Tuesday, October 7, 2008

The Vikings Won, by the way

In the 24 hours since Minnesota topped New Orleans 30-27, the national and local (Minnesota) media have agreed on one thing: The Saints gave this one away. Consensus seems to be that the Vikings watched some freak show of blocked field goals and punt returns go on around them, then stepped in with 15 second left so Ryan Longwell could come in and boot the game-winning field goal.

Well, I see it a little differently. Although the Saints did blow a 4th quarter lead, how did they even get to that point? Let's not forget that before Reggie Bush returned two punts for touchdowns, the Vikings had a 20-10 lead and the game had essentially turned into back-and-forth punts. The Saints had a couple of nice drives in the first half, but only turned two into scores, a 47-yard drive that resulted in a touchdown to open the game, and 34-yard possession that ended in a long field goal. 

The Saints only drive in the game that went for more than 55 yards was a 12-play, 75-yard drive that ended with an interception. What the Saints offense did was put up a bunch of numbers: 320 yards total, 15 first downs, and they won time of possession by 5 minutes. Guess what? It means nothing. 

Stats are important in professional sports. They are how we measure teams and players and their performances. But if you can't recognize that the Vikings defense did what they had to do to win this game, which, yes, included taking advantage of mistakes by the Saints, you are blind. The Saints certainly gave the Vikings a lot of chances in this game—turnovers and penalties, namely—and the Vikings took advantage of pretty much every single one. A blocked field goal turned into a touchdown after a penalty and a dropped pass. A pass interference turned into the game-winning field goal. 

Go watch all 14 NFL games next weekend. What you will see are a bunch of near-interceptions, near catches, near drops, near fumbles, etc. On Monday night, the Vikings just happened to do an incredible job of capitalizing on all of these. Ben Leber scooped up a bobbled ball, Antoine Winfield caught a blocked punt in mid-air.

Also, let's talk about Jared Allen. People are disappointed because he has no numbers. Well, if you watched the Vikings defense in 2006 and 2007, you know a couple things: Overall, it was pretty good; its pass defense got exploited a lot; it never pressured the quarterback. And if you did watch those two teams it should be pretty obvious that this year's defense is a lot better than those two. And Jared Allen is a huge part of that. Drew Brees was not on the ground that much. But he was in the eye of a storm last night. 

The Vikings defensive line has not been great at all times this year, but they cause a hell of a lot of chaos. There are people everywhere when the ball gets snapped, and quarterbacks are getting hurried and hit. We all would like to see more sacks, but there is no denying that the line is as disruptive as it has been in decades.

So, for those who like stats, I'll throw you a bone. In Week 3, the Carolina Panthers had 45 yards of offense in the second half, punting three times and never scoring. In Week 4, the Tennessee Titans gained 67 yards in seven possessions in the second half, hitting a field goal on a 33-yard drive, and moving 6 yards for a touchdown after a Gus Frerotte interception. New Orleans did manage 99 yards in the second half Monday night, most of that coming on one pass. 

In those three games the Vikings have held their opponent scoreless in 14 of 17 second half possessions, with the average scoring drive moving less than 18 yards. To me, that adds up to some stellar second half defense (and bad field position), right when it is needed. And it's not like the defense has put the team behind in those games. Tied 10-10 against Carolina at half, down 20-10 against Tennessee, and up 20-10 Monday in New Orleans.

To wrap it up, don't tell me the Vikings didn't have a part in winning this game, and how about a little credit to the Vikings defense, which is playing a lot better than the "numbers" might indicate.

No comments: