Vikings at Rams
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Hall of Fame Candidate
- Posts: 3911
- Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:28 pm
- x 798
Re: Vikings at Rams
Stafford gets credit and he deserves that. One of Zim's poster games he sacked Stafford 10 times and he looked much like Sammy. A bum he couldn't hit anything and even trying to toss a backward pitch to avoid getting rolled which Hunter returned for a TD. Only 9 points in that one for the Lions. Looks familiar. Of course he was accused of holding the ball too long. "Matthew Stafford was culpable, too, often hanging onto the ball too long". Same old story and it will get repeated over and over no matter who the QB is. If JJM faces a wave coming up the gut with a free runner the finger will be pointed at him also. It will be don't stand there for 2.6 seconds unload the ball in 2.4 or take the quick fail proof check down like Danny Dimes. Just make sure a Van Ginkle type isn't watching you waiting for the gofer ball to be thrown. Blocking will solve all that stuff. Just ask Stafford.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9726
- Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 5:51 pm
- Location: Kentucky
- x 517
Re: Vikings at Rams
He didn't even have DJ Moore an entire season. Robbie Chosen scratched 1k yards once in his entire career. He had DJ Moore for 11 games before he went down. Honestly, I now have a different issue with Darnold. I didn't realize how much trouble Darnold had staying healthy. This was actually his first full season. Before this year he only made it through 13 games in a season. 13, 13, 12, 12, and 6. San Fran he was a backup.StumpHunter wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2025 9:37 amDJ Moore is a pretty good WR, and Robbie Chosen was a 1k yard receiver the year before Darnold went to the Panthers. They were good enough that a broken Teddy Bridgewater had that offense top 10 in yards per drive and above average in scoring per drive. Darnold takes over and those numbers dropped to bottom 10.
After taking so many hits and toughing it out I was under the impression he was staying healthy, but that's not the case. Don't know how I missed that. That makes me completely reassess my thoughts on Darnold, honestly.
4.4 seconds, really? Is there a site that shows that? I didn't have a timer out or anything but I was counting in my head as I watched the video. I know at least one of the sacks occurred much sooner than that. He hadn't even turned around from a play action fake and a guy was on him. I guess on a play action the time he took to fake it counts.Sometimes we see what we want to see when watching tape, but 6 of his 9 sacks occurred after 4.4 seconds, and considering the slowest QB's TTT is 3.3, the fastest is usually around 2.2, those 6 are probably on the QB.
None of the sacks occurred in under 3 seconds.
I wasn't really seeing what I wanted to see. My memory told me that he was holding the ball too long, but when I rewatched them there were really only 2 drop backs that I saw where that was obviously a problem.
-
- Hall of Fame Candidate
- Posts: 3698
- Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:55 am
- x 644
Re: Vikings at Rams
Drive finder allows you to narrow down the games to specific ones and in the games Darnold was the QB with Moore and Chosen, the offense was significantly worse than it was with Bridgewater the year before. Bridgewater is at best a high end backup at this point, which means Darnold was worse than a high end backup when playing for the Panthers.Cliff wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2025 10:10 amHe didn't even have DJ Moore an entire season. Robbie Chosen scratched 1k yards once in his entire career. He had DJ Moore for 11 games before he went down. Honestly, I now have a different issue with Darnold. I didn't realize how much trouble Darnold had staying healthy. This was actually his first full season. Before this year he only made it through 13 games in a season. 13, 13, 12, 12, and 6. San Fran he was a backup.StumpHunter wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2025 9:37 amDJ Moore is a pretty good WR, and Robbie Chosen was a 1k yard receiver the year before Darnold went to the Panthers. They were good enough that a broken Teddy Bridgewater had that offense top 10 in yards per drive and above average in scoring per drive. Darnold takes over and those numbers dropped to bottom 10.
After taking so many hits and toughing it out I was under the impression he was staying healthy, but that's not the case. Don't know how I missed that. That makes me completely reassess my thoughts on Darnold, honestly.
