PDA

View Full Version : Vikes lose to Skins



Webby
11-28-2010, 05:16 PM
If the Vikes lose to the Skins, then where do you stand?

Coach or the players causing the issues?

Or too early for referendum on Frazier (I am not expecting much, but maybe a spark with new leader)

Infidel
11-28-2010, 05:25 PM
First of all, Childress was a huge part of the problem....as things got worse he got more defensive, obnoxious and insecure rather that being the rock that the coach is supposed to be.

Second.

Too early to tell anything about anything.

But it could be the start of better things.

ThorSPL
11-28-2010, 05:36 PM
I really think there was a lot wrong with the team, whether we win or lose.

Childress had major issues, but it goes beyond that IMO. Favre is playing terrible, the line(s) is/are playing terrible, and the team has no heart. SOME of that is Childress, but some of it has to go deeper....

Lets hope the boys have heart back; heart alone should beat the deadskins.

singersp
11-28-2010, 05:41 PM
If the Vikes lose to the Skins, then where do you stand?

Coach or the players causing the issues?

Or too early for referendum on Frazier (I am not expecting much, but maybe a spark with new leader)

It would have to be both.

As I stated before Childress may be gone, but his buddies, some of which shouldn't be coaching at the pro level, are still there.

The pus is gone, but there's still infection.

This is a .500 team we are going up against who is 29th against the pass & 27th against the rush.

If we don't come out of this with a win and/or a very impressive offensive showing with Favre & Bevell being given the greenlight to do what they want, there's no other place to look but at the players on offense.

Bevell will still be Favre's "Yes" man, just as he was in GB.

Probably why Favre likes him so much.

It seems in recent history, whenever Favre has a bad year, a HC or OC gets fired, whether it's in GB, NY or MN.

If it continues, another coach/assitant coach may go

Purple Floyd
11-28-2010, 05:56 PM
Childress is gone but we are left with the staff that he put in place and the system he wanted to run. The guys taking his place are his guys and I am not expecting the change to be earth shattering. I would like to see effort from every player on every play and if we get that I would say we went in the right direction.

HEY
11-28-2010, 05:57 PM
When I first saw this thread I almost was shocked cause I thought the game was moved and they already played and lost to the Redskins. :lol:

For me, it's not whether we lose or win. It's about how the Vikes play.
If the Vikings play as horrible as they have done lately, it doesn't matter if they win.

Infidel
11-28-2010, 06:03 PM
None of this makes any difference if the Vikings continue to be unable to play on grass.

But I'm optimistic today.

If they lose, I'll still be optimistic because I think that the worst obstacle has been removed and things will get better as we go along.

Traveling_Vike
11-28-2010, 06:51 PM
When I first saw this thread I almost was shocked cause I thought the game was moved and they already played and lost to the Redskins. :lol:

For me, it's not whether we lose or win. It's about how the Vikes play.
If the Vikings play as horrible as they have done lately, it doesn't matter if they win.


A big +1 on that.

Wins and losses don't matter any more at this point. It's all about attitude and effort.

Infidel
11-28-2010, 07:03 PM
Attitude and effort seem good today.

We need to put pressure on McNab or he's gonna take our secondary apart.

Good thing is.....I don't see Vikings slipping on grass.

swardsooner
11-28-2010, 09:17 PM
Last run for a first down Frazier asked "What do you feel most comfortable running?" Farve answered "How 'bout a bootleg?" Frazier says ok....history.

Fresh air man.

marstc09
11-28-2010, 11:33 PM
If the Vikes lose to the Skins, then where do you stand?

Coach or the players causing the issues?

Or too early for referendum on Frazier (I am not expecting much, but maybe a spark with new leader)

As I stated before Childress may be gone, but his buddies, some of which shouldn't be coaching at the pro level, are still there.


His buddies look fine to me. Chilly was the cancer.

i_bleed_purple
11-28-2010, 11:44 PM
If the Vikes lose to the Skins, then where do you stand?

Coach or the players causing the issues?

