Re: Post Bears Game discussion
Posted: Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:16 am
Sorry, but a defense that is just "good" against a back up QB who came in with no warning in the first quarter is pretty lame
A message board dedicated to the discussion of Minnesota Viking Football.
https://beta1.vikingsmessageboard.com/
I agree. When's the last time our defense won a game for us? Like, either buckled down in a close game and prevented the team from scoring OR forced turnovers / created points on defense when the offense was sputtering. Probably need to go back to 2017?VikingLord wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 9:44 amThis.
The defense wasn't special. They failed to create a game-altering play. The two "almosts" on the opening drive don't count, unfortunately.
Our defense literally kept us in games where our offense failed to capitalize.TSonn wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:17 amI agree. When's the last time our defense won a game for us? Like, either buckled down in a close game and prevented the team from scoring OR forced turnovers / created points on defense when the offense was sputtering. Probably need to go back to 2017?VikingLord wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 9:44 am
This.
The defense wasn't special. They failed to create a game-altering play. The two "almosts" on the opening drive don't count, unfortunately.
Rainy weather against a back-up QB in a below average offense seems like a great setting for our talented defense to make a statement.
I did watch the video and he was pressured a number of times after holding the ball for way too long. I am not questioning the pressure number, I am questioning the fact he didn't have time to throw. He absolutely did on a good number of plays, and it did not matter.TSonn wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:10 amI mean, I didn't make it up: https://twitter.com/CourtneyRCronin/sta ... 0194011140.StumpHunter wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 9:19 am The pressure thing doesn't fly. He also had the 2nd longest time in the pocket of any QB in week 4. Not scrambling, not buying time, but just standing there looking for a receiver to throw too...and then checking down to Ham.
Didn't you watch that video of all of his pass attempts? It was clear that Kirk made some bad reads and he was also pressured quite a bit. I don't think it's an either/or situation - both things are clear issues.
If you really look at it objectively, the people making excuses for the defense are the ones saying it didn't play well.StumpHunter wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 9:39 amThey're both factors but the offensive performance alone can't account for the 11 minute discrepancy. If the defense gets the opposing offense off the field quickly, that discrepancy doesn't develop.
It's definitively not a fact. Its conjecture.If the defense had that exact same game and the offense scores a TD on that Diggs fumble drive as well as their other TD drive, we are talking about the great job the D did on Sunday holding the Bears to 13 in a 14-13 victory. That is a fact.
There's been a culture of excuse-making for the Vikings defense ever since Zimmer was hired. It's ridiculous. That was a solid, unexceptional performance by the defense on Sunday, nothing more. It's not as if they held a powerhouse offense at full strength to 16 points. Why is it so freakin' hard to simply acknowledge that they contributed to the loss? There's no compelling reason to place that unit above criticism.
StumpHunter wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:44 amIf you really look at it objectively, the people making excuses for the defense are the ones saying it didn't play well.
A bunch of excuses for why a good statistical performance wasn't actually good.
"Kept in" games wasn't my question. When is the last time they came out and had a dominant performance and won us the game? A team with 5 first round draft picks starting on defense should probably come out and dominate, at the very least against the worst offenses in the league, every so often.Dmizzle0 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:34 amOur defense literally kept us in games where our offense failed to capitalize.TSonn wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:17 am
I agree. When's the last time our defense won a game for us? Like, either buckled down in a close game and prevented the team from scoring OR forced turnovers / created points on defense when the offense was sputtering. Probably need to go back to 2017?
Rainy weather against a back-up QB in a below average offense seems like a great setting for our talented defense to make a statement.
A more recent example was the end of the last game against the Packers. Defense has to stop the Packers on their final drive to get the ball back for the offense. If they can get a 3-and-out, they'll accomplish that. The Packers want the clock to run, so they're going to be conservative on offense and try to get a few first downs, preferably on the ground.TSonn wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:58 am"Kept in" games wasn't my question. When is the last time they came out and had a dominant performance and won us the game? A team with 5 first round draft picks starting on defense should probably come out and dominate, at the very least against the worst offenses in the league, every so often.
Last game I can remember is 2017 @ GB. Though, that was against Brett Hundley.