4.4 seconds, really? Is there a site that shows that? I didn't have a timer out or anything but I was counting in my head as I watched the video. I know at least one of the sacks occurred much sooner than that. He hadn't even turned around from a play action fake and a guy was on him. I guess on a play action the time he took to fake it counts.Sometimes we see what we want to see when watching tape, but 6 of his 9 sacks occurred after 4.4 seconds, and considering the slowest QB's TTT is 3.3, the fastest is usually around 2.2, those 6 are probably on the QB.
None of the sacks occurred in under 3 seconds.
I wasn't really seeing what I wanted to see. My memory told me that he was holding the ball too long, but when I rewatched them there were really only 2 drop backs that I saw where that was obviously a problem.
https://nextgenstats.nfl.com/stats/top- ... 24/POST/19 shows the top 20 fastest sacks of the week, and since there were so few games, the majority of Darnold's sacks are on there. Both of the fastest sacks were corner blitzes that a QB like Stafford beat by throwing to the player the blitz leaves open, and before you ask, I can show you that there was a player open on both, and can show you the play where Stafford does just that in the game.
The oline did not make things easy for Darnold like it had for most of the season, but that is what happens in the playoffs. Good QBs don't take over half the sacks he did and the value he brings is just not worth bringing him back unless it is at a similar price to what he got this year. Even then I am not sure he is worth it.
-
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 8572
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 3:12 pm
- Location: The Land of the Ice and Snow
- x 1056
Re: Vikings at Rams
I just wanted to say as well, I was at the playoff game against the Rams. When watching it on TV it's not always easy to see who is open where and when. Stump has shown that on many plays Darnold had open receivers, but being at the game it was easier to watch that as routes developed. KOC very often gave Darnold quick read options. Options that were open nearly every time, at least for the period of time when Darnold could assess (or should have been able to assess) a blitz or pressure was coming, and he would simply not throw the ball. I have no idea what he was waiting for, but he just would not let it go and he paid the price as a result.
Even when Darnold had time to survey the field he was late on reads and inaccurate with his throws. On the crosser to an open Nailor on 3rd-and-5 on the opening drive of the 3rd quarter it's like he was mentally and physically late on that read, actually throwing behind Nailor. Hit Nailor in stride there and not only does the drive continue, but Nailor likely gains a lot more than the 7-ish yards where he would have caught the ball.
A team just can't have a QB who fails to process the play like that. Even if you throw out all of the plays where Darnold held the ball and was sacked, you still then have to face the plays where he wasn't under pressure and failed to deliver an accurate, on-time pass. Despite the general crappiness of Darnold's overall play, one could argue the Vikings still could have overcome that level of QB play had Darnold simply executed on the plays where he wasn't pressured and had open receivers. In reading what Stump wrote in this thread again, I believe he identified why that was - Darnold was pretty so-so throughout the season on 1st and 2nd downs, but would be saved by some of his play on 3rd downs. Well, he failed on all downs in the last 2, most critical games of the season.
One could argue that the Vikings might still have beaten the Lions and the Rams had Darnold merely hit open receivers on plays when he wasn't pressured. In the game against the Lions, for example, the Vikings were in the red zone 4 times and on at least 3 of those trips JJ et. al. were open by NFL standards in the end zone. The play calls were good, the execution by the receivers was good, and Darnold had time to make the reads and throws. If he hits those, that is 21 or 28 points the Vikings have on the scoreboard and they are right in the mix to win that game. Against the Rams there were other opportunities. Not nearly as many red zone opportunities but opportunities to keep drives alive and maybe get to the red zone.
I'm going to call it right now and say just watch how the Lions secondary looks against Daniels this weekend, or how the entire Rams defense looks against the Eagles who can't even throw the ball effectively. It'll be a real eye opener, and the main difference will be the effectiveness of the opposing QB, especially when under pressure.
Even when Darnold had time to survey the field he was late on reads and inaccurate with his throws. On the crosser to an open Nailor on 3rd-and-5 on the opening drive of the 3rd quarter it's like he was mentally and physically late on that read, actually throwing behind Nailor. Hit Nailor in stride there and not only does the drive continue, but Nailor likely gains a lot more than the 7-ish yards where he would have caught the ball.
