Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16
  1. #1
    COJOMAY is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    7,005

    Surprised? Well, Vikes weren't all that bad to begin with

    http://www.startribune.com/local/12448021.html
    You thought the Vikings were done.

    You wanted them to lose the rest of their games, so Zygi could fire Childress and a top-seven-or-so draft pick could fetch a choice college quarterback like Colt Brennan or Brian Brohm. You were so fed up that you stopped watching in the second quarter and spitefully wished out loud from time to time that the Wilfs would move the team to L.A.

    The passing game was so atrocious, and the defense against the pass was so unreliable, that it was hard to begrudge anyone these alternating feelings of anger, frustration and apathy.
    Good column. Read the whole thing...
    Kentucky Vikes Fan

    When you require nothing, you get nothing; when you expect nothing, you will find nothing; when you embrace nothing, all you will have is nothing.

  2. #2
    Prophet's Avatar
    Prophet is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    17,388

    Re: Surprised? Well, Vikes weren't all that bad to begin with

    He pointed out the problem with media saturation and some fans are not capable of waiting for things to play out.
    Personally, I'm not surprised by the turnaround.
    The running game and rush defense has been strong and the passing defense has never been as bad as the media hacks like to make it sound (using yds given up rather than pts allowed).
    The majority of the losses since Chilly took over have been by a score or less, just like Bud Grant's first year as HC.
    A team that is within striking distance in most games that can shut down the run and run the ball is a team to be reckoned with.
    I see no surprise in this.
    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  3. #3
    AngloVike's Avatar
    AngloVike is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Sandhurst, UK
    Posts
    6,775
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Surprised? Well, Vikes weren't all that bad to begin with

    It is a good read and would have to say it is one of the better defences that we have had in recent years. I'm still a little concerned about the pass defence, especially with the depth at DE at present which impacts the pass rush ability. However it is still an improvement on what we had last season for sure, just hope we don't lose Frazier after this season when things are starting to settle down.
    Time spent annoying a Packer fan is never time wasted...


  4. #4
    PurpleTide's Avatar
    PurpleTide is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,210

    Re: Surprised? Well, Vikes weren't all that bad to begin with


    Good article, it reinforced the thoughts I had all season, I knew that once we got to the proverial "Mid-Season Form" that we'd be alright. With Tarvaris finally performing like we (some of us) thought he could, and Frazier getting the most out of our guys on D, improving that pass rush. Add that to the fact we are a strong rushing team, and can stop the rush, I had a feeling we could make a run, and by golly here we go.

  5. #5
    ItalianStallion's Avatar
    ItalianStallion is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,615

    Re: Surprised? Well, Vikes weren't all that bad to begin with

    It hinged (and still does) on Tarvaris being somewhat effective, and for us to be able to have some semblance of a passing game.


    I m like a Ja Rule poster, cause I'm off the wall.

  6. #6
    Vikes_King's Avatar
    Vikes_King is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    7,104

    Re: Surprised? Well, Vikes weren't all that bad to begin with

    "ItalianStallion" wrote:
    It hinged (and still does) on Tarvaris being somewhat effective, and for us to be able to have some semblance of a passing game.
    well.. success from any teams needs their quarterback to at least be somewhat effective
    :P


    http://vikesking.blogspot.com/

    "We’ll win our own Super Bowl, with our own players. Real Vikings. Something Brett Favre can never be."

    - Dan Calabrese

  7. #7
    StillPurple is offline Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,255

    Re: Surprised? Well, Vikes weren't all that bad to begin with

    I will admit to being one of the Tarvaris "haters" early on. I admit I was wrong. Tarvaris didn't look like an NFL QB, particularly with a 45 % completion rate in a "west coast" offense. It looked bad. He panicked too much. Our receivers were too raw and inexperienced and didn't "help out" at all (i.e. block downfield and help the QB by cutting routes off, etc.). Peterson was not yet up to speed, fully. The Cover 2 had holes in it.

    That was then. This is NOW:

    - Cover 2 abandoned for man coverage: results in corners being less confused. Pass D is better.
    - Tarvaris has massively improved. His completion % is now 75 %, and he has matured incredibly.
    - Receivers are better. Rice is developing nicely.

    I did post, after week 1, that the Vikings "inside-out" philosophy (develop the lines and the rest will follow) was working. So I think I was partly right.

    Back in July, I wrote something like, "If I am wrong about Tarvaris, I will admit it".

    Here it is, Purple Pride Nation: I WAS WRONG ABOUT TARVARIS.

    And I am glad I had to write that too.
    ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

  8. #8
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,909

    Re: Surprised? Well, Vikes weren't all that bad to begin with

    "StillPurple" wrote:
    I will admit to being one of the Tarvaris "haters" early on. I admit I was wrong. Tarvaris didn't look like an NFL QB, particularly with a 45 % completion rate in a "west coast" offense. It looked bad. He panicked too much. Our receivers were too raw and inexperienced and didn't "help out" at all (i.e. block downfield and help the QB by cutting routes off, etc.). Peterson was not yet up to speed, fully. The Cover 2 had holes in it.

