PDA

View Full Version : Green Bay! Fumble! INTs! Positive Revisitation



snowinapril
11-20-2004, 01:56 PM
Sorry, this is my last chance to comment on the GB game.

Facts:

Not a conspiracy!
Fumbles - we were ahead in the turnover ratio.
INTs, we should have had to in the Red Zone. Both were by Williams. I apologize, Earlier this week, I blamed Winfield for dropping one of those 2 but it was Williams who dropped both.

Interpretations:

First Fumble - The Endzone fumble by Fischer, he was on top of it in the endzone, with his hands only, then a scrum came about. Udeze came out of the pile with it.

Second Fumble - The kick return, Davis was on top of it with his hands and body.

I say that the Second fumble was an opportunity for the Refs to be consistant. They blew it. If Fischer had control in the endzone then Davis had control on the KR.


None of these interpretations above mean anything, can't leave decisions like that up for interpretations by the refs.. We put this game in the refs hands by:

Not making more stops.
Not catching the 2 INTs = 10 points for GB.
Dropped passes and overthrows.
Better D and special teams. One possesion, we let them go 70yds on 3 plays for a TD to Franks. 2 runs and a pass.

We lost that game, not the refs.

For those of you that don't believe me watch your tape of the game.

Or watch the NFL channel tonight (11-20-04) at 8pm on the NFL NETWORK.

The one positive thing is we showed some POTENTIAL. Our D needs to trust each other more in order to get stops. The clips they showed on the sideline of the D coaches talking to Claiborne showed that the D is not on the same page yet. They are unsure of their assignments at times. They need to KNOW their assignments on everyplay.

The second positive is, we also showed HEART.

Our player still believe we can win and that is the most important thing. We haven't given up on ourselfs, or team memembers.

DC to Burleson was also a positve, they will have more confidence in each other from here on out.

We are in control from here on out.

LosAngelis
11-20-2004, 03:16 PM
"snowinapril" wrote:



We lost that game, not the refs.

For those of you that don't believe me watch your tape of the game.




Dude...they are SO going to vote you off the island at tribal council tonight.

snowinapril
11-20-2004, 03:31 PM
"LosAngelis" wrote:

"snowinapril" wrote:



We lost that game, not the refs.

For those of you that don't believe me watch your tape of the game.




Dude...they are SO going to vote you off the island at tribal council tonight.

I had a few days to let it sink in and I will stand my ground on this. I tried to justify it all week and it didn't work.

We played tough the 3rd and most of the 4th quarter and came up short.

It was a positive game. It is just hard to swallow after 2 consecutive losses. NO BULL!!! Where is the Jack Black avatar when you need it. Spray it around on this board and my writing in this thread is not going to disappear.

22 views of this thread so far and no one is disputing it. It doesn't mean we are a bad team. It just means he's not into you or wake up and smell the coffee, the truth.

RandyMoss8404
11-20-2004, 05:04 PM
It's very simple. Burleson dropped a TD pass in the first quarter that would have won the game.

XTAP59
11-20-2004, 05:49 PM
"snowinapril" wrote:

Sorry, this is my last chance to comment on the GB game.

Facts:

Not a conspiracy!
Fumbles - we were ahead in the turnover ratio.
INTs, we should have had to in the Red Zone. Both were by Williams. I apologize, Earlier this week, I blamed Winfield for dropping one of those 2 but it was Williams who dropped both.

Interpretations:

First Fumble - The Endzone fumble by Fischer, he was on top of it in the endzone, with his hands only, then a scrum came about. Udeze came out of the pile with it.

Second Fumble - The kick return, Davis was on top of it with his hands and body.

I say that the Second fumble was an opportunity for the Refs to be consistant. They blew it. If Fischer had control in the endzone then Davis had control on the KR.


None of these interpretations above mean anything, can't leave decisions like that up for interpretations by the refs.. We put this game in the refs hands by:

Not making more stops.
Not catching the 2 INTs = 10 points for GB.
Dropped passes and overthrows.
Better D and special teams. One possesion, we let them go 70yds on 3 plays for a TD to Franks. 2 runs and a pass.

We lost that game, not the refs.

For those of you that don't believe me watch your tape of the game.

Or watch the NFL channel tonight (11-20-04) at 8pm on the NFL NETWORK.

The one positive thing is we showed some POTENTIAL. Our D needs to trust each other more in order to get stops. The clips they showed on the sideline of the D coaches talking to Claiborne showed that the D is not on the same page yet. They are unsure of their assignments at times. They need to KNOW their assignments on everyplay.

The second positive is, we also showed HEART.

Our player still believe we can win and that is the most important thing. We haven't given up on ourselfs, or team memembers.

DC to Burleson was also a positve, they will have more confidence in each other from here on out.

We are in control from here on out.

Again, the REFS do not play the game, they only officiate. They do not make bad calls on every play. Or for every game. I am suggesting that during certain pivotal games, such as the Vikes / Pack game, a REF can take control and determine the outcome such as the fumble after the Vikes scored to tie the game up. The ball should have been awarded to the Vikes leaving them only 10 yards from FG range. Instead, the ball was rewarded to Green bay who marched down field and kicked the game winning FG. One play. One call, different outcome.

