helped take advantage of the opponents in the end game and how the team has spent a lot of time focusing on situational football.
To just look at the three losses, two of them were rather demoralizing, is just not good analysis. It’s unfair to think that the Vikings, who swept the talented AFC East this season, would learn nothing from their losses to improve when the time comes to play again.
If you want to discount the Vikings, go ahead. Everyone else is jumping on the bandwagon, but if you want to do it, have some better talking points than just “their point differential is unsustainable.” Why have the games been close? How did the Vikings find a way 10 times to win one score games? Good play in key moments is somewhat sustainable.
How these games ebbed and flowed matters. How the Vikings won these games matters. It’s not just about the point differential, Dan. There are so many reasons as to why the Vikings are 11-3, let’s talk about those and not just one singular stat.
The context behind the stats will always be king, and so many in the national media haven’t been willing to discuss it. Well, it’s time that we do just that.
