Vikings Message Board.Com

Since I have to wait until NFLN replays the game tomorrow (MON) morning, I would love to hear from folks here what their impressions were from last night's game. I have read through the game thread and gathered some superficial impressions (CP84 caught a bomb, Teddy didn't amass huge yardage but threw 2 TDs to Reisner in the 4th, our D got three INTs) . Can someone fill in the details? Did our D look solid overall? Did we get pressure on the QB? Did our Oline hold up better this week? Did Cassell continue to look steady? Any thoughts on guys who will make the 53? Thanks in advance.

Here's a quick summary...
1. It's preseason, but the Vikings look good, and most importantly, give real hope. Hope for what? That is up in the air, but I hope for a winning record overall, post season, that's the bonus.
2. Those who dislike Cassel will never like him unless he plays the entire season, and leads the Vikes deep into the playoffs, and that might not be enough.

Addendum: Cassel for the present, Bridewater for the future, but continued reading of those forum brothers who give MC no credit is disheartening. His last year in KC and first year in Minnesota he was volleyed by his coaches. Why are his two great years ignored, but his bad games amplified?

Every qb has bad games. To hope MC blows so that Bridewater plays now is so odd. I, for one, hope he starts in game one, and if he does, I cannot imagine hoping the Vikes go 1-4 just so that the future plays now.

Texas Vike wrote:Since I have to wait until NFLN replays the game tomorrow (MON) morning, I would love to hear from folks here what their impressions were from last night's game. I have read through the game thread and gathered some superficial impressions (CP84 caught a bomb, Teddy didn't amass huge yardage but threw 2 TDs to Reisner in the 4th, our D got three INTs) . Can someone fill in the details? Did our D look solid overall? Did we get pressure on the QB? Did our Oline hold up better this week? Did Cassell continue to look steady? Any thoughts on guys who will make the 53? Thanks in advance.

The starting defense looked surprisingly bad for a unit that held KC to just 5 (well, 3) points. The DL _did_ get pressure on the QB, and that was their strength. The Vikings tried a lot of different formations and packages on the DL. I saw a play with Brinkley blitzing (same old thing - he runs into a RB as though he were the target and his play is over) and Robison dropping into coverage. They were trying different things with Griffen, playing him inside a lot, and he had a lot of pressures. Hard to say whether the Vikings will be using that many looks, or if they're just getting things figured out.

The OL played fine, with a couple of exceptions. Loadholt was hurt early, pulled to go to the locker room, and replaced by Wentworth, who immediately gave up a strip sack safety. The Vikings were so desperate that they put Loadholt back in (in a preseason game??) and he was in and out for a couple of series. But the biggest story on the OL was Kalil - he had at least two plays where he was badly beaten in pass blocking. I'm beginning to wonder if he'd make a better guard. He's fast on his feet and you can see that he regularly gets 10-12 yards downfield on running plays. He'd do well pulling.

The linebackers are still a mess. The secondary still up in the air. Robinson, apparently playing in some pain, was in for a series or two. Didn't look great, but at least he's playing. Rhodes played tough. His coverage wasn't spectacular, but he played tight and prevented YAC.

After this game, it's clear to see why Barr is NOT a DE. He's easily blocked when the lineman gets his hands into him, both on runs and in pass rushing. His forte is speed and finesse. If he gets that first step, or makes some kind of move on the lineman, he can get to the QB. If not, he's stood up like a little girl. He can make plays on RBs only when he's unblocked. He has the speed to run around a pile and make a tackle, but is unable to work through the garbage. He's also not a great tackler and was run over on at least one long 1st down run.

The two INTs thrown up by Alex Smith and the home run to Patterson were the difference in the score for the 1st string.

indianation65 wrote:Here's a quick summary...
1. It's preseason, but the Vikings look good, and most importantly, give real hope. Hope for what? That is up in the air, but I hope for a winning record overall, post season, that's the bonus.
2. Those who dislike Cassel will never like him unless he plays the entire season, and leads the Vikes deep into the playoffs, and that might not be enough.

Addendum: Cassel for the present, Bridewater for the future, but continued reading of those forum brothers who give MC no credit is disheartening. His last year in KC and first year in Minnesota he was volleyed by his coaches. Why are his two great years ignored, but his bad games amplified?

Every qb has bad games. To hope MC blows so that Bridewater plays now is so odd. I, for one, hope he starts in game one, and if he does, I cannot imagine hoping the Vikes go 1-4 just so that the future plays now.

Those two years don't actually get ignored. They've been brought up again and again around here but I think the reason people don't expect that kind of year from Cassel is that he's 3 seasons removed from his last really good year and he's had 2 seasons like that in 6 seasons of significant playing time. In other words, the possibility that he could have another strong season is clearly there and it's what we're hoping for but the probability, based on his overall history, is that he won't be great (at least not consistently).

This appears to be the best situation he's had in a while so maybe he'll surprise people and have his best season. That would be welcome!

I hope nobody will be rooting for him to play poorly. I look forward to seeing Bridgewater but he'll get on the field sooner or later. If Cassel's playing, I want him to play well and I always want the Vikings to win.

