Thread: Minnesota Vikings Vs Green Bay Packers

BloodyHorns82 wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:

Infidel wrote:

Cowboys missed TD chances by repeatedly running on third downs.

They got them, but if they'd have passed to our weakness they'd have won the game.

Green Bay is looking at the films right now.

Green Bay will exploit Shepherd and Allen.

Our pass rush better be spectacular or better.

Meh, our pass defense is doing just fine. Currently ranked 6th in yards per game allowed. Number one in yards per pass attempt.
If the packers want to give up on the run early I am just fine with that.

Crazier yet, 3 of our 5 teams we've played are top 10 in the league for passing yards per game:

4. Cowboys
5. Saints
6. Lions
13. Dolphins
25. Jets

Packers are #10.

Forget it BH. All of sudden, stats aren't allowed on here, especially if used to support a discussion point.

Infidel wrote:

Couldn't some of the reason they weren't tested be that the D-backs were covering well enough for the pressure from the D-line to get to Romo enough for him to dump the ball off?

That may well be part of it, but doesn't change the fact that they weren't tested.

I think Cowboys passed once on third and short? Stupid, and it probably cost them the game.

I hope our secondary plays well......but for now they are a weak spot to be targeted. I agree that could change if they continue to improve. At least I see real effort from them.....unlike other parts of the team.

So wait, does that mean "Not Tested" or "Not thrown at because of coverage"?

I for one think the DB's are more than holding thier own, especially considering they are a group that relies on alot of pressure from the front end to make them effective.

That, the front end pressure, has been pretty non-existent this year and even though they are banged up, the DB's still seem to be the bright spot on the defense, along with the LB's of course.

Marrdro wrote:

BloodyHorns82 wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:

Infidel wrote:

Cowboys missed TD chances by repeatedly running on third downs.

They got them, but if they'd have passed to our weakness they'd have won the game.

Green Bay is looking at the films right now.

Green Bay will exploit Shepherd and Allen.

Our pass rush better be spectacular or better.

Meh, our pass defense is doing just fine. Currently ranked 6th in yards per game allowed. Number one in yards per pass attempt.
If the packers want to give up on the run early I am just fine with that.

Crazier yet, 3 of our 5 teams we've played are top 10 in the league for passing yards per game:

4. Cowboys
5. Saints
6. Lions
13. Dolphins
25. Jets

Packers are #10.

Forget it BH. All of sudden, stats aren't allowed on here, especially if used to support a discussion point.

I tend to to be in the crowd that agrees that stats are mostly useless except for entertainment sake. For just about every stat you can use to discuss a point, there is usually another one that can be used to argue the exact opposite.

(Obviously there are exceptions to the rule)

There is a reason we play the game and not just watch it on paper.

They are fun for discussion and analyzing, but shouldn't be taken too serious or used to "prove" any point.

BloodyHorns82 wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

BloodyHorns82 wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:

Infidel wrote:

Cowboys missed TD chances by repeatedly running on third downs.

They got them, but if they'd have passed to our weakness they'd have won the game.

Green Bay is looking at the films right now.

Green Bay will exploit Shepherd and Allen.

Our pass rush better be spectacular or better.

Meh, our pass defense is doing just fine. Currently ranked 6th in yards per game allowed. Number one in yards per pass attempt.
If the packers want to give up on the run early I am just fine with that.

Crazier yet, 3 of our 5 teams we've played are top 10 in the league for passing yards per game:

4. Cowboys
5. Saints
6. Lions
13. Dolphins
25. Jets

Packers are #10.

Forget it BH. All of sudden, stats aren't allowed on here, especially if used to support a discussion point.

I tend to to be in the crowd that agrees that stats are mostly useless except for entertainment sake. For just about every stat you can use to discuss a point, there is usually another one that can be used to argue the exact opposite.

(Obviously there are exceptions to the rule)

There is a reason we play the game and not just watch it on paper.

They are fun for discussion and analyzing, but shouldn't be taken too serious or used to "prove" any point.

Well said, but as you said, they can be used to support both sides of the discussion which has some meritt especially if they are mixed in with a bit of game knowledge.

The chucklehead that uses them exclusively, is just that, a chucklehead.

Marrdro wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

Marrdro can say what he wants about the CBs but truth is they did not get tested against the Cowboys. They had something like 3 passes over 15 yards. You better believe Rodgers is going to test them. I am not sure our O can keep up with him.

I agree, he didn't but you have to agree he looked deep several times and wound up checking down.

When that happens, you are usually seeing good coverage down field.

