Vikings Message Board.Com

Cliff wrote: That's fine if you think they were minor but the article we're referencing doesn't back that up.
.

You mean besides only labeling only one of the three as critical as it's the most important thing here?

To me, that means they were all equally critical

Wait, I thought we were talking about the article, you mean YOU think they are all equally important even though the article only calls one critical? The article spends one small paragraph on everything else but spends most of the time dealing with the spacing including pictures. I think it's pretty obvious what really messed things up here.

Walsh made a farther away field goal with the exact same setup. He flubbed a short FG due to nerves etc. He didn't lineup wrong. He didn't take too many steps. He just planted wrong. That's all on Walsh. You can blame them as a unit for a bad snap/hold/kick but the kick is ultimately able to overcome the other two. The snapper or the holder can't overcome a bad kick.

I'm all for getting rid of Locke already, don't have a big opinion on the snapper. I think you're stretching it when you want to equally blame 3 guys for something that if done correctly by the guy doing the job(the kicker) would have made the other things unimportant. It's like 15%/15%/70%

Crax wrote: Wait, I thought we were talking about the article, you mean YOU think they are all equally important even though the article only calls one critical? The article spends one small paragraph on everything else but spends most of the time dealing with the spacing including pictures. I think it's pretty obvious what really messed things up here.

So if someone doesn't specifically use a word it can't be implied? The author specifically said that had any one of those not happened the kick would have went through. So, by that logic, the bad hold was just as critical (even if the author doesn't specifically use the word). Without the bad hold, the kick would have been good (according to the author).

Walsh made a farther away field goal with the exact same setup. He flubbed a short FG due to nerves etc. He didn't lineup wrong. He didn't take too many steps. He just planted wrong. That's all on Walsh. You can blame them as a unit for a bad snap/hold/kick but the kick is ultimately able to overcome the other two. The snapper or the holder can't overcome a bad kick.

Again, the author specifically says the kick would have been good if any one of those things had gone right. That means if the hold was right it would have overcome Walsh's kick issue.

You might be right the hold and/or snap wouldn't have helped. The author of this article apparently doesn't agree with that.

I'm all for getting rid of Locke already, don't have a big opinion on the snapper. I think you're stretching it when you want to equally blame 3 guys for something that if done correctly by the guy doing the job(the kicker) would have made the other things unimportant. It's like 15%/15%/70%

Take it up with the article that says the kick would have been fine if the hold or snap would have been right.

I don't know what percentage of fault there is for each mistake.

Just to add my thoughts, i've thought from the beginning that the missed FG was on Locke.

If you look at the pictures provided, it also looks like Locke has his arms extended more on the missed kick than the one that went well. The camera angles aren't perfect, but if you look at the angle of his elbow I think you'll see what I'm talking about. That easily could have been why Walsh's plant foot was too close.

Jordysghost wrote:Just to add my thoughts, i've thought from the beginning that the missed FG was on Locke.

Locke stated that they (I'm assuming him and Walsh) decided that because of the weather being so cold making the ball slippery, that it would be too risky to try and spin the ball so Locke would just spot the ball however it was snapped to him. So if this is true, you can't put any blame on Locke for not spinning the ball to get the laces pointed the other direction. Walsh also has taken full responsibility saying it was his fault he missed the kick (emphasis on full meaning nobody else). If Walsh can admit that, why can't other people accept it?

Purple Reign wrote: Locke stated that they (I'm assuming him and Walsh) decided that because of the weather being so cold making the ball slippery, that it would be too risky to try and spin the ball so Locke would just spot the ball however it was snapped to him. So if this is true, you can't put any blame on Locke for not spinning the ball to get the laces pointed the other direction. Walsh also has taken full responsibility saying it was his fault he missed the kick (emphasis on full meaning nobody else). If Walsh can admit that, why can't other people accept it?

Walsh has to say that, what else would he say? 'I would have made it if my crappy holder didn't mess up.'?

It was a combination of the laces and just an angled hold, look at that hold in comparison to the others, its tilted to the point where I can't think that it was properly held, jmo.

The big issue was the foot placement. With the angle of approach he would have kicked himself in the ankle if he put a swing on it that would have driven the ball through the uprights. He had to change his kicking motion as a result and the final outcome is exactly what one would imagine.

Purple Reign wrote: Locke stated that they (I'm assuming him and Walsh) decided that because of the weather being so cold making the ball slippery, that it would be too risky to try and spin the ball so Locke would just spot the ball however it was snapped to him. So if this is true, you can't put any blame on Locke for not spinning the ball to get the laces pointed the other direction. Walsh also has taken full responsibility saying it was his fault he missed the kick (emphasis on full meaning nobody else). If Walsh can admit that, why can't other people accept it?

Some people will accept blame that isn't theirs to accept in order to be a good teammate. This wouldn't be the first time it happened.

DK Sweets wrote:Some people will accept blame that isn't theirs to accept in order to be a good teammate. This wouldn't be the first time it happened.

Sure, but I don't think they would make up a story about them talking about it beforehand.

Crax wrote: Sure, but I don't think they would make up a story about them talking about it beforehand.

Has there been an actual report that they talked about it? I've seen speculation, but no report.

I'd have him kick from the middle or right hash too.

Demi wrote:I'd have him kick from the middle or right hash too.

This has been my opinion since I saw them line up to kick from the left hash. "Why the heck did they end up on the left? That's not good, but it's a short one so we should be alright." Wrong.

It seems the majority here don't share my opinion that Walsh sucked from the left hash all year.

This particular miss, however, is an anomaly because all year Walsh tended to miss right when lined up on the left hash, and he pulled this kick to the left. So it seems something besides the mechanical issue he'd been fighting all year went wrong on this kick.

Minnesota first-graders write letters to Blair Walsh

"Dear Blair Walsh," Sophia Doffin said, reading her message to the class. "I know that it can be hard to get through things that are sad. but you have to try and try again. Everyone makes mistakes sometimes. One time I made a mistake when I was doing a cartwheel. I felt embarrassed. You can still help the Vikings win the Super Bowl next year. Your fan, Sophia Doffin.

"P.S.: You are the best kicker that I know.

"P.P.S.: I hope you win the Super Bowl this year.

"P.P.P. S.: I am really a big fan of you.

"P.P.P.P.S.: I love the Vikings."

Thanks, Cliff. I love that story!

DK Sweets wrote:If you look at the pictures provided, it also looks like Locke has his arms extended more on the missed kick than the one that went well. The camera angles aren't perfect, but if you look at the angle of his elbow I think you'll see what I'm talking about. That easily could have been why Walsh's plant foot was too close.

I was wondering about that, DK.

Field goals and extra points aren't static kicks. It all happens in an instant. The ball isn't even placed on the ground until a split second before Walsh plants and kicks, so the holder HAS to put the ball on the spot where Walsh is expecting it to be. If it's spotted too close to Walsh, he could ankle it left. If it's too far away, he could push it (we saw plenty of pushed attempts this year).

So I decided to do some really basic stat compilation, thanks to Pro-Football-Reference.

In 2012, Walsh's rookie season, he was 35-of-38. That included 10-for-10 beyond 50 yards. He missed one kick from 30-39, and two from 40-49, none from inside 30. His holder -- Chris Kluwe.

Since then, Walsh has missed two (counting Sunday) from 20-29, eight from 30-39 (counting extra points), four from 40-49, and nine from 50+. Those totals don't count the nightmarish 2015 preseason. His holder for all three years -- Jeff Locke.

Makes me wonder how much Jeff Locke's holds have contributed to Blair Walsh's problems.