Vikings-Packers Game Day

A forum for the hard core Minnesota Vikings fan. Discuss upcoming games, opponents, trades, draft or what ever is on the minds of Viking fans!

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
RandyMoss84
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1082
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2020 2:12 pm
x 374

Re: Vikings-Packers Game Day

Post by RandyMoss84 » Mon Nov 02, 2020 4:46 pm

VikingLord wrote:
Mon Nov 02, 2020 4:06 pm
J. Kapp 11 wrote:
Mon Nov 02, 2020 2:48 pm
I think what has made many of us believe this team is terrible (me included) is the way we lost the first two games. After the next four, my thought was "better, but still finding ways to lose." So in that regard, yesterday could have been the turn of a corner. The jury's still out for me. Detroit at home is a winnable game. If we lay an egg, then the Green Bay win seems like more of an anomaly than a corner being turned.
Its interesting how quickly sentiment can change. In the back of my mind I was surprised yesterday, but if I step back and look at why, it's mainly because I assume the Packers are one of the best teams in the league.

That might not be true. If it's not, and in fact they are more average than good, then yesterday wasn't nearly as impressive.

Hard to get excited about them given my lingering internal doubts, but...

They have 5 losses. If they were to win out somehow, they'd easily make the playoffs.

Of course, these are the Minnesota Vikings we're talking about. If this team were to start dominating, finish 11-5, barnstorm through the NFC on its way to its first Superbowl since the mid-70's, we can all rest assured the Superbowl would be canceled due to COVID, asteroid strike or something similar. The NFL would postpone the game, of course, but by then the Vikings have cooled off. Having several weeks or months to sit and reflect on their unlikely success, they would inevitably have time to look down and realize they are walking on water instead of land and get blown out.

But it's always great to beat the Packers. If nothing else, we'll always have that to remember from this season.
Good post
0 x

User avatar
J. Kapp 11
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8277
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pm
x 902

Re: Vikings-Packers Game Day

Post by J. Kapp 11 » Mon Nov 02, 2020 6:11 pm

VikingLord wrote:
Mon Nov 02, 2020 4:06 pm
J. Kapp 11 wrote:
Mon Nov 02, 2020 2:48 pm
I think what has made many of us believe this team is terrible (me included) is the way we lost the first two games. After the next four, my thought was "better, but still finding ways to lose." So in that regard, yesterday could have been the turn of a corner. The jury's still out for me. Detroit at home is a winnable game. If we lay an egg, then the Green Bay win seems like more of an anomaly than a corner being turned.
Its interesting how quickly sentiment can change. In the back of my mind I was surprised yesterday, but if I step back and look at why, it's mainly because I assume the Packers are one of the best teams in the league.

That might not be true. If it's not, and in fact they are more average than good, then yesterday wasn't nearly as impressive.
On NFL Radio today, Jim Miller and Pat Kerwin were talking at length about the Vikings’ win over the Packers. Miller has been telling anyone who will listen that Green Bay’s defense is vulnerable against the run, and he wasn’t surprised that Dalvin Cook gashed them. They surmised that Tampa Bay, New Orleans, LA, Seattle and even Arizona are better teams NFC teams than the Packers.

So there may be something to your idea that Green Bay is closer to average than good.
0 x
Image
Go ahead. I dare you.
Underestimate this man.

User avatar
Texas Vike
Hall of Fame Inductee
Posts: 4102
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:52 am
x 208

Re: Vikings-Packers Game Day

Post by Texas Vike » Mon Nov 02, 2020 7:49 pm

J. Kapp 11 wrote:
Mon Nov 02, 2020 10:14 am
Texas Vike wrote:
Mon Nov 02, 2020 7:45 am
Zimmer finally defeats Lafleur. :v):

On All Saints Day, Zimmer culled some metaphysical forces, willing the wind to blow 30 MPH and negate the passing game of GB, helping our sad patchwork quilt of a secondary, which became even sadder due to injury during the game, and allowed our superior ground game the perfect conditions to shine. The wind also allowed our tightly-wound, puckered up QB to step out of a central role.

What a great time for Dalvin to come back from injury. It reminded me of his return for the NO playoffs game last season. When he is not nicked up with injuries, the guy might well be the best RB in the league. I'll be interested to read from more knowledgeable viewers how much of that can be attributed to the performance of his OL, but my inexpert eye-test, relying on comparison with what Mattison was able to do yesterday, would give Dalvin the credit.

With a 14 point lead, playing our copyrighted style of sitting on a lead and trying to not lose, I was certain Rodgers would do his thing and make us all agonize the bitter existence of a Vikings fan, but our rookie Wonnum, second coming of Hunter and disciple of DL guru Andre Patterson, did the deed. So glad to see the image posted here. It was the most gratifying visual of the 2020 season thus far. :v):

It was so liberating to watch the final drive with true indifference to the outcome. I was genuinely pleased to beat the Pack, but I wouldn't have cared too much to have gained another loss and preserved a top 5 pick.

Edit to add: The most pleasing thing to see was that the team's spirit is still in tact. They have not given up on the season. Kendricks was a beast yesterday, as he has been much of the season. The DL looked better yesterday, with guys we've had awhile (Jaleel Johnson) finally showing up. Nice to see.
I'm not sure how much of what you just wrote was good analysis, but it was a very entertaining read!

(And I kid ... it's great analysis.)
Glad I could entertain a fellow fan :D .

Thinking more about our defensive performance, the wind certainly helped, but I think Zimmer did some interesting things yesterday too. I loved seeing Gladney blitz. Our whole DL looked so much more stout. Maybe things are starting to click for guys like Holmes, Jaleel J, and Wonnum? Gladney got roasted once or twice, but he also flashed a few times. I always did like his feisty play at TCU.
0 x

User avatar
makila
Rookie
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2019 8:43 pm
x 16

Re: Vikings-Packers Game Day

Post by makila » Mon Nov 02, 2020 8:11 pm

I will never complain about beating the Packers ever. I will always scream my head off to destroy them on the football field. Super happy about beating them.

We also faced a Packers offense that was without Aaron Jones. While he isn't Dalvin Cook, he is probably the second best skill player on their roster behind Adams.

Our o-line is playing better. This is a great thing to see!! It makes everything better on offense, everything. Shocker.

I'm fine with the young CBs taking their lumps now. We have to see if they have a future with this organization or not. I still think Gladney is going to be a good NFL corner.

I'm still ready to turn the page on the coaching staff and front office though, as they won't build a super bowl winning team imo.
0 x

User avatar
J. Kapp 11
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8277
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pm
x 902

Re: Vikings-Packers Game Day

Post by J. Kapp 11 » Mon Nov 02, 2020 10:15 pm

Some good news regarding Cameron Dantzler. Per the Strib:
The Vikings got some good news amid mounting injuries at cornerback as rookie Cameron Dantzler has avoided serious injury to his head and neck after a collision that left him strapped to a backboard and in the hospital on Sunday in Green Bay.

Coach Mike Zimmer went as far as to say Dantzler, the third-round pick who plays a full-time role when healthy, could return for this week’s game against the Detroit Lions.

“He’s doing well,” Zimmer said. “He’s got a chance to play this week.”
3 x
Image
Go ahead. I dare you.
Underestimate this man.

Crax
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1823
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2008 9:48 am
Location: Utah
x 11

Re: Vikings-Packers Game Day

Post by Crax » Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:30 pm

Anyone heard if any Vikings have tested positive? Evidently Jamaal Williams, A.J. Dillon and another Packer have all tested positive for COVID.
0 x

User avatar
808vikingsfan
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3781
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:45 pm
Location: Hawaii
x 105

Re: Vikings-Packers Game Day

Post by 808vikingsfan » Tue Nov 03, 2020 4:12 pm

GOOD:
Cook. Leading rusher and receiver. When he's healthy, he's good.
Kendricks. He was all over the field. Made several huge plays
Weather. Without the wind, the Vikings don't win this one.

BAD:
Not much to complain about. Two 12 men penalties in one game? Miss the crowd. Would have been great for the team to win in front of Packer fans.

UGLY: Injuries. Dantzler going down was scary.


I had a feeling the Vikings would win this one. IMO, it's the worst thing that could have happened. Don't get me wrong, any win is a good win (not sure if you can say this was a road win) but now the powers that be will think Cousins is still the answer. I absolutely believe Cousins cannot lead this team to a SB. He's a 7-9 to 10-6 QB at best, not good enough to win HFA. He's a headcase, weak minded, indecisive, slow, poor leader, poor pocket presence. He's been his entire career. Even if the Vikings win out, it wouldn't change my mind.

