Vikings Message Board.Com

PacificNorseWest wrote:
This is nice.

I don't know, man...It's good on paper, but as I'm in the camp that says the team overall is growing and today I take away more positive, I'm also in the camp that holds the quarterback to really high standards. He is poised, he's got what you look for, but I'm waiting for him to tighten up his accuracy. As a whole, his numbers are decent, but some of those incompletions were throws that didn't even give his receivers a chance...He can and will need to be, better. Minutiae right now, but magnify those throws under the scope of a playoff game and they become more of a concern.

I felt he got better as the game went along. My theory is that within the building, expectations are really high, and that's an extra pressure on Teddy to not make mistakes. I think he's been playing that way, like he doesn't want to let everyone in the building down by making a mistake. As result, he's been aiming his passes...until partway through the game yesterday, when he was getting the snot knocked out of him, the running game was doing nothing, and the vikings were behind. He just cut it loose for the first time all year and his velocity and accuracy improved a lot.

Mothman wrote:What I would really love is to see them shut down teams when those teams most need to score, close out games when it's time to close them out. That would make me love what I was seeing out of the defense. It's hard to love 144 yards rushing for a team that was one of the league's worst rushing teams going into this game, especially when improved run defense was a point of emphasis this summer.

Zimmer said he takes the blame for the 72-yard run and said it was a bad call. Without that the Vikings held the Broncos to 72 yards rushing on 21 attempts (3.4 YPC), which is a solid outing. I know you obviously can't take that away but I'm not as concerned with the rush defense as you are. Minus that one play on Sunday they've been consistently stout vs. the run for three weeks now.

After looking at the box score I thought it was surprising that Manning only threw for 213 yards. It felt like a lot more than that. The defense finished with two sacks, 3 QB hits, 4 TFL, 5 PD and two INTs. They won the turnover and TOP battles, had more passing yards and (again outside of that one run) would've had more rushing yards. They scored off of turnovers (10 points). They had 69 plays compared to Denver's 53, held Denver to 2/9 on third down. After a day of reflection there were more positives here than I first thought. No new injuries either from what I saw (thank God). The difference really came down to our offensive line (and penalties). I felt at least one of those on Rhodes was awfully questionable. I think teams are tipping off the refs to have them pay extra attention to Rhodes' physical play. I wasn't a fan of Newman's day but maybe my expectations of him need to be tempered. Diggs' day was a pleasant surprise and, quite frankly, it'll be interesting to see what the coaching staff does when CJ gets healthy. Most coaches default to veterans in these situations and it's not as if Diggs played flawlessly (2 fumbles) but I am excited about his future with the team even if it's not this season.

Unfortunately I think Patterson's days are numbered. Behind Thielen on the depth chart? And now maybe even behind Diggs? Uf. I still think he looks stiff and uncomfortable on his routes but was hoping Norv would get creative with him a few times. They've done nothing to this point to try and make use of his big play abilities.

I'm still frustrated that the defense can't get more sacks. I know Manning gets rid of the ball so darn quick but this is like the third game in a row that they've been a half step too late to affect the quarterback and it's frustrating to watch them being so close but not seeing them affect the play.

Bottom line the offensive line was overmatched and that's the biggest reason for the loss (and Walsh). Seven sacks for 53 yards is unacceptable and it puts the offense in such a hole and doesn't allow a play to even form (so much pressure up the middle). Shame on Norv for not calling a single screen (which is, you know, how you help your offense vs. an aggressive defense) or doing even more to help the right side. And a 2:1 pass-rush ratio seems off when you have a healthy Adrian.

Even though I'm not quite as angry as I was right after the game I'm still really getting sick of these road losses. I don't care who they're to.

dead_poet wrote: Zimmer said he takes the blame for the 72-yard run and said it was a bad call. Without that the Vikings held the Broncos to 72 yards rushing on 21 attempts (3.4 YPC), which is a solid outing. I know you obviously can't take that away but I'm not as concerned with the rush defense as you are. Minus that one play on Sunday they've been consistently stout vs. the run for three weeks now.

As you said, we can't really take that long run away and it was an awfully big play in the game. Whether it was on Zimmer or not doesn't really matter to me in the context of what I wrote above. Whether the players or coaches were at fault, the Vikings gave up 144 yards rushing to the Broncos. That's too much. They were stout in run defense most of the afternoon but that big play and the 22 yards rushing they allowed on Denver's last scoring drive really hurt. The latter speaks to what I was saying about closing out games and shutting teams down when they most need to score.

After looking at the box score I thought it was surprising that Manning only threw for 213 yards. It felt like a lot more than that. The defense finished with two sacks, 3 QB hits, 4 TFL, 5 PD and two INTs. They won the turnover and TOP battles, had more passing yards and (again outside of that one run) would've had more rushing yards. They scored off of turnovers (10 points). They had 69 plays compared to Denver's 53, held Denver to 2/9 on third down. After a day of reflection there were more positives here than I first thought. No new injuries either from what I saw (thank God). The difference really came down to our offensive line (and penalties). I felt at least one of those on Rhodes was awfully questionable. I think teams are tipping off the refs to have them pay extra attention to Rhodes' physical play. I wasn't a fan of Newman's day but maybe my expectations of him need to be tempered. Diggs' day was a pleasant surprise and, quite frankly, it'll be interesting to see what the coaching staff does when CJ gets healthy. Most coaches default to veterans in these situations and it's not as if Diggs played flawlessly (2 fumbles) but I am excited about his future with the team even if it's not this season.