LOTGK

snowinapril
11-20-2004, 06:06 PM
Remember, this isn't just about the Packers Game, this is every game.

True the Refs have an impact but what I am saying is forget about that. It does no good to worry about it no. The vikes have to concentrate on what they are doing on the field so that refs don't have as much to put their 2 cents on the game.

Player are human and make mistakes.

Refs are human and they make mistakes.

Sometimes if the players wouldn't make mistakes, the refs don't get a chance to make mistake.

Mistakes = Cortez short kick and coverage on the return. Just one example.

Make less mistakes and everyone will be happier.

Concentrate on what the Vikes can do right on every play that is what I am saying.

XTAP59
11-20-2004, 06:22 PM
"snowinapril" wrote:

Remember, this isn't just about the Packers Game, this is every game.

True the Refs have an impact but what I am saying is forget about that. It does no good to worry about it no. The vikes have to concentrate on what they are doing on the field so that refs don't have as much to put their 2 cents on the game.

Player are human and make mistakes.

Refs are human and they make mistakes.

Sometimes if the players wouldn't make mistakes, the refs don't get a chance to make mistake.

Mistakes = Cortez short kick and coverage on the return. Just one example.

Make less mistakes and everyone will be happier.

Concentrate on what the Vikes can do right on every play that is what I am saying.

Absolutely agree that this isn't about only one game. Its the entire NFL.
And to make myself clear, yes, I know REFS make mistakes, they are only human afteral. They are also biased, for they are only human afteral. I am not commenting on the normal ebb and flow of a game, (mistakes being made by both teams, penalties, poor clock management, missed FG's, dropped passes, etc..) but during certain games where NFL interests are concerned.

This is not a conspiracy against the Vikes when they play the packers, but all the NFL. It is a business afterall.

LOTGK

LosAngelis
11-20-2004, 06:38 PM
The tribe has spoken.

VKG4LFE
11-20-2004, 06:54 PM
"snowinapril" wrote:

Sorry, this is my last chance to comment on the GB game.

Facts:

Not a conspiracy!
Fumbles - we were ahead in the turnover ratio.
INTs, we should have had to in the Red Zone. Both were by Williams. I apologize, Earlier this week, I blamed Winfield for dropping one of those 2 but it was Williams who dropped both.

Interpretations:

First Fumble - The Endzone fumble by Fischer, he was on top of it in the endzone, with his hands only, then a scrum came about. Udeze came out of the pile with it.

Second Fumble - The kick return, Davis was on top of it with his hands and body.

I say that the Second fumble was an opportunity for the Refs to be consistant. They blew it. If Fischer had control in the endzone then Davis had control on the KR.


None of these interpretations above mean anything, can't leave decisions like that up for interpretations by the refs.. We put this game in the refs hands by:

Not making more stops.
Not catching the 2 INTs = 10 points for GB.
Dropped passes and overthrows.
Better D and special teams. One possesion, we let them go 70yds on 3 plays for a TD to Franks. 2 runs and a pass.

We lost that game, not the refs.

For those of you that don't believe me watch your tape of the game.

Or watch the NFL channel tonight (11-20-04) at 8pm on the NFL NETWORK.

The one positive thing is we showed some POTENTIAL. Our D needs to trust each other more in order to get stops. The clips they showed on the sideline of the D coaches talking to Claiborne showed that the D is not on the same page yet. They are unsure of their assignments at times. They need to KNOW their assignments on everyplay.

The second positive is, we also showed HEART.

Our player still believe we can win and that is the most important thing. We haven't given up on ourselfs, or team memembers.

DC to Burleson was also a positve, they will have more confidence in each other from here on out.

We are in control from here on out.

I have to agree.

LosAngelis
11-20-2004, 07:29 PM
"VKG4LFE" wrote:



I have to agree.

Accckkk!! An alliance!

GreenBaySlackers
11-20-2004, 07:31 PM
ack? what is ack?

snowinapril
11-20-2004, 07:54 PM
"LosAngelis" wrote:

"VKG4LFE" wrote:



I have to agree.

Accckkk!! An alliance!

It is like saying oh no!

Oh no the vike fans are uniting and the team will unite and they will take that momentum all the way through the season and to the Superbowl.

That kind of acckk, is that what you are refering to LOS.

LosAngelis
11-20-2004, 09:08 PM
"snowinapril" wrote:

"LosAngelis" wrote:

"VKG4LFE" wrote:



I have to agree.

Accckkk!! An alliance!

It is like saying oh no!

Oh no the vike fans are uniting and the team will unite and they will take that momentum all the way through the season and to the Superbowl.

That kind of acckk, is that what you are refering to LOS.

It's more "Aaccckkk! You don't have the immunity horned-helmet-and-braids toinght!" kind of "acck".

snowinapril
11-20-2004, 09:58 PM
I like the momentum theory Acckk better.

ItalianStallion
11-20-2004, 10:05 PM
Just so you know, that first fumble by GB, was not Udeze's ball. Fisher fumbled it, then landed on it in the endzone before Udeze pulled it away...touchdown.

