PDA

View Full Version : VIKES vs CARDS POSTGAME THREAD



ultravikingfan
12-06-2009, 10:22 PM
Not what I was hoping . However, my feelings about this year are unchanged. I would rather lose now than when it really counts.

I would hope that this loss is a good learning experience for this team and we fix the problems.

This was a team loss. Not going to put this on any player or coach.

One thing that killed us the most: pressure

Webby
12-06-2009, 11:33 PM
It is what it is. I rather a down game now than later.

Loss of EJ will be a killer though.

ultravikingfan
12-06-2009, 11:35 PM
Webby wrote:

It is what it is. I rather a down game now than later.

Loss of EJ will be a killer though.

You copied me! :cheer:

gregair13
12-06-2009, 11:41 PM
I am surprisingly calm about the game. Usually I would be in a blinding rage, unable to type or make a coherent thought, but I am doing rather ok. Maybe I have forgotten what losing is. We all have.

Honestly, the point in the game that was costly was that special teams kick return. We blow down the field for our first score, then get a kick return on us, which has not happened like that all year.

No Winfield sucks, but I doubt him playing in this game would have made much of a difference. It was the Cardinals D that was the destructing force for us tonight. They were getting pressure and doing weird stuff in the secondary with the linebacker #58 starting as a safety and then moving to everywhere it seemed.

Yes Favre threw 2 picks, but that was because we were behind.
No pressure on the qb, especially one like that, will never win us any games. Our defensive is so good because of all the pressure we can create. When we don't get after the quarterback, our secondary is exposed.

Any good points? Longwell didn't miss a kick. That's honestly all I can think of. We got our giggly butts kicked up and down the field in every aspect of the game.

Garland Greene
12-06-2009, 11:45 PM
Tough loss with a major injury which is never good. Hope we learn alot from it and we can finish the season strong. Winning on the road is always tough. Time to move on to the next ganme and not dwell on the loss.

BadlandsVikings
12-06-2009, 11:52 PM
blah

TNViking
12-06-2009, 11:56 PM
On the bright side (which is not really that bright) if we can continue to win and sew up the #2 seed, it will allow us to rest all our injured players the last week or so. If we were chasing the #1 seed all 17 weeks we would likely not rest all the guys with rib, ankle, shoulder etc injuries.

EJ's injury makes me ill. Such a great player and important part of our defense will be impossible to replace.

midgensa
12-07-2009, 12:05 AM
Definitely a tough night.

I think we really had a lot of affects from not being away from home for more than a month.

Need to get back to the grind.

Not going to destroy us ... and needs to wake us up.

Texas Viking
12-07-2009, 12:05 AM
We looked horrible tonight. No one is going to rank us among the Saints and Colts this week, we’ll really need to prove ourselves to be a SB contender now, and I think we can but it’s going to take some work to say the least.

Mr Anderson
12-07-2009, 12:09 AM
Pathetic.

Did we watch film during the week? We looked flat and unprepared.

keystonevike
12-07-2009, 12:09 AM
Definitely did not come to play tonight. Came out flat and stayed flat entire game. Lost more than just a chance for home field advantage thru the playoffs with the injury to EJ. Best of luck, EJ.
Need to play a good game against Bengals next week.Certainly win the game too but need to play well because didn't play well tonight.

CCthebest
12-07-2009, 12:11 AM
We sucked in every way we could. AZ was better coached and more prepared. Im so glad we gave Childress that contract extension. We now know what happens when we face a good QB and good receivers. We get toasted. We have one of the worst secondaries ive ever watched.

I cant believe we couldnt move the ball on a team that gave up over 500 yards last week.

This is a big loss. Put your purple shades on and spin it any way you want but it was a big loss. I feel sorry for those viking fans who paid good money to see us play so bad.

purplejokr
12-07-2009, 12:19 AM
I was very close to going to see that game too. I am glad that I didn't.

The Vikings were manhandled tonight and there is no way else to describe it. With the exception of the offense's initial possession, nothing worked. The Cardinals stopped the run. Pressured Favre AND disguised their coverages well. It was almost like the Cardinals had 12 or 13 guys playing on defense instead of 11.

Defensively, their play was sporadic. More often than not the Vikings could hardly slow the Cardinals. However, there were a couple of three and outs as well.

All in all, it was a pathetic loss for what some folks seem to think is a legitimate Super Bowl contender. The Vikings get another chance at a legitimate playoff team coming up against the Bengals. If they lay another egg like tonight, everyone should stop with the Super Bowl talk.

PurplePeopleEaters
12-07-2009, 12:34 AM
Nothing much to say about this one. This one goes on the whole team.

Favre played awful ball.
Peterson played the worst I've seen him all season.
Receivers weren't getting open.
Defensive line got no pressure.
Defensive backfield gave up huge gains.
Our best linebacker gets injured.
Ouch.

As many have said all along, if a team gameplans to beat Favre rather than beat Peterson, they'll win the game. Arizona did that by confusing Favre with their coverages and relying on their base D to stop Peterson. It worked amazingly well.

I really think that Peterson is tipping off opponents as to when he's running and when he's not. I feel like we're twice as effective recently with Chester running the ball. It might just be conspiracy but who knows.

Terrible game all around. We've got to bounce back next week at home.

jkjuggalo
12-07-2009, 12:37 AM
A disappointing loss to say the least.

Favre did not look like he was into the game after that first pick. I don't know what was going on with him tonight, but he looked miffed on more than one occasion.

Good luck EJ. Hope your leg heals quick.

I was expecting a big game from AD, but boy did he let us down too. Sure he was running behind an injured line, but the guy is supposed to be the best back in all of football. Childress and Co. need to find a way to get his confidence back.

Overall it was a sad affair with very few positives. The biggest potential positive is that the Vikings should learn from this experience and grow because of it. If not, then it was just an ugly loss.

CanuckVikereborn
12-07-2009, 12:39 AM
What has happened to the run game? We have two excellent backs to carry the rock and they are constantly being hammered in the backfield...not only against Zona, but almost anyone we've play in the last 5 weeks. Our blocking scheme sucks in my opinion. Our pass game needs some sort of a running attack to be successful. Without it we are toast.

CCthebest
12-07-2009, 12:45 AM
If we dont get a more balanced offense, with the run game, we are done. We can not keep up with the colts, saints, cards etc without a good run game. Hutch had his worst game as a vike.

Mr Anderson
12-07-2009, 12:56 AM
We threw the ball 45 times tonight, we were playing from behind.

I don't see us struggling to run the ball on the Saints or Colts... we still won't beat them, that I can pretty much guarantee, but I don't see us struggling to run against those defenses.

Formo
12-07-2009, 12:59 AM
Some have stated they weren't mad about this loss. I'm pissed.

The Vikings came out and seemed like they EXPECTED the Cardinals to lay down and let us walk all over them. Tyrell Johnson played HORRIBLE (his rookie backup, #33.. I can't remember his name.. Played way better than Johnson.. and even then it wasn't all that great). AP is starting to piss me off. His impatience to wait for blocks to set up are not only killing his game, but is killing our team. I swear to God if he runs into the back of our Oline again.. I'll freak out. It's starting to get old. REAL old.

The Cards deserved that game, allll around. They showed up to play. Congrats, Cards.

Hinkle
12-07-2009, 01:04 AM
Just wow, out played in every phase and the injuries. Poor EJ, I was out of the room for the play and came back and was like ****, **** my jaw hit the floor. Everyone getting nicked up in the game really worried me more than the loss but I'm still pretty bummed about it. We just lacked continuity and weren't clicking at all. I just hope we can get healthy come play off time, last thing we need is a depleted team.

UTVikfan
12-07-2009, 01:04 AM
Ok, so we lost a game. BOOOO! LOL. Not a big deal. And judging by the slow tar play, not a big deal to them either. I have to say, I haven't felt better after a loss. Way back when the schedule came out, Childress said "Arizona in Dec." right off the bat. We should have won, but didn't. I am rather shocked this thread is this short, considering we lost.

So first off, we start out thowing the ball. We do not use AD, what did he have 11 runs late in the 3rd quarter? Just as well have left him home. The Cards game planned well for us. We, did not. They had a plan for Favre, Allen, and AD. And a good one. We just showed up. Err, I guess technically, we did show up. Not well done.

Warner threw 5 picks a few games ago, I am ok with Favre (even still odd to type that) having only 2. That happens. Where were the screens? While the Cards were in their "Amoeba" D, where were the Quick snap runs to AD...oh yeah, we left him at home. Another walkthrough practice for the Vikes, except we got our best LB hurt ( And I sure hope things go well for EJ).

We laid an egg, onward we go. Hopefully, the brain trust remembers that we are a running team. But I wont hold my breath on that one. Childress/Bevel are the only people that can take AD out of a game ( I guess Favre can if he chooses to audible). Who needs the best player on your team? 45 passes? We are not the '07 Pats, or the '98 Vikes.

RK.
12-07-2009, 01:11 AM
At the casino bar where I watch the games some idiot decided that Sunday night would be a great time to have Karaoke at the bar. I got to watch the Vikes lose while listening to really bad singers do really bad songs for 3 hours. It is hard to describe the headache I have. :blink:

We played like we did last year. The play calling was unimaginative, boring and totaly predictable. The Cards knew exactly where the ball was going on almost every play. The O line was manhandled tonight.

V4L
12-07-2009, 01:11 AM
And that my friends is what happens when you play a winning team

Caine
12-07-2009, 01:21 AM
I thought the team played poorly overall. On both sides of the ball. We never got going on O, and the Defense sputtered all night.

I think our secondary was exposed for being worse than we'd hoped it was, and it showed what happens when our front 4 don't get pressure on the QB.

I think the loss of EJ is huge...gonna be tough to replace him again.

I think Peterson is getting frustrated...personally, I am of the opinion that he's just not getting enough carries.

We finally saw Favre have an off game...wasn't pretty. Hope he's got it out of his system now.

Suprisingly, I'm not too upset about this on the larger picture. Hopefully this loss fuels the fires once again, and we can drive through the next 4 weeks and into the play-offs.

As for the Cards, they just played a lights-out game on both sides of the ball. They looked darn good for most of the game. Hopefully we crush them next time we meet.

Caine

Bkfldviking
12-07-2009, 01:26 AM
Was down at the game :ohmy: it was an uncomfortable game to attend. We were moving the ball ok for the most part, then would just fall apart. The run game was non-existant, and THREE interceptions. Short field for the Cards most of the game. Disappointing.

V4L
12-07-2009, 01:26 AM
Still optimistic.. However we can't play like that against other top tier teams.. Never gonna get far

Outcoached.. out played.. It was nasty

Positives:
Percy is a frickin beast
Sanford steppin in for Tyrell looks lightyears ahead of him
Tahi springing AP for his only good runs (yes I said Tahi)
Hicks played surprisingly well
Chester stepping up again.. Very complete player

Overall D-

Favre on a bad game still played fairly respectable.. Few horrible throws and a few dropped picks.. But thats what happens when you have no rush game

V4L
12-07-2009, 01:32 AM
Alot of us need to take a step back as well and take a look at the teams we have beat

When we play good teams it's way too close or we lose

We have a good team but if we continue to be held to being one dimensional and get no pressure and let teams throw all over us we won't get far

Dekay
12-07-2009, 02:20 AM
As someone pointed out, AD is anonymous. He doesnt wait for the holes to open up and often runs into the O-line. In so NOT waiting for the holes I believe in my humble opinion that its easier for opposing teams to stuff the outside too taking away the runs there as well.

I also believe that the run blocking scheme has suffered. AD is not solely to blame. I see our O-line holding up good at the passplay (for most part) but on running plays they blow and more often than not (yes im generalising) let the D-line penetrate into teh backfield.

It starts upfront and loosing the battle of the trenches was not helping at all today.

Defensively... We need safetys who can cover and need DB who can tackle. I believe Frasier would be more keen to blitz if he knew the coverage was good. As it was now our front 4 was held in check. And when Frasier let the coverage be 1 on 1, we busted.

Special teams. Hm, not much to say. One blown play, and the rest was not bad not good.

I also cant help thinking Favre was hurt today. He shook his right handa bit and kindof protected his right side when got tackled at one point, not to say all his overthrowing the ball to the WR.

My two cents and ofcourse IMHO

ultravikingfan
12-07-2009, 04:36 AM
Dekay wrote:

As someone pointed out, AD is anonymous. He doesnt wait for the holes to open up and often runs into the O-line. In so NOT waiting for the holes I believe in my humble opinion that its easier for opposing teams to stuff the outside too taking away the runs there as well.

I also believe that the run blocking scheme has suffered. AD is not solely to blame. I see our O-line holding up good at the passplay (for most part) but on running plays they blow and more often than not (yes im generalising) let the D-line penetrate into teh backfield.

It starts upfront and loosing the battle of the trenches was not helping at all today.

Defensively... We need safetys who can cover and need DB who can tackle. I believe Frasier would be more keen to blitz if he knew the coverage was good. As it was now our front 4 was held in check. And when Frasier let the coverage be 1 on 1, we busted.

Special teams. Hm, not much to say. One blown play, and the rest was not bad not good.

I also cant help thinking Favre was hurt today. He shook his right handa bit and kindof protected his right side when got tackled at one point, not to say all his overthrowing the ball to the WR.

My two cents and ofcourse IMHO

It is because he is a "cut-back" runner. He cut-backs (or bounces it) to the outside.

I know what you are saying though. I think a lot of the times he dances a little to much. I love seeing RB's just "hit" it full bore....like Chris Johnson.

Overlord
12-07-2009, 04:39 AM
Obviously a bad one. It happens, and when it does there are plenty of things that went wrong.

But two that got to me were: (1) the two punts in the fourth quarter; and (2) the continued problems up front in the run game.

As to the (1), it seemed like the coaching staff basically gave up. They were going for it at the end, so I guess they didn't actually give up, they just made poor decisions.

The first punt came with 13:57 left in the game, the Vikes at their own 44 and facing a 4th-and-11. I know it seems like a ways to go, but you are near mid-field and down by three scores. Fact of the matter is that your team is running out of chances.

The second punt came with 10:02 left in the game and the Cards still up by 17. Again it's long - 4th-and-13. But at this point you need some plays to win.

Moving on to (2), it continues to pain me when AD is blamed for his relatively poor numbers this year. It was more of the same this week with the line... guys getting pushed back, defenders coming off blocks, etc.

I was going to do some more in depth analysis. It was too painful after just a few plays though.

I watched the first run by AD, and Shiancoe has a crack back on the linebacker. He seals, but fails to keep the linebacker from getting up-field. That means that the pulling lineman runs into this linebacker instead of getting out in front of the run. There are multiple defenders running free, and AD does a good job beating them to the outside for five yards.

On Peterson's second run, no hole opens up play-side (right) and the linemen get pushed back about 2-3 yards. The defensive end play-side comes off his block and makes a nice play. But even if he hadn't, the back-side defensive end was able to get in on the tackle because he came off his block and no one else was able to get any push and make him run around. Also, the safety ran unobstructed to meet AD at the line as well. That one went for 0 yards.

On Peterson's third run, the nickle back makes an aggressive move into the backfield and the receiver isn't able to get a block. Sullivan is pulling and should pick the guy up, but he has a real poor effort on the play. AD is hit 3 yards in the backfield and breaks the tackle. He gets outside, but the time it takes allows defenders to get off blocks. With the offensive line pushed back, there is also little to no resistance to linebackers and other defenders pursuing from the backside. AD gets nothing on the play.

Peterson ran 13 times for 19 yards in this game. He probably got any kind of blocking on 2 or 3 of those plays. That's not good.

In the grand scheme of things though, the Vikes are still a good team. They had a bad loss. That doesn't make them a bad team.

HEY
12-07-2009, 05:16 AM
Simply put, the Cardinals had an excellent game.

They executed a great offense with the passing game, and their defense was exotic and were the best defense the Vikings have faced all year. They had great play from all phases of the defense. Line, 'backers, defensive backs... EVERYTHING!
The Cardinals looked like a Super Bowl team.

It's funny that the only TWO losses the Vikings have had has been against last year's Super Bowl teams. The Steelers game was much closer though. The refs made some terrible calls and the Steelers got lucky, but we got dominated in this game.

It's also funny that Brett Favre had his worst game of the season by far, but Tarvaris had his best game of his career against this team last season. Maybe the Vikes should have put in Tarvaris.

The best Vikings player on defense were Pat Williams. Pat deflected passes and made plays all day.

The best player on offense was Percy Harvin on offense. Sidney Rice had a good game two, but the Vikings should use Harvin more! He's so incredibly fast. He actually had the most receiving yards AND the most rushing yards on the team.

He made all the catches and got many 1st downs. He's looking like a really solid receiver, displaying shure hands, blazing speed, and he made several catches in traffic. :P

NodakPaul
12-07-2009, 07:43 AM
Bad game, but bad games happen. Our whole team looked like they were playing on Ritalin last night.

I don't think it is indicative of much, other than the fact that anything can happen on any given Sunday. We have played and beaten winning teams before, so I'm really not worried. Disappointed, but not worried.

We had an off game, and the Cards played a great game. Kudos to them. If we meet in the post season it will be a wholly different game.

Marrdro
12-07-2009, 07:44 AM
What a Stinker.

Everyone got thier ass handed to them on this one. Course, that is why a few of us were lobbying to see what this team could do against the Cars with Warner instead of Leinart.

Overlord, if you want to do an analysis, take a look at what the Cards were doing with the "Amoeba" defense. It gave us fits across the board. Bet ole Marvin will be poring over that coaches tape all week to see how it works.

From the little I could see (crappy announcing/crappy camera angles) it was pretty inovative.

Speaking of crappy, I sure hated the coverage. Almost as bad as listening to those chuckleheads who did the Dallas/Giants game.

On a side note, anyone catch the Deadskins/Aints game. Typical Deadskins...... ;)

Purple Floyd
12-07-2009, 07:50 AM
The ZB scheme is really not doing us any favors. The Tackles are too big and too slow and the C is undersized, which prevents us from getting on our blocks like we should.

The secondary needs a lesson on tackling and how to wrap a player up instead of just giving them a shoulder and expecting them to go down. I am just not impressed with any segment of the safeties at all. They aren't covering, tackling or intercepting anything.

It looks like teams just need to put 2 guys on AD, Allen and Brett and not worry about the rest of the team because nobody else is going to step up.

Marrdro
12-07-2009, 08:00 AM
Purple Floyd wrote:

The ZB scheme is really not doing us any favors. The Tackles are too big and too slow and the C is undersized, which prevents us from getting on our blocks like we should.

The secondary needs a lesson on tackling and how to wrap a player up instead of just giving them a shoulder and expecting them to go down. I am just not impressed with any segment of the safeties at all. They aren't covering, tackling or intercepting anything.

It looks like teams just need to put 2 guys on AD, Allen and Brett and not worry about the rest of the team because nobody else is going to step up.
We've kindof beat the "To big and to Slow" thing to death.

Additionally, you do realize that even though they still use the ZB scheme for run plays (man to man for passing) that scheme has been tweaked to have more of a "Tracking" element to it.

A quick search on here will bring up all those good threads we have had on that subject.

What is failing us isn't the scheme but rather the execution of it by both the OL and RB's.

Truth be told, if I were to lay blame on one aspect of our running effectiveness, or lack there of, I would have to say that you could look across the ball and give props to a Cards D who absolutely befuddled our offense. We were passing when we shoud have been running and running when we should have been passing all night.

In short, someone dropped the ball when it comes to preparation. Gotta look to the coaches on this one.

Marrdro
12-07-2009, 08:15 AM
Worst Nightmares All At Once (http://www.vikingsgab.com/2009/12/06/worst-nightmares-all-at-once/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=)

Marrdro
12-07-2009, 08:19 AM
At 10-2, the Vikings are still in prime position. Don’t hit the panic button after one loss.

Week 13 Review: Trip to Arizona turns into nightmare (http://www.kfan.com/pages/teamguides/vikings/notebook/Week13Review2009.html)

Marrdro
12-07-2009, 08:26 AM
Tom Powers: Less-than-best Adrian Peterson left Vikings wanting (http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_13942604?source=rss)

VikingLance
12-07-2009, 08:26 AM
I haven't read the entire thread yet, but I imagine what I have to say is echoed in it.

The loss of the game seems secondary to the loss of EJ. Hate to see that happen to anybody. My thoughts and prayers go out to him and his family.

Looking for a bright spot, the first series was played very well. Sapp stripped the ball from Hightower, we recovered and marched down the field for a touchdown. Great catch by Shanc, great challenge by chilly. Looked like we were in for another great game.

Murphy's law kicked in right after that. Not a good Sunday for the Vikings. Dammit, Redskins.

The card's brought it. They were the better team last night. Hat's off to them on a well played, well prepared team.

I am not discouraged though. As history has proven, there has only been 1 team to go undefeated through the season and win it all. I'd rather get the bugs out now, and let the team evaluate what happened and move forward.

Hicks did a good job filling in.

I thought that we abandoned the run WAY to early.

The team got a wake up call last night. They will study the tape and remedy what went wrong. Every other team we play will be studying that blueprint for beating us. I trust that they will make things right.

SKOL VIKINGS!

Moviefan2247
12-07-2009, 08:33 AM
Really hope the Vikes bounce back for next game at home against Ocho cinco. They need to step it up. I was so ready for a blowout last night and instead it was the the opposing team who were the victors. The whole team looked sloppy. Favre played as if he was still on the Jets. Hope EJ Henderson is alright though. It sucks that he won't come back this season. :( Anyways, looking forward to a good home game next weekend. We will bounce back from this. The Vikings have got this far, let's keep moving!

Marrdro
12-07-2009, 08:35 AM
Cards show full potential with Warner at QB (http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/148096)

VikingMike
12-07-2009, 08:39 AM
A good old-fashioned butt-kicking. Really nothing to say that hasn't already been said...loss of EJ will hurt big time.

Now we'll see what our Vikes are made of when we play another tough defense, and a team with a good QB. How we bounce back after this loss will be our biggest test so far this season.

Freya
12-07-2009, 08:50 AM
The Vikings played a stunningly poor game. Outplayed at every position, including coaching.
I kept waiting for the offense to make adjustments.......certainly they prepared for the Cards, right?!?!?! Right?!?! It didn't look like it. Even Favre looked like a deer in the headlights during the game.
Then, like the cherry atop a bummer sundae.......E.J. gets injured in horrific fashion.

Oh what I wouldn't give for a do over.

Marrdro
12-07-2009, 08:55 AM
Freya wrote:

The Vikings played a stunningly poor game. Outplayed at every position, including coaching.
I kept waiting for the offense to make adjustments.......certainly they prepared for the Cards, right?!?!?! Right?!?! It didn't look like it. Even Favre looked like a deer in the headlights during the game.
Then, like the cherry atop a bummer sundae.......E.J. gets injured in horrific fashion.

Oh what I wouldn't give for a do over.
I hear ya young lady. I for one feel extremely BLAH today. Damn I hate loosing.

Marrdro
12-07-2009, 08:57 AM
The Vikings came into the game leading the NFL in sacks but didn't have any against Warner.

"They had a good game plan," defensive tackle Kevin Williams said. "They kept the pocket tight, and they just got rid of the ball. The times he did hold it, we didn't beat our guys, and that's on us. We know the defense goes as the front goes, and we didn't go as well at times tonight and he made big plays."

Brett Favre on Vikings' loss to Cardinals: They outplayed us (http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_13942632?source=rss)

Marrdro
12-07-2009, 09:02 AM
Allen didn’t get a sack or a tackle and hit Warner just twice. The Cardinals often gave Bridges help, keeping a tight end or back in to double-team Allen, but Bridges held his own when he was locked up one-on-one.

“It was a heavyweight fight but I came out on top,” Bridges said. “He was crying a bit out there. He’s had a lot of success but not today.”



Cards notes: Bridges shines in fill-in role (http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/148095)
Marrdro's comment follows:
Anyone else see when Bridges rubbed it in JA's face when they scored that TD...

midgensa
12-07-2009, 09:03 AM
As I stated before ... it looked a lot like a long homestand hangover to me.

I could handle the butt-kicking a lot better if EJ had not had that horrific injury so late in the game.

Our offensive line simply got manhandled the entire game, whether run blocking or pass blocking. It seemed like the Cardinals were doing something schematically with their defensive pressure and secondary that we were not prepared for at all.

Games like this happen ... it will be a real eye opener for us to see how we bounce back.

