I hate sportswriters?

Speaking of the Vikings (ahem), could there be a better example of why sports-media types should stick to reporting and stay away from forecasting?

Every year there are too many NFL Super Bowl predictions to count. And why not? It is fun, a good water-cooler conversation. But, in Week 5, when the standings look nothing like the talking heads expected, is it really newsworthy to talk about how teams aren't living up to expectations? With every season comes free agency-splashes, momentum from a Week 17 win the previous year, a new coach. Fans get excited. They are going to be pumped for a new year anyway, even Detroit Lions fans. Unfortunately, the media usually works this into a frenzy.

"Dr. Z" over at Sports Illustrated (What is this guy's real name, and who gave him this awful, awful nickname?) predicted the Vikings would win the Super Bowl all the way back in June. Most NFL writers and broadcasters had them in the playoffs. Now, with September coming to a close and the team in a rut at 1-3, these same experts are trashing them. Is it fair to get down on a 1-3 team? Absolutely, especially one that has some really great singular talents. But can we deny that most of the heat the Vikings are getting stems from the preseason "hopes" that were placed on them?

Listen: Judd Zulgad and Kevin Seifert and even most national sportswriters don't know that much more about the game of football than most fans (Granted, they do have access to the players and coaches, and they do have time to analyze the league in a way that most fans cannot.) What gets these guys in at the Star Tribune or ESPN is their skill in reporting. These guys can go find a story, can make excellent contacts, can even write a little; that doesn't translate to them being scouts, or even capable of break down a play. (This is why guys like John Madden and Ron Jawarski are around.)

To the point: When sportswriters see Adrian Peterson, Jared Allen, Antoine Winfield, etc., on a roster, they think they have a winner. True, there was a big "if" with all of these predictions for the Vikings: Do they have a competent quarterback? But what about all of the other things that were ignored?

The Vikings are 1-3 right now because of some really obvious shortcomings: Receivers are dropping 3rd down passes; The defense is giving up big plays; penalties are coming from every position; the kick off coverage team is flat-out terrible; turnovers; horrendous play-calling in big situations. The Vikings have had a chance to win in the 4th quarter of all three losses because: Adrian Peterson, Jared Allen, Antoine Winfield, etc.

All the players that got Vikings fans and sportswriters excited about the team are doing their part. And they are 1-3, on the verge of being dealt a knock-out punch next Monday night in New Orleans?

If Mike Tice did anything as head coach in Minnesota, he put together a really stout special teams. Kick and punt coverage was excellent, and the returners and kickers did everything right-they didn't fumble, they made most field goals. Since Childress took over, these units have progressively gotten worse. This was compounded by huge roster turnover from last season, mostly at back-up positions, where strong special teams play originates. Field position has killed the Vikings defense.

Minnesota couldn't make big plays in the passing game the last two seasons. Add one decent receiver and suddenly they are a Super Bowl offense? No. Especially if he (Bernard Berrian) drops passes consistently. Oh, and by the way, the big "if"? Very iffy.

Sportswriters are not experts in football. They are experts in reporting. Is it disappointing that the Vikings are 1-3? Yes. Is it more disappointing because a couple talking heads thought they might make a run at the Super Bowl? No.