Vikings Message Board.Com

akvikingsfan wrote:Do you guys remember the 09 season? Of course you do. We went to the NFCC game and only lost because Favre wanted to be a hero. Anyway not the point I am making. After every win at the start of the year people on this board would post reasons why we weren't that good, how we barely beat a bad team, how we didn't put up huge numbers. I see this as being the exact same as that season. We are winning. Not destroying teams but winning none the less. If this season turns out anywhere near as good as 09 I'll be very pleased.

Well I will be very pleased if it ends better than the 09 season did.

I've been thinking about the Vikings passing strategy and all the comments about the improved OL and I think they're related. The Vikes approach has helped minimize turnovers and although I do think the o-line is better, they aren't being asked to pass protect on a lot of slow-developing plays and 7 step drops. I wonder if Musgrave's strategy over the first 4 games has been to manage Ponder and the much-changed OL, to keep them out of situations that will expose their shortcomings as much as possible and to play to their strengths. Carlson and/or Rudolph have been kept in to block quite a bit which seems like it might support that theory.

I think everoyne here wants the team to win. Some of us just prefer to over analyze the team (Pot Kettle...) and the negatives are the more interesting topics since positives are what are working. No one here is saying we should have our return guys do something different because they scored 2 TDs. What they do want to see is Ponder get 2 TDs too!

2009 was a lot of fun to watch, your team winnings always is. However, I like this 2012 style of win better. This team plays with grit and tenacity. I do not know if we have what it takes to contend just yet, but I love the attitude this team is taking to the game.

Bottom line, no Vikings fan will truly be happy until Minnesota wins a Super Bowl. The best case would be for a Vikings/Bills showdown. I wouldn't even turn to the Lingerie or Puppy Bowls for that one!

...wisdom

indianation65 wrote:Bottom line, no Vikings fan will truly be happy until Minnesota wins a Super Bowl. The best case would be for a Vikings/Bills showdown. I wouldn't even turn to the Lingerie or Puppy Bowls for that one!

...wisdom

Imagine the ratings for that one . It's be too much heart ache for the team that loses.

mansquatch wrote:I think everoyne here wants the team to win. Some of us just prefer to over analyze the team (Pot Kettle...) and the negatives are the more interesting topics since positives are what are working. No one here is saying we should have our return guys do something different because they scored 2 TDs. What they do want to see is Ponder get 2 TDs too!

Sure, we want it all! That's the Way of the Fan.

However, I have to say, I don't necessarily think the negatives are more interesting to discuss. In fact, I think it's the opposite. There's a definite tendency for people to focus on what they don't like but with the team winning, I'm more interested in talking about how they won and what they did right than in what might might cost them in the future. Don't get me wrong, It's all good fodder for discussion but we've had a lot of negatives to discuss the past few years so it's particularly refreshing to have an opportunity to focus on positives.

2009 was a lot of fun to watch, your team winnings always is. However, I like this 2012 style of win better. This team plays with grit and tenacity. I do not know if we have what it takes to contend just yet, but I love the attitude this team is taking to the game.

Ditto. it's exciting and the team seems energized.

indianation65 wrote:Bottom line, no Vikings fan will truly be happy until Minnesota wins a Super Bowl. The best case would be for a Vikings/Bills showdown. I wouldn't even turn to the Lingerie or Puppy Bowls for that one!

...wisdom

That's not wisdom! It's a recipe for a record number of nationwide nervous breakdowns in the span of one football game.

VikingLord wrote:I don't know that I'm complaining per se, but anyone who thinks this was another solid won ala the one against the 49ers is high on purple Kool Aid. The Vikes beat the 49ers convincingly. The Lions could have won that game had their receivers not had a case of the dropsies.

But the Lions didn't win the game. The Vikings won. The Lions lost. That's not going to change.

VikingLord wrote:This looks like Chilly-ball to me. It's the definition of it. Run AD, run AD, run Gerhart, compress the field, throw it short to Harvin, check down, check down, check down, then chuck-and-duck 2-3 times per game and hope for something good to happen.

Yeah, right. Ponder's 27 yard pass to Simpson with only 2:47 minutes left in the game from their own 19 yard line is Chili ball? No, it's not and you know it. Ponder being allowed to audible is Chili ball? Nope. Even Favre got in hot water for doing that. And running AD is solely Chili ball? Come on. BTW, what's wrong with a back as good as AD running a lot?

The Vikings need to open things up. They did throw deep and they'll probably continue to do that, maybe at a greater rate. But don't expect the team to rely solely on spread offenses and do nothing but hurl the ball downfield. It's not going to happen and they probably wouldn't win doing it. Personally, I like the winning part of what they're doing.

VikingLord wrote:That's Chilly-ball, and it's not complaining to point out that is how the Vikes played on offense yesterday and it would have cost them had they not had two returns for touchdowns (something that has happened only 3 times in their 50+ year history).

