Vikings Message Board.Com

glenecho wrote:I'm becoming a little annoyed at all the implications online that Walsh is being "attacked". I've been on social media and various football related boards since yesterday's loss and the worst thing I've seen is others like me that believe he should be released. I've not seen any name calling or death threats...yet most online social media outlets seems to want to imply that there have been. Minnesota fans are polite...almost to a fault. Nobody is calling for Walsh's demise...perhaps there are one or two fringe elements out there that are but by and large people have been forgiving. Almost too forgiving (I still think he should be released...NFL is no place for kickers that have choking/confidence issues).

there was a ton of them yesterday. I bet you could dig and find some. I personally read probably 10-15 that had to do with walsh dying, killing himself, catching a disease, and some stuff pretty graphic in sexual nature. it's par for the course unfortunately when something like this happens in sports. but they most certainly were out there. maybe the idiots posting those things wised up a hair and decided to remove them?

I think if you wanted to make a case to fire Walsh it should have been done last year. Doing it now is just scapegoating. He had a good year. Top 11 for sure. Had he missed 1 less field goal, likely top 6. I think had we had a real home in a dome it is likely he would have made 1 or 2 more, which statistically speaking is a world of difference. Zimmer pointed out that this was the only playoff game ever hosted at a temporary stadium.

I don't blame anyone for saying anything at the game. You just sat in the freezing cold for a few hours and there was a lot of disappointment surrounding you to feed off of. You also don't get to cut to commercial at the game. You get a walk of shame.

IrishViking wrote: ...I mean, the whole section I was in started a "f@#$ Walsh" chant at the end of the game...

HA! OK...I stand corrected then...

Mothman wrote:Don't forget, Walsh is one of the better kickoff kickers in the league. That matters, especially for a team that leans heavily on it's defense.

On the balance he had a fantastic game in very difficult conditions. His kickoffs were consistently not returnable. Compare that to the Seattle kicker who gave Patterson several attempts. He scored the only points for the Vikings all afternoon, including two from a range that I bet most kickers would have really struggled to hit in those conditions.

Kickoffs wont matter next year, we play inside. Any decent kicker should have the distance. I want the accuracy. Esp. from 40 yards or less. Its nice to hit the big ones, but sometimes kickers not known for strong legs can hit a 50 yarder. I have lost the tiny bit of trust I had in Walsh.

PurpleKoolaid wrote:Kickoffs wont matter next year, we play inside. Any decent kicker should have the distance. I want the accuracy. Esp. from 40 yards or less. Its nice to hit the big ones, but sometimes kickers not known for strong legs can hit a 50 yarder. I have lost the tiny bit of trust I had in Walsh.

Until you have a kicker who cant nail anything beyond 45 and gets wide rights and lefts past 40. Then we will wonder where Walsh is.

The peterson Fumble was a much bigger deal. Wins or loss should never come down to a kicker. When the games comes down to that rest assured somebody else didn't do their job well

Laserman wrote:The peterson Fumble was a much bigger deal. Wins or loss should never come down to a kicker. When the games comes down to that rest assured somebody else didn't do their job well

So a non scoring turnover is more important than a scoring play? Or do. You just hate AD?

Cold is temporary. Purple Pride is forever.

PurpleMustReign wrote: So a non scoring turnover is more important than a scoring play? Or do. You just hate AD?

Cold is temporary. Purple Pride is forever.

Come on, man.

If the Vikings don't drive down the field to have a chance to win the game, who would have been the goat? Who would we be talking about today? None other than Adrian Peterson. If anything, Blair Walsh took the attention off of AP's gaffe. He didn't lose the game by himself, but he made a HUGE mistake that allowed the Seahawks to take the lead.

That's not AP hate. It's just a fact.

Jordysghost wrote:Am I in the minority still thinking that it was mainly on Locke for a bad hold?

Yes, I believe you would be in the minority. Here is a good article explaining why Walsh missed the kick. It states why Locke didn't attempt to turn the laces (which obviously wasn't an issue on a longer field goal) and why it was angled. The primary reason is that Walsh's plant step was too close to the ball.

http://insidethepylon.com/film-study/fi ... ield-goal/

IrishViking wrote:
Until you have a kicker who cant nail anything beyond 45 and gets wide rights and lefts past 40. Then we will wonder where Walsh is.

It's possible and everyone should probably remember this point (not having someone who can hit the long FGs).

But at the same time...we now know FACTUALLY that Walsh can't be trusted in big games to hit a game winner. To me...that makes him not worth it...end of story. I now fell CERTAIN that if placed in the same position we will get the same result OR that almost as bad, the coaching staff will now never trust him to be in that position which defeats the entire purpose of having him on the roster.

Muqali wrote: Not sure where the 2-5 kicking for the lead for less than a minute left stat comes from. I looked at the end of every game that ended by a difference of 3 or less since beginning of 2012 and these are the games I found that were decided by a final Walsh kick: <Stats Snipped>

Not sure where the article got it's stats from (and Kudos to you for taking the time to confirm/refute those stats yourself), but I would point out that the exact wording was:

"when kicking for the lead with less than a minute left." That could include extra points. Also, your analysis would not include games that were tied and went into overtime because he missed a kick. Not saying your conclusion(s) is necessarily wrong (and we've all learned that just because a news organization asserts something as fact, doesn't make it true, either) but some of the 'assumptions,' for lack of a better term, made in your analysis may not refute the assertion that NBC made. Not saying you're wrong, necessarily, but based on what you posted, I don't believe you've showed NBC to be in error, either.

You also can't just look at games that were 3 points or less. As an example, the score could be tied and he misses a fg. Opponent gets the ball and scores a td to win the game. Or the defense gets a turnover and scores a td. Just saying you can't just look at 3 point or less spreads.

Crax wrote: I was clearly talking about this year. He was 13th this year, how is that 7th? I said just above average. He was fantastic his 1st year, but terrible last year. I consider those a wash. Going off right now, he is 13th. That is pretty much average. You are also discounting that he is 29th in XP % this last year. I thought the move back would be good with Walsh, it hasn't been so far.

And I was talking about all time. Which is a little more important given he's only 26 years old

Purple Reign wrote:You also can't just look at games that were 3 points or less. As an example, the score could be tied and he misses a fg. Opponent gets the ball and scores a td to win the game. Or the defense gets a turnover and scores a td. Just saying you can't just look at 3 point or less spreads.

Right. That was the point I was trying to make with my post, but you stated it more succinctly than I did.