Vikings Message Board.Com

Arma wrote: It's a preseason game, there is no adjustments to be made; that's pointless as it just puts free film out for week 1. It was a vanilla offense made to do some quick reads, take a few hits to get used to playing football again, and maybe a good drive. The fact that the Bills took this game seriously and ran a full-fledged defense is the reason we looked so bad. I hate Musgrave way more then most, but you really shouldn't expect changes to be made.

So why play preseason at all? Rumor is AD is playing next Sunday. Why? Why is Ponder in there at all if he is already considered the starter? Why are any starters playing?

Its to prepare them for the first game. Its also to prepare the coaches. Theres enough tape oin both the Bills and Vikes that if anyone on the Vikes knew how to slow down the smack down they were taking, they would have. Yes, the score doesn't matter. But when your Oline is getting SMOKED, both starters and backups for 2 weeks in a row, there is an underlying problem. And we have a QB right now that has his hands full without the Oline being worse then last week.

Its not panic time, but its sad to see that a lot of people are using AD not playing yet as an excuse for the preseason Vikes looking so bad. And the D, mainly the LBs are worse then I think 90% of the people thought. To me it looks like a team that just started the OTAs, not a team going into the biggest of the preseason games.

All i can say is wow. You would think we just lost our 50th game in a row if you didnt know any better and came to read this board.
Talk about depressing.

PurpleMustReign wrote:All i can say is wow. You would think we just lost our 50th game in a row if you didnt know any better and came to read this board.
Talk about depressing.

... and in this thread, it's all over a preseason game!

Right, it's ONLY about this 1 preseason game and not a trend we see spanning 2+ seasons.

Reignman wrote:Right, it's ONLY about this 1 preseason game and not a trend we see spanning 2+ seasons.

No kidding. And the first few games, which at this rate look like they will be crushing loses, will be, 'well its just the first few games, relax'! Even though they are division rivals.

Mothman wrote: ... and in this thread, it's all over a preseason game!

Well, losing 3 in a row doesn't feel so good. Realistically, it'll probably be 4 coming up here shortly. Preseason or not, losing isn't fun. But it's not the losing that's the issue; it's all of the key areas that the team is struggling. I get that it's preseason, but I don't think anyone is out of line for expressing their concern for the way this team looked last night. It was downright awful.

I think the '98 Viking went something like 1-3 in the Pre-Season... Doesn't mean the 2013 team is going 15-1, nor does it mean they are going 4-12. Pre-Season records are consistent in that they are not a reliably indicator of regular season performance.

OMFG really? Is this really happening? I am trying to be positive about the PRESEASON and people are flaming me?

What happened to the real football discussions? What happened to actually analyzing things about the games? This is a football board, is it not? Is losing a preseason game so bad that we can't have a decent conversation about the game without it turning into a mass suicide ritual.

IT IS A PRESEASON GAME. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE VIKINGS, DON'T WATCH THEM.

mansquatch wrote:I think the '98 Viking went something like 1-3 in the Pre-Season... Doesn't mean the 2013 team is going 15-1, nor does it mean they are going 4-12. Pre-Season records are consistent in that they are not a reliably indicator of regular season performance.

No, the Vikings went 4-0 in 98. They, however, also went 4-0 in 2001, and finished 5-11. The year Detroit went 0-16? 4-0 in the preseason. If I am not mistaken, the year the Patriots went 18-1... 2-2 in the Preseason.

I don't think a single person is #### about losing a preseason game. It's how terrible the viking looked in that game. If they lost 27 - 24 or something and looked decent in the first half, nobody would care.

PurpleMustReign wrote:OMFG really? Is this really happening? I am trying to be positive about the PRESEASON and people are flaming me?

What happened to the real football discussions? What happened to actually analyzing things about the games? This is a football board, is it not? Is losing a preseason game so bad that we can't have a decent conversation about the game without it turning into a mass suicide ritual.

IT IS A PRESEASON GAME. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE VIKINGS, DON'T WATCH THEM.

