Browns @ Vikings post game

[Pondering Her Percy]

No the point is, every time the head honcho of this team is blamed for something, stump goes into defense mode

Yeah, I hate when people want to blame everyone else for a coach, GM or QBs failings.

This one I put primarily on our QB who did what he always does against good defenses though. HC always bears some responsibility for a loss, but it is hard to win with a garbage QB, and today the QB was complete garbage.

Of course you put the blame on the QB. Nobody expects anything different from you. Why would the guy that runs the show not get blamed for this season as a whole so far? But you’re sitting here complaining about 1 bad game out of 4 our QB had. And I’ve seen Kirk play bad, this wasn’t one of those games, this was more of a game flow/game plan issue today along with hill and Bradbury getting abused

I mean Arizona is a solid defense, holding the Rams to 13 right now on the road. But I guess that’s what cousins “always does” against a good defense because he didn’t shred Arizona or anything. We put 33 up on them and nobody has came close to that this season

[Pondering Her Percy]

For all those that were at the game. Did Cousins have room to run? On TV it look like he had opportunities. If the WRs are covered, why does he not try and pick a least a few yards with his feet. I mean has done that a few times this year. Just get something, don't just wait back there for a receiver to get open.

All in all, if the Vikings can not establish the run, Cousins is in trouble.

Cook should have just rested 1 more week. He didn’t look 100%, I think it screwed with our game plan and it was a big part of why they were so out of sync But then all of the sudden he comes in at the end of the game and looks fine. Like what?

[YikesVikes]

Yeah, I hate when people want to blame everyone else for a coach, GM or QBs failings.

This one I put primarily on our QB who did what he always does against good defenses though. HC always bears some responsibility for a loss, but it is hard to win with a garbage QB, and today the QB was complete garbage.

Of course you put the blame on the QB. Nobody expects anything different from you. Why would the guy that runs the show not get blamed for this season as a whole so far? But you’re sitting here complaining about 1 bad game out of 4 our QB had. And I’ve seen Kirk play bad, this wasn’t one of those games, this was more of a game flow/game plan issue today along with hill and Bradbury getting abused

I mean Arizona is a solid defense, holding the Rams to 13 right now on the road. But I guess that’s what cousins “always does” against a good defense because he didn’t shred Arizona or anything. We put 33 up on them and nobody has came close to that this season

Its a divisional game relax. The rules in those go out the window. We always split with the Pack when they tend to beat everyone else.

[StumpHunter]

Yeah, I hate when people want to blame everyone else for a coach, GM or QBs failings.

This one I put primarily on our QB who did what he always does against good defenses though. HC always bears some responsibility for a loss, but it is hard to win with a garbage QB, and today the QB was complete garbage.

Of course you put the blame on the QB. Nobody expects anything different from you. Why would the guy that runs the show not get blamed for this season as a whole so far? But you’re sitting here complaining about 1 bad game out of 4 our QB had. And I’ve seen Kirk play bad, this wasn’t one of those games, this was more of a game flow/game plan issue today along with hill and Bradbury getting abused

I mean Arizona is a solid defense, holding the Rams to 13 right now on the road. But I guess that’s what cousins “always does” against a good defense because he didn’t shred Arizona or anything. We put 33 up on them and nobody has came close to that this season

There is always an excuse for the QB failing it seems.

The Vikings offense put up 26 on AZ.

[VikingLord]

Change is required at HC. Time to build around our (very talented) offense.

Vikings should have hired Stefanski but Wilfs are too stupid to fire Zimmer

Ugh...

The Browns offense under Stefanski is exactly the same as what he tried to run in Minnesota.

He can get away with it because he's got two really solid RBs and a solid OL and also one of the better defenses in the NFL this season.

But no way would I want Stefanski as head coach. That would be like replacing TweedleDee with TweedleDum.

[Pondering Her Percy]

Of course you put the blame on the QB. Nobody expects anything different from you. Why would the guy that runs the show not get blamed for this season as a whole so far? But you’re sitting here complaining about 1 bad game out of 4 our QB had. And I’ve seen Kirk play bad, this wasn’t one of those games, this was more of a game flow/game plan issue today along with hill and Bradbury getting abused

I mean Arizona is a solid defense, holding the Rams to 13 right now on the road. But I guess that’s what cousins “always does” against a good defense because he didn’t shred Arizona or anything. We put 33 up on them and nobody has came close to that this season

There is always an excuse for the QB failing it seems.

