Viking question

[Patler]

Rastak, or any other Viking fan who cares to answer:

The Vikings have eked out two 4th quarter wins the last two weeks. Is it because:

A. They were very, very lucky.
B. The other teams choked and gave the games to the Vikings.
C. The Vikings have dug deep when they needed it.

In other words, have they won by accident; or have they won due to those intangible things good teams have that allow them to win even when it looks like they don't deserve to win.

[Rastak]

Re: Viking question

Rastak, or any other Viking fan who cares to answer:

The Vikings have eked out two 4th quarter wins the last two weeks. Is it because:

A. They were very, very lucky.
B. The other teams choked and gave the games to the Vikings.
C. The Vikings have dug deep when they needed it.

In other words, have they won by accident; or have they won due to those intangible things good teams have that allow them to win even when it looks like they don't deserve to win.

A and C and maybe a little of B. In something as complex as a football game it's never as simple as the options you present. They caught a couple of big breaks last Sunday. Calvin Johnson's play was definately not a fumble. I've heard people say that Detroit likely scores if not for that play. No way to know that. The Vikings had 5 sacks. They were pressuring Orlovsky. Sack, holding call...punt, who knows?

On the pass interference call , it was definately a bad call.....watching it live the DB shoved his hand out as the ball came and put his hand the recievers back as he dives for the ball. No way it was pass interference but at live speed I guess it could have looked like he shoved him. (Side rant, why do DB's think they HAVE to put their hands on recievers every play?).

Even that play, there is NO WAY to know what happens on the next play.

Vikings caught a big break on the Bush fumble. They also got shafted on two no calls aginst Indy and on a 4th and goal bad spot against Tennesee. This stuff happens.

Good teams don't allow the game to come down to one or two plays. The Vikings were very fortunate and they did not waste their opportunities.

All that having been said, rolling up nearly 400 yards of offense when you can't convert 3rd downs, can't score in the red zone, take too many penalties and sacks doesn't mean much. They absolutely won't finish ahead of the Packers playing like they did Sunday.

[Patler]

Re: Viking question

A and C and maybe a little of B. In something as complex as a football game it's never as simple as the options you present.

I almost put in, "D. All of the above.", but I didn't want to make it that easy on you!

Having not seen any of the games, I was hoping for a detailed answer, exactly as you provided! Thanks!!

Good thing the Vikings have that Packer-reject kicking field goals!

[run pMc]

Well I can't say I'm a MIN fan, but since I live in MN it's what they broadcast...

They absolutely won't finish ahead of the Packers playing like they did Sunday.

Assuming the Packers can build on the SEA win, I would agree.

The Calvin Johnson fumble wasn't...I thought that one would be overturned. Based on the last few games, the OL certainly isn't dominating -- tackles are not pass blocking well...Frerotte has been splattered a few times. The special teams has been uneven. The WR group is still spotty, as is the secondary. Losing EJ Henderson at MLB hurts them and I haven't heard Pat Williams' name called a lot. Every team has weaknesses, but on top of this I think the coaching has to be worrisome for Vikes fans.

Apparently Childress told Kluwe to kick away from Reggie Bush but he didn't and Bush returned 2 for scores and almost broke another. Either Kluwe isn't that good or he's not listening to his coach -- either of which makes you wonder. Not going for the 2pt conversion in the DET game when they were down 10-8 was odd also.

Ras is right -- I think they've been lucky, but I also think they have some veterans who weren't ready to let the ship sink. Winfield is bringing his 'A' game and Jared Allen helps them, but people are still picking on Charles Gordon at the CB spot...just like last year.
They are a dangerous team, but not a SB contender.

Playing DET certainly helps their cause, with Orlovsky not realizing he's running out of the end zone. If MIN plays the same way at Soldier Field next weekend, they'll get killed. You can bet CHI is fired up after the ATL loss and are gearing up to smack AP after he lit them up for 250+ last year. Should be a good game.

