Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26
  1. #11
    Mr. Purple's Avatar
    Mr. Purple is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    4,005

    Re: Vikings' loss exposes major flaws

    I dont buy into any of these articles really.Everyone , every year screams not to put alot of thought into preseason football.However writers will still dissect the games, and act like they know exactly what we lack or need.Jackson has looked just fine to me in his first 3 games.Yes he hasn't thrown a TD, but Chad Pennington threw 2 INTS for TDs last week, but no one in NY is calling for his head ...yet.My point is if preseason isn't supposed to count, they why even waste time writing up all this bull? I guess they find it interesting to pick apart the games and performances. But IMHO you cant jump to conclusions about players or teams yet at all.When week 1 rolls around, and we're 0-1 and T-Jack doesn't have a single TD thrown, I'll revert back to this page and eat crow.Until then, imma go with the wait and see approach.

    Theres NOTHING greater then a Florida Gator!
    "I promise everyone this. When Childress is let go in two years I can honestly say this.
    "I am not surprised"."-PurplePackerEater

  2. #12
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,602
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Vikings' loss exposes major flaws

    "Mr." wrote:
    I dont buy into any of these articles really.Everyone , every year screams not to put alot of thought into preseason football.However writers will still dissect the games, and act like they know exactly what we lack or need.Jackson has looked just fine to me in his first 3 games.Yes he hasn't thrown a TD, but Chad Pennington threw 2 INTS for TDs last week, but no one in NY is calling for his head ...yet.My point is if preseason isn't supposed to count, they why even waste time writing up all this bull? I guess they find it interesting to pick apart the games and performances. But IMHO you cant jump to conclusions about players or teams yet at all.When week 1 rolls around, and we're 0-1 and T-Jack doesn't have a single TD thrown, I'll revert back to this page and eat crow.Until then, imma go with the wait and see approach.
    Very true.

    Preseason is, well, preseason.
    Heck, did anyone catch McNabb's performance last night?
    5 for 11 for 60 yards, no TDs, a lost fumble, and two sacks.
    He almost made Bollinger look good.
    Yet I doubt they are up in arms in Philly...
    Zeus wrote:
    When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?

    =Z=

  3. #13
    snowinapril's Avatar
    snowinapril is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    13,404

    Re: Vikings' loss exposes major flaws

    I was hoping to get to see the game this morning, so I could comment in one of these thread, but the game was interrupted by Vick coverage.
    Booooo.

    Anyway.....

    The Seattle game was one game in preseason.
    We are definitely working out some kinks.


    Special teams and turnovers gave them a huge advantage.
    In the first quarter, they were working with a short field every time they got the ball.
    Seattle seemed to pick us a part.

    Key stat
    The Vikings had four turnovers -- three coming from the quarterback position. Bollinger threw two interceptions, while rookie quarterback Tavaris Jackson lost one fumble. Running back Mewelde Moore also fumbled the ball away.
    I will have to add, to that stat from NFL.com that we had ZERO SACKS.
    The little bit I saw of this game, EJ almost had a sack on Matt, on a blitz.
    Matt got the ball away and Strong had a great catch to get a first down.
    The best that sack would have accomplished would have been a longer FG attempt by Sea.

    The right side of the line did well.
    I see that the Seahawks got one sack, did it come from the right side?
    If so, it was only one sack and that is an improvement over last year.

  4. #14
    MaxVike's Avatar
    MaxVike is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    2,551

    Re: Vikings' loss exposes major flaws

    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "Mr." wrote:
    I dont buy into any of these articles really.Everyone , every year screams not to put alot of thought into preseason football.However writers will still dissect the games, and act like they know exactly what we lack or need.Jackson has looked just fine to me in his first 3 games.Yes he hasn't thrown a TD, but Chad Pennington threw 2 INTS for TDs last week, but no one in NY is calling for his head ...yet.My point is if preseason isn't supposed to count, they why even waste time writing up all this bull? I guess they find it interesting to pick apart the games and performances. But IMHO you cant jump to conclusions about players or teams yet at all.When week 1 rolls around, and we're 0-1 and T-Jack doesn't have a single TD thrown, I'll revert back to this page and eat crow.Until then, imma go with the wait and see approach.
    Very true.

    Preseason is, well, preseason.
    Heck, did anyone catch McNabb's performance last night?
    5 for 11 for 60 yards, no TDs, a lost fumble, and two sacks.
    He almost made Bollinger look good.
    Yet I doubt they are up in arms in Philly...
    Two counterpoints...

    1)
    Some Jets fans ARE calling for Pennington's head in NY...but, they are Jets fans.
    Virtually all of my colleagues are either Eagles, Jets, or Giants fans.
    Most of the Jets fans I know want Pennington's head.
    2)
    Preseason DOES matter more heavily for those who are not 5 time Pro-Bowlers, and that are trying to move up the depth chart.
    BB is not Donovan McNabb
    ;D

    I totally agree that most writers jump to conclusions based on superficial, preseason stats, trends, etc, and that you can't really get much out of it.
    Somebody posted some pretty telling stats yesterday though, that those team who win Game 3 of the preseason are more likely to go to the playoffs.
    There might be something there.

    Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent
    ----------------------------------------------
    As a matter of fact, I do know

  5. #15
    Suick's Avatar
    Suick is offline Pro-Bowler
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    415

    Re: Vikings' loss exposes major flaws

    If I remember correctly, didn't the ST blow a few years ago , and we sarted using 1st teamers? Things got better quickly. I don't think Winfield would be missing those tackles.

    However, you risk injury.
    I've been a Viking fan since I was just out of diapers, hopefully we get Super Bowl win before I go back in 'em.