Who doesn't like the Vikings? I lub them.

Are you honestly surprised with the concern after that game? I don't see any more griping around here than usual, but it actually makes sense this time. I get it--and I'm one of the most positive fans around. Always have been. But keeping it real, that game was disturbing. It's preseason; we all get that. But the Vikings offense should look a lot better at this point. Isn't that what we were supposed to be working on? I think we all expected more at this point.

And for those who are saying, "Calm down. It's just preseason! Get over it!" Did you see how Ponder was getting KILLED OUT THERE?!?! Unacceptable on so many levels. I mean, if you think it's okay to have your starting QB being chased, hit, sacked, and possibly eventually even injured in the preseason...more power to ya, but I'm not down with that! It wasn't okay. Simple as that. Can it get better? Sure. Will it? Most likely, but...it still wasn't okay and it won't be until we see that the Vikings have improved next time around. Then we can all put this behind us. I hope they show us that. Against the Niners could be even worse. I'd rather not have Ponder be on his back all game and possibly injured. (Although, some would probably like that! No!) Yeah, the offense was off, but I'm more upset with the protection and staying healthy issue! It could have been much worse. Frankly, I think we're lucky that Ponder didn't get some sort of injury, especially on that one play that two guys got him at once...one kind of high and one kind of low. It was ugly!

But, we should all take it easy on the Vikes...after all, wasn't this thread originally Vikings vs. Bears? And plus preseason isn't even spelled right? We're a little sloppy all around. We'll pull it together!

PurpleKoolaid wrote: So why play preseason at all? Rumor is AD is playing next Sunday. Why? Why is Ponder in there at all if he is already considered the starter? Why are any starters playing?

Its to prepare them for the first game. Its also to prepare the coaches. Theres enough tape oin both the Bills and Vikes that if anyone on the Vikes knew how to slow down the smack down they were taking, they would have. Yes, the score doesn't matter. But when your Oline is getting SMOKED, both starters and backups for 2 weeks in a row, there is an underlying problem. And we have a QB right now that has his hands full without the Oline being worse then last week.

Its not panic time, but its sad to see that a lot of people are using AD not playing yet as an excuse for the preseason Vikes looking so bad. And the D, mainly the LBs are worse then I think 90% of the people thought. To me it looks like a team that just started the OTAs, not a team going into the biggest of the preseason games.

I don't disagree with how bad we looked. Just simply stating expecting any sort of big gameplan to change over a few series isn't to be expected at all. There's no reason to show anything other then vanillia; because it's preseason.

Again, we looked terrible. But I can't blame the coaches for that (gameplanning wise).

I'm watching the replay of the game and just before the 2nd half started, Frazier did an interview with G. Coleman and actually had the ***** to say "WE MOVED THE BALL WELL IN THE 1ST HALF BUT HAD TO SETTLE FOR FIELD GOALS"

What game was he watching
I like Frazier but if he thinks they moved the ball well in that 1st half, were in trouble

radar55 wrote:I'm watching the replay of the game and just before the 2nd half started, Frazier did an interview with G. Coleman and actually had the ***** to say "WE MOVED THE BALL WELL IN THE 1ST HALF BUT HAD TO SETTLE FOR FIELD GOALS"

What game was he watching
I like Frazier but if he thinks they moved the ball well in that 1st half, were in trouble

Yes, odd, right? I actually made a comment about this during the game (yeah..it's too much to go back to read.). That was a bizarre comment, wasn't it? I still can't believe he said it. I made a joke that I must have been out of the room and missed that part. Moved the ball well my....

MelanieMFunk wrote: Yes, odd, right? I actually made a comment about this during the game (yeah..it's too much to go back to read.). That was a bizarre comment, wasn't it? I still can't believe he said it. I made a joke that I must have been out of the room and missed that part.

Sorry about stepping on your post, I did not see the game when it was originally played and did not read the all the game posts prior to making my comment.