Post Game Thread - Lions Edition

[CharVike]

Great game overall but why is Rhodes terrible now?

When Hill comes back, if he looks as good as he did last year, we might want to look at trading Rhodes away before he loses all of his trade value by playing terribly.

Rhodes has a huge CAP number and didn't play well last year or this year. Would you trade for that? We need to keep him now.

[VikingLord]

None of our CBs are bad, but Waynes has given up the most yards and TDs in the secondary.

I think Rhodes has a big magnifying glass on his play because of how much he makes, as he should have. Every pass given up is a complete failure on his part, while we kind of give Waynes a pass. He is paid top 5 CB money and while he is only being outperformed by one other CB who is being paid top 5 money, he is not really earning his pay check.

Our secondary would be significantly worse without him, but the money being spent on him could be better used elsewhere.

Waynes was shaky yesterday for sure. He's made some nice stops in the run game and generally has position in the passing game, but he's not making as many plays on the ball as one would hope he'd make at this point in his career. Hate to say that offensive coordinators are targeting him, but he seems to be the weak link in the secondary this season.

As for Rhodes, it seems most offenses avoid him. He showed up 3 times yesterday. Once, on the deep pass that ended up drawing a PI call, he had position and I think normally that call wouldn't be made. He was hand fighting with the WR and Stafford really had no business putting that up. Lions got the call there, but hard to blame Rhodes for the result.

On the two short TDs, Rhodes had position in both cases. On the first one, Stafford made a really nice outside throw that had to be perfect, and was, and on the second, if Rhodes turned his head and saw the ball coming in he could have picked it. As it was, he just missed it waving his arm, but the coverage wasn't bad. That's another one that Stafford probably shouldn't have thrown and got away with, but Rhodes also didn't know where the ball was and that's on him in that situation. He did what I never understand CBs doing down near the goal line and that is he played the receiver and not the ball. It's not like a WR can turn upfield there and run by you. Provided the CB is not up tight at the LOS pre-snap, it should be possible to track both the receiver and the QB's eyes in that situation, especially on a simple out like that. I'd have to watch the play again to see what happened to Rhodes after the snap that left him flailing. Maybe the WR just ran a super crisp out or Rhodes got tripped up or something, or maybe there was even a push off as the WR went into his break. Hard to say. Rhodes seemed really upset after it. He could have been just "pouting", or maybe something more happened we didn't see. Regardless, that was a really risky pass for Stafford to throw in that situation, and Rhodes normally doesn't give up those types of passes there.

[Dames]

I think the problem with the secondary in this game was the refs. Not that the refs were against the Vikings or anything but that the refs weren't letting the CBs get physical. The Vikings secondary are coached to play physical football and if they have to play "hands off" so to speak they look pretty bad. To be fair, I think it's tough for any defensive back to keep good coverage if they can't get physical at all. The amount of points Detroit gave up is reflective of the officiating as well, I think.

I came here to basically say this. I think the early calls against the defense really affected their play the rest of the game. They were not able to be physical like they usually are. My guess is that Rhodes temper tantrum was because he felt like the officials took away the physical play, and that really gives the advantage to the receiver. Not saying he should act like that of course.

I think that is why the defense backfield looked like the were playing soft in the last 3 quarters. A lot of that was play calling and not really the DBs fault. I felt like the coaches knew early on that they weren't going to get away with physical play so they played back. A lot of zone maybe? Honestly, it was the right thing to do to take the game out of the officials hands.... and I'll bet they were ready for this after the mess the refs made against the GB.

Yes, there were appeared to be some broken plays mixed in there too, so there are definitely some issues they need to clean up.

[VikingLord]

My guess is that Rhodes temper tantrum was because he felt like the officials took away the physical play, and that really gives the advantage to the receiver. Not saying he should act like that of course.

I watched the 2nd TD Rhodes gave up again after my last post on this thread because I wanted to see what happened. He was really hot after it and I thought maybe the receiver pushed off or something that created the separation and caused Rhodes to lose sight of the QB.

Shockingly, Rhodes never once looked at the QB or the ball on that play, nor was he playing very far off the WR pre-snap. Pre-snap, he's staring right at the WR, and once the ball is snapped the WR runs a few steps forward and then cuts towards the sidelines on what honestly looks like a sloppy route. It's not a hard cut and he doesn't do any kind of fake step or even a head fake. It almost looks like the route is designed to run deeper into the endzone, but the WR breaks it off before he even reaches the goal line (and Rhodes) and breaks towards the sidelines, running on a slant to get him into the endzone.