With this win, the Vikings drop out of the top 5 (draft order). Looks like another CB next year. Vikings will be mediocre for a long time.
0 x
Joined: Aug 2006
Deleted: Sept 12 2014
Reborn: Sept 17 2014

User avatar
VikingLord
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 3:12 pm
Location: The Land of the Ice and Snow
x 341

Re: Vikings-Packers Game Day

Post by VikingLord » Tue Nov 03, 2020 7:16 pm

808vikingsfan wrote:
Tue Nov 03, 2020 4:12 pm
GOOD:
...
Weather. Without the wind, the Vikings don't win this one.
Not sure I agree on that one. The Vikings did most of their damage while on offense using a combination of run and short pass, with Cook turning some of those short passes into bigger gains and/or TDs even. I don't think the wind played much of a role in either that strategy or the execution of it. If anything, I think the win can be credited to a combination of the offensive line playing competently and/or the Packer defensive front 7 being much less effective controlling the LOS than they were in the last several meetings between the teams.

Defensively, I thought the Vikings did a great job of limiting the Packer running game on downs 1 and 2, and then while they didn't get to Rodgers very often on the rush, they didn't let him sit back and get comfortable, either. The coverages downfield seemed to be confusing to him as well. When he did put the ball up, it didn't look like the wind played a big factor in terms of whether the receiver had a shot at catching it.

Did the wind play a role? Probably, at least on that late extra point when the Packers went for two instead of one. But I don't think it was a primary cause of the outcome or even a secondary cause.
0 x

User avatar
808vikingsfan
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3781
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:45 pm
Location: Hawaii
x 105

Re: Vikings-Packers Game Day

Post by 808vikingsfan » Wed Nov 04, 2020 9:34 pm

VikingLord wrote:
Tue Nov 03, 2020 7:16 pm
808vikingsfan wrote:
Tue Nov 03, 2020 4:12 pm
GOOD:
...
Weather. Without the wind, the Vikings don't win this one.
Not sure I agree on that one. The Vikings did most of their damage while on offense using a combination of run and short pass, with Cook turning some of those short passes into bigger gains and/or TDs even. I don't think the wind played much of a role in either that strategy or the execution of it. If anything, I think the win can be credited to a combination of the offensive line playing competently and/or the Packer defensive front 7 being much less effective controlling the LOS than they were in the last several meetings between the teams.

Defensively, I thought the Vikings did a great job of limiting the Packer running game on downs 1 and 2, and then while they didn't get to Rodgers very often on the rush, they didn't let him sit back and get comfortable, either. The coverages downfield seemed to be confusing to him as well. When he did put the ball up, it didn't look like the wind played a big factor in terms of whether the receiver had a shot at catching it.

Did the wind play a role? Probably, at least on that late extra point when the Packers went for two instead of one. But I don't think it was a primary cause of the outcome or even a secondary cause.
You could be right. If anything, I do think without the wind, GB would've attempted both FGs instead of going for it on 4th down which would have made a difference. But I also think the wind affected the passing game and that hurt GB more than the Vikings.
0 x
Joined: Aug 2006
Deleted: Sept 12 2014
Reborn: Sept 17 2014

User avatar
J. Kapp 11
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8277
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pm
x 902

Re: Vikings-Packers Game Day

Post by J. Kapp 11 » Thu Nov 05, 2020 9:11 am

808vikingsfan wrote:
Wed Nov 04, 2020 9:34 pm
VikingLord wrote:
Tue Nov 03, 2020 7:16 pm


Not sure I agree on that one. The Vikings did most of their damage while on offense using a combination of run and short pass, with Cook turning some of those short passes into bigger gains and/or TDs even. I don't think the wind played much of a role in either that strategy or the execution of it. If anything, I think the win can be credited to a combination of the offensive line playing competently and/or the Packer defensive front 7 being much less effective controlling the LOS than they were in the last several meetings between the teams.

Defensively, I thought the Vikings did a great job of limiting the Packer running game on downs 1 and 2, and then while they didn't get to Rodgers very often on the rush, they didn't let him sit back and get comfortable, either. The coverages downfield seemed to be confusing to him as well. When he did put the ball up, it didn't look like the wind played a big factor in terms of whether the receiver had a shot at catching it.

Did the wind play a role? Probably, at least on that late extra point when the Packers went for two instead of one. But I don't think it was a primary cause of the outcome or even a secondary cause.
You could be right. If anything, I do think without the wind, GB would've attempted both FGs instead of going for it on 4th down which would have made a difference. But I also think the wind affected the passing game and that hurt GB more than the Vikings.
It only hurt Green Bay more because the Vikings typically do a better job of running the football, so Green Bay relies on the passing game more. However, I think that edge in the passing game would have been marginal because the wind hurt US, too. Remember, Green Bay has the better QB, but the Vikings have better receivers top-to-bottom than Green Bay ran out there on Sunday. Without the wind, and the way Dalvin was running the ball, we probably would have had opportunities to hit on some big play-action passes.

