Vikings Message Board.Com

Mothman wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

I actually learned and studied about that a few months ago in school (psychology and one other class I don't rememer the name of). The first thing I thought of was Adrian Peterson.

I'm actually one who believes that McKinnon provides more options on offense, but I'll be dammed if Turner took advantage of that today. It mostly looked like the same exact running plays, just fewer defenders in the box. They gained more yards as a result, but aside from the TD drive in the 3rd qtr, there was no real rythymn to the offense.
I was really expecting more swing passes and dump offs to JM.
Perhaps there was a need to see how the running game could do, as is, with defense playing back at 'normal' depth.
Not that good IMO, however the Panthers run D is stout. Great LBs. This may not have been the best indicator of what they can do rushing the ball without AD.
My guess is that if AD had been in there, Bradford would've had a similar day to his game against GB....or at least similar opportunities.

Nunin wrote:I'm actually one who believes that McKinnon provides more options on offense, but I'll be dammed if Turner took advantage of that today. It mostly looked like the same exact running plays, just fewer defenders in the box. They gained more yards as a result, but aside from the TD drive in the 3rd qtr, there was no real rythymn to the offense.
I was really expecting more swing passes and dump offs to JM.
Perhaps there was a need to see how the running game could do, as is, with defense playing back at 'normal' depth.
Not that good IMO, however the Panthers run D is stout. Great LBs. This may not have been the best indicator of what they can do rushing the ball without AD.
My guess is that if AD had been in there, Bradford would've had a similar day to his game against GB....or at least similar opportunities.

Diggs, Bradford and Rudy are probably the biggest beneficiaries when AD plays.

I propose tabling the debate about whether we are stronger without AD. We are 3-0. Our D looks unbelievably good. Enjoy it!

Mothman wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

I love how that's a one way street.

Mothman wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

You're love for Ponder and glaring dislike of Bridgewater being two fine examples.

Mothman wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Very aware of confirmation bias especially after listening to many true crime podcasts. Not sure how it applies to having fewer negative yardage plays with McKinnon. Gaining yards on first down seems to universally be better than not gaining yards on first down.

TSonn wrote: Very aware of confirmation bias especially after listening to many true crime podcasts. Not sure how it applies to having fewer negative yardage plays with McKinnon.

Your confirmation bias is running counter to his confirmation bias, and my confirmation bias confirms your confirmation bias. This is all highly constructive to the discussion at hand.

Texas Vike wrote:
Diggs, Bradford and Rudy are probably the biggest beneficiaries when AD plays.

I propose tabling the debate about whether we are stronger without AD. We are 3-0. Our D looks unbelievably good. Enjoy it!

That is the bottom line for now. Indeed it's looking good on D.
My comments weren't meant to further the specualtive debate but point out what I see as a chronic issue for Norv Turner and the offense in general regardless of who is at RB. Not much in the way of fooling defenses or being ahed of the game creatively. Norv strikes me as more of a counter puncher. It seems to wok with this defense...but it's early and I just wonder what happens if for some reason the offense has to carry the team for a qtr or two.
If they haven't curbed stomped someone by week 6, I'll not feel as good about their style.

Nunin wrote: That is the bottom line for now. Indeed it's looking good on D.
My comments weren't meant to further the specualtive debate but point out what I see as a chronic issue for Norv Turner and the offense in general regardless of who is at RB. Not much in the way of fooling defenses or being ahed of the game creatively. Norv strikes me as more of a counter puncher. It seems to wok with this defense...but it's early and I just wonder what happens if for some reason the offense has to carry the team for a qtr or two.
If they haven't curbed stomped someone by week 6, I'll not feel as good about their style.

I know the fan base would be much happier if we came up with some gimmicky ways to make a few more plays, be more deceptive, but that's not championship football and never has been. Can this team learn to impose its will offensively? If so, we have a strong candidate to be superbowl champs. The defense is already showing that ability.

fiestavike wrote: I love how that's a one way street.

It's not.

fiestavike wrote: Your confirmation bias is running counter to his confirmation bias, and my confirmation bias confirms your confirmation bias. This is all highly constructive to the discussion at hand.

It's pretty obvious that it's relevant to the discussion at hand, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

Mothman wrote:
It's pretty obvious that it's relevant to the discussion at hand, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

Didn't say it wasn't relevant.

I'm not talking about gimmicky plays...I'm talking about not being predictable....or banging your head against a wall expecting different results.
I seem to remember this team blowing out the Giants late last season and many posters were giddy and humping each others legs. A few people warned that there were several wasted opportunites to work on things at game speed late in that game as well as some missed TD opportunities in that game, that could come back to bite them. Then the Seattle playoff game happened.
The defense is good. There are other great defenses out there too...and injuries can happen on defense just like offense.
I hope Turner isn't nearly as smug about it as some of the opinions expressed herein, just becuae they've eeked out 3 victories basically on the back of the defense.

This is some absurd stuff.


The only thing that can be said with certainty is that the running game had its best game of the year by yardage measurements.

Its not good total yards but then again, Carolina is the stoutest Defense we have played so far so I am not super disappointed given we won and the execution thus far.

I expect that to trend upward.



Also, Oline played way better in the Second Half.

6 sacks through 3 games isn't bad at all.

Nunin wrote:I'm not talking about gimmicky plays...I'm talking about not being predictable....or banging your head against a wall expecting different results.
I seem to remember this team blowing out the Giants late last season and many posters were giddy and humping each others legs. A few people warned that there were several wasted opportunites to work on things at game speed late in that game as well as some missed TD opportunities in that game, that could come back to bite them. Then the Seattle playoff game happened.
The defense is good. There are other great defenses out there too...and injuries can happen on defense just like offense.
I hope Turner isn't nearly as smug about it as some of the opinions expressed herein, just becuae they've eeked out 3 victories basically on the back of the defense.

hes also had 2 weeks with his starter, had a slew of injuries on Oline, and lost Peterson. I would say he is probably more relieved to have survived the typhoon of #### luck so far more than smug.