This is where Rhodes coverage loses me completely. The route that the WR runs makes it easier for Rhodes to defend provided he has some awareness of where the QB is looking. To reach the WR, the ball has to be thrown fairly low and straight across the field. If Rhodes is aware that Stafford is looking his way, this is an easy pick 6. The angles involved and the type of pass that must be thrown favor the DB provided he has ball awareness. Rhodes did not.

As the WR breaks into this shallow angled route, Rhodes tracks on an angle with him and never lets his gaze break off the WR. He essentially mirrors the route, keep his distance with the receiver, and turns his hips to run with him, thus taking away any chance of breaking on the ball. It's almost like he's afraid he's going to get beaten deep. As the WR turns back to the QB and stops to receive the ball, at that point Rhodes is almost on top of him. He must realize the ball is on its way at that point and flails his left arm in front of the receiver hoping to block the ball, but since he has no idea where the ball is, it's pure hope that he gets in the way. He also has to slow down a bit to avoid early contact and possible PI, which affects him as well. He's completely focused on avoiding the contact and has no chance to turn his head and look for the ball.

Watching it, it seems to me that Rhodes is counting on his presence to deter a pass attempt. He's not at all interested in knowing what Stafford is doing or where he's looking. He is locked onto the WR in front of him and intends to mirror him and make the throw risky. It is a risky throw, because Rhodes has a great angle of attack on the ball if he peeks. It could be an easy pick six, in fact, but to make it a pick six, Rhodes has to be aware of what Stafford is doing and where the ball is and he's not.

It's hard to fault Rhodes here technically. He's got position and coverage, but it seems like Stafford saw something on tape that shows Rhodes isn't looking for the ball in those situations. As a result, the pass is much less risky that it would otherwise be. The fact that Rhodes had two TDs scored against him on largely the same route seems to indicate that the Lions saw that while Rhodes had technical coverage on the receiver in that situation, he didn't have ball awareness, and as a result, could be victimized. They were right.

The lesson for Rhodes? Don't be predictable. Sure, stare at the WR in those short field situations, Understand that the WR has a max of 15-20 yards of depth to operate. He really can't beat you deep and if he does get behind you, you will have inside position on him. But look at the QB pre snap. Let the QB know you're looking at him. Let him think maybe you're going to be tracking that ball in flight. At the very least, make him make the more difficult over the top into the corner throw to beat you. The simple outs that beat Rhodes were both balls that a CB of Rhodes quality should be able to defend easily. That he failed to do so on either attempt just tells him he's too predictable in that situation. Make the QB think twice about it. Give him something to worry about.

[Pondering Her Percy]

Good post man, and yeah I was the one that mentioned it was a blessing in disguise. I believe it was not only intended for Zim but the OCs as well. It makes me wonder though, if it WASNT for Zim, would Stefanski and Kubiak have had this playbook wide open from the start like we do now? Or would they still run all game and give little attention to the pass? I think Zim was a HUGE part in the "no pass approach". And someone on here mentioned that the worst thing that could have happened to this offense early on was dominating Atlanta and having to only throw 10 times. It made us wayyy to reliant on the run. Either waym, these guys have it figured out right now. The constant play action, the roll outs, etc.

I also wonder, yes this OL is playing much better, but are a lot of the roll outs designed because those plays call for deeper routes and they are trying to give Cousins time to see the field vs. taking it from under center and standing behind a poor pass blocking OL?? I feel like on a lot of the roll outs Kirk has had, many of them are when he's taken the deep shots. If so, that's great thinking on the OCs part.

During weeks 1-4, I was complaining about these things:
-Lack of balance in the offense
-Being too conservative
-Overuse of the run
-Lack of targets to Thielen and Diggs
-Being under center too much and going into a 7 step drop
-The OL's pass blocking

Since then, they have fixed all of these things. They are still under center a lot but they are now adding in more roll outs to get Cousins out into open space. I'd like to think Zim, Stefanski and Kubiak logged onto VMB and listened to my complaining and fixed this offense

Dude ... I love ya, but you gotta cool the self-congratulations. I know you're kidding (I think) but a lot of us have been saying the same things.