Marrdro
12-07-2009, 09:04 AM
Favre / Childress Presser Highlights - 12/6 (http://www.vikings.com/media-vault/videos/Favre--Childress-Presser-Highlights---126/973aeba2-046e-47)

HEY
12-07-2009, 09:04 AM
OK. The loss sucks and all, but here is what we can learn from it:

1. Have everyone forgot what we were talking about before the start of the season? Brett Favre was going to be a game manager, not carry the team on his shoulders. The running game is supposed to take the pressure away from Brett. And it did in the beginning of the season. However, this time it all depended on Favre. We NEED to get the running attack back on track. I am seing a drastic increase in pass attempts, Favre should not have to throw the ball 40+ times a game.
Brett has 45+ pass attempts in the last two games compared to an average of 24 attempts in the first two games.

2. The coverage is too soft and the secondary gives the opposing receivers too much room to work with.

3. Like "V4L" mentioned, Jamarca Stanford can tackle, Tyrell Johnson can't.

4. Percy shows no mercy! At the end of the day, Percy had the most yards both through the air AND on the ground. We already use him quite a bit, but I would like to see the ball a bit more in his hands. Especially when the other superstars aren't getting the job done.

5. Jimmy Kleinsasser is a bad ass. I say we move him to guard or something lol!

molineviking
12-07-2009, 09:07 AM
Somehow we need to turn this loss into a positive by focusing on fixable areas before the playoffs,

We can improve on tackling and Special Teams coverage,

Harvin played well, and continues to show promise every week,

We seemed to be hitting the short passes just fine,

It's not like the Cards at home with Warner, and his two stud receivers are the Rams, I expected it to be a tough game,


Sometimes a reality check is whats needed to get re-focused,

If I was told we would be 10-2 at this point b4 the season started I would have been overjoyed.

Marrdro
12-07-2009, 09:20 AM
Playing against a stingy Vikings defense that came into the game ranked eighth in total defense in the NFL, Warner had his way, completing 22 of 32 passes for 285 yards and three touchdowns with no interceptions.

Primetime players (http://www.azdailysun.com/articles/2009/12/07/news/sports/20091207_sport_208865.txt)
Marrdro's comment follows:
Hmmmm, 8th ranked. To think, some are ready to throw them under the bus, restructure the whole backend etc etc etc.

Comeon guys/gals, we play a cover 2 defense. If the DL doesn't do its job and to get pressure, we have to bring LB'rs to help, our secondary is gonna get torched.

As the big guy said in a previous article.....


We know the defense goes as the front goes, and we didn't go as well at times tonight and he made big plays."

NodakPaul
12-07-2009, 09:25 AM
Marrdro wrote:


Playing against a stingy Vikings defense that came into the game ranked eighth in total defense in the NFL, Warner had his way, completing 22 of 32 passes for 285 yards and three touchdowns with no interceptions.

Primetime players (http://www.azdailysun.com/articles/2009/12/07/news/sports/20091207_sport_208865.txt)
Marrdro's comment follows:
Hmmmm, 8th ranked. To think, some are ready to throw them under the bus, restructure the whole backend etc etc etc.

Comeon guys/gals, we play a cover 2 defense. If the DL doesn't do its job and to get pressure, we have to bring LB'rs to help, our secondary is gonna get torched.

As the big guy said in a previous article.....


We know the defense goes as the front goes, and we didn't go as well at times tonight and he made big plays."

+1

NodakPaul
12-07-2009, 09:29 AM
HEY wrote:

1. Have everyone forgot what we were talking about before the start of the season? Brett Favre was going to be a game manager, not carry the team on his shoulders. The running game is supposed to take the pressure away from Brett. And it did in the beginning of the season. However, this time it all depended on Favre. We NEED to get the running attack back on track. I am seing a drastic increase in pass attempts, Favre should not have to throw the ball 40+ times a game.
Brett has 45+ pass attempts in the last two games compared to an average of 24 attempts in the first two games.


Very, very good point.

IMHO we abandoned the run WAY too early in this game. Was the run working? No, but it rarely works in the first quarter. The idea behind the run is to pound the ball, tire them out, and break off huge runs after they are beaten up. We needed to keep on the ball control offense, not this vertical game that quite simply isn't our bread and butter.

If defenses are going to scheme to beat Favre, we need to beat them with AD. If they switch back to scheming against AD, then we need to beat them in the air.

halfgiz
12-07-2009, 09:29 AM
I posted 4-5 games ago that I was worried about the Cards. Not a good match for our secondary.

And unfortunately the Cards had the prefect game last night.
Hopefully this game will get us back to reality.
And we will see how we bounce back playing Bengal's.
Favre definitely didn't look like himself.
AP looked awful. But a lot of times he no sooner got the ball and a defender was tackling him.

Just hope not to many injuries from this game.

Marrdro
12-07-2009, 09:29 AM
NodakPaul wrote:

Marrdro wrote:


Playing against a stingy Vikings defense that came into the game ranked eighth in total defense in the NFL, Warner had his way, completing 22 of 32 passes for 285 yards and three touchdowns with no interceptions.

Primetime players (http://www.azdailysun.com/articles/2009/12/07/news/sports/20091207_sport_208865.txt)
Marrdro's comment follows:
Hmmmm, 8th ranked. To think, some are ready to throw them under the bus, restructure the whole backend etc etc etc.

Comeon guys/gals, we play a cover 2 defense. If the DL doesn't do its job and to get pressure, we have to bring LB'rs to help, our secondary is gonna get torched.

As the big guy said in a previous article.....


We know the defense goes as the front goes, and we didn't go as well at times tonight and he made big plays."

+1
I sure wish I could get ahold of the coaches tape. Who would have thought to put a LB deep and bring up a S to mirror AD and use the LB to cover the deep stuff. Fooled our WR's (they didn't run very decisive routes) and even confused our QB (That cat has seen everything).

Damn inovative if you ask me and one hell of a job at coaching. Nothing more, nothing less. Doesn't mean the team is falling apart.

Coaches will take that tape, analyze it, break it down for the players, end of discussion. ;)

halfgiz
12-07-2009, 09:34 AM
Marrdro wrote:

NodakPaul wrote:

Marrdro wrote:


Playing against a stingy Vikings defense that came into the game ranked eighth in total defense in the NFL, Warner had his way, completing 22 of 32 passes for 285 yards and three touchdowns with no interceptions.

Primetime players (http://www.azdailysun.com/articles/2009/12/07/news/sports/20091207_sport_208865.txt)
Marrdro's comment follows:
Hmmmm, 8th ranked. To think, some are ready to throw them under the bus, restructure the whole backend etc etc etc.

Comeon guys/gals, we play a cover 2 defense. If the DL doesn't do its job and to get pressure, we have to bring LB'rs to help, our secondary is gonna get torched.

As the big guy said in a previous article.....


We know the defense goes as the front goes, and we didn't go as well at times tonight and he made big plays."

+1
I sure wish I could get ahold of the coaches tape. Who would have thought to put a LB deep and bring up a S to mirror AD and use the LB to cover the deep stuff. Fooled our WR's (they didn't run very decisive routes) and even confused our QB (That cat has seen everything).

Damn inovative if you ask me and one hell of a job at coaching. Nothing more, nothing less. Doesn't mean the team is falling apart.

Coaches will take that tape, analyze it, break it down for the players, end of discussion. ;)

+1

NodakPaul
12-07-2009, 09:36 AM
Marrdro wrote:

NodakPaul wrote:

Marrdro wrote:


Playing against a stingy Vikings defense that came into the game ranked eighth in total defense in the NFL, Warner had his way, completing 22 of 32 passes for 285 yards and three touchdowns with no interceptions.

Primetime players (http://www.azdailysun.com/articles/2009/12/07/news/sports/20091207_sport_208865.txt)
Marrdro's comment follows:
Hmmmm, 8th ranked. To think, some are ready to throw them under the bus, restructure the whole backend etc etc etc.

Comeon guys/gals, we play a cover 2 defense. If the DL doesn't do its job and to get pressure, we have to bring LB'rs to help, our secondary is gonna get torched.

As the big guy said in a previous article.....


We know the defense goes as the front goes, and we didn't go as well at times tonight and he made big plays."

+1
I sure wish I could get ahold of the coaches tape. Who would have thought to put a LB deep and bring up a S to mirror AD and use the LB to cover the deep stuff. Fooled our WR's (they didn't run very decisive routes) and even confused our QB (That cat has seen everything).

Damn inovative if you ask me and one hell of a job at coaching. Nothing more, nothing less. Doesn't mean the team is falling apart.

Coaches will take that tape, analyze it, break it down for the players, end of discussion. ;)

I have to agree. The defensive scheme that AZ put together was masterful. Seriously, a LB deep when we have Harvin, Rice, and Berrian who have all shown that they can get open past the LB zone? There is no way that should have worked, a LB simply shouldn't be able to stick in coverage out there. But it DID work.

My guess is that it worked more because it completely disguised the coverage than because the coverage was that good. As I was rewatching it last night (much to the ire of my wife), I saw that receivers were getting open, but Favre was having a hard time finding them. That is what a good disguised coverage can do. Again, kudos to AZ for nailing this one.

Marrdro
12-07-2009, 09:38 AM
NodakPaul wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

NodakPaul wrote:

Marrdro wrote:


Playing against a stingy Vikings defense that came into the game ranked eighth in total defense in the NFL, Warner had his way, completing 22 of 32 passes for 285 yards and three touchdowns with no interceptions.

Primetime players (http://www.azdailysun.com/articles/2009/12/07/news/sports/20091207_sport_208865.txt)
Marrdro's comment follows:
Hmmmm, 8th ranked. To think, some are ready to throw them under the bus, restructure the whole backend etc etc etc.

Comeon guys/gals, we play a cover 2 defense. If the DL doesn't do its job and to get pressure, we have to bring LB'rs to help, our secondary is gonna get torched.

As the big guy said in a previous article.....


We know the defense goes as the front goes, and we didn't go as well at times tonight and he made big plays."

+1
I sure wish I could get ahold of the coaches tape. Who would have thought to put a LB deep and bring up a S to mirror AD and use the LB to cover the deep stuff. Fooled our WR's (they didn't run very decisive routes) and even confused our QB (That cat has seen everything).

Damn inovative if you ask me and one hell of a job at coaching. Nothing more, nothing less. Doesn't mean the team is falling apart.

Coaches will take that tape, analyze it, break it down for the players, end of discussion. ;)

I have to agree. The defensive scheme that AZ put together was masterful. Seriously, a LB deep when we have Harvin, Rice, and Berrian who have all shown that they can get open past the LB zone? There is no way that should have worked, a LB simply shouldn't be able to stick in coverage out there. But it DID work.

My guess is that it worked more because it completely disguised the coverage than because the coverage was that good. As I was rewatching it last night (much to the ire of my wife), I saw that receivers were getting open, but Favre was having a hard time finding them. That is what a good disguised coverage can do. Again, kudos to AZ for nailing this one.
The loss is tempered a bit for me cause I saw something new. What a great game football is. ;)

NodakPaul
12-07-2009, 09:41 AM
Marrdro wrote:The loss is tempered a bit for me cause I saw something new. What a great game football is. ;)[/quote]

Me too. I almost hate to say this because I know I'll get flamed, but I still enjoyed the game last night. :)

When they showed the "amoeba" like coverage in the secondary, I had to smile in amazement.

Marrdro
12-07-2009, 09:46 AM
NodakPaul wrote:

Marrdro wrote:The loss is tempered a bit for me cause I saw something new. What a great game football is. ;)

[/quote]Me too. I almost hate to say this because I know I'll get flamed, but I still enjoyed the game last night. :)

When they showed the "amoeba" like coverage in the secondary, I had to smile in amazement.[/quote]
I wish Tim and Sam were doing the game instead of the two chuckleheads we had the "Pleasure" of listening to. They didid the Deadskins/Aints game. Absolute pleasure to watch.

Additionally, I wish they would have show more of the field instead of zeroing in on the QB's up until the ball was snapped.

Worst coverage of a game ever.

jargomcfargo
12-07-2009, 10:57 AM
Vikings were beat in all three phases of the game.
Cards were more physical and smarter.

My concern in this game is coaching.

Cards coaching staff countered our strengths by not kicking to Percy, double teaming Jared Allen, focusing on stopping the run to make us one dimensional, and showing some new defensive sets to confuse Favre.

What did our coaches do to respond? Frazier tried blitzing but just got burned.

And what did our coaching staff do to counter the Cards strengths before the game? What changes were made to our game plan that specificly applied to the Cards?

I could talk about how Sullivan and Johnson and Favre had bad games.
Or mention how the officials allowed the defenders to get there early on many occasions.

But my major concern with this game was the disparity in coaching.

And I will give the Cards credit. They were one heck of a tough physical team that kicked the crap out of their opponent.

midgensa
12-07-2009, 11:15 AM
They had an amazing gameplan because of how good Adrian Wilson is.

It really is that simple. Other teams will not be able to run similar defenses because we will destroy their safety.

I was very impressed though. Very solid game by AZ. But nothing to panic over.

marshallvike
12-07-2009, 11:17 AM
Marrdro wrote:

NodakPaul wrote:

Marrdro wrote:


Playing against a stingy Vikings defense that came into the game ranked eighth in total defense in the NFL, Warner had his way, completing 22 of 32 passes for 285 yards and three touchdowns with no interceptions.

Primetime players (http://www.azdailysun.com/articles/2009/12/07/news/sports/20091207_sport_208865.txt)
Marrdro's comment follows:
Hmmmm, 8th ranked. To think, some are ready to throw them under the bus, restructure the whole backend etc etc etc.

Comeon guys/gals, we play a cover 2 defense. If the DL doesn't do its job and to get pressure, we have to bring LB'rs to help, our secondary is gonna get torched.

As the big guy said in a previous article.....


We know the defense goes as the front goes, and we didn't go as well at times tonight and he made big plays."

+1
I sure wish I could get ahold of the coaches tape. Who would have thought to put a LB deep and bring up a S to mirror AD and use the LB to cover the deep stuff. Fooled our WR's (they didn't run very decisive routes) and even confused our QB (That cat has seen everything).

Damn inovative if you ask me and one hell of a job at coaching. Nothing more, nothing less. Doesn't mean the team is falling apart.

Coaches will take that tape, analyze it, break it down for the players, end of discussion. ;)

boy marrdro,..........that sure gives me a warm fuzzy feeling.

Marrdro
12-07-2009, 11:21 AM
marshallvike wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

NodakPaul wrote:

Marrdro wrote:


Playing against a stingy Vikings defense that came into the game ranked eighth in total defense in the NFL, Warner had his way, completing 22 of 32 passes for 285 yards and three touchdowns with no interceptions.

Primetime players (http://www.azdailysun.com/articles/2009/12/07/news/sports/20091207_sport_208865.txt)
Marrdro's comment follows:
Hmmmm, 8th ranked. To think, some are ready to throw them under the bus, restructure the whole backend etc etc etc.

Comeon guys/gals, we play a cover 2 defense. If the DL doesn't do its job and to get pressure, we have to bring LB'rs to help, our secondary is gonna get torched.

As the big guy said in a previous article.....


We know the defense goes as the front goes, and we didn't go as well at times tonight and he made big plays."

+1
I sure wish I could get ahold of the coaches tape. Who would have thought to put a LB deep and bring up a S to mirror AD and use the LB to cover the deep stuff. Fooled our WR's (they didn't run very decisive routes) and even confused our QB (That cat has seen everything).

Damn inovative if you ask me and one hell of a job at coaching. Nothing more, nothing less. Doesn't mean the team is falling apart.

Coaches will take that tape, analyze it, break it down for the players, end of discussion. ;)

boy marrdro,..........that sure gives me a warm fuzzy feeling.
I know my friend. Kindof hard to be positive right now. Give me a day or two, I will try to get back on track.

Marrdro
12-07-2009, 11:26 AM
midgensa wrote:

They had an amazing gameplan because of how good Adrian Wilson is.

It really is that simple. Other teams will not be able to run similar defenses because we will destroy their safety.

I was very impressed though. Very solid game by AZ. But nothing to panic over.

Still need to look hard at it, however, initially I would think they might be able to do the same stuff if the brought either Jones or Rivers deep and bring Ndukwe up in the box like the Cards did.

Marrdro
12-07-2009, 11:36 AM
Early reports have Henderson out for the season with a broken leg that was surgically repaired in Arizona directly after the game. The Vikings have no answers for replacing him and will certainly struggle without the man called the “heart and soul” of their defense.

Shock and Ow! (http://www.realfootball365.com/articles/vikings/14655)
Marrdro's comment follows:
Nice one Mike.

Do disagree with the comment in the quote. I think they drafted Jasper just for this occasion.

Mike Bullock
12-07-2009, 11:42 AM
http://www.realfootball365.com/articles/vikings/14655


So far this season, minus two errant plays against the Pittsburgh Steelers, the Vikings have played like a true “team of destiny... That is, until they took the field Sunday night against the Cardinals.

V4L
12-07-2009, 11:44 AM
Ok after my little rants here we go

Run D was actually ranked 2nd again before this game.. It didn't look like it.. We gotta tweak that a bit.. No way Hightower should rip of 50 on 6 carries

I feel it would have been a bit closer if they didn't come out on fire.. Warner had PINPOINT accuracy for the first half.. The timing he has with those WRs is nuts.. And the top 2 made some freakish plays (Boldin's second TD was amazing)

Tyrell is getting juked like crazy and plain making bad angles.. Sanford needs to get some looks

Pat one hell of a game.. Old man starting to pick it up last few weeks

EJ can't say enough about the guy.. Was having another probowl calibur season.. Ended the game with 10 tackles.. Was also a bright spot

D needs to work on catching.. Saw too many dropped passes.. Can't have that against a top tier team

Offense.. I think we started to panic and dropped the run too early.. They came out firing and I think Bevell got too gun happy

Brett.. Off game.. Bound to happen.. Card's were getting all sorts of penetration with the front 4.. And that "ameoba" look was confusing everyone

AP.. Although he was getting hit in the backfield quite a bit still ran into the backs of our O-line a few times.. I think he gets impatient or something when he is getting bullrushed in the backfield everyother play

Tahi.. Sprung some of our better runs that game.. Props actually to that man.. Picked up some of the intruding D-linemen a couple times

Chester.. Dude is still ballin.. Quiet but effective game

Percy.. Needs to touch the ball more often.. Makes plays everywhere

ST's.. Well had an off game.. And coaches are planning around Percy.. I hate it.. But I think in the future we could take advantage of having the ball around the 30-35

Coaching.. Simply outcoached on all phases.. Our D tightened up a bit in the second half.. Almost kept us in it..

I wasn't as worried as I am now before the game, knew Cards have been hitting on all cylinders and playing great ball towards the end of the season.. But we have to beat these kinda teams and on the road to boot

We have some things to work on and I hope we can get that accomplished

:blink:

V4L
12-07-2009, 11:45 AM
Marrdro wrote:


Early reports have Henderson out for the season with a broken leg that was surgically repaired in Arizona directly after the game. The Vikings have no answers for replacing him and will certainly struggle without the man called the “heart and soul” of their defense.

Shock and Ow! (http://www.realfootball365.com/articles/vikings/14655)
Marrdro's comment follows:
Nice one Mike.

Do disagree with the comment in the quote. I think they drafted Jasper just for this occasion.

Is there something wrong with Erin? He has been deactivated.. I however wanna bring him in and give him a little time and looks.. See how he does

More of an OLB.. But I feel the kid will be a talented player

V4L
12-07-2009, 11:46 AM
Or a lucky missed FG against the Ravens

But oh well

Freakout
12-07-2009, 11:50 AM
Haven't read the thread but that punt return really bit us in the ass. Take that stupid mistake by #41 away and it would have been a whole different game.

Marrdro
12-07-2009, 11:59 AM
V4L wrote:

Marrdro wrote:


Early reports have Henderson out for the season with a broken leg that was surgically repaired in Arizona directly after the game. The Vikings have no answers for replacing him and will certainly struggle without the man called the “heart and soul” of their defense.

Shock and Ow! (http://www.realfootball365.com/articles/vikings/14655)
Marrdro's comment follows:
Nice one Mike.

Do disagree with the comment in the quote. I think they drafted Jasper just for this occasion.

Is there something wrong with Erin? He has been deactivated.. I however wanna bring him in and give him a little time and looks.. See how he does

More of an OLB.. But I feel the kid will be a talented player
Deactivations/activations to make up the 45 man roster this time of year are all based on injuries.

As to Erin, as you said, more of a OLB, not sure why you would want to bring him in. Most of his reps are at that spot. Why wouldn't you want to bring in the cat they have on the roster who is supposed to be a MLB.

If not Jasper I would have thought you would put a vote in for Heath.

Having said all that, I think we have our answer as to who it will be. As soon as EJ went down, Jasper came out.

Marrdro
12-07-2009, 12:03 PM
Freakout wrote:

Haven't read the thread but that punt return really bit us in the ass. Take that stupid mistake by #41 away and it would have been a whole different game.
What mistake? He got down there and forced him to go left/right. The cat who had the gap responsibility after that was more at fault IMHO.

Anyone have a guess at who had that lane. B)

On a side note, if the O would have gotten at least 5 or so more yards, Kluwe wouldn't have had to kick one of those "No Hang Time" kicks and #41 would have probably got down there and made the play like he did on the next punt.

V4L
12-07-2009, 12:13 PM
I dont remeber the punt return exactly kinda zoned out til he took off

But i've been hearing alot of "it was Paymah's fault"

Ill have to check it out

V4L
12-07-2009, 12:17 PM
http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2009120610/2009/REG13/vikings@cardinals#tab:watch


Ok from what I saw Paymah had contain.. And didn't.. He didn't break down and make that tackle (edit looks like he didn't have contain.. I may be wrong?)

Farwell should have made the tackle afterwards

And 33 should have been able to take him down

Is this correct?

Marrdro
12-07-2009, 12:22 PM
V4L wrote:

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2009120610/2009/REG13/vikings@cardinals#tab:watch


Ok from what I saw Paymah had contain.. And didn't.. He didn't break down and make that tackle

Farwell should have made the tackle afterwards

And 33 should have been able to take him down

Is this correct?
Look at it from a different perspective........

a. It wasn't a normal punt. Because of field position Kluwe had to kick one that wasn't conduscive to all the coverage guys getting there at the same time.

b. Paymah (fast mo-fo) got down there with the sole job of forcing the cat one way or the other (no way he could have run down there and got that close and still tackled the cat) so the trailers could adjust and make the tackle. He did that, they didn't.

V4L
12-07-2009, 12:27 PM
The thing is tho Paymah wasn't outside contain... I think it was Sanford? 37?

He was a gunner and should have made that tackle.. Horrible break down there .. We didn't bring him in to contain.. We brought him in to make tackles.. That play he didn't

Farwell.. Just got ran by.. Still a top ST's player needs to make that play

And 33 whiffed..

Zeus
12-07-2009, 12:29 PM
Marrdro wrote:

V4L wrote:

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2009120610/2009/REG13/vikings@cardinals#tab:watch


Ok from what I saw Paymah had contain.. And didn't.. He didn't break down and make that tackle

Farwell should have made the tackle afterwards

And 33 should have been able to take him down

Is this correct?
Look at it from a different perspective........

a. It wasn't a normal punt. Because of field position Kluwe had to kick one that wasn't conduscive to all the coverage guys getting there at the same time.

b. Paymah (fast mo-fo) got down there with the sole job of forcing the cat one way or the other (no way he could have run down there and got that close and still tackled the cat) so the trailers could adjust and make the tackle. He did that, they didn't.

Or look at it from the "Marrdro Special Hate of Farwell" perspective and concoct a scenario that directly leads to failure on behalf of one of the players whom you dislike the most and always get on no matter what he does.

=Z=

Marrdro
12-07-2009, 12:30 PM
Zeus wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

V4L wrote:

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2009120610/2009/REG13/vikings@cardinals#tab:watch


Ok from what I saw Paymah had contain.. And didn't.. He didn't break down and make that tackle

Farwell should have made the tackle afterwards

And 33 should have been able to take him down

Is this correct?
Look at it from a different perspective........

a. It wasn't a normal punt. Because of field position Kluwe had to kick one that wasn't conduscive to all the coverage guys getting there at the same time.

b. Paymah (fast mo-fo) got down there with the sole job of forcing the cat one way or the other (no way he could have run down there and got that close and still tackled the cat) so the trailers could adjust and make the tackle. He did that, they didn't.

