I'm starting to believe in our defense (yeah, I said it!). They held the run heavy 49ers to 65 rushing yards total, and proved that Purdy couldn't win with his arm. Purdy did well throwing (21/30 272), but the two picks were really bad decisions/throws.If the Vikes can shutdown GBs running game, I don't think Love will be able to beat them throwing.If the defense keeps improving, our Vikes have a very good chance winning on Sunday.
Quote: @pattersaur said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ comet52 said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ comet52 said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ comet52 said:
@ StickyBun said:
The team will need more of this:
https://twitter.com/danorlovsky7/status/...2601841837
That was kind of the revelation for me last night. He had the right plan to attack the Niners D and the team executed it. A really smart, effective strategy in fact. I don't know if this is just some lucky outlier or the start of some improvement because up until now, his calls and decisions have had me thinking he's the wrong guy at h.c. I guess we'll see what happens going forward. I'm reluctant to take one good game and jump on a drunken bandwagon of oh boy we're comin' now but if he called that good of a game every week we'd win 10 games or more even with the slow start.
But keep in mind the only difference betwen the 49ers game and the games against the Chiefs, Chargers and Eagles was that the Vikings didn't shoot themselves in the foot more than the other team.
Ahhh, no. KOC was not calling great games in those contests, he was looking like he didn't know what he was doing. There was a clear difference last night. Also Kirk pretty much played the game of his life.
OK, but do you only see wins and losses? it's not like Cousins didn't play well until the 49er game. No QB in the NFL threw more TDs than Kirk Cousins before the 49er game even began, despite playing one of the NFL's toughest early schedules.
And it's not like the Vikings were blown out by the Eagles, Chargers and Chiefs. They played three very good teams to the whistle despite an NFL record number of turnovers. And an argument could be made that without Hockenson's fumble against the Chargers, JJ's bizarro fumble into the end zone against the Eagles, and a totally blown DPI call against the Chiefs, the Vikings may have won all three.
Now, yes, you can play what ifs until your face is purple, but you don't play those teams to the wire by calling crap games and having a crap QB.
I mean, that's great that in your alternate mindscape where stuff happened differently we are 7-0. Hurray!
Here's my mindscape: A better KOC effort and you wouldn't be 3-4. You wouldn't have barely beat arguably the two worst teams in the NFL, in fact having a chance late to lose both games. You'd have slapped them around hard.
I'm glad they played well the other night. We should be glad Brock Purdy was apparently concussed late as well, gifting us with those picks. I'm glad KOC's crappy red zone calls and our crappy red zone execution didn't end up causing a loss.
We are what our record says we are and one nice game doesn't erase 6 ugly ones.
I hope they beat Green Bay and their hot garbage junior quarterback, but it wouldn't surprise me a bit if they lose.
"We are what our record says we are." I love that one. Sounds good, doesn't it? It would look great stitched on a pillow. Problem is it's not true. It's never true and never has been. There are always teams better than their record and there are always teams worse than their record. Because the NFL is filled with random, weird ass shit that has very little to do with coaching or the talent on the roster.
BUT...is it all that matters? Yes, it is. But it rarely gives you much insight into whether a team is good or not. Or who can beat whom any given Sunday. Especially this early. How do the 5-1 Lions lose 38-6 to the Ravens!? Who were shut down by the Steelers!? Who were blown out by the Texans!? Who were blown out by the Ravens? Who also blew out the Browns, who beat the 49ers.
I'll give you Chicago and Carolina. Vikings played like cat shit in those games. But a person with two functioning retinas should've been able to predict that the Vikings would at least play the 49ers tough if they played clean, just based on how we played in three losses to other good teams like the Eagles, Chiefs and Chargers, despite not playing clean at all in those games.
In fact, one of us did. And is $65 richer today because of it. :-)
it isnt? try bringing that up at the end of the year when they are handing out playoff spots.... you are ultimately what your record says you are, being a good team with a bad record still has your team watching the playoffs from the beach. maybe teams dont play up to potential, maybe teams play poorly at times, but they are still what their record says because in the end, thats all that matters.
Hey that's what I said! :p
sorry, I got sidetracked mid post and finished up a few minutes later.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ comet52 said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ comet52 said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ comet52 said:
@ StickyBun said:
The team will need more of this:
https://twitter.com/danorlovsky7/status/...2601841837
That was kind of the revelation for me last night. He had the right plan to attack the Niners D and the team executed it. A really smart, effective strategy in fact. I don't know if this is just some lucky outlier or the start of some improvement because up until now, his calls and decisions have had me thinking he's the wrong guy at h.c. I guess we'll see what happens going forward. I'm reluctant to take one good game and jump on a drunken bandwagon of oh boy we're comin' now but if he called that good of a game every week we'd win 10 games or more even with the slow start.
