Vikings Message Board.Com

psjordan wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:47 am I have to believe that the entire team, coaches on both sides on down, were on board with the defensive game plan as it unfolded. First off, there is 100% chance a pro DB will lose to a pro WR in man-to-man, given enough time. 100%. Man-to-man works for a finite period, and I almost guarantee the team discussed this beforehand – if we don’t get to Dak quickly, and chances are not all that high for multiple sacks due to the Cowboys OL and Dak’s legs, well then, they ARE going to complete passes on us. Why do I say this? Well, if you watch all the D players and the coaches from Zim on down, NO ONE was mad at whichever DB happened to get beat. No one hung their head. No one panicked. It’s a sure sign they discussed it and knew they were going to give up passing yards. Bottle up Zeke. We will live with giving up completions on the plays we don’t get to Dak quickly. Trust your teammates to come through when there is a short field and crowded secondary.

I liked the D alignments, fake blitzes, fake-then-real blitzes, and HS coming around end now and then. They knew Zeke could not handle HS on blitz blocking and he didn’t.

It’s frustrating for a fan to watch us give up third and longs on a “long” field, but I believe the whole strategy included the fact we would be much better in man-to-man in short field situations with compressed timing, so players were told everyone keep your heads and we’ll be fine.

IMO that was not only a great win for the obvious reasons, but also because I feel that the players were asked to trust the gameplan the coaches came up with, even though there would be “fails” along the way. There is nothing that helps a team gel more than when the players have full faith in the gameplan and keep playing the way the coaches have asked.

I think this bodes really well for the rest of the season.

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:23 am

Pondering Her Percy wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:12 am

There it is!! Another game that doesn’t count for cousins due to stumps opinion. You complain about the sacks last year, he’s taking half of them this year, you complain about the fumbles, it’s much less this year, you complain about the overall turnovers, he’s cut that in half, you complain about him not being able to win big games, he has this year. Cousins has continued to prove you wrong all year and you still fight it. You still hunt for excuses and try to find nitpicky reasons to keep your argument going. It’s became an obsession with you and you’ve done it for so long and so often that you don’t know any different. I’m starting to think this guy could win a SB and you’d find a way he didn’t deserve it.

My apologies, I was on my phone when I posted this and wasn't able to add the quote properly:

Pondering Her Percy wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:12 am I said early on that Dallas was grossly overrated. They went 3-0 and everyone drooled over them but they beat the giants, dolphins and redskins. And the cowboys got beat by the jets. They aren’t very good at all IMO.

That is what YOU said leading up to the game.

Cousins had a solid game and did everything asked of him. I am happy he did.

I would say against a good team too, but you made a compelling argument about why the Cowboys "aren't very good at all".

Dames wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:05 pm

psjordan wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:47 am I have to believe that the entire team, coaches on both sides on down, were on board with the defensive game plan as it unfolded. First off, there is 100% chance a pro DB will lose to a pro WR in man-to-man, given enough time. 100%. Man-to-man works for a finite period, and I almost guarantee the team discussed this beforehand – if we don’t get to Dak quickly, and chances are not all that high for multiple sacks due to the Cowboys OL and Dak’s legs, well then, they ARE going to complete passes on us. Why do I say this? Well, if you watch all the D players and the coaches from Zim on down, NO ONE was mad at whichever DB happened to get beat. No one hung their head. No one panicked. It’s a sure sign they discussed it and knew they were going to give up passing yards. Bottle up Zeke. We will live with giving up completions on the plays we don’t get to Dak quickly. Trust your teammates to come through when there is a short field and crowded secondary.

I liked the D alignments, fake blitzes, fake-then-real blitzes, and HS coming around end now and then. They knew Zeke could not handle HS on blitz blocking and he didn’t.

It’s frustrating for a fan to watch us give up third and longs on a “long” field, but I believe the whole strategy included the fact we would be much better in man-to-man in short field situations with compressed timing, so players were told everyone keep your heads and we’ll be fine.

IMO that was not only a great win for the obvious reasons, but also because I feel that the players were asked to trust the gameplan the coaches came up with, even though there would be “fails” along the way. There is nothing that helps a team gel more than when the players have full faith in the gameplan and keep playing the way the coaches have asked.

I think this bodes really well for the rest of the season.

This is easily one of my favorite posts of the year.

I love this description of the game. It makes sense the way you laid it out. With all the big plays given up, you're absolutely right that it didn't look like anyone was getting frustrated, so it may very well have played out according to plan. We came really close to making a couple picks that make the plan look even better. Zimmer stated after the game that he was proud how the D locked down in the Red Zone, and if he was upset about how they played, it didn't come up. He usually gets chippy if he doesn't like how his DBs played especially.

Fat Stupid Loser wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:49 am

Tark wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2019 11:54 pm Props to Kirk Cousins. I was looking for him to "prove me wrong" about his play against good teams in a prime time game and he played a great game.

He often has played great in prime time games that "he" has lost. That's the glaring problem with the endless narrative that every pundit has latched on to.

Tark wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:49 pm

Fat Stupid Loser wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:49 am

He often has played great in prime time games that "he" has lost. That's the glaring problem with the endless narrative that every pundit has latched on to.

I know someone has this stat somewhere, but I wonder what his QB rating is in prime time against those winning teams vs the .500 and below teams.

VikingLord wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:30 pm You guys have both become my favorite conspiracy theorists... If (and that is a huge *if*) Zimmer really did intentionally design his defense to give Dallas a false sense of passing confidence by consistently conceding big plays on 3rd downs, only to then yank it away at the end when it really mattered, that would be true genius.

