Vin+ 3,121 Posted September 20, 2013 http://hosted.stats.com/fb/preview.asp?g=20130922016&home=16&vis=5 (AP) -- The Minnesota Vikings are among the last teams to make the playoffs after starting a season 0-2. Facing a third-string quarterback and avoiding a star running back might help them to start climbing out of that hole again. The Cleveland Browns play their first game since the shocking trade of Trent Richardson as they visit the Vikings in a matchup of winless clubs Sunday. Neither of Cleveland's first-round draft picks from last year will play after starting the last two games, but for very different reasons. While quarterback Brandon Weeden is out with a sprained thumb, Richardson was dealt to Indianapolis on Wednesday for a 2014 first-round pick. "This was more about the moment presented itself, and based on the situation the Colts found themselves in, it wasn't something where we could say, `Can you wait three weeks to think about this or learn more?' We thought it was a move to make us better," Browns CEO Joe Banner said. "I think we feel good about where we're at moving forward." The absence of Richardson, who ran for 950 yards and nine touchdowns as a rookie, leaves the Browns without one of only two players to have a rushing attempt this season. The other is Weeden, who will be replaced by third-stringer Brian Hoyer instead of veteran backup Jason Campbell. That's all proof Cleveland is going in a completely different direction after its winless start, but the Vikings surely are not. Minnesota was one of three teams to overcome 0-2 starts in 2008 and qualify for the postseason, rebounding to win the NFC North. No team has done so since, and both of the Vikings' defeats this year are to division rivals. "It's nice to know you're the last team to do that," linebacker Chad Greenway said. "But you can't look ahead and say we're just going to do it or the past is going to repeat itself. You have to put the work in and make the plays on Sunday. "We're doing the right things during the week. Now, on Sunday when it comes down to crunch time, make the plays when they come to you." Minnesota thrived in close games last season en route to a surprise playoff appearance, going 5-1 in contests decided by seven or fewer points. The Vikings, however, allowed the go-ahead touchdown with 10 seconds left in a 31-30 loss to Chicago on Sunday and have blown leads in both games. "We're a resilient group. We've got a lot of veteran guys in here, and we've just got to keep trucking, man," cornerback Chris Cook said. "It's a long season. Fourteen games left. You know? It can be all uphill from now. It can all go downhill. I'm definitely, definitely, sure that we're going to go uphill from here." This contest is the home opener for Minnesota, which can at least point to some positives from last week. After giving up 24 points in the first half, the defense forced two turnovers and two punts in the second half before the disastrous final minute. Adrian Peterson had another 100-yard rushing game, though he did lose a fumble. The circumstances appear much different for the Browns as they make their first trip to the Metrodome in 18 years. Undrafted rookie Bobby Rainey and little-used Chris Ogbonnaya were the only running backs left on the roster following the trade of Richardson, who had run for 105 yards through two games and received just 31 carries. The Browns added another Thursday with the signing of veteran Willis McGahee, who led Denver with 731 rushing yards in 10 games last year, but it's uncertain if the two-time Pro Bowler will play in Minnesota. Hoyer, meanwhile, makes his first start for a Cleveland team that hasn't scored a touchdown in six quarters. Weeden got hurt in a 14-6 loss to Baltimore last Sunday, and the Browns opted to go with Hoyer - who started one game last year for Arizona - over Campbell. Hoyer is the 19th starting quarterback for the Browns since they re-entered the NFL in 1999. "I feel like based on our current situation - where we're at offensively as well as getting into the game planning for Minnesota - that Brian's strengths are the best fit for this week and that he gives us our best chance to win," coach Rob Chudzinski said. "The things that he does well fit what we need. For me, it's about who gives us the best chance to win." Hoyer gets back top receiver Josh Gordon, who was suspended for the first two games for violating the league's substance-abuse policy. Gordon led the team with 805 receiving yards and five touchdowns in 2012. "He's a huge difference," Campbell said. "He's a big target. He's a big guy. He's a big part of what we do offensively. Not having him out there, definitely hurts a little bit, because he is a big part of what we do. So it'll be good to get him back, get him going, try to get him back into a rhythm." The Browns need Gordon's production after scoring 16 points through two games, second fewest in the NFL. Cleveland has converted five of 29 third-down attempts. These teams last met in 2009, when Brett Favre made his first start as a Viking and led Minnesota to a 34-20 win in Cleveland. The Vikings have won four straight in the series and are 10-3 all-time against the Browns. