Vikings vs. Rams

[J. Kapp 11]

Interesting to read that a defense that essentially scored 10 of our 23 points, and held the #1 scoring offense in the NFL to 23 points was part of the issue yesterday.

To put what the D did in perspective, the Rams, prior to this game averaged 2.78 points per drive. The Vikings D gave up 2.09 points per drive, almost a full point less than they typically give up. For those of you who struggle with per drive stats, if the Vikings had given up per drive what the Rams average, not at their best, but on their average day score, they would have given up 31 points.

It was an outstanding day for the D, and a running back picking up 131 yards in a game where the O struggled to move the football for most of the game doesn't change that.

Offensively, the Vikings O scored 13 points that weren't because of the D. That is 1.3 points per drive on the 10 other drives where they weren't gifted scores, .6 less than the LAR give up per drive on average.

Our offense sucked yesterday despite the D doing its job. The D came to play, the O did not.

I’m glad to see that someone saw the same thing I did.

When was the last time the Minnesota Vikings lost a game to a team whose quarterback had a 46 passer rating? Sure, that could’ve been awfulness by Stafford, or crappy playcalling by Sean McVea, but the fact remains that the defense gave up 23 points, plenty good enough to win, and the Vikings’ offense went 2-5 in the red zone despite getting two takeaways inside the 10.

Nobody is mistaking yesterday’s defense for the 2017 Vikings. But they played well enough to win. The offense did not.

[StumpHunter]

Nobody is mistaking yesterday’s defense for the 2017 Vikings. But they played well enough to win. The offense did not.

Exactly. This isn't an elite D, but it is turning into a defense that is at least okay after a rough middle of the season.

[VikingLord]

It was an outstanding day for the D, and a running back picking up 131 yards in a game where the O struggled to move the football for most of the game doesn't change that.

Why? Because Stafford threw the ball to them 5 times and they managed to snag 3 of those gifts?

Other than than that, what exactly did they do to stop the Rams?

- They didn't stop the run
- They didn't stop the pass. There were maybe a handful of plays where a Viking DB actually jumped a route or otherwise got his hands on a ball in the air.
- They didn't pressure Stafford. Most of the game, he had all the time he needed, which makes his perplexing decision-making and errant throws all the worse.

See, this is the problem right here. You look at the stat sheet and see reason for optimism. It says it right there on the sheet and you can convince yourself that the Stafford INTs were the result of the Vikings defense forcing them and not Stafford just making poor decisions. Largely as a result of that, the defense was good yesterday.

And with that kind of interpretation of this game and the sundry other games like it the Vikings have played this year, we will go on this merry-go-round again next year. Same GM, same coaches, same QB, same pretty much everything because they're really not that bad of a team. Granted, they're not that good of a team either, but they're close.

The way I see it, the Rams offense didn't need to put up a lot of points yesterday and McVeigh could see Stafford wasn't having his best day and so the Rams stuck with the run game since the run game was all they needed. That kept their points total down a bit compared to their season average, but had they needed to go arial and be more aggressive I'm sure they would have done that.

[VikingLord]

Nobody is mistaking yesterday’s defense for the 2017 Vikings. But they played well enough to win. The offense did not.

Had the offense done its part yesterday, you're probably right.

However, I'd argue that had the offense done its part yesterday the Rams approach on offense would have changed from a more conservative one to a more aggressive one.

I didn't really see the Vikings DBs shutting the Ram passing game down when Stafford wasn't throwing interceptions to them inside his 20, and I didn't see the Vikings pass rush getting to him either, so there is little to make me believe the Rams wouldn't have hit them over the top for big plays had they simply attempted them. I recall saying something to the effect of "When is Stafford going to chuck a few 50-50 balls down the sideline"? The Rams never tried it because they didn't need to.

The Vikings defense can't defend the run. All year its been the same story.

