Minnesota Vikings 2007-2008

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by twins15

They were playing with a 2nd year QB that had very little experience. Contrary to what you might think, you can't just run the ball on every down and have that talent score TD after TD.

Another reason for not giving Peterson as many carries could be that he's a rookie with a history of injury problems, and we returned a 1200 yard back. Do you honestly not think that Childress had no idea that Peterson was really good? Of course he wants to win games... he also has to look ahead to the future as well. It's not exactly prudent to give Peterson 400 carries as a rookie.

It's not like I don't have any complaints about Childress... I do. But he deserves a little time, no? How about pointing out the fact that the Vikings are causing more turnovers and turning the ball over less? Or that they have cut down on penalties? Are these a credit to the coaching?

I agree the Vikings have talent... but it's not like they're the Patriots.

Speaking of short memories... a few weeks ago people were calling for Tarvaris' head and assessing other QB options. They were saying that we have no receivers that can catch the ball, no guys that can rush the passer, and no one in the secondary that can cover. Now we have a team that is apparently so talented that we can win 50% of our games with a no-talent hack for a coach. Hmmm...

If you will be happy with mediocrity Childress is your man. I have watched the Vikings come into too much talent lately to not have a Super Bowl championship under their belt. The Vikings will likely sneak into the playoffs at 9-7 despite losing to the Redskins next week because they will own the Bears at home and Denver doesnt match up well against them. When they play there first playoff game against Seattle you will see Childress get exposed for what he is.

[marc]

What Super Bowl talent has Minnesota had? If Gary Anderson doesn't choke back in '98 they might have a Super Bowl.

Yikes you have some high expectations. This is still a team with an unproven QB and some major holes at WR.

Vikings fans need to at least give this 2 more years and see if improvements are made. They are already much better than they were last year.

[mikev]

Originally Posted by marc

What Super Bowl talent has Minnesota had? If Gary Anderson doesn't choke back in '98 they might have a Super Bowl.

Yikes you have some high expectations. This is still a team with an unproven QB and some major holes at WR.

Vikings fans need to at least give this 2 more years and see if improvements are made. They are already much better than they were last year.

Also, they don't have Patrick Willis.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by marc

What Super Bowl talent has Minnesota had? If Gary Anderson doesn't choke back in '98 they might have a Super Bowl.

Yikes you have some high expectations. This is still a team with an unproven QB and some major holes at WR.

Vikings fans need to at least give this 2 more years and see if improvements are made. They are already much better than they were last year.

From 98-00 they had the best talent in FB. Moss, Robert Smith, Cris Carter, Randall McDaniel, John Randell, Stringer and many other talented players but had to deal with an average coach and great talent evaluator. In 04 they had a very talented team as well, Culpeppers great year along with Moss. They have had talent they just cant break through. The last good coach they had was 1986.

[marc]

Originally Posted by mikev

Also, they don't have Patrick Willis.

The only reason the Pats are still undefeated is because they got lucky on the scheduling and avoided Patrick Willis.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by mikev

Also, they don't have Patrick Willis.

I am already sick of hearing this name. He is a fine player do you really need to be bringing it up this much in a Viking thread in which the niners were just destroyed?

[marc]

Why are you sick of it? P Willis is straight cash homie!

[mikev]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

I am already sick of hearing this name. He is a fine player do you really need to be bringing it up this much in a Viking thread in which the niners were just destroyed?

Because without Patrick Willis the game would have been 87-0 Vikings.

[MorseMoose]

Originally Posted by twins15

It's actually been a little amazing. I mean, Jackson has looked fantastic. And I know he hasn't been asked to do a whole lot, but it's just been a complete 180. No more terrible decisions throwing into lots of coverage, no more taking of a lot of sacks because he's standing in the pocket too long, actually getting the ball downfield to receivers... it's been quite a sight. As is rather obvious from this thread I've been a Jackson supporter (even when almost every other Vikings fan wasn't!), but quite honestly I did not foresee him playing so well for the last 4 weeks. Let's just hope he keeps it up!

Still won't say Jackson has looked fantastic. 16/25 for 163 is decent but our offense still is a major weak spot. Without Taylor's 84 yarder and the defensive TD, the Vikings win 13-7 against a very weak team (and yes, I know you can't just take TDs off the board...but still). With teams playing the run nearly every play against the Vikings, he should be throwing the ball more and those yards should be much, much higher.

I know it isn't his fault that the Vikings aren't throwing the ball, but other than Taylor's 84 yarder, the Vikings finish with 196 total offensive yards. You are not going to win many games with undre 200 total offensive yards.

Yes, it has been nice that Jack hasn't made those turnovers that he was prone to early (and Johnson/Culpepper were). Yes, it has been good to see the sacks down. I still think that the defense has been the key to the games along with...the LACK of penalties.

Since the Bye Week:
W6 vs. Bears (Win +3) 2 penalties for 10 yards
W7 vs. 'boys (Loss -10) 4 penalties for 36 yards
W8 vs. Eagles (Loss -7) 8 penalties for 70 yards
W9 vs. Chargers (Win +18) 11 penalties for 81 yards
W10 vs. Packers (Loss -34) 5 penalties for 51 yards
W11 vs. Raiders (Win +7) 4 penalties for 30 yards
W12 vs. Eagles (Win +24) 4 penalties for 15 yards
W13 vs. Lions (Win +32) 4 penalties for 25 yards
W14 vs. 49ers (Win +20) 3 penalties for 25 yards

That's 28 penalties for 186 yards in wins. Just under 5 penalties for 31 yards per game.
That's 17 penalties 147 yards in losses. Just over 5 penalties for nearly 50 yards per game.