A team just can't have a QB who fails to process the play like that. Even if you throw out all of the plays where Darnold held the ball and was sacked, you still then have to face the plays where he wasn't under pressure and failed to deliver an accurate, on-time pass. Despite the general crappiness of Darnold's overall play, one could argue the Vikings still could have overcome that level of QB play had Darnold simply executed on the plays where he wasn't pressured and had open receivers. In reading what Stump wrote in this thread again, I believe he identified why that was - Darnold was pretty so-so throughout the season on 1st and 2nd downs, but would be saved by some of his play on 3rd downs. Well, he failed on all downs in the last 2, most critical games of the season.
One could argue that the Vikings might still have beaten the Lions and the Rams had Darnold merely hit open receivers on plays when he wasn't pressured. In the game against the Lions, for example, the Vikings were in the red zone 4 times and on at least 3 of those trips JJ et. al. were open by NFL standards in the end zone. The play calls were good, the execution by the receivers was good, and Darnold had time to make the reads and throws. If he hits those, that is 21 or 28 points the Vikings have on the scoreboard and they are right in the mix to win that game. Against the Rams there were other opportunities. Not nearly as many red zone opportunities but opportunities to keep drives alive and maybe get to the red zone.
I'm going to call it right now and say just watch how the Lions secondary looks against Daniels this weekend, or how the entire Rams defense looks against the Eagles who can't even throw the ball effectively. It'll be a real eye opener, and the main difference will be the effectiveness of the opposing QB, especially when under pressure.
-
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 8572
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 3:12 pm
- Location: The Land of the Ice and Snow
- x 1056
Re: Vikings at Rams
I wasn't at the 2nd game against the Lions, but I can tell you this was not accurate in the playoff game against the Rams. WR's plan and train to beat jam coverages all the time, and the better the WRs, the more dangerous it is to come up and try to jam them, and the Vikings have some excellent WRs who have beat that coverage consistently all year.Cliff wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2025 9:27 am The Rams copied the Lions. Play man against the WRs and have them jam/hold and eat any measly five yard penalties that come your way. Especially on first down where the only negative is giving up 5 yards. In the meanwhile, send rushers knowing the offensive line will give way before the receivers can get into position.
You can believe whatever you want if it helps you exonerate Darnold from his failures in the last two games, but the Vikings had receivers open on nearly every down regardless of what the Rams were doing in terms of coverage. Maybe not wide open, but open enough for a NFL QB.
I just do not understand the eagerness to blame the OL, the play caller, or anyone else not named Sam Darnold for the results of the last 2 games. He was really bad. Not just bad - terrible. He didn't trust anything he saw apparently and would not throw the ball, and when he did throw it he was inaccurate, his timing was off, or both. It often took amazing play on the part of his receivers to bring down wildly high or off-target passes.
He was terrible. I just don't even see why there is debate about it.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9726
- Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 5:51 pm
- Location: Kentucky
- x 517
Re: Vikings at Rams
I have no idea what might have changed from one year to the next with or without Darnold, but neither of them had success. Darnold may well have been worse than Bridgewater, but the teams were definitely bad.StumpHunter wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2025 10:41 amDrive finder allows you to narrow down the games to specific ones and in the games Darnold was the QB with Moore and Chosen, the offense was significantly worse than it was with Bridgewater the year before. Bridgewater is at best a high end backup at this point, which means Darnold was worse than a high end backup when playing for the Panthers.
I'm also not saying Darnold played well. When the line did hold up and when he had other opportunities he missed them. Throwing behind, or short, or over.
https://nextgenstats.nfl.com/stats/top- ... 24/POST/19 shows the top 20 fastest sacks of the week, and since there were so few games, the majority of Darnold's sacks are on there. Both of the fastest sacks were corner blitzes that a QB like Stafford beat by throwing to the player the blitz leaves open, and before you ask, I can show you that there was a player open on both, and can show you the play where Stafford does just that in the game.
