Sports Illustrated's Dr. Z Can Be Wrong Two Years in a Row!
I'm not sure, out of all his analysis, why he picked the Vikings to win it all? They have a question mark at QB, they have a question mark at WR, and they have yet to establish themselves as a great team.
I hate to point this out, but last year he picked the New Orleans Saints to win it all, and they didn't even make the playoffs. While Dr. Z has been at this a long time, I think he needs to freshen up on his selection process.
I can see several teams winning the Super Bowl, and they don't include the Vikings. In fact, there are a few teams in the NFC that would be rated higher than his pick.
First of all, we have the New England Patriots, Indianapolis Colts, San Diego Chargers, Jacksonville Jaguars, Dallas Cowboys who should've been in the Super Bowl last season, Seattle Seahawks, and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers all look like a better pick.
I will give Minnesota their due; they have a great running game and arguably the best run-blocking offensive line in the league. They have improved this offseason and should win the division. However, let's not give them that much credit, because their division has gotten a lot worse.
But is that enough to win the big one?
We all know there have been teams that have won the Super Bowl without a great offense or a great QB. But these are teams with record-setting defenses, like the Chicago Bears and the Baltimore Ravens. The one key to these teams, their QB's didn't turn the ball over and could control the offense enough not to make mistakes.
I don't see the Vikings having a record-setting defense or a QB that can control the game and not make mistakes.
I see the Vikings winning the division with a 10-6 record, but I don't see them going deep. Remember, this was a team that went 3-5 on the road and 6-6 in their own conference a year ago.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?