The Vikings offense put up 26 on AZ.

Which is the most any team has put up on them. So what’s your point? You said cousins can’t perform against good defenses, that is false.

And yeah there always seems to be an excuse for the most mediocre coach in the nfl since Marvin Lewis too. Funny that you always seem to be the one giving them

[RandyMoss84]

Vikings should have hired Stefanski but Wilfs are too stupid to fire Zimmer

Ugh...

The Browns offense under Stefanski is exactly the same as what he tried to run in Minnesota.

He can get away with it because he's got two really solid RBs and a solid OL and also one of the better defenses in the NFL this season.

But no way would I want Stefanski as head coach. That would be like replacing TweedleDee with TweedleDum.

And yet he took the crappy Browns to a 11-5 record to the playoffs and upset the Stoolers in their house in the playoffs

[Pondering Her Percy]

Of course you put the blame on the QB. Nobody expects anything different from you. Why would the guy that runs the show not get blamed for this season as a whole so far? But you’re sitting here complaining about 1 bad game out of 4 our QB had. And I’ve seen Kirk play bad, this wasn’t one of those games, this was more of a game flow/game plan issue today along with hill and Bradbury getting abused

I mean Arizona is a solid defense, holding the Rams to 13 right now on the road. But I guess that’s what cousins “always does” against a good defense because he didn’t shred Arizona or anything. We put 33 up on them and nobody has came close to that this season

Its a divisional game relax. The rules in those go out the window. We always split with the Pack when they tend to beat everyone else.

Regardless, the point is, the cardinals are a good defense and cousins shredded them. And he said cousins can’t perform against a good defense.

[VikingLord]

This one I put primarily on our QB who did what he always does against good defenses though. HC always bears some responsibility for a loss, but it is hard to win with a garbage QB, and today the QB was complete garbage.

There was one play, I forget which and I think it was in the 2nd quarter, where the Vikings were in 3rd-and-long. Cousins dropped back, and I think he was either sacked or he threw short incomplete, but the replay was from near ground level and it clearly showed a wide open Osborn at least 20 yards downfield. He had his hand up calling for the ball, but Cousins didn't see him even though his eyes were in that general direction.

It does seem like Cousins gets tunnel vision when he plays against teams with a good rush. He doesn't look downfield and instead focuses on the short routes to the point where he's missing wide open guys. No QB hits every wide open receiver or sees every wide open receiver. I get that. But when you are 3rd-and-long and you need those extra yards, for a QB to not be looking at that depth first is almost unforgivable. I mean, the Vikings in that situation didn't need 5 yards. They needed like 20. Osborn could have gotten them 20 and, with a well thrown pass leading him downfield, perhaps a lot more. But Cousins didn't see him and instead was focused on a depth of field that, even if he completed the pass (he may have, I don't remember), wasn't going to keep the drive alive.

I agree with Stump that Cousins reverted to the play that has produced so much criticism of him over the years. He needed to be authoritative and aggressive and instead he was tepid and timid. I get that the Vikings OL sucks now. Watching Hill get dumped literally on his butt on multiple plays, Cleveland and Bradbury get driven into the backfield like blocking dummies, and O'Neill get run around, it's pretty clear this "athletic" OL is going to stuggle if the simplified, short, quick passing game and running game aren't working. But Cousins can still be a mitigating factor in games like this and yet again, he reverted under pressure.

Yeah, there are defensive issues with this team that seem to be endemic as well. I don't think the run defense is going to improve much beyond what we've seen to this point. That isn't good as the Browns bullied them all day on the ground. The pass defense is what it is. The defense over all isn't terrible, but far from championship caliber.

It's going to be a long season in Vikingsland...

[Pondering Her Percy]

This one I put primarily on our QB who did what he always does against good defenses though. HC always bears some responsibility for a loss, but it is hard to win with a garbage QB, and today the QB was complete garbage.

