Vikings Message Board.Com

808vikingsfan wrote: Re reading what you and Jim wrote, I see what you're saying. I just think there is a different dimension or element that comes into play. Booing, heckling, yelling, I'm sure every fan has done it at one time or another. But cheering when a player is lying down, not even knowing if he needs to be carted off on a stretcher, that just has a different feeling to me. Almost evil. There's a line that shouldn't be crossed and I feel it was crossed on that day. The Reginald Denny beating. For me, It has a similar feeling to it. I'm sure there's a better example I could use but that's what comes into my mind.

I know what you're saying. I agree that there's a difference. I'm just saying it comes from the same mean-spirited place.

There are different degrees of booing too. Booing the team for a lousy effort is different from booing a player just for walking on the field and even the latter can be different from one situation to the next. For example, if he's just a player who hasn't been good, that's not the same as booing a player who has committed a nasty criminal offense or something.

I understand the Fans and wanting Bridgewater to succeed...

I cheer him on too, but I think its very wrong to do it while Cassel is on the field...

Ponder I have different feeling for... To me he has not earned the respect IMO the Cassel has
and the work and performances Cassel has had so far; IMO earn Cassel this years starting spot
and the fans should stand behind him. Next year if Teddy surpasses him, Great.

mosscarter wrote:2.3 qbr and it probably cost the average fan at least $125.00 per ticket (for a crappy seat) to watch that sick atrocity. i'd boo myself if i played that sadly

Don't flatter yourself so much. You couldn't play so well against Cincinnati's D in your wildest dreams.

808vikingsfan wrote:I think everyone played poorly in the CIN game but yeah, that was a terrible day for Cassel. Carolina game? He actually played well in that game.

I was at the Carolina game and he definitely did not play well.

Considering the circumstances of being jerked around I thought his flat performance against Carolina was not all on his shoulders. But it was certainly flat.

I put CIN squarely on Musgrave's and Frazier's shoulders. We could have won that game if we hadn't taken the try not to lose approach

Webbfann wrote:Considering the circumstances of being jerked around I thought his flat performance against Carolina was not all on his shoulders. But it was certainly flat.

I put CIN squarely on Musgrave's and Frazier's shoulders. We could have won that game if we hadn't taken the try not to lose approach

They lost 42-14 and you blame that on the coaches for taking a "try not to lose approach"

Purple bruise wrote: They lost 42-14 and you blame that on the coaches for taking a "try not to lose approach"

Yup. As I said then:

Webbfann wrote:
We started the game with 2 conservative 3 and outs in textbook Musgrave fashion, and that robbed us of all momentum and confidence coming off last week. The first half was over after 2 series. I too look forward to the adjustment. Hahaha.

Webbfann wrote: Yup. As I said then:

WTF? Well I guess I just can't understand your logic. But if you think that the start of the game by having two conservative 3 and outs was the reason why they lost the game and discount one of the worst QB performance that I have ever seen, then knock yourself out

Okay, Cassel sucked against the Bengals. So what? It's time to let that go and move on. Please.

Webbfann wrote:Considering the circumstances of being jerked around I thought his flat performance against Carolina was not all on his shoulders. But it was certainly flat.

Seriously? Even if you're going to insist he was jerked around, how had he been jerked around at that point? He signed to be the backup, a role he openly acknowledged, and when Ponder was injured, he started against Pittsburgh. A week later, he started against Carolina so at that point, when had he been "jerked around"?

I put CIN squarely on Musgrave's and Frazier's shoulders. We could have won that game if we hadn't taken the try not to lose approach

They were barely ever in that game. Cincy whipped up on them almost from the start. Blaming that "squarely" on the coaching staff and not on the players, who were totally outplayed is a huge stretch.

A quick glance at the play by play for the game shows that even your description of the Vikings starting the game with 2 conservative 3 and outs is highly debatable. On the first drive, they ran twice and Cassel got sacked on third down. That was admittedly a conservative possession.

The second series went like this:

1-10-MIN 20 (13:12) 16-M.Cassel pass incomplete deep right to 84-C.Patterson.
2-10-MIN 20 (13:05) 28-A.Peterson right tackle to MIN 28 for 8 yards (95-W.Gilberry; 58-R.Maualuga).
3-2-MIN 28 (12:23) (Shotgun) 16-M.Cassel pass incomplete short left to 86-C.Ford (95-W.Gilberry). {tipped at the line of scrimmage}
4-2-MIN 28 (12:19) 18-J.Locke punts 46 yards to CIN 26, Center-46-C.Loeffler. 19-B.Tate to CIN 32 for 6 yards (22-H.Smith; 55-M.Mitchell).

There's nothing terribly conservative there. They tried going deep on first down, certainly not a conservative call. Peterson picked up a healthy 8 yards on second down (hardly a play call or result worthy of criticism) and Cassel had a pass tipped and broken up on third down. In other words, the offense didn't execute.

What's really puzzling is how you can look at those first two drives, ascribe blame for the loss to the coaching decisions involved in them and then claim those drives robbed the Vikings of all momentum and that the first half was "over" after those two series. On the very next possession, the Vikes went 54 yards in 4 plays for a TD, hardly indicative of a complete loss of momentum!

