Cap'n Piranha

Nor did mine. Mine was a simple calculation of how many points the offense has scored in the last 14 quarters. Yours was not. Yours was a calculation of how many points the team had scored. Those are not the same thing. If you can’t understand that NFL teams can score points without the offense being on the field, I suggest you find a different sport to follow, this one is clearly too complex for you. In a discussion about the effectiveness of the offense, defensive points do not apply. Excluding them is not cherry picking, even if you want to scream it into the void until you’re blue in the face. I will retract the easily bottom 5 for this season, that was based on looking at last season. So you’re right, they’re 26th, not 28th—clearly KOC’s offense has been the envy of the league the last 3.5 games. Even if the definitive statement is (slightly) off, the gist is wholly accurate; since halftime at GB, the offense has produced like a bottom 10 unit. I have no clue where you got the idea I’m not including field goals, outside of a statement of how many TDs the offense scored. I never subtracted field goals from any of my points calculations, although you do insist defensive scores should be credited to the offense (even though the offense was not on the field), so I’m detecting quite a bit of projection on your part. If you want to argue the offense that ranks 26th in PPG in the last 3.5 games and has only scored 5 touchdowns in that time is actually great because they’ve also had to settle for 9 field goals, that’s a tack you can take—seems far more bizarre than anything I’ve ever done in this thread. The fact that you continue to blatantly refuse to see I’m making the exact case you encouraged me to make is at this point beyond comprehension to me. Why is it so hard for you to just say, “my bad, didn’t see where you were going with this”?

According to PFF, for whatever it's worth, Ekwonu is elite at run blocking (10th out of 122), and middling at pass blocking (56th). He also has commited 9 penalties, ranking him 117th. Doesn't seem like the best fit for an offense that wants to throw a decent amount. That said, Cam Robinson is worse in the run game (52nd), and only slightly better in the pass game (43rd). Only 3 penalties, but 4 sacks, as opposed to Ekwonu's 2. I don't know that you can put all the blame for sacks on the OL, so I'll simply say that Robinson commits fewer penalties, wins on pass blocking by 3.3 percentage points, but loses on run blocking by 16.1 percentage points. All that to say, it probably was a question of draft capital (I'm sure the Panthers wanted a 2nd or 3rd in 2025 at minimum for a 24 year old drafted less than 3 years ago who grades out as a top 30 tackle; the Vikings do not have that to give), and future payroll; do the Vikings want to have almost $50M tied up in tackles?

Using examples to opine why I don't have much faith in the General Manager is not pouting. I "disappeared" because I was travelling, then got sick, then my daughter was sick, then my wife was sick, and I had minimal time to spend on the board--sorry I'm not meeting your attendance requirements. We'll see how the rest of the season plays out--I hope it's successful. But anyone not concerned over what's happened to the offense over the last 3.5 games is either not paying attention, or is simply obtuse.

