Fun article, and I think that all of the rankings (better/worse/even) are spot on and astute. One interesting wrinkle of the schedule is that the Vikings have some pretty good luck with *when* they face these teams. For example, I like that they are facing Burrow early before he can settle in post-injury and adjust to how teams are facing him differently in year 2, I like that they are facing Big Ben very late in the year (week 14) at which point hopefully the Steelers will be slowing down (similar to how the Steelers started out 11-0 before losing 4 of their last 5 last year), I think it is advantageous to be facing the Rams late where they are more likely to have a few injuries (given how their team is stars and scrubs, even 2 or 3 notable injuries could be massive) such that Stafford might be leaned on similar to how he was in Detroit, and similarly given their injury history it is advantageous to be facing the Niners late in the year when they might not be at peak strength. Conversely, it is bad luck to face the Cardinals so early where Kyler is more likely to be at full health (the difference between how dynamic Kyler was pre- and post-shoulder injury is dramatic - he went from at least 10 rushes for at least 60 yards before the injury to no more than 5 rushes for no more than 30 yards afterwards), we are facing the Chargers late enough that feasibly Herbert might have adjusted to his new OC and also to any adjustments that his opponents are collectively making against him in year 2, we are facing the Ravens right after their bye week so we should be facing a fresh Lamar (a terrifying thought) and a team that will have time to prepare for us (same with the Cowboys, but at least the playing field is level there with both teams coming off byes), and potentially Fields might have enough playing time to have some familiarity with the Bears offense by the time we face them (I am on the record as not being high on Fields, but I would still prefer to face him early). On par I think the Vikings are on the positive side of that ledger and am pleased that the schedule doesn't seem to give the Vikings any massive disadvantages (they are also at home for their Thursday game for only the 2nd time of the Zimmer era).
Also, I was amused by how Purple Insider just can't help itself from using hyperbole in describing Sam Darnold. As I said above, I agree that Cousins has a clear edge in this matchup, and any analytical analysis of Darnold should end up with a strongly pessimistic viewpoint of him, but it feels like a stubbornly anti-factual position to state that there is literally "no evidence" that Sam Darnold is good. I mean, here are some quick facts - he was dealing with mono in 2019 and when he came back healthy the team ended the year going 6-2 even though Darnold had a partially torn ligament in his thumb (and in that stretch had virtually identical Y/A and AY/A as Herbert had last year), in 2020 he had a substantial shoulder injury but still had the 6th highest completion percentage in the NFL in a clean pocket (but this was extremely rare because the Jets OL allowed pressure within 2.5 seconds at the highest rate in the NFL), he has played every snap under Gase who has repeatedly shown a super-human ability to suppress the performance/ability/stats of his players, the Jets team was fantastically terrible around him and went 0-9 in games that Darnold missed (for comparison's sake Tannehill's teams were 10-15 without him, so Tannehill was on FAR better teams than Darnold ever was), and also he is younger than Joe Burrow and less than a year older than Herbert.
Now, does any/all of that mean that Darnold will be good, or even has a good chance to be good? Nope, sure doesn't! It also is easily outweighed by the many stats that detail strongly how Darnold has struggled. But those facts that I provided are certainly more than "no evidence." Personally I would categorize it as "uninspiring evidence." They are real facts that support the idea that Darnold might not be washed up at the ripe old age of 23. I won't bet on it, and in fact would actively bet against it, but I also find it amusing to argue against it with such intense vigor. But then what is sports without having your HAWT TAEK that you believe and will argue with unjustified fervor? I for one support this boldly planted and vehemently defended flag that Purple Insider is standing besides. Down with Darnold!
Hope you had a great weekend Sega... I do like your analysis of when the games are played is generally to our advantage...Do hope that meeting the Packers later in the year means their now much less experienced OL is pretty dinged up.... An older Rodgers (even given his brilliance) might not shine so much with a suddenly mediocre OL. Also if later in the season (and the GB OL does indeed regress) Rodgers might be a bit roughed up by then (for now I am assuming he stays but am happy to be wrong)
Same to you, Mr. Dude! Yeah, I think that people are sleeping on how much the Packers offense might regress without a few core pieces on their OL. As many have said, the OL is a unit that is typically defined by their weak link more than their best player, so if the Packers' choice to continually tinker with their OL finally catches up to them they might be in trouble. Whenever the Vikings have been able to harass Rodgers they have had done well against the Packers.
And agreed; I am certainly enjoying dreaming about the Packers going through a 30 year wasteland of middling QBs as a result of Rodgers leaving and their QB room being in flames, but until I actually see that hated man on another roster (and also see Love flounder in person) I will hold off on actually counting my chickens, even if I am laying the framework for some gloating calculations the second it feels safe to do so.
The Cardinals and Cowboys games will be very interesting. Murray and Prescott are better QBs than Cousins but Zimmer is a Superior coach to Kingsbury and McCarthy. And if you don’t think coaches matter watch Carolina and Sanfran last year
I would give Cousins a few more advantages, over Garappolo and Herbert, at this stage of Herbert's career, but what makes me annoyed/jealous is that if you did the same analysis with Rodgers it would be Rodgers Advantage 17 Disadvantage 0 Even 0. Must be nice going into every game as a Packer's fan knowing that your QB is better than all your appointments.
