Straight Vikings Facts, Homey!

Oh man, this thread turned into a Reignman lovefest?!?

Just kidding! You deserve it, Reign!

... and my plan worked. *starts posting stats around here to irritate Reign so he comes back out to play*





Weren't A-Train and OdinHammer debating the most important stat when determining the outcome of games? Like, TOP? Didn't we decide it was winning the turnover battle?

Anyway, just saw this:

Lmao

I want the Vikings to win the Super Bowl. Don't care about stats! Is that to much to ask for? 

Because the poor guy presented allllll those facts, and then you couldn't tell for what.... even for smthn as straightforward as for or against lol. Just thought that was funny. Data overload. It's better to be direct to the point IMO. Short and sweet.

Wait, isn't every thread a Reign lovefest? Hmmm that's way it always seemed to me.

Ahhh dang it, you fessed up too soon. I was waiting for someone to set me up, then I was going to spring my theory about how Funky was just using Meth Baker to bait me. I knew all along, but my desire to destroy propaganda is far stronger than my restraint when it comes to trolling.

Yeah OdinHammer has a bigger obsession with the relationship of TOP and winning than I do with rushing and winning xD. He put some percentage on it, but you had to reach a certain TOP in order to win at that pct. It wasn't as simple as having the ball fro 30:01. But I finally got to dust off my TOP database to confirm his feeling. The team that wins the TOP battle does win more often, but not as often as a team that wins the turnover battle.

Since 2002, regular season only. Teams that win the TOP battle win 67.5% of the time. The Vikings win 69.2% of the time. I think he claimed they won 80% of the time, but for a team to win 80% of the time they have to win the TOP battle at least 33:50 to 26:10.

Meanwhile, same time period ... teams that win the turnover battle win 79% of the time, and the Vikings win 76.3% of the time.

I don't like the question, it smells like a trap lol. I don't want the stats to prove anything, or it doesn't matter what they prove because the trophy case is empty.

Lets look at it another way. Lets say the stats prove the Vikings have been a good franchise. How do you reconcile that fact with an empty trophy case? The only thing it can mean is the Vikings were a huge disappointment when it mattered, or they choked a lot. Is that a good thing?

It's better than Detroit I guess lol. Their stats prove they've been a bad franchise in recent memory AND their trophy case is empty. It makes a little more sense. Well technically their trophy case isn't empty. They've won 4 NFL Championships, but none since 1957. The Cardinals are probably a better example of a 100 year long dumpster fire, minus 1947 when they won their only NFL Championship.

There are teams that rank below us in terms of wins, playoff appearances, playoff wins, and various other stats, but they've won more Super Bowls than the Vikings. The Bucs and Saints have won a Super Bowl and they've been dumpster fires for most of their existence. In terms of franchise stats, those 2 teams typically rank near the bottom. In fact based on lifetime win pct, the Bucs are dead last at just 38.7%.

The Vikings are the 7th winningest team in NFL history at .548. The 6 teams ahead of us each have at least 2 Super Bowl wins each, except the Bears. The 8 teams after us also have 2 Super Bowl wins each, except the Seahawks. There are only 2 teams with a lifetime record above .500 that don't have a Lombardi. The Vikings and the Browns.

The Browns at least have 4 NFL Championships, and the Vikings technically won one in 1969. The last NFL Championship before the NFL/AFL merger. They played the Chiefs in Super Bowl 4 following that game, but the Chiefs were technically in another league, so the Vikings do have the 1 NFL Championship.