Holy crap are you dense. We're talking about whether the offense (see, I can be condescending and bold words too) is performing. How can you credit the offense with points that the defense scored? Not points that were made easier by a short field, but actual defensive touchdowns. Over the past 14 quarters, the offense has scored 3 against the Packers, 16 against the Jets (Van Ginkel pick six), 23 against the Lions (Pace fumble return TD with missed PAT), 20 against the Rams. That's 62 points, which is 4.42 points/ quarter, or 17.7 a game, which would be 26th a game currently--seems pretty bottom of the league to me. Kudos for doing your third grade math. Your data analysis capabilities however... My calculations are more accurate than yours, because unlike you, I'm not using irrelevant data (irrelevant data in, irrelevant conclusion out). I'm making no generalizations; I'm saying I'm concerned about the offense based on it's struggles over the past 14 quarters, and I don't have full faith in KOC based on track record to solve that. I also disagree that my stats are cherry picked, as I mentioned, it's a sample size comprising almost 20% of a full season, and a full 50% of the season that's been played. Unless you think the most recent stats are somehow less reliable than not the most recent stats. If you think taking any kind of subset of stats is somehow cherry-picking, I think Inigo Montoya has some advice for you. It's ridiculous to think I want to arrive at the conclusion that the offense is struggling. As a Vikings fan, I would love for the offense to score 50 a game--nothing would make me happier. As a realist, I understand that the offense has not been right for quite some time now, and I'm simply using completely appropriate stats (PPG, controlling only for points the offense actually scored, not points the offense didn't score). I'm sorry if your mental capacity to understand anything beyond surface-level analysis is lacking, or your feelings are hurt somehow, but none of what you're accusing me of is remotely true. The sustainable reasonable point you think I was making is what you said in your post above, right? Here's your quotation " "Man guys...I'm a little concerned that our offense has had some stretches where it really struggles. Is that a red flag for the future". You understand that is exactly what I'm saying right? Our offense has had some stretches (the last 14 quarters, to be specific, where we've only scored 5 offensive TDs) where it has really struggled. I'm concerned that KOC might not be able to turn that around. I then presented stats around that, which somehow upset you. Stop claiming you'd be ok with me doing something that is the mirror image of what I'm doing that is supposedly schlock. Have at least an iota of integrity.

Strip out the defensive scores, re-jigger your slide rule, and get back to me with what the numbers look like then. You're also conveniently leaving out the second half of the GB game (cherry-picking much?)--since that's the exact time period I've used throughout this thread, why not adjust for that, and see where you land?

Dude, just having a debate here. If someone having a different opinion than you is so triggering, perhaps it's time to retire your TD account. You seem rather confused, since you're referring to my conclusions as broad and hyperbolic; they're nothing of the sort. Let me break it down for you in simple terms, since you seem not to be grasping it; The Vikings have played 7 games, 14 halves, 28 quarters; for the last 3.5/7/14, they have been dramatically outscored, and the offense in particular has struggled mightily to score TDs. I hope KOC can fix it, but he does not yet have the track record that other coaches I named have; accordingly, I am not giving him the benefit of the doubt that he will figure it out. Your idea that your arguments were a trap is ridiculous. You're claiming that some coaches have struggled, while picking examples that cannot be called struggles at all. At no time in KOC's tenure has KC had a worse offense than the Vikings, but you're claiming they're hideous. That's not some clever trap, that's you being either too lazy, or too confused by the stats to realize your example of KC struggling is literal nonsense. You claim the Rams play in a terrible division, without bothering to discover the division they play in is better than the Vikings'. If you wanted to cherry pick stats to show that you can prove any point you want, you should have at least picked stats that supported your claim, not invalidated it. Nor were my stats cherry-picked; they're literally the most recent data possible. It's like saying the Twins were a playoff caliber team in 2024, because using the last 40 games to say otherwise is cherry picking. The offensive struggles, which began at half time of the GB game, have gone on for half the season. That's 7 halves, which is exactly half the halves the Vikings have played this year. If simple division is beyond you, than I really don't know what to say. Your proposal for what I should have stated is pretty much an exact summation of what I'm saying. That you can't see that is fascinating to me. Your last paragraph is just ridiculous, as it's not in the same Universe as what I'm saying. I've said multiple times I think KOC is ok--not good, but not bad. I've been very clear about the timeframe I'm talking about. If your asinine attempt at a paraphrase is honestly what you think I've been saying, then your skills of comprehension are wretched indeed.

Again, I'm talking about the last 14 quarters. Not the whole year. The offense has been putrid for literally half the season to this point. 5 TDs in 14 quarters, which is easily a bottom 5 pace this year. I'm not ignoring what happened in the first 14 quarters, I'm saying there is a disturbing trend emerging, and I don't trust KOC to fix it--that's not the same as saying he can't, won't, or I don't hope he does. KOC has yet to demonstrate, in my opinion, an ability to construct a consistently performing offense.