They're marginally better against the pass, but make precious few plays on the ball and even fewer plays in contested situations. The stats don't lie. Not in yesterday's game, and not for the season. The Vikings defense is the league's 28th rated defense overall (27th against the pass, 27th against the run). I would argue they were about that bad yesterday, too. The one thing they've done well this year (sack the QB, which somehow they are, or perhaps were, first in the league) they failed to do once yesterday.

[VikingLord]

If you have a beef with Covid affecting your favorite team, it shouldn't be with the players being infected, it should be with the NFL not doing enough to stop the spread.

So the NFL is responsible for the issues with COVID and not the individual players and their personal decisions?

You can't be seriously suggesting the players deserve no scrutiny or criticism in this situation.

[Maelstrom88]

I was paying special attention to whether the defense affected Stafford in the pocket. Outside of the first Barr int I don't remember them making him move his feet at all. I'll give Tomlinson credit for tipping the second int though.

[VikeFanInEagleLand]

Why? Because Stafford threw the ball to them 5 times and they managed to snag 3 of those gifts?

... You look at the stat sheet and see reason for optimism. It says it right there on the sheet and you can convince yourself that the Stafford INTs were the result of the Vikings defense forcing them and not Stafford just making poor decisions.

So you're saying that they weren't forced? On Barr's first INT, Watts almost sacked Stafford, and then with Richardson coming right at him he threw the ball out to the flat where Barr picks it off. On the second INT, Tomlinson tips the ball at the line and Barr comes down with it. The only unforced one was the deep throw that Xavier Woods picked off.

If you don't think those are forced, then I'd like to hear you give some examples of what you think is a forced interception.

[StumpHunter]

Nobody is mistaking yesterday’s defense for the 2017 Vikings. But they played well enough to win. The offense did not.

Had the offense done its part yesterday, you're probably right.

However, I'd argue that had the offense done its part yesterday the Rams approach on offense would have changed from a more conservative one to a more aggressive one.

You are right that the offense can play a role in defensive success, but I would argue if the offense had done its part the Rams O would have been even worse and Stafford would have made even more mistakes. They were able to run it as effectively as they did because they didn't have to become one dimensional to keep up with our O. That changes and it is a good thing for the D, not bad.

The Vikings defense can't defend the run. All year its been the same story.

This is absolutely true. They spent a good chunk of their cap on Tomlinson to get better at stopping the run, and that didn't happen. They aren't the worst team against the run, but they are bottom ten.

They're marginally better against the pass, but make precious few plays on the ball and even fewer plays in contested situations. The stats don't lie. Not in yesterday's game, and not for the season. The Vikings defense is the league's 28th rated defense overall (27th against the pass, 27th against the run). I would argue they were about that bad yesterday, too. The one thing they've done well this year (sack the QB, which somehow they are, or perhaps were, first in the league) they failed to do once yesterday.

Again we can look at the impact of the offense on the defense with these stats. The Vikings' D has been asked to defend the 4th most drives of any team this year. For context, that is 21 more drives than GB or 2 games worth more drives to defend. Yards are also not very good indicators of a good defense. Chicago for instance is top 10 in total yards given up and no one would mistake that D for a top 10 D.

From a per drive standpoint, this D is currently sitting at 20th in PPD, which is best in the division. After this week they will likely jump to around 16th and will probably end the season statistically a very average defense. This, after being 8th best 7 weeks in prior to Hunter's injury.

The D has been bad in stretches, particularly when their top guys were all hurt in the middle of the season, but they seem to have gotten things figured out a bit recently. Unfortunately this righting of the ship on D has coincided with the O sinking fast.

[StumpHunter]

If you have a beef with Covid affecting your favorite team, it shouldn't be with the players being infected, it should be with the NFL not doing enough to stop the spread.

So the NFL is responsible for the issues with COVID and not the individual players and their personal decisions?

You can't be seriously suggesting the players deserve no scrutiny or criticism in this situation.

