Hey, 4/0 is 4&0

We actually had some calls go our way, upon further review. :angel: Int should have been overturned & some questionable spots down the stretch hurt us. FTP…!  :cool: SKOL!

Yea what a welcome back game for Addison (plus I won $72 bucks on first TD:)

I thought I read where Hock is now expected back even later?

Nailor has remained healthy and with him, Add and Jeff and then Jones at RB that is more than enough fire power to keep the train a rollin.

Kentis wrote:
We actually had some calls go our way, upon further review. :angel: Int should have been overturned & some questionable spots down the stretch hurt us. FTP…!  :cool: SKOL!

KOC can get called out on a few calls, and he's doing that all on his own in the post game.

The pick Darnold threw at the 1 yard line went to review and clearly showed that the defender never had possession until he was out-of-bounds. How in the world do they rule that a pick?
Reminded me of the 2009 NFCC in OT on 4th down the Saints runner fumbled the ball in the air and turned around and recovered it short of the line to gain, it goes to review and it's clearly not a first down and then the refs give them a first down.

purplefaithful wrote:
And a win is a win, especially on the road vs a division rival. Make that 4/1 in the 4th qtr and game over. 

Good point and then a 31-29 squeaker could have potentially looked like a 38-22 blowout

Admit it...did ANYONE have the Vikings sitting at 4-0 after four weeks?
I think we would have been thrilled at 2-2.

What a ride. That first half was wild. Love settled in more in the second half. The play calling and defense fell off a bit in the second half. They came through when needed with a field goal and stop

Montana Tom wrote:
Admit it...did ANYONE have the Vikings sitting at 4-0 after four weeks? I think we would have been thrilled at 2-2.

Nick Swardson, his predictions start at 2:20 and Rich Eisen is laughing at him.

With the personnel and coaching accomplishments going into this season, the Wilfs should already have offers drawn up to extend KOC and KAM.

Montana Tom wrote:
Admit it...did ANYONE have the Vikings sitting at 4-0 after four weeks? I think we would have been thrilled at 2-2.

I thought they'd be better than most thought. In fact, I took the 6.5 over/under and bumped it to 8.5 and put money on the longer odds for a bigger potential payout. BUT 4-0 was not on my radar given our early schedule. Vikings are without question one of the best teams in the NFL right now.

I wish they would of kicked the field goal late in the 4th quarter instead of going for it on 4th and 1 even if it was at the 4 yard line,

ArizonaViking wrote:
I wish they would of kicked the field goal late in the 4th quarter instead of going for it on 4th and 1 even if it was at the 4 yard line,

No, they were already up 9 (two scores) and if you get the first down, the game is OVER.  Going up 12 doesn't get you an advantage.  If we didn't get it, the Packers are pinned inside the 5 with no timeouts and have to score twice in two minutes to win.  You go for it 10/10 times in that situation.

StickierBuns wrote:

Yep, it was the right to go for it, 100%. Just didn't love the sweep on a somewhat slippery field.

I was a bit surprised the KOC didn't challenge the spot.  It looked to me like he had the first down and they spotted the ball a half yard less, short of a first down by about 6".

StickierBuns wrote:

Yep, it was the right to go for it, 100%. Just didn't love the sweep on a somewhat slippery field.

Agree, would have rather tried to pound it up the middle.  Guessing we didn't sneak it because Darnold has the knee bruise, but we have The Hammer and Aaron Jones.

Montana Tom wrote:

I was a bit surprised the KOC didn't challenge the spot.  It looked to me like he had the first down and they spotted the ball a half yard less, short of a first down by about 6".

We were out of challenges at that point since we successfully challenged the maximum 3 times.  And you're right, it sure looked like we had it but no challenges left and it wasn't inside of 2 minutes for the automatic replay review on a change of possession.

StickierBuns wrote:
https://x.com/EmmanuelAcho/status/1840782658777055323

Ha! Love it...

"Dear NFL Fans, no matter how good you think the Vikings are, they’re even better."

One game at a time. One game at a time. We started out 4-0 in 2016 and failed to make the playoffs with an 8-8 record. Next up...ayahuasca boy and the Jets in London.

I actually am old enough to remember the Jim Mora "PLAYOFFS?!!!" press conference, I was watching it with a friend at the time. I have to admit, it stuck with me...and yeah, it resonates with our 4-0 standing right now.

Every bit of energy, study, preparation always has to be on the NEXT GAME...and as much as I despise the micro-tripping clown at QB for the Jets, he's dangerous as hell when things go his way.

None of these games are gimmes, any given Sunday brings what it brings. We knocked off the eventual NFC Superbowl team on the way to a cascade of injuries last season.

Get to the UK, it's all about beating the Jets.

MAD GAINZ wrote:

No, they were already up 9 (two scores) and if you get the first down, the game is OVER.  Going up 12 doesn't get you an advantage.  If we didn't get it, the Packers are pinned inside the 5 with no timeouts and have to score twice in two minutes to win.  You go for it 10/10 times in that situation.

That's what I thought at the time.  However, kicking the FG insured the Pack could not get a touchdown, recover the onside kick and beat you with a FG.  That seemed so unlikely until they went through our defense like swiss cheese and that potential actually reared its head.

badgervike wrote:
One game at a time.  One game at a time.  We started out 4-0 in 2016 and failed to make the playoffs with an 8-8 record.  Next up...ayahuasca boy and the Jets in London.

Nate Poole...

Ugh, was that a Tice team?

PurplePorsche wrote:

That's what I thought at the time.  However, kicking the FG insured the Pack could not get a touchdown, recover the onside kick and beat you with a FG.  That seemed so unlikely until they went through our defense like swiss cheese and that potential actually reared its head.

I just come back to the risk vs reward.  If we get the first, the Packers have no time outs and we can essentially run out the rest of the clock and win. We score a TD on that play, we're still up 2 scores. Game over.

If we don't get it, we're still up two scores (9 points) and the Packers need to drive 95 yds for a TD, recover an onside kick, AND get 20+ yds, AND make a long FG (which their kicker missed 2 FGs already) to win with no timeouts left.

I'm totally fine with the decision to go for it.

StickierBuns wrote:
https://x.com/EmmanuelAcho/status/1840782658777055323

Oooooooo, keep talking Emmanuel.  Straight up facts.

BOOM