Or too early for referendum on Frazier (I am not expecting much, but maybe a spark with new leader)

As I stated before Childress may be gone, but his buddies, some of which shouldn't be coaching at the pro level, are still there.


His buddies look fine to me. Chilly was the cancer.

still remainst o be seen, but I think Bevell did a great job calling the O. Funny how that changes when Chilly isn't sitting there meddling.

singersp
11-28-2010, 11:48 PM
If the Vikes lose to the Skins, then where do you stand?

Coach or the players causing the issues?

Or too early for referendum on Frazier (I am not expecting much, but maybe a spark with new leader)

As I stated before Childress may be gone, but his buddies, some of which shouldn't be coaching at the pro level, are still there.


His buddies look fine to me. Chilly was the cancer.

Um, lets wait until there's more than just 1 game played post Childress, before anointing coaches.

When Chilly seduced Favre into coming here last year, you were 100% backing Childress.

singersp
11-28-2010, 11:50 PM
If the Vikes lose to the Skins, then where do you stand?

Coach or the players causing the issues?

Or too early for referendum on Frazier (I am not expecting much, but maybe a spark with new leader)

As I stated before Childress may be gone, but his buddies, some of which shouldn't be coaching at the pro level, are still there.


His buddies look fine to me. Chilly was the cancer.

still remainst o be seen, but I think Bevell did a great job calling the O. Funny how that changes when Chilly isn't sitting there meddling.

Did Darrell call it or did Favre call it?

marstc09
11-28-2010, 11:53 PM
If the Vikes lose to the Skins, then where do you stand?

Coach or the players causing the issues?

Or too early for referendum on Frazier (I am not expecting much, but maybe a spark with new leader)

As I stated before Childress may be gone, but his buddies, some of which shouldn't be coaching at the pro level, are still there.


His buddies look fine to me. Chilly was the cancer.

Um, lets wait until there's more than just 1 game played post Childress, before anointing coaches.

When Chilly seduced Favre into coming here last year, you were 100% backing Childress.

Wrong again. I was backing Favre.

marstc09
11-28-2010, 11:55 PM
If the Vikes lose to the Skins, then where do you stand?

Coach or the players causing the issues?

Or too early for referendum on Frazier (I am not expecting much, but maybe a spark with new leader)

As I stated before Childress may be gone, but his buddies, some of which shouldn't be coaching at the pro level, are still there.


His buddies look fine to me. Chilly was the cancer.

still remainst o be seen, but I think Bevell did a great job calling the O. Funny how that changes when Chilly isn't sitting there meddling.

Did Darrell call it or did Favre call it?

They worked together. Something Chilly didn't understand.

Infidel
11-29-2010, 03:15 AM
I'm thinking Childress called plays he thought were most likely to get Favre killed.

The new Darrell/Brett partnership has got to be a LOT better than that.

:D

Zeus
11-29-2010, 03:32 PM
If the Vikes lose to the Skins, then where do you stand?

Coach or the players causing the issues?

Or too early for referendum on Frazier (I am not expecting much, but maybe a spark with new leader)

As I stated before Childress may be gone, but his buddies, some of which shouldn't be coaching at the pro level, are still there.


His buddies look fine to me. Chilly was the cancer.

still remainst o be seen, but I think Bevell did a great job calling the O. Funny how that changes when Chilly isn't sitting there meddling.

299 total net yards is a "great job calling the O"?

Amazing how nice everything appears to be when your ancient QB isn't tossing the ball to the other team.

=Z=

i_bleed_purple
11-29-2010, 04:05 PM
If the Vikes lose to the Skins, then where do you stand?

Coach or the players causing the issues?

Or too early for referendum on Frazier (I am not expecting much, but maybe a spark with new leader)

As I stated before Childress may be gone, but his buddies, some of which shouldn't be coaching at the pro level, are still there.


His buddies look fine to me. Chilly was the cancer.

still remainst o be seen, but I think Bevell did a great job calling the O. Funny how that changes when Chilly isn't sitting there meddling.

299 total net yards is a "great job calling the O"?