    That was then. This is NOW:

    - Cover 2 abandoned for man coverage: results in corners being less confused. Pass D is better.
    - Tarvaris has massively improved. His completion % is now 75 %, and he has matured incredibly.
    - Receivers are better. Rice is developing nicely.

    I did post, after week 1, that the Vikings "inside-out" philosophy (develop the lines and the rest will follow) was working. So I think I was partly right.

    Back in July, I wrote something like, "If I am wrong about Tarvaris, I will admit it".

    Here it is, Purple Pride Nation: I WAS WRONG ABOUT TARVARIS.

    And I am glad I had to write that too.
    ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
    Very nice post my friend.
    Just one question.

    When did we give up on the cover 2?
    I know I missed the game last week but up until then it was still a pretty dominant part of the scheme.
    :
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  9. #9
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,258

    Re: Surprised? Well, Vikes weren't all that bad to begin with

    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "StillPurple" wrote:
    I will admit to being one of the Tarvaris "haters" early on. I admit I was wrong. Tarvaris didn't look like an NFL QB, particularly with a 45 % completion rate in a "west coast" offense. It looked bad. He panicked too much. Our receivers were too raw and inexperienced and didn't "help out" at all (i.e. block downfield and help the QB by cutting routes off, etc.). Peterson was not yet up to speed, fully. The Cover 2 had holes in it.

    That was then. This is NOW:

    - Cover 2 abandoned for man coverage: results in corners being less confused. Pass D is better.
    - Tarvaris has massively improved. His completion % is now 75 %, and he has matured incredibly.
    - Receivers are better. Rice is developing nicely.

    I did post, after week 1, that the Vikings "inside-out" philosophy (develop the lines and the rest will follow) was working. So I think I was partly right.

    Back in July, I wrote something like, "If I am wrong about Tarvaris, I will admit it".

    Here it is, Purple Pride Nation: I WAS WRONG ABOUT TARVARIS.

    And I am glad I had to write that too.
    ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
    Very nice post my friend.
    Just one question.

    When did we give up on the cover 2?
    I know I missed the game last week but up until then it was still a pretty dominant part of the scheme.

    :
    You missed some great articles while you were gone .

    They didn't abandon the cover 2, but have went away from it in certain plays.

    "If at first you don't succeed, parachuting is not for you"

  10. #10
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,909

    Re: Surprised? Well, Vikes weren't all that bad to begin with

    "singersp" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "StillPurple" wrote:
    I will admit to being one of the Tarvaris "haters" early on. I admit I was wrong. Tarvaris didn't look like an NFL QB, particularly with a 45 % completion rate in a "west coast" offense. It looked bad. He panicked too much. Our receivers were too raw and inexperienced and didn't "help out" at all (i.e. block downfield and help the QB by cutting routes off, etc.). Peterson was not yet up to speed, fully. The Cover 2 had holes in it.

    That was then. This is NOW:

    - Cover 2 abandoned for man coverage: results in corners being less confused. Pass D is better.
    - Tarvaris has massively improved. His completion % is now 75 %, and he has matured incredibly.
    - Receivers are better. Rice is developing nicely.

    I did post, after week 1, that the Vikings "inside-out" philosophy (develop the lines and the rest will follow) was working. So I think I was partly right.

    Back in July, I wrote something like, "If I am wrong about Tarvaris, I will admit it".

    Here it is, Purple Pride Nation: I WAS WRONG ABOUT TARVARIS.

    And I am glad I had to write that too.
    ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
    Very nice post my friend.
    Just one question.

    When did we give up on the cover 2?
    I know I missed the game last week but up until then it was still a pretty dominant part of the scheme.

    :
    You missed some great articles while you were gone .

    They didn't abandon the cover 2, but have went away from it in certain plays.
    I am trying to get through all of them this weekend.
    Some very interesting topics that I will have to read.

    As to "Went Away" from it, didn't we have this discussion several times over the last 4 weeks? Its called opening the playbook.
    ;D
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Let the Talk begin: McNabb to the Vikes
    By Garland Greene in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 08-14-2009, 02:08 PM
  2. Vikes Begin OTA's 5-19-08
    By VikingsTw in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 05-27-2008, 06:04 AM
  3. Don't be surprised
    By enlvikeman in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 112
    Last Post: 03-25-2006, 05:13 PM
  4. Surprised by this poll, ppl round here think Vikes won't win
    By audioghost in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-10-2005, 06:24 AM
  5. I'm surprised!!
    By VKG4LFE in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 06-16-2004, 09:22 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •