WTF

I'm never paying attention to anything again. Never. Never again.

What now?

The 2010 Vikings have two dominant strengths, two personnel areas that I think are as good as any in the league.

Defensive Line

Jared Allen, Pat Williams, Kevin Williams, and Ray Edwards make up a disruptive, devastating unit that rushes the passer and smothers the run. The pass rush has been much less effective on grass than on turf, but this is still a unit that can wreck an opposing offense and cover for deficiencies in the secondary.

Skill Positions

Is there an NFL team with skill position talent that you would prefer to the Vikings? They have an elite RB in Adrian Peterson, a good red zone TE in Visanthe Shiancoe, and a diverse group of WRs in Sidney Rice, Percy Harvin, and Bernard Berrian that provide deep threat, short threat, runs after the catch, and basically any combination of things you'd want from WRs. Certainly having an elite QB to utilize the talents of those players brings out the best in them, and the Vikes will need at least mediocre quarterbacking to get to the playoffs. But remember 2007, when the Vikings' top receiving threat was Bobby Wade? Those days are long past.

I think the Vikings might need to get creative offensively: there are some things they can do with Jackson, Peterson, and Harvin in the backfield that could really electrify the field. It's also evident that if Jackson is again the starter, the focus of the team leans more on the run, so the run blocking of the offensive line will need to be more effective, and Toby Gerhart will need to provide something on 5-10 carries a game.

What do the 2010 Vikings do without Brett Favre? My guess is they eke out 8-10 wins, lose 2-3 games that they should have won, maybe get into the playoffs, and in the playoffs probably lose, but with matchups and luck, who the hell knows. The strengths of this team are enough to make them competitive any week (as has been true for most of the Childress era, actually), but the weaknesses (serious questions about the quarterback and the secondary, for starters) probably prevent them from being an elite team again. But I'll hope, because it's better to cheer with hope.

Two nights ago I had a dream that the Vikings started out 2-0; in particular, Pat Williams was just running around crushing people. For you, dear reader, I'll put my crazy purple optimism on once again. We'll get through this season together.

Oh. My. God.

I believe nothing until it's Thursday night against the Saints and Tarvaris Jackson ambles out of the huddle to the line of scrimmage. But Oh. My. God. Looks like I need to find that old Vikings blanket of mine, curl up with it, cry, and try talk myself into the Tarvaris Jackson Experience (again).

2010 Vikings v. 2009 Vikings: what breaks won't be the same?

I've turned what was going to be an extended comment from below into a new post.

Here are the positives from 2009 that we cannot count on for 2010.

1. Schedule. The Vikes got to play the lousy NFC West, going 3-1. They played two AFC playoff teams, but got them both at home (winning both). On the proverbial paper, the 2010 schedule looks a lot tougher. A first round bye in the competitive NFC will be tougher to come by.

2. Holding off a good Packer team twice. The Packers were 11-5: the Vikes weren't that much better than them. In both games, the Vikes got big leads with a great passing game and dominant pass rush. In both games, the Packers came back and made a game of it when they went to all-throw mode and so the Viking pass rush couldn't succeed for three straight downs every time. The Vikings also got the Packers in the first half of the season, when they were still struggling awfully in pass protection, and Rodgers was holding the ball way too long. They and he got better in the second half. I don't expect a Packer sweep again.

3. Bears stinking. They got us at Soldier Field (as always), but stunk in the Dome game and weren't a division contender. Will Cutler suck that bad again? And nemesis Julius Peppers playing us twice? That's a nightmare. The good thing is that a better Bears team also means better competition for the Packers.

4. Favre's career year. Last year he had a career low in INTs (excluding his four attempt rookie season), career best completion percentage, and his first career 100 rating. It's possible that, playing with his experience and these teammates, that is now the player he is. But I'd expect at least modest regression, plus we'd be counting on him playing that well at 41. 41!

5. No outdoor playoff games. Will we be that lucky again? It's possible, but no guarantee. The Vikings still struggle on grass, especially defensively, where the pass rush seems significantly less dominant.

