Mike Zimmer on Peterson's effect on the team loss

[Just Me]

More at the link. You gotta love the guy's candor...

"It didn't affect the team," coach Mike Zimmer said of the Peterson situation, which became public Friday afternoon. "You know what affected the team? Throwing interceptions. Getting a field goal blocked. Not tackling well enough. Having penalties on defense."

[indianation65]

All true except the first part of the statement...such a serious distraction, the negativity and suspension, can and probably did come into play, but I believe in Coach Zimmer. It's one game...go Vikes!

...wisdom

[Just Me]

All true except the first part of the statement...such a serious distraction, the negativity and suspension, can and probably did come into play, but I believe in Coach Zimmer. It's one game...go Vikes!

...wisdom

I think that's true, but I think Zimmer is a 'no excuses' kind of guy, so he's not going to allow his players to entertain that kind of thinking. The fact is that if the team would have performed better in the areas he mentioned, the Vikings would have won. Whether or not that's a realistic expectation, may be another question...

[DK Sweets]

All true except the first part of the statement...such a serious distraction, the negativity and suspension, can and probably did come into play, but I believe in Coach Zimmer. It's one game...go Vikes!

...wisdom

I'd say the biggest drawback was losing the focal point of our offense at the end of the week after the team had already installed the gameplan. Regardless, there's no excuses; the team didn't perform well enough. That said, if Devin McCourty doesn't get that INT and Chandler Jones doesn't block that field goal, we easily could have gone into halftime tied. Unfortunately, football more often than not comes down to a handful of big plays. Last week we felt amazing because they all fell for us, this week we get to experience the flip side. It's time to regroup, build a gameplan for the Saints, and take care of business.

SKOL

[PurpleKoolaid]

Cant believe he didn't mention the Oline being as bad as they have been in years.

Also, not having your #1 player on the field, is going to hurt your team. Period.

[Mothman]

Cant believe he didn't mention the Oline being as bad as they have been in years.

Also, not having your #1 player on the field, is going to hurt your team. Period.

Zimmer basically said the same thing. I heard it in the clips of his post-game press conference on NFL.com.

[Orion]

The only we reason we lost is because they have Tom Brady and we have Matt Cassel. Have them switch teams and the score would've been the same.

[PacificNorseWest]

I feel like they don't wanna rush him, but it's time to get McKinnon involved. He can help this team if we're to believe the glimpses of his play making ability that we saw week 1 of the preseason. I wouldn't be surprised if they game plan to get him a lot more touches and targets in week 3. On the turf in NO seems like a perfect spot for his showcase.

[chicagopurple]

Today you saw Bad Cassel, he shows up about half of the games. He throws unnecessary, hi risk passes for no good reason. But he still us better than Ponder. Its gonna b another long season

[losperros]

I agree, Cassel can have these kinds of bad games, he was flustered out there. That's probably been a hindrance to his career, against stiff competition I'd say. I guess our last win against a team that was playing relatively well was vs. the Eagles last year.

You're exactly right. Cassel's hot and cold act, mostly cold, has been a thorn in his side throughout his career.

Even so, with Bridgewater waiting in the wings, I'm not as concerned about the QB position as I am the OL right now.

[Mothman]

Today you saw Bad Cassel, he shows up about half of the games. He throws unnecessary, hi risk passes for no good reason. But he still us better than Ponder.

I think he's really starting to narrow that gap and it wasn't that big in the first place. Since his peak game with the Vikes last year (against the Eagles), Cassel has thrown 4 TDs and 8 INTs in his last 4 starts. The Vikes have been blown out in 3 of his 8 starts. That's not all his fault but his propensity to turn the ball over has been part of the problem. The Vikes need better than that from a 10 year veteran and that's the problem with Cassel: he still makes the kind of decisions and mistakes a second or third year player like Ponder was making. Some of those picks he threw yesterday were just terrible decisions. If not for butter-fingered defenders, he'd have as many as 6 or 7 INTs already this year.

[J. Kapp 11]

Cassel was awful yesterday after the first drive. No doubt about that, and it can't continue (although I fear it will).

As for Zimmer, I know he has to say what he said. But we all know that A.P.'s absence hurt the team in huge ways. Think about it. You're giving a Bill Belichick coached team the opportunity to defend against a team that had no shot at a running game. He's going to win that battle every time. Matt Asiata is a guy who plays hard every play, but he's not a real threat. The only reason the Vikings moved the ball so easily on the first drive was the threat of Patterson running the ball. But you can't run Patterson 20 times, and Belichick knew it. Ironically, we never did actually use Patterson in the running game.

If we couldn't afford to be a one-dimensional running team with the best runner in the game, then we certainly can't afford to be a one-dimensional passing team that features Matt freaking Cassel.

[Just Me]

If we couldn't afford to be a one-dimensional running team with the best runner in the game, then we certainly can't afford to be a one-dimensional passing team that features Matt freaking Cassel.

Amen to that!

[Cliff]

It was another dip on the Cassel roller-coaster. Hopefully he'll do better next week.

I'm not surprised at the interceptions. Partly because that's Cassel's M.O. ... but that's also another difference between a 'high flying vertical' offense and a 'West Coast' offense. Bad quarterback play turns into interceptions on those longer passes more often than the shorter ones. The bottom line is that no offense looks great with bad QB play and teams aren't as good without their best player, no question.

For me another question is adjustments. It seems obvious after the first drive New England adjusted to the Viking offense ... but I don't feel like the Vikings offense changed gears very much to adjust back.

Also; not one rush attempt for Patterson? Why not? I don't get that.

[DK Sweets]

I'm not as surprised by Patterson's lack of touches as others seem to be. The defense followed Patterson on every fake, and we never really made them pay.