49ers vs Vikings

[milani]

I could've sworn The Packers swept The Vikings in the regular season, only for them to beat us in The playoffs.

You are correct as I stated before. We best the Vikings with 2 walk off 34-31 victories in 2004 and got thumped at Lambeau the first week because of the crappy Slowik defense. Longwell delivered both FGs. In Game One the Vikings tied us late. We ran a kick off back and fumbled but fortunately an ex Viking recovered it for us. Favre hit Tony Fisher to set up the game winner. In Game 2 we miraculously forced the Vikings to punt late. Favre hit Fisher and Driver and got us around midfield. Vikings blitzed on 3rd down. As Favre was hit he threw to Jevon Walker who adjusted for the blitz then made a cut back and took it down the sideline to the 9 yard line.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

A Vikings win would do a LOT for our SB chances as we'd have a home Conference game and no matter how good Vikings are, Cousins will choke here.

So what are the chances of Vikings pulling out a win. On paper they seem a good match with meh QBs who can have moments of brilliance and D which will turn up or not.

49ers have averaged more than 20 points to opposition over each of the past few games.

Go Vikings?

Just take care of business against Seattle. The rest will take care of itself.

 

[Pugger]

I have a feeling MN is going to have a problem with SF's pass rush, just like they did against us. The Vikes will have Cook back so the threat of him running might alleviate some of the pass rush.

 

[weeds]

...and I don't disagree with that take neither, OldSchool.

A rematch with the 49ers will NOT be a re-run though. I can't imagine the Packers doing that twice.

 

[bigbubbatd]

I have a feeling MN is going to have a problem with SF's pass rush, just like they did against us. The Vikes will have Cook back so the threat of him running might alleviate some of the pass rush.

New Orleans was missing their best pass rusher and still had 3 sacks. The Vikings offensive line is a good run blocking, poor pass blocking oline. If they are unable to run the ball like they second half of the Saints game then SF will win going away. People talk about how much Cook helps and they are correct, but look at the second half of that game and New Orleans figured out Minnesota's offense. Should be a fun weekend of football.

 

[milani]

New Orleans was missing their best pass rusher and still had 3 sacks. The Vikings offensive line is a good run blocking, poor pass blocking oline. If they are unable to run the ball like they second half of the Saints game then SF will win going away. People talk about how much Cook helps and they are correct, but look at the second half of that game and New Orleans figured out Minnesota's offense. Should be a fun weekend of football.

Do not know who has run the ball effectively against Frisco all year unless it was the Raven's QB. The Cook presence will enable Cousins to go under center and play action. But it does not mean it will slow their rush or free up receivers automatically.

 

[El Guapo]

People talk about how much Cook helps and they are correct, but look at the second half of that game and New Orleans figured out Minnesota's offense. Should be a fun weekend of football.

I was going to tell you that the Vikings stopped running the ball in the second half, because that's what I thought at the time. However, I looked at the play-by-play and was surprised. The Vikings ran an impressive 52.5% of the time in the first half, and 51.3% in the second half. That's how you beat a high-powered offense on the road - keep them off of the field and give your defense a rest.

 

[bigbubbatd]

I was going to tell you that the Vikings stopped running the ball in the second half, because that's what I thought at the time. However, I looked at the play-by-play and was surprised. The Vikings ran an impressive 52.5% of the time in the first half, and 51.3% in the second half. That's how you beat a high-powered offense on the road - keep them off of the field and give your defense a rest.

They didnt give their defense a rest though in the 2nd half

They had an 8 play td drive. Outside of that they went
3 plays for 8 yards
3 plays for 2 yards
6 plays for 14 yards
6 plays for -3 yards
So 4 other drives going an average of 4.5 plays and 5 yards.

Their offense was terrible in the second half. I didnt look closely but I think they only had 1 or 2 plays over 10 yards.

 

[OldSchool101]

They didnt give their defense a rest though in the 2nd half

They had an 8 play td drive. Outside of that they went
3 plays for 8 yards
3 plays for 2 yards
6 plays for 14 yards
6 plays for -3 yards
So 4 other drives going an average of 4.5 plays and 5 yards.

Their offense was terrible in the second half. I didnt look closely but I think they only had 1 or 2 plays over 10 yards.

They did what they needed to win and what they did worked. That included chewing up 36:56 (nearly dominating the clock) of a 60:00 clock with something like 14 second half rushes. Which coincides with El Guapo’s comment. Using the clock is far too underestimated by opponents and fans alike.

 

[rmontro]

Since we play Sunday, it irks me a bit that SF or MN get an extra day to prepare. That's looking too far ahead though.

 

[bigbubbatd]

They did what they needed to win and what they did worked. That included chewing up 36:56 (nearly dominating the clock) of a 60:00 clock with something like 14 second half rushes. Which coincides with El Guapo’s comment. Using the clock is far too underestimated by opponents and fans alike.

I dont disagree time of possession matters. But the Vikings only had the ball for 13-14 minutes of the second half. So they actually lost time of possession that half.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Is it just me or have playoff games been getting better (or at least closer if you don't like defense) over the past few years. Two OT games this past weekend and I seem to recall a few last year as well. It just seems to me that up until a couple of years ago there were many more blowout games. Especially in the early rounds. Of course I am getting old and I sometimes forget to put on pants (good luck getting that image out of your head) so maybe I am just not remembering correctly.

The combined margin of victory of 15 points (at the end of regulation) in the four wild card games last week is the lowest since the league changed to the current playoff format in 1990.