6. Postponed suspensions for Kevin Williams and Pat Williams. Actually, we can probably count on that lucky break again in 2010, but it was a lucky break in 2009 that is worth including here.

Now, here are some of the negatives from 2009 that perhaps the Vikings can improve on or avoid (here's where the pessimism comes in: above is a list of things that mostly, reasonably and analytically speaking, I would expect not to break our way again. Below is a list of things I hope for, but also can't count on).

1. Injury luck. I don't know if the Vikings had worse injury luck than is typical, or compared to other teams. But we lost Antoine Winfield for a big stretch, E.J. Henderson for the end of season and playoffs, Pat Williams for a key late-season game (a loss), Bernard Berrian had sub-par health all season, etc. But will it be better in 2010? Already Henderson and Cedric Griffin are coming back from brutal injuries, Sidney Rice has a hip issue, a lot of key players are a bit old, etc. I don't know that the injury situation will improve.

2. Run blocking. The offensive line did a much better job in pass protection last season than I imagined, but the run blocking was not nearly what it had been in 2007 and 2008. If that becomes a greater focus, then Adrian Peterson might perform more like he did in 2007 and 2008. But the personnel is the same: the improvement needs to come in execution, playcalling, focus, player improvement, etc.

3. Defensive interceptions. The Vikes have a terrific pass rush, yet the defense had very few INTs last season. I think it's something of a fluke, and the Vikings will have more picks this season.

They finally broke me.

As the Vikings get ready to start training camp, I think about all the other years the Vikings got ready for training camp. After the '98 season, I began every Viking season believing sincerely that this--THIS--was the year the Vikings were finally going to win the Super Bowl. You may look back and think I was deranged going into '01, '02, '03, '06, '07, or maybe even all of them, but for each season, I had reasons to believe that this was it.

And now, as the Vikings get ready for the 2010 season, I have to be honest: I do not believe the Vikings will win the Super Bowl this year. For the first time in over a decade, I do not have that unbridled hope. Everything went right in 2009 but they blew the NFC Championship Game with turnovers and a 12 men in the huddle penalty. I just don't believe 2010 can be better. I can talk myself into it, and I'm sure there are moments where I have real hope. But mostly, I don't believe. My spirits have finally been crushed by this team.

But you know what? That's OK. All my believing never actually willed the Vikings to a Super Bowl, so it doesn't really matter, and the year I don't believe might be the year they actually do it (see how I talk myself into things?). And it's also the best thing for my sports-sanity (barely hanging onto the ledge at this point). Spending every year believing "This is the year!" also means watching every play of every game with intense, emotional, passionate desperation. Maybe that will fade a bit this year (it reached its peak during that NFC Championship game). Maybe I'll enjoy football a little more.

So how about you? Still clinging to the "This is the year!" hopes? It's not like I gave them up; it's more that they were taken away from me.

I like this guy

Dez Bryant calls bullshit on stupid hazing/seniority bullshit.

My crazy Timberwolves thought

I'm not going to say David Kahn is doing a good job; in fact, he's made many perplexing moves.

But I wonder if Kahn is acquiring some of the players and many draft picks that will help the T-Wolves one day be a successful, winning franchise. I doubt that's soon and I doubt Kahn will still be there when it happens. It's also a wild grab bag where Kahn is making so many crazy moves that some of them mixed in might just randomly work out (while others are just crazy). But that's the crazy T-Wolves thought I try to talk myself into.

You have a right not to read this post

Let me go ahead and slap two theses up on the church door (I never claimed to be Martin Luther, and evidently I'm 93 theses short of Martin Luther).

1. When media members complain about media saturation of Favre coverage, they are contributing to and adding to media saturation of Favre coverage.

2. In the age of the internet, and of numerous television, radio, and print sources devoted to sports coverage, it is a bit silly to complain about sports media overcoverage or undercoverage of anything.*

I present these theses because Doug Farrar (who frequently tweets complaints about media saturation of Favre coverage) includes in a Yahoo! Shutdown Corner post these silly sentences:

"The Vikings have a right to know what their quarterback is going to do, whether they think so or not. And we have a right to hear and read about things that have nothing to do with Brett Favre."

