Vikings @ Bengals Post game

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

CharVike
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1811
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:28 pm
x 313

Re: Vikings @ Bengals Post game

Post by CharVike » Tue Sep 14, 2021 12:34 pm

fiestavike wrote:
Mon Sep 13, 2021 2:48 pm
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:05 am


Was waiting for someone to blame the loss directly on the QB :whistle:
I think you missed the point. Of course, Cousins is not the ONLY reason they lost. As I said, 'Lot's of negatives', but if Cousins didn't suck, they would have won in spite of those negatives. Naturally, there are dozens of other things you could also point to and come to the same conclusion. Heck, if the refs didn't call it a fumble, the Vikings likely wouldn't have lost, and probably would have won.

Nonetheless, todays NFL is built around the QB more than any era of pro football has ever been. The rules are designed to protect them, to make their job easier, to limit how effectively WRs can be covered etc. The QB touches the ball 70 times a game, and today, he is liable to throw it more than 40 times per game. At the end of the day, if your QB isn't better than Kirk Cousins, you are going to lose a lot of games.

There will always--in every single game--be other things you can point to as legitimate causes for losing, but with Kirk Cousins, you are going to lose too many games to ever get anywhere. As an NFL level QB--if the goal is to win lots of games, and win big games--he sucks.
The NFL has always been about the QBs. Why do you think we traded for Fran? Our team couldn't make the Super Bowl once Kapp left because we had zero at QB. We wasted 2 years of our greatest defense ever. Page was MVP one year. No QB no Super Bowl. The year Marino was drafted 83 was loaded with QBs and they were picked high in the draft. Many QBs back then threw the ball like crazy. Hadle, Marino ect... But yes everything is geared towards passing. I said that long ago. Zimmer plays an early 70s style of football. That could work but you better have one of the best defenses ever.
1 x

StumpHunter
Career Elite Player
Posts: 2866
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:55 am
x 429

Re: Vikings @ Bengals Post game

Post by StumpHunter » Tue Sep 14, 2021 12:57 pm

CharVike wrote:
Tue Sep 14, 2021 12:34 pm
I said that long ago. Zimmer plays an early 70s style of football.
What does this even mean? Zimmer wants to control the ball on offense and commit few turnovers and not allow a lot of points on defense. So does every other coach in the NFL.
0 x

YikesVikes
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1586
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 12:04 am
x 222

Re: Vikings @ Bengals Post game

Post by YikesVikes » Tue Sep 14, 2021 1:38 pm

StumpHunter wrote:
Tue Sep 14, 2021 12:57 pm
CharVike wrote:
Tue Sep 14, 2021 12:34 pm
I said that long ago. Zimmer plays an early 70s style of football.
What does this even mean? Zimmer wants to control the ball on offense and commit few turnovers and not allow a lot of points on defense. So does every other coach in the NFL.
Except, you can't do that for 4 quarters. The rules are geared towards the offense. He plays run out the clock ball. Get a small lead and then try to run out the clock. Why not get a huge lead and then allow your defense to attack. We have the ability to jump up on teams in a big way and then let our pass rushers go to work. Send the double AA when because we know they are passing on every play to get back into it. I think Zimmer cares more about having a top 5 defense than winning.
1 x

Purple Reign
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:17 pm
Location: St. Paul, MN
x 4

Re: Vikings @ Bengals Post game

Post by Purple Reign » Tue Sep 14, 2021 11:44 pm

Pondering Her Percy wrote:
Sun Sep 12, 2021 9:29 pm
Oh I know exactly what the rule is. But I’m sorry, idk how you can say there wasn’t enough camera evidence. His as# landed on the 1 inch line and that was the first thing to hit. Unless his upper body was leaning forward or straight up at a 90 degree angle, maybe there’s an argument but his body was nearly stretched out with his butt landing on the 1 inch line. He was in by a country mile and that was obvious. Literally nothing hit the ground and I can tell you it was exactly why they initially questioned it and said no TD. Because they figured some part of his body hit. I would’ve love to ask the referees in that moment “sir, just wondering, what part of Justin jeffersons body hit the ground that made him down at the one inch line”. They wouldn’t have an answer. They just simply hate being wrong. High school refs are like that, college refs are like that. Their egos get in the way. I’m a coach. I see it all the time. They don’t want to admit they were wrong. They use the “not enough evidence” rule as an easy scapegoat.

