Vikings Message Board.Com

akvikingsfan wrote: I'm confused by this. Matt Ryan still plays for the Falcons. He hasn't been cut.

I meant Ryan Mallet. Theirs names both have Ryan in them I guess. Its been that kind of day.

PurpleKoolaid wrote: I meant Ryan Mallet. Theirs names both have Ryan in them I guess. Its been that kind of day.

Oh, okay. Yes he is still available, per his Wikipedia page.

Mallet just worked out with some one this last week.. don't know if they signed him or not ?


I wouldn't want him though..

For me personally I really only want a championship...

I started getting my hopes up but after two straight home losses to play off teams I would say
we are likely to get thumped in one game...

Its weird to see a team so hot and cold.. just two very different teams this season..

The first half on Sunday was all about tackling, very similar to what we saw in the Green Bay game. We didn't tackle, gave up some points and then it was all over. This team is built to survive it's offensive short comings via strong defense. The offense is not built to overcome defensive mistakes.

I know everyone is clearing out their spindle on the offense right now, but the above more than anything else is why we lost both of those games. That isn't a defense or even a stamp of approval on the offense, far from it, but it is why we lost. There might be two or three teams in the league that might, MIGHT, be able to dig out of that hole against that opponent, but the Vikings are not one of them.

The offense has problems, but it got us to 8 wins. The defense not showing up on Sunday was the real story, IMO, that is what was different.

mansquatch wrote:With 5 defensive starters hurt on a team whose identity is it's defense, no we are not a contender.

The offensive problems we saw yesterday are a legitimate issue, buy you cannot expect to give up 21 points to a team with a top defense in the first half and have a very good day. To be honest I feel people are over focused on the offense. If our D is going to give up points like it did on Sunday against a mostly toothless Seattle offense, then we will not win another game this season. It is as simple as that.

You are mistaken if you think Seattle's offense is 'mostly toothless'. They may have been earlier this year, but they made some major adjustments after their bye week and are playing some pretty good ball lately. Didn't you see what their toothless offense did last week to Pittsburgh?

mansquatch wrote:The first half on Sunday was all about tackling, very similar to what we saw in the Green Bay game. We didn't tackle, gave up some points and then it was all over. This team is built to survive it's offensive short comings via strong defense. The offense is not built to overcome defensive mistakes.

I know everyone is clearing out their spindle on the offense right now, but the above more than anything else is why we lost both of those games. That isn't a defense or even a stamp of approval on the offense, far from it, but it is why we lost. There might be two or three teams in the league that might, MIGHT, be able to dig out of that hole against that opponent, but the Vikings are not one of them.

The offense has problems, but it got us to 8 wins. The defense not showing up on Sunday was the real story, IMO, that is what was different.

I would blame both the offense and defense. Even if the defense just gave up 10 points they still would have lost. Can't win too many games scoring just 7 points (and it wasn't even the offense that scored).

With a top 20 offensive coordinator and a healthy defense they would be. Norv's lost in 1995 football, and he's still too butt hurt Patterson didn't hook up with his boy Michael Irvin this off season to play him so when he outscores his offense in a single kick return I just have to laugh at what a joke Norv has become in this league.

FIRE NORV!

PurpleKoolaid wrote:The Vikings are 8-4 not 4-8. So theres a chance.

Right now Zimmer and Rick started building the D, and the decided to run the offense through AD. And not around their 1st round draft pick at QB from the year before. I like the idea of building a D first. I love team with dominating D's. I didnt realize how dependent this D was on a few players though. I had hoped they would have looked into the offense a bit more. And the QB spot. Neither Hill Nor Heinenkie is a solution to anything. Wonder if Ryan Mallet is flipping burgers somewhere, or if he got picked up.

