Vikings Message Board.Com

Kendrick's was all over the field, but he had some misses. Plus a few of the Gaints plays we had some missed tackles, especially on that 67 yard pass play.

Would like to somehow see them work Hillman into the lineup. I think him and the Jet could be a good 1-2 punch.
CJ showed back up tonight...not sure why we didn't target the Gaints cornerback more.

I don't know what the answer is for Walsh, but I feel he is going to cost us an important game.

Gaints came close to blocking a Locke punt. He already has had a punt blocked this season.
I'm not sure where the problem is there but it needs addressed.

Norv had a couple series with some bad play calling. When we really needed to sustain a drive.

Bradford is a gamer getting it done with few mistakes.

One concern is Hunter was limping pretty bad towards the end of the game. Looks like that knee was bothering him.

Overall a pretty good win.

chicagopurple wrote:
As always I think it will come down to whose front lines are better. I think NY will put good pressure on Bradford.....but their secondary is so beat up that if he runs a good quick release passing game, we can get by (that IS his forte, right?).

On the other side, the NYG OL just isnt fast and strong enough to protect Manning and he is so easily rattled that I think we will continue on our big streak of turnovers.....

24-10 Viking Victory!!!


Those voices in my head can be creepily omnicient..........

why is everyone constantly complaining about Norv? The bad drives we had were largely because we cannot run block. He tried mixing up the running plays but no matter where we ran, the blocking was mediocre. You can not fault him for that. The pass plays were very appropriate for the most part. quick releases and the occasional deep routes that made the most of Bradfords skill. He finally let CP get some touches with very vanilla results. Considering the OL he has to work with, losing AP/Bridgewater, I think he is doing a reasonable job. HE maynot be to the offense what Zim is to our D, but he is not "holding back" a stellar offensivve team by any means.

chicagopurple wrote:why is everyone constantly complaining about Norv? The bad drives we had were largely because we cannot run block. He tried mixing up the running plays but no matter where we ran, the blocking was mediocre. You can not fault him for that. The pass plays were very appropriate for the most part. quick releases and the occasional deep routes that made the most of Bradfords skill. He finally let CP get some touches with very vanilla results. Considering the OL he has to work with, losing AP/Bridgewater, I think he is doing a reasonable job. HE maynot be to the offense what Zim is to our D, but he is not "holding back" a stellar offensivve team by any means.

He telegraphs rushing plays and it appears Bradford isnt allowed to audible. A couple of those were horrendous. 2 and 6, Giants put ten on the line against 6 blockers... Run up the gut.

IrishViking wrote: He telegraphs rushing plays and it appears Bradford isnt allowed to audible. A couple of those were horrendous. 2 and 6, Giants put ten on the line against 6 blockers... Run up the gut.

Yes, there were several instances of this in the first half especially. If armchair QBs like us can see it from the couch, surely Bradford senses it too.

The Vikings pass rush was *so* important in this game. I know they didn't get any sacks but did you see how quick Manning was getting the ball away on average? How many incomplete passes were a result of Manning spiking the ball because he couldn't see Everson Griffen anymore? The CB play was impressive but they owe a large part of their success to how quickly Manning was forcing the ball out.

Cliff wrote:The Vikings pass rush was *so* important in this game. I know they didn't get any sacks but did you see how quick Manning was getting the ball away on average? How many incomplete passes were a result of Manning spiking the ball because he couldn't see Everson Griffen anymore? The CB play was impressive but they owe a large part of their success to how quickly Manning was forcing the ball out.

Yeah this strikes me as the sort of game that opposing team fans are gonna point at and say "see? The giants held them to no sacks. No big deal"

IrishViking wrote: Yeah this strikes me as the sort of game that opposing team fans are gonna point at and say "see? The giants held them to no sacks. No big deal"

I already saw some of that in comments sections of the ESPN write up. That's hilarious.

Eli was very skittish from the get go. He seems to be scared of getting hit.

Texas Vike wrote:
I already saw some of that in comments sections of the ESPN write up. That's hilarious.

Eli was very skittish from the get go. He seems to be scared of getting hit.

I don't think he's scared to be hit. I think that team is scared to lose him and they were determined to keep him from getting hit (and perhaps to avoid any fumbles as a result of sacks/hits). It seemed like a strategy to me, especially because I've seen Eli stand in the pocket pretty fearlessly over the years.

Regarding sacks: I'm reminded of week 1. I didn't think the Vikings pass protection in the first game was very good even though they didn't give up a sack. Like Manning, Hill was getting rid of the ball very quickly. The Titans got pressure all day but it's hard to bring a QB down when he's getting the ball out of his hands so quickly.

Anyway, yesterday's game is a great example of why stats are useful but don't tell the whole story. The Vikes pass rush had a very positive impact on that game, even if they didn't pile up sacks like they did against Carolina.

Anyone else noticing and happy about the emergence of Locke? He looks night and day better than prior season. He's become a huge asset.


Priefer is a good coach.

PacificNorseWest wrote:Anyone else noticing and happy about the emergence of Locke? He looks night and day better than prior season. He's become a huge asset.


Priefer is a good coach.

Yes, I've noticed and yes, Priefer is a good coach. It was wise to retain his services.

PacificNorseWest wrote:Anyone else noticing and happy about the emergence of Locke? He looks night and day better than prior season. He's become a huge asset.


Priefer is a good coach.

Not to take anything away from our defense or Bradford, I think Locke won us our Home Opener and was a major factor against the Panthers.

Mothman wrote:

I don't think he's scared to be hit. I think that team is scared to lose him and they were determined to keep him from getting hit (and perhaps to avoid any fumbles as a result of sacks/hits). It seemed like a strategy to me, especially because I've seen Eli stand in the pocket pretty fearlessly over the years.

Regarding sacks: I'm reminded of week 1. I didn't think the Vikings pass protection in the first game was very good even though they didn't give up a sack. Like Manning, Hill was getting rid of the ball very quickly. The Titans got pressure all day but it's hard to bring a QB down when he's getting the ball out of his hands so quickly.

Anyway, yesterday's game is a great example of why stats are useful but don't tell the whole story. The Vikes pass rush had a very positive impact on that game, even if they didn't pile up sacks like they did against Carolina.

You're likely right that it was a strategy, but he still looked rather scared, IMO.

Then again, I wouldn't want Everson tackling me either.

PacificNorseWest wrote:Anyone else noticing and happy about the emergence of Locke? He looks night and day better than prior season. He's become a huge asset.


Priefer is a good coach.

During the GB game I heard one of their fans saying, "I wish we had their punter." I was like, whoa never thought I'd ever hear that!

fiestavike wrote: I'm going to change his name to ZOBJ, which stands for ZerOdell Beckham Jr.

I hope he lights it up next week. But just next week. They play the Packers.