As for cook, literally every analyst, Perrera, non Vikings fans, etc were saying cook was down. He was literally sitting down

What kills me, these refs somehow “saw” Justin Jeffersons butt down and the ball not over the line but “didn’t see” cooks butt down and the ball coming out?

They let cincys sideline make that call in OT. And bottom line is, if this is the fricken rule, you don’t call a fumble when you have no clue what the hell even happened. You don’t drastically change the dynamic of a game because you hear a sideline screaming and shouting. You let the replay decide if the ball did indeed change hands. You don’t just hand it to the other team because of loud noises from their sidelines. You just fuc#ed over a team by doing that. It’s not right.
That's exactly what the refs did, they did let replay decide and replay decided there was not enough evidence to overturn the call. The refs are now taught to call a turnover, as all turnovers are automatically reviewed. The problem is that replay doesn't always have a clear view of the play, with players getting in the way which is what happened with the Cook fumble. You really couldn't tell when the ball started to come out. But I agree that they blew the Jefferson call - they should have called that one a td as it would be automatically reviewed. Not sure how they could say he was down before the ball crossed the goal line, unless maybe his shin/calf was down. That's the only thing I can think of as no other part of his body was close to being down.
0 x

StumpHunter
Career Elite Player
Posts: 2866
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:55 am
x 429

Re: Vikings @ Bengals Post game

Post by StumpHunter » Wed Sep 15, 2021 7:06 am

YikesVikes wrote:
Tue Sep 14, 2021 1:38 pm
StumpHunter wrote:
Tue Sep 14, 2021 12:57 pm


What does this even mean? Zimmer wants to control the ball on offense and commit few turnovers and not allow a lot of points on defense. So does every other coach in the NFL.
Except, you can't do that for 4 quarters. The rules are geared towards the offense. He plays run out the clock ball. Get a small lead and then try to run out the clock. Why not get a huge lead and then allow your defense to attack. We have the ability to jump up on teams in a big way and then let our pass rushers go to work. Send the double AA when because we know they are passing on every play to get back into it. I think Zimmer cares more about having a top 5 defense than winning.
He has literally never lost a game where he has had the lead going into the 4th, our offense had the highest percentage of big plays last year, and our run-pass ratio was almost the same as the best offense in the NFL's.

There are things to knock Zimmer for, but being stuck in the 70's is not one of them. That is a perception based on his age and not his actual approach when comparing him to the rest of the league. The Vikings' offense the past couple of seasons is virtually identical to the one Shanahan runs. Run heavy with lots of play action is the only way the Vikings offense can succeed with who we have under center, just like it is the only way SF can succeed.

Defensively he does not sit back and let teams come back when he has a lead and that again is just perception not based on any sort of reality on the field. We win when we get the lead more than the vast majority of teams.
0 x

Dmizzle0
Pro Bowl Elite Player
Posts: 539
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2014 5:03 pm
x 37

Re: Vikings @ Bengals Post game

Post by Dmizzle0 » Wed Sep 15, 2021 8:48 am

Online was a circus show in the beginning. Cousins held on to the ball too long at times. Cook was down. Refs suck.
1 x

CharVike
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1811
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:28 pm
x 313

Re: Vikings @ Bengals Post game

Post by CharVike » Wed Sep 15, 2021 9:26 am

YikesVikes wrote:
Tue Sep 14, 2021 1:38 pm
StumpHunter wrote:
Tue Sep 14, 2021 12:57 pm


