Posts: 184
Threads: 146
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation:
25
OK, we all know tonight is a 1st round playoff game. If we can win tonight and run the table with a final win vs Da Bears in Minnesota their is a chance we are the 3rd seed and hosting a Wild Card game?
When I run the ESPN playoff machine and plug in what I think can happen, with us running the table, I have the Packers beating the Bears next week as well.
In that scenario we would then host the Seahawks or the Bears!!!
Oh well one step at a time and hopefully we take it for us Viking-kind 
Quote: @minny65 said:
OK, we all know tonight is a 1st round playoff game. If we can win tonight and run the table with a final win vs Da Bears in Minnesota their is a chance we are the 3rd seed and hosting a Wild Card game?
When I run the ESPN playoff machine and plug in what I think can happen, with us running the table, I have the Packers beating the Bears next week as well.
In that scenario we would then host the Seahawks or the Bears!!!
Oh well one step at a time and hopefully we take it for us Viking-kind
I dont see gbay going into chicago and beating that bears team on their own shitty track.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ minny65 said:
OK, we all know tonight is a 1st round playoff game. If we can win tonight and run the table with a final win vs Da Bears in Minnesota their is a chance we are the 3rd seed and hosting a Wild Card game?
When I run the ESPN playoff machine and plug in what I think can happen, with us running the table, I have the Packers beating the Bears next week as well.
In that scenario we would then host the Seahawks or the Bears!!!
Oh well one step at a time and hopefully we take it for us Viking-kind
I dont see gbay going into chicago and beating that bears team on their own shitty track. Probably not but stranger things have happened. The Pack, even last year with Hundley, have not lost to the Bears in Chicago since 2010.
Zimmer said the other day that we haven't yet put it all together. OK, thanks Captain Obvious, but it's so true. This team has so much talent on both sides of the ball and you see glimpses of a very, very good football team here and there, but we just haven't been able to put it all together in one game and then sustain it for any length of time. I keep waiting for that to happen...
First step is achieving balance on offense and pulling out a W tonight in Seattle. They're missing some key players and have given up 100 yards rushing to the last 5 backs they've faced, so I like our chances. We'll likely get Waynes back the following week and the schedule eases up a bit.
It's not going to be easy, but a fully healthy, balanced team on a win streak will be a team nobody wants to play. If not, the Senior Bowl's in six weeks and we'll start the whole thing over again.
quarter of the season left, talent to match with anyone when healthy. win tonight and start a roll
Quote: @Skodin said:
quarter of the season left, talent to match with anyone when healthy. win tonight and start a roll
Really, is this asking too much? Sounds like a great plan to me.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
Zimmer said the other day that we haven't yet put it all together. OK, thanks Captain Obvious, but it's so true. This team has so much talent on both sides of the ball and you see glimpses of a very, very good football team here and there, but we just haven't been able to put it all together in one game and then sustain it for any length of time. I keep waiting for that to happen...
First step is achieving balance on offense and pulling out a W tonight in Seattle. They're missing some key players and have given up 100 yards rushing to the last 5 backs they've faced, so I like our chances. We'll likely get Waynes back the following week and the schedule eases up a bit.
It's not going to be easy, but a fully healthy, balanced team on a win streak will be a team nobody wants to play. If not, the Senior Bowl's in six weeks and we'll start the whole thing over again.
Where is this notion of giving up 100 yards to the last 5 RB's, coming from?
I have seen this in other posts as well.
Last week 66 yards allowed
3 weeks ago against Packers only 48 yards allowed. Pack are ranked 3rd in yards per attempt at (5)
Yes Gurley, McCaffey, and Gordon have 100+
They get that against a lot of teams.They are the #2, #5 and #12 RB's in the league.
Their teams are ranked #1, #5, and #6 in yards per attempt.
Sure MN can get 100+, after all they averaged 7.2 yards last week.
Quote: @holmanjp said:
@ MaroonBells said:
Zimmer said the other day that we haven't yet put it all together. OK, thanks Captain Obvious, but it's so true. This team has so much talent on both sides of the ball and you see glimpses of a very, very good football team here and there, but we just haven't been able to put it all together in one game and then sustain it for any length of time. I keep waiting for that to happen...
First step is achieving balance on offense and pulling out a W tonight in Seattle. They're missing some key players and have given up 100 yards rushing to the last 5 backs they've faced, so I like our chances. We'll likely get Waynes back the following week and the schedule eases up a bit.
It's not going to be easy, but a fully healthy, balanced team on a win streak will be a team nobody wants to play. If not, the Senior Bowl's in six weeks and we'll start the whole thing over again.
Where is this notion of giving up 100 yards to the last 5 RB's, coming from?
I have seen this in other posts as well.
