I saw Dallas self destruct more than the Vikings did in NO. They were moving the ball at will for most of the first half and had 3-4 drives into the red zone come away with nothing. And the Dallas' D was holding the MN offense down for most of the first half too. But Dallas has as big of a choke rep as MN does. Minnesota's was a bit more spectacular. I think if they play MN during the season, I would have picked Dallas. Tough call on if they could do it with dome field advantage for the Vikes though.

I thought that NO's D had been winning games the entire year with the D forcing turnovers. I didn't think it was a fluke because they did that all year. The Vikings didn't give away the game, NO took it away from them.

AZ kicked MN's ass. We played them into overtime. We beat the bears twice and the Bears beat MN once late in the year away from the carpet. Comparing like opponents doesn't work. Sometimes it isn't who you play, it is when you play them. I would add where also.

Minnesota took all season before they had to play a tough opponent on the road and lost in NO. They don't have a cake schedule to help them to a 7-1 start with only 1 team that ended over 9-7.

If the Vikings were as dominating as the media claimed, they could have beaten Pitt, Carolina and Chicago on the road.

"Dexter_Sinister" wrote:

I saw Dallas self destruct more than the Vikings did in NO. They were moving the ball at will for most of the first half and had 3-4 drives into the red zone come away with nothing. And the Dallas' D was holding the MN offense down for most of the first half too. But Dallas has as big of a choke rep as MN does. Minnesota's was a bit more spectacular. I think if they play MN during the season, I would have picked Dallas. Tough call on if they could do it with dome field advantage for the Vikes though.

I thought that NO's D had been winning games the entire year with the D forcing turnovers. I didn't think it was a fluke because they did that all year. The Vikings didn't give away the game, NO took it away from them.

AZ kicked MN's ass. We played them into overtime. We beat the bears twice and the Bears beat MN once late in the year away from the carpet. Comparing like opponents doesn't work. Sometimes it isn't who you play, it is when you play them. I would add where also.

Minnesota took all season before they had to play a tough opponent on the road and lost in NO. They don't have a cake schedule to help them to a 7-1 start with only 1 team that ended over 9-7.

If the Vikings were as dominating as the media claimed, they could have beaten Pitt, Carolina and Chicago on the road.

"Dexter_Sinister" wrote:

You can't sell them short because their the Vikings. Top to bottom, that team might have the most talent in football. The most talented team doesn't always win the Super Bowl of course. I don't believe the last three champions were the most talented team in that season, but it puts you in the discussion.

"porky88" wrote:

"porky88" wrote:

Brett Favre, Adrian Peterson, Jared Allen, Steve Hutchinson, and Kevin Williams are all Hall of Fame caliber players.

"porky88" wrote:

The 49ers are the obvious Cinderella team. They could shock everyone with how far they'd go. Nobody's expecting much from them, but I'm pretty sure they'll make the Playoffs.

MN is a better team than the Saints. The Saints play to win by any means though, and that's how they won the SB last year. That's also how they beat the Vikings last year.

The Cows don't have the heart to win it all. I don't care what kind of stats they rack up. Heart is real. Last year's Saints and the '07 Giants are the immediate examples.

I agree that the NFC has four elite teams and those four you named are it although the Cows most likely won't even make the Championship Game. They'll fold.

"zombieslayer" wrote: