A message board dedicated to the discussion of Minnesota Viking Football.
https://beta1.vikingsmessageboard.com/
I thought they were slow to the ball on the third drive and didn't seem to be as effective after that. What I characterized as tired may be a bit of a stretch given the information you stated, but in reality they just seemed "out-of-sync" and this was after dominating (I thought) the first two series. Robinson was awful (and he is normally a player that is at least "average-good"). Maybe it was a bad game on his part, and he'll bounce back. I think the defense is missing Winfield more than they would have expected... (Just my 2 cents)Mothman wrote:
I'm confused. When did you think it showed? The Vikes offense started the game with a pair of 3-and-out possessions but the Vikes defense forced SF to go 3 and out on each of their first 2 possessions too so I can't imagine they were already tired by the time SF put together a TD drive on their third possession. They had defended a total of 7 plays up to that point (there was a penalty and a repeated down on SF's second possession) so they certainly shouldn't have been tired. The Vikes 3rd possession lasted 14 plays and about 7 minutes and it included the break between quarters so the defense should have been rested when they took the field again in the second quarter. Did you think they looked tired at some point after that?
Demi wrote:More garbage from Ponder 3rd week in. First play, AD in, play action, GOING DEEP! Here we....idiotic patented Ponder rainbow lob lands three yards in front of receiver. *yawn*. Noodle arm back at it.
Number of inaccurate passes. Even some receptions where a yard too high. Pocket presence non-existent. Weeee.
Ponder won't finish the season. Lucky if he makes it out of the bye as the starter.
????808vikingsfan wrote:Kicking game. Where is this 90 yd punt that I've been hearing about? Yes he looks good midfield but his distance and hangtime has been all over the place. Walsh is no longer automatic. He also caused a kick return for a td vs sf.
#18 seems about right to me. I get irritated to no end to see the number of Packer fans that pack the Dome every year. The only reason they can do that is because Viking fans are selling their tickets to them. Anytime you scalp your tickets to your arch rival, no matter the price, you shouldn't be in the top half of the league.MelanieMFunk wrote:Negative: The Vikings fan base was recently ranked #18 by some study using supposed in-depth analytics. Thankfully analytics has the word anal in it, because that's where they can shove this list. I know it's just a stupid, bogus list. But it still irritated me some, especially after seeing some of the teams ahead of us. Not just that, though; I feel bad for some other fan bases! What a joke!
http://fansided.com/2013/08/18/study-ra ... analytics/
That might be an indicator, but it would have no bearing on the rating, which is based solely on predicted revenue. (And note that the Packers' rated only #14, not much higher than the Vikings.) Revenues mean how much crap like jerseys that the league is selling, as well as stadium revenue, which we all know is poor in Minnesota because of the antiquated stadium.S197 wrote: #18 seems about right to me. I get irritated to no end to see the number of Packer fans that pack the Dome every year. The only reason they can do that is because Viking fans are selling their tickets to them. Anytime you scalp your tickets to your arch rival, no matter the price, you shouldn't be in the top half of the league.
808vikingsfan wrote:
Hey, it's a concern of mine. Walsh was struggling during camp from what I've read. Locke hasn't impressed punting from deep in their own territory so far. If you ask me, missed FG's and bad punts are almost as bad as turnovers. But I could just repeat how bad Ponder and the O line looks so far....
I wasn't questioning whether or not you had those concerns, I just didn't see them as high on the "concern list". Locke has 'nailed' a few punts better than Kluwe ever did, so I guess I just don't share the concern in that area. Walsh gave us a terrific performance last year (one that would be hard to duplicate this year) so I'm not expecting him to be perfect. If I came across as 'snarky' that really wasn't my intent. 