But keep in mind the only difference betwen the 49ers game and the games against the Chiefs, Chargers and Eagles was that the Vikings didn't shoot themselves in the foot more than the other team.
Ahhh, no. KOC was not calling great games in those contests, he was looking like he didn't know what he was doing. There was a clear difference last night. Also Kirk pretty much played the game of his life.
OK, but do you only see wins and losses? it's not like Cousins didn't play well until the 49er game. No QB in the NFL threw more TDs than Kirk Cousins before the 49er game even began, despite playing one of the NFL's toughest early schedules.
And it's not like the Vikings were blown out by the Eagles, Chargers and Chiefs. They played three very good teams to the whistle despite an NFL record number of turnovers. And an argument could be made that without Hockenson's fumble against the Chargers, JJ's bizarro fumble into the end zone against the Eagles, and a totally blown DPI call against the Chiefs, the Vikings may have won all three.
Now, yes, you can play what ifs until your face is purple, but you don't play those teams to the wire by calling crap games and having a crap QB.
I mean, that's great that in your alternate mindscape where stuff happened differently we are 7-0. Hurray!
Here's my mindscape: A better KOC effort and you wouldn't be 3-4. You wouldn't have barely beat arguably the two worst teams in the NFL, in fact having a chance late to lose both games. You'd have slapped them around hard.
I'm glad they played well the other night. We should be glad Brock Purdy was apparently concussed late as well, gifting us with those picks. I'm glad KOC's crappy red zone calls and our crappy red zone execution didn't end up causing a loss.
We are what our record says we are and one nice game doesn't erase 6 ugly ones.
I hope they beat Green Bay and their hot garbage junior quarterback, but it wouldn't surprise me a bit if they lose.
"We are what our record says we are." I love that one. Sounds good, doesn't it? It would look great stitched on a pillow. Problem is it's not true. It's never true and never has been. There are always teams better than their record and there are always teams worse than their record. Because the NFL is filled with random, weird ass shit that has very little to do with coaching or the talent on the roster.
BUT...is it all that matters? Yes, it is. But it rarely gives you much insight into whether a team is good or not. Or who can beat whom any given Sunday. Especially this early. How do the 5-1 Lions lose 38-6 to the Ravens!? Who were shut down by the Steelers!? Who were blown out by the Texans!? Who were blown out by the Ravens? Who also blew out the Browns, who beat the 49ers.
I'll give you Chicago and Carolina. Vikings played like cat shit in those games. But a person with two functioning retinas should've been able to predict that the Vikings would at least play the 49ers tough if they played clean, just based on how we played in three losses to other good teams like the Eagles, Chiefs and Chargers, despite not playing clean at all in those games.
In fact, one of us did. And is $65 richer today because of it. :-)
it isnt? try bringing that up at the end of the year when they are handing out playoff spots.... you are ultimately what your record says you are, being a good team with a bad record still has your team watching the playoffs from the beach. maybe teams dont play up to potential, maybe teams play poorly at times, but they are still what their record says because in the end, thats all that matters.
Read it again.
I did, more double talk, you argue that it is not a true statement, and then concede that it really, in the real world, is very much a true statement. theres not trophies for the being the best team on paper, or the best team with bad luck, your record decides who you play, your draft position, your post season opportunities, so the notion of the statement being false is just another participation trophy for those that cant deal with their team not being as good as they think they should be. we can could woulda shoulda all we want, but honestly, how about this one... good team find ways to win sloppy games, to overcome a badly reffed game, shitty scheduling, injured personnel, etc... not all of them all the time, but more often than not, a good team pulls them out, and its reflected in their record. Thats why typically the better teams make the playoffs, and the shittier ones are left out.
Its week to week, guys. Stack some wins and its a trend. No doubt Minnesota shot themselves in the foot the first quarter of the season. Most turnovers and dropped passes in the league and still kept games close. Its not an excuse, its just a fact. But now they've won 2 straight. Is that a trend? Too early to tell yet. But if the team IS good, they'll make hay the next 7 weeks (they have a bye in there) against mediocre to less than mediocre teams. No excuses now. They haven't played any NFCN teams yet. Their season can be saved, for sure, its up to them.
