PDA

View Full Version : Vikings CB Cook leaves with groin injury



Purple Floyd
09-18-2011, 08:03 PM
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/44570070/sports/player_news


Vikings CB Chris Cook left Sunday's game in the second quarter with a groin injury.


(http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/44570070/sports/player_news)The extent is unknown, but the Vikings called him questionable to return. Cook is a starting outside cornerback in Minnesota's nickel packages. His backup is Asher Allen, who has struggled throughout his three-year career.

(http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/44570070/sports/player_news)

Webby
09-18-2011, 08:27 PM
we are more screwed than we were already screwed at that position.

Marrdro
09-19-2011, 11:59 AM
we are more screwed than we were already screwed at that position.
How so? It wasn't the CB's who let us down yesterday, unless of course you put the defensive meltdown on them instead of the Coaches who tried to get pressure with our front 4 alone or the front 4 who couldn't get pressure without help.

Purple Floyd
09-19-2011, 06:39 PM
How so? It wasn't the CB's who let us down yesterday, unless of course you put the defensive meltdown on them instead of the Coaches who tried to get pressure with our front 4 alone or the front 4 who couldn't get pressure without help.

Explain how the coaches were at fault for the secondary missing tackles all over the place and for Griff getting burned for that TD? Are they supposed to make the tackle and cover the WR's for them?

Marrdro
09-20-2011, 02:30 PM
Explain how the coaches were at fault for the secondary missing tackles all over the place and for Griff getting burned for that TD? Are they supposed to make the tackle and cover the WR's for them?
They aren't, just like I'm not blaming the secondary for missing tackles that the DL and LB'rs should have tackled first.

In the end the defense was effective when they were bringing atleast one S and Whinny down to help and dropping LB'rs. For some reason the staff elected to get away from that and the Bucs picked us apart.

When I see something like that I looked to the staff and ask why did you change? Did the injury to Cook force your hand? If so, I can buy that.

Still doesn't alleviate the fact that we have a gaping hole at DT that isn't gonna be fixed when K-dubb returns.

Purple Floyd
09-20-2011, 02:49 PM
They aren't, just like I'm not blaming the secondary for missing tackles that the DL and LB'rs should have tackled first.

if you go back and watch the game there were several missed tackles by the secondary and whether or not ( Not in the cases I am referring to) the LB's or the DT's did or didn't tackle the player the fact remains if a player is in their zone and they don't tackle them it is darn sure their fault.


In the end the defense was effective when they were bringing atleast one S and Whinny down to help and dropping LB'rs. For some reason the staff elected to get away from that and the Bucs picked us apart.

The scheme means nothing when a guy with the ball is running in the zone of a DB and that DB whiffs a tackle.




Still doesn't alleviate the fact that we have a gaping hole at DT that isn't gonna be fixed when K-dubb returns.

Funny thing is the DT is still not going to be the defenses biggest liability. They will do just as well as the OL and will be more reliable than the secondary will.

Marrdro
09-20-2011, 02:59 PM
if you go back and watch the game there were several missed tackles by the secondary and whether or not ( Not in the cases I am referring to) the LB's or the DT's did or didn't tackle the player the fact remains if a player is in their zone and they don't tackle them it is darn sure their fault.



The scheme means nothing when a guy with the ball is running in the zone of a DB and that DB whiffs a tackle.





Funny thing is the DT is still not going to be the defenses biggest liability. They will do just as well as the OL and will be more reliable than the secondary will.
Show me one place were I have said that a missed tackle by anyone was excusable. Only thing you will find about that from me is that when you play a zone, you expect the guy to cover his area. As you get further and further away from the DL the area gets bigger.

Sometimes I will give a S slack if he was in say a cloud (cover 3) look playing the left hash and he had to get all the way over to the right side of the field in an effort to make a tackle on a cat that a DE, OL and possibly even a CB should have got to.

Purple Floyd
09-20-2011, 03:07 PM
Show me one place were I have said that a missed tackle by anyone was excusable. Only thing you will find about that from me is that when you play a zone, you expect the guy to cover his area. As you get further and further away from the DL the area gets bigger.

Sometimes I will give a S slack if he was in say a cloud (cover 3) look playing the left hash and he had to get all the way over to the right side of the field in an effort to make a tackle on a cat that a DE, OL and possibly even a CB should have got to.

Fine, but when is is within 5 yards of the play and still get beat how do you justify it?

Marrdro
09-20-2011, 03:12 PM
Fine, but when is is within 5 yards of the play and still get beat how do you justify it?
I don't think you have ever seen me try to justify it. Go back and look at my end of game post for the Chargers. Can't remember the S that got ran over but I poked him for it.

singersp
09-22-2011, 07:39 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vg9ruee3Vos