Purple bruise wrote:

WTF? Well I guess I just can't understand your logic. But if you think that the start of the game by having two conservative 3 and outs was the reason why they lost the game and discount one of the worst QB performance that I have ever seen, then knock yourself out

The logic is that you build off momentum and learn from mistakes, something our previous brain trust never understood either. After our offensive blowout of the Eagles we had momentum;we came in to the Bengals game with whimpering, predictable and conservative offense instead of aggressive offense. This immediately deprived our offense of the momentum and confidence it had coming in, and deprived us of the opportunity to put the Bengals behind early which was really our only chance to win-to make THEM play from behind.

Webbfann wrote:The logic is that you build off momentum and learn from mistakes, something our previous brain trust never understood either. After our offensive blowout of the Eagles we had momentum;we came in to the Bengals game with whimpering, predictable and conservative offense instead of aggressive offense. This immediately deprived our offense of the momentum and confidence it had coming in, and deprived us of the opportunity to put the Bengals behind early which was really our only chance to win-to make THEM play from behind.

Since you're sticking with this odd explanation, let's dig slightly deeper:

First Vikings possession: conservative and ineffective but the end result was ultimately more about terrible execution than coaching. The line completely blew their protection on third down, Cassel didn't hold onto the ball. The Bengals recovered his fumble and returned it to the 4, setting up...

First Bengals possession: 2 play, 4 yard TD drive.

Second Vikes possession: already described in previous post. Not overly predictable or conservative. Failure to execute on the passing plays resulted in a 3 and out.

Second Bengals possession: The Vikings, supposedly robbed of all momentum by the playcalling on the first two possessions, force an Andy Dalton fumble on the first play of the drive and recover it at their own 46.

Third Vikes possession: A 4 play, 54 yard TD drive on during which Cassel arguably played his best football of the day. The momentum-deprived Vikings just tied the game.

How does that sequence of events fit with your theory that Frazier and Musgrave basically submarined their team's chances to win on the first two drives?

808vikingsfan wrote:I'll change my statement a bit. He actually played pretty well considering the team (Panthers #2 in total defense) The first pick was because he got hit when throwing so you can add some blame to protection. The second INT was a bad throw. It's not like he was wild, or making poor decisions. When he did pass, he was on target for the most part. Carolina just shut down many of the offensive plays.

I understand. It wasn't an awful performance, just an ineffective one.

Mothman wrote: Since you're sticking with this odd explanation, let's dig slightly deeper:

First Vikings possession: conservative and ineffective but the end result was ultimately more about terrible execution than coaching. The line completely blew their protection on third down, Cassel didn't hold onto the ball. The Bengals recovered his fumble and returned it to the 4, setting up...

First Bengals possession: 2 play, 4 yard TD drive.

Second Vikes possession: already described in previous post. Not overly predictable or conservative. Failure to execute on the passing plays resulted in a 3 and out.

Second Bengals possession: The Vikings, supposedly robbed of all momentum by the playcalling on the first two possessions, force an Andy Dalton fumble on the first play of the drive and recover it at their own 46.

Third Vikes possession: A 4 play, 54 yard TD drive on during which Cassel arguably played his best football of the day. The momentum-deprived Vikings just tied the game.

How does that sequence of events fit with your theory that Frazier and Musgrave basically submarined their team's chances to win on the first two drives?

Webbfan, please stop. I mean this in the most caring and helpful way: if you continue this conversation with the position you started with, you're going to embarrass yourself. We've all had emotional responses to certain outcomes and the empirical evidence proves us wrong, and that is what is happening right now. That loss can be rest on a lot of shoulders; blaming it on the previous coaching staff is a tidy way to make us feel better, but they were not the only problems from last year's squad.

Mothman wrote: I understand. It wasn't an awful performance, just an ineffective one.

It's what I think we should expect out of Cassel most games: he'll perform well enough against the bottom third of the league's defenses to put up nice stats, he'll perform well enough against the middle third to give us a chance to win, and the rest of the team will need to bail him out against the top tier defenses. He'll be mostly unspectacular, but anybody who expects him to be spectacular really needs to consider who he has been for his entire career.

Then again, maybe he'll be a late bloomer. He's already far exceeded what anybody thought he could do as a career backup to Matt Leinart at USC. I just don't see him ever rising to the top of the league.

DKSweets wrote:It's what I think we should expect out of Cassel most games: he'll perform well enough against the bottom third of the league's defenses to put up nice stats, he'll perform well enough against the middle third to give us a chance to win, and the rest of the team will need to bail him out against the top tier defenses. He'll be mostly unspectacular, but anybody who expects him to be spectacular really needs to consider who he has been for his entire career.

Well said. I think those are very reasonable expectations.

Then again, maybe he'll be a late bloomer. He's already far exceeded what anybody thought he could do as a career backup to Matt Leinart at USC. I just don't see him ever rising to the top of the league.

If he does, it will be a pleasant surprise for us Vikings fans and, since he seems like a good guy, a nice story.