Bottom line: The team that played the better game won. Amazingly enough, that was us.
0 x
Image
Go ahead. I dare you.
Underestimate this man.

User avatar
VikingPaul73
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3214
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 5:07 pm
x 103

Re: Vikings-Packers Game Day

Post by VikingPaul73 » Fri Nov 06, 2020 8:40 am

I agree Kapp that they have the better QB and, top to bottom, we have better WRs.

the tie-breaker is that our CBs are so young and depleted from injury. I just think Rodgers would have completely shredded us (even worse than the 1st game) with decent weather.

That said, given the conditions, we were the better team (and I was just as surprised by that as you :lol: )
0 x

User avatar
Texas Vike
Hall of Fame Inductee
Posts: 4102
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:52 am
x 208

Re: Vikings-Packers Game Day

Post by Texas Vike » Fri Nov 06, 2020 9:28 am

VikingPaul73 wrote:
Fri Nov 06, 2020 8:40 am
I agree Kapp that they have the better QB and, top to bottom, we have better WRs.

the tie-breaker is that our CBs are so young and depleted from injury. I just think Rodgers would have completely shredded us (even worse than the 1st game) with decent weather.

That said, given the conditions, we were the better team (and I was just as surprised by that as you :lol: )
I agree with you. The wind was a MAJOR reason we beat the Pack. 30-40 mph wind is a major influence on what athletes can do in just about any sport. GB's strength (their passing game) happens to align with our major weakness (secondary); no wonder they've beaten us so often lately. We had a great game plan for the conditions, but without those conditions, we wouldn't have won, IMO.
0 x

Dmizzle0
Franchise Player
Posts: 487
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2014 5:03 pm
x 28

Re: Vikings-Packers Game Day

Post by Dmizzle0 » Fri Nov 06, 2020 3:54 pm

We won because Cook was able to get 226 yards and 4 TDs on the Packers D. Not because of the dam weather what do you mean?!
0 x

User avatar
Texas Vike
Hall of Fame Inductee
Posts: 4102
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:52 am
x 208

Re: Vikings-Packers Game Day

Post by Texas Vike » Fri Nov 06, 2020 5:20 pm

Dmizzle0 wrote:
Fri Nov 06, 2020 3:54 pm
We won because Cook was able to get 226 yards and 4 TDs on the Packers D. Not because of the dam weather what do you mean?!
Cook's performance was tremendous. Due to the wind, our game plan ran almost entirely through him and our OL did a great job too. The wind took the ball out of Kirk's hand, thankfully. And most importantly, it nullified Aaron Rodgers. He would have easily hung 35 to 45 points on us, if not for the wind. Our secondary was decimated; he would have picked us apart even worse than he usually does. Our whole D looked decent because they knew passes beyond 20 yards would be nearly impossible given the conditions.

That's what I mean.
0 x

User avatar
VikingLord
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 3:12 pm
Location: The Land of the Ice and Snow
x 341

Re: Vikings-Packers Game Day

Post by VikingLord » Fri Nov 06, 2020 6:35 pm

Texas Vike wrote:
Fri Nov 06, 2020 5:20 pm
Our secondary was decimated; he would have picked us apart even worse than he usually does. Our whole D looked decent because they knew passes beyond 20 yards would be nearly impossible given the conditions.
I don't know if I agree with that.

Rodgers hit some deep balls and had a few more on target that didn't land. He nearly hit Adams on a deep route where Kendricks might have affected it at the end, nearly hit a deep throw over Harrison Smith for a TD that Smith got back just in time to break up, and did hit on a nice deep ball to a wide open TE on what might have been a blown coverage.

I could agree with what you're saying if there was any evidence those attempts were affected significantly by the wind, but none of them seemed to be unless Rodgers somehow found a way to compensate for it. If he did, he's even better than I thought he was.

As for Cousins and the Vikings not passing, that's what they've always done when the running game is getting it done. Why pass if you don't have to? I don't think that is an indictment of Cousins as much as it it's a reflection of taking the path of least resistance. If running and short passes are working and you're moving the chains and scoring with relatively low risk, why go to the air and possibly higher risk plays?

I just don't think the weather explains what we saw. Rodgers threw plenty and his accuracy didn't seem way off. He did seem more hesitant than the first game, though, almost as if what he was seeing wasn't what he expected to see and he wasn't sure what to do with what he saw. He also didn't look super comfortable in the pocket.
1 x