Success on play-action and roll-outs aren't all Cousins' doing, and they're not necessarily meant to cover up any deficiencies on the part of Cousins. They're a staple of zone blocking. People associate zone blocking with the running game, but zone blocking is a great match for the passing game when it's done well. If the O-line does its job selling the outside zone, it's very difficult for the defense to know that it's NOT a running play. Our O-line is doing a great job of selling the run, and that's a testament to coaching. It's all technique. People have busted on Rick Dennison since he was hired, but I've been saying from the beginning that Kubiak's system and Dennison's O-line coaching will play well with this O-line and with Kirk Cousins' ability to sell play-action. It took a few weeks to get it working, but now that it is, we're seeing the results.

When Cousins was in Washington, he was always good at throwing outside the pocket by design. Where he's not good, typically, is when he's throwing outside the pocket because he's scrambling. Look at these roll-left, throw-right passes he's making. It's like they're shot out of a jugs machine ... with zip, and right on the money. He's not good at making magic when the play breaks down like Rodgers or Wilson, but he's just as good throwing on the move when it's designed. Last year, as you and others have correctly pointed out, it was all 7-step drops and the O-line trying to hold up. When Cousins left the pocket, it was not good. This year, the zone blocking and roll-outs off play-action give him just as deep a drop as a 7-step drop, but without a bunch of guys in his face. It's perfect for our personnel -- and the team did a great job of going after an athletic center in the draft and signing a zone-familiar guard in Josh Kline.

It also just so happens that zone blocking is a perfect match for Dalvin Cook, who can wait, pick his hole, plant his foot, and go. But it also gives him an opportunity to use his speed and reverse field when the play isn't there on the side the play was designed for. He must have done that 3 or 4 times yesterday for nice gains.

Kubiak's track record is clear -- he has ALWAYS put great offenses on the field, no matter where he's been. He and Dennison are coaching up the techniques really well, and Kevin Stefanski is really growing as a play-caller as he gets more and more familiar with the system. We've averaged 36 a game the past 3 weeks. It's no coincidence. You guys can talk "bottom-feeders" all you want, but this offense is doing what we all have wished it would do. And they did it yesterday without Adam Thielen for most of the game.

Is it just me or have you been overly sensitive this year Kapp?? Yeah clearly I'm kidding given the laughing faces I posted after it all. No less I'm not sure what else I have self-congratulated myself for? Yeah most of it has been talked about on here. I mean I dont really recall anyone constantly complaining about being under center so much like I have since week 1 or discussing the emphasis on balance and that's fine. But either way, I'm not tooting my own horn, I posted those things to make a joke that Zim and staff logged on to read what I said.....clearly that joke went well over some heads......

[The negotiator]

Some later observations on the game.

- Offensive playcalling was good in this game. The play that I loved was the late play action deep pass to Diggs that he probably should have scored on, but kind of ran out of gas. I was thinking Zimmer might be content to just run the clock on that last scoring drive. Force the Lions to burn their timeouts, punt it deep and make the Lions drive the field and score a TD. That's what the classic book calls for in that situation, and what I've seen the Vikings do so many times in the past. Stefanski went for the jugular instead. So nice to see from the Vikings.
- Dalvin Cook quietly had another huge day. I thought the Lions were playing the run really well, especially early, and then when all was said-and-done Cook clocks in with 142 yards rushing. He kept moving, stayed on his feet, and made some things out of literally nothing. Further, the Vikings stuck with the run, and it paid off.
- I thought between the designed roll outs, the effective play action, and just some nice overall pass blocking, the Vikings kept Cousins really clean in the pocket. This is the 3rd straight game it's been that way, too, and to his credit, Cousins has been standing in and staying patient and not forcing things. Yes, as Stump pointed out earlier in the thread, these have been bottom feeder pass defenses the last three weeks, and that could have a lot to do with the results we've been seeing, but it's difficult to completely discount them or discount Cousins. The Vikings have had a history of being the team that helped other teams get healthy with their weaknesses, but these last three games the Vikings have thoroughly exploited and amplified those weaknesses of their opponents. As with the playcalls, this is VERY nice to see. They deserve credit for it, but more importantly, I think they're gaining a lot of confidence from it.
- The scoring... These last three games, the Vikings offense has been scoring and driving very successfully. I mean, punts seem rare now. 3-and-outs are rare. Whereas last year, I felt surprised to see a sustained drive end in a TD, this year I'm beginning to be more surprised at a drive that ends quickly or fails to score a TD. Yes, the defenses have been poor, relatively speaking. But still, 2 road games are 2 road games. They piled up points in both. Better defenses await, but it appears the team is picking up a lot of confidence. And, as an added bonus, they are scoring with big plays, but also can score passing and running on short fields in the red zone too. They aren't a one-trick pony.