There was one play, I forget which and I think it was in the 2nd quarter, where the Vikings were in 3rd-and-long. Cousins dropped back, and I think he was either sacked or he threw short incomplete, but the replay was from near ground level and it clearly showed a wide open Osborn at least 20 yards downfield. He had his hand up calling for the ball, but Cousins didn't see him even though his eyes were in that general direction.

It does seem like Cousins gets tunnel vision when he plays against teams with a good rush. He doesn't look downfield and instead focuses on the short routes to the point where he's missing wide open guys. No QB hits every wide open receiver or sees every wide open receiver. I get that. But when you are 3rd-and-long and you need those extra yards, for a QB to not be looking at that depth first is almost unforgivable. I mean, the Vikings in that situation didn't need 5 yards. They needed like 20. Osborn could have gotten them 20 and, with a well thrown pass leading him downfield, perhaps a lot more. But Cousins didn't see him and instead was focused on a depth of field that, even if he completed the pass (he may have, I don't remember), wasn't going to keep the drive alive.

I agree with Stump that Cousins reverted to the play that has produced so much criticism of him over the years. He needed to be authoritative and aggressive and instead he was tepid and timid. I get that the Vikings OL sucks now. Watching Hill get dumped literally on his butt on multiple plays, Cleveland and Bradbury get driven into the backfield like blocking dummies, and O'Neill get run around, it's pretty clear this "athletic" OL is going to stuggle if the simplified, short, quick passing game and running game aren't working. But Cousins can still be a mitigating factor in games like this and yet again, he reverted under pressure.

Yeah, there are defensive issues with this team that seem to be endemic as well. I don't think the run defense is going to improve much beyond what we've seen to this point. That isn't good as the Browns bullied them all day on the ground. The pass defense is what it is. The defense over all isn't terrible, but far from championship caliber.

It's going to be a long season in Vikingsland...

Cousins actually took quite a few deep shots today so I disagree with him only focusing on short routes. Unfortunately a couple were called back

[J. Kapp 11]

Unfortunately (or maybe it’s fortunately) I have not seen the game yet. I was in an airport, where I listened to PA and the gang on SiriusXM, then boarded a plane whose WiFi was so bad that I couldn’t get the stream. A lotta good the extra $8 for WiFi got me.

Sounds like the PI call on Kendricks was a huge play. Holding them on 4th and goal from the 2 could’ve changed the entire tenor of the game. Leber and Bersich both thought the call was very ticky tack and had no bearing on the play. What did you guys think?

But two things really disappointed me for the part of the game I got to hear. First was the incredibly stupid extra timeout called on the ensuing extra point, brought on by the Vikings having 12 men on the field. That’s a failure in coaching, and a horrifying return to the bad special teams play that I thought we had moved past.

The other was giving up a rushing first down on 3rd and 20. Again, that’s coaching. Here is where I wish I could’ve seen the play because that’s usually an indicator of playing man to man defense, where defenders are turning their backs. What happened there? Was that the case? Did Zimmer call a blitz? If so, that’s a pretty asinine call for a supposed defensive guru. Keep the damn play in front of you!

Still trying to decided whether I’m even going to go back and watch the game when I get home.

We’re 1-3. Same exact record as last year through four weeks. Very disappointing. If we’re supposed to be better, well, I quote Mr. Parcells: “You are what your record says you are.”

[StumpHunter]

Unfortunately (or maybe it’s fortunately) I have not seen the game yet. I was in an airport, where I listened to PA and the gang on SiriusXM, then boarded a plane whose WiFi was so bad that I couldn’t get the stream. A lotta good the extra $8 for WiFi got me.

Sounds like the PI call on Kendricks was a huge play. Holding them on 4th and goal from the 2 could’ve changed the entire tenor of the game. Leber and Bersich both thought the call was very ticky tack and had no bearing on the play. What did you guys think?

But two things really disappointed me for the part of the game I got to hear. First was the incredibly stupid extra timeout called on the ensuing extra point, brought on by the Vikings having 12 men on the field. That’s a failure in coaching, and a horrifying return to the bad special teams play that I thought we had moved past.