Amazing how nice everything appears to be when your ancient QB isn't tossing the ball to the other team.

=Z=

Yes, I think it is.

They mixed in the run and pass pretty well. I liked the play action and use of screen passes.... Things that Chilly seems to forget about.

When he's allowed free reign over the playbook, as well as working with Favre to come up with go-to plays that they're comfortable running, Yes, I think he did a great job.

Just think if we connected on a few of those deeper balls. that 299 yards could be 400+ yards easily. If Peterson didn't get hurt, our run game probably does even better.

The playcalling was alot of short and medium routes, and it was working. Some poor execution kept plays form working, but I don't think there was a single 'bad call' that I didn't like. Maybe some dump-offs on 3rd and long, but we weren't in a 'need to score now' position.

Zeus
11-29-2010, 04:52 PM
Just think if we connected on a few of those deeper balls. that 299 yards could be 400+ yards easily. If Peterson didn't get hurt, our run game probably does even better.

You should know me well enough at this point to know that I don't play the "if" game.

=Z=

marshallvike
11-29-2010, 04:56 PM
Just think if we connected on a few of those deeper balls. that 299 yards could be 400+ yards easily. If Peterson didn't get hurt, our run game probably does even better.

You should know me well enough at this point to know that I don't play the "if" game.

=Z=


If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, wed all have a merry Christmas
Dandy Don

i_bleed_purple
11-29-2010, 05:00 PM
Just think if we connected on a few of those deeper balls. that 299 yards could be 400+ yards easily. If Peterson didn't get hurt, our run game probably does even better.

You should know me well enough at this point to know that I don't play the "if" game.

=Z=

my point still stands. I think he did a great job playcalling. What do you want him to do, call all deep routes?

TG isn't the kind of guy to break of big gains like Peterson. He pounds it between the tackles, and occasionally might hit the second level. He had an alright day. Not fantastic, but solid. Peterson was already at 70 yards in the second quarter. That hurt our performance.

Some missed plays due to poor execution, and good plays by the D, but all in all, I liked the playcalling. I thought it was almost too much play action, but it seemed to work quite well.

Zeus
11-29-2010, 05:09 PM
Just think if we connected on a few of those deeper balls. that 299 yards could be 400+ yards easily. If Peterson didn't get hurt, our run game probably does even better.

You should know me well enough at this point to know that I don't play the "if" game.

my point still stands. I think he did a great job playcalling. What do you want him to do, call all deep routes?

TG isn't the kind of guy to break of big gains like Peterson. He pounds it between the tackles, and occasionally might hit the second level. He had an alright day. Not fantastic, but solid. Peterson was already at 70 yards in the second quarter. That hurt our performance.

Some missed plays due to poor execution, and good plays by the D, but all in all, I liked the playcalling. I thought it was almost too much play action, but it seemed to work quite well.

And I, personally, didn't have a lot of problems with the play-calling when Childress was in charge. I had problems with the execution.

=Z=

i_bleed_purple
11-29-2010, 05:18 PM
Just think if we connected on a few of those deeper balls. that 299 yards could be 400+ yards easily. If Peterson didn't get hurt, our run game probably does even better.

You should know me well enough at this point to know that I don't play the "if" game.

my point still stands. I think he did a great job playcalling. What do you want him to do, call all deep routes?

TG isn't the kind of guy to break of big gains like Peterson. He pounds it between the tackles, and occasionally might hit the second level. He had an alright day. Not fantastic, but solid. Peterson was already at 70 yards in the second quarter. That hurt our performance.

Some missed plays due to poor execution, and good plays by the D, but all in all, I liked the playcalling. I thought it was almost too much play action, but it seemed to work quite well.

And I, personally, didn't have a lot of problems with the play-calling when Childress was in charge. I had problems with the execution.

=Z=

There are only so many times we can bring the draw on third and long.

And did you notice, when you throw to AP in the flats, he can usually make something out of it? we didn't really do that much at all. Play action was very effective yesterday, but strangely absent from our playcalling previously.

marstc09
11-29-2010, 05:32 PM
If the Vikes lose to the Skins, then where do you stand?