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KempBolt 498 Posted September 20, 2013 I'll call for an upset in a close one. 17 13 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BwareDWare94 723 Posted September 20, 2013 The Vikings aren't that bad. Jesus 24 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KempBolt 498 Posted September 20, 2013 The Vikings aren't that bad. Jesus 24 3 The Browns defense is very good. They are capable of shutting Peterson down and if that happens, they'll terrorize Ponder and Minnesota won't score many points. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RazorStar 4,025 Posted September 21, 2013 It may be an even better game than you think, if only because the Browns offense is way better with both Old Weed and Richardson out. However, I think the Vikings have the edge here. Two tough division losses should give these guys more than enough motivation to pull this off. 24 17 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theMileHighGuy 656 Posted September 21, 2013 The Browns top brass have thrown in the towel on this season already, it's hard to imagine that team is going to be giving 100% out there. Will be a close defensive game. 21 13 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Turry 755 Posted September 21, 2013 The Vikings aren't that bad. Jesus 24 3 yes they are. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BwareDWare94 723 Posted September 21, 2013 The Vikings aren't that bad. Jesus 24 3 yes they are. You realize that means that your team isn't very good, either, right? The Vikings, for all intents and purposes, should have beaten you in Chicago. We can blame Chris Cook for playing awful coverage on that Marty B TD. It came down to one player sucking ass on a specific play. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Turry 755 Posted September 21, 2013 The Vikings aren't that bad. Jesus 24 3 yes they are. You realize that means that your team isn't very good, either, right? The Vikings, for all intents and purposes, should have beaten you in Chicago. We can blame Chris Cook for playing awful coverage on that Marty B TD. It came down to one player sucking ass on a specific play. You do realize your vikings should of been blown the fuck out ? Especially with the way 50% Ponder played. He throws 1 TD and you guys sccore 30 points ? you guys are not going to get a kickoff return for a TD every game nor will you guys get a fumble recovery for a TD every game just like how AP wont manage to get 2000 yards a season every season and carry your loser ass qb to the play offs. AP had 800 yards less than Ponder did last season... thats pathetic. The Bears are 2-0 but im not going around acting we are the best team in the league we definetly have our flaws and we far from the being the best team in the league. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BwareDWare94 723 Posted September 21, 2013 (edited) The Vikings aren't that bad. Jesus 24 3 yes they are. You realize that means that your team isn't very good, either, right? The Vikings, for all intents and purposes, should have beaten you in Chicago. We can blame Chris Cook for playing awful coverage on that Marty B TD. It came down to one player sucking ass on a specific play. You do realize your vikings should of been blown the fuck out ? Especially with the way 50% Ponder played. He throws 1 TD and you guys sccore 30 points ? you guys are not going to get a kickoff return for a TD every game nor will you guys get a fumble recovery for a TD every game just like how AP wont manage to get 2000 yards a season every season and carry your loser ass qb to the play offs. AP had 800 yards less than Ponder did last season... thats pathetic. The Bears are 2-0 but im not going around acting we are the best team in the league we definetly have our flaws and we far from the being the best team in the league. So Cutler's 2 picks had nothing to do with the game being close? So AP's good second half runs, Ponder's good second half throws, Jennings' big game, had nothing to do with it? The Vikings defense holding up decent to a couple of good Hester returns had nothing to do with it? "Should haves" at the dumbest motherfucking thing in football. The Vikings were in that game because they're a decent team who got shit on by NFL scheduling in the first two weeks. How often does a team have to start the season with two divisional road games? It's rare. There was no "clear" better team at Soldier Field last Sunday. The Bears offense was better. The Vikings defense was better. Ponder played extremely well post pick 6. I don't care about the game ending stats as much as I do about that second half. Ponder played extremely well after Jennings took him to the house. You can hate on the kid all you want for the end game stat line, but as someone who watched him in that second half, you can't tell me he wasn't good enough to win the damn game. Not to mention he lead his team downfield after his pick 6 to tie it up before halftime. Only reason that game wasn't tied at halftime is because Walsh couldn't get it out of the back of the endzone on the ensuing kickoff. Don't give me this "should have been blown out" shit just because Cordarrelle Patterson and Jared Allen/Brian Robison made a couple of big plays. That's football; it happens. The Vikings aren't a shit team and for some reason that seems to bother you. I know they aren't great, but they're not a cellar-dweller, Jags, Browns, or Raiders team. Fucking eh. I know you're excited that I was wrong about Minnesota being really good, but the relentlessness of your ferocity in regard to whether or not they suck is just off, man. They should easily be 1-1 right now. Chris Cook fucked up. Edited September 21, 2013 by BwareDWare94 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blotsfan 2,112 Posted September 21, 2013 "Should haves" at the dumbest motherfucking thing in football. The Vikings were in that game because they're a decent team who got shit on by NFL scheduling in the first two weeks. How often does a team have to start the season with two divisional road games? It's rare. There was no "clear" better team at Soldier Field last Sunday. The Bears offense was better. The Vikings defense was better. Ponder played extremely well post pick 6. I don't care about the game ending stats as much as I do about that second half. Ponder played extremely well after Jennings took him to the house. You can hate on the kid all you want for the end game stat line, but as someone who watched him in that second half, you can't tell me he wasn't good enough to win the damn game. Not to mention he lead his team downfield after his pick 6 to tie it up before halftime. Only reason that game wasn't tied at halftime is because Walsh couldn't get it out of the back of the endzone on the ensuing kickoff. Don't give me this "should have been blown out" shit just because Cordarrelle Patterson and Jared Allen/Brian Robison made a couple of big plays. That's football; it happens. The Vikings aren't a shit team and for some reason that seems to bother you. I know they aren't great, but they're not a cellar-dweller, Jags, Browns, or Raiders team. Fucking eh. I know you're excited that I was wrong about Minnesota being really good, but the relentlessness of your ferocity in regard to whether or not they suck is just off, man. They should easily be 1-1 right now. Chris Cook fucked up. You realize that means that your team isn't very good, either, right? The Vikings, for all intents and purposes, should have beaten you in Chicago. We can blame Chris Cook for playing awful coverage on that Marty B TD. It came down to one player sucking ass on a specific play. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Piggly Wiggly 960 Posted September 21, 2013 Bware giving other people shit for using ''should haves'' is fucking hilarious. He's a huge proponent of using ''should haves'' and he knows it. They beat the Ravens because Lee Evans dropped an easy pass and Billy Cundiff missed a chip shot. LMAO. I KNEW this excuse would be coming.And the Giants still won those games, and the Cardinals still won today. Oh, and I didn't say they never beat great defenses. I just said they have major troubles with them. Just like the Pats STILL won on January 22nd, right? Amusing how when the Pats lose, ALL the lucky breaks/miracles (David Tyree play, Asante Samuel dropping game ending INT in XLII, Gostkowski missing chip shot FG yesterday) are immediately dismissed, but when the Pats win, you have to bring up the opposition's misfortunes and make it be a point that it was the ONLY reason(s) why the Pats won. Your logic is FUCKED, Bware. And the Vikings are a mediocre team at best, Bware. Ponder sucks, your defense is lousy, and AP isn't rushing for 2,000 yards again. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NFL-Lady 1 Posted September 21, 2013 VIKINGS win this one... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BwareDWare94 723 Posted September 21, 2013 Fair enough, but should have been a blowout is still absurd. The idea that Chris Cook should have played better on that final play is more relevant. Why he fucked up so hard right there, I don't know, but by no means should that game have been a blowout. That's all I was responding to. Why people are ganging up on me like I've done something wrong is beyond me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BwareDWare94 723 Posted September 21, 2013 (edited) How so? Because there was nothing in that game that indicate that it should have been a blowout, whereas on that Bennett touchdown it was clear that Cook should have either jumped that route or at least been somewhere around Bennett to try and make a tackle, but he played way too soft. Edited September 21, 2013 by BwareDWare94 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Piggly Wiggly 960 Posted September 21, 2013 Minny really should have lost by double digits. It was basically a miracle that they actually had a golden chance to win lol. Chicago thoroughly outplayed them the entire game. I remember looking up at score when it was nearly halftime and said to myself ''It's 21-21? What?''. Any neutral fan that watched the game knows that the game really shouldn't have been close. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BwareDWare94 723 Posted September 21, 2013 Minny really should have lost by double digits. It was basically a miracle that they actually had a golden chance to win lol. Chicago thoroughly outplayed them the entire game. I remember looking up at score when it was nearly halftime and said to myself ''It's 21-21? What?''