We Have No Answer For Chase Daniels?

We got nothing.

Vikings always allow the backup QB's to star...

This team is a disgrace...

It's Nagy. He is just a superior game strategist vs. Zimmer. He is 3-0 against Zimmer and the games have not even been close. 

We are who we thought we were.

@"BarrNone55" said: Really?

Well, I can't comment on the "we" have no answer part,  but CLEARLY the VIKINGS's DID NOT. Shocking, really, as the Vikings are the bestest team, with the bestest roster in the NFL. At least, that's what I've been reading on this board for the past 3-4 years.

Apparently the SUM does not equal the parts.

Have a great evening!

@"TBro" said: It's Nagy. He is just a superior game strategist vs. Zimmer. He is 3-0 against Zimmer and the games have not even been close. 

This is the bigger issue to me... the fact that Zim can't compete with Naggy

Someone is going to say that Zimmer didn't have a chance to plan for Daniels - kind of like he was excused for not being ready for Matt Lafleur. We can't throw surprises at him!!

@"mblack" said:

@"TBro" said: It's Nagy. He is just a superior game strategist vs. Zimmer. He is 3-0 against Zimmer and the games have not even been close. 

This is the bigger issue to me... the fact that Zim can't compete with Naggy

any offense would have been a good answer.  He had one drive.

The Bears had three scoring drives and ended up with 16 points. They finished with 269 total yards. Not really sure how that is "no answer"...
A lot of snowflakes out there, apparently.

This game was definitely not on the defense, although it would be nice to see Zimmer’s defenses start out better.  Too often it takes a drive or two where the opposing offense scores before the defense settles down and starts playing well.

@"Jor-El" said: Someone is going to say that Zimmer didn't have a chance to plan for Daniels - kind of like he was excused for not being ready for Matt Lafleur. We can't throw surprises at him!!

Daniels should have been on his butt the entire game.  Knock out any starting QB and the D should be salivating to get at the back-up.  The result was no sacks on Daniel. 

Daniel's didn't need to score every drive.  He kept the chains moving and our O on the sidelines as they kept the ball for over 35 minutes.

Time of possession was a killer. 

I actually felt a pang of dread when Trubisky went down. I didn't know who the backup was but I suspected he'd be better. Trubby is always good for 5 or 6 ridiculously inaccurate passes in a game. 

We just do not match up well with the Bears and their personnel period.  With Trubisky and Cohen, our LB's are occupied in coverage, leaving a lot of one on one's on the outside.  If you can't pressure any Chicago QB, you'll pay.  Not because they are damn good at WR, but because time in the pocket and being on your heels defensively is a bad mix.  

We are outcoached and can't match up personnel wise.

Daniels reminded me a lot of Keenum yesterday. He moves in the pocket well and found the open man to exploit our defense. The lack of a pass rush allowed him to be way too comfortable.

IIRC the VIkings had 2 offensive possessions in the first half.... and the D played well?  part of playing well is getting off the field quickly.  i dont care about the final score,  the D did not play well yesterday,  that was fucking pathetic that a team missing as many starters as they were was able to manhandle both sides of the ball like they did.  they may not have hung a bunch of points on our defense,  but they did anything else they wanted to with them.

@"MaroonBells" said: I actually felt a pang of dread when Trubisky went down. I didn't know who the backup was but I suspected he'd be better. Trubby is always good for 5 or 6 ridiculously inaccurate passes in a game. 

Yeah, I would like to think we had a plan for Trubisky.  I think Daniels is probably a better QB for that team with their D. The only real issue with the D was they failed to get off the field on several 3rd downs. 

@"greediron" said:

@"MaroonBells" said: I actually felt a pang of dread when Trubisky went down. I didn't know who the backup was but I suspected he'd be better. Trubby is always good for 5 or 6 ridiculously inaccurate passes in a game. 

Yeah, I would like to think we had a plan for Trubisky.  I think Daniels is probably a better QB for that team with their D. The only real issue with the D was they failed to get off the field on several 3rd downs.