Why will the Vikings win the Super Bowl this year?

When the stats guys jumped into this thread in the last week, the first thing I looked up was the record of domed teams outdoors. I was going to post the stat, but somebody beat me to it. That stat right there was everything I needed to know regarding the most likely outcome of this game.

In reply to the other poster about the Blair Walsh curse, the Vikings choke has existed long before that. Too many teams loaded with talent who have under-performed when it mattered for as long as I can remember.

E A G L E S

Curious to hear, but does anyone think the outcome would be different if it was Saints (who really should have won last game) were playing the Eagles?

The RealList wrote:

Vikings lose 37-7 but it really was not that close.

That's because it was 38-7

The Vikings just picked a terrific time to have their worst game. The Eagles and Vikes could play that game 100 times and today’s outcome would almost certainly be the worst among them. The Vikings’ defense disappeared and made Foles look terrific. Disappointing end but I’m hoping for the Eagles to beat the damn Pats in two weeks.

I also am furious that Bradford did not start the second half for the Vikings. Nothing was going right. It almost certainly wouldn’t have mattered given how well the Eagles played. However, Keenum was playing like ass and Bradford is riskier but has the much higher ceiling. I have no idea who will be the starting QB for the Vikes next year but I’m not optimistic about any QB on the current roster.

Vikes good season due in part to an easy NFC North. Without Rodgers, there was no one to stand in your way. You guys weren't as good as you thought, but most of us knew that. Should have lost last week.

SKOL SKOL SKOL SKOL SKOL SKOL SKOL FOLES FOLES FOLESFOLESFOLES!!!

Jose el Plomero wrote:

Vikes good season due in part to an easy NFC North. Without Rodgers, there was no one to stand in your way. You guys weren't as good as you thought, but most of us knew that. Should have lost last week.

But they beat the Saints in the playoffs and you can't say the Saints were in an easy division.

And they beat the Rams who were very good.

You can say the Eagles had an easy division, too.

And you know the Patriots are in an easy division.

When you're good, you win and help give your opponents bad records.

Nick Foles showing that Carson Wentz was just another QB on a great team. I was laughing when they were talking about him being in the MVP race. Nick MF Foles is going to the Super Bowl.

They still want Wentz to be season MVP but no way with missing the last three games.

I hate to say it, but Tom Brady clearly should win the regular season MVP.

nfll wrote:

Nick Foles showing that Carson Wentz was just another QB on a great team. I was laughing when they were talking about him being in the MVP race. Nick MF Foles is going to the Super Bowl.

Wentz is a better QB in almost every aspect, he will audible frequently at the line of scrimmage, he is mobile & elusive and can create different plays. Foles rarely scrambles, has a weaker arm than Wentz. Pederson designed a game plan that emphasized RPO's for Foles (quick short throws & hurry up tempo). Foles weakness is that he tends to hold the ball too long in a traditional West Coast Offense which leads to sacks but Pederson mitigated that by designing an offense that was tailored to Foles' strength- the RPO.

The Eagles curse has lasted longer than the Vikings. They have not won an NFL Championship since 1960 and have never won a Super Bowl. The Eagles were just plain lucky that the game was in Philadelphia. No super bowl should be in a team's home stadium. Perhaps they have to tentatively have three sites early in the season and then eliminate two when the playoffs start.

Playing at home is too much of an advantage in the playoffs. The Eagles did not prove they are better than the Vikings. They only proved they are better when they play at home versus the Vikings.

Born in the 856 wrote:

nfll wrote:

Nick Foles showing that Carson Wentz was just another QB on a great team. I was laughing when they were talking about him being in the MVP race. Nick MF Foles is going to the Super Bowl.

Wentz is a better QB in almost every aspect, he will audible frequently at the line of scrimmage, he is mobile & elusive and can create different plays. Foles rarely scrambles, has a weaker arm than Wentz. Pederson designed a game plan that emphasized RPO's for Foles (quick short throws & hurry up tempo). Foles weakness is that he tends to hold the ball too long in a traditional West Coast Offense which leads to sacks but Pederson mitigated that by designing an offense that was tailored to Foles' strength- the RPO.

I agree that Wentz is more mobile and elusive and can make plays out of nothing.

I disagree that Foles has a weaker arm. Did you not see Sunday's game? Wentz does not have many deep passes over his first two seasons. Foles has many deep connections on his resume.

I have seen Foles hold the ball too long and I've seen him get it out quickly and on time. That's the whole good Foles bad Foles thing.

And Foles sees the play well at the line of scrimmage and is good at making audibles.

Brady doesn't scramble. Manning didn't scramble. It's nice have the ability but it isn't necessary to play great.

The key to Foles playing well is getting some first downs and keeping the drive going. Then he gets on a roll. But beware the three and out. He is very good at assessing the defense and exploiting them when they are tired after giving up a first down.

Long term, Wentz seems to have everything, though.

Foles could very well win the Super Bowl and be the backup QB for the Eagles for the rest of his career after that.

Except that his value will go up and then it's a matter of taking the money or being happy in his role.

If I'm Nick Foles and I win the Super Bowl, I'm staying in Philly as Carson's back once he geta healthy.

Foles will be set for LIFE in Philly if he pulls this off. Whenever he goes into a game to replace Wentz fans will go beserk.

Vikings Fan 2017 wrote:

[quote]Vikings choke again wrote:

Playing at home is too much of an advantage in the playoffs. The Eagles did not prove they are better than the Vikings. They only proved they are better when they play at home versus the Vikings.

Get real, the Eagles smacked the Vikings back to Leif Errickson

You're fortunate Wentz wasn't playing. It would have been 50 - 7.

The team had to un-Wentz their offense to adjust for Foles. Wentz allowed way more opportunities and covered up sloppy stuff. A couple fo wake up games with Foles and they adjusted to his capabilities.

The Eagles are a good team. If the hold it together, they'll do the same thing to the Pats

The Vikings played by far their worst game of the 2017-2018 season. There were probably many reasons for this of course. I think the main one was that our best secondary guy, Xavier Rhodes, barely played over the last 4 games of the season and playoffs. When he did play he was not at his best. We do not have enough good corners to beat good teams without him. Yes Thielen and the offensive line had some injuries as well.

Foles played like the 2013 Foles but he had some help from the Vikings.

Even with your mean words I hope that the Eagles beat the Cheeaten Patriots.

Gee aren't you a nice fella! wrote:

The Vikings played by far their worst game of the 2017-2018 season.

It's funny how all you Vikings fans were bragging about your team defense, but now you're going to blame a single guy in the secondary. Is it a team sport or not?

It's called a choke. Biggest game of the season, and the Vikes couldn't perform. End of story.