Coach or the players causing the issues?

Or too early for referendum on Frazier (I am not expecting much, but maybe a spark with new leader)

As I stated before Childress may be gone, but his buddies, some of which shouldn't be coaching at the pro level, are still there.


His buddies look fine to me. Chilly was the cancer.

still remainst o be seen, but I think Bevell did a great job calling the O. Funny how that changes when Chilly isn't sitting there meddling.

299 total net yards is a "great job calling the O"?

Amazing how nice everything appears to be when your ancient QB isn't tossing the ball to the other team.

=Z=

LMFAO!

Amazing how that "ancient" QB does not make mistakes when you use him properly by concentrating on the bootleg. Maybe if Chilly actually listened to his players instead of being a self absorbed prick he would still be coaching.

marstc09
11-29-2010, 05:36 PM
Just think if we connected on a few of those deeper balls. that 299 yards could be 400+ yards easily. If Peterson didn't get hurt, our run game probably does even better.

You should know me well enough at this point to know that I don't play the "if" game.

my point still stands. I think he did a great job playcalling. What do you want him to do, call all deep routes?

TG isn't the kind of guy to break of big gains like Peterson. He pounds it between the tackles, and occasionally might hit the second level. He had an alright day. Not fantastic, but solid. Peterson was already at 70 yards in the second quarter. That hurt our performance.

Some missed plays due to poor execution, and good plays by the D, but all in all, I liked the playcalling. I thought it was almost too much play action, but it seemed to work quite well.

And I, personally, didn't have a lot of problems with the play-calling when Childress was in charge. I had problems with the execution.

=Z=

Judging by what happened Sunday, that Chilly play calling might have led to poor execution.

Zeus
11-29-2010, 05:40 PM
Just think if we connected on a few of those deeper balls. that 299 yards could be 400+ yards easily. If Peterson didn't get hurt, our run game probably does even better.

You should know me well enough at this point to know that I don't play the "if" game.

my point still stands. I think he did a great job playcalling. What do you want him to do, call all deep routes?

TG isn't the kind of guy to break of big gains like Peterson. He pounds it between the tackles, and occasionally might hit the second level. He had an alright day. Not fantastic, but solid. Peterson was already at 70 yards in the second quarter. That hurt our performance.

Some missed plays due to poor execution, and good plays by the D, but all in all, I liked the playcalling. I thought it was almost too much play action, but it seemed to work quite well.

And I, personally, didn't have a lot of problems with the play-calling when Childress was in charge. I had problems with the execution.

Judging by what happened Sunday, that Chilly play calling might have led to poor execution.

I am amazed that you can look at the paltry offensive output from yesterday (299 total yards, 6 for 15 on 3rd down) and think it was some great advance over what occurred when Childress was here.

=Z=

marstc09
11-29-2010, 05:46 PM
Just think if we connected on a few of those deeper balls. that 299 yards could be 400+ yards easily. If Peterson didn't get hurt, our run game probably does even better.

You should know me well enough at this point to know that I don't play the "if" game.

my point still stands. I think he did a great job playcalling. What do you want him to do, call all deep routes?

TG isn't the kind of guy to break of big gains like Peterson. He pounds it between the tackles, and occasionally might hit the second level. He had an alright day. Not fantastic, but solid. Peterson was already at 70 yards in the second quarter. That hurt our performance.

Some missed plays due to poor execution, and good plays by the D, but all in all, I liked the playcalling. I thought it was almost too much play action, but it seemed to work quite well.

And I, personally, didn't have a lot of problems with the play-calling when Childress was in charge. I had problems with the execution.

Judging by what happened Sunday, that Chilly play calling might have led to poor execution.

I am amazed that you can look at the paltry offensive output from yesterday (299 total yards, 6 for 15 on 3rd down) and think it was some great advance over what occurred when Childress was here.

=Z=

I am amazed that you expect perfection after 3 days of practice. Just plain silly. Also, when did I use "great advance"? Please show me oh great one. All I said was that he is off to a great start.

