Vikings studs n duds

[Magooch]

And of course MLF understands this too, to some degree.

Why would he have Love come out throwing three consecutive plays with 10 minutes left in the 4th and leading 20-6? Why would he call up a deep shot to Wicks on 3rd and 9 when you're up 23-6 with 6 minutes left? Why would he have Willis pass it on 2nd and 8 with 2 minutes left in the game?

The simple answer is that Matt understands sometimes you need to take those risks. It's better to move the chains - take matters into your own hands and dictate how the game is going to end - rather than play passive and reactionary football.

And we can't have it both ways here.
If I say "Matt's playing too risk-averse here, he needs to be a little less conservative" and the rebuttal is "He's protecting his players and not exposing them to any unnecessary risks, he's just doing what is required to get the win and get out of there" then that's fine, but I expect those offering that rebuttal to be consistent and criticize Matt for the above-outlined plays in which he ALSO exposed those players to "unnecessary risk" when the game was all but wrapped up.

 

[SudsMcBucky]

Sometimes I think MLF can't win no matter his decision. He gets agressive to go for the 1st down and JL throws a pick against the Browns when that play wasn't necessary and he gets blasted. He plays conservative by not risking his banged up QB either getting more injured or making another gaffe in a game you already have wrapped up and he still gets blasted. Oh well, I guess that's why he gets paid the big bucks.

 

[chemist]

Your goal to win the Game isn't achieved until the clock reads 0:00. Ask the players on the field in Seattle for the NFC championship game in 2014/2015.

Nobody wants unnecessary injuries, but by kicking that first FG, the game was far from over and the defense was exposed to "unnecessary injuries", as was the offense again in that 2nd FG drive. You want to "end" the game early, and put your backups on the field, go for the throat and score TD's when you have a chance to.

I really dislike the Ohio State Buckeyes. Not just because they seem to always beat the Badgers but they have this knack of never letting their foot off the pedal. I am convinced it is so that they can get up by such large margins, that they get valuable playing time for their 3rd and 4th stringers. That is what winning Championships is about.

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. We had the game won well before the clock read zero. We had a 3 score lead with only 3 miniutes left on the clock. The game was over at that point.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

I was reading a Viking forum earlier and some of them think Ponder was better.

Short memories.

But, yes, McCarthy was awful.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

2 Viking Fan Duds:

I guess that maybe the 1st guy could be considered a stud, since he came prepared with the paper bag.

2nd guy...just an angry drunk Viking fan, who's trip back to Minny Ha-Ha got delayed.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Wow.

I respect the bag.

Not the drunk.

 

[tynimiller]

No debating what Savion Williams did in college, he had a decent senior year at TCU. Amari Rodgers was a solid college player at Clemson, but unfortunately it didn't carry over onto the NFL stage.

I hope I am totally wrong on Savion and he can be coached up. So far he has looked tentative and unsure of himself when he has the ball in his hands. His fumble against the Panthers was very costly. Maybe he isn't suited for the Packer offense or the Packer offense has to be better suited to fit his style? He isn't a good runner in traffic, watch him on kickoff returns.

Don't worry @tynimiller, I haven't given up on him, but at this point he hasn't shown me anything that special.

And Watson dropped a bread basket pass his first target.....I think you're knee jerking a little with a raw rookie who has never played in a system remotely like the pro's unlike many prospects.

 

[tynimiller]

What has Lloyd done to deserve the confidence he's better than Wilson? All Wilson does is deliver when called upon. His first TD agsinst the Vikings was enormously impressive. He was smacked in the backfield and kept his legs churning to power his way in. Most backs would've went down for a loss.

Your comment made me go back and read and I'll admit I did something I shouldn't have - used the word "guarantee".

What has Lloyd done? Countless runs in his career as a football player that illustrates cutting and explosiveness that even Jacobs doesn't have. The potential is unquestionably there.

Don't get that twisted with a declaration he will instantly be our RB1 and make Josh Jacobs trade fonder. Young guys have to illustrate it translates to the professional level - which to be fair, running backs transition to the pros "typically" much easier and the predictability of that is easier with that position.