Quote: @HappyViking said:
I'm starting to believe in our defense (yeah, I said it!). They held the run heavy 49ers to 65 rushing yards total, and proved that Purdy couldn't win with his arm. Purdy did well throwing (21/30 272), but the two picks were really bad decisions/throws.If the Vikes can shutdown GBs running game, I don't think Love will be able to beat them throwing.If the defense keeps improving, our Vikes have a very good chance winning on Sunday.
45 yards if you take out Purdy's total. And the Vikings did it with the big nickel. Pace barely played.
Aaron Jones didn't practice today. Be nice if he can't go.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ comet52 said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ comet52 said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ comet52 said:
@ StickyBun said:
The team will need more of this:
https://twitter.com/danorlovsky7/status/...2601841837
That was kind of the revelation for me last night. He had the right plan to attack the Niners D and the team executed it. A really smart, effective strategy in fact. I don't know if this is just some lucky outlier or the start of some improvement because up until now, his calls and decisions have had me thinking he's the wrong guy at h.c. I guess we'll see what happens going forward. I'm reluctant to take one good game and jump on a drunken bandwagon of oh boy we're comin' now but if he called that good of a game every week we'd win 10 games or more even with the slow start.
But keep in mind the only difference betwen the 49ers game and the games against the Chiefs, Chargers and Eagles was that the Vikings didn't shoot themselves in the foot more than the other team.
Ahhh, no. KOC was not calling great games in those contests, he was looking like he didn't know what he was doing. There was a clear difference last night. Also Kirk pretty much played the game of his life.
OK, but do you only see wins and losses? it's not like Cousins didn't play well until the 49er game. No QB in the NFL threw more TDs than Kirk Cousins before the 49er game even began, despite playing one of the NFL's toughest early schedules.
And it's not like the Vikings were blown out by the Eagles, Chargers and Chiefs. They played three very good teams to the whistle despite an NFL record number of turnovers. And an argument could be made that without Hockenson's fumble against the Chargers, JJ's bizarro fumble into the end zone against the Eagles, and a totally blown DPI call against the Chiefs, the Vikings may have won all three.
Now, yes, you can play what ifs until your face is purple, but you don't play those teams to the wire by calling crap games and having a crap QB.
I mean, that's great that in your alternate mindscape where stuff happened differently we are 7-0. Hurray!
Here's my mindscape: A better KOC effort and you wouldn't be 3-4. You wouldn't have barely beat arguably the two worst teams in the NFL, in fact having a chance late to lose both games. You'd have slapped them around hard.
I'm glad they played well the other night. We should be glad Brock Purdy was apparently concussed late as well, gifting us with those picks. I'm glad KOC's crappy red zone calls and our crappy red zone execution didn't end up causing a loss.
We are what our record says we are and one nice game doesn't erase 6 ugly ones.
I hope they beat Green Bay and their hot garbage junior quarterback, but it wouldn't surprise me a bit if they lose.
"We are what our record says we are." I love that one. Sounds good, doesn't it? It would look great stitched on a pillow. Problem is it's not true. It's never true and never has been. There are always teams better than their record and there are always teams worse than their record. Because the NFL is filled with random, weird ass shit that has very little to do with coaching or the talent on the roster.
BUT...is it all that matters? Yes, it is. But it rarely gives you much insight into whether a team is good or not. Or who can beat whom any given Sunday. Especially this early. How do the 5-1 Lions lose 38-6 to the Ravens!? Who were shut down by the Steelers!? Who were blown out by the Texans!? Who were blown out by the Ravens? Who also blew out the Browns, who beat the 49ers.
I'll give you Chicago and Carolina. Vikings played like cat shit in those games. But a person with two functioning retinas should've been able to predict that the Vikings would at least play the 49ers tough if they played clean, just based on how we played in three losses to other good teams like the Eagles, Chiefs and Chargers, despite not playing clean at all in those games.
In fact, one of us did. And is $65 richer today because of it. :-)
it isnt? try bringing that up at the end of the year when they are handing out playoff spots.... you are ultimately what your record says you are, being a good team with a bad record still has your team watching the playoffs from the beach. maybe teams dont play up to potential, maybe teams play poorly at times, but they are still what their record says because in the end, thats all that matters.
Read it again.