[StPaulPackFan]

Well I can't say I'm a MIN fan, but since I live in MN it's what they broadcast...

They absolutely won't finish ahead of the Packers playing like they did Sunday.

Assuming the Packers can build on the SEA win, I would agree.

The Calvin Johnson fumble wasn't...I thought that one would be overturned. Based on the last few games, the OL certainly isn't dominating -- tackles are not pass blocking well...Frerotte has been splattered a few times. The special teams has been uneven. The WR group is still spotty, as is the secondary. Losing EJ Henderson at MLB hurts them and I haven't heard Pat Williams' name called a lot. Every team has weaknesses, but on top of this I think the coaching has to be worrisome for Vikes fans.

Apparently Childress told Kluwe to kick away from Reggie Bush but he didn't and Bush returned 2 for scores and almost broke another. Either Kluwe isn't that good or he's not listening to his coach -- either of which makes you wonder. Not going for the 2pt conversion in the DET game when they were down 10-8 was odd also.

Ras is right -- I think they've been lucky, but I also think they have some veterans who weren't ready to let the ship sink. Winfield is bringing his 'A' game and Jared Allen helps them, but people are still picking on Charles Gordon at the CB spot...just like last year.
They are a dangerous team, but not a SB contender.

Playing DET certainly helps their cause, with Orlovsky not realizing he's running out of the end zone. If MIN plays the same way at Soldier Field next weekend, they'll get killed. You can bet CHI is fired up after the ATL loss and are gearing up to smack AP after he lit them up for 250+ last year. Should be a good game.

I get a heavy dose of KFAN (local sports talk radio) here in the Twin Cities and nearly everyone was scrutinizing this decision, like it was a no brainer. I actually agree with Childress on this one (Heaven help me). If you miss the 2pt conversion you're down by 2. Then, if the Lions score a TD it's a two score game. Not going for the 2 pt conversion insures that your offense will have a chance to either tie or go ahead the next time they get the ball, no matter what the Lions do with their next possession. Plus, it was only the 3rd quarter.

[mngolf19]

Re: Viking question

Rastak, or any other Viking fan who cares to answer:

The Vikings have eked out two 4th quarter wins the last two weeks. Is it because:

A. They were very, very lucky.
B. The other teams choked and gave the games to the Vikings.
C. The Vikings have dug deep when they needed it.

In other words, have they won by accident; or have they won due to those intangible things good teams have that allow them to win even when it looks like they don't deserve to win.

A and C and maybe a little of B. In something as complex as a football game it's never as simple as the options you present. They caught a couple of big breaks last Sunday. Calvin Johnson's play was definately not a fumble. I've heard people say that Detroit likely scores if not for that play. No way to know that. The Vikings had 5 sacks. They were pressuring Orlovsky. Sack, holding call...punt, who knows?

On the pass interference call , it was definately a bad call.....watching it live the DB shoved his hand out as the ball came and put his hand the recievers back as he dives for the ball. No way it was pass interference but at live speed I guess it could have looked like he shoved him. (Side rant, why do DB's think they HAVE to put their hands on recievers every play?).

Even that play, there is NO WAY to know what happens on the next play.

Vikings caught a big break on the Bush fumble. They also got shafted on two no calls aginst Indy and on a 4th and goal bad spot against Tennesee. This stuff happens.

Good teams don't allow the game to come down to one or two plays. The Vikings were very fortunate and they did not waste their opportunities.

All that having been said, rolling up nearly 400 yards of offense when you can't convert 3rd downs, can't score in the red zone, take too many penalties and sacks doesn't mean much. They absolutely won't finish ahead of the Packers playing like they did Sunday.

