Vikings Message Board.Com

It's funny that had we, say, blocked the last FG and run it in, the change of that one play would have made this discussion completely different. Go to that happy place for a moment. In that place, Ponder was a future allstar who drove for two late TD's. The defense bent, but didn't break, and left Indy such a long FG that the low kick lead to the block, etc. Everyone would be happy. That's what happens in a close game. Out of the 100 snaps, one went a certain way, and the whole narrative changes. Keep that in mind.

For me, the play that made the difference was the PI on Harvin. It was clearly defensive pass interference. As a commenter clearly stated on the Strib website:
"...the Harvin penalty was a blown call ... I heard the announcers say "the defense has just as much right to the ball", which is 100% true, however, the DB cut off Harvin's route and made no play on the ball. He was actually running away from where the ball landed. This is the exact quote from the NFL rule book "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: ...(e) Cutting off the path of a receiver by making contact with him without playing the ball." This should have been a defensive pass interference and would have been a huge swing."

It was a swing of some 60 yards in field position. Take from that what you will.

Other than that, I get so disappointed in our coordinators, who are calling the plays. Did you see last nights Falcons/Broncos game? The Falcons put in a "Peyton Manning defense", and had the defensive players mulling around without letting Peyton know what was coming, pre-snap. The Vikes would never game-plan that way. Heck, they have a rookie QB in his second game, and their plan was to let him get nice and comfortable in the pocket. I'd have been sending 7 or 8 at times. He needed to be rattled.

As for offense, Peterson was running at will. Take advantage of that. Run that play until they overcommit to stop it, then run a play action pass off of it. I once was playing a friend in a challenge racquetball match (he was convinced he'd beat me easily). I'd lob him, and could get it pretty close to the back wall, where he had trouble returning it. After a couple 15-6 wins, he yelled at me "when are you going to start playing racquetball and stop lobbing". I said "when you show me you can return that shot, I'll show you another shot". When the Colts showed that they could consistently stop Peterson (which they never did IIRC) I'd have called plays that took advantage of their changed defensive philosophy.

John_Viveiros wrote:It's funny that had we, say, blocked the last FG and run it in, the change of that one play would have made this discussion completely different. Go to that happy place for a moment. In that place, Ponder was a future allstar who drove for two late TD's. The defense bent, but didn't break, and left Indy such a long FG that the low kick lead to the block, etc. Everyone would be happy. That's what happens in a close game. Out of the 100 snaps, one went a certain way, and the whole narrative changes. Keep that in mind.

For me, the play that made the difference was the PI on Harvin. It was clearly defensive pass interference. As a commenter clearly stated on the Strib website:
"...the Harvin penalty was a blown call ... I heard the announcers say "the defense has just as much right to the ball", which is 100% true, however, the DB cut off Harvin's route and made no play on the ball. He was actually running away from where the ball landed. This is the exact quote from the NFL rule book "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: ...(e) Cutting off the path of a receiver by making contact with him without playing the ball." This should have been a defensive pass interference and would have been a huge swing."

Did the inside defender make contact with Harvin? I can't remember. I'm pretty sure he's allowed to cut off Harvin's path to the ball by having inside position on a deep route like that if he doesn't initiate contact.

I'll have to watch that play again but you're right: if it was defensive PI that was a huge swing in field position.

Mothman wrote:Did the inside defender make contact with Harvin? I can't remember. I'm pretty sure he's allowed to cut off Harvin's path to the ball by having inside position on a deep route like that if he doesn't initiate contact.

I'll have to watch that play again but you're right: if it was defensive PI that was a huge swing in field position.

I watched it a few times, a bit incredulous that the announcers had seemingly never heard of it. My first look, and I thought defensive PI. But I thought that I'd better watch the replay closely. The defensive back was watching Harvin, not the ball. He ran into position in front of Harvin, slowing him down with his shoulder in front of Harvins chest. Only then did he turn to try to locate the ball. It's the type of play the rule was written for.

I do realize we occasionally see things that we want to see, rather than seeing things as they are. Please comment if this didn't look the same way to you.

John_Viveiros wrote:I watched it a few times, a bit incredulous that the announcers had seemingly never heard of it. My first look, and I thought defensive PI. But I thought that I'd better watch the replay closely. The defensive back was watching Harvin, not the ball. He ran into position in front of Harvin, slowing him down with his shoulder in front of Harvins chest. Only then did he turn to try to locate the ball. It's the type of play the rule was written for.

I do realize we occasionally see things that we want to see, rather than seeing things as they are. Please comment if this didn't look the same way to you.

At first, in real time, I thought it was defensive PI. When they showed the replay, I thought it was offensive PI. It looked that way when I saw it a third time too but I confess, i wasn't looking closely that time. I'll watch it again!