I did, more double talk, you argue that it is not a true statement, and then concede that it really, in the real world, is very much a true statement. theres not trophies for the being the best team on paper, or the best team with bad luck, your record decides who you play, your draft position, your post season opportunities, so the notion of the statement being false is just another participation trophy for those that cant deal with their team not being as good as they think they should be. we can could woulda shoulda all we want, but honestly, how about this one... good team find ways to win sloppy games, to overcome a badly reffed game, shitty scheduling, injured personnel, etc... not all of them all the time, but more often than not, a good team pulls them out, and its reflected in their record. Thats why typically the better teams make the playoffs, and the shittier ones are left out.
Never mind. I'd explain but I think you're incapable of critical thinking. So go ahead and stitch it on a pillow because that's about all it's worth.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ comet52 said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ comet52 said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ comet52 said:
@ StickyBun said:
The team will need more of this:
https://twitter.com/danorlovsky7/status/...2601841837
That was kind of the revelation for me last night. He had the right plan to attack the Niners D and the team executed it. A really smart, effective strategy in fact. I don't know if this is just some lucky outlier or the start of some improvement because up until now, his calls and decisions have had me thinking he's the wrong guy at h.c. I guess we'll see what happens going forward. I'm reluctant to take one good game and jump on a drunken bandwagon of oh boy we're comin' now but if he called that good of a game every week we'd win 10 games or more even with the slow start.
But keep in mind the only difference betwen the 49ers game and the games against the Chiefs, Chargers and Eagles was that the Vikings didn't shoot themselves in the foot more than the other team.
Ahhh, no. KOC was not calling great games in those contests, he was looking like he didn't know what he was doing. There was a clear difference last night. Also Kirk pretty much played the game of his life.
OK, but do you only see wins and losses? it's not like Cousins didn't play well until the 49er game. No QB in the NFL threw more TDs than Kirk Cousins before the 49er game even began, despite playing one of the NFL's toughest early schedules.
And it's not like the Vikings were blown out by the Eagles, Chargers and Chiefs. They played three very good teams to the whistle despite an NFL record number of turnovers. And an argument could be made that without Hockenson's fumble against the Chargers, JJ's bizarro fumble into the end zone against the Eagles, and a totally blown DPI call against the Chiefs, the Vikings may have won all three.
Now, yes, you can play what ifs until your face is purple, but you don't play those teams to the wire by calling crap games and having a crap QB.
I mean, that's great that in your alternate mindscape where stuff happened differently we are 7-0. Hurray!
Here's my mindscape: A better KOC effort and you wouldn't be 3-4. You wouldn't have barely beat arguably the two worst teams in the NFL, in fact having a chance late to lose both games. You'd have slapped them around hard.
I'm glad they played well the other night. We should be glad Brock Purdy was apparently concussed late as well, gifting us with those picks. I'm glad KOC's crappy red zone calls and our crappy red zone execution didn't end up causing a loss.
We are what our record says we are and one nice game doesn't erase 6 ugly ones.
I hope they beat Green Bay and their hot garbage junior quarterback, but it wouldn't surprise me a bit if they lose.
"We are what our record says we are." I love that one. Sounds good, doesn't it? It would look great stitched on a pillow. Problem is it's not true. It's never true and never has been. There are always teams better than their record and there are always teams worse than their record. Because the NFL is filled with random, weird ass shit that has very little to do with coaching or the talent on the roster.
BUT...is it all that matters? Yes, it is. But it rarely gives you much insight into whether a team is good or not. Or who can beat whom any given Sunday. Especially this early. How do the 5-1 Lions lose 38-6 to the Ravens!? Who were shut down by the Steelers!? Who were blown out by the Texans!? Who were blown out by the Ravens? Who also blew out the Browns, who beat the 49ers.
I'll give you Chicago and Carolina. Vikings played like cat shit in those games. But a person with two functioning retinas should've been able to predict that the Vikings would at least play the 49ers tough if they played clean, just based on how we played in three losses to other good teams like the Eagles, Chiefs and Chargers, despite not playing clean at all in those games.
In fact, one of us did. And is $65 richer today because of it. :-)
it isnt? try bringing that up at the end of the year when they are handing out playoff spots.... you are ultimately what your record says you are, being a good team with a bad record still has your team watching the playoffs from the beach. maybe teams dont play up to potential, maybe teams play poorly at times, but they are still what their record says because in the end, thats all that matters.
Read it again.
