Vikings Message Board.Com

J. Kapp 11 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 9:45 pm

CharVike wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 9:09 pm
Losing a home favorite game is good play to you. I don't call that a good game. I could see if he was an underdog. Plus we sold out to stop the run. IMO Zim felt it was more important to shut Zeke down. Don't you wonder why that was the case? He was more afraid of the RB than the QB. That says nothing at all to you. Dak lost to the Saints, Packers and US. That's the three best teams he played against. That's not good play in my book. But the media and some fans think it's the all time greatest. It was 3 Ls. That sucks.

You're kidding, right?

Do you honestly think if a team loses, it's automatically the quarterback's fault?

And by the way, I'm talking about how he played against the Vikings on Sunday, not all the other games.

If you can't admit that a guy can play well in defeat, then I have no reasonable response. That's your problem, not mine.

J. Kapp 11 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 9:45 pm

Do you honestly think if a team loses, it's automatically the quarterback's fault?

CharVike wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 11:16 pm I don't understand that one either. I'm not a fantasy guy.

CharVike wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 11:16 pm Last year he ripped the Rams a new one but we lost. Many pointed at Cousins as the loser. He threw for over 400 yards we had 31 points and still got flack. Not from me because the defense sucked and lost it for us.

fiestavike wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 5:08 pm

Pondering Her Percy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 11:33 am

Huh? I hope you didnt just make this up because I've gone through the last 4 games and literally cant find a single pass play where we dont block the DE at all and just let him rush free other than that one (or screens). I'm not sure where you're getting this idea from but I sure havent seen it. Quick pass or not, you dont just let a guy run free on your blindside because if it's not there, your QB is going to get killed. That's just a poorly designed play if that was the case but either way, I can guarantee it wasnt. Reiff missed his assignment.




Again, go watch the play. No there wasnt time. The screenshot I posted, the WRs STILL werent out of their breaks and that was at the point where Kirk could no longer throw without getting stripped sacked. So if the WRs STILL werent out of their breaks at the time of that shot, how could he have thrown the ball any earlier and complete it?? He couldnt. Because that would mean they are even further away from being out of their breaks. And if he throws it THAT early, there is a good chance that results in an INT. It's not like these were deep routes where the ball takes time to travel so you can throw with anticipation. This is the type of pass that's fired at the WR the second he comes out of his break. The screen shot proves that he couldnt have thrown it the second they came out of their breaks because Quinn was already there.




.....again like I said above, the WRs arent out of their breaks in this shot so how could he throw with anticipation any earlier? He couldnt without it being a turnover.

I dont understand how you dont see that and why you're even trying to argue this. I've never in my life heard of a pass play designed to allow a blindside DE have a free rush at a QB outside of some sort of screen. No chip, no block, no nothing. Just here ya go, go kill our QB. Clearly Kirk had no idea Reiff wasnt going to block him. Reiff went and doubled a guy that had little to do with the play. And whether Kirk miraculously got that out or if he didnt, he was going to get crushed regardless. Why would you design a play like that? Better yet, how often do you see a blindside DE get a free rush on a pass play across the league? Hardly ever. You trying to now convince me that this was how the play is designed isnt going to work. Reiff not blocking him was NOT the play design I can just about guarantee that. Nobody in the right mind willingly gives a DE a free shot at their QB, from his blindside no less

Let's get back to this:

Fiesta, I get what you're trying to say but using the Robert Quinn sack Sunday night is a poor example

Fine, let's say we aren't going to agree on that play and set it aside. If you can generally understand what I am saying in the post you were responding to there, and just disagree with that one example, that seems like a good starting place. And actually, it seems like a good ending place.

Dames wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:13 am We're divided into 2 groups:

A. ) Fans that review at the stats and gauge the level of influence that a certain position (in this case QB) had on the outcome of a game (or season). This group cares about the win or loss, but needs to know why it happened.

B.) Fans that essentially don't care about the stats. They may acknowledge them, but ultimately only care about the win or loss. Nothing else matters.

There nothing wrong with either group.

I'm firmly in group A. I understand group B, because ultimately everything in this league is all about wins. My mind is too analytical though, so I'll always need to know the reasons why we won or lost. For me, placing the blame on a QB for a loss in all cases makes no sense. Group B thinks it makes perfect sense.

Neither group is going to convince the other, but we'll keep trying anyway.

There might be a group C: People that just like to stir the pot.

Pondering Her Percy wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:57 am

Dames wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:13 am We're divided into 2 groups:

A. ) Fans that review at the stats and gauge the level of influence that a certain position (in this case QB) had on the outcome of a game (or season). This group cares about the win or loss, but needs to know why it happened.

B.) Fans that essentially don't care about the stats. They may acknowledge them, but ultimately only care about the win or loss. Nothing else matters.

There nothing wrong with either group.