The first sentence is obviously flawed: it's nice of Farrar to defend the Vikings' "rights" that they evidently don't care about, but obviously if they wanted to assert this right, they could (the fact that they don't suggests either they know Favre is coming back, or they know he's important to their plans and giving him freedom and little pressure is how to get him to come back). But it's the second sentence there that is absurdly silly (perhaps intentionally so, though the sentiment seems sincere).

Of course "we have a right to hear and read about things that have nothing to do with Brett Favre." All you have to do to assert this right is hear and read about them! Nobody has ever required me to read an article about Brett Favre. Nobody has denied me the right to read or hear about pretty much whatever sports story I want to read or hear about. The internet helps a lot: there are so many people writing about so many things that it is not terribly difficult to find some coverage of whatever it is you're interested in. This is especially the case with a popular sports league like the NFL: search for news or commentary on what you're interested in, and there's a good chance you'll find at least one article. As a fantasy football enthusiast, I've been noting how seemingly every day I come across another article focusing on Steven Jackson, to the point that every day my fantasy opinion of him changes (between July 9th and 20th, there's this, this, this, this, and this). Not only do you have a right to read NFL stories not about Favre, it's extraordinarily easy to do so.

And what if somebody doesn't want to hear about Favre? For that matter, what if I found Steven Jackson dull? Do what Lisa Simpson advises in The Simpsons Halloween episode when the advertising mascots come to life to terrorize the town: just don't look. I regularly check every one of those sites above featuring Steven Jackson articles, but if I wasn't interested in Steven Jackson (am I even interested in Steven Jackson?), all I have to do is not click on those links. If I'm watching a sports television network covering something I'm not interested in, I can switch to another sports television network that might be covering something I'm interested in, or if I insist on learning about sports during this moment I could even lower my eyes from the television to a sports magazine or a newspaper sports page. I have zero interest in learning details about rookie contract negotiations: in early and mid July it doesn't matter, and even once training camps begin the headline pretty much tells me what I want or need to know. Rather than complaining about media coverage of something I'm not interested in, I take the drastic step of not paying attention to media coverage of something I'm not interested in.

Hey, I've got a tag devoted to bad sportswriting: I'm not saying critique of sports media coverage is invalid. And there is sometimes call to complain about overcoverage or undercoverage of a particular story. But this brings us back to the first of my incredible two theses. When media members complain about Favre, complain about his indecision, complain about media overcoverage of Favre, criticize the attention given to Favre or the attention Favre evidently craves, they are talking about Favre. They are contributing to the media attention given to Favre. For the rest of us consumers of media, these complaints about the media's Favre coverage only contribute to the saturation.

So my advice to people like Farrar who are sick of Favre: just don't look. Don't worry about the Vikings' rights: they can probably assert their own. Don't worry about your right to read and hear about other NFL stories: nobody is taking that right away from you. Just don't look.

*specifying "sports media" is important: there are hard news stories for which the type or amount of coverage by mainstream media sources can have real consequences in policy, politics, public behavior, etc. But sports coverage is a bit more like entertainment coverage in its significance.

Addendum

I think I should emphasize thesis one a bit more. One reason I feel that Favre saturates the media is the backlash itself: I regularly come across media commentary criticizing Favre and/or the media's coverage of Favre (recently, here and here*). On the whole, these articles actually add to the saturation of Favre for consumers of media; in effect, media members whose complaint is too much coverage of Favre add to the saturation of Favre coverage simply by complaining at all. Some days it seems I come across more criticism/complain about media coverage of Favre than I come across Favre stories themselves.

I think there is too much media coverage of Favre, but the backlash has contributed to there being even more media coverage of Favre. As I've written before,

"several years ago, a backlash really started to develop (prominently on the internet) against the media's treatment of Favre, to the point that complaints about the media coverage of Favre have become the cliche. Furthermore, Favre's behavior in recent years has led to a lot of criticism from mainstream media sources."

That's what I'm saying: the complaining about media coverage of Favre is often the conventional, uninsightful, predictable cliche commentary itself. Many people are exhausted with the media giving too much attention to Favre; I'm actually exhausted with people complaining about the media giving too much attention to Favre!