I see. So you don't respect Harvin or Sherels for having the skills to do that. You think that the two returns for TDs was what, some paranormal event? I don't care if it's the only time it happened. It did happen and it contributed to a win.

dead_poet wrote:Praise for Guion:
http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikin ... 41581.html

He was my breakout pick on defense. Now if Schwartz can work his way into the lineup, I might go 2 for 2.

@TomPelissero: Tight end snaps yesterday: Kyle Rudolph (59), John Carlson (14), Rhett Ellison (9). They played a lot of 3 wides, but still ...

Carlson is looking more and more like a big swing and miss for Spielman. Wonder how much they're out releasing him after the season.

@TomPelissero: Jerome Simpson played 46 snaps in his return. Michael Jenkins played 33. Devin Aromashodu played 5. Clear who's the odd man out. #Vikings

Tom Pelissero on Twitter

dead_poet wrote: Tom Pelissero on Twitter

That's really strange, because it seems to me that Aromashodu has been the more effective guy over the first three games. Let me go check the stats...
6 for 104 vs. 10 for 100. Which is better? Beats me. My bias says that it's the guy who can stretch the field a bit more, considering what we were lacking during Simpson's absence. And I remember "the catch" in the Jags game.

losperros wrote: I see. So you don't respect Harvin or Sherels for having the skills to do that. You think that the two returns for TDs was what, some paranormal event? I don't care if it's the only time it happened. It did happen and it contributed to a win.

Harvin, yes. Sherels, no.

Not denying it happened. Just not convinced it's worth getting all that excited about. Obviously I'm in the minority with that view, but that doesn't make the view any less valid. And citing 3 deep throws to one guy during the course of a game as evidence the Vikings aren't playing Chilly Ball is not helping the case that this offense is fundamentally different than the pathetic one we watched for years under Childress. 3 deep throws the entire game, all to the same guy on the same pattern. If PI wasn't called twice it you might even wipe the 6 points the Vikings offense managed off the board.

Of course, that didn't happen, so all is good in Vikings land. Keep doing what works...

VikingLord wrote: Harvin, yes. Sherels, no.

Not denying it happened. Just not convinced it's worth getting all that excited about. Obviously I'm in the minority with that view, but that doesn't make the view any less valid. And citing 3 deep throws to one guy during the course of a game as evidence the Vikings aren't playing Chilly Ball is not helping the case that this offense is fundamentally different than the pathetic one we watched for years under Childress. 3 deep throws the entire game, all to the same guy on the same pattern. If PI wasn't called twice it you might even wipe the 6 points the Vikings offense managed off the board.

... or they might have had two more completions.

Of course, that didn't happen, so all is good in Vikings land. Keep doing what works...

Does it make more sense force something whether it's working or not?

I understand your concerns. At some point, the Vikes offense will have to open up more and when it does, hopefully everyone from the OL to the receivers and QB will be able to execute. However, it's not as if the Vikes offense is scoring just 6 points per game and relying on the STs and defense to score enough points to win every week. The Lions game was atypical so I don't think we need to fret over it as if it was typical. To some extent, I see why you're making the "what if" points you're making but the Vikings did get the PI calls, they did get the win. Why not enjoy it and look for further improvement next week instead of fretting over the ways the game could have slipped away?

VikingLord wrote: Harvin, yes. Sherels, no.

Not denying it happened. Just not convinced it's worth getting all that excited about. Obviously I'm in the minority with that view, but that doesn't make the view any less valid. And citing 3 deep throws to one guy during the course of a game as evidence the Vikings aren't playing Chilly Ball is not helping the case that this offense is fundamentally different than the pathetic one we watched for years under Childress. 3 deep throws the entire game, all to the same guy on the same pattern. If PI wasn't called twice it you might even wipe the 6 points the Vikings offense managed off the board.

Of course, that didn't happen, so all is good in Vikings land. Keep doing what works...

Dude, the "if" arguments are not helping your cause. Every time you mention the 3-4 passes that "should have been picks," I can name drops or bad calls against us. You say, "If PI wasn't called twice." Well, it was. Why? Because Simpson was a matchup problem for Detroit in those situations. The "ifs" even out. All that really matters is what actually happens.

It's true the Vikings didn't play particularly well on offense against the Lions, at least not in the passing game. But it was good enough to beat a 2011 playoff team on the road. We've been saying, "Until this team does it on the road, I won't give them credit." They went on the road and won against a playoff team, at least a playoff team from last year.

By the way, the drops you mention by Detroit ... yes, they happened. But our secondary was absolutely thumping people. Yes, we got a couple of personal fouls, but they were worth it because we were hitting people hard, especially over the middle. Big bad dominating Calvin Johnson was short-arming balls yesterday after getting blasted a couple of times. Can you at least admit that it's possible all those hard hits had an effect?