A message board dedicated to the discussion of Minnesota Viking Football.
https://vikingsmessageboard.com/
Interesting. I wonder if this was because of the Percy Harvin speculation article or due to a general dislike of Pelissero.yezzir wrote:Judd Zulgad @1500ESPNJudd 5m
Jerome Simpson took time to call out @TomPelissero today after the game. Tom wasn't there, he called him Tom Presso and said he was d-bag.
Probably dislike of Pelissero. Pelissero has been critical of Simpson (and Jenkins) the entire season. Granted, I think most of that is justified.Texas Vike wrote: Interesting. I wonder if this was because of the Percy Harvin speculation article or due to a general dislike of Pelissero.
Yes, I had the same feeling about the so-called "blocks" by the WRs. They were committing offensive pass interference like crazy and apparently the NFL refs have decided that it's okay for the Pack to do that. Ridiculous.John_Viveiros wrote: It was so obvious too - at least the one I am thinking of. Anyone else gets a offensive PI on that. Like the Bears receiver who drew three in a game. And the weird stuff with the inadvertent red flag not invalidating the replay. They'll screw the Lions on that call, but will figure out some way for the Packers to gain the benefit.
Well, they decided it was okay for the Packers to commit defensive holding and pass interference years ago so we should have seen this coming.losperros wrote:Yes, I had the same feeling about the so-called "blocks" by the WRs. They were committing offensive pass interference like crazy and apparently the NFL refs have decided that it's okay for the Pack to do that. Ridiculous.
I've never seen a team get away with more jersey-grabbing and contact beyond 5 yards than Green Bay.Me neither. It's stupid, and I hate when the announcers say that it is just them being "physical". When a Viking defender farts within 2 yards of a WR, every ref, including those in other games, throw their flags.Mothman wrote: Well, they decided it was okay for the Packers to commit defensive holding and pass interference years ago so we should have seen this coming.
I think I'm missing something too.Purplemania wrote:Alright, someone please clarify this for me:
All TD and TO's are automatically reviewed right? Or is it that it has to be "controversial" in order to be reviewed? What if the ref doesn't get buzzed and the coach thinks it's worth reviewing so he challneges a TD or TO? Does that result in a penalty?
Also, is there a difference in penalty vs. TD and TO review if the coach challenges the play? Here's my deal. Yesterday during the AD fumble review, Frazier challenged, we got an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty. During the JJones TD, McCarthy challenged, and THEY also got an unsportsmanlike conduct that was initiated during the kick off...if there is no difference between a TO and TD unsporstmanlike challenge, and the Packers did get penalized too, why is there such a big fuzz in heream I missing something?
The penalty on the AD fumble was from Loadholt, not the coach. He knocked the ball out of the Packer players hand on the sideline. The coach never challanged it.Purplemania wrote:Alright, someone please clarify this for me:
All TD and TO's are automatically reviewed right? Or is it that it has to be "controversial" in order to be reviewed? What if the ref doesn't get buzzed and the coach thinks it's worth reviewing so he challneges a TD or TO? Does that result in a penalty?
Also, is there a difference in penalty vs. TD and TO review if the coach challenges the play? Here's my deal. Yesterday during the AD fumble review, Frazier challenged, we got an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty. During the JJones TD, McCarthy challenged, and THEY also got an unsportsmanlike conduct that was initiated during the kick off...if there is no difference between a TO and TD unsporstmanlike challenge, and the Packers did get penalized too, why is there such a big fuzz in here
It sure would be nice if the Vikings put it to the Falcons in the Championship game and end up in the Super Bowl.Rus wrote:For anyone who thinks the Vikings will be mincemeat in the playoffs...they just beat two of the best teams that are going into the playoffs in a row. They started off the season kicking the crap out of SF. They also have experience playing all three of the teams that they would end up playing if they were to get past the Packers and Falcons. They definitely have the potential to be the upstart.
I completely agree. This Vikings team has amazed me. Not just because they have improved but because they are one of the better teams in the NFL right now.John_Viveiros wrote:I'll drop this into the "post-game thoughts" thread, but it's more "post-season". The Vikings beat a 10-6 team, two 11-5 teams, and a 12-4 team this year. Have we ever beaten four double digit winning teams in a year before?
It's a tough game coming up, but the Vikes are legit. They belong in the playoffs - no fluke about it.
Raymond is generally better in coverage. He had a pretty bad game yesterday though. I remember cussing out Sanford for his coverage "skills" the last couple of seasons. Bottom line, they're both not very good.Eli wrote:Biggest post-game question I have is: Why was Mistral Raymond on the field for so many plays? Was Sanford hurt, were they using Raymond in nickel or dime packages, or were they just giving Sanford a rest? Sanford is borderline adequate at safety, while Raymond is a liability.
Green Bay did benefit from that just like the Vikings benefitted from that deep ball Ponder threw that hit the ground @ was ruled a catchHunter Morrow wrote:I don't understand why when Atlanta and Detroit challenged touchdown plays that weren't eligible for challenging it cancelled the review upstairs but when the Packers did it on us they gave us some straight up horsecrap about the review booth buzzing first. Oh wait, the Green Bay Bad Calls would benefit from that.
This team has a marketable quarterback and a cult mystique so it gets to use the Rodgers Rulebook and I'm sick of it. We nearly got screwed at home!
Edit: Of course, all the Packers in this rotten state of Wisconsin are having a raging case of butthurt and complaining about the refs when they literally got gifted a road touchdown.
Yeah, it's illogical to me that there's no way a challenge can be initiated unless a team has timeouts remaining. It defeats the purpose of why instant replay was introduced to the game to begin with, which is to get calls right. And they blew that one big time.VltrophyXLV wrote:like the Vikings benefitted from that deep ball Ponder threw that hit the ground @ was ruled a catch
Personally, I think if that was truly why they re-introduced instant replay into the game, there would be no challenge flag system in the first place. I've always felt instant replay was more about placating people than about getting calls right.Eli wrote: Yeah, it's illogical to me that there's no way a challenge can be initiated unless a team has timeouts remaining. It defeats the purpose of why instant replay was introduced to the game to begin with, which is to get calls right. And they blew that one big time.