Or look at it from the "Marrdro Special Hate of Farwell" perspective and concoct a scenario that directly leads to failure on behalf of one of the players whom you dislike the most and always get on no matter what he does.

=Z=
Were do you see me say anything about your hero my friend? :dry:

jargomcfargo
12-07-2009, 12:33 PM
Marrdro wrote:

V4L wrote:

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2009120610/2009/REG13/vikings@cardinals#tab:watch


Ok from what I saw Paymah had contain.. And didn't.. He didn't break down and make that tackle

Farwell should have made the tackle afterwards

And 33 should have been able to take him down

Is this correct?
Look at it from a different perspective........

a. It wasn't a normal punt. Because of field position Kluwe had to kick one that wasn't conduscive to all the coverage guys getting there at the same time.

b. Paymah (fast mo-fo) got down there with the sole job of forcing the cat one way or the other (no way he could have run down there and got that close and still tackled the cat) so the trailers could adjust and make the tackle. He did that, they didn't.

Paymah should have pinned him to the sideline and not allowed him to cut back inside. He failed to do that. I don't give him all the responsibility for the outcome of that return. But he certainly had an opportunity to make a play and failed.
It's not forcing him one way or the other when he is by the sideline. It's forcing him toward the sideline to make his portion of the field smaller and reduce the returners options.
There is more to it than simply running down the field in your lane.

V4L
12-07-2009, 12:33 PM
Actually looking at it again he should have stayed inside and forced him outside towards the sidelines.. If not make the tackle

He failed to do either

V4L
12-07-2009, 12:35 PM
jargomcfargo wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

V4L wrote:

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2009120610/2009/REG13/vikings@cardinals#tab:watch


Ok from what I saw Paymah had contain.. And didn't.. He didn't break down and make that tackle

Farwell should have made the tackle afterwards

And 33 should have been able to take him down

Is this correct?
Look at it from a different perspective........

a. It wasn't a normal punt. Because of field position Kluwe had to kick one that wasn't conduscive to all the coverage guys getting there at the same time.

b. Paymah (fast mo-fo) got down there with the sole job of forcing the cat one way or the other (no way he could have run down there and got that close and still tackled the cat) so the trailers could adjust and make the tackle. He did that, they didn't.

Paymah should have pinned him to the sideline and not allowed him to cut back inside. He failed to do that. I don't give him all the responsibility for the outcome of that return. But he certainly had an opportunity to make a play and failed.
It's not forcing him one way or the other when he is by the sideline. It's forcing him toward the sideline to make his portion of the field smaller and reduce the returners options.
There is more to it than simply running down the field in your lane.


+1 exactly

And after Farwell should have made a tackle

And 33 should have

Nice play by Breaston getting outta that he is a great returner

But we need to make that play.. Neither of those 3 guys did

Freakout
12-07-2009, 12:45 PM
Marrdro wrote:

Freakout wrote:

Haven't read the thread but that punt return really bit us in the ass. Take that stupid mistake by #41 away and it would have been a whole different game.
What mistake? He got down there and forced him to go left/right. The cat who had the gap responsibility after that was more at fault IMHO.

Anyone have a guess at who had that lane. B)

On a side note, if the O would have gotten at least 5 or so more yards, Kluwe wouldn't have had to kick one of those "No Hang Time" kicks and #41 would have probably got down there and made the play like he did on the next punt.

He had outside contain on him. Instead of using the sideline to help cut him off him jumped in front and allowed him to cut back.

Marrdro
12-07-2009, 12:45 PM
jargomcfargo wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

V4L wrote:

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2009120610/2009/REG13/vikings@cardinals#tab:watch


Ok from what I saw Paymah had contain.. And didn't.. He didn't break down and make that tackle

Farwell should have made the tackle afterwards

And 33 should have been able to take him down

Is this correct?
Look at it from a different perspective........

a. It wasn't a normal punt. Because of field position Kluwe had to kick one that wasn't conduscive to all the coverage guys getting there at the same time.

b. Paymah (fast mo-fo) got down there with the sole job of forcing the cat one way or the other (no way he could have run down there and got that close and still tackled the cat) so the trailers could adjust and make the tackle. He did that, they didn't.

Paymah should have pinned him to the sideline and not allowed him to cut back inside. He failed to do that. I don't give him all the responsibility for the outcome of that return. But he certainly had an opportunity to make a play and failed.
It's not forcing him one way or the other when he is by the sideline. It's forcing him toward the sideline to make his portion of the field smaller and reduce the returners options.
There is more to it than simply running down the field in your lane.
Well maybe I need to go back and watch the play again, but if my memory serves he wasn't close enough to force the cat to do anything other than to make the guy commit to oneside or the other.

Again, give him a fraction more hangtime and I am sure he would have made the play, just like he did on the next punt.

Truth be told, I was amazed Paymah got as close as he did.

V4L
12-07-2009, 12:46 PM
Freakout nailed it

And I don't think the punt was bad at all.. Nice directional kick that should have pinned him towards the sidelines.. Paymah just blew his assignment.. Then after it was bad angles and sloppy tackling.. And a good play by Breaston

V4L
12-07-2009, 12:49 PM
I paused it when Breaston caught it.. Paymah was 6 yards away

Had the inside angle and just cut in way too far

Stay in your lane brotha!!

NodakPaul
12-07-2009, 12:53 PM
Luck is part of the game. Every team will encounter some good luck and some bad luck in a game.

Saints were pretty lucky twice in their win against the Redskins. Doesn't make it any less of a win.

(There are those who will say that kicking FGs actually involves some skill too, you know... :) )

Marrdro
12-07-2009, 12:53 PM
Freakout wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Freakout wrote:

Haven't read the thread but that punt return really bit us in the ass. Take that stupid mistake by #41 away and it would have been a whole different game.
What mistake? He got down there and forced him to go left/right. The cat who had the gap responsibility after that was more at fault IMHO.

Anyone have a guess at who had that lane. B)

On a side note, if the O would have gotten at least 5 or so more yards, Kluwe wouldn't have had to kick one of those "No Hang Time" kicks and #41 would have probably got down there and made the play like he did on the next punt.

He had outside contain on him. Instead of using the sideline to help cut him off him jumped in front and allowed him to cut back.
As I've said before, I did a little PR back in the day on my highschool team.

Hated every one of them, except, when I got the chance to field a kick like that.

Not only do you have time to field the ball (without worry of getting blasted) but you also get to see what lanes are open and what ones aren't.

This kick is one of those instances.

As I said earlier, it all started with field position. Kluwe was forced to get it off and get it deep because of field position. Result, very little hang time and little or no coverage.

Quick question, anyone ever try to run as fast as you possibly can and then try to stop short and make a tackle? Just doesn't happen unless the PR'r is a complete yutz and basically runs straight at you.

Paymahs job was to get down as fast as possible and force the guy to commit so that the cats coming on behind him could make the tackle. They failed to do that. Nothing more, nothing less.

Marrdro
12-07-2009, 12:55 PM
V4L wrote:

I paused it when Breaston caught it.. Paymah was 6 yards away

Had the inside angle and just cut in way too far

Stay in your lane brotha!!
So coming on at a full head of steam he was supposed to adjust on the fly and make the tackle, all in 6 yards.

WOW.

NodakPaul
12-07-2009, 12:55 PM
V4L wrote:

I paused it when Breaston caught it.. Paymah was 6 yards away

Had the inside angle and just cut in way too far

Stay in your lane brotha!!

Just cued it up on the DVR. You are correct. Paymah blew his lane. He cut way too far inside, allowing the returner to break outside where there was no help.

V4L
12-07-2009, 12:56 PM
Nope.. I change my stance on the tackle

He just made a horrible play

Marrdro
12-07-2009, 12:56 PM
NodakPaul wrote:

V4L wrote:

I paused it when Breaston caught it.. Paymah was 6 yards away

Had the inside angle and just cut in way too far

Stay in your lane brotha!!

Just cued it up on the DVR. You are correct. Paymah blew his lane. He cut way too far inside, allowing the returner to break outside where there was no help.
How far ahead of the other guys was Paymah?

V4L
12-07-2009, 12:57 PM
Although when Breaston did cut he was within a yard of him.. Just whiffed

Maybe I should expect him to make a tackle if he is gonna commit on it?

Or maybe he should just stay in his lane

V4L
12-07-2009, 01:00 PM
Marrdro wrote:

NodakPaul wrote:

V4L wrote:

I paused it when Breaston caught it.. Paymah was 6 yards away

Had the inside angle and just cut in way too far

Stay in your lane brotha!!

Just cued it up on the DVR. You are correct. Paymah blew his lane. He cut way too far inside, allowing the returner to break outside where there was no help.
How far ahead of the other guys was Paymah?


To me it looks like 5-10 yards and coming off of blocks

ejmat
12-07-2009, 01:01 PM
Didn't read the entire thread but all I can say is the Cards kicked our asses! They played a great game while the Vikings didn't.

I don't mind the loss so much but what I do mind is all the injuries. We have been relatively lucky in that aspect this year then in one game everything goes awry.

EJ - my prayers are with you. I couldn't even watch that play again after I saw the replay once. I am disgusted thinking about how that leg snapped. Yuck! I hope Jasper can step in.

Marrdro
12-07-2009, 01:02 PM
V4L wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

NodakPaul wrote:

V4L wrote:

I paused it when Breaston caught it.. Paymah was 6 yards away

Had the inside angle and just cut in way too far

Stay in your lane brotha!!

Just cued it up on the DVR. You are correct. Paymah blew his lane. He cut way too far inside, allowing the returner to break outside where there was no help.
How far ahead of the other guys was Paymah?


To me it looks like 5-10 yards and coming off of blocks
Thats what I remember. Having said that, do you, or anyone think he was actually in a lane at that point or do you think he was just driving at the guy, trying to get as close as possible?

V4L
12-07-2009, 01:07 PM
Marrdro wrote:

V4L wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

NodakPaul wrote:

V4L wrote:

I paused it when Breaston caught it.. Paymah was 6 yards away

Had the inside angle and just cut in way too far

Stay in your lane brotha!!

Just cued it up on the DVR. You are correct. Paymah blew his lane. He cut way too far inside, allowing the returner to break outside where there was no help.
How far ahead of the other guys was Paymah?


To me it looks like 5-10 yards and coming off of blocks
Thats what I remember. Having said that, do you, or anyone think he was actually in a lane at that point or do you think he was just driving at the guy, trying to get as close as possible?

To me it kinda looks like he was just running at him.. Kind of undisaplined

Had he broken down properly he would have probably been in position to make a tackle.. He failed to do that and just looked silly sitting outside while Breaston took the easy unoccuppied lane that Paymah gave up

Then afterwards it looks as if Heath overran it a little bit and got blown right by.

Then 33 very slightly overran and whiffed on a tackle

Just how I see it

Marrdro
12-07-2009, 01:13 PM
V4L wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

V4L wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

NodakPaul wrote:

V4L wrote:

I paused it when Breaston caught it.. Paymah was 6 yards away

Had the inside angle and just cut in way too far

Stay in your lane brotha!!

Just cued it up on the DVR. You are correct. Paymah blew his lane. He cut way too far inside, allowing the returner to break outside where there was no help.
How far ahead of the other guys was Paymah?


To me it looks like 5-10 yards and coming off of blocks
Thats what I remember. Having said that, do you, or anyone think he was actually in a lane at that point or do you think he was just driving at the guy, trying to get as close as possible?

To me it kinda looks like he was just running at him.. Kind of undisaplined

Had he broken down properly he would have probably been in position to make a tackle.. He failed to do that and just looked silly sitting outside while Breaston took the easy unoccuppied lane that Paymah gave up

Then afterwards it looks as if Heath overran it a little bit and got blown right by.

Then 33 very slightly overran and whiffed on a tackle

Just how I see it
He was "Driving at him". Thats what I've been trying to explain. His role in this was by design. Its one of the plays that they practice believe it or not.

His sole job was to get as close as possible, as fast as possible in an effort to make the PR'r to commit so the the others could ensure they filled the lanes.

Again, agree with me or not, Paymah did his job, the rest of the coverage unit didn't.

V4L
12-07-2009, 01:14 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v674/sleepers1717/blahblahblah.jpg


There you can see he commited WAY too far outside and didn't cut him off from the inside

He broke down horribly and just got ran right by

V4L
12-07-2009, 01:15 PM
Then what is all that jibber jabber you talk about with people not staying in lanes?


He is the only one that doesn't have a lane?

V4L
12-07-2009, 01:19 PM
Im sorry if I don't believe his sole purpose was to get as close as he could to him

If that was his job then he should have made the tackle

And if it was his job to force him to a spot it should have been towards the sidelines.. Its basic football knowledge

Marrdro
12-07-2009, 01:22 PM
V4L wrote:

Im sorry if I don't believe his sole purpose was to get as close as he could to him

If that was his job then he should have made the tackle

And if it was his job to force him to a spot it should have been towards the sidelines.. Its basic football knowledge
Of course its basic football knowledge. Sometimes the game gets past basics my friend.

Marrdro
12-07-2009, 01:24 PM
V4L wrote:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v674/sleepers1717/blahblahblah.jpg


There you can see he commited WAY too far outside and didn't cut him off from the inside

He broke down horribly and just got ran right by
I can't see shit. Just a red x. Damn firewall.

You can see vids. Take a look at this punt and then take a look at the next attempt. You should be able to see how the two are two completely different scenarios requiring to completely different approaches.

By the way, we might get another 10 pages or so out of this if we work real hard at it. ;)

V4L
12-07-2009, 01:24 PM
I don't understand

What was he supposed to do there? Just drive at him? If that's the case then he should have been there to make the tackle.. he was close enough just commited too far outside.. Breaston made him look silly

I for one think he just jumped out of his lane and ran too far outside.. That simple

I don't feel he is the only one that doesnt have a lane

Freya
12-07-2009, 01:30 PM
Marrdro wrote:

NodakPaul wrote:

Marrdro wrote:


Playing against a stingy Vikings defense that came into the game ranked eighth in total defense in the NFL, Warner had his way, completing 22 of 32 passes for 285 yards and three touchdowns with no interceptions.

Primetime players (http://www.azdailysun.com/articles/2009/12/07/news/sports/20091207_sport_208865.txt)
Marrdro's comment follows:
Hmmmm, 8th ranked. To think, some are ready to throw them under the bus, restructure the whole backend etc etc etc.

Comeon guys/gals, we play a cover 2 defense. If the DL doesn't do its job and to get pressure, we have to bring LB'rs to help, our secondary is gonna get torched.

As the big guy said in a previous article.....


We know the defense goes as the front goes, and we didn't go as well at times tonight and he made big plays."

+1
I sure wish I could get ahold of the coaches tape. Who would have thought to put a LB deep and bring up a S to mirror AD and use the LB to cover the deep stuff. Fooled our WR's (they didn't run very decisive routes) and even confused our QB (That cat has seen everything).

Damn inovative if you ask me and one hell of a job at coaching. Nothing more, nothing less. Doesn't mean the team is falling apart.

Coaches will take that tape, analyze it, break it down for the players, end of discussion. ;)

It appears that they should have done a better job breaking down and analyzing tape of the Cards before last night, imo. :blink:

Marrdro
12-07-2009, 01:31 PM
V4L wrote:

I don't understand

What was he supposed to do there? Just drive at him? If that's the case then he should have been there to make the tackle.. he was close enough just commited too far outside.. Breaston made him look silly

I for one think he just jumped out of his lane and ran too far outside.. That simple

I don't feel he is the only one that doesnt have a lane
Lets try another tact.

Back in the day, when wedges were allowed, what was the wedge busters job? Bust the wedge and make the tackle, or was it bust the wedge so the other guys could make the tackle?

V4L
12-07-2009, 01:39 PM
Been talkin to some Vikes players take it for what it's worth

They all said every player there had a lane

Marrdro
12-07-2009, 01:42 PM
V4L wrote:

Been talkin to some Vikes players take it for what it's worth

They all said every player there had a lane
I am not disagreeing with that.

Point of discussion is based on a comment that #41 did a bad job.

I am only trying to explain what his role was in that play. The whole "He blew his lane" discussion with respect to the rest of the coverage unit you and I both agree on (I think).

thorshammer
12-07-2009, 01:42 PM
This was an extremely dissapointing loss ... The team came out very flat and just plain had no drive at all .... I did not expect this type of play from our team this year.... they did not look motivated at all ... they actually looked dazed and confused .... We all know they can play better and dominate when their focused .... The question is why weren't they focused at this time of year ... This is when the great teams are their most focused.

V4L
12-07-2009, 01:45 PM
Marrdro wrote:

V4L wrote:

Been talkin to some Vikes players take it for what it's worth

They all said every player there had a lane
I am not disagreeing with that.

Point of discussion is based on a comment that #41 did a bad job.

I am only trying to explain what his role was in that play. The whole "He blew his lane" discussion with respect to the rest of the coverage unit you and I both agree on (I think).


Idk man.

I just feel his role was to stay in his lane and push Breaston outside.. He failed to

Im a lil tired I might be reading things different idk ha

Marrdro
12-07-2009, 01:47 PM
V4L wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

V4L wrote:

Been talkin to some Vikes players take it for what it's worth

They all said every player there had a lane
I am not disagreeing with that.

Point of discussion is based on a comment that #41 did a bad job.

I am only trying to explain what his role was in that play. The whole "He blew his lane" discussion with respect to the rest of the coverage unit you and I both agree on (I think).


Idk man.

I just feel his role was to stay in his lane and push Breaston outside.. He failed to

Im a lil tired I might be reading things different idk ha
LOL, don't quite on me now. We still have a few pages to fill...... :laugh:

If ya gotta go, get a couple of those players on here. Let me "discuss" it with them.

V4L
12-07-2009, 01:50 PM
Haha I would if I could my man

They said they haven't watched film just yet

but said people definitley got out of their lanes on that play

They wouldn't sell out a single player tho haha.. Good call guys

Overlord
12-07-2009, 02:23 PM
I want to jump in on this punt return talk.

First, the kick was pretty good. A 55 yard punt that is angled near the sideline. Hang-time was right about 5 seconds. Not bad kicking out of your own endzone.

Paymah was out of position a bit and out of control. Marrdro brought up the point that it's hard to stop from a dead sprint. Fair enough, but this is something that this guy gets paid to do. It's not like the team is asking him to try this out for the first time tonight. He needs to keep outside position and get under control so that Breaston is forced towards the sidelines where the coverage is expecting him to be.

That said, Farwell and Sanford both look like they made poor plays. Farwell looks like he lets himself slide just a little outside of where his lane might have been (hard to tell for sure). When he does cut back in, he is unobstructed but takes a bad angle and Breaston runs right by him. Sanford also gets a little too far up field, but he actually gets his hands on the guy. He also at least catches up and forces Breaston out-of-bounds.

Blame to go around on that play, but it starts with Paymah. I'm thinking that coverage has been pretty good this year though since the Cribbs return, though. Just a bad play in a night full of them.

Marrdro wrote:

Overlord, if you want to do an analysis, take a look at what the Cards were doing with the "Amoeba" defense. It gave us fits across the board. Bet ole Marvin will be poring over that coaches tape all week to see how it works.

From the little I could see (crappy announcing/crappy camera angles) it was pretty inovative.

It looked to me like they did a bit in coverage. But against the run game, particularly early, it looked fairly straight forward if very aggressive. They brought the safety down very often and also played their linebackers right on the line a bit, almost giving a 5-3 look several times.

Nonetheless, it didn't look to me like the problem was o-linemen finding someone to block. It looked like they knew where to go and either: 1) weren't getting there; or 2) weren't making solid blocks when they did. As to the first, it didn't look like they were often put in situations that made getting to the blocks particularly difficult.

Over and over it seems like we see the same thing, which is why on this aspect I can't see it as a one time thing. In terms of blame, there is plenty to go around between coaches and players. The big thing though is, can they fix it?

I think they can. It seems like the line is talented enough based on their history. And they do make good plays from time to time. Just hope they actually do so that we can see AD run wild and get back to that balanced offense we always talk about.

NodakPaul
12-07-2009, 02:36 PM
V4L wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

V4L wrote:

Been talkin to some Vikes players take it for what it's worth

They all said every player there had a lane
I am not disagreeing with that.

Point of discussion is based on a comment that #41 did a bad job.

I am only trying to explain what his role was in that play. The whole "He blew his lane" discussion with respect to the rest of the coverage unit you and I both agree on (I think).


Idk man.

I just feel his role was to stay in his lane and push Breaston outside.. He failed to

Im a lil tired I might be reading things different idk ha

After watching and rewatching (even at work, thanks nfl.com ;)) I have to agree with V4L. He was coming in from the returner's right, over pursued to the outside, and Breaston was able to make a fairly easy cut and have a LOT of open field in front of him.

On an angled kick, it is VERY important that everyone - especially the ones in front - stay in their lanes. The idea is to force them to the sideline where they have less room to work and you can commit a larger percentage of defenders to that side of the field. However, if someone slips their lane and allows the returner to cut back inside... well, that is how a LOT of big returns are set up. This is the same problem you run into when the punter outkicks the coverage. In that case, there is nobody down field to keep the returner corralled to the outside, and the coverage breaks down. Last night, however, Kluwe didn't out kick the coverage. Paymah was right there, and simply fialed to contain the returner.

With as much as you preach containment on the DL Marty, I am surprised you aren't all over this one... :)

Marrdro
12-07-2009, 02:52 PM
NodakPaul wrote:

V4L wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

V4L wrote:

Been talkin to some Vikes players take it for what it's worth

They all said every player there had a lane
I am not disagreeing with that.

Point of discussion is based on a comment that #41 did a bad job.

I am only trying to explain what his role was in that play. The whole "He blew his lane" discussion with respect to the rest of the coverage unit you and I both agree on (I think).


Idk man.

I just feel his role was to stay in his lane and push Breaston outside.. He failed to

Im a lil tired I might be reading things different idk ha

After watching and rewatching (even at work, thanks nfl.com ;)) I have to agree with V4L. He was coming in from the returner's right, over pursued to the outside, and Breaston was able to make a fairly easy cut and have a LOT of open field in front of him.

On an angled kick, it is VERY important that everyone - especially the ones in front - stay in their lanes. The idea is to force them to the sideline where they have less room to work and you can commit a larger percentage of defenders to that side of the field. However, if someone slips their lane and allows the returner to cut back inside... well, that is how a LOT of big returns are set up. This is the same problem you run into when the punter outkicks the coverage. In that case, there is nobody down field to keep the returner corralled to the outside, and the coverage breaks down. Last night, however, Kluwe didn't out kick the coverage. Paymah was right there, and simply fialed to contain the returner.

With as much as you preach containment on the DL Marty, I am surprised you aren't all over this one... :)
Alas, my knowledge of the game comes from the limited stuff playing 9 man football at the High School level and books.

In this case, it smells of one of our plays we ran.

In that play, the fastest cats role didn't have anything to do with contain. It had everything to do with getting the returner to commit so that the slower runners could contain.

Again, I think everyone should look at the two examples in this game, one Paymah does what most think should happen. In the other, he does something everyone says is bad (with the one lone exception, me).

V4L
12-07-2009, 02:56 PM
Marty you're so stubborn :P JK

Im not really sure how you think he did his job.. If his job was to slow him up and push him to another spot he still failed to do that

Marrdro
12-07-2009, 02:59 PM
Overlord wrote:

I want to jump in on this punt return talk.

First, the kick was pretty good. A 55 yard punt that is angled near the sideline. Hang-time was right about 5 seconds. Not bad kicking out of your own endzone.

Paymah was out of position a bit and out of control. Marrdro brought up the point that it's hard to stop from a dead sprint. Fair enough, but this is something that this guy gets paid to do. It's not like the team is asking him to try this out for the first time tonight. He needs to keep outside position and get under control so that Breaston is forced towards the sidelines where the coverage is expecting him to be.

That said, Farwell and Sanford both look like they made poor plays. Farwell looks like he lets himself slide just a little outside of where his lane might have been (hard to tell for sure). When he does cut back in, he is unobstructed but takes a bad angle and Breaston runs right by him. Sanford also gets a little too far up field, but he actually gets his hands on the guy. He also at least catches up and forces Breaston out-of-bounds.

Blame to go around on that play, but it starts with Paymah. I'm thinking that coverage has been pretty good this year though since the Cribbs return, though. Just a bad play in a night full of them.