Wilson is a surefire RB2 level guy in the NFL and to be honest every team needs a guy like him...can come in any game and offense doesn't lose much, and they can cover a few games if needed...but they're not as dynamic or lethal of a weapon as their RB1 counterpart. Lloyd has the set of skills to be a RB1 - will he be is entirely up to his health and his abilty to process the plays infront of him. If his body doens't let him down, I'm betting on he at WORST is a more lethal and dynamic RB2.

 

[chemist]

Of course it is, that's what I'm saying. If finishing the game with a score that is (+1) compared to your opponent is all that counts, why do anything more?

I mean, look at the game situation. With 8 minutes left in the 3rd quarter, we were up by 11 points. Why did we bother trying to score then?

At the start of the 4th, we were up by 14. Love passed the ball three plays in a row! Why would we subject him to those excessive risks?!?

With 7 minutes left in the game, we get the ball back and are up 23-3. I mean, why even bother trying to run a play at all at that point? Go out there and take three kneeldowns and force them to burn up their timeouts. Maybe they score a touchdown. Who cares? It doesn't matter, we'd still win.

Then we get the ball back one more time with 3 minutes on the clock. Again, why even run a play? Why not just protect your players and take a knee? Coming out of the two minute warning, Matt had Willis run a pass play on 2nd and 8. Why would he subject him to those risks? Doesn't he know Willis and the rest of the boys can get those reps in practice? Take a knee. Maybe the Vikings score again, but again, who cares? You don't get style points and winning 23-20 is just as good as winning 23-6.

Obviously this sounds completely ridiculous, because it is, but this is the logical conclusion of "having more points is the only thing that matters, don't put your players at risk any more than is absolutely necessary"

The game wasnt won in the 2nd qtr or 3rd qtr. It was a done deal in the 4th qtr when We had a 3 score lead with 3 miniutes left on the clock, and we had possession.

 

[tynimiller]

What has Lloyd done to deserve the confidence he's better than Wilson? All Wilson does is deliver when called upon. His first TD agsinst the Vikings was enormously impressive. He was smacked in the backfield and kept his legs churning to power his way in. Most backs would've went down for a loss.

But its' a VERY fair question. I don't make declaration of claimed fact much or predict that I think a guy absolutely will be something...but a few I have. Tom, Doubs, Oronde Gadsen, Greg Newsome are a few of the names that come to mind first that I really hit on...but of course there are always some where I missed something - and those refine the process.

 

[tynimiller]

Sometimes I think MLF can't win no matter his decision. He gets agressive to go for the 1st down and JL throws a pick against the Browns when that play wasn't necessary and he gets blasted. He plays conservative by not risking his banged up QB either getting more injured or making another gaffe in a game you already have wrapped up and he still gets blasted. Oh well, I guess that's why he gets paid the big bucks.

EXACTLY...for many you just encapsulated it perfectly.

 

[DABIGZ]

Chiming in late here... but like @Magooch said. Do we believe we can "flip a switch" when it matters most? Sure, going conservative this last game was, in my opinion, the right call. But like others have said, some of those play calls just... didn't feel right for that situation.

So now question to others is what was already asked:

Can we "flip the switch" and get a TD when absolutely necessary?

Because right now? That is our concern going forward.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

And Watson dropped a bread basket pass his first target.....I think you're knee jerking a little with a raw rookie who has never played in a system remotely like the pro's unlike many prospects.

Again, I haven't given up on Savion, but like I said, he hasn't looked smooth or comfortable with the ball in his hands yet. Let's hope that changes, because the offense needs some game breakers.

 

[RRyder]

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. We had the game won well before the clock read zero. We had a 3 score lead with only 3 miniutes left on the clock. The game was over at that point.

People have can have a really hard time comprehending that you can reach the point in a game where they only way you lose is if you start ****ing up regardless of what the other team does so they just cant wrap their heads around why a coach simply wouldnt put his team in a position to **** up because obviously always being aggressive is the way to be

 

[milani]

And of course MLF understands this too, to some degree.

Why would he have Love come out throwing three consecutive plays with 10 minutes left in the 4th and leading 20-6? Why would he call up a deep shot to Wicks on 3rd and 9 when you're up 23-6 with 6 minutes left? Why would he have Willis pass it on 2nd and 8 with 2 minutes left in the game?