I did, more double talk, you argue that it is not a true statement, and then concede that it really, in the real world, is very much a true statement. theres not trophies for the being the best team on paper, or the best team with bad luck, your record decides who you play, your draft position, your post season opportunities, so the notion of the statement being false is just another participation trophy for those that cant deal with their team not being as good as they think they should be. we can could woulda shoulda all we want, but honestly, how about this one... good team find ways to win sloppy games, to overcome a badly reffed game, shitty scheduling, injured personnel, etc... not all of them all the time, but more often than not, a good team pulls them out, and its reflected in their record. Thats why typically the better teams make the playoffs, and the shittier ones are left out.
Never mind. I'd explain but I think you're incapable of critical thinking. So go ahead and stitch it on a pillow because that's about all it's worth.
yep, because you are so much more intelligent than the rest of us, we just arent on your level of thinking.... and you say Trump is narcissistic. maybe next time you could type slower or use smaller words for the rest of us so we can revel in your greatness.
![[Image: graphic-3988916_960_720.png]](https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2019/02/11/07/50/graphic-3988916_960_720.png)
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
"We are what our record says we are." I love that one. Sounds good, doesn't it? It would look great stitched on a pillow. Problem is it's not true. It's never true and never has been. There are always teams better than their record and there are always teams worse than their record. Because the NFL is filled with random, weird ass shit that has very little to do with coaching or the talent on the roster.
BUT...is it all that matters? Yes, it is. But it rarely gives you much insight into whether a team is good or not. Or who can beat whom any given Sunday. Especially this early. How do the 5-1 Lions lose 38-6 to the Ravens!? Who were shut down by the Steelers!? Who were blown out by the Texans!? Who were blown out by the Ravens? Who also blew out the Browns, who beat the 49ers.
I'll give you Chicago and Carolina. Vikings played like cat shit in those games. But a person with two functioning retinas should've been able to predict that the Vikings would at least play the 49ers tough if they played clean, just based on how we played in three losses to other good teams like the Eagles, Chiefs and Chargers, despite not playing clean at all in those games.
In fact, one of us did. And is $65 richer today because of it. :-)
it isnt? try bringing that up at the end of the year when they are handing out playoff spots.... you are ultimately what your record says you are, being a good team with a bad record still has your team watching the playoffs from the beach. maybe teams dont play up to potential, maybe teams play poorly at times, but they are still what their record says because in the end, thats all that matters.
Read it again.
I did, more double talk, you argue that it is not a true statement, and then concede that it really, in the real world, is very much a true statement. theres not trophies for the being the best team on paper, or the best team with bad luck, your record decides who you play, your draft position, your post season opportunities, so the notion of the statement being false is just another participation trophy for those that cant deal with their team not being as good as they think they should be. we can could woulda shoulda all we want, but honestly, how about this one... good team find ways to win sloppy games, to overcome a badly reffed game, shitty scheduling, injured personnel, etc... not all of them all the time, but more often than not, a good team pulls them out, and its reflected in their record. Thats why typically the better teams make the playoffs, and the shittier ones are left out.
Never mind. I'd explain but I think you're incapable of critical thinking. So go ahead and stitch it on a pillow because that's about all it's worth.
yep, because you are so much more intelligent than the rest of us, we just arent on your level of thinking.... and you say Trump is narcissistic. maybe next time you could type slower or use smaller words for the rest of us so we can revel in your greatness.
OK, I’ll try one more time, but only because I love you.
Playoff teams are determined by record and nothing else. So yes, it is all that matters. And I’ve already said that.
But does a team’s record accurately reflect who they are? Are you truly what your record says you are? Of course not. I would want want to know what happened in each game, how they played, who was injured, what were the extenuating circumstances, ref calls, ball bounces, weather, location, the weird ass shit that happens in every game. Did one team benefit from those things more than the other?
It might help if I come at it from your side: The Vikings record against the 49ers is 1-0. The 49ers record against the Vikings is 0-1. Using your logic, the Vikings are a better team than the 49ers. Do you really think that? I doubt you do. I think you would agree with me that the Vikings were just the better team THAT DAY.
The Lions started 1-6 last season, so the fat lady ain’t even warming up yet for this one…!!! 
Quote: @HappyViking said:
I'm starting to believe in our defense (yeah, I said it!). They held the run heavy 49ers to 65 rushing yards total, and proved that Purdy couldn't win with his arm. Purdy did well throwing (21/30 272), but the two picks were really bad decisions/throws.If the Vikes can shutdown GBs running game, I don't think Love will be able to beat them throwing.If the defense keeps improving, our Vikes have a very good chance winning on Sunday.
And the one big TD run was a great play call to counter the zero blitz. MC only had to beat one guy, and that is sort of the Flores live and die mentality.
|