Marrdro wrote:

Overlord, if you want to do an analysis, take a look at what the Cards were doing with the "Amoeba" defense. It gave us fits across the board. Bet ole Marvin will be poring over that coaches tape all week to see how it works.

From the little I could see (crappy announcing/crappy camera angles) it was pretty inovative.

It looked to me like they did a bit in coverage. But against the run game, particularly early, it looked fairly straight forward if very aggressive. They brought the safety down very often and also played their linebackers right on the line a bit, almost giving a 5-3 look several times.

Nonetheless, it didn't look to me like the problem was o-linemen finding someone to block. It looked like they knew where to go and either: 1) weren't getting there; or 2) weren't making solid blocks when they did. As to the first, it didn't look like they were often put in situations that made getting to the blocks particularly difficult.

Over and over it seems like we see the same thing, which is why on this aspect I can't see it as a one time thing. In terms of blame, there is plenty to go around between coaches and players. The big thing though is, can they fix it?

I think they can. It seems like the line is talented enough based on their history. And they do make good plays from time to time. Just hope they actually do so that we can see AD run wild and get back to that balanced offense we always talk about.
As always, good stuff my friend.


Fair enough, but this is something that this guy gets paid to do. It's not like the team is asking him to try this out for the first time tonight. He needs to keep outside position and get under control so that Breaston is forced towards the sidelines where the coverage is expecting him to be.
In a typical punting situation I would agree. In this case, I don't. He did what he was paid to do, make the returner commit.


Nonetheless, it didn't look to me like the problem was o-linemen finding someone to block.
So the OL didn't have issues with it. Next question has to do with the indicisiveness of the RB (on running plays) and the QB (on passing plays).

a. Passing - Do you see open recievers that were missed?
b. Running - Do you see holes AD missed? I know that in my game notes I had 2 checks next to "Should have followed FB".

I can see this is gonna force me to spend beer money on the "Rewind". :huh:

Marrdro
12-07-2009, 03:00 PM
V4L wrote:

Marty you're so stubborn :P JK

Im not really sure how you think he did his job.. If his job was to slow him up and push him to another spot he still failed to do that
Why do you keep coming up with another job...

His job was to make the returner commit. This was driven by the situation. Nothing more, nothing less.

V4L
12-07-2009, 03:06 PM
Marrdro wrote:

V4L wrote:

Marty you're so stubborn :P JK

Im not really sure how you think he did his job.. If his job was to slow him up and push him to another spot he still failed to do that
Why do you keep coming up with another job...

His job was to make the returner commit. This was driven by the situation. Nothing more, nothing less.


Im not my stance has always been his job was to stay in his lane and push Breaston towards the sidelines

He overpursued and took a wrong way outside

Simple as that.. he didn't do his job.. And it set up a big return

V4L
12-07-2009, 03:08 PM
Marrdro wrote:

V4L wrote:

Marty you're so stubborn :P JK

Im not really sure how you think he did his job.. If his job was to slow him up and push him to another spot he still failed to do that
Why do you keep coming up with another job...

His job was to make the returner commit. This was driven by the situation. Nothing more, nothing less.


Commit to running into the open space?

Had he made him commit to running towards the sidelines then he would have done his job correctly

Freakout
12-07-2009, 03:41 PM
Marrdro wrote:

NodakPaul wrote:

V4L wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

V4L wrote:

Been talkin to some Vikes players take it for what it's worth

They all said every player there had a lane
I am not disagreeing with that.

Point of discussion is based on a comment that #41 did a bad job.

I am only trying to explain what his role was in that play. The whole "He blew his lane" discussion with respect to the rest of the coverage unit you and I both agree on (I think).


Idk man.

I just feel his role was to stay in his lane and push Breaston outside.. He failed to

Im a lil tired I might be reading things different idk ha

After watching and rewatching (even at work, thanks nfl.com ;)) I have to agree with V4L. He was coming in from the returner's right, over pursued to the outside, and Breaston was able to make a fairly easy cut and have a LOT of open field in front of him.

On an angled kick, it is VERY important that everyone - especially the ones in front - stay in their lanes. The idea is to force them to the sideline where they have less room to work and you can commit a larger percentage of defenders to that side of the field. However, if someone slips their lane and allows the returner to cut back inside... well, that is how a LOT of big returns are set up. This is the same problem you run into when the punter outkicks the coverage. In that case, there is nobody down field to keep the returner corralled to the outside, and the coverage breaks down. Last night, however, Kluwe didn't out kick the coverage. Paymah was right there, and simply fialed to contain the returner.

With as much as you preach containment on the DL Marty, I am surprised you aren't all over this one... :)
Alas, my knowledge of the game comes from the limited stuff playing 9 man football at the High School level and books.

In this case, it smells of one of our plays we ran.

In that play, the fastest cats role didn't have anything to do with contain. It had everything to do with getting the returner to commit so that the slower runners could contain.

Again, I think everyone should look at the two examples in this game, one Paymah does what most think should happen. In the other, he does something everyone says is bad (with the one lone exception, me).

You seem to be ignoring or forgetting that this was a DIRECTIONAL punt. I understand your point if it was your standard straight down the center punt then yeah the first guy is strictly a gunner but the whole point of kicking directional is to use the sideline as your 12th man and force the returner into a small space.

If we go by what you are saying then there would be no need for directional punting.

V4L
12-07-2009, 03:48 PM
Exactly it was a directional kick.. 55 yards.. About 5 seconds of hangtime.. More then enough time to push him towards the sidelines and not give him a big crease

Paymah played it horribly

Formo
12-07-2009, 03:50 PM
Wow.. that's a lot of punt return pages!! lol

V4L, number 33 is Sanford, that rookie safety that took over for Tyrell. And I'm glad I wasn't the only one that mentioned that.

I was bitching at Tyrell for a lot of the game last night, and when I saw the tiny bit of Sanford, he looked decent. Still not to par, but better than Tyrell.

Like I said in the Yell last night.. If I see AP sprint into the backs of our O line one more time, I'm going to throw the Ottoman through my effin' tv. It's really starting to piss me off. I know the lack of run game we have isn't all on AP (piss poor playcalling last night.. someone said that we should of run when we passed and vice versa.. Sooo damn true!), but he is hurting his game by not having patience. I know I've said that about 20 times since the game.. but it's true.

It struck me during the game when one of the announcers mentioned Beanie Wells' patience. It was a run play, and there was NO WHERE for Wells to go. But he was patient, let his blockers set up, and he squeezed between two blockers for the 2 or 3 yard gain (which gave them the 1st down). Now, put AP in on that same play.. It goes for no gain because he sprints into his linemen's backs.

snowinapril
12-07-2009, 03:58 PM
ultravikingfan wrote:

Not what I was hoping . However, my feelings about this year are unchanged. I would rather lose now than when it really counts.

I would hope that this loss is a good learning experience for this team and we fix the problems.

This was a team loss. Not going to put this on any player or coach.

One thing that killed us the most: pressure

Sounds like the Offensive Line......

How would the game have been different if we controlled the offensive line enough to get AD some yards and a little more time for BF to throw?

I give credit to the Cards D line for stepping it up a notch more so than coming down on our O line.

Overlord
12-07-2009, 04:48 PM
Marrdro wrote:
Overlord wrote:
Nonetheless, it didn't look to me like the problem was o-linemen finding someone to block.
So the OL didn't have issues with it. Next question has to do with the indicisiveness of the RB (on running plays) and the QB (on passing plays).

a. Passing - Do you see open recievers that were missed?
b. Running - Do you see holes AD missed? I know that in my game notes I had 2 checks next to "Should have followed FB".

I can see this is gonna force me to spend beer money on the "Rewind". :huh:
A. While I don't think the O-line did a good job in pass protection yesterday, I haven't looked at it closely. My initial reaction was that even though it wasn't great, they have been doing well all year and one game does not make a trend. I also thought Favre had a poor game in multiple aspects, including holding onto the ball a bit long. Again though, not a close look... just initial reaction. Not too concerned with it because I see it as an anomaly.

B. I really haven't seen too many holes that AD missed. I went through the entire Bears game and noted one play where he probably should have cut back. There were probably a few last night as well, though I haven't gone through every run yet. But if AD is making a poor decision 5-10% of the time, and the blocking is terrible 90% of the time, I know who I'm going to rag on.

I think I might have to test out the new blog feature here to see if I can compare what AD is getting to what Chris Johnson is getting these past few weeks.

CCthebest
12-07-2009, 05:38 PM
If we had decents coaches, the loss may have been a good thing. But we dont. Neither Childress or Fraizer had any idea what adjustments to make.

Marrdro do you just like to argue lately? I miss your posts of old instead of argueing just to argue.

PackSux!
12-07-2009, 06:46 PM
CCthebest wrote:

If we had decents coaches, the loss may have been a good thing. But we dont. Neither Childress or Fraizer had any idea what adjustments to make.

Marrdro do you just like to argue lately? I miss your posts of old instead of argueing just to argue.

Its always the coaches fault when things dont go our way isnt it? Forget the fact that we didnt apply any pressure with our DLine and when we blitzed it was picked up.

Give props to the Cards, their players played a better game then ours and that is the bottom line.

Purple Floyd
12-07-2009, 07:27 PM
Overlord wrote:

Marrdro wrote:
Overlord wrote:
Nonetheless, it didn't look to me like the problem was o-linemen finding someone to block.
So the OL didn't have issues with it. Next question has to do with the indicisiveness of the RB (on running plays) and the QB (on passing plays).

a. Passing - Do you see open recievers that were missed?
b. Running - Do you see holes AD missed? I know that in my game notes I had 2 checks next to "Should have followed FB".

I can see this is gonna force me to spend beer money on the "Rewind". :huh:
A. While I don't think the O-line did a good job in pass protection yesterday, I haven't looked at it closely. My initial reaction was that even though it wasn't great, they have been doing well all year and one game does not make a trend. I also thought Favre had a poor game in multiple aspects, including holding onto the ball a bit long. Again though, not a close look... just initial reaction. Not too concerned with it because I see it as an anomaly.

B. I really haven't seen too many holes that AD missed. I went through the entire Bears game and noted one play where he probably should have cut back. There were probably a few last night as well, though I haven't gone through every run yet. But if AD is making a poor decision 5-10% of the time, and the blocking is terrible 90% of the time, I know who I'm going to rag on.

I think I might have to test out the new blog feature here to see if I can compare what AD is getting to what Chris Johnson is getting these past few weeks.

+1

Vikes
12-07-2009, 09:28 PM
Minny looked very flat.

I think we our partying or overlooking this game.

I know there is another thread but Minny should have put TJack in at some point.

gregair13
12-07-2009, 10:17 PM
I said to myself that I was going to read everything in this topic this week, but I read the first few pages and they were all exactly the same. There is also 17 pages and that would take too long which takes away from my posting.

So. I think everything has already been said already. Move on people.

BRING ON THE BENGALS.

Formo
12-07-2009, 10:42 PM
gregair13 wrote:

I said to myself that I was going to read everything in this topic this week, but I read the first few pages and they were all exactly the same. There is also 17 pages and that would take too long which takes away from my posting.

So. I think everything has already been said already. Move on people.

BRING ON THE BENGALS.

Flush that, dude.. I read ever freakin' post in this thread.. You have to, too!!

kjdaddy
12-07-2009, 11:08 PM
so flat. First time Brett looked mortal this season. Whay can't AP get loose this year??

Sajid28
12-08-2009, 12:17 AM
Vikes wrote:

Minny looked very flat.

I think we our partying or overlooking this game.

I know there is another thread but Minny should have put TJack in at some point.

Put in Tjack? for what? Do you see Peyton, Brees, Marino, Elway get benched when they didnt have a good game? Its not like Favre threw 6 Ints. He only threw 2 Ints with 2 TDs. Gimme a break!

Zeus
12-08-2009, 09:30 AM
Marrdro wrote:

Zeus wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

V4L wrote:

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2009120610/2009/REG13/vikings@cardinals#tab:watch


Ok from what I saw Paymah had contain.. And didn't.. He didn't break down and make that tackle

Farwell should have made the tackle afterwards

And 33 should have been able to take him down

Is this correct?
Look at it from a different perspective........

a. It wasn't a normal punt. Because of field position Kluwe had to kick one that wasn't conduscive to all the coverage guys getting there at the same time.

b. Paymah (fast mo-fo) got down there with the sole job of forcing the cat one way or the other (no way he could have run down there and got that close and still tackled the cat) so the trailers could adjust and make the tackle. He did that, they didn't.

Or look at it from the "Marrdro Special Hate of Farwell" perspective and concoct a scenario that directly leads to failure on behalf of one of the players whom you dislike the most and always get on no matter what he does.

Were do you see me say anything about your hero my friend? :dry:

Ummm - here, perhaps:
Marrdro wrote:

Anyone have a guess at who had that lane. B)


And pointing out that you have a special "hate" for Farwell does not make him my "hero".

=Z=

Prophet
12-08-2009, 10:51 AM
Zona did an awesome job disguising their defense. I liked how they were lining up the corners and safeties in a diagonal line and then going into position around the snap. Billy Davis has set a new trend that will be followed by others.

The Alabama/Florida game was foreshadowing to this game. Alabama came to play and Florida did not.

Reminds me of when TJack tore apart the Cardinals in regular season and then the Vikings sat at home watching the SB while the Cardinals play in it. I'm sure the outcome will be different in the playoffs.

We all knew that Favre would have at least a game or two where he stinks up the place, he does almost every year. Let's hope that's out of the way. The whole team was owned.

Onward.

Mike Bullock
12-08-2009, 11:30 AM
Marrdro wrote:


Early reports have Henderson out for the season with a broken leg that was surgically repaired in Arizona directly after the game. The Vikings have no answers for replacing him and will certainly struggle without the man called the “heart and soul” of their defense.

Shock and Ow! (http://www.realfootball365.com/articles/vikings/14655)
Marrdro's comment follows:
Nice one Mike.

Do disagree with the comment in the quote. I think they drafted Jasper just for this occasion.

I certainly hope you're right. He has some big shoes, and heart, to fill. But, no better way to break in an MLB than against Larry Johnson & Cedric Benson.

Marrdro
12-08-2009, 11:42 AM
Mike Bullock wrote:

Marrdro wrote:


Early reports have Henderson out for the season with a broken leg that was surgically repaired in Arizona directly after the game. The Vikings have no answers for replacing him and will certainly struggle without the man called the “heart and soul” of their defense.

Shock and Ow! (http://www.realfootball365.com/articles/vikings/14655)
Marrdro's comment follows:
Nice one Mike.

Do disagree with the comment in the quote. I think they drafted Jasper just for this occasion.

I certainly hope you're right. He has some big shoes, and heart, to fill. But, no better way to break in an MLB than against Larry Johnson & Cedric Benson.
My take on this, ......

Look who they brought in (last minute) to fill in last year. This time, they've got a young cat on the roster who has been there since training camp, just rarin to go.

Fresh legs and something to prove. Mix that with two damn fine LB'rs there to help him out (Leber probably will do play calls) and you have a nice opportunity to suceed. ;)

Marrdro
12-08-2009, 11:44 AM
Overlord wrote:

Marrdro wrote:
Overlord wrote:
Nonetheless, it didn't look to me like the problem was o-linemen finding someone to block.
So the OL didn't have issues with it. Next question has to do with the indicisiveness of the RB (on running plays) and the QB (on passing plays).

a. Passing - Do you see open recievers that were missed?
b. Running - Do you see holes AD missed? I know that in my game notes I had 2 checks next to "Should have followed FB".

I can see this is gonna force me to spend beer money on the "Rewind". :huh:
A. While I don't think the O-line did a good job in pass protection yesterday, I haven't looked at it closely. My initial reaction was that even though it wasn't great, they have been doing well all year and one game does not make a trend. I also thought Favre had a poor game in multiple aspects, including holding onto the ball a bit long. Again though, not a close look... just initial reaction. Not too concerned with it because I see it as an anomaly.

B. I really haven't seen too many holes that AD missed. I went through the entire Bears game and noted one play where he probably should have cut back. There were probably a few last night as well, though I haven't gone through every run yet. But if AD is making a poor decision 5-10% of the time, and the blocking is terrible 90% of the time, I know who I'm going to rag on.

I think I might have to test out the new blog feature here to see if I can compare what AD is getting to what Chris Johnson is getting these past few weeks.
Can't speak for anyone but me, however, I would love to see that.

Marrdro
12-08-2009, 11:47 AM
CCthebest wrote:

If we had decents coaches, the loss may have been a good thing. But we dont. Neither Childress or Fraizer had any idea what adjustments to make.

Marrdro do you just like to argue lately? I miss your posts of old instead of argueing just to argue.
Arguing, like hate, is a bad word. I love to discuss.

Seriously, how good of a conversation would it be to come up and say something to someone and they in turn say "YUP, couldn't agree more".

Not sure about you, but that wouldn't be any fun for me. ;)

Marrdro
12-08-2009, 11:50 AM
Freakout wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

NodakPaul wrote:

V4L wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

V4L wrote:

Been talkin to some Vikes players take it for what it's worth

They all said every player there had a lane
I am not disagreeing with that.

Point of discussion is based on a comment that #41 did a bad job.

I am only trying to explain what his role was in that play. The whole "He blew his lane" discussion with respect to the rest of the coverage unit you and I both agree on (I think).


Idk man.

I just feel his role was to stay in his lane and push Breaston outside.. He failed to

Im a lil tired I might be reading things different idk ha

After watching and rewatching (even at work, thanks nfl.com ;)) I have to agree with V4L. He was coming in from the returner's right, over pursued to the outside, and Breaston was able to make a fairly easy cut and have a LOT of open field in front of him.

On an angled kick, it is VERY important that everyone - especially the ones in front - stay in their lanes. The idea is to force them to the sideline where they have less room to work and you can commit a larger percentage of defenders to that side of the field. However, if someone slips their lane and allows the returner to cut back inside... well, that is how a LOT of big returns are set up. This is the same problem you run into when the punter outkicks the coverage. In that case, there is nobody down field to keep the returner corralled to the outside, and the coverage breaks down. Last night, however, Kluwe didn't out kick the coverage. Paymah was right there, and simply fialed to contain the returner.

With as much as you preach containment on the DL Marty, I am surprised you aren't all over this one... :)
Alas, my knowledge of the game comes from the limited stuff playing 9 man football at the High School level and books.

In this case, it smells of one of our plays we ran.

In that play, the fastest cats role didn't have anything to do with contain. It had everything to do with getting the returner to commit so that the slower runners could contain.

Again, I think everyone should look at the two examples in this game, one Paymah does what most think should happen. In the other, he does something everyone says is bad (with the one lone exception, me).

You seem to be ignoring or forgetting that this was a DIRECTIONAL punt. I understand your point if it was your standard straight down the center punt then yeah the first guy is strictly a gunner but the whole point of kicking directional is to use the sideline as your 12th man and force the returner into a small space.

If we go by what you are saying then there would be no need for directional punting.
I guess it would depend on the situation.

For me, I don't think Kluwe was thinking "Direction" when he kicked it. I think he just kicked the shit out of it.

Marrdro
12-08-2009, 11:55 AM
V4L wrote:

Exactly it was a directional kick.. 55 yards.. About 5 seconds of hangtime.. More then enough time to push him towards the sidelines and not give him a big crease

Paymah played it horribly
LOL, another quick question for ya.

If Paymah played it so horribly, what is your feeling about the rest of the coverage team that was so far behind him?

For the life of me I can't understand why you guys can't comprehend that the thing I am describing is an actual ST's play. Beleive it or not, they do have them. It isn't like the only thing they do is run down the field real fast and try to make a tackle. Kindof what I was trying to steer you to with the "Wedge" question.

In the long run, do I have proof that they were in fact trying to run that play? No I don't, but the way it looked to me, Paymah's job was as described by me over an over again.

Marrdro
12-08-2009, 12:00 PM
Zeus wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Zeus wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

V4L wrote:

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2009120610/2009/REG13/vikings@cardinals#tab:watch


Ok from what I saw Paymah had contain.. And didn't.. He didn't break down and make that tackle

Farwell should have made the tackle afterwards

And 33 should have been able to take him down

Is this correct?
Look at it from a different perspective........

a. It wasn't a normal punt. Because of field position Kluwe had to kick one that wasn't conduscive to all the coverage guys getting there at the same time.

b. Paymah (fast mo-fo) got down there with the sole job of forcing the cat one way or the other (no way he could have run down there and got that close and still tackled the cat) so the trailers could adjust and make the tackle. He did that, they didn't.

Or look at it from the "Marrdro Special Hate of Farwell" perspective and concoct a scenario that directly leads to failure on behalf of one of the players whom you dislike the most and always get on no matter what he does.

Were do you see me say anything about your hero my friend? :dry:

Ummm - here, perhaps:
Marrdro wrote:

Anyone have a guess at who had that lane. B)


And pointing out that you have a special "hate" for Farwell does not make him my "hero".

=Z=
Nope, still don't see Farwells name in there. As to "Hate". That is such a ugly word. Not sure why it is used on here so much.

I actually like Farwell. Just cause I don't run around giving him man love for shit he isn't doing anymore doesn't mean I "hate" him my friend.

Wonder whats gonna happen around here next year when he isn't on the team. :unsure:

Prophet
12-08-2009, 12:01 PM
Marrdro wrote:

CCthebest wrote:

If we had decents coaches, the loss may have been a good thing. But we dont. Neither Childress or Fraizer had any idea what adjustments to make.

Marrdro do you just like to argue lately? I miss your posts of old instead of argueing just to argue.
Arguing, like hate, is a bad word. I love to discuss.

Seriously, how good of a conversation would it be to come up and say something to someone and they in turn say "YUP, couldn't agree more".

Not sure about you, but that wouldn't be any fun for me. ;)

lmao, you are the king of the 'you crack me up' and 'spreadsheet' posts. You like the discussions as well as the +1 stuff. Not only that, arguing about Childress with ccthebest is like arguing with a prominent poster about Favre. It will get you nowhere no matter how much logic and facts you pour into the discussion.

Marrdro
12-08-2009, 12:02 PM
V4L wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

V4L wrote:

Marty you're so stubborn :P JK

Im not really sure how you think he did his job.. If his job was to slow him up and push him to another spot he still failed to do that
Why do you keep coming up with another job...

His job was to make the returner commit. This was driven by the situation. Nothing more, nothing less.


Commit to running into the open space?

Had he made him commit to running towards the sidelines then he would have done his job correctly
You mean like he did in the next punt, which by the way, was a completely different scenario which in turn caused the ST's coach to call a different play. ;)

Marrdro
12-08-2009, 12:06 PM
Prophet wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

CCthebest wrote:

If we had decents coaches, the loss may have been a good thing. But we dont. Neither Childress or Fraizer had any idea what adjustments to make.

Marrdro do you just like to argue lately? I miss your posts of old instead of argueing just to argue.
Arguing, like hate, is a bad word. I love to discuss.

Seriously, how good of a conversation would it be to come up and say something to someone and they in turn say "YUP, couldn't agree more".

Not sure about you, but that wouldn't be any fun for me. ;)

lmao, you are the king of the 'you crack me up' and 'spreadsheet' posts. You like the discussions as well as the +1 stuff. Not only that, arguing about Childress with ccthebest is like arguing with a prominent poster about Favre. It will get you nowhere no matter how much logic and facts you pour into the discussion.
LOL, quit it...... :P

You know me well enough to know that I post stuff to get a certain response.

Who do you think I was poking when I typed....


Anyone have a guess at who had that lane.

Got the desired response by the by...... :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Ultimately though, for this discussion, I am 100% convinced that the play I am describing was actually what they called. Am I right? Who the hell knows, but it has been a damn good discussion none the less.

In the end, isn't that what we come here for? Fun and football discussions?

Suick
12-08-2009, 12:13 PM
AD's lack of output the last few games has got me really worried. If teams aren't respecting the run, and start focusing on #4, ( as I believe was the case against the Retardinals) we are in trouble.

Or............... am I going Chicken Little?

RK.
12-08-2009, 12:32 PM
Suick wrote:

AD's lack of output the last few games has got me really worried. If teams aren't respecting the run, and start focusing on #4, ( as I believe was the case against the Retardinals) we are in trouble.

Or............... am I going Chicken Little?