Mothman wrote: Those two years don't actually get ignored. They've been brought up again and again around here but I think the reason people don't expect that kind of year from Cassel is that he's 3 seasons removed from his last really good year and he's had 2 seasons like that in 6 seasons of significant playing time. In other words, the possibility that he could have another strong season is clearly there and it's what we're hoping for but the probability, based on his overall history, is that he won't be great (at least not consistently).

This appears to be the best situation he's had in a while so maybe he'll surprise people and have his best season. That would be welcome!

I hope nobody will be rooting for him to play poorly. I look forward to seeing Bridgewater but he'll get on the field sooner or later. If Cassel's playing, I want him to play well and I always want the Vikings to win.

People forget that from 2009 to 2013 Cassel had 5 different OC. Now with Turner, that makes 6 new OC's in 6 years. It has to count for something.

I didn't see the game either, but have read the critiques. Defense was a weakness for us last year and this year it probably still will be. However, it is improving and that is what I want to see. It may take Zimmer a couple of years to get this group into working order which will most likely include drafting some decent defensive players and still picking up a couple of decent free agents like Joseph. With how bad they were I certainly do not expect a miraculous shut down defense this year. But I do expect a serious improvement simply because we have made some good adjustments with players and also we have a new scheme. I would love it if we ended up with a defense that was in the top half of the league. But I expect us to be between 15-20. Just because of how bad we were.

I too don't understand the dislike of Cassell at this point. I don't think it is necessarily unfounded, based upon consistency. Cassell has had some good years and some bad years. That to me speaks of inconsistency especially considering his years in the league. All the good quarterbacks have more good years than bad and Cassell hasn't. But I do think Cassell CAN be very good and hope he is this year. I DO NOT want him to fail just so Bridgewater can start. I want him to succeed as a player and a person. It would be good for the Vikings and the fans if he plays very well! It would mean bad things are happening if Bridgewater gets a start this year and I'd rather not see that happen.

Delaqure wrote:I too don't understand the dislike of Cassell at this point.

It's becoming downright Ponder-esque and has been polluting every discussion on this board. I'm sick of hearing about his poor play in the past every damned time his name is mentioned. WE GET IT ALREADY. There are other threads debating Cassel.

Eli wrote: It's becoming downright Ponder-esque and has been polluting every discussion on this board. I'm sick of hearing about his poor play in the past every damned time his name is mentioned. WE GET IT ALREADY. There are other threads debating Cassel.

Take a deep breath... nobody is even debating about him in this thread. However, he's the likely starting QB and there's a rookie first round pick competing with him for the job so the subject is going to keep coming up.

Eli wrote: It's becoming downright Ponder-esque and has been polluting every discussion on this board. I'm sick of hearing about his poor play in the past every damned time his name is mentioned. WE GET IT ALREADY. There are other threads debating Cassel.

The best part? Some of the same posters who supposedly hated all of that with Ponder are the first ones to jump in on the "Cassel has had bad games" reminders. It's classic.

Oh yeah. Does anyone remember that Bengals game last year? lol Let's talk about it for the 100th time!

I understand why people went sour on Ponder, but Cassel hasn't done enough bad things, as a Viking, to deserve all the negativity. That's where I'm at with it, anyway. And, heck, last year was a joke for everyone at QB. I think this year we'll really be able to tell what we have in Cassel. And, to me, so far so good. Really...not too shabby!

Let's be positive!

Thanks for sharing your impressions on the game, guys and gals. It'll tide me over till the replay tomorrow.

Funkytown wrote:I understand why people went sour on Ponder, but Cassel hasn't done enough bad things, as a Viking, to deserve all the negativity. That's where I'm at with it, anyway.

I think that's where I'm at for now. Bridgewater is definitely the future, but I'd like to see how Cassel can do with some continuity (i.e. first team reps and a string of games as the starter) this season. If he bombs...he bombs. But, if that's the case, then they'll be no more excuses for him. I think he's going to have a few bad games (all QBs do) but I anticipate the majority of his games will be good ones. We will soon see...

The Vikes/Chiefs game will be on the NFL Network at 9 am Monday, central time, at least here in Dallas.

Addendum: Apologies if I right-turned this topic into a Cassel topic.

...wisdom

indianation65 wrote:The Vikes/Chiefs game will be on the NFL Network at 9 am Monday, central time, at least here in Dallas.

...wisdom

Typical, while I and most have to work while we will see Denver, SF, Seattle, Dallas continue to get all the prime time coverage. Does the NFL channel even know there are more than 3-4 teams in the league. Sick of seeing Denver , Cleveland, and their Poster child manning in EVERY Prime time Slot

Laserman wrote: Typical, while I and most have to work while we will see Denver, SF, Seattle, Dallas continue to get all the prime time coverage. Does the NFL channel even know there are more than 3-4 teams in the league. Sick of seeing Denver , Cleveland, and their Poster child manning in EVERY Prime time Slot

The teams that generate more interest get the better time slots. When we had Favre and were getting great ratings, we always had primetime slots, too.

I see my annual VMB vacation has paid off in that I missed all the Cassell bashing. I feel so left out...

I didn't catch game, more details if possible?