Quote: @Purplewhizz said:
@ HappyViking said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ HappyViking said:
I think they get thrashed showing us fans another unprepared embarrassing loss. Looks like more of the same after this one, and we start the season 0-4. It sucks being a Viking fan and being envious of just about any other NFL team. I'm starting to get used to it and it sucks.
Vikings have a LOT to fix (probably even more than any of us are aware of), and I too am concerned we won't turn all that around in one week.
However, this is still a pretty loaded team with dangerous playmakers on both sides of the ball. Vikings get their heads out of their asses, get a few bounces go our way, add a few daggers from JJ or Dalvin or Danielle or Harry and this could be a completely different game than the horror show we saw on Sunday.
Hope things improve soon, MB, but our strength was supposed to be our DL and OL going into the season. They both were overmatched last Sunday against a fairly crappy team. They actually play good teams in the next 3 games, so I don't see them winning. One thing for sure is we don't have the "Williams Wall Part 2" on D like we hoped; not even close. The OL was equally bad in both the running and passing plays. Dalvin had nowhere to run, and Cousins barely had time to find checkdowns.
Hopefully it's just one bad game, and things get better. They've always started slow for several years now (Zimmer thing?), but expectations are greatly reduced for me now.
The OL was never thought to be strength by anyone that I saw. Every report from training camp I saw in the Athletic said they were going to be a step backwards this year
I thought it should be improved quite a bit this year. It's been completely rebuilt with high draft picks. Plus, this is O'Neill's 4th season, Bradbury's 3rd season, Cleveland's 2nd. And Udoh looking much better than Dozier.
I still think they will improve a lot over the course of the season. But here's my fear. We rebuilt this line with a key on athleticism over size, and only tweaked that strategy to favor more size this year, so Bradbury, O'Neill and Cleveland were picked under the previous strategy. O'Neill is OK because he's out on the edge, but Bradbury and Cleveland on the inside might never have the anchors to play consistently well inside.
IF you peel back the layers of Dalvin Cooks game last week, you'll see a big reason for why the O struggled as much as it did (outside of the penalties).
First down was especially poor. 61 yards rushing on 20 carries and a touchdown. But 17 of those yards came on one carry.
Credit the Bungles D, they knew to focus on DC and make KC beat em.
Vikings and Cousins are best when they can play action like mad, Bengals took em out of that most of the game.
Quote: @"BarrNone55" said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@"BarrNone55" said:
Line still at 3.5
Hmmmmm
Didn't it open at 4? Thought it would've doubled instead of gone down.
Nope, opened at 3.5...At least what is being reported on NFL network
Openers varied from 3 to 4.5 but now 4.5 everywhere. Sharps feel there is value with the dog.
https://www.sportsbookreview.com/betting...-football/
Arizona wont dominate the run game the way Cincy did as Arizona doesn't really have a RB. If, and I say if, the Vikes are able to force a couple of turnovers then it could happen.
I don't get the doom and gloom. I think we came out rusty, we clearly tried some new stuff that was outside our comfort zone. We also had a bunch of pretty good plays. I also think the Bengals looked alright, better than people are giving them credit for.
I think if our OLine improves just a little bit but dramatically cuts down the penalties and our defense tightens up a bit on the new schemes, we're a tough opponent against anyone. Also, we get our home crowd back this season, so there's that. We're tough at home against almost anyone.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
No, not if they play like they did in Cinci. But every week is a different game with different matchups and usually different results. It's why we watch.
But I'll agree, it doesn't look good, considering their dangerous QB, all their receivers, Chandler Jones coming off 5 sacks and their D shutting down Derrick Henry and beating a pretty good Tennessee team. I think they're a better team than either Cleveland or Seattle.
But, hey, it's the NFL. Anything can happen. Last year, Vikings were 1-5, thinking about tanking, getting a top 5 pick, go into Lambeau against the 5-1 Packers and beat them fairly easily, turning around their season.
Exactly. I'll add crazy shit happens every year in Week 1. Lopsided losses, upsets, etc. The Cards/Titans game is a classic example... the Cards are a good young team and Murray is a rising star at QB, but are they really 25 points better than the Titans? I don't think so...
The Titans were sunk when they couldn't get Henry going and their QB who is very good at play-action... were not able to use it because they were constantly behind schedule on 2nd and 3rd down. The Cardinals were able to tee off on Tannehill on obvious passing downs. Sound familiar?
The way to beat the Cards is to attack their miserable secondary... but you gotta stop Watt and Chandler Jones from wrecking your day... and you have to be able to run the ball. If the Vikings can get Cook rolling early and work in the play-action game to hit Jefferson and Thielen on crossers and deep shots, we'll hang in there. Defensively we're going to have to be super disciplined in how we rush Murray. Guys need to maintain their rush lanes and our secondary has to play better this week. We can win, but I don't think it's likely...
Forgot that this is Patrick Peterson's return to AZ. Don't know if that favors us or them. Guessing he'll get Deandre.
|