Well we didn't really establish the run this game. Nor did we establish the passing game. We just sort of ran this play and that play. Its why we lost IMO because it put Favre in the position of forcing plays to make something happen and he got picked twice as a result. They just didn't come prepared for this game. Coaching error IMO.

i_bleed_purple
12-08-2009, 12:45 PM
Marrdro wrote:

Freakout wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

NodakPaul wrote:

V4L wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

V4L wrote:

Been talkin to some Vikes players take it for what it's worth

They all said every player there had a lane
I am not disagreeing with that.

Point of discussion is based on a comment that #41 did a bad job.

I am only trying to explain what his role was in that play. The whole "He blew his lane" discussion with respect to the rest of the coverage unit you and I both agree on (I think).


Idk man.

I just feel his role was to stay in his lane and push Breaston outside.. He failed to

Im a lil tired I might be reading things different idk ha

After watching and rewatching (even at work, thanks nfl.com ;)) I have to agree with V4L. He was coming in from the returner's right, over pursued to the outside, and Breaston was able to make a fairly easy cut and have a LOT of open field in front of him.

On an angled kick, it is VERY important that everyone - especially the ones in front - stay in their lanes. The idea is to force them to the sideline where they have less room to work and you can commit a larger percentage of defenders to that side of the field. However, if someone slips their lane and allows the returner to cut back inside... well, that is how a LOT of big returns are set up. This is the same problem you run into when the punter outkicks the coverage. In that case, there is nobody down field to keep the returner corralled to the outside, and the coverage breaks down. Last night, however, Kluwe didn't out kick the coverage. Paymah was right there, and simply fialed to contain the returner.

With as much as you preach containment on the DL Marty, I am surprised you aren't all over this one... :)
Alas, my knowledge of the game comes from the limited stuff playing 9 man football at the High School level and books.

In this case, it smells of one of our plays we ran.

In that play, the fastest cats role didn't have anything to do with contain. It had everything to do with getting the returner to commit so that the slower runners could contain.

Again, I think everyone should look at the two examples in this game, one Paymah does what most think should happen. In the other, he does something everyone says is bad (with the one lone exception, me).

You seem to be ignoring or forgetting that this was a DIRECTIONAL punt. I understand your point if it was your standard straight down the center punt then yeah the first guy is strictly a gunner but the whole point of kicking directional is to use the sideline as your 12th man and force the returner into a small space.

If we go by what you are saying then there would be no need for directional punting.
I guess it would depend on the situation.

For me, I don't think Kluwe was thinking "Direction" when he kicked it. I think he just kicked the shit out of it.

I don't think so, if I recall, he pointed his body to the corner, he didn't just hit it off the side of his foot. I think it was most definitely a directional punt, Paymah just doesn't have the concept of contain down yet.

slavinator
12-08-2009, 04:32 PM
Ok, I am sure that we have all moved on but there are a couple things still sticking in my craw.

1.Our Players didnt show up to answer the proverbial bell. We know it, they know it, nuf said.

2.Ive said it before, Cardinals Fans are classless jerks. Every time a Viking player went down they were ecstatic about it. Even with the game well in hand and seeing the severity of EJ's injury they still acted like it was a Cardinal TD.

3. Cardinals have a palace for a stadium that they built for $450 million (granted it was a couple years ago, but they have been terrible until then).

I am eager to see how they respond to some adversity. This could be just what the Doctor ordered, to get this team playing to the level they need to be.

i_bleed_purple
12-08-2009, 04:42 PM
Marrdro wrote:



In the end, isn't that what we come here for? Fun and football discussions?

I come for the Beer and the Bitches

DustinDupont
12-08-2009, 04:50 PM
Just a couple observations about the game...

-The vikings line on both sides got dominated

-Berrian needs to run hard every route at 100% like he is getting the ball. It seems like he is just jogging.

-AP needs to get it rollng, he has to realize 3 yards is good.

-Our safety's need to brake down when there about to tackle

-Brinkley needs to step up, for the stretch

And even tho we lost this game it showed me a lot about our team. Especially when Precy Harvin scored that TD late in the game he didn't celebrate at all, he just flipped in right to the ref. And for a rookie to do that it's saying a lot.. this team just wants to win

marstc09
12-08-2009, 05:50 PM
Zeus wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

V4L wrote:

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2009120610/2009/REG13/vikings@cardinals#tab:watch


Ok from what I saw Paymah had contain.. And didn't.. He didn't break down and make that tackle

Farwell should have made the tackle afterwards

And 33 should have been able to take him down

Is this correct?
Look at it from a different perspective........

a. It wasn't a normal punt. Because of field position Kluwe had to kick one that wasn't conduscive to all the coverage guys getting there at the same time.

b. Paymah (fast mo-fo) got down there with the sole job of forcing the cat one way or the other (no way he could have run down there and got that close and still tackled the cat) so the trailers could adjust and make the tackle. He did that, they didn't.

Or look at it from the "Marrdro Special Hate of Farwell" perspective and concoct a scenario that directly leads to failure on behalf of one of the players whom you dislike the most and always get on no matter what he does.

=Z=

LOL you nailed it.

marstc09
12-08-2009, 05:50 PM
Zeus wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

V4L wrote:

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2009120610/2009/REG13/vikings@cardinals#tab:watch


Ok from what I saw Paymah had contain.. And didn't.. He didn't break down and make that tackle

Farwell should have made the tackle afterwards

And 33 should have been able to take him down

Is this correct?
Look at it from a different perspective........

a. It wasn't a normal punt. Because of field position Kluwe had to kick one that wasn't conduscive to all the coverage guys getting there at the same time.

b. Paymah (fast mo-fo) got down there with the sole job of forcing the cat one way or the other (no way he could have run down there and got that close and still tackled the cat) so the trailers could adjust and make the tackle. He did that, they didn't.

Or look at it from the "Marrdro Special Hate of Farwell" perspective and concoct a scenario that directly leads to failure on behalf of one of the players whom you dislike the most and always get on no matter what he does.

=Z=

LOL you nailed it.

marstc09
12-08-2009, 05:54 PM
Marrdro wrote:

V4L wrote:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v674/sleepers1717/blahblahblah.jpg


There you can see he commited WAY too far outside and didn't cut him off from the inside

He broke down horribly and just got ran right by
I can't see shit. Just a red x. Damn firewall.

You can see vids. Take a look at this punt and then take a look at the next attempt. You should be able to see how the two are two completely different scenarios requiring to completely different approaches.

By the way, we might get another 10 pages or so out of this if we work real hard at it. ;)

or you could just admit you are wrong.

marstc09
12-08-2009, 05:55 PM
Marrdro wrote:

V4L wrote:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v674/sleepers1717/blahblahblah.jpg


There you can see he commited WAY too far outside and didn't cut him off from the inside

He broke down horribly and just got ran right by
I can't see shit. Just a red x. Damn firewall.

You can see vids. Take a look at this punt and then take a look at the next attempt. You should be able to see how the two are two completely different scenarios requiring to completely different approaches.

By the way, we might get another 10 pages or so out of this if we work real hard at it. ;)

or you could just admit you are wrong.

singersp
12-09-2009, 08:44 AM
Like I said a few times earlier this season, our 10-2 record is more of an indicator of WHO we played & not HOW we played.

It's a lot easier to look good or great when you are playing shitty teams like the Lions (twice), Bears, Browns, 49ers, Rams, Ravens (who should have won) & the Seahawks, who have a combined W-L record of 25-59. Plus we beat the Pack twice when they weren't playing well.

Face it, we've benefited from a very easy schedule thus far & we struggle against good to better teams.

Marrdro
12-09-2009, 08:50 AM
marstc09 wrote:

Zeus wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

V4L wrote:

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2009120610/2009/REG13/vikings@cardinals#tab:watch


Ok from what I saw Paymah had contain.. And didn't.. He didn't break down and make that tackle

Farwell should have made the tackle afterwards

And 33 should have been able to take him down

Is this correct?
Look at it from a different perspective........

a. It wasn't a normal punt. Because of field position Kluwe had to kick one that wasn't conduscive to all the coverage guys getting there at the same time.

b. Paymah (fast mo-fo) got down there with the sole job of forcing the cat one way or the other (no way he could have run down there and got that close and still tackled the cat) so the trailers could adjust and make the tackle. He did that, they didn't.

Or look at it from the "Marrdro Special Hate of Farwell" perspective and concoct a scenario that directly leads to failure on behalf of one of the players whom you dislike the most and always get on no matter what he does.

=Z=

LOL you nailed it.
....snicker....

Why is it that when I say something about a player and how his play is degrading, I now hate him?

Take the purple man love glasses off. You guys have a better vantage point than I do. You can see he is slower down the field. You can see he isn't in on many tackles anymore.

Dude isn't right. Still doesn't mean I hate him. It means he isn't playing up to the level you guys want him to be playing at.

Couple of quick question.....If the cat is that great, why didn't he land with another team in the offseason? If the cat is so great why wasn't he the one to come in at MLB (instead of a rookie) when EJ went down.

Nailed it on the head my ass. You two will still be saying I hate him after he isn't on the roster next year. :P

Marrdro
12-09-2009, 08:53 AM
marstc09 wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

V4L wrote:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v674/sleepers1717/blahblahblah.jpg


There you can see he commited WAY too far outside and didn't cut him off from the inside

He broke down horribly and just got ran right by
I can't see shit. Just a red x. Damn firewall.

You can see vids. Take a look at this punt and then take a look at the next attempt. You should be able to see how the two are two completely different scenarios requiring to completely different approaches.

By the way, we might get another 10 pages or so out of this if we work real hard at it. ;)

or you could just admit you are wrong.
Two things....

1. Why does there have to be a right or wrong in a discussion? This place would be lame if thats all we did was try to prove someone was wrong all the time.

2. I always admit when I am wrong. Hell, I'm one of a select few who will openly admit when a fellow poster brings up a point I never thought of.

Glad I am going to get to see you this weekend. I need to rub some "Other Mar" back onto you cause it appears you been sitting with Z to long. .....snicker....

Marrdro
12-09-2009, 08:57 AM
singersp wrote:

Like I said a few times earlier this season, our 10-2 record is more of an indicator of WHO we played & not HOW we played.

It's a lot easier to look good or great when you are playing shitty teams like the Lions (twice), Bears, Browns, 49ers, Rams, Ravens (who should have won) & the Seahawks, who have a combined W-L record of 25-59. Plus we beat the Pack twice when they weren't playing well.

Face it, we've benefited from a very easy schedule thus far & we struggle against good to better teams.
You crack me up. Perfect timing....

I was listening to the Sirius on the way home. They have a repeat caller that goes by "Purple Haze". He was trying to say that the Vikes were more "Battle Tested" than the Aints.

Pat and Tim quoted wins/losses of who we faced and who they faced as proof, but he just couldn't see the logic in that.

Cats usually a pretty good caller that comes up with some good stuff, but in this case, I suspect he has that strange disease (noodleidist) thats running rampant amongst the Vikings faithfull this season or something......:)

Marrdro
12-09-2009, 08:58 AM
i_bleed_purple wrote:

Marrdro wrote:



In the end, isn't that what we come here for? Fun and football discussions?

I come for the Beer and the Bitches
LOL, thats the spirit. :laugh:

Caine
12-09-2009, 09:08 AM
DustinDupont wrote:

Just a couple observations about the game...

-The vikings line on both sides got dominated

-Berrian needs to run hard every route at 100% like he is getting the ball. It seems like he is just jogging.

-AP needs to get it rollng, he has to realize 3 yards is good.

-Our safety's need to brake down when there about to tackle

-Brinkley needs to step up, for the stretch

And even tho we lost this game it showed me a lot about our team. Especially when Precy Harvin scored that TD late in the game he didn't celebrate at all, he just flipped in right to the ref. And for a rookie to do that it's saying a lot.. this team just wants to win

I haven't really been that fond of Berrian since we acquired him. For being a fast guy, he sure has trouble seperating. And he's dropping passes like Troy Williamson. All in all, I don't think he's lived up to the hype he was brought in under, and I think we've all been very forgiving with him.

I'm in favor of finding a replacement for him.

Caine

marstc09
12-09-2009, 09:24 AM
Marrdro wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

Zeus wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

V4L wrote:

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2009120610/2009/REG13/vikings@cardinals#tab:watch


Ok from what I saw Paymah had contain.. And didn't.. He didn't break down and make that tackle

Farwell should have made the tackle afterwards

And 33 should have been able to take him down

Is this correct?
Look at it from a different perspective........

a. It wasn't a normal punt. Because of field position Kluwe had to kick one that wasn't conduscive to all the coverage guys getting there at the same time.

b. Paymah (fast mo-fo) got down there with the sole job of forcing the cat one way or the other (no way he could have run down there and got that close and still tackled the cat) so the trailers could adjust and make the tackle. He did that, they didn't.

Or look at it from the "Marrdro Special Hate of Farwell" perspective and concoct a scenario that directly leads to failure on behalf of one of the players whom you dislike the most and always get on no matter what he does.

=Z=

LOL you nailed it.
....snicker....

Why is it that when I say something about a player and how his play is degrading, I now hate him?

Take the purple man love glasses off. You guys have a better vantage point than I do. You can see he is slower down the field. You can see he isn't in on many tackles anymore.

Dude isn't right. Still doesn't mean I hate him. It means he isn't playing up to the level you guys want him to be playing at.

Couple of quick question.....If the cat is that great, why didn't he land with another team in the offseason? If the cat is so great why wasn't he the one to come in at MLB (instead of a rookie) when EJ went down.

Nailed it on the head my ass. You two will still be saying I hate him after he isn't on the roster next year. :P

He was suppose to be a Patriot. We payed him. Plain and simple.

marstc09
12-09-2009, 09:27 AM
Marrdro wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

V4L wrote:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v674/sleepers1717/blahblahblah.jpg


There you can see he commited WAY too far outside and didn't cut him off from the inside

He broke down horribly and just got ran right by
I can't see shit. Just a red x. Damn firewall.

You can see vids. Take a look at this punt and then take a look at the next attempt. You should be able to see how the two are two completely different scenarios requiring to completely different approaches.

By the way, we might get another 10 pages or so out of this if we work real hard at it. ;)

or you could just admit you are wrong.
Two things....

1. Why does there have to be a right or wrong in a discussion? This place would be lame if thats all we did was try to prove someone was wrong all the time.

2. I always admit when I am wrong. Hell, I'm one of a select few who will openly admit when a fellow poster brings up a point I never thought of.

Glad I am going to get to see you this weekend. I need to rub some "Other Mar" back onto you cause it appears you been sitting with Z to long. .....snicker....

Because that is how it is. I am wrong about a lot of things. Favre I was not.

Marrdro
12-09-2009, 09:28 AM
marstc09 wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

Zeus wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

V4L wrote:

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2009120610/2009/REG13/vikings@cardinals#tab:watch


Ok from what I saw Paymah had contain.. And didn't.. He didn't break down and make that tackle

Farwell should have made the tackle afterwards

And 33 should have been able to take him down

Is this correct?
Look at it from a different perspective........

a. It wasn't a normal punt. Because of field position Kluwe had to kick one that wasn't conduscive to all the coverage guys getting there at the same time.

b. Paymah (fast mo-fo) got down there with the sole job of forcing the cat one way or the other (no way he could have run down there and got that close and still tackled the cat) so the trailers could adjust and make the tackle. He did that, they didn't.

Or look at it from the "Marrdro Special Hate of Farwell" perspective and concoct a scenario that directly leads to failure on behalf of one of the players whom you dislike the most and always get on no matter what he does.

=Z=

LOL you nailed it.
....snicker....

Why is it that when I say something about a player and how his play is degrading, I now hate him?

Take the purple man love glasses off. You guys have a better vantage point than I do. You can see he is slower down the field. You can see he isn't in on many tackles anymore.

Dude isn't right. Still doesn't mean I hate him. It means he isn't playing up to the level you guys want him to be playing at.

Couple of quick question.....If the cat is that great, why didn't he land with another team in the offseason? If the cat is so great why wasn't he the one to come in at MLB (instead of a rookie) when EJ went down.

Nailed it on the head my ass. You two will still be saying I hate him after he isn't on the roster next year. :P

He was suppose to be a Patriot. We payed him. Plain and simple.
What? A visit now equates to a contract?

Marrdro
12-09-2009, 09:29 AM
marstc09 wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

V4L wrote:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v674/sleepers1717/blahblahblah.jpg


There you can see he commited WAY too far outside and didn't cut him off from the inside

He broke down horribly and just got ran right by
I can't see shit. Just a red x. Damn firewall.

You can see vids. Take a look at this punt and then take a look at the next attempt. You should be able to see how the two are two completely different scenarios requiring to completely different approaches.

By the way, we might get another 10 pages or so out of this if we work real hard at it. ;)

or you could just admit you are wrong.
Two things....

1. Why does there have to be a right or wrong in a discussion? This place would be lame if thats all we did was try to prove someone was wrong all the time.

2. I always admit when I am wrong. Hell, I'm one of a select few who will openly admit when a fellow poster brings up a point I never thought of.

Glad I am going to get to see you this weekend. I need to rub some "Other Mar" back onto you cause it appears you been sitting with Z to long. .....snicker....

Because that is how it is. I am wrong about a lot of things. Favre I was not.
Yet. He still needs to get through the stretch of the season he struggles with of late before I give you props. ;)

marstc09
12-09-2009, 09:34 AM
Marrdro wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

Zeus wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

V4L wrote:

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2009120610/2009/REG13/vikings@cardinals#tab:watch


Ok from what I saw Paymah had contain.. And didn't.. He didn't break down and make that tackle

Farwell should have made the tackle afterwards

And 33 should have been able to take him down

Is this correct?
Look at it from a different perspective........

a. It wasn't a normal punt. Because of field position Kluwe had to kick one that wasn't conduscive to all the coverage guys getting there at the same time.

b. Paymah (fast mo-fo) got down there with the sole job of forcing the cat one way or the other (no way he could have run down there and got that close and still tackled the cat) so the trailers could adjust and make the tackle. He did that, they didn't.

Or look at it from the "Marrdro Special Hate of Farwell" perspective and concoct a scenario that directly leads to failure on behalf of one of the players whom you dislike the most and always get on no matter what he does.

=Z=

LOL you nailed it.
....snicker....

Why is it that when I say something about a player and how his play is degrading, I now hate him?

Take the purple man love glasses off. You guys have a better vantage point than I do. You can see he is slower down the field. You can see he isn't in on many tackles anymore.

Dude isn't right. Still doesn't mean I hate him. It means he isn't playing up to the level you guys want him to be playing at.

Couple of quick question.....If the cat is that great, why didn't he land with another team in the offseason? If the cat is so great why wasn't he the one to come in at MLB (instead of a rookie) when EJ went down.

Nailed it on the head my ass. You two will still be saying I hate him after he isn't on the roster next year. :P

He was suppose to be a Patriot. We payed him. Plain and simple.
What? A visit now equates to a contract?

If he had a contract then he would be a Patriot. We payed him. Plain and simple.

marstc09
12-09-2009, 09:37 AM
Marrdro wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

V4L wrote:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v674/sleepers1717/blahblahblah.jpg


There you can see he commited WAY too far outside and didn't cut him off from the inside

He broke down horribly and just got ran right by
I can't see shit. Just a red x. Damn firewall.

You can see vids. Take a look at this punt and then take a look at the next attempt. You should be able to see how the two are two completely different scenarios requiring to completely different approaches.

By the way, we might get another 10 pages or so out of this if we work real hard at it. ;)

or you could just admit you are wrong.
Two things....

1. Why does there have to be a right or wrong in a discussion? This place would be lame if thats all we did was try to prove someone was wrong all the time.

2. I always admit when I am wrong. Hell, I'm one of a select few who will openly admit when a fellow poster brings up a point I never thought of.

Glad I am going to get to see you this weekend. I need to rub some "Other Mar" back onto you cause it appears you been sitting with Z to long. .....snicker....

Because that is how it is. I am wrong about a lot of things. Favre I was not.
Yet. He still needs to get through the stretch of the season he struggles with of late before I give you props. ;)

Seems to be alright so far despite Peterson with his head in his ass. I see him struggling especially if the D continues to drop guys like flies and no help from the run game. Favre can't do it all himself.

Marrdro
12-09-2009, 09:41 AM
marstc09 wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

V4L wrote:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v674/sleepers1717/blahblahblah.jpg


There you can see he commited WAY too far outside and didn't cut him off from the inside

He broke down horribly and just got ran right by
I can't see shit. Just a red x. Damn firewall.

You can see vids. Take a look at this punt and then take a look at the next attempt. You should be able to see how the two are two completely different scenarios requiring to completely different approaches.

By the way, we might get another 10 pages or so out of this if we work real hard at it. ;)

or you could just admit you are wrong.
Two things....

1. Why does there have to be a right or wrong in a discussion? This place would be lame if thats all we did was try to prove someone was wrong all the time.

2. I always admit when I am wrong. Hell, I'm one of a select few who will openly admit when a fellow poster brings up a point I never thought of.

Glad I am going to get to see you this weekend. I need to rub some "Other Mar" back onto you cause it appears you been sitting with Z to long. .....snicker....

Because that is how it is. I am wrong about a lot of things. Favre I was not.
Yet. He still needs to get through the stretch of the season he struggles with of late before I give you props. ;)

Seems to be alright so far despite Peterson with his head in his ass. I see him struggling especially if the D continues to drop guys like flies and no help from the run game. Favre can't do it all himself.
You crack me up. Weren't you proffessing him to be some sort of "God" or something........? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

marstc09
12-09-2009, 10:05 AM
Marrdro wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

V4L wrote:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v674/sleepers1717/blahblahblah.jpg


There you can see he commited WAY too far outside and didn't cut him off from the inside

He broke down horribly and just got ran right by
I can't see shit. Just a red x. Damn firewall.

You can see vids. Take a look at this punt and then take a look at the next attempt. You should be able to see how the two are two completely different scenarios requiring to completely different approaches.

By the way, we might get another 10 pages or so out of this if we work real hard at it. ;)

or you could just admit you are wrong.
Two things....

1. Why does there have to be a right or wrong in a discussion? This place would be lame if thats all we did was try to prove someone was wrong all the time.

2. I always admit when I am wrong. Hell, I'm one of a select few who will openly admit when a fellow poster brings up a point I never thought of.

Glad I am going to get to see you this weekend. I need to rub some "Other Mar" back onto you cause it appears you been sitting with Z to long. .....snicker....

Because that is how it is. I am wrong about a lot of things. Favre I was not.
Yet. He still needs to get through the stretch of the season he struggles with of late before I give you props. ;)

Seems to be alright so far despite Peterson with his head in his ass. I see him struggling especially if the D continues to drop guys like flies and no help from the run game. Favre can't do it all himself.
You crack me up. Weren't you proffessing him to be some sort of "God" or something........? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

No more than the ones claiming Peterson is a god.

C Mac D
12-09-2009, 10:17 AM
marstc09 wrote:


No more than the ones claiming Peterson is a god.

Actually, Peterson is the Son of God... in Purple form.

V-Unit
12-09-2009, 05:15 PM
Well, I finally made it back onto the board. Here are my two cents, and as usual they are late into the week when everyone has moved on. Oh well.

- First let me start by addressing a recent topic in this thread: Paymah was way out of position on that punt. It is his job to contain and he blew contain.

- This game was a no show. The coaches had their players completely unprepared. The gameplan and playcalling were miserable. The execution was subpar.

Reason We Lost #1: 20 runs and 45 passes is not a 60/40 run/pass ratio.

Reason We Lost #2: Peterson had 13 carries.

Reason We Lost #3: We had zero sacks.

- We all know that the above 3 reasons, definitely the last two, are going to lead to losses. Now I know some have and will continue to proclaim that we had to pass more because we were behind. BULLSHIT. Down 21-10 going into the second half, if we score right there it is 21-17 and we are right back in it. Instead we pass, run, pass, pass, pass, pass, pass and the last one gets intercepted. The same is true when its 24-10. I would have loved to see us run three times in a row at some point during that game.

- Favre reverted to his old ways. We relied on him too much. We were relying on him more and more, and we reached the limit. I blame the coaching.

- AD was stymied but we all know he's a home run hitter. I blame the coaching.

- Great use of Chester Taylor in this game. It has been encouraging to see him get more touches. I credit the coaching.

- The WRs had good days. Brett's INTs really hurt the passing game. The Cards D was simply dialed in on him. I really wish we could have caught them off guard with the pass, or run enough to set up better playaction.

