Vikings Message Board.Com

dead_poet wrote: McCarthy said Aaron Rodgers is "trying to do too much."

Right on point.

Mothman wrote:
Keep it up, Aaron. FORCE that ball into coverage! Heave it recklessly downfield! Hang onto it too long until you're sacked and fumble it away...

Just down heave it recklessly down field when Sendejo is in coverage!

fiestavike wrote:
Just down heave it recklessly down field when Sendejo is in coverage!

No throw is a reckless throw when Sandejo is in coverage

Cam Chancellor was part of the problem, but also typically Seattle starts weak and gets better as the season progresses. Watching their defense this season, that is what has happened. However, that really wasn't the point, the point was that up until Denver you hadn't faced a top NFL defense. When you did it didn't go well. The Bengals and Raiders are both in the same boat and will likely lose games as they start facing stiffer defensive opponents. Even the vaunted Patriots have yet to really be tested be one of the better defenses this season. They play in Denver though, that will be a great playoff preview.

My point about the GB defense is that it is not good enough to be the primary driver of a win. That was true in all the years I cited and it is true this year as well. It greatly benefits from the offense just as the Vikings Defense has to do more because of the lack of potent offense. In both scenarios the type of play suits the offense it supports, however, if the Vikings offense gets worse, the Defense will continue to be it's dominant self where in the case of the Packers if the Offense sputters, which it has been, the Defense is not going to win them games.

mansquatch wrote:Cam Chancellor was part of the problem, but also typically Seattle starts weak and gets better as the season progresses. Watching their defense this season, that is what has happened. However, that really wasn't the point, the point was that up until Denver you hadn't faced a top NFL defense. When you did it didn't go well. The Bengals and Raiders are both in the same boat and will likely lose games as they start facing stiffer defensive opponents. Even the vaunted Patriots have yet to really be tested be one of the better defenses this season. They play in Denver though, that will be a great playoff preview.

My point about the GB defense is that it is not good enough to be the primary driver of a win. That was true in all the years I cited and it is true this year as well. It greatly benefits from the offense just as the Vikings Defense has to do more because of the lack of potent offense. In both scenarios the type of play suits the offense it supports, however, if the Vikings offense gets worse, the Defense will continue to be it's dominant self where in the case of the Packers if the Offense sputters, which it has been, the Defense is not going to win them games.

It will be interesting when we see the Vikes defense tested by better offenses, especially if that same team defends the run effectively. The Vikes haven't faced many good offenses this season. The Raiders were a good one and the Minnesota defense passed that test handily. The 49ers, Rams, Broncos and Lions offenses are all in the bottom 6 in the league. The Vikings helped them get there but we're far enough into the season now that they can't be credited for those rankings.

The Bears offense is in the middle of the league. It's not bad, not great.

The Chargers offense is the other very productive one the Vikes have faced. They dominated that game but anyone who saw it understands that SD's line was such a disaster they had very little chance against the Vikes defensive front.

So... the Vikings defense has been tested a bit but it's also preyed on some of the league's worst offenses. They'll face some better ones soon, like the Cardinals, Falcons, and Giants. Normally, the Packers would be in that group too but right now, I'm not so sure...

mansquatch wrote:Cam Chancellor was part of the problem, but also typically Seattle starts weak and gets better as the season progresses. Watching their defense this season, that is what has happened. However, that really wasn't the point, the point was that up until Denver you hadn't faced a top NFL defense. When you did it didn't go well. The Bengals and Raiders are both in the same boat and will likely lose games as they start facing stiffer defensive opponents. Even the vaunted Patriots have yet to really be tested be one of the better defenses this season. They play in Denver though, that will be a great playoff preview.

My point about the GB defense is that it is not good enough to be the primary driver of a win. That was true in all the years I cited and it is true this year as well. It greatly benefits from the offense just as the Vikings Defense has to do more because of the lack of potent offense. In both scenarios the type of play suits the offense it supports, however, if the Vikings offense gets worse, the Defense will continue to be it's dominant self where in the case of the Packers if the Offense sputters, which it has been, the Defense is not going to win them games.

Seattle doesn't start the season slow even close to as consistently as GB does, so that is moot.

The Defense already has won us multiple games this year, even when we were undefeated our passing offense was 22nd in the league, I believe.

But one could raise the same issue in reverse, if your Defense sputters, can you Offensive attack win you games?

Seattle doesn't start the season slow even close to as consistently as GB does, so that is moot.

The Defense already has won us multiple games this year, even when we were undefeated our passing offense was 22nd in the league, I believe.

But one could raise the same issue in reverse, if your Defense sputters, can you Offensive attack win you games?

The packers Defense four the first month I thought played pretty good. Now that the offense is not keeping the ball they are getting
exposed. I have not thought the Packers had a good offense since Reggie White played.. at least not consistently good.

jackal wrote: The packers Defense four the first month I thought played pretty good. Now that the offense is not keeping the ball they are getting
exposed. I have not thought the Packers had a good offense since Reggie White played.. at least not consistently good.

The Defense has fallen off a bit but I think it has more to do with key injuries and just dumb mistakes, I dont find them any less talented then I did prior to our losing streak, sure the offense is slumping as well, but It never was doing a great job this year, The D has consistently been bailing them out all year.

Idk how consistent your talking, if you talking on a year to year basis Id agree, those 90s Defenses were the ####, in a good way. We have had good Defenses since then but they usually only last for a couple yo a few years at most.

Mothman wrote:
It will be interesting when we see the Vikes defense tested by better offenses, especially if that same team defends the run effectively. The Vikes haven't faced many good offenses this season. The Raiders were a good one and the Minnesota defense passed that test handily. The 49ers, Rams, Broncos and Lions offenses are all in the bottom 6 in the league. The Vikings helped them get there but we're far enough into the season now that they can't be credited for those rankings.

The Bears offense is in the middle of the league. It's not bad, not great.

The Chargers offense is the other very productive one the Vikes have faced. They dominated that game but anyone who saw it understands that SD's line was such a disaster they had very little chance against the Vikes defensive front.

So... the Vikings defense has been tested a bit but it's also preyed on some of the league's worst offenses. They'll face some better ones soon, like the Cardinals, Falcons, and Giants. Normally, the Packers would be in that group too but right now, I'm not so sure...

San Diego offense ranked 4th.
Oakland offense ranked 6th.
Chicago offense ranked 16th.
Packers offense ranked 21st.

Jordysghost wrote:The Defense already has won us multiple games this year, even when we were undefeated our passing offense was 22nd in the league, I believe.

But one could raise the same issue in reverse, if your Defense sputters, can you Offensive attack win you games?

That's a fair question. I would not want Teddy in a shootout against Rodgers. Neither would the Vikings. If the offense has to win it, it will depend heavily on what Adrian Peterson is doing throughout the game. One thing about Bridgewater is that oftentimes he does lead good drives late in the game. But I'd hate to think that our win would depend on our passing attack through an entire game.

Raptorman wrote:
San Diego offense ranked 4th.
Oakland offense ranked 6th.
Chicago offense ranked 16th.
Packers offense ranked 21st.

Were you just providing rankings or am I missing an underlying point?

Mothman wrote:

Were you just providing rankings or am I missing an underlying point?

Just info.

Raptorman wrote:Just info.

Cool. Thanks, David. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't looking right past a point you were making... it's been a long day so I could easily imagine myself doing that.

Mothman wrote:

Were you just providing rankings or am I missing an underlying point?

Rhodes went out that game, so the Vikes were short handed in the secondary. At one point late in the 4th quarter, the Chargers had a 324 - 285 yardage advantage over the Vikings. That's what a #4 ranked offense can do against a #30 ranked offense.

Oh, the score at the time was 31-7 in favor of the team with fewer yards!

808vikingsfan wrote: Plus his gf is good looking.

Good looking? I would drink her bathwater lol