Vikings Message Board.Com

when you add in Teddys plays for lost yards and penalty yards on the OL the offense actually finished in the NEGATIVE for yards for the game....pretty laughable, if you are NOT a vikes fan.

chicagopurple wrote:when you add in Teddys plays for lost yards and penalty yards on the OL the offense actually finished in the NEGATIVE for yards for the game....pretty laughable, if you are NOT a vikes fan.

Curious how you arrived at that.

Total net yards: 125 (which includes sacks and tackles for loss)
Penalty yards: 95

I agree that it is pretty bad, but it is not negative.

Purple Reign wrote: Curious how you arrived at that.

Total net yards: 125 (which includes sacks and tackles for loss)
Penalty yards: 95

I agree that it is pretty bad, but it is not negative.

30 yards.

Be still, my heart...

DK Sweets wrote:30 yards.

Be still, my heart...

It's just that NEGATIVE yards sounds so much worse.

Purple Reign wrote: It's just that NEGATIVE yards sounds so much worse.

Oh, I totally understand why you corrected his post. But seeing the actual number almost hurts just as bad.

WHAT IF Zimmer saw how over-confident the team was all week and let them get their tails whipped for a reality check? It would surely get their heads on straight for the last quarter of the season.

The subtle "Maybe" when asked if he noticed anything during practice is a little hint.

Has the ZIM gone MAD???

Tell me im crazy.

Wait, because of my theory, I already know i am.

vatusay wrote:WHAT IF Zimmer saw how over-confident the team was all week and let them get their tails whipped for a reality check? It would surely get their heads on straight for the last quarter of the season.

The subtle "Maybe" when asked if he noticed anything during practice is a little hint.

Has the ZIM gone MAD???

Tell me im crazy.

Wait, because of my theory, I already know i am.

Hey it also puts us in position to play Washington in the playoffs as opposed to playing Seattle. Genius coaching tactic!

you didnt add the yards he lost for scrambling backwards on sacks?? or is that already figured in?

or INT lost on interceptions?

Just to revisit the ref calls:

Peter King - MMBQ wrote:Ridiculous call of the week: Vikings defensive end Brian Robison nearly sacked Russell Wilson, but Wilson never fell to the ground, so Wilson got up running, and Robison tackled Wilson a second time—but not violently. And Robison got an unnecessary-roughness flag. Just a major overreaction by the officials there.

John_Viveiros wrote:Just to revisit the ref calls:

I can't even. #whitegirl

chicagopurple wrote:you didnt add the yards he lost for scrambling backwards on sacks?? or is that already figured in?

Sack yards are included in total net yards.

chicagopurple wrote:or INT lost on interceptions?

How can you count those yards? They don't count yards on incomplete passes as yards lost, why would they count ints? Ints count against a qb's rating, but are not factored in when calculating total net offensive yards.

John_Viveiros wrote:Just to revisit the ref calls:

I agree that it was a horrible call - that was not unnecessary roughness. But to say Wilson never fell to the ground is not accurate either - he was definitely down when his forearm was on the ground (not sure about his knees, but his forearm was). If the whistle hadn't blown yet as Robison claims, then there is no way he should have been flagged for that.