Unfortunately I think Patterson's days are numbered. Behind Thielen on the depth chart? And now maybe even behind Diggs? Uf. I still think he looks stiff and uncomfortable on his routes but was hoping Norv would get creative with him a few times. They've done nothing to this point to try and make use of his big play abilities.

I'm still frustrated that the defense can't get more sacks. I know Manning gets rid of the ball so darn quick but this is like the third game in a row that they've been a half step too late to affect the quarterback and it's frustrating to watch them being so close but not seeing them affect the play.

Bottom line the offensive line was overmatched and that's the biggest reason for the loss (and Walsh).

Seven sacks for 53 yards is unacceptable and it puts the offense in such a hole and doesn't allow a play to even form (so much pressure up the middle). Shame on Norv for not calling a single screen (which is, you know, how you help your offense vs. an aggressive defense) or doing even more to help the right side. And a 2:1 pass-rush ratio seems off when you have a healthy Adrian.

Agreed, which is why I'd add coaching to the reasons they lost. in fact, I'd put ahead of Walsh or the OL because I think most of us expected going into this game that the o-line would have a hard time handling Denver's defense. Nevertheless, Turner ended up calling close to 50 passing plays and just 18 runs and, as you pointed out, no screens. He didn't help his line (or his QB) out.

Even though I'm not quite as angry as I was right after the game I'm still really getting sick of these road losses. I don't care who they're to.

Same here. They're now 2-8 on the road under Zimmer and one of those wins came in his debut. The other was the OT win @ Tampa. Sigh...

Mothman wrote: As you said, we can't really take that long run away and it was an awfully big play in the game. Whether it was on Zimmer or not doesn't really matter to me in the context of what I wrote above. Whether the players or coaches were at fault, the Vikings gave up 144 yards rushing to the Broncos. That's too much. They were stout in run defense most of the afternoon but that big play and the 22 yards rushing they allowed on Denver's last scoring drive really hurt. The latter speaks to what I was saying about closing out games and shutting teams down when they most need to score.

While I've generally been a Greenway supporter, he was totally dominated on that play (the long run). And did I see that correctly? Harrison Smith wasn't in the game on that play? Why not?

Just Me wrote:
While I've generally been a Greenway supporter, he was totally dominated on that play (the long run). And did I see that correctly? Harrison Smith wasn't in the game on that play? Why not?

And Danielle Hunter could have made the tackle, but failed to disengage and only got a hand on him.

fiestavike wrote: And Danielle Hunter could have made the tackle, but failed to disengage and only got a hand on him.

Part of the reason I said Hunter shouldn't be starting over Robison like some claimed. He's just not ready yet IMO. The guy is only 20 so he can have an extremely long career. No need to rush him. Plus Robison has played fairly well this year.

Pondering Her Percy wrote: Very interesting. Granted, none of them are stars in this league but its good to see. It makes you wonder how much better Teddy would be if he had more time behind that line

Funny thing is that most people think all of these guys are better QB's than Teddy. NFL.com QB ratings before the season:
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300000 ... arters-132
Payton Manning 10, Flacco 12, Stafford 13, Bridgewater 18, and Smith 20. Peter King had Flacco in his top ten. I think someone else had Alex Smith as #10 too.

Then again, Stafford is throwing to Calvin Johnson and Tate, while Teddy was not.

I have to make the caveat that one game is a pretty statistically sparse amount of evidence.

mosscarter wrote:to criticize teddy today with that line shows the mentality of a browns or raiders fan.

That's pretty sad when you base a person's mentality on which team they root for. You are obviously alluding to Brown's and Raider's fans as not being very smart, but I'm not exactly sure why. Is it because the Browns and Raiders haven't been very good lately (that's the only reason I can think of)? Let me remind you that the Browns have 4 World Championships and the Raiders have 3 Super Bowl victories. Using your logic, what does that say about Viking's fans, who have 0 Super Bowl victories? Plus the definition of a true fan is sticking with your team through thick and thin, not bandwagon jumping.

Sound FX Von Miller vs Vikings

Thought it was a little childish what he did to Rudolph at 00:54.

For anyone who would like to watch the INTs by Barr and Smith from last Sunday's game:

http://www.vikings.com/news/article-1/A ... d67e0ff921

Barr made a particularly nice play. That's how you play zone coverage!

TSonn wrote:Here are some interesting stats. All the QBs who have played Denver this year and their ratings:

Week 1: Joe Flacco 38.2
Week 2: Alex Smith 53.9
Week 3: Matt Stafford 74.5
Week 4: Teddy Bridgewater 92.4

Just a little update:
Week 5: Derek Carr 82.1 ( in Oakland)