Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33
  1. #21
    muchluv4smoot's Avatar
    muchluv4smoot is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,318

    Re: Theory on Vikes Defensive Woes

    "Del Rio" wrote:
    That is why Smoot is growing on me, I usually do not like loud mouths. But he is forcing the team to have some spirit, some pride and giving them a bravado. Something a coach should feed and build off of by playing every man to their potential, something I do not think Cottrell has done as of yet.


    Nice to see you finally coming around Del. Like I have been saying, the biggest thing Smoot brings to this D is his mouth. Not to be cocky to opponents, but to be a vocal leader on this D. Winfield and Kevin Williams just aren't vocal guys and i think you need that guy that is gonna fire you up and tell you that anything but the best is unacceptable.

  2. #22
    MensaTice's Avatar
    MensaTice is offline Star Spokesman
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,799

    Re: Theory on Vikes Defensive Woes

    Smoot's mouth is great but keep in mind Hovan had a mouth as well. Vocal is only good when you produce. I think we all agree that Smoot will produce, but we've seen pre-season talk before. Also, I hope the other players on the D do respond positively to his mouth.

    [color=red]

  3. #23
    cajunvike's Avatar
    cajunvike is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    32,063

    Re: Theory on Vikes Defensive Woes

    There is a difference between a motor mouth that is only out to make himself look good and a motor mouth that is trying to fire up his teammates to make the team better....my take is that Smoot is much more the latter of the two. Smoooooooooooooot!!!
    BANNED OR DEAD...I'LL TAKE EITHER ONE

  4. #24
    MensaTice's Avatar
    MensaTice is offline Star Spokesman
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,799

    Re: Theory on Vikes Defensive Woes

    Agreed completely cajun. I'm just saying that now he HAS to back it up.

    [color=red]

  5. #25
    muchluv4smoot's Avatar
    muchluv4smoot is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,318

    Re: Theory on Vikes Defensive Woes

    "MensaTice" wrote:
    Agreed completely cajun. I'm just saying that now he HAS to back it up.


    The difference in him and hovan is, smoot has already backed it up. As soon as hovan became a talker, he got worse and worse, or less and less effective. Smoot has been vocal from day 1 and been a big contributor in washington from day 1. He has already backed up his talk in this league, time and time again and has been the vocal leader in washington. I see no reason he does anything different here.

  6. #26
    MensaTice's Avatar
    MensaTice is offline Star Spokesman
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,799

    Re: Theory on Vikes Defensive Woes

    We're on the same page. I know the difference between Smoot and Hovan. I was just using Hovan as an example of someone talking big and not backing it up. I loved Smoot in Washington and I think he'll be great for us. The Hovan example was to show that Smoots talk doesn't mean anything if it doesn't motivate his teammates and he doesn't live up to expectations. I love vocal players. I love cocky D-Backs. They just need perform if they're going to talk.

    [color=red]

  7. #27
    Del Rio Guest

    Re: Theory on Vikes Defensive Woes

    I do not think Smoot even needs to back it up at this point. There seems to be enough talent on this team that even if all he did was motivate what we have he would have done enough.

    Statistically you know he will be ok. He isn't the best there is but he is pretty solid.

    He doesn't have to back anything up really, as long as his teamates get fired up by what he says then he will have done good. Credibility really isn't an issue either. If he is likable and has charisma that the team feeds off of then he will be a valuable weapon.

    Like I said I'm not a big fan players that feel they need to tell the world how good they are. I prefer the guys who let the work do the talking. But in such a stagnant enviroment as it seems to be, and with all the new faces I think it could go a long way to building some teamwork and an us against the world type attitude.

  8. #28
    nsavarirayan is offline Rookie
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    70

    Re: Theory on Vikes Defensive Woes

    Remember when John Randall was in his prime and used to cover almost his entire face with black (I think he may have gotten fined for using too much of it). He used to bark and yell at people and would find out personal information about his opponent so he could bash them even beter with his mouth. That was around the time that we had a decent defense - but no QB. Man that used to be fun!

    But I have to agree with most of the comments here - Defense is very much about mindset and intimidation - scaring your opponents. Regardless of how good you are - once you get scared or begin doubting is when you are going to get burned. I think we need guys that react almost with instinct - not sit there thinking too much about what they should or should not be doing or what the coach told them to do.

    People are really propping up our defense (especially in the media) and us Vikes fans are just gobbling it all up - we need to be careful becuase its the chemistry that is the most important part. I think Pepp and the offense wtill needs to win the games for us at this point. If the D can just make a few stops we will be ok. I watched the vikes year in review on the NFL channel and forgot how many close games the Vikes lost, not too mention all the close games we won that should not have been close (like the texans game). If we got just a few 4th quarter stops we would have easlily won the division.

    I guess we will be finding out real soon.

  9. #29
    MensaTice's Avatar
    MensaTice is offline Star Spokesman
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,799

    Re: Theory on Vikes Defensive Woes

    You're 100% correct about chemistry. The defense is getting propped up but not unreasonably. I think the general consensus is that the defense will be good and not the reason we lose games. If the chemistry meets or exceeds expectations, we could have a great defense that may actually win a few games for us.

    Looking back to last season, I'm glad our D lost us as many games as they did because it prompted a major overhaul of personel. The regular season was frustrating but we beat the @#$% out of the Pack in the playoffs and made it as far as the team was capapble. If Chavous and B Williams show up on time, all the pieces are there for the first time in a decade. It all comes down to chemistry.

    [color=red]

  10. #30
    V-Unit's Avatar
    V-Unit is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,317

    Re: Theory on Vikes Defensive Woes

    "MensaTice" wrote:
    We're on the same page. I know the difference between Smoot and Hovan. I was just using Hovan as an example of someone talking big and not backing it up. I loved Smoot in Washington and I think he'll be great for us. The Hovan example was to show that Smoots talk doesn't mean anything if it doesn't motivate his teammates and he doesn't live up to expectations. I love vocal players. I love cocky D-Backs. They just need perform if they're going to talk.
    Hovan did not back his talk up personally, but while he was talking our DL did become a force. Most will probably call this a mere coincidence, but for a rookie, having the guy next to you being loud and confident can help regardless of his skills.

    The biggest reason I'm worried about our D is we don't have a veteran leader who has played defense in Minnesota before. Hopefully Cowart and PWill know the system well enough. I think Kevin is still too young and I don't see EJ or Harris as players who will lead both vocally and by example. MLB is usually thought to be the defensive captain, but right now it looks like we have a leader-by-example in Winfield and a vocal leader in Smoot. A true captain needs to emerge. We haven't had one of those for a long time now.
    "I hate when threads are destroyed by facts and logic."
    - Prophet


    Thanks Josdin!

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-16-2008, 07:40 AM
  2. Vikes' defensive line after the Jared Allen trade
    By HEY in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 04-24-2008, 10:49 PM
  3. Road woes....
    By thevikingfan in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-02-2006, 06:16 AM
  4. Theory on Vikes Defensive Woes
    By vikesfan in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-25-2005, 07:17 AM
  5. UFA/RFA Defensive Players the Vikes should look at..
    By Phlegm in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 02-25-2005, 05:31 PM

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
  •