If Vikings lose vs Packers they are eliminated from playoffs

Statistics arent factual? Lol. Just lol.

Most of the time when some bluntly rejects on field production its because it blatantly contradicts the agenda/narrative being pushed.

Their record has been worse then this in years they went deep in the playoffs, sure they had some close wins but they also had some close losses so isnt that kind of a wash?

Your eyes are influenced by a number of factors, on field production is a much better indicator. I dont think they looked very good this year either, neither did they in 2010, 2013, and 2016. Thats what a elite QB does for you. Fact is, statistically they are far more well rounded then any of those other years.

I think your confusing their 2015 CB pixks for 2017. 2017 they took a saftey and a corner, and while i know nothing of the saftey, the corner (King) has been solid. Clinton Dix is a good player who was traded away, he is hardly a miss.

Im not quite sure what yoir argument is here, are you saying GB's secondary cant be good because they devote alot of resources to it? That would be a strange position to say the least.

King hasnt had poor statistics in either of his seasons. I dont really care about your convuluted advanced metrics. Jackson has been solid so far this year too.

Yes, i already said the 2015 DB picks were busts.

What un-advanced statistics state that King is a good CB? In 15 games total he's had 7 pass deflections and 1 interception. I don't have my hands on any targets-catches against stats... but if you want to convince me that King is playing well, you'll need to present evidence because all I have at the moment is advanced stats telling me that he's been a bad CB.

I smell another girlfriend breakup coming.  That dude better marry his aunt while he still has options.

That #7 ranked secondary didn't look too good last night.  Just because they rank #7 doesn't tell the entire story.  They may be lofty in that category because the rush defense is poor.  Or that opponents try to keep the ball on the ground to keep the ball out of Rodger's hands.  Or there may have been a string of opponents that didn't have good QB play.  Or it could be that GB flashed a strong pass rush that prevented downfield success.  Then there's the injury factor that could change many of those factors.

From my TV, it was very simple to see that they were not a top 10 secondary as you promised due to the "factual" statistics.  This is precisely what I mean about stats = lies.  They can be an indicator but not an end-all, be-all promise of what is "factual" due to many factors that could be telling you a different story altogether.  
Sorry if such a statement goes over your head.  I did my best to 'splain it to you but you seem to be distracted by the shiny statement and prefer to belittle the concept.  Trust me when I tell you that statistics are used to persuade people and aren't always accurate or even truthful.  One only has to look at the 2016 general election where it was determined that no path existed by each and every pollster expert through the use of statistical sampling.  In fact, many claimed upwards of a 99% certainty that the Democrat candidate would win.  These were all lies in retrospect.  Yes, lies.  Mis-interpretation of the data provided. 
Statistics = Lies.