PDA

View Full Version : Vikings' Udeze is only a little sad over lack of sacks



singersp
11-23-2006, 08:29 AM
Vikings' Udeze is only a little sad over lack of sacks (http://www.startribune.com/510/story/828017.html)

The Vikings defensive end says he wouldn't care a bit about stats if the team would start winning.

Judd Zulgad, Star Tribune
Last update: November 21, 2006 – 11:39 PM

PurplePackerEater
11-23-2006, 10:33 AM
-"The Vikings defensive end says he wouldn't care a bit about stats if the team would start winning."-


Aren't these guys advised to say things like this to keep up public relations?

Or is it to cover a lack luster performance?

PurplePackerEater
11-23-2006, 10:35 AM
It just says, to me, that he only cares about stats if they're "good".

vikes2456
11-23-2006, 12:27 PM
"PurplePackerEater" wrote:


It just says, to me, that he only cares about stats if they're "good".


Sort of a negative way of looking at it. I'm sure if he would rather have a decent performance and win every game, than get two sacks a game and lose. Remember, there is no greater feeling than winning the game

ItalianStallion
11-23-2006, 12:37 PM
"vikes2456" wrote:


"PurplePackerEater" wrote:


It just says, to me, that he only cares about stats if they're "good".


Sort of a negative way of looking at it. I'm sure if he would rather have a decent performance and win every game, than get two sacks a game and lose. Remember, there is no greater feeling than winning the game


What about signing a fat contract extension?
:)

enlvikeman
11-23-2006, 01:19 PM
There is a reason why we are number 1 against the run and he is a big part of the reason.
Just a one dimensional DE.

cogitans
11-23-2006, 03:02 PM
"enlvikeman" wrote:


There is a reason why we are number 1 against the run and he is a big part of the reason.
Just a one dimensional DE.


As the article says. He's right up there with the QB hurries, and he has had the sacks in the past.

I wouldn't call him one dimensional. He'll get back at getting the QB down again.

farvathevikinglover
11-23-2006, 05:52 PM
I don't care as much about sacks as I do about STOPPING THE PASS! We give up -3 rushing yards and still give up 24 (however many it was) points. That sounds like a crapload of passing yards and passing TDs (also defensive tds). although... sacks do help stop the pass. now that I think about it, I checked out the stats, and I'm pretty sure K-Will's the only guy wtih more than 2 (I think he has 5). possibly connected to the lacking of good passing defense.

singersp
11-23-2006, 06:21 PM
"farvathevikinglover" wrote:


I don't care as much about sacks as I do about STOPPING THE PASS! We give up -3 rushing yards and still give up 24 (however many it was) points. That sounds like a crapload of passing yards and passing TDs (also defensive tds). although... sacks do help stop the pass. now that I think about it, I checked out the stats, and I'm pretty sure K-Will's the only guy wtih more than 2 (I think he has 5). possibly connected to the lacking of good passing defense.


We didn't give up -3 yards rushing, we gave up +4.

http://www.startribune.com/510/story/825427.html

farvathevikinglover
11-23-2006, 06:29 PM
My bad. Still, that's only a seven yard difference.

Mr Anderson
11-23-2006, 08:16 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"farvathevikinglover" wrote:


I don't care as much about sacks as I do about STOPPING THE PASS! We give up -3 rushing yards and still give up 24 (however many it was) points. That sounds like a crapload of passing yards and passing TDs (also defensive tds). although... sacks do help stop the pass. now that I think about it, I checked out the stats, and I'm pretty sure K-Will's the only guy wtih more than 2 (I think he has 5). possibly connected to the lacking of good passing defense.


We didn't give up -3 yards rushing, we gave up +4.

http://www.startribune.com/510/story/825427.html



Well I'm still going to say -3.