Vikings Message Board.Com

I was watching Zimmer's press conference on Vikings.com. He said Dan Gable addressed the team last night. No wonder we won today. Go Hawks! Skol Vikings!

Rieux wrote: Huh? Of course it would help! Five more yards gives Locke a substantially better shot at dropping the kick inside the 20!

And wait—one second less on the clock is no big deal? Do we remember how much time was on the clock two weeks ago when Kyle Orton threw the winning touchdown pass in Buffalo?

And a timeout is worthless? Weren't some of us bemoaning the fact that Zimmer didn't call a timeout earlier in that Buffalo drive?

So—it seems to me that five yards more territory for Locke, 1-2 more seconds off the clock, and a timeout are all valuable. And the risk/cost of taking a delay penalty are... absolutely nothing. So it seems to me a pretty good idea.

Meanwhile, I'm looking for the penalty me4get mentioned upthread. I'm not seeing it anywhere in the rulebook. (I'm also not sure what it would mean if the Vikings "couldn't" take such a penalty. Would they just not lose the five yards? Would an unsportsmanlike-conduct 15 yards get tacked on? Surely the game clock would still wind down until the play clock ran out—so the Vikes would gain two out of the three benefits to the delay strategy right there.)

those are two very different situations though, you can't really compare the Buffalo 2 minute drive to the Redskins having less than 10 seconds. The Redskins have time for one play left in the game after 4th down. A timeout does nothing in that instance, nor does 1 second, since the play doesn't end when the clock hits 0.

The only argument worth discussing is the extra 5 yards for the punt, but even that is nitpicking. An NFL punter should be able to down the ball inside the 10 yard line from where the ball was regardless, so really that's just more so a knock on our punter than a poor decision by the coach. There's no guarantee that extra 5 yards does anything anyways, as Locke has had difficulty pinning the ball deep no matter where he is on the field.

And ultimately, having the ball on the 20 yard line with time for one play in the game is not exactly a "good" spot to be in for the offense, and as we saw, there really was no chance they were scoring there.

Anyone else notice Jennings moving Patterson around as they set up at the line? Especially in the second half (Patterson had no targets in the half). It seemed like Patterson lined up in the wrong place several times but maybe it was a shift at the line?

Patterson got open early but the offense usually scripts the first 10-15 plays. Afterwards, he was noticeably absent. I'm thinking perhaps he isn't as far along as we were hoping.

On the positive, both Ford and Ellison played above their pay grade. Wright had some key conversions too.

Mothman wrote:Well, it took them a year and a half but the Vikes finally got back-to-back wins again! Well done. I love the resiliency they showed today after missing some big opportunities early. They took every punch the Redskins delivered and then punched back. It's a shame they couldn't quite close out that Buffalo game or they'd be at .500 right now. Still, the Bears have struggled lately so that's going to be a winnable game and I'll be there so they'd better win it. at 4-5, with 7 weeks left, this team can still get themselves into the playoff mix.

From what I saw and heard, Floyd was amazing today. He had a strong game last week too. Between him and Griffen, we may be seeing a dominant right side of the DL developing...

They'd actually be over .500 right now, had they won that Bills game. It's too bad .. 5-4 would look/feel a lot better than 4-5.

Oh well. Great win today, nice to see the offense finally get things going.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

S197 wrote:Anyone else notice Jennings moving Patterson around as they set up at the line? Especially in the second half (Patterson had no targets in the half). It seemed like Patterson lined up in the wrong place several times but maybe it was a shift at the line?

Patterson got open early but the offense usually scripts the first 10-15 plays. Afterwards, he was noticeably absent. I'm thinking perhaps he isn't as far along as we were hoping

I don't think there's any doubt. he was raw coming out of college and facing a steep learning curve and he still has a LOT to learn. At this point, he's a naturally-gifted athlete but not a natural wide receiver.

frosted wrote:They'd actually be over .500 right now, had they won that Bills game.

You're right, of course. I obviously didn't think about that one too hard!

If someone told me Teddy was going to throw 42 times today and then asked me if we would win this game I would have said No. I didn't get to pay close attention to this game as there was a lot of chaos today, but I'm still trying to figure out how this game happened exactly. I look forward to watching it again. I did notice Floyd had an awesome start and it appeared he was commanding the double teams for much of the rest of the game. Loving the Floyd Griffin combo.

Guys debating the TO/ taking the penalty! WE WON!

Not worth getting your heart rates up about a moot point. I think Norv was telling Zimmer the same thing--just take the penalty and give Locke 5 extra yards to work with, but Zimmer basically told him "no". You could see Norv chewing on Zim's ear a bit as he was talking to the ref getting ready to call the TO.

In the end, it didn't matter and anyone trying to criticize Zim's in game execution based on this detail is grasping at straws. They coached a good game today on both sides of the ball. Very pleased.

Mothman wrote:

I don't think there's any doubt. he was raw coming out of college and facing a steep learning curve and he still has a LOT to learn. At this point, he's a naturally-gifted athlete but not a natural wide receiver.

Yeah...

*insert Deandre Hopkins was my choice who btw had 6 catches for 115 yards and a TD today spiel*

A lot of the biggest fears I've had about Patterson have been completely true. But this is Spielmans draft strategy atm, swing for the fences on picks like Patterson and Barr. If Bridgewater throws a decent ball Patterson has an easy what? 60 yard TD? So the results of the game look bad but there are opportunities for the kid out there. Of course I'll throw out the generic "it takes 3 years to learn WR" cliche and that's probably especially true with Patterson given his starting point.