In addition it was the first time that two wild card games went into overtime.

 

[bigbubbatd]

The combined margin of victory of 15 points (at the end of regulation) in the four wild card games last week is the lowest since the league changed to the current playoff format in 1990.

In addition it was the first time that two wild card games went into overtime.

I would argue the games were closer last week but I would disagree with the premise of the original with the poster who said they were better. I was able to watch 3 of the 4 games (missed Patriots and Titans) and did not feel like the quality of football was very good. I felt like the play overall was sloppy and no team was overly impressive. Maybe I am cynical in my older age but the people I was watching with agreed

 

[Southside]

Slim to none and
Slim's out of town.

 

[OldSchool101]

I dont disagree time of possession matters. But the Vikings only had the ball for 13-14 minutes of the second half. So they actually lost time of possession that half.

That is a truth. (Saints used 16:31 of 30:00 2nd half) But there’s more to that story. The Saints got the ball first in the second half and had 6 possessions to the Vikings 5 (I’m not counting a kneel down in the closing few seconds by Cousins) Also the Vikings forced the Saints to kill the clock 2 times with TO’s towards the end of the game (4QTR 5:45 and 2:54) while the Vikings possessed it, that alone chipped conservatively :35+:35 sec or 1:10 total in itself.

So the reality is the Saints would’ve had the ball just :21 sec more in a half where they possessed it first
(6 possessions to 5). Saying the Saints owned the clock in the second half is splitting hairs when we’re talking :21 seconds and they got it first.

 

[bigbubbatd]

That is a truth. (Saints used 16:31 of 30:00 2nd half) But there’s more to that story. The Saints got the ball first in the second half and had 6 possessions to the Vikings 5 (I’m not counting a kneel down in the closing few seconds by Cousins) Also the Vikings forced the Saints to kill the clock 2 times with TO’s towards the end of the game (4QTR 5:45 and 2:54) while the Vikings possessed it, that alone chipped conservatively :35+:35 sec or 1:10 total in itself.

So the reality is the Saints would’ve had the ball just :21 sec more in a half where they possessed it first
(6 possessions to 5). Saying the Saints owned the clock in the second half is splitting hairs when we’re talking :21 seconds and they got it first.

Of implied the Saints dominated time of possession that would be incorrect for sure. I would say the Vikings defense had much more to do with their team being almost equal in time of possession than the offense did. If you look at all their stats - plays per drive, yards per drive, and time of possession per drive they were at or below the league average for all them, all why trying to milk the clock - constantly snapping the ball late in the clock and running a lot.

The Vikings defense kept the Saints from sustaining longer drives which allowed the Vikings offense chances with the ball

 

[OldSchool101]

Of implied the Saints dominated time of possession that would be incorrect for sure. I would say the Vikings defense had much more to do with their team being almost equal in time of possession than the offense did. If you look at all their stats - plays per drive, yards per drive, and time of possession per drive they were at or below the league average for all them, all why trying to milk the clock - constantly snapping the ball late in the clock and running a lot.

The Vikings defense kept the Saints from sustaining longer drives which allowed the Vikings offense chances with the ball

Vikings definitely played stout D. I’ll agree with that. They went into hostile territory and stunned NO. But it was an all around MN effort and in combination with Cousins proving some naysayers wrong also. It was an effective MN game plan with lots of O ground attack.

It also goes to show how the GB running game is legit. We won the O ground game against MN a couple weeks back.

 

[rmontro]

We won the O ground game against MN a couple weeks back.

Cook was out though.

 

[longtimefan]

Cook was out though.

Some think cook doesn't matter.

If Vikings win at Frisco and Packers win, that game will be a dog fight.

Te that is not to bad, great running game, great wr and a qb that has shown he can be very good

 

[XPack]

Some think cook doesn't matter.

Anyone who know even a bit about Vikings and NFL in general won't think of Cook that way. He's a Top 10 RB this season..just falls out of Top 5 tbh!

Only advantage we have is Cousins is likely to lay an egg under pressure here.

 

[Mondio]

While I think Cook does matter, and likely had something to do with how we could just pressure cousins, we were dominating up front and if we do that again on the LOS offensively and defensively I like our chances. But, beat Seattle first.

 

[TylerD]

Cousins had his big game against the saints. No way he does it twice in a row.

 

[sschind]

I would argue the games were closer last week but I would disagree with the premise of the original with the poster who said they were better. I was able to watch 3 of the 4 games (missed Patriots and Titans) and did not feel like the quality of football was very good. I felt like the play overall was sloppy and no team was overly impressive. Maybe I am cynical in my older age but the people I was watching with agreed

I wasn't sure if I should have used the term "better" or not for the very reason you said. I guess I meant closer from a score standpoint and you are right closer does not necessarily mean better from a quality standpoint.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

My opinion: San Francisco is going to destroy the Vikings.

Then they will destroy us.

The only chance we had against them was if we had home field advantage. Unfortunately, San Francisco is the most well-rounded team in the NFC and I don't think they'll have trouble with either the Vikings or Packers this year. Not only that, they'll know what LaFleur is trying to do more than most and know how to stop him. As shown in their first meeting. Maybe it's a different story next year, but I'm doubtful we'll have made enough changes from the time we played them earlier in the season to now to make up the difference.

 

[rmontro]

Maybe it's a different story next year, but I'm doubtful we'll have made enough changes from the time we played them earlier in the season to now to make up the difference.

Or maybe the 49ers win the Super Bowl this year and next year they suffer from Super Bowl hangover and we don't have to worry about them