I understand that, fully dominating games is really hard to do especially being a team that's always banged up, my points is, given the offenses the Vikings played so far, the points they allowed, I believe justifies them as a great defense.TSonn wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:58 am"Kept in" games wasn't my question. When is the last time they came out and had a dominant performance and won us the game? A team with 5 first round draft picks starting on defense should probably come out and dominate, at the very least against the worst offenses in the league, every so often.
Last game I can remember is 2017 @ GB. Though, that was against Brett Hundley.
Jim, I've said this a lot over the years: There is a lot more to this than just painting with broad strokes. In each of the bad years of Zimmer's tenure there have been circumstances out of his control. AP hitting his kid in 2014. You lose you best player for basically 15 games. You can sit and say a good coach would overcome that, but really? In 2016 which NFL coach could win a superbowl while starting 8 different players of Offensive Tackle? That is just ridiculous. Even 2018 had the death of Sparano literally days before Training Camp started. We still almost made the playoffs despite that mess. I suppose BB could have overcome that one right?Mothman wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 12:59 pm Here's the short version of my previous post:
At this point, in Spielman's 8th year as GM and Zimmer's 6th season as head coach, I find it difficult to focus exclusively on game-to-game problems when the chronic, overarching issues are so readily apparent. We can analyze the specifics of individual performances from week to week but the bottom line is the people in charge haven't built this team into the powerhouse it needs to be and persistent problems that run through the entire timeline indicate coaching/management issues.
I think we're a little hung up because it was Chase Daniels that led that first long drive (which was lengthened because of the penalties). If we put "an accurate QB" in place of his name, would that change anything? What about "an accurate QB that handles pressure" because that what Chase was on Sunday. Some of these QB's sitting on benches are better than some starters and some are just as effective. Maybe they're on the bench because they can't sustain their play over an entire season. Daniels was a Heisman runner up for a reason, and it wasn't because he could run.chicagopurple wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:16 am Sorry, but a defense that is just "good" against a back up QB who came in with no warning in the first quarter is pretty lame
I think we're a little hung up because it was Chase Daniels. If we put "an accurate QB" in place of his name, would that change anything? What about "an accurate QB that handles pressure" because that what Chase was on Sunday. Some of these QB's sitting on benches are better than some starters and some are just as effective. Maybe they're on the bench because they can't sustain their play over an entire season. Daniels was a Heisman runner up for a reason, and it wasn't because he could run.chicagopurple wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:16 am Sorry, but a defense that is just "good" against a back up QB who came in with no warning in the first quarter is pretty lame
The same can be said for every coach, every season. They all face circumstances beyond their control. That was as true for Leslie Frazier as it was for Zimmer. Ditto for Childress, Tice, Green, Burns... we all know that. I'm not about to write a thesis-level critique of Zimmer and Spielman but you know very well that over the years, I have both acknowledged mitigating circumstances and gone into great critical detail. I'm not simply painting in broad, simplistic strokes when I say the Vikings need a change in leadership at the top.mansquatch wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:20 pmJim, I've said this a lot over the years: There is a lot more to this than just painting with broad strokes. In each of the bad years of Zimmer's tenure there have been circumstances out of his control.
No, he's supposed to build a team capable of handling a situation like that without desperately coughing up a first round pick for an expensive, injury-prone veteran who had never had a winning record as a starter. He's supposed to manage resources wisely and have a reasonable handle on the quality of his team.The QB thing is annoying also. Going into 2016, after winning the division and being a field goal kick away from the divisional round in the playoffs the GM is supposed to just scuttle the season when Teddy blows his knee up? Seriously?
Who do you think put the team in that position? Bridgewater's injury wasn't simply a misfortune that forced Spielman to rush, panic-stricken, into a major trade. It perfectly illustrates how poorly Spielman was managing the position. He put together the roster and decided (presumably with input from Zimmer) that Hill was sufficient as the primary backup. However, he clearly didn't actually believe that because as soon as Hill was forced into the lineup by Bridgewater's injury, Spielman traded for Bradford. There was no option on the roster, at the game's most important position, who could step in and start for a prolonged period of time. That's not an excuse in Spielman's favor, it's an indictment of his competence.To not do that is to basically say "well guys, I don't have any faith in you, so we are starting Shawn Hill for 16 games. Hope you all enjoy the season." Spielman would have deserved to be fired if he had pulled that. So apparently any choice he makes there is bad. I guess Teddy blows up his knee and Rick is just hosed all the way around.