Quote: @kmillard said:
@ jargomcfargo said:
They were in the game at the end with a chance to win it. That's better than I expected.
The defense has been together for awhile and is aging before our eyes.
My guess is Rhodes will carry the whipping boy crown for another week. His penalty led to 7 points, but Smith may have been responsible for the long touchdown pass, although I don't see how Rhodes can't see him, up at the line, in front of him.
Smith hasn’t played well for a while.
???????
Quote: @Nichelle said:
@ kmillard said:
@ jargomcfargo said:
They were in the game at the end with a chance to win it. That's better than I expected.
The defense has been together for awhile and is aging before our eyes.
My guess is Rhodes will carry the whipping boy crown for another week. His penalty led to 7 points, but Smith may have been responsible for the long touchdown pass, although I don't see how Rhodes can't see him, up at the line, in front of him.
Smith hasn’t played well for a while.
???????
I know right?
I think what he means is that Smiths level of play is falling off a bit in that he is not able to still run all over the field and make plays when others screw up on their duties, but I would still take Smith over most other safeties in the league. He isnt able to cover up all the deficiencies on this D this year.
Quote: @Wetlander said:
Zimmer's defensive game plan worked well in the first half... held Seattle to 10 points. The turning point in the game was Dalvin's fumble early in the 2nd half which gave Seattle a very short field... defense held them to 3 points. Then the INT (which if that was Rhodes would have been called PI and negated the turnover) gave Seattle another short field... all of a sudden, we lose all our momentum.
I was impressed with the way the Vikings fought in this game... there is no quit in this team. We've seen that on display the past two weeks. I like that. We just can't make as many mistakes as we did on the road against a good team and expect to win. We've had close losses to Seattle, Kansas City, and Green Bay because we lost the turnover battle.
The team is very close... if they can play a cleaner game on the road and keep Rhodes from giving up big plays in the passing game, I like our chances against anyone.
Not only did we lose the momentum, but we then fought back and regained it. Seattle was suddenly worried when we cut it to 4 (doh, the ghost of Walsh reappeared).
But on that INT, how can the league look at that in review (which they had to as it was a turnover) and not conclude the DB tackled Diggs, and impeded his ability to catch the ball? That is just baffling. What the hell is the rule for?
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ greediron said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ kmillard said:
@ jargomcfargo said:
They were in the game at the end with a chance to win it. That's better than I expected.
The defense has been together for awhile and is aging before our eyes.
My guess is Rhodes will carry the whipping boy crown for another week. His penalty led to 7 points, but Smith may have been responsible for the long touchdown pass, although I don't see how Rhodes can't see him, up at the line, in front of him.
Smith hasn’t played well for a while.
I could be wrong, but I think Smith was supposed to be at the line, IIRC he came off the line in coverage of a TE or RB that leaked out to that side and didnt see anybody else over there like it was their man. If Rhodes was supposed to have help over top I dont think it was to come from HS.. maybe that is why Rhodes let his man go, but for fuck sake, there has to be some pre snap recognition by Rhodes there to see that his help was at the LOS.
Well it was pretty obvious Rhodes thought he had some help over the top. Not sure who was at fault, maybe since we were 2 deep the whole game, when Smith came up, it wasn't communicated.
It almost looked like Rhodes was expecting to cover the RB in the flat but once HS didn't bail like he often does, Rhodes was in no mans land.
i agree that is what he thought. I think if that had been on HS we would have seen some sort of contrition from Harry to Rhodes after the play, but nothing.
Rhodes seemed to apologize to Harrison later. But as he was so emotional after the play, he could have just been apologizing for acting like an ass or maybe for saying something about HS.
Time of Possession
Seattle had the ball for 39:45
Vikings had the ball for 20:15
Looking at those, it seems stunning we scored 30 points.
Quote: @BlackMagic7 said:
Time of Possession
Seattle had the ball for 39:45
Vikings had the ball for 20:15
Looking at those, it seems stunning we scored 30 points.
we scored to fast. if we had taken more time off the clock with our TD drives then the D wouldnt have looked so bad?
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ BlackMagic7 said:
Time of Possession
Seattle had the ball for 39:45
Vikings had the ball for 20:15
Looking at those, it seems stunning we scored 30 points.
we scored to fast. if we had taken more time off the clock with our TD drives then the D wouldnt have looked so bad?
Guess you could also say the D was so good at bending that they just bent all the way over all game long?
Look, we bitch about everything after a loss and sometimes after a win. We beat Dallas with a specific game plan to not let them get Elliot going. But Dak put up huge numbers. But we won.
Now we have a specific game plan to not let Wilson beat us deep and make their average backs beat us. And it was working. We had the lead at half and got the ball to start the 3rd Q. But the offense failed in that quarter. No drives, fumble, INT (shouldn't have been) and somehow we are surprised Seattle scored off those? And we give up a huge gain on a fake punt? Who was responsible there? It wasn't the defense that didn't stop them. It wasn't the defense that didn't sustain drives. The D score to give us the lead.
Dunno, I see lots of hindsight geniuses.
Quote: @greediron said:
Look, we bitch about everything after a loss and sometimes after a win. We beat Dallas with a specific game plan to not let them get Elliot going. But Dak put up huge numbers. But we won.
Now we have a specific game plan to not let Wilson beat us deep and make their average backs beat us. And it was working. We had the lead at half and got the ball to start the 3rd Q. But the offense failed in that quarter. No drives, fumble, INT (shouldn't have been) and somehow we are surprised Seattle scored off those? And we give up a huge gain on a fake punt? Who was responsible there? It wasn't the defense that didn't stop them. It wasn't the defense that didn't sustain drives. The D score to give us the lead.
Dunno, I see lots of hindsight geniuses.
Truth right here. The board is so harsh with losses. Minnesota's gameplan was very solid for 2 quarters. They had to change because of the mistakes. I wasn't happy with all the rushing yards allowed, but the turnovers and mistakes fried them in the 3rd quarter.
Not that it means anything, but the national media hasn't downgraded the Vikings at all in their rankings over the loss. They thought the team showed well.
Those TOP numbers are ridiculous. Seattle possessed the ball for a rounded 3 quarters. Seattle ran 24 more offensive plays than we did.
We ran for 78 yards. Seattle ran for 218.
If you can convert the chains, you can control the clock. If you can pile up scores and a lead while doing so, you control the opponents tempo. We got out Zimmer'd. We couldn't sustain drives off nice runs and they dried up as Seattle pulled away. Seattle pulled away by gashing us with the run, draining the clock while they walked to the endzone.
TOP doesn't mean much by itself, but it means a lot when your team is also executing playcalls and converting. When we were getting late into the game, i'm sure a lot of us were not only thinking about the deficit we needed to over come but just stopping them on 3rd down cause they were converting and stealing time from our ability to come back. TOP and deficit clearly dictated the tempo we finished the game with...
I don't know if TOP can be pinned on one "whipping boy" though. It's a sum of the whole kind of stat...
|