*By the way, Adam Schein: when you take your time to make a "Go Away" video to complain about Favre, during which you say "I've been done with Favre for years," well, evidently you weren't.

At least in my sleep

Once again, I dreamed the Vikings won the Super Bowl. I didn't watch the game; it was the next day and I was (literally) running around with my index fingers waving in air. A Packer fan gave me the middle finger. I was (again literally) running to stores looking for Super Bowl Champion clothes to wear.

Not quite as tormenting as the time I dreamed I traveled back in time to before the NFC Championship game, bumped into the Vikings' skill position players, warned them not to fumble, and proceeded to watch (in specific detail) the Vikings crush the Saints. But haunting and disappointing nonetheless.

Viking Secondary Problems

Doug Farrar looks at Vikings' secondary problems, and offers a look at how linebacker positioning can help the coverage (Yahoo!).

How speculation becomes a report, and rumor becomes story

In an NFL.com article, Michael Lombardi includes under the heading "Things I hear..." this nugget:

"The next player to complain about his contract will be Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson, who missed the mandatory minicamp due to a scheduling conflict."

What is Lombardi's source for this information? Did he hear this from somebody close to Adrian Peterson? An official with the Vikings? Is this gossip among NFL team executives? Is this what Lombardi's friends in the media are talking about? Do deer come into Lombardi's backyard at twilight and whisper NFL secrets to him?

Well, who the hell knows? But unless Lombardi makes a reference to somebody saying this, it is hardly a report. My guess is that this is some speculation and gossip Lombardi has been hearing, probably from a number of directions. My guess is that's why Lombardi put it under the "Things I hear..." category: it's a part of the buzz, a rumor, things NFL people talk about. And it's not exactly out-there speculation: Peterson is an elite player still getting paid under his rookie contract. I would guess that Lombardi is right: at some point Peterson is probably going to want a new, bigger contract, feeling he's outperformed his rookie contract. Speculation in that direction is fairly reasonable.

And I want to make one thing clear: there is nothing wrong with that. Lombardi is trying to write an entertaining July NFL column, and he includes some of the things he hears people talk about to amuse and inform us. That's absolutely fine, as long as we take it for what it is. Unless Lombardi refers to a specific source (even an anonymous source), this is gossip. I can't see anybody reasonably calling this a "report."

Of course things change when you get to Pro Football Talk. Under the headline "Report: Contract confrontation coming for Peterson, Vikings," Michael David Smith refers to Lombardi's mention and writes:

"Michael Lombardi of NFL.com reports that Peterson will be the next NFL player to complain about his contract."

Lombardi "reports"? Under what standard of journalism does it count as a "reporting" that a writer just writes something he hears with no suggestion whatsoever who he's heard it from? Again, nothing wrong with Lombardi's note here: it's the "Things he hears..." bit, and after all, this is one of the things I hear too (from Lombardi!). But there was nothing "reported" by Lombardi (at least not journalistically: I suppose technically Lombardi is reporting things he's heard to us). There's no "story" being reported.

By the end of Smith's post, he's taken for granted that this unsourced mention in Lombardi's "Things I hear..." portion of a column is truth:

"So it's no surprise that Peterson isn't satisfied with his contract. And it shouldn't be a surprise if he soon takes his dissatisfaction public."

Look, like I said, I think Lombardi and Smith are probably right; I agree with Smith when he says "Players who produce at that level just aren't content to play out their rookie contracts and wait to become free agents." But to call what Lombardi wrote a "report," to refer to his mention as reporting, and by the end to just accept this as a true statement, well, that's how speculation becomes a report and a rumor becomes a story.

(For a good blog post about Lombardi's mention, see Judd Zulgad in Access Vikings. Not only does Zulgad treat Lombardi's nugget for what it is, but he informatively adds detail about Peterson's contract to not only pass on--and further--speculation, but contribute something concrete and meaningful to it).

In this spirit, I am going to start my own feature here, called "Things I discern from the ether..." Feel free to take this as a report: after all, I am discerning it from the ether and reporting it to you.

Things I discern from the ether...