That's definitely interesting. All I can say, through watching football for many years, is Darnold didn't seem to be holding onto the ball for a crazy amount of time outside of two plays and the offensive line got manhandled.
To me his value extends beyond his play in those two games. I'd be willing to bring him back for 20m-ish for two years with the idea of bringing in JJ. After his performance, and now what I understand about his injury history, I would also be a lot more understanding of completely dumping him and going with Daniel Jones as JJ's competition.The oline did not make things easy for Darnold like it had for most of the season, but that is what happens in the playoffs. Good QBs don't take over half the sacks he did and the value he brings is just not worth bringing him back unless it is at a similar price to what he got this year. Even then I am not sure he is worth it.
I still wouldn't count on JJ doing better than Darnold, just being a rookie, but I am certainly less convinced that Darnold can be "the guy".
-
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 8572
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 3:12 pm
- Location: The Land of the Ice and Snow
- x 1056
Re: Vikings at Rams
You are right in that most QBs will fold under heavy pressure, but you're not describing the game I watched against the Rams. Was there pressure? Sure, but Darnold had time to deal with it, the same as any other pro QB would have had. The Vikings called plays that produced open receivers on nearly every down. Were they wide open? Not always. Were they open enough that an experienced veteran QB should be able to locate and fire the ball to them before the pressure reached him? Absolutely. I can recall maybe a handful of plays where Darnold didn't have a viable target he could have hit regardless of what the Rams sent at him. KOC called a solid game from where I was sitting, and the Vikings receivers were more than up to the task of executing those plays. Darnold, and Darnold alone, made the Rams secondary look like the second coming.CharVike wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2025 10:04 am Stafford gets credit and he deserves that. One of Zim's poster games he sacked Stafford 10 times and he looked much like Sammy. A bum he couldn't hit anything and even trying to toss a backward pitch to avoid getting rolled which Hunter returned for a TD. Only 9 points in that one for the Lions. Looks familiar. Of course he was accused of holding the ball too long. "Matthew Stafford was culpable, too, often hanging onto the ball too long". Same old story and it will get repeated over and over no matter who the QB is. If JJM faces a wave coming up the gut with a free runner the finger will be pointed at him also. It will be don't stand there for 2.6 seconds unload the ball in 2.4 or take the quick fail proof check down like Danny Dimes. Just make sure a Van Ginkle type isn't watching you waiting for the gofer ball to be thrown. Blocking will solve all that stuff. Just ask Stafford.
To see the shade thrown at the OL, KOC and the receivers, or conversely, the praise heaped on the Rams for their defensive masterpiece, is almost sad. None of that is deserved.
-
- Hall of Fame Candidate
- Posts: 3698
- Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:55 am
- x 644
Re: Vikings at Rams
I think he would be just fine for us in the regular season next season, assuming he isn't completely broken. Not nearly as good as he did this season, the book is out on him in this offense and more and more teams will be able to limit what he does, but still okay.Cliff wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 2:15 pm
To me his value extends beyond his play in those two games. I'd be willing to bring him back for 20m-ish for two years with the idea of bringing in JJ. After his performance, and now what I understand about his injury history, I would also be a lot more understanding of completely dumping him and going with Daniel Jones as JJ's competition.
I still wouldn't count on JJ doing better than Darnold, just being a rookie, but I am certainly less convinced that Darnold can be "the guy".
Does regular season success matter at all if a QB is garbage in big games though?
On top of that, I think the odds are pretty good Daniel Jones succeeds here if the Vikings go with him as JJ's BACKUP and he ends up playing. There will be no competition, JJ McCarthy is our QB week 1 if he is healthy.
Darnold had the worst passer rating of any QB to start 35+ games since 2018, and the 11 worst passer rated QB of any QB who started a game since 2018 coming into the 2024 season. If KOC can make him look good, he can make just about any starting QB look good.