Zeus
11-29-2010, 05:51 PM
Just think if we connected on a few of those deeper balls. that 299 yards could be 400+ yards easily. If Peterson didn't get hurt, our run game probably does even better.

You should know me well enough at this point to know that I don't play the "if" game.

my point still stands. I think he did a great job playcalling. What do you want him to do, call all deep routes?

TG isn't the kind of guy to break of big gains like Peterson. He pounds it between the tackles, and occasionally might hit the second level. He had an alright day. Not fantastic, but solid. Peterson was already at 70 yards in the second quarter. That hurt our performance.

Some missed plays due to poor execution, and good plays by the D, but all in all, I liked the playcalling. I thought it was almost too much play action, but it seemed to work quite well.

And I, personally, didn't have a lot of problems with the play-calling when Childress was in charge. I had problems with the execution.

There are only so many times we can bring the draw on third and long.


Like this play from yesterday, right?

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2010112803/2010/REG12/vikings@redskins#tab:analyze/analyze-channels:cat-post-playbyplay

3-10-MIN 25 (1:08) (Shotgun) 32-T.Gerhart right tackle to MIN 30 for 5 yards (41-K.Moore; 59-L.Fletcher).

And how about those handoffs to Jeff Dugan! Damn, that was some EXCITING play-calling!

=Z=

Infidel
11-29-2010, 08:02 PM
And I, personally, didn't have a lot of problems with the play-calling when Childress was in charge. I had problems with the execution.

I have to laugh.

Childress constantly called stupid plays.

Would Childress have allowed Favre to run the naked bootleg yesterday and ice the game?

No......Childress was far too much of an insecure ass to allow Favre to shine like that.

But then if Childress had been calling the plays we wouldn't have been in any position to ice the game.

We would have been playing catch-up.

Zeus
11-29-2010, 08:53 PM
And I, personally, didn't have a lot of problems with the play-calling when Childress was in charge. I had problems with the execution.

I have to laugh.

Childress constantly called stupid plays.

Would Childress have allowed Favre to run the naked bootleg yesterday and ice the game?

No......Childress was far too much of an insecure ass to allow Favre to shine like that.

Except, of course, for last season where Favre had the best season of his career.

=Z=

Infidel
11-29-2010, 08:54 PM
Yawn.

That was then, this is now.

Maybe someday you will learn to tell the difference.

;)

slavinator
11-29-2010, 09:12 PM
Didn't see a big difference in the play calling other than a more focused approach to the run game. This has been my complaint for most of the season. I understand that the game dictates going away from AP or TG but our team needs the run in order to be effective in the pass. Where I was pleasantly surprised was in the level of intensity. They all seemed focused on the task at hand for the full 60 minutes.

As to the naked boot to ice the game, come on guys.......that was a designed roll that turned into the Skins goading Favre to run it. He did and it was a good play, and it iced the game, but this was not by design. Had the LB come off the receiver in the flat, Brett wouldve thrown it there. He took the option that was most open which is what should be done.

Overall I like the direction thus far with Leslie. What I really liked was in his initial interview where he said "we want to get this team back to a level where fans are proud to be Viking fans again."(or something close to that) I know it was said for affect but it resonated with me.

Skol!

Infidel
11-29-2010, 09:20 PM
A damned good thing they didn't simplify the naked bootleg out of the offense!!!

I guess that shows that they are confident in Favre's ability to move.

:D

Infidel
11-30-2010, 12:36 AM
Slavinator said:


As to the naked boot to ice the game, come on guys.......that was a designed roll that turned into the Skins goading Favre to run it.

Huh?

I've seen the play a number of times now.

There was no goading from the Skins.....just panic when they saw the space he had and realized he was going to ice the game.

Frazier acknowledged that it was a naked bootleg called by Favre with his approval.

It was a tremendously intelligent call because a run by Favre was the LAST thing the Redskins expected. Sheer genius....sheer guts.

Facts are always better than speculation.

;)