- OL has got to get better holes for Peterson. Their DL had an awesome day. The injuries may have rattled us but that just isn't a good excuse.

- Awful playcalling. Darrell Bevell, if you ever motion Tahi AND Peterson out of the backfield, into the slot, while backed up against your own goalline, on first down, again, I will fly cross country to smack you.

- Seriously. That is a terrible formation. I'm sick of the entire RB as a WR thing in general. Brad, this isn't Philly, and even if it was, Westbrook has had two concussions this year. Does Andy Reid continue to line McCoy up in the slot? NO. We have two great workhorse backs and 3 solid WRs. Stop that nonsense. It's not working.

- DL got dominated. What a genius coaching move by the Cardinals: We are going to chip Jared Allen on every single play. They knew they had superb WRs which Warner would find open if given time, so they sacrificed their RB route, which is used in case the WRs can't get open. Great coaching by them.

- That said, Ray and Kevin need to do better.

- We lost EJ ugh. I think the LBs had a good game. ejmat and I had an argument where I contended that late round picks always get a chance to blossom, sooner or later. This is Jasper Brinkley's chance.

- One word to describe the secondary. Overmatched. Without Winfield we lost the ability to man up on one WR and double team the other. They basically used Fitz as a TE all day.

- The D had a solid second half considering who they were playing. Our offense failed to execute in both halves.

I put this one 80% on the coaches. Frazier was unable to generate pressure throughout the game. Bevell apparently had his ass up a horses behind for the entire week. We honestly thought that we could pass as much as we wanted and win that game, even though we were playing a tough secondary in their house. When it didn't work, did we get back to the run? No, of course not, Favre will save us!

We have got to get back to the basics. The attitude should be that AD is still the centerpiece in this offense, and that quality passing vastly outvalues quantity passing. 60/40 run-pass ratio.

-V-

Yes Z, I am making a ripoff of your signoff.

jargomcfargo
12-09-2009, 06:17 PM
V-Unit wrote:

Well, I finally made it back onto the board. Here are my two cents, and as usual they are late into the week when everyone has moved on. Oh well.

- First let me start by addressing a recent topic in this thread: Paymah was way out of position on that punt. It is his job to contain and he blew contain.

- This game was a no show. The coaches had their players completely unprepared. The gameplan and playcalling were miserable. The execution was subpar.

Reason We Lost #1: 20 runs and 45 passes is not a 60/40 run/pass ratio.

Reason We Lost #2: Peterson had 13 carries.

Reason We Lost #3: We had zero sacks.

- We all know that the above 3 reasons, definitely the last two, are going to lead to losses. Now I know some have and will continue to proclaim that we had to pass more because we were behind. BULLSHIT. Down 21-10 going into the second half, if we score right there it is 21-17 and we are right back in it. Instead we pass, run, pass, pass, pass, pass, pass and the last one gets intercepted. The same is true when its 24-10. I would have loved to see us run three times in a row at some point during that game.

- Favre reverted to his old ways. We relied on him too much. We were relying on him more and more, and we reached the limit. I blame the coaching.

- AD was stymied but we all know he's a home run hitter. I blame the coaching.

- Great use of Chester Taylor in this game. It has been encouraging to see him get more touches. I credit the coaching.

- The WRs had good days. Brett's INTs really hurt the passing game. The Cards D was simply dialed in on him. I really wish we could have caught them off guard with the pass, or run enough to set up better playaction.

- OL has got to get better holes for Peterson. Their DL had an awesome day. The injuries may have rattled us but that just isn't a good excuse.

- Awful playcalling. Darrell Bevell, if you ever motion Tahi AND Peterson out of the backfield, into the slot, while backed up against your own goalline, on first down, again, I will fly cross country to smack you.

- Seriously. That is a terrible formation. I'm sick of the entire RB as a WR thing in general. Brad, this isn't Philly, and even if it was, Westbrook has had two concussions this year. Does Andy Reid continue to line McCoy up in the slot? NO. We have two great workhorse backs and 3 solid WRs. Stop that nonsense. It's not working.

- DL got dominated. What a genius coaching move by the Cardinals: We are going to chip Jared Allen on every single play. They knew they had superb WRs which Warner would find open if given time, so they sacrificed their RB route, which is used in case the WRs can't get open. Great coaching by them.

- That said, Ray and Kevin need to do better.

- We lost EJ ugh. I think the LBs had a good game. ejmat and I had an argument where I contended that late round picks always get a chance to blossom, sooner or later. This is Jasper Brinkley's chance.

- One word to describe the secondary. Overmatched. Without Winfield we lost the ability to man up on one WR and double team the other. They basically used Fitz as a TE all day.

- The D had a solid second half considering who they were playing. Our offense failed to execute in both halves.

I put this one 80% on the coaches. Frazier was unable to generate pressure throughout the game. Bevell apparently had his ass up a horses behind for the entire week. We honestly thought that we could pass as much as we wanted and win that game, even though we were playing a tough secondary in their house. When it didn't work, did we get back to the run? No, of course not, Favre will save us!

We have got to get back to the basics. The attitude should be that AD is still the centerpiece in this offense, and that quality passing vastly outvalues quantity passing. 60/40 run-pass ratio.

-V-

Yes Z, I am making a ripoff of your signoff.

Glad you finally made it back. I love that post.

Formo
12-09-2009, 11:43 PM
V-Unit wrote:

Well, I finally made it back onto the board. Here are my two cents, and as usual they are late into the week when everyone has moved on. Oh well.

- First let me start by addressing a recent topic in this thread: Paymah was way out of position on that punt. It is his job to contain and he blew contain.

- This game was a no show. The coaches had their players completely unprepared. The gameplan and playcalling were miserable. The execution was subpar.

Reason We Lost #1: 20 runs and 45 passes is not a 60/40 run/pass ratio.

Reason We Lost #2: Peterson had 13 carries.

Reason We Lost #3: We had zero sacks.

- We all know that the above 3 reasons, definitely the last two, are going to lead to losses. Now I know some have and will continue to proclaim that we had to pass more because we were behind. BULLSHIT. Down 21-10 going into the second half, if we score right there it is 21-17 and we are right back in it. Instead we pass, run, pass, pass, pass, pass, pass and the last one gets intercepted. The same is true when its 24-10. I would have loved to see us run three times in a row at some point during that game.

- Favre reverted to his old ways. We relied on him too much. We were relying on him more and more, and we reached the limit. I blame the coaching.

- AD was stymied but we all know he's a home run hitter. I blame the coaching.

- Great use of Chester Taylor in this game. It has been encouraging to see him get more touches. I credit the coaching.

- The WRs had good days. Brett's INTs really hurt the passing game. The Cards D was simply dialed in on him. I really wish we could have caught them off guard with the pass, or run enough to set up better playaction.

- OL has got to get better holes for Peterson. Their DL had an awesome day. The injuries may have rattled us but that just isn't a good excuse.

- Awful playcalling. Darrell Bevell, if you ever motion Tahi AND Peterson out of the backfield, into the slot, while backed up against your own goalline, on first down, again, I will fly cross country to smack you.

- Seriously. That is a terrible formation. I'm sick of the entire RB as a WR thing in general. Brad, this isn't Philly, and even if it was, Westbrook has had two concussions this year. Does Andy Reid continue to line McCoy up in the slot? NO. We have two great workhorse backs and 3 solid WRs. Stop that nonsense. It's not working.

- DL got dominated. What a genius coaching move by the Cardinals: We are going to chip Jared Allen on every single play. They knew they had superb WRs which Warner would find open if given time, so they sacrificed their RB route, which is used in case the WRs can't get open. Great coaching by them.

- That said, Ray and Kevin need to do better.

- We lost EJ ugh. I think the LBs had a good game. ejmat and I had an argument where I contended that late round picks always get a chance to blossom, sooner or later. This is Jasper Brinkley's chance.

- One word to describe the secondary. Overmatched. Without Winfield we lost the ability to man up on one WR and double team the other. They basically used Fitz as a TE all day.

- The D had a solid second half considering who they were playing. Our offense failed to execute in both halves.

I put this one 80% on the coaches. Frazier was unable to generate pressure throughout the game. Bevell apparently had his ass up a horses behind for the entire week. We honestly thought that we could pass as much as we wanted and win that game, even though we were playing a tough secondary in their house. When it didn't work, did we get back to the run? No, of course not, Favre will save us!

We have got to get back to the basics. The attitude should be that AD is still the centerpiece in this offense, and that quality passing vastly outvalues quantity passing. 60/40 run-pass ratio.

-V-

Yes Z, I am making a ripoff of your signoff.

Good post, man.

ejmat
12-10-2009, 07:35 AM
V-Unit wrote:

Well, I finally made it back onto the board. Here are my two cents, and as usual they are late into the week when everyone has moved on. Oh well.

- First let me start by addressing a recent topic in this thread: Paymah was way out of position on that punt. It is his job to contain and he blew contain.

- This game was a no show. The coaches had their players completely unprepared. The gameplan and playcalling were miserable. The execution was subpar.

Reason We Lost #1: 20 runs and 45 passes is not a 60/40 run/pass ratio.

Reason We Lost #2: Peterson had 13 carries.

Reason We Lost #3: We had zero sacks.

- We all know that the above 3 reasons, definitely the last two, are going to lead to losses. Now I know some have and will continue to proclaim that we had to pass more because we were behind. BULLSHIT. Down 21-10 going into the second half, if we score right there it is 21-17 and we are right back in it. Instead we pass, run, pass, pass, pass, pass, pass and the last one gets intercepted. The same is true when its 24-10. I would have loved to see us run three times in a row at some point during that game.

- Favre reverted to his old ways. We relied on him too much. We were relying on him more and more, and we reached the limit. I blame the coaching.

- AD was stymied but we all know he's a home run hitter. I blame the coaching.

- Great use of Chester Taylor in this game. It has been encouraging to see him get more touches. I credit the coaching.

- The WRs had good days. Brett's INTs really hurt the passing game. The Cards D was simply dialed in on him. I really wish we could have caught them off guard with the pass, or run enough to set up better playaction.

- OL has got to get better holes for Peterson. Their DL had an awesome day. The injuries may have rattled us but that just isn't a good excuse.

- Awful playcalling. Darrell Bevell, if you ever motion Tahi AND Peterson out of the backfield, into the slot, while backed up against your own goalline, on first down, again, I will fly cross country to smack you.

- Seriously. That is a terrible formation. I'm sick of the entire RB as a WR thing in general. Brad, this isn't Philly, and even if it was, Westbrook has had two concussions this year. Does Andy Reid continue to line McCoy up in the slot? NO. We have two great workhorse backs and 3 solid WRs. Stop that nonsense. It's not working.

- DL got dominated. What a genius coaching move by the Cardinals: We are going to chip Jared Allen on every single play. They knew they had superb WRs which Warner would find open if given time, so they sacrificed their RB route, which is used in case the WRs can't get open. Great coaching by them.

- That said, Ray and Kevin need to do better.

- We lost EJ ugh. I think the LBs had a good game. ejmat and I had an argument where I contended that late round picks always get a chance to blossom, sooner or later. This is Jasper Brinkley's chance.

- One word to describe the secondary. Overmatched. Without Winfield we lost the ability to man up on one WR and double team the other. They basically used Fitz as a TE all day.

- The D had a solid second half considering who they were playing. Our offense failed to execute in both halves.

I put this one 80% on the coaches. Frazier was unable to generate pressure throughout the game. Bevell apparently had his ass up a horses behind for the entire week. We honestly thought that we could pass as much as we wanted and win that game, even though we were playing a tough secondary in their house. When it didn't work, did we get back to the run? No, of course not, Favre will save us!

We have got to get back to the basics. The attitude should be that AD is still the centerpiece in this offense, and that quality passing vastly outvalues quantity passing. 60/40 run-pass ratio.

-V-

Yes Z, I am making a ripoff of your signoff.

Glad you are back. Great post but there are a couple of issues I have with your thoughts or reasonings. Just because we didn't have a 60/40 run pass ratio is NOT the reason we lost. We didn't have that ratio last game or the game before either and we won those games. It isn't like AP was having a stellar game to where we could say it would help the situation. In fact, didn't AP have something like 16 rushes the game prior? The 0 sacks and lack of pressure is on the players not the coaching.

Bottom line this game was more on the players. I do blame coaching too because to me they seemed unprepared and weren't able to make adjustments from what I saw. However the execution on the field was horrific on all phases of the game. The players looked scared. Even Jared Allen wasn't looking like he was into the game.

You blame the coaching on Favre playing 1, I repeat 1 bad game? He has been doing well all year. Why not let him try and take the team on his back if it had been working before?

LOL at flying across the country to smack Bevell. That's good!

I was thinkiing the same thing you were about Jasper. Let's see how well he could step up :cheer:

All in all a solid post but there are just some things I personally don't agree with. Glad you're back bud!

Marrdro
12-10-2009, 07:50 AM
V-Unit wrote:


........snip........

Better late than never I always say, especially when you make a quality post like that.......

Couple of comments.....


- First let me start by addressing a recent topic in this thread: Paymah was way out of position on that punt. It is his job to contain and he blew contain.
Pretty hard to contain when you are the only one there. My guess is still that they were actually running a ST's play that I described.


- Seriously. That is a terrible formation. I'm sick of the entire RB as a WR thing in general. Brad, this isn't Philly, and even if it was, Westbrook has had two concussions this year. Does Andy Reid continue to line McCoy up in the slot? NO. We have two great workhorse backs and 3 solid WRs. Stop that nonsense. It's not working.
Most on here love to see things like this. Not sure why. I agree 100%, if we need a WR put a damn WR on the field. Quit with the whole AD and CT in the backfield together discussions or crappy sets like the one you mentioned.


I put this one 80% on the coaches. Frazier was unable to generate pressure throughout the game. Bevell apparently had his ass up a horses behind for the entire week. We honestly thought that we could pass as much as we wanted and win that game, even though we were playing a tough secondary in their house. When it didn't work, did we get back to the run? No, of course not, Favre will save us!
I have no idea why they thought the way to beat this team was via the pass. The way to beat that team is to have a balanced attack as you mention in your next great point.


We have got to get back to the basics. The attitude should be that AD is still the centerpiece in this offense, and that quality passing vastly outvalues quantity passing. 60/40 run-pass ratio.

Again, excellent post. Glad you made the transisition. I was worried that you weren't gonna get back on.

V-Unit
12-10-2009, 08:33 AM
ejmat wrote:

V-Unit wrote:

Well, I finally made it back onto the board. Here are my two cents, and as usual they are late into the week when everyone has moved on. Oh well.

- First let me start by addressing a recent topic in this thread: Paymah was way out of position on that punt. It is his job to contain and he blew contain.

- This game was a no show. The coaches had their players completely unprepared. The gameplan and playcalling were miserable. The execution was subpar.

Reason We Lost #1: 20 runs and 45 passes is not a 60/40 run/pass ratio.

Reason We Lost #2: Peterson had 13 carries.

Reason We Lost #3: We had zero sacks.

- We all know that the above 3 reasons, definitely the last two, are going to lead to losses. Now I know some have and will continue to proclaim that we had to pass more because we were behind. BULLSHIT. Down 21-10 going into the second half, if we score right there it is 21-17 and we are right back in it. Instead we pass, run, pass, pass, pass, pass, pass and the last one gets intercepted. The same is true when its 24-10. I would have loved to see us run three times in a row at some point during that game.

- Favre reverted to his old ways. We relied on him too much. We were relying on him more and more, and we reached the limit. I blame the coaching.

- AD was stymied but we all know he's a home run hitter. I blame the coaching.

- Great use of Chester Taylor in this game. It has been encouraging to see him get more touches. I credit the coaching.

- The WRs had good days. Brett's INTs really hurt the passing game. The Cards D was simply dialed in on him. I really wish we could have caught them off guard with the pass, or run enough to set up better playaction.

- OL has got to get better holes for Peterson. Their DL had an awesome day. The injuries may have rattled us but that just isn't a good excuse.

- Awful playcalling. Darrell Bevell, if you ever motion Tahi AND Peterson out of the backfield, into the slot, while backed up against your own goalline, on first down, again, I will fly cross country to smack you.

- Seriously. That is a terrible formation. I'm sick of the entire RB as a WR thing in general. Brad, this isn't Philly, and even if it was, Westbrook has had two concussions this year. Does Andy Reid continue to line McCoy up in the slot? NO. We have two great workhorse backs and 3 solid WRs. Stop that nonsense. It's not working.

- DL got dominated. What a genius coaching move by the Cardinals: We are going to chip Jared Allen on every single play. They knew they had superb WRs which Warner would find open if given time, so they sacrificed their RB route, which is used in case the WRs can't get open. Great coaching by them.

- That said, Ray and Kevin need to do better.

- We lost EJ ugh. I think the LBs had a good game. ejmat and I had an argument where I contended that late round picks always get a chance to blossom, sooner or later. This is Jasper Brinkley's chance.

- One word to describe the secondary. Overmatched. Without Winfield we lost the ability to man up on one WR and double team the other. They basically used Fitz as a TE all day.

- The D had a solid second half considering who they were playing. Our offense failed to execute in both halves.

I put this one 80% on the coaches. Frazier was unable to generate pressure throughout the game. Bevell apparently had his ass up a horses behind for the entire week. We honestly thought that we could pass as much as we wanted and win that game, even though we were playing a tough secondary in their house. When it didn't work, did we get back to the run? No, of course not, Favre will save us!

We have got to get back to the basics. The attitude should be that AD is still the centerpiece in this offense, and that quality passing vastly outvalues quantity passing. 60/40 run-pass ratio.

-V-

Yes Z, I am making a ripoff of your signoff.

Glad you are back. Great post but there are a couple of issues I have with your thoughts or reasonings. Just because we didn't have a 60/40 run pass ratio is NOT the reason we lost. We didn't have that ratio last game or the game before either and we won those games. It isn't like AP was having a stellar game to where we could say it would help the situation. In fact, didn't AP have something like 16 rushes the game prior? The 0 sacks and lack of pressure is on the players not the coaching.

Bottom line this game was more on the players. I do blame coaching too because to me they seemed unprepared and weren't able to make adjustments from what I saw. However the execution on the field was horrific on all phases of the game. The players looked scared. Even Jared Allen wasn't looking like he was into the game.

You blame the coaching on Favre playing 1, I repeat 1 bad game? He has been doing well all year. Why not let him try and take the team on his back if it had been working before?

LOL at flying across the country to smack Bevell. That's good!

I was thinkiing the same thing you were about Jasper. Let's see how well he could step up :cheer:

All in all a solid post but there are just some things I personally don't agree with. Glad you're back bud!

1. We featured a much more balanced offense against the Bears and the Seahawks, and the Cardinals are better than both of those teams. Why we would abandon our balanced attack against a better opponent is beyond me.

2. AD is s home run hitter. Sure he was getting stymied early but when we have stuck with him in the past he has eventually gotten that big run. I seriously doubt that he would have ended up with 36 yards if we have given him 25 carries. Moreover, when both the passing and running game wasn't working, we chose to pass. That pisses me off.

3. 0 sacks and little pressure is not totally on the players. The coaches could have made adjustments. They could have blitzed the nickleback, which would force the RB to either leave Allen one-on-one or give a corner a free run at Warner. They could have moved Allen to the other side of the line, or have him line up at DT to keep the OL guessing. The coaches definitely deserve some blame here.

4. Here again is where I have the special power to analyze the gameplan and playcalling apart from the execution. You have this power too but your refuse to use it. I don't blame the coaching for Favre's bad game, but I do blame them for putting him in a position to have a bad game. We passed too much. How can you call someone a "game manager" and then make him throw 48 times? If you tell Favre to sling, he is going to sling, and for goodness sakes, they made a point to take away the middle of the middle, so call some curls and outs on the perimeter, like Shank's TD. We were brilliantly out coached and made zero adjustments.

-V-

Zeus
12-10-2009, 09:30 AM
V-Unit wrote:

-V-

Yes Z, I am making a ripoff of your signoff.

I'll be watching the mailbox for my royalty check.

=Z=

ejmat
12-10-2009, 09:37 AM
V-Unit wrote:

ejmat wrote:

V-Unit wrote:

Well, I finally made it back onto the board. Here are my two cents, and as usual they are late into the week when everyone has moved on. Oh well.

- First let me start by addressing a recent topic in this thread: Paymah was way out of position on that punt. It is his job to contain and he blew contain.

- This game was a no show. The coaches had their players completely unprepared. The gameplan and playcalling were miserable. The execution was subpar.

Reason We Lost #1: 20 runs and 45 passes is not a 60/40 run/pass ratio.

Reason We Lost #2: Peterson had 13 carries.

Reason We Lost #3: We had zero sacks.

- We all know that the above 3 reasons, definitely the last two, are going to lead to losses. Now I know some have and will continue to proclaim that we had to pass more because we were behind. BULLSHIT. Down 21-10 going into the second half, if we score right there it is 21-17 and we are right back in it. Instead we pass, run, pass, pass, pass, pass, pass and the last one gets intercepted. The same is true when its 24-10. I would have loved to see us run three times in a row at some point during that game.

- Favre reverted to his old ways. We relied on him too much. We were relying on him more and more, and we reached the limit. I blame the coaching.

- AD was stymied but we all know he's a home run hitter. I blame the coaching.

- Great use of Chester Taylor in this game. It has been encouraging to see him get more touches. I credit the coaching.

- The WRs had good days. Brett's INTs really hurt the passing game. The Cards D was simply dialed in on him. I really wish we could have caught them off guard with the pass, or run enough to set up better playaction.

- OL has got to get better holes for Peterson. Their DL had an awesome day. The injuries may have rattled us but that just isn't a good excuse.

- Awful playcalling. Darrell Bevell, if you ever motion Tahi AND Peterson out of the backfield, into the slot, while backed up against your own goalline, on first down, again, I will fly cross country to smack you.

- Seriously. That is a terrible formation. I'm sick of the entire RB as a WR thing in general. Brad, this isn't Philly, and even if it was, Westbrook has had two concussions this year. Does Andy Reid continue to line McCoy up in the slot? NO. We have two great workhorse backs and 3 solid WRs. Stop that nonsense. It's not working.

- DL got dominated. What a genius coaching move by the Cardinals: We are going to chip Jared Allen on every single play. They knew they had superb WRs which Warner would find open if given time, so they sacrificed their RB route, which is used in case the WRs can't get open. Great coaching by them.

- That said, Ray and Kevin need to do better.

- We lost EJ ugh. I think the LBs had a good game. ejmat and I had an argument where I contended that late round picks always get a chance to blossom, sooner or later. This is Jasper Brinkley's chance.

- One word to describe the secondary. Overmatched. Without Winfield we lost the ability to man up on one WR and double team the other. They basically used Fitz as a TE all day.

- The D had a solid second half considering who they were playing. Our offense failed to execute in both halves.

I put this one 80% on the coaches. Frazier was unable to generate pressure throughout the game. Bevell apparently had his ass up a horses behind for the entire week. We honestly thought that we could pass as much as we wanted and win that game, even though we were playing a tough secondary in their house. When it didn't work, did we get back to the run? No, of course not, Favre will save us!

We have got to get back to the basics. The attitude should be that AD is still the centerpiece in this offense, and that quality passing vastly outvalues quantity passing. 60/40 run-pass ratio.

-V-

Yes Z, I am making a ripoff of your signoff.

Glad you are back. Great post but there are a couple of issues I have with your thoughts or reasonings. Just because we didn't have a 60/40 run pass ratio is NOT the reason we lost. We didn't have that ratio last game or the game before either and we won those games. It isn't like AP was having a stellar game to where we could say it would help the situation. In fact, didn't AP have something like 16 rushes the game prior? The 0 sacks and lack of pressure is on the players not the coaching.

Bottom line this game was more on the players. I do blame coaching too because to me they seemed unprepared and weren't able to make adjustments from what I saw. However the execution on the field was horrific on all phases of the game. The players looked scared. Even Jared Allen wasn't looking like he was into the game.

You blame the coaching on Favre playing 1, I repeat 1 bad game? He has been doing well all year. Why not let him try and take the team on his back if it had been working before?

LOL at flying across the country to smack Bevell. That's good!

I was thinkiing the same thing you were about Jasper. Let's see how well he could step up :cheer:

All in all a solid post but there are just some things I personally don't agree with. Glad you're back bud!

1. We featured a much more balanced offense against the Bears and the Seahawks, and the Cardinals are better than both of those teams. Why we would abandon our balanced attack against a better opponent is beyond me.