-
- Hall of Fame Candidate
- Posts: 3911
- Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:28 pm
- x 798
Re: Vikings at Rams
You make your points very clear. Thanks for the write up on the game. You had the best view. Darnold was a bridge to the future and it was great that he played well. He gave our team a shot to win. Beating the Packers twice was great. He seems like a team guy and the guys rallied around him. As a fan I thought it was fun to watch and I was hoping he would continue to play well. QB has many mental aspects to it along with the physical side. Perhaps he will stay and backup. If not good luck to him. JJM is doing physical stuff and KOC said he's at the spot he expected. At least we have a young guy waiting. Based on the other 1st rounders performance he has a great chance to show his skills. There will be bumps but KOC has the staff in place to bring him along and a year to watch.VikingLord wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 2:16 pmYou are right in that most QBs will fold under heavy pressure, but you're not describing the game I watched against the Rams. Was there pressure? Sure, but Darnold had time to deal with it, the same as any other pro QB would have had. The Vikings called plays that produced open receivers on nearly every down. Were they wide open? Not always. Were they open enough that an experienced veteran QB should be able to locate and fire the ball to them before the pressure reached him? Absolutely. I can recall maybe a handful of plays where Darnold didn't have a viable target he could have hit regardless of what the Rams sent at him. KOC called a solid game from where I was sitting, and the Vikings receivers were more than up to the task of executing those plays. Darnold, and Darnold alone, made the Rams secondary look like the second coming.CharVike wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2025 10:04 am Stafford gets credit and he deserves that. One of Zim's poster games he sacked Stafford 10 times and he looked much like Sammy. A bum he couldn't hit anything and even trying to toss a backward pitch to avoid getting rolled which Hunter returned for a TD. Only 9 points in that one for the Lions. Looks familiar. Of course he was accused of holding the ball too long. "Matthew Stafford was culpable, too, often hanging onto the ball too long". Same old story and it will get repeated over and over no matter who the QB is. If JJM faces a wave coming up the gut with a free runner the finger will be pointed at him also. It will be don't stand there for 2.6 seconds unload the ball in 2.4 or take the quick fail proof check down like Danny Dimes. Just make sure a Van Ginkle type isn't watching you waiting for the gofer ball to be thrown. Blocking will solve all that stuff. Just ask Stafford.
To see the shade thrown at the OL, KOC and the receivers, or conversely, the praise heaped on the Rams for their defensive masterpiece, is almost sad. None of that is deserved.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9726
- Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 5:51 pm
- Location: Kentucky
- x 517
Re: Vikings at Rams
The Eagles have one of the best offensive lines in the NFL and Hurts is very mobile. The Rams sacked him 7 times.
-
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 8572
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 3:12 pm
- Location: The Land of the Ice and Snow
- x 1056
Re: Vikings at Rams
The Eagles can't throw the ball this year. On the year they were the 29th ranked passing offense. In the playoff game against the Rams they threw for a grand total of 65 yards. In terms of sacks surrendered during the year the Eagles were middle-of-the-pack with 45 (as compared to the Vikings with 49), so despite their supposed better offensive line and more mobile QB they weren't very effective as a passing offense.
In short, it doesn't surprise me the Rams got home 7 times against Hurts.
Nor does it surprise me they lost the game and gave up several big runs in the process. The genius boy wonder coach Sean McVay had no answers on defense as the Eagles beat the Rams the exact same way they beat them the first time the two teams met.
Unfortunately for the Vikings, neither Darnold nor the running game could counter what the Rams did against them, although both had a chance to do so and simply failed where the Eagles did not.
This doesn't change anything about my feelings regarding Sam Darnold.
-
- Hall of Fame Candidate
- Posts: 3698
- Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:55 am
- x 644
Re: Vikings at Rams
Hurts was one of the few QBs to hold the ball as long as Darnold and has a similar issue as Darnold when it comes to reading defenses. The biggest difference being that Hurts actually makes teams pay when he scrambles to buy time.VikingLord wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 11:32 pmThe Eagles can't throw the ball this year. On the year they were the 29th ranked passing offense. In the playoff game against the Rams they threw for a grand total of 65 yards. In terms of sacks surrendered during the year the Eagles were middle-of-the-pack with 45 (as compared to the Vikings with 49), so despite their supposed better offensive line and more mobile QB they weren't very effective as a passing offense.