For this last paragraph, I'll say this. The Saints and Lions both blitzed 2 or more guys on every play. The Vikes admitted they weren't prepared for that against the Lions. If teams keep doing this, they will eventually be prepared for it and take full advantage. This also can hinder a running game, although I do believe they need to block better. Also, if Peterson doesn't fumble on the 5yd line or even his other fumbles, maybe this game plays out differently. The D is doing what they need to. They held the top passing attack of NO pretty well. And still stopping the run. If 2 punts had gone out of bounds against NO, what's the game look like then? I in no way believe the team is playing it's best right now, but I also think there are enough positives to see what they are capable of and that would be playoffs at a minimum.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Re: Viking question

If 2 punts had gone out of bounds against NO, what's the game look like then?

This is pretty rosy--considering they blocked a FG and returned it for a TD (fluke 10 point swing), got a gift interception at their own 10 yard line (another 3 points), had the Saints miss another makeable FG (another 3 point swing), got a gift fumble when they were blatantly face-masking Reggie Bush when the Saints were in FG range, etc.

No, there's no other way to look at it than the Vikings have gotten more than their fair share of calls and breaks the last two weeks (and these were more helpful than a couple of calls that went against them earlier in the year). It's funny to hear people around here talk about how much the Vikings get screwed by the refs and then to watch the last two weeks. Things tend to even out though.

So far, I'd say the Vikings got lucky in two games (New Orleans and Detroit), unlucky in one game (Indianapolis), and deserved the result in the other three games. In one, they were the slightly better team (Carolina). In another, they were the slightly worse team (Green Bay). In the other game, they looked like they weren't in the same league (Tennessee).

[mngolf19]

Re: Viking question

If 2 punts had gone out of bounds against NO, what's the game look like then?

This is pretty rosy--considering they blocked a FG and returned it for a TD (fluke 10 point swing), got a gift interception at their own 10 yard line (another 3 points), had the Saints miss another makeable FG (another 3 point swing), got a gift fumble when they were blatantly face-masking Reggie Bush when the Saints were in FG range, etc.

No, there's no other way to look at it than the Vikings have gotten more than their fair share of calls and breaks the last two weeks (and these were more helpful than a couple of calls that went against them earlier in the year). It's funny to hear people around here talk about how much the Vikings get screwed by the refs and then to watch the last two weeks. Things tend to even out though.

So far, I'd say the Vikings got lucky in two games (New Orleans and Detroit), unlucky in one game (Indianapolis), and deserved the result in the other three games. In one, they were the slightly better team (Carolina). In another, they were the slightly worse team (Green Bay). In the other game, they looked like they weren't in the same league (Tennessee).

How am I wrong about the NO game? If 2 punts go out of bounds, that changes the game alot. How, I can't say for sure but you can't deny that. And if the Vikes make plays, albeit strange ones, why is that automatically luck instead of playing hard and being prepared to take advantage of an opportunity. Of course they got some lucky plays, and unlucky as everyteam does. I've always said that good teams create their own luck though. Their record right now is exactly what they deserve. And if they weren't in the same league as Tenn, why was the game still in question with 5 min left?

I am trying to be objective. Like I said, they deserve the record they have. Their offense has struggled and therefore they play close games. Doesn't mean they can't be good. They got on a roll last year due to the OL starting to block. If, and that is a big if in my opinion, they get that going again then they won't have close games anymore as their D is doing the job.

And you will never, ever hear me say the Vikes lost due to bad officiating. Like you said, that tends to even out. So some on here talking about their bad calls should remember that too.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Re: Viking question

How am I wrong about the NO game? If 2 punts go out of bounds, that changes the game alot.

You're not wrong, but there were more "what ifs" that the Saints could have said than the Vikings. The bad breaks that New Orleans got directly cost them points in some cases. The block FG and return for TD was a 10 point turnaround. The way the Saints moved the ball, it's no guarantee that Minnesota would have held them on either drive. Then again, maybe they would have lost the ball on a dropped pass or fumbling while blatantly being face-masked again. Then again, who cares? They are 3-3. I'm not really worried about the Vikings this year. They may win the division at 9-7 or something, but they aren't going anywhere. Then again, the same could be said for the Packers.