The other was giving up a rushing first down on 3rd and 20. Again, that’s coaching. Here is where I wish I could’ve seen the play because that’s usually an indicator of playing man to man defense, where defenders are turning their backs. What happened there? Was that the case? Did Zimmer call a blitz? If so, that’s a pretty asinine call for a supposed defensive guru. Keep the damn play in front of you!

Still trying to decided whether I’m even going to go back and watch the game when I get home.

We’re 1-3. Same exact record as last year through four weeks. Very disappointing. If we’re supposed to be better, well, I quote Mr. Parcells: “You are what your record says you are.”

That long run on 3rd and 20 probably doesn't happen but the CB on that side completely took himself out of the play. Shouldn't have mattered though.

Defensively, while Cleveland was able to run a lot, the defense did enough to win it easily. Not sure how many teams lose when they only give up 14, but you could probably count those games on one hand each season.

The offense sucked. The protections being called at the line were almost always wrong on blitzes and even when there was no pressure, the QB struggled to hit open guys.

[Purple Reign]

So you really think a FG at the end of the first half was the reason they couldn't score at all in the second half? And what makes you think a team will try harder for a td to win the game instead of a td to tie the game. You must also realize that the Browns passed on a sure FG on their first possession, right? They were lucky to have a chance to tie it at the end of the game.

Yes there is a difference in playing to win vs. playing to tie. Confidence, urgency and play calling all matter.

In that situation, no, there really isn't any difference. I doubt the play calling is any different in that situation - exactly what do you think they would call different? They are still trying to score a td regardless. Urgency should also be the same. Pretty lame excuse.

[VikeFanInEagleLand]

Time management was again terrible. When the Vikings got the ball with 3:45 left in the game, they showed no urgency at all. They were were acting like they had a whole half of football to play. Maybe if they had not run almost 3 minutes off the clock on that possession, they would not have run out of time at the end of the game.

[VikingLord]

Mike Zimmer said this after the game today:

I've been doing this 27 years – I know good teams and I know bad teams," Zimmer added. "I know this team has a chance to be pretty darn good. We may not look like it right now because we're 1-3, but even like [Browns Head Coach Kevin Stefanski] said to me before the game, 'You got a really good football team here.' And they do, too. They were just a little bit better than us today."

* From https://www.vikings.com/news/vikings-of ... n-run-game

I know Zimmer has to stay positive and all, but "a little better than us today"?

Like, 35.5 TOP against better? Like 184 rushing yards against better?

The Browns might have eked by on the scoreboard, but from what I saw this game wasn't all that close. And as good as the Vikings may be or potentially be in their own minds, it appears the extent of it is in their own minds. They are not a bad team per se. When they lose, they won't likely lose by much. But what does Zimmer actually think this team's ceiling is? What does he mean by "pretty darn good"? Like what, barely making the playoffs and then getting ushered out immediately? Or does he think this team as it stands today can actually compete against the better teams?

The plays where Rashod Hill is literally knocked over backwards, or Bradbury is getting driven straight back yet again by a bull rush, or Kendricks is tugging a jersey on 4th-and-goal when he didn't need to. I mean, how good can this team really be?

The Browns are good. That is what a good team looks like. Consistent on both sides of the ball. Minimal miscues, especially in critical situations. Aggressive, but not reckless. If the Browns had more of a downfield passing mentality, I have no doubt they would have scored far more points than they did today. This was like watching a game of keep-away where one of the players is a small kid and one is an adult. It was never a real contest.

And yet there is Zimmer basically minimizing it and trying to convince us he sees something different?

This is a 7 win team max and maybe not even that. They have a pretty tough schedule. They pretty much have to win next week against the Lions, and knowing this team as I know them, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they come into that figuring they can take the week off because the Lions must suck being 0-4 and all. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see them come out and lay an egg against the Lions on both sides of the ball.

I guess the question I have is, how can a team like the Vikings possibly address their shortcomings if their head coach and players don't see what those shortcomings are? If they keep telling themselves they are good when in fact they are not all that good, or at the very least, not playing up to their potential? The first step to improving is admitting there is a problem and then, when the problem has been correctly identified, taking steps to fix it.

As it stands, the Vikings two lines are not good enough. They need better performance out of the players they have and if that is not possible, they need better (or hungrier) players. This team isn't going anywhere unless the line play gets a lot more consistent and a lot better.