The NFL is responsible for the strategy to limit the spread of Covid in the workplace, the players can only do so much being constantly exposed due to bad policies. Getting a vaccine would help, but in the end the best strategy to preventing the spread is lots of testing. Which is why there were so many fewer cases last year with lots more testing without the vaccine than this year with the vaccine.

[VikingsVictorious]

How about him not filling his lanes all game long. How about him always slow to dx the run and that's why the huge holes are happening. The ints look nice but he had a terrible game.

I agree. He never seems to make the right reads. I feel He’s a big part of why the run d is so bad. Need a LB like EJ to blow up runs

he had a GREAT game. I don't care if you think he didn't play the run great two red zone Ints make up for it.

[VikingLord]

So the NFL is responsible for the issues with COVID and not the individual players and their personal decisions?

You can't be seriously suggesting the players deserve no scrutiny or criticism in this situation.

The NFL is responsible for the strategy to limit the spread of Covid in the workplace, the players can only do so much being constantly exposed due to bad policies. Getting a vaccine would help, but in the end the best strategy to preventing the spread is lots of testing. Which is why there were so many fewer cases last year with lots more testing without the vaccine than this year with the vaccine.

You mean like the testing the Packers did with the "immunized" Aaron Rodgers?

Even the best policies require individuals and organizations to take personal responsibility for individual and community safety.

[VikingsVictorious]

I’m sorry but getting rid of all the players that didn’t get vaccinated is a really dumb thing to go off of in terms of roster management. So we cut Thielen, Harrison, dalvin, etc? Literally makes zero sense. The vaccine has nothing to do with football. It’s personal choice.

Let's forget what's happening in the world for the sake of argument.

NFL has a vaccine policy (let's forget it's the political COVID19 vaccine). NFL states if you take the vaccine and catch a virus (measles, chicken pox, whatever), you can come back to work at anytime as long as you test negative twice before the next game. If you don't take the vaccine and become infected, you have to sit out minimum 10 days of when you test positive. That means you guarantee will miss one game, possibly two. For star players, I think it's unacceptable. Look at what happen to Cook. If he was vaccinated, he could have possibly played today and made a difference in a game where the offense was struggling. His choice actually now becomes the difference between the Vikings making and missing the playoffs. Your "personal" choice argument now affects the entire organization, possibly affecting peoples jobs. . It's a choice, but not a personal one. Imagine if the Vikings were good this year and were in a race for HFA and this happened. Hard enough for players to stay healthy.

So yes, I'd kick Cousins, Cook, Thielen, Mattison, Smith off the team. You can't build a cohesive team with selfish players.

It has nothing to do with Selfish or not Selfish. If you want to kick those guys off the team be my guest, but it would lead to several seasons of 1-4 wins at most. Maybe we get some draft luck and get back to where we are now in 6 or 7 years.

[VikingsVictorious]

Let's forget what's happening in the world for the sake of argument.

NFL has a vaccine policy (let's forget it's the political COVID19 vaccine). NFL states if you take the vaccine and catch a virus (measles, chicken pox, whatever), you can come back to work at anytime as long as you test negative twice before the next game. If you don't take the vaccine and become infected, you have to sit out minimum 10 days of when you test positive. That means you guarantee will miss one game, possibly two. For star players, I think it's unacceptable. Look at what happen to Cook. If he was vaccinated, he could have possibly played today and made a difference in a game where the offense was struggling. His choice actually now becomes the difference between the Vikings making and missing the playoffs. Your "personal" choice argument now affects the entire organization, possibly affecting peoples jobs. . It's a choice, but not a personal one. Imagine if the Vikings were good this year and were in a race for HFA and this happened. Hard enough for players to stay healthy.

So yes, I'd kick Cousins, Cook, Thielen, Mattison, Smith off the team. You can't build a cohesive team with selfish players.

I feel the same way. Couldn't believe it when Smith, Thielen, and Cook were named captains too. Makes all the losing this season way less frustrating at least.