Was it only the CBs. I doubt it. Probably had alot to do with S help and at least the MLB.

On a side note, on those "Several" times, there was pleanty of time for a DLmen to get to the QB and that didn't happen either.

Yes I am concern with the S and DL as well.

Minnesota Vikings at Green Bay Packers

Vikings-Packers Date, TV, and Kickoff Time: Sunday, October 24 at 8:20 pm on FOX
Vikings-Packers Point Spread: Packers -2.5
Vikings-Packers Over-Under Odds: 44.5
Vikings-Packers Spread Pick: Sorry Pack fans, I can’t do it. The Packers just lost at home to the Dolphins and are dealing with myriad injuries that have made them a shell of the team we thought we’d see this year. The Vikings played better against the Cowboys, just being solid and hard-nosed and allowing Dallas to beat itself. Say what you will about Brett Favre and Aaron Rodgers at this point in their careers, but one has proven he can win close games (sometimes…when he’s not throwing picks to lose them) and one hasn’t proven that he can. If you’re giving points to the guy who has proven he can win big games, I’ll take them. Vikings-Packers free pick: Vikings +2.5

NFL Bettor’s Guide: Week 7 Picks, Point Spreads, and Over-Under Odds

Zeus wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

Marrdro can say what he wants about the CBs but truth is they did not get tested against the Cowboys. They had something like 3 passes over 15 yards. You better believe Rodgers is going to test them. I am not sure our O can keep up with him.

Couldn't some of the reason they weren't tested be that the D-backs were covering well enough for the pressure from the D-line to get to Romo enough for him to dump the ball off?

Hmmmmmmmm?

=Z=

Sure if that is what you want to believe.

Marrdro wrote:

Zeus wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

Marrdro can say what he wants about the CBs but truth is they did not get tested against the Cowboys. They had something like 3 passes over 15 yards. You better believe Rodgers is going to test them. I am not sure our O can keep up with him.

Couldn't some of the reason they weren't tested be that the D-backs were covering well enough for the pressure from the D-line to get to Romo enough for him to dump the ball off?

Hmmmmmmmm?

=Z=

Excellent post my friend.

Hard to see what is actually happening down field on TV, but I thought the checkdowns were a prime example of good coverage downfield by somebody.

Yet you don't blame our WRs for not getting open and it is all Favre.

HHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

Marrdro wrote:

BloodyHorns82 wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

BloodyHorns82 wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:

Infidel wrote:

Cowboys missed TD chances by repeatedly running on third downs.

They got them, but if they'd have passed to our weakness they'd have won the game.

Green Bay is looking at the films right now.

Green Bay will exploit Shepherd and Allen.

Our pass rush better be spectacular or better.

Meh, our pass defense is doing just fine. Currently ranked 6th in yards per game allowed. Number one in yards per pass attempt.
If the packers want to give up on the run early I am just fine with that.

Crazier yet, 3 of our 5 teams we've played are top 10 in the league for passing yards per game:

4. Cowboys
5. Saints
6. Lions
13. Dolphins
25. Jets

Packers are #10.

Forget it BH. All of sudden, stats aren't allowed on here, especially if used to support a discussion point.

I tend to to be in the crowd that agrees that stats are mostly useless except for entertainment sake. For just about every stat you can use to discuss a point, there is usually another one that can be used to argue the exact opposite.

(Obviously there are exceptions to the rule)

There is a reason we play the game and not just watch it on paper.

They are fun for discussion and analyzing, but shouldn't be taken too serious or used to "prove" any point.

Well said, but as you said, they can be used to support both sides of the discussion which has some meritt especially if they are mixed in with a bit of game knowledge.

The chucklehead that uses them exclusively, is just that, a chucklehead.

Agreed.

marstc09 wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Zeus wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

Marrdro can say what he wants about the CBs but truth is they did not get tested against the Cowboys. They had something like 3 passes over 15 yards. You better believe Rodgers is going to test them. I am not sure our O can keep up with him.

Couldn't some of the reason they weren't tested be that the D-backs were covering well enough for the pressure from the D-line to get to Romo enough for him to dump the ball off?

Hmmmmmmmm?

=Z=

Excellent post my friend.

Hard to see what is actually happening down field on TV, but I thought the checkdowns were a prime example of good coverage downfield by somebody.

Yet you don't blame our WRs for not getting open and it is all Favre.

HHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

Show me were I said that.

I was actually a bit suprised when you told me our WR's, especially Moss, weren't getting open but I didn't doubt it.