The defensive schemes make the INTs interesting. On the 2nd INT, the safety was playing a man read. We had a lot of down field sucess exploting this all game. However, the first INT was thrown as if he assumed Rudolph was one on one and that the safety bailed somewhere else playing man coverage.
They kept a safety back for once and it bit us the first time. Then assuming they adjusted their coverage, we gift wrapped the 2nd one.
Hate quoting from mobile...
Tarvaris Jackson was close to that Bridgewater passer rating mark, but he only hit 135.5 against Arizona in 2008...
Bringing Teddy in at that point would have been a desperate move not a wise one. It was too late and momentum had swing wildly to the other team. At that point you have to either hope for a quick recapture of momentum to settle thing and bring him in or have it get so far out of hand you have no other option but the desperate move. If they would have scored again rather than the first INT they likely would have got Teddy some 'garbage time snaps' when it was 38-17. IMO that would be the ideal with a start being the next best option. The worst option is to bring him in when they are trying to catch up and the defense has their ears pinned back rushing the passer.
Quote: @"greediron" said:
One fumble was on Case, correct?
What more do I want? More than 7 points at home. Yes, two of the fumbles were not on him. But 7 points at home. Defense played lights out and we only score 7.
What do I expect? Consistency. But not sure I actually expect that. He is a great backup. Lots of energy, plays well enough to win most games. But avoiding the WTF plays would be a good start.
Just re reading this. When you says plays well enough to win most games. So are their games he has not played well enough to win?
Quote: @"greediron" said:
@"Mike Olson" said:
@"greediron" said:
I think the desire to win the game over road the desire to play Teddy.
As to the proof, I saw it. Multiple people have mentioned it. After the 2nd INT, the offense went tight. They didn't "keep throwing it" Case threw minimal and very safe throws. And the FG? 53 yards. Not really much confidence in Case if we settled for a 53 yard Forbath attempt. We needed to score early in the 4th and we almost abandoned the passing game other than a few short safe throws.
Down, distance, clock, and score dictated the play calling. And sure the possibility that their defense was going to gamble against us in that situation had we thrown the ball likely led to them getting more conservative in the 4th with the lead. Pretty standard.
So a few minutes prior with a much larger lead didn't change it, but clinging to an 8 point lead with a quarter to go was the only reason?
If that were the case, we wouldn't have kicked a long FG that was nearly out of range for our FG kicker. We needed to score.
Pretty standard for OC's and HC's to get conservative once there are a couple turnovers and you already have the lead and you are in the 4th quarter.
So looking at the play by play from NFLCOM There is one highlight from the drive after the 2nd interception. It's a third down 3rd and 1 from the Washington 36. Watch the play
Adam makes a tremendous play to pick up the first down, but what gets over looked is the ability of Keenum to get him the ball. That was a busted play, that Case overcame and Adam overcame. Again What more do you want from Case? They did not go into a shell and run two times and then run a draw play. HOW many times in the past have we seen the Vikings go uber conservative run run run and then punt and rely on the defense to stop them. Washington had all the momentum they were playing on fire. IF you are looking for a situation which has been mentioned above The Vikings are behind in the 4th quarter, game on the line etc.. Than that drive is a good example. That play was a good example, the Detroit game before the half showed it as well as the two late drives in the 4th quarter. We have not seen play like this since 2009. and that's probably why people are hesitant they are waiting for the other shoe to drop.
My problem with Case is that I don't trust him...yet. He makes nice plays, then he makes some awkward looking throws. He's never really had much success in his past four years as a starter/backup, and just seemed to be destined to be a labeled as a career backup QB.
Now, as the Vikings starter, he's winning and playing the best he's ever played. Is this because he's suddenly good now, or is it because of Shurmer adjusting the offense to his strengths, or maybe a bit of both?
I guess when I see Case make a great play then follow it up with a bad one, or a silly avoidable INT, I just shrug it off as "Oh well, what do you expect from a backup".
I still don't know if I can consider Case as a quality starting QB, but if he can lead the offense to winning against quality teams like the Skins, Rams, and the Lions, I'll have no choice but to change the way I think. With Zim letting him start with a healthy Teddy available, it looks like the Vikings have already changed their thinking and Case is now the #1.
Quote: @"HappyViking" said:
My problem with Case is that I don't trust him...yet. He makes nice plays, then he makes some awkward looking throws. He's never really had much success in his past four years as a starter/backup, and just seemed to be destined to be a labeled as a career backup QB.
Now, as the Vikings starter, he's winning and playing the best he's ever played. Is this because he's suddenly good now, or is it because of Shurmer adjusting the offense to his strengths, or maybe a bit of both?
I guess when I see Case make a great play then follow it up with a bad one, or a silly avoidable INT, I just shrug it off as "Oh well, what do you expect from a backup".
I still don't know if I can consider Case as a quality starting QB, but if he can lead the offense to winning against quality teams like the Skins, Rams, and the Lions, I'll have no choice but to change the way I think. With Zim letting him start with a healthy Teddy available, it looks like the Vikings have already changed their thinking and Case is now the #1.
Agree, Happy. I think Shurmur is a very damn good OC. He adjusts the run game for Murray and McKinnon, and so if he's adjusting to Case's strengths too I would not be surprised. Case's success IMO is due to Shurmur entirely. And, that's not a slam on Case at all. I think Sam could probably say the same. And, I think it can happen the same way for Teddy whenever he gets his chance.
Quote:Maroon I'm not raising this question as a who would you rather start. Just a simple question of what more do you want from Case? I could even say what more do you want from a QB maybe we could just redact his name.
He would have to play better. Fewer floaters, fewer receivers running open downfield without getting the ball, fewer tight windows. It's not that complicated. It's about more than winning. Ponder, another deeply flawed QB, won with a pretty good supporting cast. But I don't think any of us were under any illusions that we were going to last long in the playoffs (even if he'd stayed healthy). Like others, I see flaws in Keenum's game that scare me, that suggest he may not be the kind of QB you can bank on in the playoffs. Again, it's not that complicated. There are no facts here. It's about projection and tendencies and likelihoods, those things on which ALL NFL personnel decisions are based. I believe that a fully functioning Bridgewater gives us a better chance. I think the coaching staff believes that, too. Otherwise, replacing Keenum would not even be a consideration. I mean, my God, why would a QB who's won 5 straight be on such a short leash? He wouldn't, unless the team thought that they might be able to eliminate much of those close calls by putting in their starter. But who knows? Like all of us in Camp Teddy have acknowledged, it's possible they're wrong. It's possible that Teddy just can't get back to the place where he left off. In which case you put Case back in and hope for the best. But I think all of us agree that we'll be in a much better position going into the offseason if the Teddy question has been answered definitively one way or the other.
|