What does this even mean? Zimmer wants to control the ball on offense and commit few turnovers and not allow a lot of points on defense. So does every other coach in the NFL.
Except, you can't do that for 4 quarters. The rules are geared towards the offense. He plays run out the clock ball. Get a small lead and then try to run out the clock. Why not get a huge lead and then allow your defense to attack. We have the ability to jump up on teams in a big way and then let our pass rushers go to work. Send the double AA when because we know they are passing on every play to get back into it. I think Zimmer cares more about having a top 5 defense than winning.
You said that well. It's not that hard to understand. Zim likes to play close to the vest which is early 70s style football. Pound the ball make no mistakes kill the clock and then play great D. I'd rather come out and get the lead and be able to play a more one dimensional D. Of course every coach wants that. On that 4th down play in OT Burrow said he saw the over commitment to the run based on our DL setup and changed to the pass. That's a kid out thinking the D genius Zim and his kid. Stuff like that happens and Burrow is not some guy with no talent. He was the 1st pick in the draft and appears to have the mentality to reorganize what a defense is doing. Plus his coach allows him to check out of a play. I give him credit but I don't see him surviving with the crap OL he has. He's lucky he has Reiff on his team. At least he has shown he can block every now and then. We have a Jane playing right now which doesn't help us at all.
0 x

CharVike
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1811
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:28 pm
x 313

Re: Vikings @ Bengals Post game

Post by CharVike » Wed Sep 15, 2021 11:02 am

fiestavike wrote:
Mon Sep 13, 2021 8:20 am
Lot's of negatives, but at the end of the day, the Vikings still win this game if Kirk Cousins just doesn't suck so bad.

A QB might be able to wait to throw until he sees the guy open if he can move in the pocket or scramble to buy time.
A QB might be get away with being unable to buy time if he can get the ball out quick and throw with anticipation.

If a QB doesn't get the ball out quick, or throw with anticipation, or have the ability to buy time with movement, he just flat out sucks in today's game, It doesn't matter how good he is when everything goes according to plan.

Throw in being a panicky wreck when under pressure or forced off schedule, and you have Kirk Cousins.
It goes way beyond the stuff you point out. Today's game is no different than it ever was. The same guy that won Super Bowls almost 30 years ago is still doing it today. Did he change his entire game to function with the changes happening. Is he rushing for 500 yards. Is he scrambling like Fran did 60 years ago and buying time in the pocket. We saw it last year. The answer is no. First off he has a great OL that can block. Give him Bradbury our 2 stiff Gs and the rest and see what he does. He plays based on the players around him. Most think of him as dink and dunk guy who throws a great intermediate pass and gets the ball out quickly. That's true. But here is what they miss. When he had probably the greatest deep threat ever to play the game R Moss he dropped deep in the pocket and then heaved the ball as far as he could. He relied on great pass protection in max protect. 40 some years ago Steve Young was moving all over the place. If the heat was coming he would take off and head for the house. If the pocket was getting crushed he'd run around buy time and either take off or throw. You call this something new. Montana who played much different than Young used the same core cast of key players and won. You need to have a good cast of core players to even have a chance at the ring. Our team has some nice skill position players. We only have one OL player that should be starting. The rest should be riding the bench or thrown in the garbage. That's not a very good supporting cast. Everything starts up front. All QBs need help. I've never seen a guy take a total stiff team to the playoffs or Super Bowl. That will never happen. Based on your post Mac Jones can't win with the Patriots and yes he got his #### kicked in his first game. He has no chance because he can't move, can't anticipate his receivers and can't buy any time with his legs. He'll go down as a bust pick by Bill because his skills don't fit with todays game. We'll see how that works out. Cousins isn't the best in the game but he isn't a POS that can't do anything either.
0 x

Pondering Her Percy
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8482
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Location: Watertown, NY
x 853

Re: Vikings @ Bengals Post game

Post by Pondering Her Percy » Wed Sep 15, 2021 12:08 pm

StumpHunter wrote:
Wed Sep 15, 2021 7:06 am
YikesVikes wrote:
Tue Sep 14, 2021 1:38 pm


Except, you can't do that for 4 quarters. The rules are geared towards the offense. He plays run out the clock ball. Get a small lead and then try to run out the clock. Why not get a huge lead and then allow your defense to attack. We have the ability to jump up on teams in a big way and then let our pass rushers go to work. Send the double AA when because we know they are passing on every play to get back into it. I think Zimmer cares more about having a top 5 defense than winning.
He has literally never lost a game where he has had the lead going into the 4th, our offense had the highest percentage of big plays last year, and our run-pass ratio was almost the same as the best offense in the NFL's.