So as much as I wish we had a real WR like Hopkins out there, I'll give CP84 some time to develop.

mondry wrote: Yeah...

*insert Deandre Hopkins was my choice who btw had 6 catches for 115 yards and a TD today spiel*

A lot of the biggest fears I've had about Patterson have been completely true. But this is Spielmans draft strategy atm, swing for the fences on picks like Patterson and Barr. If Bridgewater throws a decent ball Patterson has an easy what? 60 yard TD? So the results of the game look bad but there are opportunities for the kid out there. Of course I'll throw out the generic "it takes 3 years to learn WR" cliche and that's probably especially true with Patterson given his starting point.

So as much as I wish we had a real WR like Hopkins out there, I'll give CP84 some time to develop.

This is a great point. If Teddy hits a wide open, easy pass for a TD, CP's numbers don't look so bad and it probably gives both TB and CP more confidence in each other the rest of the game. Teddy missed the throw though and the end result is what it is.

saint33 wrote:those are two very different situations though, you can't really compare the Buffalo 2 minute drive to the Redskins having less than 10 seconds.

The only comparison I'm doing is pointing out that when you're ahead near the end of the game, it is in your interest to have less time on the clock, because it gives your opponent less time to spend on the field. There is an overwhelming difference between 0:01 and 0:00. (Indeed, one or two fewer seconds is a much bigger deal with 12 seconds left in the game than it is with 120 left.)

The Redskins have time for one play left in the game after 4th down.

That's not inevitable! Drain a few more seconds off the clock, and it's not at all clear that the punt play wouldn't have drained the entire 10 or 11 remaining seconds.

If you have the game recorded, rewind it back to the Vikings' first punt of the game, in the first quarter. The ball is snapped to Locke with 14:16 on the game clock. He gets the kick away, Washington PR Andre Roberts muffs it and there's some running around, and eventually the tackle is made. The play takes... eleven seconds.

So, back in the fourth quarter, if there are only 10 or 11 seconds on the clock rather than 12 (and if he had more space between him and the goal line to kick in), Locke has a shot at getting a ball to sit down and roll around a little inside the 20 yard line; by doing so, it's entirely possible that he can end the game right there. And every second or two the Vikings milk off the clock makes that exercise—which denies Washington the very opportunity even to run a play—more practicable.

A timeout does nothing in that instance....

I agree that the timeout is less valuable than five yards or 1-2 seconds, but that's still not "nothing."

nor does 1 second, since the play doesn't end when the clock hits 0.

But the game ends if Washington isn't running a play at the time!

The only argument worth discussing is the extra 5 yards for the punt

Sure—the difference between (1) the game being over, Vikings win, and (2) RGIII having one second (or six) to put up a Hail Mary is "not worth discussing."

but even that is nitpicking.

I dunno; I'd say advocating a strategy that provides three different measurable advantages with no cost or risk whatsoever isn't "nitpicking." The game could have turned on that play.

I certainly don't think that this was the most consequential decision of the game by any means. I'm just not seeing anyone provide an actual explanation why taking a delay penalty there wasn't clearly the better option. "Meh, it wouldn't have mattered anyway" is not, I think, an argument. NFL games are routinely won and lost on "nitpick" margins that slim.

Pondering Her Percy wrote:As much as some were shredding Teddy in the beginning of this game, one thing I have to give him is he is pretty clutch. He's as calm as they come down the stretch when the game is on the line. Also, our offensive line played much better today. Floyd and Barr are animals. Very encouraging win

Not just clutch. The guy is tough as nails. He takes hits and just brushes them off.

Texas Vike wrote:I think Norv was telling Zimmer the same thing--just take the penalty and give Locke 5 extra yards to work with, but Zimmer basically told him "no". You could see Norv chewing on Zim's ear a bit as he was talking to the ref getting ready to call the TO.

I always knew Turner was a genius!

(Actually, I think that was Scott Turner talking to Zimmer at that point. Norv was presumably still in the booth. I think you might be right about what he was saying, though.)

In the end, it didn't matter and anyone trying to criticize Zim's in game execution based on this detail is grasping at straws.

I'm certainly not trying to do that. I've got no beef with the coaching today overall.

Taking a timeout in that situation is indeed a very minor mistake. Arguing that that timeout was the right decision is, IMO, much more eyeroll-worthy.

Mothman wrote:Well, it took them a year and a half but the Vikes finally got back-to-back wins again! Well done. I love the resiliency they showed today after missing some big opportunities early. They took every punch the Redskins delivered and then punched back. It's a shame they couldn't quite close out that Buffalo game or they'd be at .500 right now. Still, the Bears have struggled lately so that's going to be a winnable game and I'll be there so they'd better win it. at 4-5, with 7 weeks left, this team can still get themselves into the playoff mix.

From what I saw and heard, Floyd was amazing today. He had a strong game last week too. Between him and Griffen, we may be seeing a dominant right side of the DL developing...

I thought Griffen stood out today. I loved how he stayed at home to pressure RGIII on rollouts.

In other news, I think one film-analysis point I'd like to see investigated is what made the difference half-to-half for the offensive line. It appeared to me that the OL played vastly better in the second half (or perhaps after Munnerlyn's interception?) than previously. What happened?