The Mayans stopped their calendar at 2012 because that is either when the Vikings will win the Super Bowl or when they will move out of Minnesota. The Mayans knew there is no reason to keep track of history after that point.

The Spirit Of Fantasy Football no longer resides in the Shadow Of The End Zone; it has moved into Chris Johnson's socks.

The Green Bay Packers are wieners.

Addendum

Lombardi's wording itself suggests this is not a report, but a prediction. If Lombardi had said something like "Adrian Peterson will soon be complaining about his contract," that could be taken as a report (without a source referenced, I'd still think it a prediction rather than a report, but for now, whatever). But how can Lombardi know Adrian Peterson will be "the next player to complain about his contract" unless Lombardi knows Peterson will complain about it immediately after Lombardi publishes his column? That's a prediction, not a report. What if all of a sudden Joe Flacco starts complaining about his contract today? Then Lombardi's "report" is wrong. And when Lombardi writes Peterson will be "the next player to complain," that suggests he hasn't already started to complain (privately or publicly), which further suggests there isn't a concrete story being reported here.

It's clear this is speculation and prediction; why is Michael David Smith calling this a "report"?

Addendum 2

Here's a parallel:

Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty is probably going to run for president: there are several pieces of evidence pointing in that direction, so it is not surprising that a lot of political observers talk about it. If Political Pundit X wrote in a column, "I hear Tim Pawlenty is going to run for president," nobody would reasonably claim that Political Pundit X is "reporting" that Pawlenty will run for president, right? I suppose it's possible that Political Rumormonger Y might post something like "Political Pundit X reports that Tim Pawlenty will run for president," but few reasonable thinkers would follow a link to Political Pundit X's column and think that's a concrete story being reported, right? Some might even call it irresponsible for Political Rumormonger Y to take a casual, unsourced sentence and call it a "report," right? That's why we'd know that Rumormonger Y is a rumormonger, right?

Granted, Pawlenty running for president seems a lot more obvious than Adrian Peterson complaining about his contract. But either way, a rumormonger claiming a pundit's casual unsourced claim is a reported story would definitely secure the rumormonger's reputation for (uncredible?) rumormongering.

Addendum 3

So much for reports.

Resolving the great culture war of our time

Edward is extraordinarily dull; he may as well be part of the scenery for as little as he brings to the screen. Jacob has some screen presence, some charisma, some vigor, some verve. When he's in a scene, you know he's in a scene.

Still, if choosing Edward means becoming a vampire and living longer (maybe not forever, but until somebody tears you to shreds and burns the pieces), then that means getting more chances to see the Vikings just maybe win the Super Bowl. Probably, it will take becoming a vampire and living a few more centuries to see that happen.

Mad Lib

noun, anybody associated with or rooting for the Minnesota Vikings: _________

First sentence of Vic Carucci's NFL.com article on the Vikings:

"_________ was lamenting about how close the Minnesota Vikings were to achieving their ultimate goal, how it should have been them and not the New Orleans Saints hoisting the Vince Lombardi Trophy last February."

Blizzard

In some parallel universe, Sage Rosenfels throws for 24 TDs and 3,700 yards leading the Vikings to a 10-6 record. Obviously not this one (Kevin Seifert, Viking Update).

Tarvaris Jackson (Star Tribune)

Percy Harvin (Pioneer Press)

Antoine Winfield (Pioneer Press)

Sidney Rice and Percy Harvin (Star Tribune): Harvin's arms look monsterous.

Percy Harvin (Star Tribune)

Minicamp pictures (vikings.com)

Ray Edwards (Star Tribune)

Toby Gerhart (Daily Norseman). I still think it will be a combo of Gerhart and Percy Harvin that will do the things Chester Taylor used to do.

Adrian Peterson (ESPN NFC North Blog).

Nnamdi Asomugha, entertaining fellow (Sports Illustrated).

Drops (Football Outsiders).

NFL.com has a nice fantasy football preview page. A lot of interesting and useful things there.

Brad Childress and Double-Standards

At Shutdown Corner, Doug Farrar questions Brad Childress's credibility: if he's going to let Brett Favre skip whatever he wants, how can he take a hard line on Adrian Peterson missing OTAs?