No arguments from me... But not only Cousins, but except for the elite QBs (Wilson) and really bad QBs (it does not matter their help) their situation, in particular their OL seems to go a long way in determining how they do (Ok, its not rocket science... Hopefully we will have a functional IOL this year (our tackles last year were not the problem). I have to admit, I did not see much logic in changing Darnold for Teddy.... Unless of course they are gunning for the top or two picks this year (but then again, they probably should have taken Fields)
Fun article, and I think that all of the rankings (better/worse/even) are spot on and astute. One interesting wrinkle of the schedule is that the Vikings have some pretty good luck with *when* they face these teams. For example, I like that they are facing Burrow early before he can settle in post-injury and adjust to how teams are facing him differently in year 2, I like that they are facing Big Ben very late in the year (week 14) at which point hopefully the Steelers will be slowing down (similar to how the Steelers started out 11-0 before losing 4 of their last 5 last year), I think it is advantageous to be facing the Rams late where they are more likely to have a few injuries (given how their team is stars and scrubs, even 2 or 3 notable injuries could be massive) such that Stafford might be leaned on similar to how he was in Detroit, and similarly given their injury history it is advantageous to be facing the Niners late in the year when they might not be at peak strength. Conversely, it is bad luck to face the Cardinals so early where Kyler is more likely to be at full health (the difference between how dynamic Kyler was pre- and post-shoulder injury is dramatic - he went from at least 10 rushes for at least 60 yards before the injury to no more than 5 rushes for no more than 30 yards afterwards), we are facing the Chargers late enough that feasibly Herbert might have adjusted to his new OC and also to any adjustments that his opponents are collectively making against him in year 2, we are facing the Ravens right after their bye week so we should be facing a fresh Lamar (a terrifying thought) and a team that will have time to prepare for us (same with the Cowboys, but at least the playing field is level there with both teams coming off byes), and potentially Fields might have enough playing time to have some familiarity with the Bears offense by the time we face them (I am on the record as not being high on Fields, but I would still prefer to face him early). On par I think the Vikings are on the positive side of that ledger and am pleased that the schedule doesn't seem to give the Vikings any massive disadvantages (they are also at home for their Thursday game for only the 2nd time of the Zimmer era).
Also, I was amused by how Purple Insider just can't help itself from using hyperbole in describing Sam Darnold. As I said above, I agree that Cousins has a clear edge in this matchup, and any analytical analysis of Darnold should end up with a strongly pessimistic viewpoint of him, but it feels like a stubbornly anti-factual position to state that there is literally "no evidence" that Sam Darnold is good. I mean, here are some quick facts - he was dealing with mono in 2019 and when he came back healthy the team ended the year going 6-2 even though Darnold had a partially torn ligament in his thumb (and in that stretch had virtually identical Y/A and AY/A as Herbert had last year), in 2020 he had a substantial shoulder injury but still had the 6th highest completion percentage in the NFL in a clean pocket (but this was extremely rare because the Jets OL allowed pressure within 2.5 seconds at the highest rate in the NFL), he has played every snap under Gase who has repeatedly shown a super-human ability to suppress the performance/ability/stats of his players, the Jets team was fantastically terrible around him and went 0-9 in games that Darnold missed (for comparison's sake Tannehill's teams were 10-15 without him, so Tannehill was on FAR better teams than Darnold ever was), and also he is younger than Joe Burrow and less than a year older than Herbert.
Now, does any/all of that mean that Darnold will be good, or even has a good chance to be good? Nope, sure doesn't! It also is easily outweighed by the many stats that detail strongly how Darnold has struggled. But those facts that I provided are certainly more than "no evidence." Personally I would categorize it as "uninspiring evidence." They are real facts that support the idea that Darnold might not be washed up at the ripe old age of 23. I won't bet on it, and in fact would actively bet against it, but I also find it amusing to argue against it with such intense vigor. But then what is sports without having your HAWT TAEK that you believe and will argue with unjustified fervor? I for one support this boldly planted and vehemently defended flag that Purple Insider is standing besides. Down with Darnold!
Hope you had a great weekend Sega... I do like your analysis of when the games are played is generally to our advantage...Do hope that meeting the Packers later in the year means their now much less experienced OL is pretty dinged up.... An older Rodgers (even given his brilliance) might not shine so much with a suddenly mediocre OL. Also if later in the season (and the GB OL does indeed regress) Rodgers might be a bit roughed up by then (for now I am assuming he stays but am happy to be wrong)
Same to you, Mr. Dude! Yeah, I think that people are sleeping on how much the Packers offense might regress without a few core pieces on their OL. As many have said, the OL is a unit that is typically defined by their weak link more than their best player, so if the Packers' choice to continually tinker with their OL finally catches up to them they might be in trouble. Whenever the Vikings have been able to harass Rodgers they have had done well against the Packers.
And agreed; I am certainly enjoying dreaming about the Packers going through a 30 year wasteland of middling QBs as a result of Rodgers leaving and their QB room being in flames, but until I actually see that hated man on another roster (and also see Love flounder in person) I will hold off on actually counting my chickens, even if I am laying the framework for some gloating calculations the second it feels safe to do so.
The Cardinals and Cowboys games will be very interesting. Murray and Prescott are better QBs than Cousins but Zimmer is a Superior coach to Kingsbury and McCarthy. And if you don’t think coaches matter watch Carolina and Sanfran last year
Yeah, all I was pretty pleased the Cowboys picked McCarthy.. Mediocre at best
I would give Cousins a few more advantages, over Garappolo and Herbert, at this stage of Herbert's career, but what makes me annoyed/jealous is that if you did the same analysis with Rodgers it would be Rodgers Advantage 17 Disadvantage 0 Even 0. Must be nice going into every game as a Packer's fan knowing that your QB is better than all your appointments.
No arguments from me... But not only Cousins, but except for the elite QBs (Wilson) and really bad QBs (it does not matter their help) their situation, in particular their OL seems to go a long way in determining how they do (Ok, its not rocket science... Hopefully we will have a functional IOL this year (our tackles last year were not the problem). I have to admit, I did not see much logic in changing Darnold for Teddy.... Unless of course they are gunning for the top or two picks this year (but then again, they probably should have taken Fields)