That's a pretty big difference in our game, I think.

[MorseMoose]

Originally Posted by mikev

Because without Patrick Willis the game would have been 87-0 Vikings.

Your 70%/30% quote has already been used.

[mikev]

Originally Posted by MorseMoose

Your 70%/30% quote has already been used.

Should I go ahead and bump to 75/25?

[MorseMoose]

Originally Posted by mikev

Should I go ahead and bump to 75/25?

You just are unoriginal.

[mikev]

Originally Posted by MorseMoose

You just are unoriginal.

I'm just being truthful though. It's just the way it is.

Actually, I really hope that Patrick Willis doesn't hear about this. I'm sorry Patrick. You're awesome, MM just doesn't get it.

[twins15]

Originally Posted by MorseMoose

Still won't say Jackson has looked fantastic. 16/25 for 163 is decent but our offense still is a major weak spot. Without Taylor's 84 yarder and the defensive TD, the Vikings win 13-7 against a very weak team (and yes, I know you can't just take TDs off the board...but still). With teams playing the run nearly every play against the Vikings, he should be throwing the ball more and those yards should be much, much higher.

I know it isn't his fault that the Vikings aren't throwing the ball, but other than Taylor's 84 yarder, the Vikings finish with 196 total offensive yards. You are not going to win many games with undre 200 total offensive yards.

Yes, it has been nice that Jack hasn't made those turnovers that he was prone to early (and Johnson/Culpepper were). Yes, it has been good to see the sacks down. I still think that the defense has been the key to the games along with...the LACK of penalties.

Since the Bye Week:
W6 vs. Bears (Win +3) 2 penalties for 10 yards
W7 vs. 'boys (Loss -10) 4 penalties for 36 yards
W8 vs. Eagles (Loss -7) 8 penalties for 70 yards
W9 vs. Chargers (Win +18) 11 penalties for 81 yards
W10 vs. Packers (Loss -34) 5 penalties for 51 yards
W11 vs. Raiders (Win +7) 4 penalties for 30 yards
W12 vs. Eagles (Win +24) 4 penalties for 15 yards
W13 vs. Lions (Win +32) 4 penalties for 25 yards
W14 vs. 49ers (Win +20) 3 penalties for 25 yards

That's 28 penalties for 186 yards in wins. Just under 5 penalties for 31 yards per game.
That's 17 penalties 147 yards in losses. Just over 5 penalties for nearly 50 yards per game.

That's a pretty big difference in our game, I think.

Agreed that the Vikings offense did not look all that impressive. But they were basically just looking to end the game in the 2nd half, it seemed. With the score 27-0 and facing an anemic offense, they seemed content to just take time off the clock and roll out of there with the win. Early on while the game was still in hand I thought they moved the ball very well.

Jackson's not going to win games by himself, obviously. But if he plays like he did there (good accuracy, no turnovers), I think the offense is good enough with the running game to supplement the defense and allow us to become a very good team, which is what has happened the last 4 weeks.

Bottom line, with Jackson playing efficiently like he has the last 4 weeks and the talent of the running backs, the offense is not a major weak spot. They struggled in the 2nd half with a 27-0 lead, but on the whole (again, the last 4 weeks), the offense has been plenty good enough to win a lot of games.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by mikev

Should I go ahead and bump to 75/25?

Yeah it really doesnt even make sense unless you are a cornerback. I suppose you could say 70% of the earths surface is covered by water the other 30% is covered by __________ fill in the blank(cornerback) not real fitting for a MLB.

[mikev]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Yeah it really doesnt even make sense unless you are a cornerback. I suppose you could say 70% of the earths surface is covered by water the other 30% is covered by __________ fill in the blank(cornerback) not real fitting for a MLB.

Unless that MLB is Patrick Willis.

[twins15]

Holy cow fellas! Why do you keep responding to the Patrick Willis talk? Do you not realize that that is exactly what they're wanting you to do?? mikev and marc, I commend for extracting this many serious responses.

[magnet]

Originally Posted by marc

I didn't see the play but I can guarantee that Patrick Willis was blowing up somebody somewhere on the field. He probably took out the entire offensive line but his incompetent teammates couldn't tackle Taylor.

Just wanted to say, Vikings Gameplan just went over this play, and Willis got completely p0\/\/ned by Bryant McKinnie on it. Just sayin'

[MorseMoose]

See, the problem is that this game tonight is very typical Jackson. He isn't that good...he is nothing special and won't do anything to lead the Vikings anywhere. I'm sorry...no matter how this games ends...Jackson is a average QB at the aboslute best.

[twins15]

Originally Posted by MorseMoose

See, the problem is that this game tonight is very typical Jackson. He isn't that good...he is nothing special and won't do anything to lead the Vikings anywhere. I'm sorry...no matter how this games ends...Jackson is a average QB at the aboslute best.

If he's had 4 straight solid games followed by one bad half (which was not horrible other than the 2nd INT, which obviously was atrocious), which is the typical Jackson? The first INT was not his fault... the ball was where it needed to be and Ferguson just dropped it. Let's see how the 2nd half goes... I'm not quite ready to admonish him yet.