2. AD is s home run hitter. Sure he was getting stymied early but when we have stuck with him in the past he has eventually gotten that big run. I seriously doubt that he would have ended up with 36 yards if we have given him 25 carries. Moreover, when both the passing and running game wasn't working, we chose to pass. That pisses me off.

3. 0 sacks and little pressure is not totally on the players. The coaches could have made adjustments. They could have blitzed the nickleback, which would force the RB to either leave Allen one-on-one or give a corner a free run at Warner. They could have moved Allen to the other side of the line, or have him line up at DT to keep the OL guessing. The coaches definitely deserve some blame here.

4. Here again is where I have the special power to analyze the gameplan and playcalling apart from the execution. You have this power too but your refuse to use it. I don't blame the coaching for Favre's bad game, but I do blame them for putting him in a position to have a bad game. We passed too much. How can you call someone a "game manager" and then make him throw 48 times? If you tell Favre to sling, he is going to sling, and for goodness sakes, they made a point to take away the middle of the middle, so call some curls and outs on the perimeter, like Shank's TD. We were brilliantly out coached and made zero adjustments.

-V-

As I stated the coaching is repsonsible for teh poor game planning for this game but if you are going to tell me the players have nothing to do with blame I will disagree whole-heartedly. Regardless of the game plan the DEs can make their own adjustments on the field too.

I am not sure if you noticed but they were sending LBs and CBs blitzing but Warner was getting rid of hte ball very quickly. Pretty much the smae thing that happened against Seattle. However AZ handled the pressure a lot better. Warner and his WRs were on the same page the entire game.

Like I stated, I do blame coaching for certian things. However just because we only ran AP 13 times does not mean that was the reason why they lost. They didn't have a balanced attack last week either. I am not sure where you got that stat from. They threw a lot more than they ran but no one said anything because they dominated the game.

The execution of this game was terrible (not subpar). Terrible! The game was poorly managed in every phase to include coaching and execution. IMO the players came in flat. That is on them. They shouldn't need to be pepped up by coaching. That is on the captains of the players and leaders on thei field.

Favre was not throwing well. Not the coaching. At this point in his career he doesn't need coaching to tell him what he is doing wrong. He is more than capable of studying the pictures and realizing what he is doing. I am not giving anyone a free pass in this game. Every phase of this game is to blame.

Now they need to respond well and come out this week against Cincy angry and hungry. This will tell a lot about the heart of this team and the coaching staff.

As far as AP being a homerun hitter, that he is. But it doesn't necessarily mean he would have done any better than he was already doing. He has had bad games before. There is a chance but there's also the chance he doesn't. All that is speculation so there are no facts to go on. There is nothing stating or factual that he would have done better running the ball than Favre was doing throwing the ball. Maybe if there is a certain player to call out I would say Berrian. There were at least 3 plays I saw him not giving 100%.

V-Unit
12-10-2009, 10:11 AM
ejmat wrote:

V-Unit wrote:

ejmat wrote:

V-Unit wrote:

Well, I finally made it back onto the board. Here are my two cents, and as usual they are late into the week when everyone has moved on. Oh well.

- First let me start by addressing a recent topic in this thread: Paymah was way out of position on that punt. It is his job to contain and he blew contain.

- This game was a no show. The coaches had their players completely unprepared. The gameplan and playcalling were miserable. The execution was subpar.

Reason We Lost #1: 20 runs and 45 passes is not a 60/40 run/pass ratio.

Reason We Lost #2: Peterson had 13 carries.

Reason We Lost #3: We had zero sacks.

- We all know that the above 3 reasons, definitely the last two, are going to lead to losses. Now I know some have and will continue to proclaim that we had to pass more because we were behind. BULLSHIT. Down 21-10 going into the second half, if we score right there it is 21-17 and we are right back in it. Instead we pass, run, pass, pass, pass, pass, pass and the last one gets intercepted. The same is true when its 24-10. I would have loved to see us run three times in a row at some point during that game.

- Favre reverted to his old ways. We relied on him too much. We were relying on him more and more, and we reached the limit. I blame the coaching.

- AD was stymied but we all know he's a home run hitter. I blame the coaching.

- Great use of Chester Taylor in this game. It has been encouraging to see him get more touches. I credit the coaching.

- The WRs had good days. Brett's INTs really hurt the passing game. The Cards D was simply dialed in on him. I really wish we could have caught them off guard with the pass, or run enough to set up better playaction.

- OL has got to get better holes for Peterson. Their DL had an awesome day. The injuries may have rattled us but that just isn't a good excuse.

- Awful playcalling. Darrell Bevell, if you ever motion Tahi AND Peterson out of the backfield, into the slot, while backed up against your own goalline, on first down, again, I will fly cross country to smack you.

- Seriously. That is a terrible formation. I'm sick of the entire RB as a WR thing in general. Brad, this isn't Philly, and even if it was, Westbrook has had two concussions this year. Does Andy Reid continue to line McCoy up in the slot? NO. We have two great workhorse backs and 3 solid WRs. Stop that nonsense. It's not working.

- DL got dominated. What a genius coaching move by the Cardinals: We are going to chip Jared Allen on every single play. They knew they had superb WRs which Warner would find open if given time, so they sacrificed their RB route, which is used in case the WRs can't get open. Great coaching by them.

- That said, Ray and Kevin need to do better.

- We lost EJ ugh. I think the LBs had a good game. ejmat and I had an argument where I contended that late round picks always get a chance to blossom, sooner or later. This is Jasper Brinkley's chance.

- One word to describe the secondary. Overmatched. Without Winfield we lost the ability to man up on one WR and double team the other. They basically used Fitz as a TE all day.

- The D had a solid second half considering who they were playing. Our offense failed to execute in both halves.

I put this one 80% on the coaches. Frazier was unable to generate pressure throughout the game. Bevell apparently had his ass up a horses behind for the entire week. We honestly thought that we could pass as much as we wanted and win that game, even though we were playing a tough secondary in their house. When it didn't work, did we get back to the run? No, of course not, Favre will save us!

We have got to get back to the basics. The attitude should be that AD is still the centerpiece in this offense, and that quality passing vastly outvalues quantity passing. 60/40 run-pass ratio.

-V-

Yes Z, I am making a ripoff of your signoff.

Glad you are back. Great post but there are a couple of issues I have with your thoughts or reasonings. Just because we didn't have a 60/40 run pass ratio is NOT the reason we lost. We didn't have that ratio last game or the game before either and we won those games. It isn't like AP was having a stellar game to where we could say it would help the situation. In fact, didn't AP have something like 16 rushes the game prior? The 0 sacks and lack of pressure is on the players not the coaching.

Bottom line this game was more on the players. I do blame coaching too because to me they seemed unprepared and weren't able to make adjustments from what I saw. However the execution on the field was horrific on all phases of the game. The players looked scared. Even Jared Allen wasn't looking like he was into the game.

You blame the coaching on Favre playing 1, I repeat 1 bad game? He has been doing well all year. Why not let him try and take the team on his back if it had been working before?

LOL at flying across the country to smack Bevell. That's good!

I was thinkiing the same thing you were about Jasper. Let's see how well he could step up :cheer:

All in all a solid post but there are just some things I personally don't agree with. Glad you're back bud!

1. We featured a much more balanced offense against the Bears and the Seahawks, and the Cardinals are better than both of those teams. Why we would abandon our balanced attack against a better opponent is beyond me.

2. AD is s home run hitter. Sure he was getting stymied early but when we have stuck with him in the past he has eventually gotten that big run. I seriously doubt that he would have ended up with 36 yards if we have given him 25 carries. Moreover, when both the passing and running game wasn't working, we chose to pass. That pisses me off.

3. 0 sacks and little pressure is not totally on the players. The coaches could have made adjustments. They could have blitzed the nickleback, which would force the RB to either leave Allen one-on-one or give a corner a free run at Warner. They could have moved Allen to the other side of the line, or have him line up at DT to keep the OL guessing. The coaches definitely deserve some blame here.

4. Here again is where I have the special power to analyze the gameplan and playcalling apart from the execution. You have this power too but your refuse to use it. I don't blame the coaching for Favre's bad game, but I do blame them for putting him in a position to have a bad game. We passed too much. How can you call someone a "game manager" and then make him throw 48 times? If you tell Favre to sling, he is going to sling, and for goodness sakes, they made a point to take away the middle of the middle, so call some curls and outs on the perimeter, like Shank's TD. We were brilliantly out coached and made zero adjustments.

-V-

As I stated the coaching is repsonsible for teh poor game planning for this game but if you are going to tell me the players have nothing to do with blame I will disagree whole-heartedly. Regardless of the game plan the DEs can make their own adjustments on the field too.

I am not sure if you noticed but they were sending LBs and CBs blitzing but Warner was getting rid of hte ball very quickly. Pretty much the smae thing that happened against Seattle. However AZ handled the pressure a lot better. Warner and his WRs were on the same page the entire game.

Like I stated, I do blame coaching for certian things. However just because we only ran AP 13 times does not mean that was the reason why they lost. They didn't have a balanced attack last week either. I am not sure where you got that stat from. They threw a lot more than they ran but no one said anything because they dominated the game.

The execution of this game was terrible (not subpar). Terrible! The game was poorly managed in every phase to include coaching and execution. IMO the players came in flat. That is on them. They shouldn't need to be pepped up by coaching. That is on the captains of the players and leaders on thei field.

Favre was not throwing well. Not the coaching. At this point in his career he doesn't need coaching to tell him what he is doing wrong. He is more than capable of studying the pictures and realizing what he is doing. I am not giving anyone a free pass in this game. Every phase of this game is to blame.

Now they need to respond well and come out this week against Cincy angry and hungry. This will tell a lot about the heart of this team and the coaching staff.

As far as AP being a homerun hitter, that he is. But it doesn't necessarily mean he would have done any better than he was already doing. He has had bad games before. There is a chance but there's also the chance he doesn't. All that is speculation so there are no facts to go on. There is nothing stating or factual that he would have done better running the ball than Favre was doing throwing the ball. Maybe if there is a certain player to call out I would say Berrian. There were at least 3 plays I saw him not giving 100%.

I didn't say all the blame. I said 80%.

Jared Allen is not going to line up elsewhere on the line unless instructed to.

I have mentioned several times this year that we have been passing too much. You know that. Also, there is a big difference between running 30% of the time and 40% of the time. AD received half as many carries as he did against Chicago. More importantly though, is that we gave up on the run. It's a tragedy for this team to ever give up on the run.

If I had to grade each position, the only failing grades I would give would be OL, DL, and FB. Otherwise I thought execution was not that bad.

Favre was not throwing well? Outside of his two picks, which involved his primary receiver running down the middle of his field, which Arizona was clearly covering with 3 men (coaching), he had 70% completion percentage and two TDs. If we had kept the defense honest at all Favre would have had a big day.

LMAO. You act as if there is a 50% chance that AD has a bad game. Sure, he has been held in check before, but that is far from the norm. There are plenty of facts to go on. Clearly the coaches made a choice to throw more when the offense was struggling, and clearly that was the wrong choice as it resulted in two turnovers to start the second half. That is on coaching.

-V-

V4L
12-10-2009, 10:24 AM
Anyone who thinks Brett had a decent game is kidding themselves..

I saw atleast 3 dropped interceptions and too many sailed passes out of bounds

Even saw him hold the ball too long and take a couple sacks

He has been playing lights out this year.. He is entitled to a bad game or 2.. I just hope what we saw doesn't continue

Many things attributed to it.. But he just didn't play well

Had the Cards not been playing soft shitty D at the end he would have had 1 TD and 2 picks.. And easily could have been 3,4 even 5

V4L
12-10-2009, 10:30 AM
And I do agree with V we abandoned the run too early

This was almost looking like many of AP's games where he gets 1, -2, 3, 0, 2, 11, etc

We gotta have a balance.. Cards did a decent job of taking it away.. Coaches did a much better job of taking it away

marstc09
12-10-2009, 10:40 AM
V4L wrote:

Anyone who thinks Brett had a decent game is kidding themselves..

I saw atleast 3 dropped interceptions and too many sailed passes out of bounds

Even saw him hold the ball too long and take a couple sacks

He has been playing lights out this year.. He is entitled to a bad game or 2.. I just hope what we saw doesn't continue

Many things attributed to it.. But he just didn't play well

Had the Cards not been playing soft shitty D at the end he would have had 1 TD and 2 picks.. And easily could have been 3,4 even 5

Don't blame soft D on that last TD pass. That pass was a thing of beauty with 2 defenders. I will admit he had a lot of bad passes that game. Peterson had his second worse game of his career. Hats off to the Cards. They played one hell of a game.

Purple_Jesus
12-10-2009, 10:44 AM
marstc09 wrote:

V4L wrote:

Anyone who thinks Brett had a decent game is kidding themselves..

I saw atleast 3 dropped interceptions and too many sailed passes out of bounds

Even saw him hold the ball too long and take a couple sacks

He has been playing lights out this year.. He is entitled to a bad game or 2.. I just hope what we saw doesn't continue

Many things attributed to it.. But he just didn't play well

Had the Cards not been playing soft shitty D at the end he would have had 1 TD and 2 picks.. And easily could have been 3,4 even 5

Don't blame soft D on that last TD pass. That pass was a thing of beauty with 2 defenders. I will admit he had a lot of bad passes that game. Peterson had his second worse game of his career. Hats off to the Cards. They played one hell of a game.

They did play one hell of a game, though they knew when we were passing and when we were running. Not too hard to stop a team when you know what they're doing.

Still, we made too many mistakes. Hopefully this will change this week.

ejmat
12-10-2009, 05:30 PM
V-Unit wrote:

ejmat wrote:

V-Unit wrote:

ejmat wrote:

V-Unit wrote:

Well, I finally made it back onto the board. Here are my two cents, and as usual they are late into the week when everyone has moved on. Oh well.

- First let me start by addressing a recent topic in this thread: Paymah was way out of position on that punt. It is his job to contain and he blew contain.

- This game was a no show. The coaches had their players completely unprepared. The gameplan and playcalling were miserable. The execution was subpar.

Reason We Lost #1: 20 runs and 45 passes is not a 60/40 run/pass ratio.

Reason We Lost #2: Peterson had 13 carries.

Reason We Lost #3: We had zero sacks.

- We all know that the above 3 reasons, definitely the last two, are going to lead to losses. Now I know some have and will continue to proclaim that we had to pass more because we were behind. BULLSHIT. Down 21-10 going into the second half, if we score right there it is 21-17 and we are right back in it. Instead we pass, run, pass, pass, pass, pass, pass and the last one gets intercepted. The same is true when its 24-10. I would have loved to see us run three times in a row at some point during that game.

- Favre reverted to his old ways. We relied on him too much. We were relying on him more and more, and we reached the limit. I blame the coaching.

- AD was stymied but we all know he's a home run hitter. I blame the coaching.

- Great use of Chester Taylor in this game. It has been encouraging to see him get more touches. I credit the coaching.

- The WRs had good days. Brett's INTs really hurt the passing game. The Cards D was simply dialed in on him. I really wish we could have caught them off guard with the pass, or run enough to set up better playaction.

- OL has got to get better holes for Peterson. Their DL had an awesome day. The injuries may have rattled us but that just isn't a good excuse.

- Awful playcalling. Darrell Bevell, if you ever motion Tahi AND Peterson out of the backfield, into the slot, while backed up against your own goalline, on first down, again, I will fly cross country to smack you.

- Seriously. That is a terrible formation. I'm sick of the entire RB as a WR thing in general. Brad, this isn't Philly, and even if it was, Westbrook has had two concussions this year. Does Andy Reid continue to line McCoy up in the slot? NO. We have two great workhorse backs and 3 solid WRs. Stop that nonsense. It's not working.

- DL got dominated. What a genius coaching move by the Cardinals: We are going to chip Jared Allen on every single play. They knew they had superb WRs which Warner would find open if given time, so they sacrificed their RB route, which is used in case the WRs can't get open. Great coaching by them.

- That said, Ray and Kevin need to do better.

- We lost EJ ugh. I think the LBs had a good game. ejmat and I had an argument where I contended that late round picks always get a chance to blossom, sooner or later. This is Jasper Brinkley's chance.

- One word to describe the secondary. Overmatched. Without Winfield we lost the ability to man up on one WR and double team the other. They basically used Fitz as a TE all day.

- The D had a solid second half considering who they were playing. Our offense failed to execute in both halves.

I put this one 80% on the coaches. Frazier was unable to generate pressure throughout the game. Bevell apparently had his ass up a horses behind for the entire week. We honestly thought that we could pass as much as we wanted and win that game, even though we were playing a tough secondary in their house. When it didn't work, did we get back to the run? No, of course not, Favre will save us!

We have got to get back to the basics. The attitude should be that AD is still the centerpiece in this offense, and that quality passing vastly outvalues quantity passing. 60/40 run-pass ratio.

-V-

Yes Z, I am making a ripoff of your signoff.

Glad you are back. Great post but there are a couple of issues I have with your thoughts or reasonings. Just because we didn't have a 60/40 run pass ratio is NOT the reason we lost. We didn't have that ratio last game or the game before either and we won those games. It isn't like AP was having a stellar game to where we could say it would help the situation. In fact, didn't AP have something like 16 rushes the game prior? The 0 sacks and lack of pressure is on the players not the coaching.

Bottom line this game was more on the players. I do blame coaching too because to me they seemed unprepared and weren't able to make adjustments from what I saw. However the execution on the field was horrific on all phases of the game. The players looked scared. Even Jared Allen wasn't looking like he was into the game.

You blame the coaching on Favre playing 1, I repeat 1 bad game? He has been doing well all year. Why not let him try and take the team on his back if it had been working before?

LOL at flying across the country to smack Bevell. That's good!

I was thinkiing the same thing you were about Jasper. Let's see how well he could step up :cheer:

All in all a solid post but there are just some things I personally don't agree with. Glad you're back bud!

1. We featured a much more balanced offense against the Bears and the Seahawks, and the Cardinals are better than both of those teams. Why we would abandon our balanced attack against a better opponent is beyond me.

2. AD is s home run hitter. Sure he was getting stymied early but when we have stuck with him in the past he has eventually gotten that big run. I seriously doubt that he would have ended up with 36 yards if we have given him 25 carries. Moreover, when both the passing and running game wasn't working, we chose to pass. That pisses me off.

3. 0 sacks and little pressure is not totally on the players. The coaches could have made adjustments. They could have blitzed the nickleback, which would force the RB to either leave Allen one-on-one or give a corner a free run at Warner. They could have moved Allen to the other side of the line, or have him line up at DT to keep the OL guessing. The coaches definitely deserve some blame here.

4. Here again is where I have the special power to analyze the gameplan and playcalling apart from the execution. You have this power too but your refuse to use it. I don't blame the coaching for Favre's bad game, but I do blame them for putting him in a position to have a bad game. We passed too much. How can you call someone a "game manager" and then make him throw 48 times? If you tell Favre to sling, he is going to sling, and for goodness sakes, they made a point to take away the middle of the middle, so call some curls and outs on the perimeter, like Shank's TD. We were brilliantly out coached and made zero adjustments.

-V-

As I stated the coaching is repsonsible for teh poor game planning for this game but if you are going to tell me the players have nothing to do with blame I will disagree whole-heartedly. Regardless of the game plan the DEs can make their own adjustments on the field too.

I am not sure if you noticed but they were sending LBs and CBs blitzing but Warner was getting rid of hte ball very quickly. Pretty much the smae thing that happened against Seattle. However AZ handled the pressure a lot better. Warner and his WRs were on the same page the entire game.

Like I stated, I do blame coaching for certian things. However just because we only ran AP 13 times does not mean that was the reason why they lost. They didn't have a balanced attack last week either. I am not sure where you got that stat from. They threw a lot more than they ran but no one said anything because they dominated the game.

The execution of this game was terrible (not subpar). Terrible! The game was poorly managed in every phase to include coaching and execution. IMO the players came in flat. That is on them. They shouldn't need to be pepped up by coaching. That is on the captains of the players and leaders on thei field.

Favre was not throwing well. Not the coaching. At this point in his career he doesn't need coaching to tell him what he is doing wrong. He is more than capable of studying the pictures and realizing what he is doing. I am not giving anyone a free pass in this game. Every phase of this game is to blame.

Now they need to respond well and come out this week against Cincy angry and hungry. This will tell a lot about the heart of this team and the coaching staff.

As far as AP being a homerun hitter, that he is. But it doesn't necessarily mean he would have done any better than he was already doing. He has had bad games before. There is a chance but there's also the chance he doesn't. All that is speculation so there are no facts to go on. There is nothing stating or factual that he would have done better running the ball than Favre was doing throwing the ball. Maybe if there is a certain player to call out I would say Berrian. There were at least 3 plays I saw him not giving 100%.

I didn't say all the blame. I said 80%.

Jared Allen is not going to line up elsewhere on the line unless instructed to.

I have mentioned several times this year that we have been passing too much. You know that. Also, there is a big difference between running 30% of the time and 40% of the time. AD received half as many carries as he did against Chicago. More importantly though, is that we gave up on the run. It's a tragedy for this team to ever give up on the run.

If I had to grade each position, the only failing grades I would give would be OL, DL, and FB. Otherwise I thought execution was not that bad.

Favre was not throwing well? Outside of his two picks, which involved his primary receiver running down the middle of his field, which Arizona was clearly covering with 3 men (coaching), he had 70% completion percentage and two TDs. If we had kept the defense honest at all Favre would have had a big day.

LMAO. You act as if there is a 50% chance that AD has a bad game. Sure, he has been held in check before, but that is far from the norm. There are plenty of facts to go on. Clearly the coaches made a choice to throw more when the offense was struggling, and clearly that was the wrong choice as it resulted in two turnovers to start the second half. That is on coaching.

-V-

I have been a Favre supporter before he came to the Vikes and I am going to disagree with you. He had a bead game. He had 2 picks and several other passes that should have been picked off. He made several bad decisions. I don't care what his stats say. They do not tell the whole story.

Yes there is a 50% chance. He could either do well (50%) or not well (50%). He wasn't doing well at all so what makes you think he would have done any better? He was getting stymied ALL game. Of course there's a chance he does better. When you are down by 2 TDs you tend to throw the ball more. That's just how the game works. You have a HOF QB who's having an outstanding season you put the ball in his hands. You can say if this and if that but that isn't what happened. What happened, happened and that is all I am going to go by.

Every phase of this game to include coaching and execution did poorly. On the field the players execution counts well more than coaching. Coaching is teaching during practie and calling the right plays. They have less to do with what happens on the field than the players do. Favre throws the ball. Allen rushes the QB. AP runs the ball. The coaching staff does none of this. If they draw up a play it is up to the players to execute. They weren't.

If you think they didn't play badly that is your opinion. I disagree. IMO they played terribly. Hence the reason why they were DOMINATED throughout the ENTIRE game.

green hornet
12-10-2009, 05:38 PM
Every team in the NFL usually gets embarrassed in a game a year. This was the vikings game to get embarrassed in. A win over the bengals will erase the memory.

V-Unit
12-10-2009, 06:12 PM
ejmat wrote:

V-Unit wrote:

ejmat wrote:

V-Unit wrote:

ejmat wrote:

V-Unit wrote:

Well, I finally made it back onto the board. Here are my two cents, and as usual they are late into the week when everyone has moved on. Oh well.

- First let me start by addressing a recent topic in this thread: Paymah was way out of position on that punt. It is his job to contain and he blew contain.

- This game was a no show. The coaches had their players completely unprepared. The gameplan and playcalling were miserable. The execution was subpar.

Reason We Lost #1: 20 runs and 45 passes is not a 60/40 run/pass ratio.

Reason We Lost #2: Peterson had 13 carries.

Reason We Lost #3: We had zero sacks.

- We all know that the above 3 reasons, definitely the last two, are going to lead to losses. Now I know some have and will continue to proclaim that we had to pass more because we were behind. BULLSHIT. Down 21-10 going into the second half, if we score right there it is 21-17 and we are right back in it. Instead we pass, run, pass, pass, pass, pass, pass and the last one gets intercepted. The same is true when its 24-10. I would have loved to see us run three times in a row at some point during that game.

- Favre reverted to his old ways. We relied on him too much. We were relying on him more and more, and we reached the limit. I blame the coaching.

- AD was stymied but we all know he's a home run hitter. I blame the coaching.