There are things to knock Zimmer for, but being stuck in the 70's is not one of them. That is a perception based on his age and not his actual approach when comparing him to the rest of the league. The Vikings' offense the past couple of seasons is virtually identical to the one Shanahan runs. Run heavy with lots of play action is the only way the Vikings offense can succeed with who we have under center, just like it is the only way SF can succeed.

Defensively he does not sit back and let teams come back when he has a lead and that again is just perception not based on any sort of reality on the field. We win when we get the lead more than the vast majority of teams.
I still have no idea why you continue to defend Zimmer. This is his baby. Being stuck in the 70's is indeed one of them. Not just because of the style of offense he wants to run but his conservativeness that comes along with it. Dont try to put the blame on the QB by saying "this is the only offense we can succeed at so that's why Zim runs it". Zim runs this style offense and is so conservative because this is what he wants.

You saying this is identical to Shanahans offense goes to show you have no idea what you're talking about. You want to talk about perception but say that? That is the definition of perception. Cousins has LIVED under center the past two seasons and chances are that will continue this year. I have continued to complain about how often he is under center. They have him constantly taking 7 step drops from under center when he has an offensive line that cant pass block. I've always said that this is a problem and will continue to be a problem. When he was in Washington he was playing under Mike Shanahan, Kyle Shanahan and then Gruden and McVay. The numbers of him being under center to in shotgun are as follows:

2015
Snaps under center- 151
Shotgun- 392

2016
UC- 92
Shotgun- 433

2017
UC- 133
Shotgun- 473

.....fast forward to the last two years in Minnesota

2019
UC- 220
Shotgun- 224

2020
UC- 249
Shotgun- 267

Notice the drastic jump in under center numbers compared to the Shanahan offenses? They arent even close to each other. This isnt a Shanahan offense. This is a "1970's Mike Zimmer control the clock and play good defense conservative offense". His QB operated just fine in a true Shanahan style offense but also played for the Redskins which didnt help his cause. Just like Matt Stafford will have a good year under Sean McVay. Because McVay is a mastermind at knowing how to balance offenses and is working with a QB that is nearly identical to Kirk.

Flip literally crumbled Zim. Since Flip, this is where Zim went into this 1970 twilight zone and became one of the most conservative coaches in the NFL. This is ultimately why Diggs wanted out, along with some other selfish reasons. I've explained that so many times and you want to direct it at Cousins. IT IS ZIM!

I mean do you honestly believe that he wants to be chucking it all over the field like the Buffalo Bills risking incompletions that stop the clock? He is obsessed with his defense and wants to keep them off the field. That style of offense doesnt work with what he wants out of his defense. That doesnt burn time off the clock and wear opposing defenses down. It's the epitome of an old school approach and it is becoming more and more clear by the day that the game has surpassed him. He has done nothing but look for big name offensive coordinators that can run the offense for him and he can keep his focus on the defense.

And again like I've said before, Zim hit his peak in 2017. Since 2017, his defense has done nothing but go backwards to the point where they hit bottom of the barrel last year (partly due to injuries as well). But either way he's not off to a great start this year. So if this guy is known for his defense but hasnt put a legit defense on the field in quite some time then why is he still here? Because he's the CB whisperer? Name one corner he has developed here and turned them into a top tier guy? Rhodes wasnt even drafted by him. But Waynes, Hughes, Gladney, Dantzler, Boyd, etc. He has pretty much crapped on any bit of confidence Cam Dantzler had. He's had plenty at his disposal and he's done what with them?

This guy cant even bring us a good defense anymore let alone good head coaching so why is he still here? There is no defending him at this point. He's the next Marvin Lewis. His teams are just good enough to get by and not cause him to get fired.
0 x
The saddest thing in life is wasted talent and the choices you make will shape your life forever.
-Chazz Palminteri

CharVike
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1811
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:28 pm
x 313