His 8.0 YPA was 8th best among QBs this season, they just didn't pass much so that 29th ranking is kind of useless. He was a very good passer, much better than Darnold.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9726
- Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 5:51 pm
- Location: Kentucky
- x 517
Re: Vikings at Rams
I'm not saying it changes anything about Darnold. It does change my view a bit on the team's overall performance. The Rams figured out how to get after the QB in the playoffs. I wish they would have beat the Eagles. They're my "most hated" team due to their fan base.VikingLord wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 11:32 pmThe Eagles can't throw the ball this year. On the year they were the 29th ranked passing offense. In the playoff game against the Rams they threw for a grand total of 65 yards. In terms of sacks surrendered during the year the Eagles were middle-of-the-pack with 45 (as compared to the Vikings with 49), so despite their supposed better offensive line and more mobile QB they weren't very effective as a passing offense.
In short, it doesn't surprise me the Rams got home 7 times against Hurts.
Nor does it surprise me they lost the game and gave up several big runs in the process. The genius boy wonder coach Sean McVay had no answers on defense as the Eagles beat the Rams the exact same way they beat them the first time the two teams met.
Unfortunately for the Vikings, neither Darnold nor the running game could counter what the Rams did against them, although both had a chance to do so and simply failed where the Eagles did not.
This doesn't change anything about my feelings regarding Sam Darnold.
The Rams were also better than they got credit for. They went 9-3 for the last part of their season. They really got things together after the bye when they were 1-4.
In my opinion they gave up so many big runs because Barkley is Barkley.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9726
- Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 5:51 pm
- Location: Kentucky
- x 517
Re: Vikings at Rams
Yeah, when your RB gets over 2,000 yards of course you didn't pass as much but when they did pass it was super effective.StumpHunter wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 8:44 amHurts was one of the few QBs to hold the ball as long as Darnold and has a similar issue as Darnold when it comes to reading defenses. The biggest difference being that Hurts actually makes teams pay when he scrambles to buy time.VikingLord wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 11:32 pm
The Eagles can't throw the ball this year. On the year they were the 29th ranked passing offense. In the playoff game against the Rams they threw for a grand total of 65 yards. In terms of sacks surrendered during the year the Eagles were middle-of-the-pack with 45 (as compared to the Vikings with 49), so despite their supposed better offensive line and more mobile QB they weren't very effective as a passing offense.
His 8.0 YPA was 8th best among QBs this season, they just didn't pass much so that 29th ranking is kind of useless. He was a very good passer, much better than Darnold.
-
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 8572
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 3:12 pm
- Location: The Land of the Ice and Snow
- x 1056
Re: Vikings at Rams
This is arguable. After scoring 30 points in their regular season win over the Vikings the Rams regular starters on offense scored over 30 points once during that stretch (44 against the Bills) and was very inconsistent. They played in one of the weaker overall divisions in pro football as well which also helped them make the playoffs.
Barkley is good, but the Rams were gambling men on defense most of the year and I think Barkley/Hurts just made them pay because the Eagles didn't abandon the run, or at least not to the degree KOC seemed willing to do. Or maybe it was because the Eagles never had to play from far behind and could afford to keep whacking away with the run.
Whatever it was, the Vikings had some of those same opportunities (against both the Rams and the Lions) and just couldn't or wouldn't take advantage of them. I don't blame Darnold for all of it - KOC also gave up on the run too quickly and his playcalling kind of fell into their hands. The Vikings pass game was a strength for most of the year, or at the very least of the two phases of the offense the pass game had the better talent and chances of producing explosive plays downfield, but there were big plays to be had running the ball against both of those defenses IMHO and the Vikings just didn't take advantage of them while the Eagles and Commanders did in their respective playoff games.
Hopefully with better QB play next year and a more consistent interior OL (and maybe a more explosive starting RB), KOC will feel he can turn to the run game and help cool those blitzing strategies off a bit.