RandBall: Once again, we ignored the evidence before a Vikings playoff loss

In recent years, I’ve become more clear-eyed and honest when trying to predict the playoff fates of our local teams. Sometimes it yields pleasant surprises, as when the Wolves advanced to the Western Conference finals a year ago, but more than anything it guards against overestimation.

The last two Vikings' playoff entrants before this year, in 2022 and 2019, were good examples.

Most of us, myself included, knew the 13-4 squad of Kevin O’Connell’s rookie season was riding a charmed wave that would crash long before the Super Bowl (even if it should have lasted a game longer with a dispatching of the mediocre Giants in the wild card round).

The 2019 team, too, was good enough to perhaps pull one upset (as they did against the Saints) but not a serious threat (as they proved the next week against the 49ers).

The course-correction to properly label those teams, though, had come via a hard lesson: 2017. I still remember digging deep into the Vikings’ NFC title game matchup with the Eagles, coming to the conclusion that the Vikings were woefully overmatched on both the offensive line and defensive line, but ignoring that evidence in favor of the narrative: It was a team of destiny, and all that stood between the Vikings and hosting the Super Bowl was one road win over a backup quarterback.

I had emphasized the positives in the Vikings’ favor while ignoring their inconvenient deficiencies, which is pretty much the definition of confirmation bias.

Final score: Eagles 38, Vikings 7. The Vikings couldn’t move the ball and couldn’t stop the Eagles. The game turned on a pick-six when Case Keenum, under duress, had his arm hit as he threw.

But at least it was a lesson learned ... until this past week, when it was forgotten in the leadup to the Vikings’ playoff game against the Rams. Every warning was ignored and every positive was accentuated as I predicted a 30-27 Vikings victory.

It all seemed so obvious when talking about the game on Tuesday’s Daily Delivery podcast. You could make the case that this is just hindsight bias, but really it was pesky confirmation bias running amok again. (At the very least hindsight bias vs. confirmation bias is a more compelling matchup than Vikings vs. Rams).

I decided that Sam Darnold’s absolute stinker in the biggest game of his career a week ago against Detroit was somehow a good thing because he would learn from going through that moment.

I noted several weeks ago that any team that wants to stop the Vikings’ offense should send heavy pressure up the middle against a light interior line, but I dismissed it as the Vikings prepared to face one of the best fronts they have seen all season.

I said on multiple podcasts that the Rams are really a 9-2 team given that injuries decimated them during a 1-4 start, and they rested key players in a season-ending loss. But I still looked at the Vikings as four wins better.

Final score: Rams 27, Vikings 9. The Rams rolled on offense in key moments and used a combination of their considerable talent, Darnold’s indecision, a porous interior line and a mediocre offensive game plan to sack him nine times. The game turned on a strip-sack returned for a touchdown.

I wasn’t the only one fooled, of course, since the Vikings were 2.5-point favorites in a neutral site game that felt more like a Minnesota home game than anything. There are ways the Vikings could have won Monday, and almost all of them would have included Matthew Stafford’s casual dropping of the ball being ruled a fumble instead of an incomplete pass.

But the Rams are an ascending good team with a championship pedigree, and their strengths align with the Vikings' weaknesses. We all knew that going in.

The lesson, as always, is ignore the evidence at your own peril.