Vikings Message Board.Com

In spite of everything...I wouldn't consider last weeks game a blowout.

In fact I can probably count on one hand the times this team has been actually blown out over the past 3 seasons. Even the 3-13 season was littered with close games that they lost. They rarely blow out their opponents as well.

VikingLord wrote:If the Vikings don't commit turnovers the score will be closer.

This seems to be how it works out on paper, anyway. I think the Bears offense may be able to score at will on the Vikings. The assumption is that the Vikings offense will fare better against the Bears than it did against the Lions and keep the score close. But you also need to ask whether or not the Bears will commit even half the number of idiotic penalties and undisciplined mistakes that the Lions did. And whether or not frustration and confidence issues may at some point overwhelm the Vikings offense.

The Breeze wrote:In spite of everything...I wouldn't consider last weeks game a blowout.

Has a 10 point win ever been considered a blowout?

I tend to think every team has it's share of fans of all kinds but I'm starting to wonder if Vikes fans in general aren't a particularly cynical bunch. Half of this board seems ready to find the nearest bridge and jump after one loss.

Last week's game _should_ have been a blowout, but luckily the Vikings were playing the Detroit Lions. It should have been 21-7 very early in that game.

Mothman wrote: Has a 10 point win ever been considered a blowout?

I tend to think every team has it's share of fans of all kinds but I'm starting to wonder if Vikes fans in general aren't a particularly cynical bunch. Half of this board seems ready to find the nearest bridge and jump after one loss.

They don't think it be like it is...but it do.

Eli wrote:Last week's game _should_ have been a blowout, but luckily the Vikings were playing the Detroit Lions. It should have been 21-7 very early in that game.

In the immortal words of Pete Hogwallop, "That don't make no sense!"

Is it possible to have watched last week's game and not come away with the conclusion that but for a bunch of stupidity and missed opportunities by the Lions that game wouldn't have been a blowout, and that even with all the miscues the Lions still rang them up for 34 points? In fact, the box score on that one looks incredibly lopsided:

First downs: 28 to 16 in favor of the Lions
Total plays: 77 to 53 in favor of the Lions
Total yards: 469 (!) to 330 in favor of the Lions (and note that 78 of the Vikings yards came on a single play to start the game)
Time of possession: 36:19 to 23:41 in favor of the Lions

Shockingly, and I do mean *shockingly*, both teams actually had the same number of drives (14 to 14). Truly a stunning number given the huge differentials in those other stats.

And once again, the Lions compiled these numbers largely in spite of themselves in many cases. They dropped an easy pick-6. Another defensive score called back due to a stupid block by Suh.

So yeah, let's all tell ourselves that because the final score was only a 10 point differential that the Vikings weren't blown out, but I think most of us know better.

I think after this weekend the final stats and the final score will be more indicative of what really happened. The Bears are not known as a team that shoots itself in the foot a lot, which is one of the reasons why they've largely owned the Vikings at Soldiers Field in recent years.

VikingLord wrote:Is it possible to have watched last week's game and not come away with the conclusion that but for a bunch of stupidity and missed opportunities by the Lions that game wouldn't have been a blowout, and that even with all the miscues the Lions still rang them up for 34 points?

Sure, because the Vikings committed a bunch of stupid miscues and blew opportunities too.

So yeah, let's all tell ourselves that because the final score was only a 10 point differential that the Vikings weren't blown out, but I think most of us know better.

If that's the take on the game you want to have, you're entitled to it but I don't think that's the only viable way to look at it at and the fact is that the final score was 34-24. The game wasn't a blowout.

I think after this weekend the final stats and the final score will be more indicative of what really happened. The Bears are not known as a team that shoots itself in the foot a lot, which is one of the reasons why they've largely owned the Vikings at Soldiers Field in recent years.

Can we just see what happens instead of playing this game of doom and gloom? It really gets old and it's too early in the season for it. The sky is always falling around here.

VikingLord wrote:The Bears are not known as a team that shoots itself in the foot a lot, which is one of the reasons why they've largely owned the Vikings at Soldiers Field in recent years.

Have we been watching the same Jay Cutler led Bears?

808vikingsfan wrote: His stats are good for fantasy owners I would guess, but in the context of a game, having a non existent running game would add too much pressure on Ponder and the defense.

These are my thoughts for the most part. While his overall stats say "Well, he played decent. Not his best game, but not bad." Well, actually, aside from the VERY first offensive play of the game, he didn't do much of anything. Yeah. The 2 touchdowns. Alright. But, who on here is going to tell me that 100 other running backs in the NFL couldn't have done what AP did after that first play? 15 yards rushing, a couple tds when they were close to the end zone, and a couple of catches? I could have done that. Seriously. He wasn't our normal AP after that first play. He just wasn't. With that said, I don't blame him. He can't freaking block for himself! Again, this falls back on the o-line and playcalling. Both have to get a LOT better. Either way, he had a couple good plays--not a good game.

And two plays could have made a difference. Two breakaways for TD could have put the Vikings in the lead. It didn't happen. 10 points is nothing in the NFL. A 10 point lead can melt in 15 seconds. Either way. It can also go to a 24 point lead in 2 plays. You just never know. Sometimes games are won and lost on bad luck, bad bounces of the ball......

MelanieMFunk wrote:But, who on here is going to tell me that 100 other running backs in the NFL couldn't have done what AP did after that first play? 15 yards rushing, a couple tds when they were close to the end zone, and a couple of catches? I could have done that.

With the blocking he was getting? Less than 10 backs I'll wager. (Heck, I'll wager a gajillion dollars since there is no way to "test it" ). On a serious note, look at his 2nd touchdown again. He was hit short of the end zone and he powered his way in. There are few, certainly not 100, backs that would have made that TD. I'm not saying it was his best game, and IF you take away the 1st run his day is a rather bad one. But IF he breaks another 78 yard run, he's on pace to break 2700 yards for the season. That is why I prefer to take the game performance in its totality, rather than "what if" scenarios.

Whatever the case may be it's not ADs fault and it's a travesty the way they use this guy.

Mothman wrote:Half of this board seems ready to find the nearest bridge and jump after one loss.

LOL! True enough. Last week was one game of many. Odds are they come to play today, and win. If they don't, they will come home and win the home opener. Key to not lose the turnover battle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

CalVike wrote: LOL! True enough. Last week was one game of many. Odds are they come to play today, and win. If they don't, they will come home and win the home opener. Key to not lose the turnover battle.

Agreed... and they also need to control the line of scrimmage. I think those are the two main reasons they lost last week. They didn't win either battle.