And I suppose none of that offensive success has anything at all to do with the coach? Mahomes would be exactly the same player had the Giants drafted him? How many playoff games did Stafford win with Detroit, and was he ever considered a HOF QB? Does Jackson win multiple MVPs playing just down the road in Washington? If Lafleur’s success is because of Rodgers, why is the Packers offense scoring more points in Love’s first two seasons (even with Malik Willis getting some starts) than in Rodger’s last two? You think Minnesota fans would want to fire a coach who had never had a losing season, won a Super Bowl, and made another? Of course teams with better QBs have better offensive success. Why do you continue to refuse to acknowledge that good coaching plays a vital role in making a QB better?

I'm not refusing to correlate, I'm saying if KOC is some offensive genius, why was the offense not appreciably better when he took over? If he can't make the offense work without a good starting QB, why did they push Kirk out the door without having a replacement ready to go? There was no guarantee we would get a QB in the draft (NYG could easily have gone McCarthy at 6, and if they do, what if the Broncos go up to 7 to get Nix, and ATL still takes Penix), so it seems a lot to me like the Vikings deliberately decided to dramatically increase their odds of having a bad offense. Even if McCarthy doesn;t get hurt, does anyone on this board think rookie McCarthy is better than prime Cousins? I'm not arguing Darnold should have been an improvement. I'm arguing that the Vikings offense is showing real signs of being below average (18th in offensive PPG across the last 3 games), and if KOC is not able to coax quality production out of QBs who are not Pro Bowl caliber or better, than I'm not going to pretend like he's some offensive guru. I think KOC is probably a great offensive strategist; when giving a few days to specifically plan for an opponent, he can put together a great plan (the Vikings are averaging over 10 points in the 1st quarter, easily tops in the NFL). But I think he's probably a terrible offensive tactician; once he has to respond to in-game adjustments, he struggles (25th in 2nd Q points, 12th in 3rd Q--when he has halftime to take a breath--, and 19th in 4th Q). This sums up my whole point about KOC--my perception of him is that he is a decent offensive mind, but not good, and certainly not great. None of that is to say he can't improve, and prove me wrong. I really hope he does. But right now I am growing increasingly concerned that this season will be wasted, next year will be no better, and we'll be starting all over again with a new GM and coach in 2026, when we could just do it now.

Your unwillingness to acknowledge potential red flags would make an ostrich call you obstinate. Yes, London games can be sloppy and erratic--so wouldn't that also apply to the Jets? And yet, the supposed top 10 Vikings offense playing against an overrated Jets defense, which must have been sloppy and erratic to boot, only scored 16 points, and only 1 TD. You can't give the Vikings a mulligan for the game being in London, and refuse to consider the impact on the opponent as well. The Kansas City Chiefs this year are averaging 24 offensive PPG, which is identical to the Vikings. Literally identical. Last year they were 11th to the Vikings 22nd, in 2022 they were 2nd to the Vikings 8th. So if an offense that is demonstrably and clearly better at scoring points (the metric YOU want to use to gauge offensive performance) is "hideous," what does that say about KOC's offense? Tomlin has never had a losing season and has won a superbowl; things KOC cannot say. You asked for best coaches, not best offensive minds. Harbaugh's offense is 2nd in offensive PPG this year and 4th last year. He has a career .618 winning percentage (better than KOC's .610), and has won a superbowl. He has only 2 losing seasons out of 16 completed seasons. Lafleur has a career .681 winning percentage, and has never won fewer than 8 games. If you want to ding him for playoff chokes, certainly you have to downgrade KOC for his 2022 team absolutely no-showing against the Giants, no? McVay also has a superbowl win on his resume. As for the division, are you aware that in 2023 the NFC West had the exact same number of wins (35) as the NFC North, and included the eventual Super Bowl runner-up? In 2022 the NFC West had exactly 2 fewer wins than the North (31 to 33). If you exclude the Vikings and Rams from those numbers, the North has been at 28 and 20, compared to 25 and 26. In other words, the Rams divisional opponents have won more games in the past 2 seasons than the Vikings divisional opponents. If the NFC West has been garbage for the past 2 years, what does it say about the North, which has been worse? I do see how the cherry picking game works for you--not well. Several of your examples actually prove the opposite of what you think they do. I don't know why it's so hard for you to simply say "yeah, for literally half the season the Vikings offense has been performing like literally a borderline bottom 5 offense by PPG. If that doesn't get fixed, we're in real trouble". You're trying way too hard to ignore reality friend.