Re: Vikings @ Bengals Post game

Post by CharVike » Wed Sep 15, 2021 1:16 pm

RandyMoss84 wrote:
Sun Sep 12, 2021 10:43 pm
me4get wrote:
Sun Sep 12, 2021 10:35 pm
1st place is margin of loss. Vikings are -3.
Thank you, it is nice to be in first place for a week even though Vikings lost
I forgot to reply to this but it does make me laugh which is a good thing. Margin of loss. Never would have thought of that. Some player should get the game ball for this loss since it put us in 1st place. Since we are in the loser mode I would think nobody deserves it more than Bradbury. Of course the loser game ball will be deflated. So Bradbury gets the loser ball with no air in it. Congrats to him. Thanks for the laugh.
0 x

User avatar
TSonn
Career Elite Player
Posts: 2074
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2014 11:52 am
Location: Michigan
x 103

Re: Vikings @ Bengals Post game

Post by TSonn » Wed Sep 15, 2021 2:11 pm

Anyone listen to the Bill Simmons podcast? In his week 1 recap he noted that the Vikings had the worst chemistry in the league and it looked like our players hated each other. With the vaccine drama and our head coach still pushing 1990s football - I don't think he's wrong.
1 x

StumpHunter
Career Elite Player
Posts: 2866
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:55 am
x 429

Re: Vikings @ Bengals Post game

Post by StumpHunter » Wed Sep 15, 2021 2:20 pm

TSonn wrote:
Wed Sep 15, 2021 2:11 pm
Anyone listen to the Bill Simmons podcast? In his week 1 recap he noted that the Vikings had the worst chemistry in the league and it looked like our players hated each other. With the vaccine drama and our head coach still pushing 1990s football - I don't think he's wrong.
1990's is better but still wrong.

I wonder if Bill watched that Packer game though with that hawt take.
0 x

User avatar
TSonn
Career Elite Player
Posts: 2074
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2014 11:52 am
Location: Michigan
x 103

Re: Vikings @ Bengals Post game

Post by TSonn » Wed Sep 15, 2021 2:47 pm

StumpHunter wrote:
Wed Sep 15, 2021 2:20 pm
TSonn wrote:
Wed Sep 15, 2021 2:11 pm
Anyone listen to the Bill Simmons podcast? In his week 1 recap he noted that the Vikings had the worst chemistry in the league and it looked like our players hated each other. With the vaccine drama and our head coach still pushing 1990s football - I don't think he's wrong.
1990's is better but still wrong.

I wonder if Bill watched that Packer game though with that hawt take.
He did. He said 2 things:

1. They should've traded Rodgers in the offseason.
2. GB doesn't care if they look terrible and lose as long as Rodgers is the bad guy now (as someone with lots of family in WI - it's working).

I believe it that we have the worst chemistry in the league. Even without personalities, our talent has no chemistry with our scheme. I think we'll probably start off 0-4 now and we'll most likely have some locker room drama that starts coming out.
1 x

User avatar
TSonn
Career Elite Player
Posts: 2074
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2014 11:52 am
Location: Michigan
x 103

Re: Vikings @ Bengals Post game

Post by TSonn » Wed Sep 15, 2021 3:01 pm

Here's the Simmons quote:

"They're terrible. Their body language was as bad as it gets. That looks like a team that truly hates each other all over the place. I did not see any team bonding moments."

Also later on said that Zimmer is probably a good bet to be first coach fired (he also said the same about Nagy).
0 x

StumpHunter
Career Elite Player
Posts: 2866
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:55 am
x 429

Re: Vikings @ Bengals Post game

Post by StumpHunter » Wed Sep 15, 2021 4:03 pm

TSonn wrote:
Wed Sep 15, 2021 2:47 pm
StumpHunter wrote:
Wed Sep 15, 2021 2:20 pm


1990's is better but still wrong.

I wonder if Bill watched that Packer game though with that hawt take.
He did. He said 2 things:

1. They should've traded Rodgers in the offseason.
2. GB doesn't care if they look terrible and lose as long as Rodgers is the bad guy now (as someone with lots of family in WI - it's working).

I believe it that we have the worst chemistry in the league. Even without personalities, our talent has no chemistry with our scheme. I think we'll probably start off 0-4 now and we'll most likely have some locker room drama that starts coming out.
Well that is an opinion for why things are going the way they are. The team has a lot of vocal players so if it is true we will hear about it soon.
0 x