. Any neutral fan that watched the game knows that the game really shouldn't have been close. No. You're just being a cunt because you have some serious issues with me, for some reason. I don't understand how any one can direct so much angst at one individual they've never met, but by all means, keep up with it. There is nothing more annoying than being a cunt for the sake of it. I hope you're having fun. I don't know anyone who thinks that game should have been a blowout. You want to talked about "logic that's fucked," then let's talk about holding it against the Vikings that Patterson, Allen, and Robison combined to make 2 big plays. Nevermind that that those plays make two Viking drives unnecessary because the Vikings kick off, again, immediately after. It's not like Ponder passes changed direction in midair, landing directly in his receivers' laps. It's not like every bounce went the Vikings way. It's not like the two INTs Minny forced were lucky plays that Minnesota didn't earn. It was a game because two pretty solid teams squared off last Sunday. Not because of "luck." 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Piggly Wiggly 960 Posted September 21, 2013 Minny really should have lost by double digits. It was basically a miracle that they actually had a golden chance to win lol. Chicago thoroughly outplayed them the entire game. I remember looking up at score when it was nearly halftime and said to myself ''It's 21-21? What?''. Any neutral fan that watched the game knows that the game really shouldn't have been close. No. You're just being a cunt because you have some serious issues with me, for some reason. I don't understand how any one can direct so much angst at one individual they've never met, but by all means, keep up with it. There is nothing more annoying than being a cunt for the sake of it. I hope you're having fun. I don't know anyone who thinks that game should have been a blowout. You want to talked about "logic that's fucked," then let's talk about holding it against the Vikings that Patterson, Allen, and Robison combined to make 2 big plays. Nevermind that that those plays make two Viking drives unnecessary because the Vikings kick off, again, immediately after. It's not like Ponder passes changed direction in midair, landing directly in his receivers' laps. It's not like every bounce went the Vikings way. It's not like the two INTs Minny forced were lucky plays that Minnesota didn't earn. It was a game because two pretty solid teams squared off last Sunday. Not because of "luck." You're a straight up fucking dumbass, Bware lol. I WATCHED the game. I'm calling it how I saw it. The Bears clearly outplayed the Vikings, and I'm not just saying that so I can ''be a cunt'' to you. Your bias for the Vikings makes you see the game in a different light. There's a reason why you were voted as the biggest homer here. I'm not sure how many other TGP'ers watched the game, but I'm sure they'd agree with me that the Vikings got outplayed. And remember when you called the Vikings the most overall talented team in the NFC North? You got fucking laughed by not just me, but everyone else. So, I guess all of us like being cunts to you. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BwareDWare94 723 Posted September 21, 2013 (edited) They were not outplayed, in any way. I watched, too, my friend. Bias doesn't stretch that far. If they were drastically outplayed, I'd see it. Maybe the Vikings will really suck this year, but I'm standing by my proclamation of them as the most solid overall team in the division, and if they turn it around, you'll all see it. You're all basing your rank of other teams over Minnesota on one position, when in fact Minnesota matches up with everyone else fairly well at every other position. Edited September 21, 2013 by BwareDWare94 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tridentdawgpound 1,043 Posted September 21, 2013 1 - 4 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thanatos 2,847 Posted September 21, 2013 (edited) They were not outplayed, in any way. I watched, too, my friend. Bias doesn't stretch that far. If they were drastically outplayed, I'd see it. Maybe the Vikings will really suck this year, but I'm standing by my proclamation of them as the most solid overall team in the division, and if they turn it around, you'll all see it. You're all basing your rank of other teams over Minnesota on one position, when in fact Minnesota matches up with everyone else fairly well at every other position. Nevermind that that one position is hands down the most important in the game and you guys have a QB that is like a 3/10 while the Packers have a 10/10 and the Bears and Lions have 6-7/10. Ponder sucks. Really really bad. And that makes a huge difference. And for the record, I thought the Vikes were really lucky to still be in that game. OT: This is one game I don't see the Vikes losing unless the Browns surprise me. I just don't see why the players won't give up on the season when the front office obviously has. Edited September 21, 2013 by Thanatos19 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