The simple answer is that Matt understands sometimes you need to take those risks. It's better to move the chains - take matters into your own hands and dictate how the game is going to end - rather than play passive and reactionary football.

And we can't have it both ways here.
If I say "Matt's playing too risk-averse here, he needs to be a little less conservative" and the rebuttal is "He's protecting his players and not exposing them to any unnecessary risks, he's just doing what is required to get the win and get out of there" then that's fine, but I expect those offering that rebuttal to be consistent and criticize Matt for the above-outlined plays in which he ALSO exposed those players to "unnecessary risk" when the game was all but wrapped up.

Now this week's game will be different. If you get behind Detroit you obviously have to stay on the pedal. But if you are ahead or close you cannot go completely into a slow down mode. Unlike the Vikings, the Lions have the QB and the weapons to come from behind at will if you simply try to run clock especially in their building. So I suspect that MLF will play this a little differently. At the same time he still has to think first downs and running clock when the situation dictates.

 

[Magooch]

The game wasnt won in the 2nd qtr or 3rd qtr. It was a done deal in the 4th qtr when We had a 3 score lead with 3 miniutes left on the clock, and we had possession.

Why were we throwing the ball inside of 3 minutes? Why would Matt put our players in harm’s way like that?

 

[gopkrs]

Why were we throwing the ball inside of 3 minutes? Why would Matt put our players in harm’s way like that?

What does that mean, in harms way. Are you being sarcastic? Because I've been completely amazed at people bringing it up.

 

[chemist]

People have can have a really hard time comprehending that you can reach the point in a game where they only way you lose is if you start ****ing up regardless of what the other team does so they just cant wrap their heads around why a coach simply wouldnt put his team in a position to **** up because obviously always being is the way to be

 

[OldSchool101]

The Bears clearly play with a higher intensity than the last 2 years. And they do it for 60 minutes. A reflection of the new head coach. And they realistically have a good chance to make the playoffs and possibly the division. Right now they have same record as Philly.

I’m with you I’ll give the Bears props for their start. Let’s face it though last year they were several botched games from a 8-9 type finish. I think the bulk of people would’ve expected improvement after a strong draft class and $95Mil yearly in FA additions.

Problem is I think their 8-3 record is pretender. They can beat poor teams (barely) but faced with a tough team or division opponent they’ve crumbled. 1-2 in the north and a loss to a backup Tyler Huntley by multiple scores. Again not trying to completely take away their 8 wins because it’s hard to win when against lesser teams. Yet who has Chicago beaten? Mason Rudolph? Cmon.

Chicago is a 9-8 feel team beating non contenders or backups. There’s a realistic chance they lose 1 or both game to Green Bay. Even if they beat Detroit or Green Bay unless Chicago just suddenly elevates they’re a Wildcard or divisional early exit.

 

[gopkrs]

Actually a rare occurrence unless there is so little time left. Remember a Seattle game?

 

[Pugger]

It's funny. Only a couple of years ago I argued with folks on here that the Lions were going to be the division leaders. It was met with mostly ridicule. Now that the Lions have been there a few years, I'm not going to predict their demise. They are still a good team and just had a solid win yesterday, but like Ivan Drago in Rocterday. IV, has shown this season that they are not a machine. They are men that are having their own struggles.

The Bears now have Ben Johnson at coach. He seems to be the fire glowing behind these teams. The Bears are starting to play old-time Bears defense again and Caleb Williams and all of their skill positions are finally being used correctly. I don't think that they will win the division this year, but they will be right there and competing in each game until the end.

The Bears may be better than the Lions at this point. Strong arguments can be made for either team, which illustrates the point.

The Gmen gave that game away to

I certainly understand the logic that we should play it safe, keep the clock moving, play the "low-risk" option and ride it out.

Yes, we could have a tipped INT. We could see Love get sacked and hurt. We could have our WRs drop three passes in a row and run virtually no clock and save the opponent their time outs. These are all things that COULD happen. The trouble is that IMO sometimes we come at it with an approach that's so cautious that it feels like we're almost assuming these things WILL happen if we don't err on the side of caution. I am not saying that we should just throw caution into the wind, but at the same time I don't think this sort of "worst-case scenario" preparation/planning is really an approach you see a ton from championship-caliber teams.