Why in the world did Jacksonville trade him? There is something more going on with all this. No way you give up a useful player, even a pending FA, AND pay 70% of the salary, all for a 4th/5th rounder 18 months from now. They must think there's zero chance he gets $50M in FA (the threshold for a 3rd round comp pick).

Barely top 10, pretty close to not top 10. After their last score against GB, they were bailed out by the Packers turning the ball over not once, but twice. They had a 2nd and 5 at the GB 8, ran 3 plays, and couldn't pick up those 5 yards to end the game. As pertains the Jets game, you're right, it was very unfair the Vikings had to play in London, and the Jets didn't. Further, the Jets are not a top 10 defense in PPG, and the offense scored 16 points on them. Only the Patriots (in one game, but not the other) and the Broncos scored fewer; even Will Levis and the Titans put up more offensive points on the Jets. We did not have a good first half against the Rams, we had two good drives. After that we had 3 possessions (one was at the end of the half); we ran 8 plays for -4 yards, two punts and the aforementioned end of half. This team has struggled for at least as much of the season as it has succeeded, and KOC does not have the track record that makes me willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. The best coaches in the league, in my opinion right now, are Reid, Campbell, Tomlin, Lafleur, and Harbaugh. I'd also put McVay and Shanahan on that list, and yes, those guys are struggling right now, but McVay has won a superbowl, and Shanahan has been to two. That gives them the benefit of the doubt, that KOC has not earned. To wit, in Zimmer's last 3 seasons, the Vikings were 7th, 9th, and 12th in Offensive PPG. With KOC, they are 8th, 22nd, and 8th. Looks an awful lot to me like KOC has done little, if anything, to improve a Vikings offense that wasn't exactly considered great. I hope I'm wrong. I hope the Vikings finish 15-2, average 35 PPG the rest of way, and secure the 1 seed on their way to their first ever Superbowl title. I just see a number of red flags starting to pop up in the last 3.5 games that have me concerned, especially because, as I mentioned, it would not have been that unlikely for the Packers to complete the comeback, or for the Jets to score a TD when they had 1st and 10 at our 26 with a minute left in the game. We have a 3 week stretch to get right, and get to 8-2, but if we end up at 7-3 or even 6-4, our last 7 games is pretty challenging, especially the last 4. The last 4 is Bears at home on a Monday, then a short week before at Seattle, followed by GB at home, and Lions on the road. That seems tougher to me than any other 4 game stretch this season. While statistically speaking 0-4 is unlikely, it's certainly not impossible, and 1-3 is still a distinct possibility, which means the Vikings would be well advised to get to 9 wins at a minimum in the next 6 games.

You think there is too much Twins coverage on a site called Twins Daily? Do you also think that the Wall Street Journal is too focused on Wall Street?

People seem to not understand that this is a series--the writers are going through every arb-eligible player, and dissecting every possibility (of which there are 3--tender, non-tender, tender and trade). Anyone who thinks the writer is weighing all 3 possibilities equally misses the mark. Every player should always have each of the three outcomes considered, even if the clear and obvious answer is an immediate no.

Without trying to parse GPS stats by position, I would guess that QB and OL are the two position groups that run the smallest distance in a game, and I'd guess it's not particularly close. I would also guess they are the two positions groups involved in the fewest full-speed collisions.