I only partially agree. At the professional level, I don't really have a problem when coaches have different standards for different players. It's the coach's job to make the team as good as possible, and he should be able to make judgment calls about discipline, discerning whether allowing superstars leeway is better for the team, or whether doing so causes team problems which affect performance. Where I agree is that if Childress is going to have double-standards for superstars, he should probably consider Adrian Peterson a superstar worthy of the double-standard. Of course, the Vikings have so many legitimate studs, the concern about a slippery slope may be valid.

It's a dangerous game a coach plays, balancing the egos to give the team optimum performance. If Childress took a hard line on Favre's absence, and that somehow contributed to Favre deciding not to come back in 2010, the team would not be better off. But if Childress says, "Ah, hell, I'm letting Favre do whatever he wants, so I should probably go ahead and let all the other players get away with skipping OTAs too, because I have to be consistent," then the team would not be better off either. Certainly things can go wrong when the coach makes these judgment calls, and he can be wrong. Maybe he has a feel for his team and understands how players feel and respond to Favre's absence, and maybe he doesn't.

But here's the thing about the slippery slope: it's a logical fallacy. "If I make an exception for you, I have to make an exception for everybody" is a fallacy. You certainly can make an exception for one person: that's the nature of an exception.

Childress's double-standard for Favre may become a divisive locker room issue. If it was a problem last season, however, the problem did not show up in on-the-field performance. The team was very good throughout the season (I'm assuming that all those NFC championship game turnovers and the 12 men in the huddle had nothing to do with players in the locker room resenting either Childress or Favre). We'll see if it becomes an issue in 2010, but I really doubt it.

Blizzard: I love magazines.

I purchased ESPN Fantasy Football 2010 and Pro Football Weekly and Yahoo! Sports Preview 2010. Each has the statistical detail I crave in a preview magazine, and each has several great features that make it useful. I find myself wondering why I bought two $7.99 football magazines, but I am trying to be a well-informed amateur football blogger coming back from my sports nervous breakdown. And its only June, so summer is still filled a lot of activities when pulling out a magazine for a few minutes at a time is good: sitting on a lawn chair watching kids play, standing in line, going to the bathroom, waiting for parades to start, yada yada yada.

You'll notice I've been linking to a lot of articles not related to the Vikings. I'm finishing up some professional obligations, and as that's winding down, I'm actually feeling more like it's summer, and which is known in some circles as FANTASY FOOTBALL PREPARATION PERIOD, so my football reading is expanding. I link to what might be interesting, and I'll probably also be adding more websites to the links on the side. As I'm finishing up my work, I'm also going to make time to write the Official Hazelweird Fantasy Football Rulebook, since our league has operated on unwritten traditions and customs that have been voted on but never written down, which causes some problems (sometimes a league veteran will do something based on an obscure custom that hasn't been used in years, causing a newer league member to ask what the hell just happened, leading the long-time keepers of the league to explain, "It's all good: while what he did certainly appears illegal and shenanigoaty, he just exercised a rule we've always agreed on for obscure situation A, but the rule hasn't been used in years so you didn't know about it. Now go back about your business," which is usually, um, not loved).

Enjoy the weekend, suckers.

Linky

Viking minicamp questions (Viking Update).

The Kansas City Chiefs weirdly intrigue me (USA Today).

Matt Leinart weirdly intrigues me (Fox Sports Arizona).

Peter Schrager on wide receivers and the Hall of Fame (Fox Sports).

Isaac Bruce: I always liked that guy (New York Times).

Kevin Kolb (ESPN).

Fantasy Heavy

Michael Fabiano talks up Aaron Rodgers (NFL.com)

I have no intention of drafting one Michael Turner, ever. He is an interesting fantasy prospect, though (Fox Sports South).

Jamaal Charles (Sports Illustrated).

Blizzard

Should Percy Harvin be considered something like the Vikings' 3rd down running back in 2010? I say yes. The versatility of sending him into the huddle, where he could run, catch from the backfield, or motion into the slot, is pretty enticing.

