A message board dedicated to the discussion of Minnesota Viking Football.
https://vikingsmessageboard.com/
The next time the Vikings go behind with less than a minute left to play, I won't be so pessimistic. I'll say, "Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"dkoby wrote: LOL, is that a reference to Dean Wormer? lo,
Maybe they just need time... and perhaps a little more DB talent on the roster. If you take Antoine Winfield out the equation, I don't think the other 3 starters in the secondary yesterday had a full season worth of NFL starting experience between them. As Just Me wrote, this young secondary will struggle. We're going to see growing pains. We just have to hope they eventually lead to a good secondary.radar55 wrote:Your right....I may have allowed my frustration of our secondary to overshadow the effort of others who actually made some plays on defense but as you said....."in this passing league" our secondary puts us at a distinct disadvantage every week. It has been this way for far to many years to continue playing the same scheme week in and week out and yet, the coaching staff either does'nt believe it to be a problem or.....quite simply......cant scheme a way to fix it.
The few plays I focused on Fusco (and some of the long AD runs repeated on SC) he seems to more than handle his own. Fusco played a very solid game. Same goes for Loadholt. I think the middle and right side of our line is our new left side. I'd be curious if Schwartz was 100% if he wouldn't give Charlie Johnson a run for his money at LG. After yesterday, it seems as though CJ is the weakest link on the line.acousticrock wrote:GO VIKES!
Hated the first quarter and our 3-and-out drive (mostly playcalling) with 1 minute to go, but other than that, I loved the game!
Anyone see this in the research notes at ESPN?
"Adrian Peterson gained 71 of his 84 rushing yards up the middle on Sunday. It was his highest percentage of yards gained up the middle (min 10 rushes) in a game since the start of 2008. Peterson averaged 4.6 yards before first contact when rushing up the middle on Sunday; he averaged 1.6 yards before contact up the middle from 2009-2011 "
That seems to bode well for our new OL and our running game - especially when AD gets back to getting the bulk of the carries.
Maybe the most surprisingly positive performance for #Vikings: FB Jerome Felton did a lot of nice things leading as well as in pass pro.
That was a nice surprise.dead_poet wrote:Pelissero mentioned this in a tweet and I think he's right on the money. Very refreshing. I totally agree.
Without question, Charlie Johnson is the weakest on the line. To hear the coaching staff, it sounded like he had the left guard position handed to him from the day Kalil was drafted. Hopefully they'll be looking at some tape this week and considering someone else for the spot.dead_poet wrote:The few plays I focused on Fusco (and some of the long AD runs repeated on SC) he seems to more than handle his own. Fusco played a very solid game. Same goes for Loadholt. I think the middle and right side of our line is our new left side. I'd be curious if Schwartz was 100% if he wouldn't give Charlie Johnson a run for his money at LG. After yesterday, it seems as though CJ is the weakest link on the line.
Harrison Smith will get better. I think he'll be a solid, if unspectacular, safety for the Vikings. Not sure he warranted a first round pick, but the Vikings desperately needed defensive back.soflavike wrote:Agree for the most part, but I'm not so positive about Harrison Smith. Other than the great play he made in the OT, he looked pretty lost out there. Let's hope he learns fast.
"Solid" in our secondary means he is spectacular (apologies to Winfield).Eli wrote: Harrison Smith will get better. I think he'll be a solid, if unspectacular, safety for the Vikings. Not sure he warranted a first round pick, but the Vikings desperately needed defensive back.
I would say that's a good way to describe most offsides penalties...Mothman wrote: Allen was robbed of a sack after getting a jump so spectacular he was called offsides for it.
The slow-motion replay I saw showed that Allen timed it perfectly and the official got fooled. Even the CBS announcers thought the officials blew that call.VikingLord wrote: I would say that's a good way to describe most offsides penalties...
I thought Allen was clearly offsides on the play. He was anticipating the snap count and he got caught. I was surprised the refs didn't blow it dead faster as Gabbert took a pretty hard blindside hit.
That's how I saw it too. It looked like he took off as the ball as was snapped.J. Kapp 11 wrote:The slow-motion replay I saw showed that Allen timed it perfectly and the official got fooled. Even the CBS announcers thought the officials blew that call.
You have to remember, they are using replacement refs, the NFL game has slowed down for they yet.Mothman wrote: That's how I saw it too. It looked like he took off as the ball as was snapped.
The guys in the booth called it offsides at first, actually. They only properly called it after they watched the slow motion replay.Mothman wrote: That's how I saw it too. It looked like he took off as the ball as was snapped.
Cliff wrote: The guys in the booth called it offsides at first, actually. They only properly called it after they watched the slow motion replay.
Offsides can't be challenged can it?
It looked like he actualy started before the ball was snapped, but didn't cross the LOS until the ball was snapped (and it was RIGHT at the point it was snapped). It was close enough that I "thought" he got a very good jump (in real time) but when the refs called offsides, I didn't get upset about it until I saw the replay. In fairness though, I agree, I think even the "real" referees might have missed that one...Mothman wrote:
I don't think so and I can cut the refs a break on the call because in real time, it probably looked like he was offsides. Even in slow motion it was very, very close.