Now, for some not-so-good things.

- I really hope Thielen isn't seriously injured. That was one of the more amazing catches I've seen. Both the throw and the catch. Pure magic. But the Vikings need AT. Diggs is great, and the team should have other weapons in the passing game if AT can't go as Bisi is showing, but AT is really a special player, and they're going to need him against the better pass defenses coming up on the schedule.
- For as good as Diggs can be, he has shown a penchant for making some real poor plays as well. He fumbled again against the Lions yesterday, and then he dropped what was a really nice ball that should have been a TD. He's a great player and can make some plays, but man, if you're going to call out your QB, or anyone else, for that matter, you'd better make sure you've got your own sh*t locked down. Diggs' misfires haven't cost the team, yet, but there will likely be a game coming where a missed opportunity does cost them.
- Vikings weren't great on defense yesterday. Well, I have to temper that statement. They were amazing at moments and made some really nice plays against the run and the pass. They got some pressure on Stafford as well. But there were other moments, especially against the pass, where they were just off. Rhodes got cooked for two short TDs. What's worse, he had decent position. He just didn't know where the ball was and couldn't make a play as a result. Ditto for Waynes. That first TD Waynes gave up was just poor technique on the tackle. Hughes gave up a bad score by allowing the WR to get inside position. A lot of what happened to the secondary yesterday was technique. They often had good position. Stafford had to take some risks to get those balls in and, had the Vikings played technique well, the results would have been much different. But the technique was sloppy and the Lions scored a lot as a result. Yeah, sometimes that happens, and the Lions deserve credit for making the plays, but it's hard to watch those Lion TDs and not think that the Vikings could have, and probably should have, been able to defend every one of them.
- OK, the Vikings aren't asking a lot from Dan Bailey and the field goal unit this year so far. I know he's spending a lot of time cooling his heels on the sideline. But when they do trot him out there, he's got to be a little better than yesterday. In my opinion, no professional kicker should be missing a standard field goal by the country mile he missed his one attempt yesterday. That miss, coming on the heels of Diggs letting a sure TD drop through his hands, was a 7 point swing. If it's a long attempt, I get it. If it's outdoors in poor conditions, I get it. If its high pressure, maybe, maybe I get it. But in that situation, I don't get it. Bailey has to be ready to go. It almost seemed like he wasn't.

Great game by the Vikings other than the negatives mentioned above. The Lions may not be a great team, but they were at home, should have beaten the Packers the prior game, and needed the win. They got up first on the Vikings and forced the Vikings to respond. Further, they put up 30 points on the Vikings, so the offense had to perform. The Vikings overcame them nonetheless and did it on the merits. No BS penalties saved them. No freak plays. In the end, they got it done on both sides of the ball, and notched a tough divisional win. The next 3 div games are all at home, so their fate should be in their own hands.

And on that note, I am SO looking forward to the rematches with the Bears and Packers in Minnesota...

Good post!

[akvikingsfan]

I have been one of Kirk's harshest critics since he was signed here. While he has played extremely well the past three games, I'm still not 100% sold. For me, the two obstacles that remain are 1) winning in a prime time game; and 2) winning against a good team. In three days he has a chance to cross off the first item; and then he has a chance on December 2nd* to cross off the other. If the Vikings can win these two games because of Kirk (not in spite of him), I will be flipped to a believer. If however, bad Kirk decides to show up then my stance will remain the same.

In terms of this week specifically, I was pleased to see the offense clicking on all cylinders. Kirk had another 300+ yard, 4 TD game. The running game went strong. Even after AT left the game, the offense showed fight and put up the huge numbers.

The defense on the other hand was very suspect. While this was the most points the defense has allowed all season, it really felt like more of the same. They had penalties at the worst times, gave up big plays, and just looked like they were lacking something. I have not been sold on the performance all season they have put on. While the stats might not support my position, watching the games it has appeared the defense is just not as solid as they have been in the past.

Hopefully, the results will continue the way they have been the last three weeks. I could see this years team matching the mark of the 2017 team IF Kirk continues to play at the level that he is paid to, and the defense starts to gel.

*I'm not counting the game against the Chiefs as being a good team due to the fact they won't have Mahomes.

[cmoss84]

1) Can we please play-action fake on all passing attempts?

2) Our secondary gives up a lot of passing yards. This is the nature of the beast when you are winning late in games. We have been doing this a lot lately, and hopefully it continues. Garbage yards mean nothing. I actually do not mind where we are defensively.

