Matthew Coller, known for his insightful and often provocative takes on the Minnesota Vikings, recently delivered a sharp analysis of the Vikings’ performance in their game against the Seattle Seahawks. But his piece, while offering some valuable insights, missed the mark in a few key areas that warrant scrutiny. As fans and analysts digest the game, it’s important to separate the studs from the duds, identify where Coller hit the nail on the head, and where his commentary took a wrong turn.
The Studs: Defensive Efforts Deserve More Credit
Coller was right to acknowledge the impact of the Vikings’ defense. The unit showed resilience in the face of adversity, holding a potent Seahawks offense to a manageable score. However, Coller’s take often undersells just how critical the defense was to the Vikings’ overall performance.
Take cornerback Byron Murphy, for instance, who has been largely underappreciated in Coller’s assessment. Murphy, frequently matched up against one of the league’s top receivers in DK Metcalf, displayed a level of coverage that many wouldn’t expect from a Vikings defense that’s been perceived as underwhelming in recent seasons. Coller gives a fleeting nod to individual efforts but doesn’t dive deeply into how these defensive players are quietly turning the ship around, which is a glaring omission.
The defensive line also deserves more recognition. Despite missing key players, they consistently pressured Geno Smith, forcing mistakes that kept the Vikings in the game. It was a gritty performance that Coller largely glossed over, and the focus on the offense in his analysis felt disproportionate to the collective defensive effort.
The Duds: Kirk Cousins and the Offensive Line
Matthew Coller has always been critical of Kirk Cousins, and in this instance, his assessment is both valid and frustratingly incomplete. Yes, Cousins threw two costly interceptions, including one that was a game-changing mistake in the red zone. But to label Cousins as the primary reason for the Vikings’ loss without addressing the other glaring issues surrounding him feels like a disservice to the team’s overall struggles.
Coller places a significant portion of the blame on Cousins, and in some ways, that’s understandable. However, it ignores the reality that the offensive line did not give Cousins the necessary protection to perform at his best. The Seahawks’ pass rush had a free pass to wreak havoc in the backfield. The lack of protection directly contributed to Cousins’ mistakes, and this systemic failure shouldn’t be overlooked in favor of a singular focus on the quarterback.
While it’s easy to point fingers at Cousins, the offensive line needs its own share of criticism. Coller gives them a passing mention, but their inability to create a pocket for Cousins, coupled with their poor run-blocking, hurt the Vikings’ chances more than anyone, including Cousins himself. A more nuanced take would have placed the blame more on the offensive line than on the quarterback’s mistakes alone.
The Right: The Seahawks Are Not a Super Bowl Team
Matthew Coller accurately pointed out that the Seahawks, while a competitive team, are not quite the Super Bowl contenders they were hyped up to be earlier in the season. Geno Smith showed flashes of brilliance, but his inconsistency — coupled with key errors that kept the Vikings in the game — exposed the Seahawks’ limitations. Seattle’s inability to put the game away when they had the opportunity revealed major cracks in their playoff credentials.
Coller nailed this analysis. The Seahawks should be considered a middle-of-the-road team, capable of making noise in the postseason but hardly a serious threat to take the NFC crown. With a banged-up offensive line and defensive lapses, Seattle’s chances of advancing deep into the playoffs seem dubious at best.
The Wrong: The Vikings Are Closer Than They Appear
One of the more controversial takes in Coller’s analysis is his argument that the Vikings are closer to being a true contender than their record suggests. While it’s true that the Vikings have shown flashes of potential, it’s hard to ignore the numerous areas in which they are still struggling. The team’s continued inconsistency on both sides of the ball, especially in critical moments, suggests that they are further from contention than Coller lets on.
Coller’s optimism about the Vikings’ chances is admirable, but it may be a bit too premature. There are still major questions surrounding the offensive line, the depth of the defense, and the coaching staff’s ability to adapt in high-stakes situations. While the potential is there, the Vikings’ performance against the Seahawks exposed glaring holes that will be difficult to fill in time for a deep playoff run.
Conclusion: The Vikings’ True Identity Still Remains a Mystery
While Matthew Coller’s analysis of the Vikings’ loss to the Seahawks was thought-provoking, it largely missed the mark in terms of understanding the complexities of the team’s struggles. The defense deserves more credit, the offensive line should shoulder more blame, and the jury is still out on whether the Vikings are a contender or a middle-tier team with potential that’s yet to be realized.
Coller’s right in some areas, but his optimism could cloud a clearer view of the Vikings’ season. For a team still in flux, it’s important to temper expectations and acknowledge that the road to contention will be much longer and harder than Coller might be willing to admit.