I don't really think the defense is dependent on those players on their own. We've played well in games without Barr, Smith, and Sharrif. Griffen was banged up for a while, and Kendricks missed some time. We just can't have three of our best players out all at the same time, especially when all three had very important roles to play in the game plan.

mondry wrote:With a top 20 offensive coordinator and a healthy defense they would be. Norv's lost in 1995 football, and he's still too butt hurt Patterson didn't hook up with his boy Michael Irvin this off season to play him so when he outscores his offense in a single kick return I just have to laugh at what a joke Norv has become in this league.

FIRE NORV!

If Zimmer wanted Patterson in the games on offense, he'd be in the games playing offense. If Zimmer doesn't want 7 step drops, "1995 football", etc., he's in position to say "no" and initiate change. I've been frustrated with Norv since last season but he doesn't call the shots. It's Zimmer's team, his choice of both offense and offensive coordinator. He's getting a pass from most fans as everybody vents about Turner but the buck doesn't stop at Turner.

IF, as people are suggesting, the offensive game plan and scheme are the problem and Norv is stubbornly sticking to what he's doing, it's Zimmer's responsibility to address that.

Mothman wrote: If Zimmer wanted Patterson in the games on offense, he'd be in the games playing offense. If Zimmer doesn't want 7 step drops, "1995 football", etc., he's in position to say "no" and initiate change. I've been frustrated with Norv since last season but he doesn't call the shots. It's Zimmer's team, his choice of both offense and offensive coordinator. He's getting a pass from most fans as everybody vents about Turner but the buck doesn't stop at Turner.

IF, as people are suggesting, the offensive game plan and scheme are the problem and Norv is stubbornly sticking to what he's doing, it's Zimmer's responsibility to address that.

Hopefully he does soon! I'm worried though, he doesn't know much about offense so I don't know if he knows how bad it is. I mean that's why he brought Norv in in the first place because he needed someone with experience.

Tough spot for Zimmer, I'm sure he and Norv are good friends.

mondry wrote:Hopefully he does soon! I'm worried though, he doesn't know much about offense so I don't know if he knows how bad it is. I mean that's why he brought Norv in in the first place because he needed someone with experience.

Tough spot for Zimmer, I'm sure he and Norv are good friends.

Yes, it's a really tough spot, I don't envy him but he needs to address the offense. I don't think Turner's going to be fired and he knows a lot about offense so maybe that's not even necessary. However, some change is necessary so Zimmer may have to get more involved and encourage that change.

Mothman wrote: If Zimmer wanted Patterson in the games on offense, he'd be in the games playing offense. If Zimmer doesn't want 7 step drops, "1995 football", etc., he's in position to say "no" and initiate change. I've been frustrated with Norv since last season but he doesn't call the shots. It's Zimmer's team, his choice of both offense and offensive coordinator. He's getting a pass from most fans as everybody vents about Turner but the buck doesn't stop at Turner.

IF, as people are suggesting, the offensive game plan and scheme are the problem and Norv is stubbornly sticking to what he's doing, it's Zimmer's responsibility to address that.

I agree. If Zimmer truly believes in accountability, it shouldn't stop at the players.

I do think the Vikings have a good chance if they can get healthy.

The sky is not falling for me. It was one of the worst beatings I can remember, but it's just one game.

Are we a contender to make the playoffs? Sure. We're still the Number 5 seed. Win 2 of our last 4, and we finish 10-6. Atlanta (6-6) wouldn't be able to pass us. Meanwhile, Tampa Bay (6-6) would have to win at Carolina in Week 17. The Panthers could be going for an undefeated season, so they're less likely to rest starters.

Seattle can still pass us for the No. 5 seed, but everybody else is out of the Wild Card, for all intents and purposes. So unless we lose at least 3 of our last 4, we're very likely to at least make it as the 6 seed.

Are we a contender "in the NFL," as in "to win the Super Bowl"?

Nope. Not this year.

808vikingsfan wrote:
The sky is not falling for me. It was one of the worst beatings I can remember, but it's just one game.

This is the same mindset I've had after every loss this year (particularly San Fransisco and Denver) and it's still true. I will admit, this game was the most embarrassing of the lot.