[J. Kapp 11]

Dude ... I love ya, but you gotta cool the self-congratulations. I know you're kidding (I think) but a lot of us have been saying the same things.

Success on play-action and roll-outs aren't all Cousins' doing, and they're not necessarily meant to cover up any deficiencies on the part of Cousins. They're a staple of zone blocking. People associate zone blocking with the running game, but zone blocking is a great match for the passing game when it's done well. If the O-line does its job selling the outside zone, it's very difficult for the defense to know that it's NOT a running play. Our O-line is doing a great job of selling the run, and that's a testament to coaching. It's all technique. People have busted on Rick Dennison since he was hired, but I've been saying from the beginning that Kubiak's system and Dennison's O-line coaching will play well with this O-line and with Kirk Cousins' ability to sell play-action. It took a few weeks to get it working, but now that it is, we're seeing the results.

When Cousins was in Washington, he was always good at throwing outside the pocket by design. Where he's not good, typically, is when he's throwing outside the pocket because he's scrambling. Look at these roll-left, throw-right passes he's making. It's like they're shot out of a jugs machine ... with zip, and right on the money. He's not good at making magic when the play breaks down like Rodgers or Wilson, but he's just as good throwing on the move when it's designed. Last year, as you and others have correctly pointed out, it was all 7-step drops and the O-line trying to hold up. When Cousins left the pocket, it was not good. This year, the zone blocking and roll-outs off play-action give him just as deep a drop as a 7-step drop, but without a bunch of guys in his face. It's perfect for our personnel -- and the team did a great job of going after an athletic center in the draft and signing a zone-familiar guard in Josh Kline.

It also just so happens that zone blocking is a perfect match for Dalvin Cook, who can wait, pick his hole, plant his foot, and go. But it also gives him an opportunity to use his speed and reverse field when the play isn't there on the side the play was designed for. He must have done that 3 or 4 times yesterday for nice gains.

Kubiak's track record is clear -- he has ALWAYS put great offenses on the field, no matter where he's been. He and Dennison are coaching up the techniques really well, and Kevin Stefanski is really growing as a play-caller as he gets more and more familiar with the system. We've averaged 36 a game the past 3 weeks. It's no coincidence. You guys can talk "bottom-feeders" all you want, but this offense is doing what we all have wished it would do. And they did it yesterday without Adam Thielen for most of the game.

Is it just me or have you been overly sensitive this year Kapp?? Yeah clearly I'm kidding given the laughing faces I posted after it all. No less I'm not sure what else I have self-congratulated myself for? Yeah most of it has been talked about on here. I mean I dont really recall anyone constantly complaining about being under center so much like I have since week 1 or discussing the emphasis on balance and that's fine. But either way, I'm not tooting my own horn, I posted those things to make a joke that Zim and staff logged on to read what I said.....clearly that joke went well over some heads......

Obviously it went over my head. My bad.

[Purple Domination]

My guess is that Rhodes temper tantrum was because he felt like the officials took away the physical play, and that really gives the advantage to the receiver. Not saying he should act like that of course.

I watched the 2nd TD Rhodes gave up again after my last post on this thread because I wanted to see what happened. He was really hot after it and I thought maybe the receiver pushed off or something that created the separation and caused Rhodes to lose sight of the QB.

Shockingly, Rhodes never once looked at the QB or the ball on that play, nor was he playing very far off the WR pre-snap. Pre-snap, he's staring right at the WR, and once the ball is snapped the WR runs a few steps forward and then cuts towards the sidelines on what honestly looks like a sloppy route. It's not a hard cut and he doesn't do any kind of fake step or even a head fake. It almost looks like the route is designed to run deeper into the endzone, but the WR breaks it off before he even reaches the goal line (and Rhodes) and breaks towards the sidelines, running on a slant to get him into the endzone.

This is where Rhodes coverage loses me completely. The route that the WR runs makes it easier for Rhodes to defend provided he has some awareness of where the QB is looking. To reach the WR, the ball has to be thrown fairly low and straight across the field. If Rhodes is aware that Stafford is looking his way, this is an easy pick 6. The angles involved and the type of pass that must be thrown favor the DB provided he has ball awareness. Rhodes did not.