XTAP59
11-21-2004, 12:24 AM
"GreenBaySlackers" wrote:

ack? what is ack?

If memory serves me, I believe "Ack" was one of the holy words of the Knights who say Nei.....
Or was that....

ecki, ecki, ecki, nei, wampooh......

snowinapril
11-21-2004, 02:34 AM
"ItalianStallion" wrote:

Just so you know, that first fumble by GB, was not Udeze's ball. Fisher fumbled it, then landed on it in the endzone before Udeze pulled it away...touchdown.

That being said, he never covered it for more than a milli second. The ball was behind him and he had his hands on it but one could argue he never had possession of it. But that is not my point.

The point is that if they are going to call Fishers cover of the ball possession, they need to call Davis cover of the ball, possession. But my overall point is we should have wrapped the game up way before the fumbles.

In Tice's press conference, he said that Burleson had a hell of a game but should have caught the dropped pass and would have scored six. But we had to settle for the FG instead. The difference is 4 points plus the differnce of the 2 int in the redzone that Williams dropped which is another 10 points. That is 14 points all together. 34 minus 14 is 20.

Final score 31-20 Vikings. But the vikings lost the games because of the lack of carpi diem.

WE LOST THE GAME OURSELVES

A packer fan asked me before the game, "which Favre will show up, the one that heaves ball for INTs or the one that plays great football?"

Well the one that heaves balls for INTs showed up but we didn't catch the INTs. (how do you like that LOS?)

hawaiianvike21
11-21-2004, 05:17 AM
"ItalianStallion" wrote:

Just so you know, that first fumble by GB, was not Udeze's ball. Fisher fumbled it, then landed on it in the endzone before Udeze pulled it away...touchdown.


YOu sure about that, i swear to god that ball poped out and out of the pile came udeze. NO sign of him recovering the ball in fishers point of view.

LosAngelis
11-21-2004, 11:16 AM
"snowinapril" wrote:



Well the one that heaves balls for INTs showed up but we didn't catch the INTs. (how do you like that LOS?)

Actually, I've made the point several times that the last pass he threw to Fisher was easily pickable-offable, Chavous would have had decent coverage and position.

But, given the coverage, I do think that was the only place he could have put it and made a first down.

I just recorded the NFL Game of the week last night and was watching the game again. I found it funny they showed NO replays of the Ferguson fumble other than the press box angle.

And, even though the game was over days ago, I found my stomach twisting into knots as the Viking scored 14 points in the 4th Quarter.

ItalianStallion
11-21-2004, 11:47 AM
"hawaiianvike21" wrote:

"ItalianStallion" wrote:

Just so you know, that first fumble by GB, was not Udeze's ball. Fisher fumbled it, then landed on it in the endzone before Udeze pulled it away...touchdown.


YOu sure about that, i swear to god that ball poped out and out of the pile came udeze. NO sign of him recovering the ball in fishers point of view.

Fisher clearly landed on it in the endzone. Even if only for a millisecond that is a touchdown.

Caine
11-21-2004, 11:49 AM
"ItalianStallion" wrote:

Just so you know, that first fumble by GB, was not Udeze's ball. Fisher fumbled it, then landed on it in the endzone before Udeze pulled it away...touchdown.

Won't dispute that - but, by the same logic, the last fumble was Ross' ball, and Steel only managed to get a hand in AFTER Ross established possession.

While I agree with the overall sentiment of XTAP59's post, the game last week was blown by the Officials. Granted, the by-line is, "We never should have been in that position", but we were. Yes, they blew other calls as well, but THAT call - at the END of a game - irretrievably ended Minnesota's come back.

I don't buy into a NFL conspiracy to favor Favre or Green Bay...never have. I just buy into the theory that we've seen some bad officiating in key situations against Green Bay - IN Green Bay - in 2 of the last 3 years. Not a conspiracy...just bad luck.

Caine

XTAP59
11-21-2004, 12:38 PM
"Caine" wrote:

"ItalianStallion" wrote:

Just so you know, that first fumble by GB, was not Udeze's ball. Fisher fumbled it, then landed on it in the endzone before Udeze pulled it away...touchdown.

Won't dispute that - but, by the same logic, the last fumble was Ross' ball, and Steel only managed to get a hand in AFTER Ross established possession.

While I agree with the overall sentiment of XTAP59's post, the game last week was blown by the Officials. Granted, the by-line is, "We never should have been in that position", but we were. Yes, they blew other calls as well, but THAT call - at the END of a game - irretrievably ended Minnesota's come back.

I don't buy into a NFL conspiracy to favor Favre or Green Bay...never have. I just buy into the theory that we've seen some bad officiating in key situations against Green Bay - IN Green Bay - in 2 of the last 3 years. Not a conspiracy...just bad luck.

Caine

And, it's not just Favre and Greenbay. it's the Eagles as well and the other high profile teams with dynamic players like Mcnabb that the NFL wants to keep in the spotlight.

I listened to FOX NFL just now. The hype for the Vikes / Lions game:
Are the Vikings afraid of winning, is this a repeat of last year?

I'm sure the packer hype will be somewhat different.