How many games has Cousins missed due to being unvaccinated. To me he was the least likely player on the team to miss time due to COVID due to his strictly following all protocols.

[VikingLord]

Why? Because Stafford threw the ball to them 5 times and they managed to snag 3 of those gifts?

... You look at the stat sheet and see reason for optimism. It says it right there on the sheet and you can convince yourself that the Stafford INTs were the result of the Vikings defense forcing them and not Stafford just making poor decisions.

So you're saying that they weren't forced? On Barr's first INT, Watts almost sacked Stafford, and then with Richardson coming right at him he threw the ball out to the flat where Barr picks it off. On the second INT, Tomlinson tips the ball at the line and Barr comes down with it. The only unforced one was the deep throw that Xavier Woods picked off.

If you don't think those are forced, then I'd like to hear you give some examples of what you think is a forced interception.

What do you consider a "forced" interception?

I consider a forced interception to be when a DB reads a route, cuts it, and picks the ball.

I don't consider a forced interception when a QB throws a ball he has no business attempting to throw, nor is a tipped ball that pops up in the air and right into the hands of a defensive player a forced interception. That is a good play by the defender who tipped the ball, sure, but more bad luck for the QB throwing it than even a bad decision or throw (although Stafford made plenty of those on his own).

For the record, I don't consider Cousins' INT in the endzone as his fault or a bad throw or even a bad decision. It was a back shoulder throw (I hope intentional, although with the way Cousins has been winging it as of late I'm not entirely sure on the intention of the placement. It might have been an inaccurate throw) that Osborne just couldn't corral and it bounced up and into the hands of the DB. Bad luck more than anything.

Anyway, for those who prefer to see the Vikings defense this year as good, more power to you. You're very likely to see much the same group and approach to defense next year if the Wilfs see it the same way you do.

[VikingLord]

You are right that the offense can play a role in defensive success, but I would argue if the offense had done its part the Rams O would have been even worse and Stafford would have made even more mistakes. They were able to run it as effectively as they did because they didn't have to become one dimensional to keep up with our O. That changes and it is a good thing for the D, not bad.

But the Rams were one-dimensional most of the game yesterday. Not because they had to be, but because the Vikings defense couldn't stop that one dimension. They got ahead and remained ahead and could run with impunity so why take risks with their starting QB who was clearly not playing at a high level?

From a per drive standpoint, this D is currently sitting at 20th in PPD, which is best in the division. After this week they will likely jump to around 16th and will probably end the season statistically a very average defense. This, after being 8th best 7 weeks in prior to Hunter's injury.

Very average defense. That's great if you are OK with setting that as the bar to clear.

Are you OK with that?

Personally, I'd like them to actually be good enough to put this team into the Superbowl conversation.

The D has been bad in stretches, particularly when their top guys were all hurt in the middle of the season, but they seem to have gotten things figured out a bit recently. Unfortunately this righting of the ship on D has coincided with the O sinking fast.

I don't see how you arrive at that conclusion.

They've been terrible at stopping the run all year. The Bears ran it on them. The Rams ran it on them. The Packers will run it on them next week. Same thing pretty much every game and really regardless of who is on the field.

They've been spotty at stopping the pass all year. When they have limited the pass it's been mostly due to pressure on the QB. No pressure and opposing QBs have lit up a passive, often confused secondary that can't defend 50-50 lob passes and leaves opposing receivers wide open down the field on a regular basis.

They've been historically bad giving up points to end both halves. Historically as in the history of the NFL and not just recent history.

They are also chock full of stop-gap vets at many positions who are playing key roles. I can't look at the defense and see a lot of young pillars upon which this defense will be built and grow around.

Anyway, you see what you want to see, but what we'll all be watching in what, 2 weeks or so, is the Vikings players packing up their lockers for the offseason and a bunch of other teams playing meaningful games, including the Packers for the 3rd year in a row as NFC North Champs and likely playing in a 3rd straight NFC Championship game.