- Great use of Chester Taylor in this game. It has been encouraging to see him get more touches. I credit the coaching.

- The WRs had good days. Brett's INTs really hurt the passing game. The Cards D was simply dialed in on him. I really wish we could have caught them off guard with the pass, or run enough to set up better playaction.

- OL has got to get better holes for Peterson. Their DL had an awesome day. The injuries may have rattled us but that just isn't a good excuse.

- Awful playcalling. Darrell Bevell, if you ever motion Tahi AND Peterson out of the backfield, into the slot, while backed up against your own goalline, on first down, again, I will fly cross country to smack you.

- Seriously. That is a terrible formation. I'm sick of the entire RB as a WR thing in general. Brad, this isn't Philly, and even if it was, Westbrook has had two concussions this year. Does Andy Reid continue to line McCoy up in the slot? NO. We have two great workhorse backs and 3 solid WRs. Stop that nonsense. It's not working.

- DL got dominated. What a genius coaching move by the Cardinals: We are going to chip Jared Allen on every single play. They knew they had superb WRs which Warner would find open if given time, so they sacrificed their RB route, which is used in case the WRs can't get open. Great coaching by them.

- That said, Ray and Kevin need to do better.

- We lost EJ ugh. I think the LBs had a good game. ejmat and I had an argument where I contended that late round picks always get a chance to blossom, sooner or later. This is Jasper Brinkley's chance.

- One word to describe the secondary. Overmatched. Without Winfield we lost the ability to man up on one WR and double team the other. They basically used Fitz as a TE all day.

- The D had a solid second half considering who they were playing. Our offense failed to execute in both halves.

I put this one 80% on the coaches. Frazier was unable to generate pressure throughout the game. Bevell apparently had his ass up a horses behind for the entire week. We honestly thought that we could pass as much as we wanted and win that game, even though we were playing a tough secondary in their house. When it didn't work, did we get back to the run? No, of course not, Favre will save us!

We have got to get back to the basics. The attitude should be that AD is still the centerpiece in this offense, and that quality passing vastly outvalues quantity passing. 60/40 run-pass ratio.

-V-

Yes Z, I am making a ripoff of your signoff.

Glad you are back. Great post but there are a couple of issues I have with your thoughts or reasonings. Just because we didn't have a 60/40 run pass ratio is NOT the reason we lost. We didn't have that ratio last game or the game before either and we won those games. It isn't like AP was having a stellar game to where we could say it would help the situation. In fact, didn't AP have something like 16 rushes the game prior? The 0 sacks and lack of pressure is on the players not the coaching.

Bottom line this game was more on the players. I do blame coaching too because to me they seemed unprepared and weren't able to make adjustments from what I saw. However the execution on the field was horrific on all phases of the game. The players looked scared. Even Jared Allen wasn't looking like he was into the game.

You blame the coaching on Favre playing 1, I repeat 1 bad game? He has been doing well all year. Why not let him try and take the team on his back if it had been working before?

LOL at flying across the country to smack Bevell. That's good!

I was thinkiing the same thing you were about Jasper. Let's see how well he could step up :cheer:

All in all a solid post but there are just some things I personally don't agree with. Glad you're back bud!

1. We featured a much more balanced offense against the Bears and the Seahawks, and the Cardinals are better than both of those teams. Why we would abandon our balanced attack against a better opponent is beyond me.

2. AD is s home run hitter. Sure he was getting stymied early but when we have stuck with him in the past he has eventually gotten that big run. I seriously doubt that he would have ended up with 36 yards if we have given him 25 carries. Moreover, when both the passing and running game wasn't working, we chose to pass. That pisses me off.

3. 0 sacks and little pressure is not totally on the players. The coaches could have made adjustments. They could have blitzed the nickleback, which would force the RB to either leave Allen one-on-one or give a corner a free run at Warner. They could have moved Allen to the other side of the line, or have him line up at DT to keep the OL guessing. The coaches definitely deserve some blame here.

4. Here again is where I have the special power to analyze the gameplan and playcalling apart from the execution. You have this power too but your refuse to use it. I don't blame the coaching for Favre's bad game, but I do blame them for putting him in a position to have a bad game. We passed too much. How can you call someone a "game manager" and then make him throw 48 times? If you tell Favre to sling, he is going to sling, and for goodness sakes, they made a point to take away the middle of the middle, so call some curls and outs on the perimeter, like Shank's TD. We were brilliantly out coached and made zero adjustments.

-V-

As I stated the coaching is repsonsible for teh poor game planning for this game but if you are going to tell me the players have nothing to do with blame I will disagree whole-heartedly. Regardless of the game plan the DEs can make their own adjustments on the field too.

I am not sure if you noticed but they were sending LBs and CBs blitzing but Warner was getting rid of hte ball very quickly. Pretty much the smae thing that happened against Seattle. However AZ handled the pressure a lot better. Warner and his WRs were on the same page the entire game.

Like I stated, I do blame coaching for certian things. However just because we only ran AP 13 times does not mean that was the reason why they lost. They didn't have a balanced attack last week either. I am not sure where you got that stat from. They threw a lot more than they ran but no one said anything because they dominated the game.

The execution of this game was terrible (not subpar). Terrible! The game was poorly managed in every phase to include coaching and execution. IMO the players came in flat. That is on them. They shouldn't need to be pepped up by coaching. That is on the captains of the players and leaders on thei field.

Favre was not throwing well. Not the coaching. At this point in his career he doesn't need coaching to tell him what he is doing wrong. He is more than capable of studying the pictures and realizing what he is doing. I am not giving anyone a free pass in this game. Every phase of this game is to blame.

Now they need to respond well and come out this week against Cincy angry and hungry. This will tell a lot about the heart of this team and the coaching staff.

As far as AP being a homerun hitter, that he is. But it doesn't necessarily mean he would have done any better than he was already doing. He has had bad games before. There is a chance but there's also the chance he doesn't. All that is speculation so there are no facts to go on. There is nothing stating or factual that he would have done better running the ball than Favre was doing throwing the ball. Maybe if there is a certain player to call out I would say Berrian. There were at least 3 plays I saw him not giving 100%.

I didn't say all the blame. I said 80%.

Jared Allen is not going to line up elsewhere on the line unless instructed to.

I have mentioned several times this year that we have been passing too much. You know that. Also, there is a big difference between running 30% of the time and 40% of the time. AD received half as many carries as he did against Chicago. More importantly though, is that we gave up on the run. It's a tragedy for this team to ever give up on the run.

If I had to grade each position, the only failing grades I would give would be OL, DL, and FB. Otherwise I thought execution was not that bad.

Favre was not throwing well? Outside of his two picks, which involved his primary receiver running down the middle of his field, which Arizona was clearly covering with 3 men (coaching), he had 70% completion percentage and two TDs. If we had kept the defense honest at all Favre would have had a big day.

LMAO. You act as if there is a 50% chance that AD has a bad game. Sure, he has been held in check before, but that is far from the norm. There are plenty of facts to go on. Clearly the coaches made a choice to throw more when the offense was struggling, and clearly that was the wrong choice as it resulted in two turnovers to start the second half. That is on coaching.

-V-

I have been a Favre supporter before he came to the Vikes and I am going to disagree with you. He had a bead game. He had 2 picks and several other passes that should have been picked off. He made several bad decisions. I don't care what his stats say. They do not tell the whole story.

Yes there is a 50% chance. He could either do well (50%) or not well (50%). He wasn't doing well at all so what makes you think he would have done any better? He was getting stymied ALL game. Of course there's a chance he does better. When you are down by 2 TDs you tend to throw the ball more. That's just how the game works. You have a HOF QB who's having an outstanding season you put the ball in his hands. You can say if this and if that but that isn't what happened. What happened, happened and that is all I am going to go by.

Every phase of this game to include coaching and execution did poorly. On the field the players execution counts well more than coaching. Coaching is teaching during practie and calling the right plays. They have less to do with what happens on the field than the players do. Favre throws the ball. Allen rushes the QB. AP runs the ball. The coaching staff does none of this. If they draw up a play it is up to the players to execute. They weren't.

If you think they didn't play badly that is your opinion. I disagree. IMO they played terribly. Hence the reason why they were DOMINATED throughout the ENTIRE game.

What happened, happened? That is all you are going to go by? What happened was that we quit on the run, and chose to the pass, even though they both were struggling, and lost. AD is too good of an RB to quit on. We know that Brett has a history of gunslinging. It's silly to weigh things as 50/50 when we have seen what has happened in the past.

Again, you are unwilling to separately judge playcalling and execution. I'm not going to fight that battle again but I will restate my argument: Good playcalling puts players in the position to play their best. Giving a stud RB 13 carries is not putting him in that position. Asking your 40-year old QB to pass 50 times without keeping the defense honest with the run is not putting him in that position. Deciding that your cover safety is going to matchup one-on-one with one of the best WRs in the league is not putting him in that position.

Were there moments of bad execution throughout this game? No doubt, several of them, but that does not excuse the terrible coaching we saw in any way, shape, or form.

Also, saying we were dominated for the entire game is BS. Things started to go sour with Breaston's PR late in the 1st quarter, and despite terrble offense in the second half, our defense actually gave us a fighting chance. Problem is that the coaches stuck with a gampeplan that wasn't working.

-V-

marstc09
12-10-2009, 06:52 PM
While nobody should get too carried away with the Vikings losing their second game of the season, maybe it's not so automatic that the NFC title game will be Vikings-Saints. And for those of you wondering if Brett Favre is allergic to the Pittsburgh-style 3-4 defense — after all, he's lost to the Steelers and Arizona's "Steelers wannabe" Cardinals — other key NFC contenders who also play the 3-4 include those Cardinals, the Cowboys (if they can avoid choking in December) and the steadily improving Packers

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/powerRankings

CCthebest
12-10-2009, 09:11 PM
The Cards looked so good because we made them look that good. We were out coached. They knew how to slow down Farve and they KNEW Warner would pick apart the worst secondary in the NFL. Its unfair to try and have Griffin and bonehead Sapp and the worst safties ever try and cover Boldin and Fitz. The coaches gave up on the run too early and thought we could out score the Cards with the pass. Stupidity. Our D was tired the whole game. Im SOOOO glad we gave Childress that extension.

Formo
12-10-2009, 10:47 PM
CCthebest wrote:

The Cards looked so good because we made them look that good. We were out coached. They knew how to slow down Farve and they KNEW Warner would pick apart the worst secondary in the NFL. Its unfair to try and have Griffin and bonehead Sapp and the worst safties ever try and cover Boldin and Fitz. The coaches gave up on the run too early and thought we could out score the Cards with the pass. Stupidity. Our D was tired the whole game. Im SOOOO glad we gave Childress that extension.

You're joking, right?

Seriously?

I can even finish your post after reading that statement..

CCthebest
12-11-2009, 01:52 AM
Formo wrote:

CCthebest wrote:

The Cards looked so good because we made them look that good. We were out coached. They knew how to slow down Farve and they KNEW Warner would pick apart the worst secondary in the NFL. Its unfair to try and have Griffin and bonehead Sapp and the worst safties ever try and cover Boldin and Fitz. The coaches gave up on the run too early and thought we could out score the Cards with the pass. Stupidity. Our D was tired the whole game. Im SOOOO glad we gave Childress that extension.

You're joking, right?

Seriously?

I can even finish your post after reading that statement..
You know they are 21st against the pass right? That and Warner to Fitz and Boldin killed us. They knew they could pass on us all day.

V-Unit
12-11-2009, 10:21 AM
marstc09 wrote:


While nobody should get too carried away with the Vikings losing their second game of the season, maybe it's not so automatic that the NFC title game will be Vikings-Saints. And for those of you wondering if Brett Favre is allergic to the Pittsburgh-style 3-4 defense — after all, he's lost to the Steelers and Arizona's "Steelers wannabe" Cardinals — other key NFC contenders who also play the 3-4 include those Cardinals, the Cowboys (if they can avoid choking in December) and the steadily improving Packers

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/powerRankings

It amazing how quickly people are ready to jump off our bandwagon, yet the Saints barely beat a pathetic team and get no slack for it.

marstc09
12-11-2009, 10:22 AM
CCthebest wrote:

Formo wrote:

CCthebest wrote:

The Cards looked so good because we made them look that good. We were out coached. They knew how to slow down Farve and they KNEW Warner would pick apart the worst secondary in the NFL. Its unfair to try and have Griffin and bonehead Sapp and the worst safties ever try and cover Boldin and Fitz. The coaches gave up on the run too early and thought we could out score the Cards with the pass. Stupidity. Our D was tired the whole game. Im SOOOO glad we gave Childress that extension.

You're joking, right?

Seriously?

I can even finish your post after reading that statement..
You know they are 21st against the pass right? That and Warner to Fitz and Boldin killed us. They knew they could pass on us all day.

I am surprised we are not worse than that. Ced and Whinny are great but we they hand off a WR to the safty then we have problems. They are both constantly out of position and miss tackles. They might not be the worst ever but they are not very good.

marstc09
12-11-2009, 10:28 AM
V-Unit wrote:

marstc09 wrote:


While nobody should get too carried away with the Vikings losing their second game of the season, maybe it's not so automatic that the NFC title game will be Vikings-Saints. And for those of you wondering if Brett Favre is allergic to the Pittsburgh-style 3-4 defense — after all, he's lost to the Steelers and Arizona's "Steelers wannabe" Cardinals — other key NFC contenders who also play the 3-4 include those Cardinals, the Cowboys (if they can avoid choking in December) and the steadily improving Packers

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/powerRankings

It amazing how quickly people are ready to jump off our bandwagon, yet the Saints barely beat a pathetic team and get no slack for it.

I agree but the Saints found a way to win and that is all that matters. If we beat the Bungals this will go away. If not, we are in a world of hurt.

snowinapril
12-11-2009, 10:33 AM
CCthebest wrote:

Formo wrote:

CCthebest wrote:

The Cards looked so good because we made them look that good. We were out coached. They knew how to slow down Farve and they KNEW Warner would pick apart the worst secondary in the NFL. Its unfair to try and have Griffin and bonehead Sapp and the worst safties ever try and cover Boldin and Fitz. The coaches gave up on the run too early and thought we could out score the Cards with the pass. Stupidity. Our D was tired the whole game. Im SOOOO glad we gave Childress that extension.

You're joking, right?

Seriously?

I can even finish your post after reading that statement..
You know they are 21st against the pass right? That and Warner to Fitz and Boldin killed us. They knew they could pass on us all day.

Worst, I thought there were 32 teams in the NFL.

V-Unit
12-11-2009, 11:26 AM
marstc09 wrote:

V-Unit wrote:

marstc09 wrote:


While nobody should get too carried away with the Vikings losing their second game of the season, maybe it's not so automatic that the NFC title game will be Vikings-Saints. And for those of you wondering if Brett Favre is allergic to the Pittsburgh-style 3-4 defense — after all, he's lost to the Steelers and Arizona's "Steelers wannabe" Cardinals — other key NFC contenders who also play the 3-4 include those Cardinals, the Cowboys (if they can avoid choking in December) and the steadily improving Packers

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/powerRankings

It amazing how quickly people are ready to jump off our bandwagon, yet the Saints barely beat a pathetic team and get no slack for it.

I agree but the Saints found a way to win and that is all that matters. If we beat the Bungals this will go away. If not, we are in a world of hurt.

The only difference between the Vikings' and Saints' performances last Sunday was that the Saints played a cupcake and the Vikings played a contender.

Losing to Cincy does not put us in a world of hurt. The Steelers are in a world of hurt. The Cardinals lost 4 of their last 6 last year and still went to the Superbowl.

For me, I care a lot about the type of game we play next Sunday. A good loss or a sloppy win? Then again, you can expect us to be perfect against the tougher opponents we are starting to see.

If we look like we did against the Cards, sure I'll be concerned. If we look like we did against the Steelers, I'll take it with a grain of salt. 10-3 is still a damn good football team. Heck, at the beginning of the year I would have been joyful with 11-5.

-V-

marstc09
12-11-2009, 11:58 AM
V-Unit wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

V-Unit wrote:

marstc09 wrote:


While nobody should get too carried away with the Vikings losing their second game of the season, maybe it's not so automatic that the NFC title game will be Vikings-Saints. And for those of you wondering if Brett Favre is allergic to the Pittsburgh-style 3-4 defense — after all, he's lost to the Steelers and Arizona's "Steelers wannabe" Cardinals — other key NFC contenders who also play the 3-4 include those Cardinals, the Cowboys (if they can avoid choking in December) and the steadily improving Packers

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/powerRankings

It amazing how quickly people are ready to jump off our bandwagon, yet the Saints barely beat a pathetic team and get no slack for it.

I agree but the Saints found a way to win and that is all that matters. If we beat the Bungals this will go away. If not, we are in a world of hurt.

The only difference between the Vikings' and Saints' performances last Sunday was that the Saints played a cupcake and the Vikings played a contender.

Losing to Cincy does not put us in a world of hurt. The Steelers are in a world of hurt. The Cardinals lost 4 of their last 6 last year and still went to the Superbowl.

For me, I care a lot about the type of game we play next Sunday. A good loss or a sloppy win? Then again, you can expect us to be perfect against the tougher opponents we are starting to see.

If we look like we did against the Cards, sure I'll be concerned. If we look like we did against the Steelers, I'll take it with a grain of salt. 10-3 is still a damn good football team. Heck, at the beginning of the year I would have been joyful with 11-5.

-V-

There is a huge difference between us and the Saints performances on Sunday. They got a win and we didn't. I could care less about who each played. Losing to Cincy puts us in a world of hurt. It hurts our confidence and shows we can't beat good teams even at home. So then can we beat the Bears, Panthers, and Giants which will be really tough especially since two are on the road. Maybe. We are not the Cards so I don't care what they did last year. You are right it does depend on the type of game we play. If it turns out like the Steelers game I will feel somewhat better but again it is at home not away. This is a crucial game IMO. People want to be so fixed on a 10-3 record but it is not about that. It is about beating good teams and proving we can handle the playoffs. We beat Green Bay twice and that is it for current playoff teams. The only other team we beat that is even in the running is the Ravens. We still have a lot to prove.

slavinator
12-11-2009, 12:31 PM
A solid rebound performance is what I am looking to see Sunday. Wherever the chips fall after that is fine. I believe if we play like we did against Pit, Bal, SF we will be fine.

I believe this is the true measurement of this team, how do you respond to adversity? They are a group veterans who got outplayed the week prior; Good (GREAT) teams find a way to bury a sloppy performance by showing up with determination and resolve. I believe we have that kind of group. We shall see Sunday.

Marrdro
12-11-2009, 02:04 PM
Interesting idea for a thread.

TJ - Yes - I am one of a select few who believe we should have benched the Noodle last week and brought TJ and his wheels in against the Cards.

That would have squashed that damn ameoba all over the gridiron as they would have had to defense our offense differently.

Sage - Not a clue. Cat is a mystery to me. My initial opinion is a resounding NO. Mostly cause of were he falls in the pecking order and how that affects how many reps he has had over the year. Which by the way, is very little.

i_bleed_purple
12-11-2009, 02:07 PM
I'm not sure TJ would be the answer. Favre was playing bad, but we couldn't run, we couldn't pass, they just outplayed us. Coaches need to adjust the gameplan when we're getting shut down like that and they didn't.

NodakPaul
12-11-2009, 02:39 PM
Marrdro wrote:

Interesting idea for a thread.

TJ - Yes - I am one of a select few who believe we should have benched the Noodle last week and brought TJ and his wheels in against the Cards.

That would have squashed that damn ameoba all over the gridiron as they would have had to defense our offense differently.

Sage - Not a clue. Cat is a mystery to me. My initial opinion is a resounding NO. Mostly cause of were he falls in the pecking order and how that affects how many reps he has had over the year. Which by the way, is very little.

I think it would have made more sense to change the offensive plan to go back to a run/short pass game - which is basically what we would have been doing by putting Jackson in. I don't know if the advantage that you get by putting in TJack would have offset the loss you have by taking the team captain and one of the leaders of the team off from the field.

I know that you might have an alterior motive for wanting to see Favre benched, but can you really look at this objectively and say that you think that benching Favre and bringing in TJack would have been the best option? You don't see that causing conflicts in the team, or breaking down the confidence level of the offense as a unit?

You don't bench your starter when the game is still in reach unless you plan on leaving him benched.

jargomcfargo
12-11-2009, 02:48 PM
NodakPaul wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Interesting idea for a thread.

TJ - Yes - I am one of a select few who believe we should have benched the Noodle last week and brought TJ and his wheels in against the Cards.

That would have squashed that damn ameoba all over the gridiron as they would have had to defense our offense differently.

Sage - Not a clue. Cat is a mystery to me. My initial opinion is a resounding NO. Mostly cause of were he falls in the pecking order and how that affects how many reps he has had over the year. Which by the way, is very little.

I think it would have made more sense to change the offensive plan to go back to a run/short pass game - which is basically what we would have been doing by putting Jackson in. I don't know if the advantage that you get by putting in TJack would have offset the loss you have by taking the team captain and one of the leaders of the team off from the field.

I know that you might have an alterior motive for wanting to see Favre benched, but can you really look at this objectively and say that you think that benching Favre and bringing in TJack would have been the best option? You don't see that causing conflicts in the team, or breaking down the confidence level of the offense as a unit?

You don't bench your starter when the game is still in reach unless you plan on leaving him benched.

I would have pulled Favre at the end. But only to protect him.
One bad game out of 12 isn't anything to get crazy over. The other game we lost, we played pretty well in general.

marstc09
12-11-2009, 03:22 PM
Marrdro wrote:



TJ - Yes - I am one of a select few who believe we should have benched the Noodle last week and brought TJ and his wheels in against the Cards.


Yet people got pissed for benching TJ after 2 games. Where is that rolling eyes smiley when you need it.

V-Unit
12-11-2009, 03:53 PM
marstc09 wrote:

V-Unit wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

V-Unit wrote:

marstc09 wrote:


While nobody should get too carried away with the Vikings losing their second game of the season, maybe it's not so automatic that the NFC title game will be Vikings-Saints. And for those of you wondering if Brett Favre is allergic to the Pittsburgh-style 3-4 defense — after all, he's lost to the Steelers and Arizona's "Steelers wannabe" Cardinals — other key NFC contenders who also play the 3-4 include those Cardinals, the Cowboys (if they can avoid choking in December) and the steadily improving Packers

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/powerRankings

It amazing how quickly people are ready to jump off our bandwagon, yet the Saints barely beat a pathetic team and get no slack for it.

I agree but the Saints found a way to win and that is all that matters. If we beat the Bungals this will go away. If not, we are in a world of hurt.

The only difference between the Vikings' and Saints' performances last Sunday was that the Saints played a cupcake and the Vikings played a contender.

Losing to Cincy does not put us in a world of hurt. The Steelers are in a world of hurt. The Cardinals lost 4 of their last 6 last year and still went to the Superbowl.

For me, I care a lot about the type of game we play next Sunday. A good loss or a sloppy win? Then again, you can expect us to be perfect against the tougher opponents we are starting to see.

If we look like we did against the Cards, sure I'll be concerned. If we look like we did against the Steelers, I'll take it with a grain of salt. 10-3 is still a damn good football team. Heck, at the beginning of the year I would have been joyful with 11-5.

-V-

There is a huge difference between us and the Saints performances on Sunday. They got a win and we didn't. I could care less about who each played. Losing to Cincy puts us in a world of hurt. It hurts our confidence and shows we can't beat good teams even at home. So then can we beat the Bears, Panthers, and Giants which will be really tough especially since two are on the road. Maybe. We are not the Cards so I don't care what they did last year. You are right it does depend on the type of game we play. If it turns out like the Steelers game I will feel somewhat better but again it is at home not away. This is a crucial game IMO. People want to be so fixed on a 10-3 record but it is not about that. It is about beating good teams and proving we can handle the playoffs. We beat Green Bay twice and that is it for current playoff teams. The only other team we beat that is even in the running is the Ravens. We still have a lot to prove.

They Saints played like shit and got lucky. We played like shit and got beat.

I see where you're coming from, but I'm just not panicking, even if we do lose on Sunday. No reason to think we can't rebound from a couple tough losses.

We have a lot to prove? Anything you prove in the regular season is trivial at best. Things get proven in the playoffs. The team is not responsible for impressing people. They're responsible for wins, and thus far they have gotten those 83% of the time. As long as we clinch a first round bye, I'll be ecstatic, no matter who the wins come against.

-V-