Linky

George Packer's post in The New Yorker about the Lakers resonates with me as a Viking fan:

"That was what West and the Lakers meant to me: the inevitability, the unfairness, the almost sweet pain of loss."

Viking cornerbacks (Star Tribune)

E.J. Henderson (Star Tribune)

Adrian Peterson (Star Tribune)

Warren Moon (vikings.com)

Target Field is vegetarian friendly (MinnPost)

Toby Gerhart (vikings.com).

Fantasy Heavy

Open for debate: #1 fantasy pick Adrian Peterson or Chris Johnson (Yahoo!)?

Another debate: Larry Fitzgerald or Sidney Rice (Yahoo!)

Matthew Berry's top 150 (ESPN)

Good Fantasy Clicks by Jay Clemons (Sports Illustrated), but I do have a few questions:

1. Is this really a "mock" draft, or are you going to go ahead and have a league with the teams you've drafted? And if you're not going to, why not?

2. When you refer to your group as "long and distinguished," are you intentionally referencing Top Gun? Because it made me want to say "So's my johnson."

Bounceback players (Rotoworld)

Precedent suggests Mike Martz means the Bears will put up big passing numbers (Rotoworld)

WR rankings (Yahoo!)

"Live" Blogging: Vikings-Bears 1994, Second Quarter

See First Quarter here.

Warren Moon with a short pass on a short cross to Cris Carter (one of my favorite video game plays: reliable).

Carter gets a short pass on third down, shakes a tackler and runs up, diving for the sticks. First down, suckers.

Dave Wannstedt's mustache is something to admire. Start typing his name into Google, and "Dave Wannsteadt mustache" is pretty high up on the list of search choices, so evidently a lot of people admire it.

Qadry Ismail with a nice catch and run--the sort of play that made his potential seem so big.

Scottie Graham picking up good yardage. At what point do people choose between, say, Scott and Scottie? I can't imagine a Scott Pippen capturing my imagination.

There's Sean Salisbury on the sidelines. Was he ever not a tool?

Classic Brian Billick fun: all sorts of short underneath passes on 3rd and long.

Punting is the right move there: the Bears' offense isn't going 90 yards in Thunderdome.

Ed McDaniel storms through the line of scrimmage for a tackle for loss. No blocker at all.

3rd and 11 for the Steve Walsh Bears is like 3rd and 1,100.

Vikes get the ball at midfield, and I'm mildly excited.

And Moon just got drilled. Excitement depleting. I'm now fully prepared for a couple five yard outs then a punt.

Oof! Great pass out to Jake Reed, 23 yard gain on 3rd and 19.

Look at Scottie Graham go.

Remember football before that glowing yellow line? It was fine.

Denny Green was always a fan of the two-TE set.

Moon threw it into the chest of a Bear LB, but the ball bounces to the ground. And there's a guy behind Dave Wannstedt wearing Zubas, reminding me we're watching a game from 1994.

Fuad. If only he had still be around in '98, maybe things would have been different.

And now Walsh throws a pass to a defender's chest. Is that fun or something? I see why I might have gone outside to play basketball.

Jack Del Rio crushes the screen play, and John Randle gets called for roughing the passer. I can see why they made that call. Joe Theismann is incensed about it.

Vikes recover a fumble.

Nice catch by Cris Carter. That guy was good, wasn't he?

Lousy clock management by the Vikings. Nostalgia. Sure.

THROW IT DOWNFIELD! Just chuck it. You've got Jake Reed. All these dink and dunk plays. They're not even sending Cris Carter out on patterns.

Nice throw to Jake Reed.

Got into field goal position, but they really could have managed that clock better and tried for a TD. And they could have let Cris Carter go out on a pass pattern.

13-7 Viking lead at halftime. After a pretty putrid offensive performance most of the half, a six point lead feels pretty good. I mean, must have felt good to fans at the time. I couldn't possibly have warm feelings about a 13-7 halftime score of a game played 16 years ago. I'm not that deranged a fan. Right? Right?