He didn't say he wasn't right, he said he was tired. It would seem odd for him to say he's tired if in reality, he's hurt.

My boss is a Jaguars fan--for what it's worth, he says Robinson is ok, but not as good as he was a couple years ago. I assume the benching has something to do with a desire to trade him (which they can't do if he gets injured). If not, I don't think we should be super excited about the odds of a guy benched by a 2-6 team being our OL savior.

Part of that is thanks to defensive TDs (in which the Vikings lead the league--over 10% of the Vikings points have come from defensive TDs); strip that out, and the Vikings are tied for 8th, but only .1 PPG ahead of 10th, and only .6 ahead of 12th. You are correct that I am deliberately narrowing the context--I'm calling attention to a very worrying trend over the past 3+ games, games where the Vikings are pretty fortunate to be 2-2; they could easily be 0-4. Green Bay--The Packers had 4 TOs, 8 penalties, and missed 2 FGs, and we still only won by 2 points, because we were outscored 22-3 in the second half Jets--The Jets had 3 TOs and 8 penalties--we only won by 6 points thanks to a game-clinching INT as the Jets were driving to tie/take the lead. Detroit--Honestly played pretty well here, but we were coming off a bye, Detroit was not, and we were at home. Rams--The Rams thoroughly beat us; 9 more first downs, 110 more yards of offense, we had 0 sacks on them (and almost no pressure), 7 more minutes TOP. In the last 14 quarters, the Vikings have been outscored 100-75, scoring only 7 TDs (only 5 on offense) while giving up 13; over a season that equates to 485-364, which would have been 6th worst in the NFL in 2023. Take out the two defensive TDs, and that changes to 100-62 which is 485-301; that's a worse point differential than the 2023 Carolina Panthers. Time will tell if the Kwesi/KOC bobos are right--they very well might be. But to pretend that this team has not been mostly bad since halftime of the GB game is deliberately ignoring reality.

I think that 7 games is more than 40% of the season, which is in no way a small sample—it’s equivalent to almost 70 games in an MLB season. if he’s so good that he can turn Dobbs and Mullens into the 10th best offense by yards, what does it say about Darnold that they’re now 19th? Is Darnold that much worse, and if so, shouldn’t we turn to Mullens since he’s still on the roster? im not criticizing KOC per se. I’m saying sometimes it feels like posters on this board just assume he’s a great offensive mind because he came from LA. I’m saying to this point he hasn’t really done anything to make me think he’s in the McVay, Shanahan, Reid tier, or anywhere close to that. He’s not bottom 10, but I don’t think he’s top 10 either, and non-top 10 offensive minds aren’t going to win a Super Bowl without a dominant defense.

On the season, sure. Over the last 14 quarters? 5 offensive TDs. That’s literally half of the season to date, everything since half time of the GB game. They could certainly snap out of this, but the offense struggling is no longer a small sample issue.

Vikings trading for Cam Robinson, LT, from Jax. No word yet on what draft compensation is going the other way, as far as I can tell. He’s a FA after the year, and since he’s been tagged twice, it would be almost impossible to tag him again. So unless the Vikings sign him to an extension before the season is done (which doesn’t make much sense), this is a true rental.

Last year was 10th. This year is 19th. Try again.

This feels like there's got to be something else going on, because you're right, that's an almost negligible difference in draft position, most likely. Is Johnson disrupting the locker room? Does Tepper want to save money? Or is there almost no one out there who wants to trade in-season, leaving Carolina in a position where they just have to take whatever?

That was a curious trade from the beginning for me. The Texans are going to end up spending a 2nd round pick for less than 50 catches, less than 500 yards, and 3 TDs.

Colts are turning to Flacco. Should give Richardson the time to take a cat nap or two. https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/42074936/sources-colts-bench-anthony-richardson-turn-joe-flacco