  6. #16
    ItalianStallion's Avatar
    ItalianStallion is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,615

    Re: Vikings' loss exposes major flaws

    I learned a long time ago that how any team plays in preseason, good or bad, has almost no bearing whatsoever on the regular season record.


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

  7. #17
    StillPurple is offline Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,255

    Re: Vikings' loss exposes major flaws

    On the other hand, Tom Brady and McNabb have looked incredible in pre-season. This is a passing league (due to modern rules changes and new types offenses). We are no longer in 1975, when you run off-tackle all game or do sweeps like the 1967 Packers. In the modern NFL, you have to air the ball out constantly (Bill Walsh changed that forever). Look at the teams who win: Pats, Colts, Chargers, (increasingly): Saints, Eagles, etc. What do they have in common ? A great QB who can read a defense and throw downfield. Did you see Brady last weekend. SCARY ! He picked apart the Carolina defense surgically. To win (I for one am not content to 'make the playoffs'), you need a QB like McNabb, Brady, Brees, Rivers, P. Manning.

    In contrast, what do we have in MN ? I saw a QB vs. Seattle who runs o.k. and has good arm strength, but who looks confused at the line, and fumbles snaps.

  8. #18
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,916

    Re: Vikings' loss exposes major flaws

    "StillPurple" wrote:
    On the other hand, Tom Brady and McNabb have looked incredible in pre-season. This is a passing league (due to modern rules changes and new types offenses). We are no longer in 1975, when you run off-tackle all game or do sweeps like the 1967 Packers. In the modern NFL, you have to air the ball out constantly (Bill Walsh changed that forever). Look at the teams who win: Pats, Colts, Chargers, (increasingly): Saints, Eagles, etc. What do they have in common ? A great QB who can read a defense and throw downfield. Did you see Brady last weekend. SCARY ! He picked apart the Carolina defense surgically. To win (I for one am not content to 'make the playoffs'), you need a QB like McNabb, Brady, Brees, Rivers, P. Manning.

    In contrast, what do we have in MN ? I saw a QB vs. Seattle who runs o.k. and has good arm strength, but who looks confused at the line, and fumbles snaps.
    Your right, but the winners also don't go out and execute the "Randy Ratio" every play either.

    I'm not gonna post it again, however, go look here
    http://www.purplepride.org/forums/in...5299#msg625299and see how many passes (I used a Vikes series, GB and Indy as my prime examples) of how they pass.
    Short left, short right, short middle with an occasional deep ball.

    Gone are the days of the "Randy Ratio" just like the days of pounding the rock all game.
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  9. #19
    nephilimstorm's Avatar
    nephilimstorm is offline Star Spokesman
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    2,184

    Re: Vikings' loss exposes major flaws

    I see these things as problems

    a) ST
    b) Kicking Game
    C) returner

    Now, The Lions did release Eddie Drummund...there is an option

    Second, Special Team could be better if we used starters instead of backups (which has been done)

    and the kicking game- I believe in Longwell..I just hope he gets the ants out of his pants, cause he doesnt look comfortable out there and thats why he missed the first tries in Pre Season..all of his tries where whenh he just got out on the field to kick a FG

    as far as a KOS- go with longwell..he does seem to get the ball at least past the 10, just opur team needs to tackle and tackle well

  10. #20
    Caine's Avatar
    Caine is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    5,139

    Re: Vikings' loss exposes major flaws

    "StillPurple" wrote:
    On the other hand, Tom Brady and McNabb have looked incredible in pre-season. This is a passing league (due to modern rules changes and new types offenses). We are no longer in 1975, when you run off-tackle all game or do sweeps like the 1967 Packers. In the modern NFL, you have to air the ball out constantly (Bill Walsh changed that forever). Look at the teams who win: Pats, Colts, Chargers, (increasingly): Saints, Eagles, etc. What do they have in common ? A great QB who can read a defense and throw downfield. Did you see Brady last weekend. SCARY ! He picked apart the Carolina defense surgically. To win (I for one am not content to 'make the playoffs'), you need a QB like McNabb, Brady, Brees, Rivers, P. Manning.

    In contrast, what do we have in MN ? I saw a QB vs. Seattle who runs o.k. and has good arm strength, but who looks confused at the line, and fumbles snaps.
    Actually, if you go back and look at the statistics of the teams who play in the Superbowl every season, this is a Defense/Running oriented league.
    Brady is a great QB, no doubt about it, but he never leads the NFL in passing.
    McNabb is up there, but can't get it done in the big game.

    Of course, a case could be made that a cruddy QB can lose you a Superbowl (Sexy Rexy), but a couple of those have won too - with great defense (Dilfer and Johnson).

    Pass-Happy teams sometimes go the distance (Indy last season, and the Rams "Greatest Show on Turf"), but it's USUALLY the team with the better defense, a strong running game, and the ABILITY to pass...and consistant Special teams play.
    In short, it's the most COMPLETE team...usually.

    Unfortunately, we're a long way from there.
    Jackson is still a project - even if he is the starter.
    The Receivers are still a project (When Robert Ferguson and Bobby Wade are your "Big Guns", "project" is the nicest descriptor to use).
    Special Teams has been shoddy for the past few seasons, and doesn't look to have improved a whole lot this year...yet.

    BUT, it's still preseason.
    Nothing that's happened yet matters.
    Maybe all the pieces will fall into place, maybe they won't.
    My stance is that this is (another) project year.
    I have no great expectations, I'm simply looking for forward progress on the development of - primarily - the Offense.

    Caine

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-15-2007, 01:47 PM
  2. Steelers lineman, who died at 36, exposes brain injuries
    By singersp in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-15-2007, 08:26 AM
  3. For Vikings' Robinson, numbers tell a major story
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-03-2006, 10:40 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
  •