I'm firmly in group A. I understand group B, because ultimately everything in this league is all about wins. My mind is too analytical though, so I'll always need to know the reasons why we won or lost. For me, placing the blame on a QB for a loss in all cases makes no sense. Group B thinks it makes perfect sense.

Neither group is going to convince the other, but we'll keep trying anyway.

There might be a group C: People that just like to stir the pot.

Good post Dames. Definitely in group A myself. I've always said I try and figure out the "why" when we lose a game. Not just see a loss, throw it on the QB and call it a day. I dig into anything and everything I can.

Pondering Her Percy wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:57 am

Dames wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:13 am We're divided into 2 groups:

A. ) Fans that review at the stats and gauge the level of influence that a certain position (in this case QB) had on the outcome of a game (or season). This group cares about the win or loss, but needs to know why it happened.

B.) Fans that essentially don't care about the stats. They may acknowledge them, but ultimately only care about the win or loss. Nothing else matters.

There nothing wrong with either group.

I'm firmly in group A. I understand group B, because ultimately everything in this league is all about wins. My mind is too analytical though, so I'll always need to know the reasons why we won or lost. For me, placing the blame on a QB for a loss in all cases makes no sense. Group B thinks it makes perfect sense.

Neither group is going to convince the other, but we'll keep trying anyway.

There might be a group C: People that just like to stir the pot.

Good post Dames. Definitely in group A myself. I've always said I try and figure out the "why" when we lose a game. Not just see a loss, throw it on the QB and call it a day. I dig into anything and everything I can.

Dames wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:37 am

CharVike wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 11:16 pm Last year he ripped the Rams a new one but we lost. Many pointed at Cousins as the loser. He threw for over 400 yards we had 31 points and still got flack. Not from me because the defense sucked and lost it for us.

That's exactly why some of us go crazy with the blame game. Kirk played great in that game, but in the end he was strip sacked, and what we view as the anti-Cousins group had a field day because he didn't win in the end. The analytical crowd can't understand that.

It's interesting that you see Dak as a loser though. That stats say otherwise. He threw for nearly 400 yards and 3 TDs on Sunday.

CharVike wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:15 pm

Dames wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:37 am
That's exactly why some of us go crazy with the blame game. Kirk played great in that game, but in the end he was strip sacked, and what we view as the anti-Cousins group had a field day because he didn't win in the end. The analytical crowd can't understand that.

It's interesting that you see Dak as a loser though. That stats say otherwise. He threw for nearly 400 yards and 3 TDs on Sunday.

He played 3 teams that are considered good teams and lost all three. I think it was US, Saints and the Pack. In the NFL the QB position gets the W or L. Just like a pitcher in baseball. Is it all him? No. But that position contributes more to an offense than any other. Of course there are outliers. Just as Cousins is considered a loser the same could be said of Dak. Many have #### about getting Zeke involved because he was garbage that game. IMO that's short sighted. Supposedly he's a very good player. So if he starts off with 10 carries and only 20 yards do you say F it he sucks today? I wouldn't approach it like that. But Garrett is getting ripped for giving him the ball. He's the straw that stirs the drink and fans suggest not using him. Maybe I don't know football but I've seen RBs start off slowly and then pick it up. But the NFL isn't about RBs it's about QBs. Part of that is the win/loss record.

Dames wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:25 am

CharVike wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 11:16 pm I don't understand that one either. I'm not a fantasy guy.

That was probably meant as a jab, but that's actually an insightful comment. Fantasy football probably has a lot to do with why analytics has become so popular among fans. It's not the only reason of course. I use analytics for fantasy all the time, and for me that has led into analyzing the Vikings stats. I wonder how much I would use it if I didn't play fantasy football though. I'm not saying it's not valid though.

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 10:42 am

Pondering Her Percy wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:57 am

Good post Dames. Definitely in group A myself. I've always said I try and figure out the "why" when we lose a game. Not just see a loss, throw it on the QB and call it a day. I dig into anything and everything I can.

Ignoring all stats that disagree with your point of view while propping up the ones that support your locked in stone thought on a game/season/player/coach.

Dames wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:13 am We're divided into 2 groups:

A. ) Fans that review at the stats and gauge the level of influence that a certain position (in this case QB) had on the outcome of a game (or season). This group cares about the win or loss, but needs to know why it happened.

B.) Fans that essentially don't care about the stats. They may acknowledge them, but ultimately only care about the win or loss. Nothing else matters.

There nothing wrong with either group.

I'm firmly in group A. I understand group B, because ultimately everything in this league is all about wins. My mind is too analytical though, so I'll always need to know the reasons why we won or lost. For me, placing the blame on a QB for a loss in all cases makes no sense. Group B thinks it makes perfect sense.

Neither group is going to convince the other, but we'll keep trying anyway.

There might be a group C: People that just like to stir the pot.