Last week 66 yards allowed
3 weeks ago against Packers only 48 yards allowed. Pack are ranked 3rd in yards per attempt at (5)
Yes Gurley, McCaffey, and Gordon have 100+
They get that against a lot of teams.They are the #2, #5 and #12 RB's in the league.
Sure MN can get 100+, after all they averaged 7.2 yards last week.
It was a podcast. I must've heard it wrong. They have given up a hundred yards to either a back or a receiver (or both) for the last 5 games. Maybe that's what he said.
In either case, this much is true: Seattle is tied for last in the NFL in yards given up per carry, So let's just use that and say we should be able to run the ball on them. Of course, we SHOULD'VE been able to run the ball against New England and the Packers, too.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ holmanjp said:
@ MaroonBells said:
Zimmer said the other day that we haven't yet put it all together. OK, thanks Captain Obvious, but it's so true. This team has so much talent on both sides of the ball and you see glimpses of a very, very good football team here and there, but we just haven't been able to put it all together in one game and then sustain it for any length of time. I keep waiting for that to happen...
First step is achieving balance on offense and pulling out a W tonight in Seattle. They're missing some key players and have given up 100 yards rushing to the last 5 backs they've faced, so I like our chances. We'll likely get Waynes back the following week and the schedule eases up a bit.
It's not going to be easy, but a fully healthy, balanced team on a win streak will be a team nobody wants to play. If not, the Senior Bowl's in six weeks and we'll start the whole thing over again.
Where is this notion of giving up 100 yards to the last 5 RB's, coming from?
I have seen this in other posts as well.
Last week 66 yards allowed
3 weeks ago against Packers only 48 yards allowed. Pack are ranked 3rd in yards per attempt at (5)
Yes Gurley, McCaffey, and Gordon have 100+
They get that against a lot of teams.They are the #2, #5 and #12 RB's in the league.
Sure MN can get 100+, after all they averaged 7.2 yards last week.
It was a podcast. I must've heard it wrong. They have given up a hundred yards to either a back or a receiver (or both) for the last 5 games. Maybe that's what he said.
In either case, this much is true: Seattle is tied for last in the NFL in yards given up per carry, So let's just use that and say we should be able to run the ball on them. Of course, we SHOULD'VE been able to run the ball against New England and the Packers, too.
Yes tied with Rams, Chiefs give up 5.1 per attempt
Might be more of a situation, where they give you false since of being
able to run the ball, so you end up burning the clock.
Looking at rushing TD's allowed, I tend to agree with my statement.
Besides Chicago's remarkable 4 rushing TD's allowed.
Allowing only 9 is nothing to be concerned with.
While they are dead last in yards per attempt allowed.
They are middle of the pack in yards allowed per game..
OK, I did start this thread, so it looks like far-fetched is now really far-fetched 
I can't even put into words how I feel about this team. I am so biased it is difficult for me to see some very obvious signs.
We all knew our OL was a weakness before the season even started but I had the hope/Belief that they could improve over the course of the season. Why did I think that? Was there any indication after the first few games that told me that? Not at all but I still held that belief. I thought Elf coming back would get the interior in sync and fix the interior. Why did I expect that from a second year player coming off of serious injury the year before? IDK - hope I guess.
A couple years ago we had one of the worst OL in the history of the NFL but we also had the most OL starters injured since the NFL was keeping track of lost starter time.
But this OL does not have that excuse (all the injuries). Sure some (Easton) but really no more then normal. This is the worst OL since that year and worse when you consider we don't have the injury excuse. The interior is atrocious with defenders running right through and getting to Cousins in 2 seconds or faster.
Again, stating the obvious, but our team has no offensive identity in an passing league where the QB has every advantage and yet we can't seem to give this guy 2.5 to 3 seconds to even operate. We knew he was/is a traditional pocket passer and we give him zero pocket.
Lastly, I have brushed aside most of the negative talk about Zimmer other then an occasional bad call during a game. But I am really starting to question his ability to lead the whole team not just defense (which has had it share of shit show performances as well) but he is starting to look more like a Buddy Ryan then a Belichek.
OK, not lastly, then there is the negative talk for years about Speilman that I have also brushed aside. My thought was always, and still is, that Rome is not built in a day and that Spelly took an aging roster (as GM) and turned it around fairly quickly. But WTF, this OL has been horrible for years now and when you sign a QB like Cousins you have to protect the investment.
For the rest of season I want to see other OL/interior players to evaluate. Some will sink and some will swim but we need to decide right now who is on the roster next year before next year.
Every resource need to be put at both Guard positions. Barr goodbye, Sandejo goodbye, Richardson goodbye, etc.
Oh and fire Pfieffer now!
This Sucks!
|