I personally don't think that happened, or at least that's not what the defense intended, but does elevate Zimmer into the mythological coach category if it did.

mansquatch wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:06 am
I didn't see them hit the A gap too much, they mostly were trying to confuse Dak and disguise coverage vs. flood the A gap with a blitz. I did see them attempt to overload on one side or the other, but again, not very often. I think a lot of it is built on the idea of confusing the QB + the two DE being very good at getting to the QB + the secondary being able to cover pretty well overall.

Against DAL the DE were not getting to the QB and thus the secondary was having to cover MUCH longer than normal. That being said, the secondary has had issues this year. We are seeing more uncontested catches that before. I thought today they were OK. A lot of Cooper's damage came on those catches were he is on his tip toes and getting the ball 4 feet out of bounds. That isn't really defensible without committing PI. The stuff to Gallop / Cobb was a lot more irritating.

Again, I'm not sure how much blame is on bad coverage and how much is no pass rush efficacy. 5+ seconds is a LONG time to cover in the NFL.

I had a general sense in the 4th Quarter that Zimmer maybe should have changed it up and added Barr to the pass rushing mix more than he had during the rest of the game. Zimmer didn't do this, he stuck with the plan of stuffing the rushing game and containing Dak's rushing ability. They sold out to make Dak beat them with his arm and played bend / don't break defense. They also were able to frustrate Dallas in the Red Zone. In fairness, they won, but did it with a lot of heartburn.

mansquatch wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:06 am IMO, perhaps the biggest issue was the more conservative play calling on offense on the drive that went three and out before Dallas' second to last drive. (The one where Kendricks basically won the game.) IMO, they should have kept driving on offense and gone for another TD, ie keep the foot on the gas. That would have closed the game thoroughly. Instead we left the door open. Against a QB like Rogers that equals a big fat L.

I think a lot of NFL teams do that in the 4Q with leads. They start worrying too much about the clock and as a consequence undervalue possession. Just keep the ball and get more points. Especially with a 4+ point lead. Even a FG in that situation forces the team to get a TD just to force OT. For the Vikings it really is inexcusable, how many times have they seen Rogers pluck victory from defeat because a team gave him 90 seconds with only a small lead?

I should add this this bad 4Q offensive play calling bit them in KC where the impact was FAR more dramatic. Definitely something I hope they look at during the bye. In tight games against any NFL QB who is making his throws (at that time in the game) it adds up to a Loss far too often. The better play IMO is to keep getting 1st downs and score points.

psjordan wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:47 amObviously our two RB’s are impressive individually, but did anyone else have nostalgic feelings of Larry Csonka and Jim Kick? Yes I’m that old, you young whippersnappers may have to look those two up. I’m biased of course but I’ve not seen a pair of RB’s on the same team since those days that might be as formidable as these two.

IMO that was not only a great win for the obvious reasons, but also because I feel that the players were asked to trust the gameplan the coaches came up with, even though there would be “fails” along the way. There is nothing that helps a team gel more than when the players have full faith in the gameplan and keep playing the way the coaches have asked.

Mothman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:56 am

VikingLord wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:37 am

Why weren't they passes?

I think the main reason was time. Dallas was trying to score and use up enough clock to leave the Vikings little to no opportunity to mount a comeback. Their strategy backfired.

I don't mean to discount the points you made because the Vikings were applying pressure more effectively late in the game but I think the clock was probably the primary consideration in that situation. If I recall correctly, Collinsworth even alluded to it during the broadcast.

Texas Vike wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:12 pm They faked the A gap blitz a fair bit, but they also sent either Barr or Kendricks a bit, and it almost never worked. I think psjordan's take may be accurate: they weren't sweating giving up yards outside of the red zone. I really wish Hughes had intercepted that ball that hit him in the hands. I feel like it would've helped his confidence a bit. Plus, he would have had a TD.

VikingLord wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:30 pm You guys have both become my favorite conspiracy theorists... If (and that is a huge *if*) Zimmer really did intentionally design his defense to give Dallas a false sense of passing confidence by consistently conceding big plays on 3rd downs, only to then yank it away at the end when it really mattered, that would be true genius.

I personally don't think that happened, or at least that's not what the defense intended, but does elevate Zimmer into the mythological coach category if it did.

Mothman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm

psjordan wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:47 amObviously our two RB’s are impressive individually, but did anyone else have nostalgic feelings of Larry Csonka and Jim Kick? Yes I’m that old, you young whippersnappers may have to look those two up. I’m biased of course but I’ve not seen a pair of RB’s on the same team since those days that might be as formidable as these two.

My thoughts didn't reach back quite that far but I was thinking of some more recent Vikings RB combinations that were rough on opposing defenses, particularly Peterson and Chester Taylor, who were a dynamite combo. Smith and Hoard came to mind too.

IMO that was not only a great win for the obvious reasons, but also because I feel that the players were asked to trust the gameplan the coaches came up with, even though there would be “fails” along the way. There is nothing that helps a team gel more than when the players have full faith in the gameplan and keep playing the way the coaches have asked.

Especially when the game plan results in a victory.

Texas Vike wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:12 pm I agree with the gist of what you're saying here and Zimmer definitely has the proclivity of playing too conservative, but I feel the need to remind you that they went for it on 4th and goal on their last TD (and made a great call, which Cook said was the EXACT call he had in his head before he heard Kirk relay it to the team in the huddle). Also: they went for 2 points, which was a gamble that paid huge dividends. Both were a bit out of character for Zimmer and I applaud his choices. They may well have won the game.