As the WR breaks into this shallow angled route, Rhodes tracks on an angle with him and never lets his gaze break off the WR. He essentially mirrors the route, keep his distance with the receiver, and turns his hips to run with him, thus taking away any chance of breaking on the ball. It's almost like he's afraid he's going to get beaten deep. As the WR turns back to the QB and stops to receive the ball, at that point Rhodes is almost on top of him. He must realize the ball is on its way at that point and flails his left arm in front of the receiver hoping to block the ball, but since he has no idea where the ball is, it's pure hope that he gets in the way. He also has to slow down a bit to avoid early contact and possible PI, which affects him as well. He's completely focused on avoiding the contact and has no chance to turn his head and look for the ball.

Watching it, it seems to me that Rhodes is counting on his presence to deter a pass attempt. He's not at all interested in knowing what Stafford is doing or where he's looking. He is locked onto the WR in front of him and intends to mirror him and make the throw risky. It is a risky throw, because Rhodes has a great angle of attack on the ball if he peeks. It could be an easy pick six, in fact, but to make it a pick six, Rhodes has to be aware of what Stafford is doing and where the ball is and he's not.

It's hard to fault Rhodes here technically. He's got position and coverage, but it seems like Stafford saw something on tape that shows Rhodes isn't looking for the ball in those situations. As a result, the pass is much less risky that it would otherwise be. The fact that Rhodes had two TDs scored against him on largely the same route seems to indicate that the Lions saw that while Rhodes had technical coverage on the receiver in that situation, he didn't have ball awareness, and as a result, could be victimized. They were right.

The lesson for Rhodes? Don't be predictable. Sure, stare at the WR in those short field situations, Understand that the WR has a max of 15-20 yards of depth to operate. He really can't beat you deep and if he does get behind you, you will have inside position on him. But look at the QB pre snap. Let the QB know you're looking at him. Let him think maybe you're going to be tracking that ball in flight. At the very least, make him make the more difficult over the top into the corner throw to beat you. The simple outs that beat Rhodes were both balls that a CB of Rhodes quality should be able to defend easily. That he failed to do so on either attempt just tells him he's too predictable in that situation. Make the QB think twice about it. Give him something to worry about.

Thanks for this breakdown of that TD. Very interesting.

I want to know what has changed fundamentally for Rhodes between now and 2017? He’s 29 so I would think this would still be the prime of his career. Will someone with an elite football mind explain this to me please?

[Pondering Her Percy]

1) Can we please play-action fake on all passing attempts?

2) Our secondary gives up a lot of passing yards. This is the nature of the beast when you are winning late in games. We have been doing this a lot lately, and hopefully it continues. Garbage yards mean nothing. I actually do not mind where we are defensively.

I’d like to know where our pass D ranks when it comes to non-garbage time. I would imagine it’s much better than what it shows on paper

[Dames]

I watched the 2nd TD Rhodes gave up again after my last post on this thread because I wanted to see what happened. He was really hot after it and I thought maybe the receiver pushed off or something that created the separation and caused Rhodes to lose sight of the QB.

...

Just wanted to commend you on a really nice breakdown of that play. Thanks!

[StumpHunter]

1) Can we please play-action fake on all passing attempts?

2) Our secondary gives up a lot of passing yards. This is the nature of the beast when you are winning late in games. We have been doing this a lot lately, and hopefully it continues. Garbage yards mean nothing. I actually do not mind where we are defensively.

I’d like to know where our pass D ranks when it comes to non-garbage time. I would imagine it’s much better than what it shows on paper

2nd most TDs given up, 2nd most 1st downs and 2nd most plays when up by two scores with 6 minutes left in the 4th. 250 passing yards and 2 TDs. About a games worth of passing stats added on in garbage time.

[Dames]

I’d like to know where our pass D ranks when it comes to non-garbage time. I would imagine it’s much better than what it shows on paper

2nd most TDs given up, 2nd most 1st downs and 2nd most plays when up by two scores with 6 minutes left in the 4th. 250 passing yards and 2 TDs. About a games worth of passing stats added on in garbage time.

Wow, a lot of TDs given up late. Really affects the overall ranking.

Vikings rank #6 overall in scoring, and that's most important IMO. 3 teams in front of them have played 1 less game too. So... lots of garbage stats that have little to do with the W/L, but interesting non-the-less.

[Pondering Her Percy]

I’d like to know where our pass D ranks when it comes to non-garbage time. I would imagine it’s much better than what it shows on paper

2nd most TDs given up, 2nd most 1st downs and 2nd most plays when up by two scores with 6 minutes left in the 4th. 250 passing yards and 2 TDs. About a games worth of passing stats added on in garbage time.

Wow! Thanks for the stat stump