Vikings Message Board.Com

http://www.vikings.com/news/article-1/1 ... 2be46bc4bf

11 — Number of third-down conversions, in 43 attempts, allowed by the Vikings defense through four games; Minnesota ranks first in the NFL with a 25.6 third-down percentage. Chicago’s defense is 30th at 47.1 percent (allowed 24 conversions of 51 third downs).

More at the link...

Just Me wrote:http://www.vikings.com/news/article-1/1 ... 2be46bc4bf
More at the link...

Thats this year? In the Lions game alone I think they gave up 3-4 3rd and fairly long off the top of my head.
Hopefully the DB coach is trying to drill into their heads to catch a ball thats thrown right to them.

PurpleKoolaid wrote: Thats this year? In the Lions game alone I think they gave up 3-4 3rd and fairly long off the top of my head.
Hopefully the DB coach is trying to drill into their heads to catch a ball thats thrown right to them.

The Lions were 3-13 on third downs. I would say thats a pretty good percentage

Pondering Her Percy wrote: The Lions were 3-13 on third downs. I would say thats a pretty good percentage

It seems like they converted way more.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk

I'm not sure why? The defense dominated them all day. And the only reason they got the second TD was because of Cook blowing his knee out and fumbling

Pondering Her Percy wrote:I'm not sure why? The defense dominated them all day. And the only reason they got the second TD was because of Cook blowing his knee out and fumbling

Actually, the Lions only scored one touchdown, along with a 2-point conversion and 2 field goals.

Which makes you even more correct, PHP!

So the four dropped INTs are completely irrelevant to the game. Gotcha.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk

J. Kapp 11 wrote: Actually, the Lions only scored one touchdown, along with a 2-point conversion and 2 field goals.

Which makes you even more correct, PHP!

Right!

PurpleMustReign wrote:So the four dropped INTs are completely irrelevant to the game. Gotcha.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk

Because I said that? Either way the Lions struggled against this D all day is what I was saying. When you can't go forward on offense, it doesnt matter what your defense does.

Pondering Her Percy wrote: Because I said that? Either way the Lions struggled against this D all day is what I was saying. When you can't go forward on offense, it doesnt matter what your defense does.

Maybe getting a turnover on their 10 would have helped if Kendricks and whoever else was in on the sack of Stafford, where he fumbled, would have changed the outcome of the game. Instead, they wearnt even watching the ball, just the QB lying there, while an Olineman of the Lions got up, ran to the ball, and covered it up. Just because the D didnt give up many points doesnt mean they played a solid game. But the O was a bigger problem. Everyone was praising Case a few weeks ago, and I said wait till they play a decent D. They did against the Lions, and Case didnt look so hot. He looked like a backup QB, to an injury prone starting QB. And the only stats that matter for the D is wins and losses.

Exactly. Even had the Vikings won , I would have been pissed at the defense because they were not focused. Linval Joseph was probably the only player who looked like he cared. Well, maybe Hunter too. If the Vikings had let Detroit get 600 yards of offense but created 4 turnovers, and lost 30-7, would you say it was a good game? No. It was a very incomplete game.
Don't get me wrong, the offense was the bigger issue. But the defense, to me, did not have a good game.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk

They held them to 14 points!! If our offense could go forward and we could score in that game and win, nobody would be saying a word about the defense. We gave up 19 points against New Orleans and they also had 100 yards more than Detroit had but nobody said a word about the defense that night. They also had a better 3rd down conversion rate than Detroit did.

Point being, 14 points is a very low score to hold a team to. You can sit here and nitpick something someone did wrong on defense in every game this year. That doesnt mean our defense as a whole played bad. They did what they needed to do to set this offense up to win the game. That didnt happen.

If allowing 344 total yards, 19 points, a 36% 3rd down conversion rate is considered a good game against New Orleans

why is...

allowing 251 total yards, 14 points and a 23% 3rd down conversion rate considered a bad game against Detroit???

Because we didnt win? Well in this game of football, you need to score points to win. We didnt. If you cant win a game when your defense is only allowing 14 points, then there is a problem and it sure isnt the defense. Bottom line. Complain about the missed tackles or potential INTs. Either way, 14 points is 14 points.

Do you really want to know how many teams held a team to 14 points or less this year and still lost?? 4 in 63 games so far this year (6% of the games). One of them being this Detroit game. If your defense is holding a team to 14 points or less you're winning the game over 90% of the time.

The other 3 games were:

Cin vs Hou (where Cin still allowed more yards and more 3rd downs than we did vs. Det)
Car vs Buf (Buffalo allowed less yards but more 3rd downs than we did vs Det)
Sea vs SF (SF allowed way more yards and 3rd downs than we did vs Det)

So overall, out of anyone in the league that allowed 14 points or less and still lost, we arguably had the best performance of any of those defenses AND neither of those defense faced near as good of an offense as Detroits IMO. So all in all, I believe the defense played very good and did what they needed to do to get us a win. You cant score 7 points and expect to win. Nobody this year has won scoring 7 points or less this year

The ragging on the defense is really without much merit.

If they average 14 PF for the entire season they would be the #1 defense in the NFL in terms of scoring. (the only stat that truly matters defensively.) The year SEA won the SB their defense averaged just over 15 points against, to put it in perspective.

The game against DET, just like the two games last year was ALL ABOUT the lack of production from the offense. The main difference between this year and last year is that last year it was about a terrible running attack and an awful OL. This year it was about bad QB play. If Sam Bradford starts that game I highly doubt we lose it.

It really is as simple as that.

There is a reason Case Keanum is a backup QB and not a starter: Missed Opportunities.

I think it may be a perception issue particularly since the defense was so dominant at the beginning of last season. So compared to that, they are not as good. But generally speaking, holding a team to 14 points, especially considering the turnovers in Viking territory, is a good performance. Teams are going to score these days, it's the nature of the rules which have evolved over time to benefit the offense.

What won't win you games is 7 points. I'm not saying it was a brilliant performance by the defense but I feel they did their job. The offense on the other hand, did not. I hope we see a much better performance on Monday night.