Dang, 16 years ago. A whole driver ago, this game happened. I'm getting old. Last night my son was staring at the top of my head grinning for some reason. "Why are you looking at my head?" I asked him. "Daddy, you have a hole on your head. There's no hair right there." So there's that. I didn't have the heart to say "Guess what, kid: this is your DNA too. Bwha ha ha ha!"

Anyway, check back again sometime for the third quarter.

"Live" Blogging: Vikings-Bears 1994, First Quarter

The Bears are 8-4, the Vikings 7-5, going for the season sweep. And, good God, that's Joe Theismann.

I really will always remember the Steve Walsh era fondly.

Fuad! Fuad!

I miss that Vikings script in the end zone.

Ed McDaniel with a tackle.

Marv Cook. Marv Cook! I thought flipping through the boxes and boxes of sports cards I've taken from my parents' storage room was allowing me to relive my childhood....but this! This!

DeWayne Washington with a pick-six. I don't know if we were calling them pick-sixes in 1994.

Great downfield blocking.

Fuad! Fuad!

Unfortunately, the nostalgia train ends at commercial breaks. How about some old commercials, NFL Network? Got any rights to those?

If I remember correctly, this was a cold Thursday night in December, and I took breaks during the game to go outside and play basketball. It's really, really weird if I'm remembering that correctly.

Thunderdome was always Thunderdome.

John Randle and Henry Thomas, a different version of Kevin Williams and Pat Williams.

I just paused the game because my dog was mulling around the door. You know what we didn't have in 1994? DVR. If 2010 PV could go back in time and tell 1994 PV, "Someday, you'll rewatch this game, and you'll be able to save it and pause it with just that little remote," what would 1994 PV say?

Jack Del Rio!

'94 Vikes were leading the league in run defense, among the greatest of all-time. But they were pretty lousy in pass defense. Nostalgia. Sure.

Vencie Glenn! Yes, I'll continue to be gleeful just hearing the names.

Nice pass breakup from Ed McDaniel.

Great penetration and tackle by John Randle.

And there's Tony Dungy in the box as defensive coordinator.

There was some lousy tackling. On 3rd and 10, Steve Walsh dumps it to Robert Green, who avoids a bunch of lousy tackle attempts and runs for a touchdown. Theismann says it was a great job by Walsh taking what the defense gave him. I suppose, at taking what the defense was giving, it was a great job.

Kevin Butler!

Warren Moon takes the snap: I always liked that guy. Throws a really pretty ball.

Qadry Ismail: not so great.

Brett Favre looks better in the Vikings' #4 jersey than does punter Mike Saxon.

1994 Steve Walsh = Kyle Orton. I'm 100% serious. No arm strength, but plays smart, avoids many errors, gets credit for "winning" a lot of games because of the defense.

Jake Reed really was a hell of a player. Really liked him. I say this as Moon overthrows him.

TV praise for John Randle/Henry Thomas. I do think Kevin Williams/Pat Williams > John Randle/Henry Thomas.

Vikings can't get a running game going.

Moon gets sacked. I constantly hate the Packers; I forget that I hate the Bears when I'm not actually watching them. Watching this now, I hate the Bears.

Think about it: nine years after this game, Jack Del Rio was an NFL head coach.

Joe Theismann has always been Joe Theismann.

Scottie Graham: Dennis Green sure brought in some interesting guys.

End of the first quarter: 7-7. Check back for Second Quarter.

Blizzard

Tyrell Johnson (vikings.com)

Cedric Griffin and E.J. Henderson (Star Tribune)

Cedric Griffin (Star Tribune)

Adrian Peterson's fumbling--and a comparison to Walter Payton's fumble rate (ESPN NFC North Blog)

Four Downs on the NFC North (Football Outsiders)

Doug Farrar looks at Mike Martz and the Bears' tight ends (Yahoo!)

Vikings' ambiguity going away, and for the better (Pioneer Press)

"Is this now a Twins town?" (Star Tribune)

Michael Turner (NFL Fanhouse)

Kevin Kolb (NFL.com)

Matt Schaub (Yahoo!)

Jason Cole's team RB rankings: Vikes #1 (Yahoo!)

Randy f-in' Moss (ProFootballTalk)

Fantasy Tight Ends (Pancake Blocks)