And of course there is an argument the opposite direction as well. This year, we are losing fumbles* at a higher rate than throwing interceptions, and we have a higher success rate on passing plays than on running ones - we are *more likely* to keep the chains moving and *less likely* to turn over possession when we go more pass-heavy vs run.
So of course there are merits to both approaches. Pass the ball and you might have an incompletion and stop the clock (without using a timeout), but you're more likely to get a fresh set of downs (is that a wash, then?). Run the ball and you keep the clock going and/or use up timeouts, but you're less likely to move the chains (and consequently more likely to either have to take a field goal or punt and give possession back). Both come with their own pros and cons.

*To be fair some of these lost fumbles have come on dropbacks, I acknowledge that. But passing has generally been relatively "low risk" for us this year on the whole.

Of course we have seen MLF be aggressive at the wrong time (like 4th and 8 when a chip shot FG would have been more prudent).

 

[Pugger]

Just to play devil's advocate too...
YES, Jacobs has had roughly double the carries that Wilson has...BUT Wilson has 80+, which IMO is at least enough to get a pretty decent "read" from...

Yards per carry:
Wilson 4.0
Jacobs 3.8

Long rush:
Wilson 15
Jacobs 19

Yards per rec:
Wilson 6.7
Jacobs 8.5

Rush success rate (a run that gets at least 40% of required yards on 1st down, 60% of required yards on 2nd down, and 100% of required yards on 3rd/4th down)
Wilson 55.6
Jacobs 52.1

Passing success rate (a reception that gets at least 40% of required yards on 1st down, 60% of required yards on 2nd down, and 100% of required yards on 3rd/4th down)
Wilson 53.3
Jacobs 51.4

Scrimmage yards per touch
Wilson 4.4
Jacobs 4.5

Can he sustain that if workload doubled? I don't know for sure. But overall there is not a ton of distance between the two right now on a per play basis

We should count our blessings to have 2 productive RBs to split carrying the load.

 

[gopkrs]

We should count our blessings to have 2 productive RBs to split carrying the load.

Been a bit of a tough road for Wilson. Not many liked him at the start. Lucky he's still here actually.

 

[Pugger]

For me it's not really about style points but rather understanding that there will likely come a point when we NEED those opportunities to turn into 6 points, not 3. There will come a time when we NEED to move the chains and advance the ball rather than burn off the clock.

In this particular match, no, we didn't necessarily *need* to put those extra points on the board or keep moving the chains. But would it not have been beneficial to practice/approach the situation as though we did? It seems like there is this belief amongst some that once we find ourselves in a situation where we NEED those extra points, we'll just be able to "flip the switch" and all of these field goal situations will turn into touchdowns for us. The series where we're 3 yards and a cloud of dust, we'll be able to just decide we're a passing team and start slinging the ball around effortlessly.

In reality, I don't think it is nearly so easy to flip that switch as we might like to believe. If you repeatedly find yourself in these situations and continue to play for field goals and 3rd downs, then when it's crunch time in a do-or-die game, what are you going to default to? I just don't agree with the philosophy that you can "afford" to pass up those opportunities now - when you have the choice - and then be able to execute consistently in those situations when you're in a situation where you *have* to - when that choice is removed. As they say, you are what you repeatedly do...

The way our defense was harrassing MN's QB and keeping the Vike's offense bottled up we didn't NEED the extra 4 points at that point in that particular game.

 

[gopkrs]

The way our defense was harrassing MN's QB and keeping the Vike's offense bottled up we didn't NEED the extra 4 points at that point in that particular game.

That is not a reason not to go after them. And neither is keeping players out of harm's way. Which, btw, sounds ridiculous

 

[chemist]

That is not a reason not to go after them. And neither is keeping players out of harm's way. Which, btw, sounds ridiculous

There has been a lot of back and forth talk on the aggressive /conservative issue.
My view is the agg/cons issue falls under the column of game management and is dependent on a multitude of factors that i wont attempt to list here.
After giving this much thought I can see my biggest beef is that MLF doesnt have the time to give this issue due consideration because his face is buried in his play chart trying to pick the next play and get it into love in a timely manner which leaves little time for him to think thru which way he should go. His so called assistants dont seem to be much help to him either. Thats where I see we fall down and are lacking the most as a team.