Vikings defense in 2008.
RUSH YDS - 76.9 - (1st)
PASS YDS - 215.6 - (18th)

Can't find how you did the year before, but I can imagine it was worse, since you didn't have Jared Allen and lacked a decent pass rush.

Point is, why run it if you can throw it? If my RB is getting 3.0 avg while my QB is completing 8/10 passes for good gains, why run the ball on that defense. I think the point is that people would just give up on the run, where if you had a better passing defense, they would've kept running it.



And I agree with you, like I've stated before quite a few times. I hope that we'll put the biggest load on the passing game this year. Not try to run it uneffectively to open up deep passing lanes.

One problem I can imagine, though, is that our passing game might stack the box a little as well. I mean, we throw it deep, but a lot of our completions come from 5 yard slants as well.

Yeah they were last in the NFL in 2007 

I haven't broken down the stats, but I remember somewhere a year + ago, that someone did the math, and discovered the REAL stat when looking at the Vikings pass defense 2 years ago... And that is how many yards per pass attempt. Not the total yards. They were last in passing defense in total yards, because teams attempted passing against them more than any other team. I think the Vikes ranked somewhere in the teens in the pass yards per attempt.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2007/opp.htm 

Here's the full picture 

DOUBT EDIT: I was also looking at IronMan's link.. And noticed that the Vikings in 2007 faced, ON AVERAGE, 40+ pass attempts a game. 40! Wow. That's really shocking.

---

If our D improves, we will have a real good chance to go far.
IF the D improves that is.

In 96 Bennett and Levens kept the other team's D guessing. In the mud, there was no better runner then Bennett.

---

Take a look more closely at these stats:

The things that mattered - we were #1 in the NFL in Points Scored, and we also we #1 in the NFL in TD passes.

One reason I'm becoming so anti-run is because we rush too much in the red zone. Had we been more aggressive in the red zone, Aaron would have topped 30 TDs passing last year.

The other thing, SB winners, you can generally name the QB more than the RB. It's because passing matters more than rushing. In defense of Brad Johnson, he's a pretty good "game manager." Two guys who didn't belong with SB wins - Trent Dilfer (D was so dominant your Grandma could have started QB and come off with a win), and Roethlisburger (one of the most pathetic showings in QB history, but he redeemed himself the 2nd time around).

There were several RBs who were mediocre and most were less than spectacular. Marshall Faulk was the one elite RB, but he barely ran the ball. Although he did get a lot more yards receiving in the SB win.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/super-bowl/ 

This is an excellent reference and you'll see what I mean. QBs win SBs.

Last 10 years - 5 SB MVPs were QBs, 3 WRs, 1 LB, 1 DB, and a whopping ZERO SB MVPs were RBs. So of the last 10 years, 8 of the MVPs involved the passing game, 2 involved the big D.

---

This is probably the most ridiculous theory ever posted.

---

You actually buy into the Superbowl MVP thing? That is a popularity contest is all it is. Look at the last 2 qbs to win it Peyton and Eli, did they deserve it? Hell no the defenses won those games and were most valuable. Also if your into the pass first then we maybe should follow the likes of the Saints they are always on top lately with Brees and what have they won?


I understand your love for Rodgers but you are forgetting one big thing. We pass more and Rodgers gets sacked even more and takes alot more hits and then possibly throws more ints.

---

Yes, the MVP thing is a popularity contest and isn't always accurate. Eli didn't deserve the MVP, the D did as a whole for containing the best O ever in the history of the game. And neither did P Manning. Wrecks should have gotten the MVP for the Colts as his stupidity won the game for them.

That doesn't change the fact that passing the ball is more effective than running the ball and passing teams are more effective in the SB than running.

I'm only talking O though. I'm not talking D. I will agree with the rest of you that I'd rather have a #1 D than a #1 O. But I'm talking O, not D.

Plus, when we won our 3 SBs, we won them on Bart Starr's arm (who was perhaps the best QB ever, but I'm too young to see him in action so I only really list '76 on), and the one we won recently was won on Brett Favre's arm, Reggie White's D, and Desmond Howard on STs.

And I thought you knew this already David, Favre is my favorite player ever. I love Aaron because he's learned a lot of Favre's tricks and is a pretty good substitute for whom I think is one of the best QBs in the past 30 years (Favre, Montana, Young, and Brady).

---

Read my reply to David. I said that I'd rather have a #1 D than a #1 O. But I'm talking O. Effective passing is more important than effective running when it comes to winning a SB.

SB Winners (in passing attempts vs rushing attempts):
2008 - 30 passes, 20 rushes
2007 - 34 passes, 23 rushes
2006 - 41 rushes, 38 passes. This one surprised me. You'd think with P Manning, you'd see a lot more passes than rushes.
2005 - 26 rushes, 22 passes
2004 - 33 passes, 26 rushes
2003 - 47 passes, 32 rushes
2002 - 40 rushes, 37 passes
2001 - 27 passes, 23 rushes
2000 - 32 rushes, 25 passes
1999 - 46 passes, 11 rushes

---

You know, I put a lot of time and research into this. If you're just going to slam it without putting up some facts, go screw yourself.

---