Week 2: VIKINGS (1-0) at Packers (1-0)

[Klomp]

3 hours ago, Ozzy said:

Really?  We get walked up and down the field and cannot get off the field against the 49ers and the Packers.  Sure they did not get in the end zone but in no way outside of dumb luck should we have won that game against Green Bay.  That defense was a massive issue and for once the offense almost saved them which is nice for a chance.  That soft wuss coverage was pathetic I thought and your Pro Bowl corner in Rhodes got beat consistently and often.  And if Jimmy G did not throw INTs in that other game, could have lost that one as well.  In no way is the Vikings defense up to par and is not playing well.  Hope they get back to press man and just soft off coverage and zone coverage every now and again not all game long against a Fing injured QB who cannot move like he usually does.

Bend don't break.

When you're up by 2 scores like in the 49ers game, long drives are actually bad for the team that is losing. With 13 minutes left in the game and down 11, they took 5 minutes just to get 3 points. That's a win for the defense every day of the week. That game wasn't in doubt for me at any point in the 4th quarter.

As for the Packer game, any time you have the ball for 5 minutes and only score 3 points with the best QB in the league, that's a win for the defense too. Holding them to field goals is what allowed us to get back into the game and force overtime.

Are they playing at an elite best in NFL history level? No. But they haven't been an issue at all so far this season. You act like we're giving up 40 points per game, when the reality is that the defense has only surrendered two touchdowns over two games.

[vikestyle]

3 hours ago, Ozzy said:

Really?  We get walked up and down the field and cannot get off the field against the 49ers and the Packers.  Sure they did not get in the end zone but in no way outside of dumb luck should we have won that game against Green Bay.  That defense was a massive issue and for once the offense almost saved them which is nice for a chance.  That soft wuss coverage was pathetic I thought and your Pro Bowl corner in Rhodes got beat consistently and often.  And if Jimmy G did not throw INTs in that other game, could have lost that one as well.  In no way is the Vikings defense up to par and is not playing well.  Hope they get back to press man and just soft off coverage and zone coverage every now and again not all game long against a Fing injured QB who cannot move like he usually does.

IF Jimmy didn't throw interceptions....dumb luck...yatta yatta yatta. If we scored less points than the other team we would have lost both games. The point is, the 9ers and Packers didn't make the big plays to get the ball in the end zone enough against us. Our defense stepped up and made the plays they needed to make to give us a chance. They have benefitted from a couple of missed plays by the opposing offense, but every defense does. They may not look as dominant as last year, but that is a hard level to match.

[Ozzy]

8 hours ago, Klomp said:

Bend don't break.

When you're up by 2 scores like in the 49ers game, long drives are actually bad for the team that is losing. With 13 minutes left in the game and down 11, they took 5 minutes just to get 3 points. That's a win for the defense every day of the week. That game wasn't in doubt for me at any point in the 4th quarter.

As for the Packer game, any time you have the ball for 5 minutes and only score 3 points with the best QB in the league, that's a win for the defense too. Holding them to field goals is what allowed us to get back into the game and force overtime.

Are they playing at an elite best in NFL history level? No. But they haven't been an issue at all so far this season. You act like we're giving up 40 points per game, when the reality is that the defense has only surrendered two touchdowns over two games.

True maybe I am too hard on the defense, but last time I checked we should be better than last year based on the talented we added to the roster.  Personally give me an aggressive D that makes plays and is hard on the offense than a bend do not break defense.  There is a time and place for that sure, it should not be the philosophy all game.  Defenses that do that type of game planning usually are units which do not have much talent or playmaking ability, I would think the Vikings are not in that boat....

[swede700]

Has the defense played great?  No.  But they don't need to play great now.  They need to play great later.  All that matters is they've played great when they need to right now.  I have little concern that they'll get it fully together here over the next few weeks.  

[VikeManDan]

Defense doesn't need to peak in week 2. I have faith in Zimmer that he'll get things cleaned up.

[MNPackfan32]

I don't know if it has been stated, but respect to Anthony Barr. After all the nasty garbage that was tweeted/sent to him last year, he had a prime opportunity to absolutely destroy Rodgers as he was hobbling out of bounds. Barr let up. He didn't have to, he could've gotten Rodgers while he was in bounds, but he didn't. Lord knows, if I was in his shoes, after all that, I would've probably wanted to wreck the Packers "fans" year again. He was a bigger man.

[VikeManDan]

9 minutes ago, MNPackfan32 said:

I don't know if it has been stated, but respect to Anthony Barr. After all the nasty garbage that was tweeted/sent to him last year, he had a prime opportunity to absolutely destroy Rodgers as he was hobbling out of bounds. Barr let up. He didn't have to, he could've gotten Rodgers while he was in bounds, but he didn't. Lord knows, if I was in his shoes, after all that, I would've probably wanted to wreck the Packers "fans" year again. He was a bigger man.

Glad you noticed him on Sunday because we sure haven't this year!

[MNPackfan32]

5 minutes ago, VikeManDan said:

Glad you noticed him on Sunday because we sure haven't this year!

Sheesh. That's brutal...

 

Do you think he would make a better EDGE Rusher than playing off the ball? When he was coming out, I thought he was going to be a prototype EDGE Rusher. 

[Qsmoov21]

i'm really confused by how critical you guys are of the defense. they gave up 1 freaking touchdown!!!! i don't care how good  your defense is, Aaron Rodgers is going to move the football down the field, and you cant deny that. we did more than good job preventing him for scoring more than 1 touch down. literally 3 points is a victory for the defense. and this statement comes true when you switch the roles around. the packers stopped us in FG position and we missed it 3 times. we put the packers in the same situation, but they converted their kicks. i understand we want blow outs and shut outs. but this is football baby!!!! these guys are to good and athletic to get shut out. the only sloppy defense i saw, was by Xavier Rhodes. who got torched by Davante Adams all game, and even gave up the only touch down on offense.

[SemperFeist]

12 minutes ago, MNPackfan32 said:

Sheesh. That's brutal...

 

Do you think he would make a better EDGE Rusher than playing off the ball? When he was coming out, I thought he was going to be a prototype EDGE Rusher. 

No. He’s terrible off the edge, and overall not a very good blitzer. He doesn’t possess any pash rush moves, and for a guy his size, he’s way too easily controlled by smaller players, ie running backs and tight ends. 

Barr is at his best off the ball. He does a lot of the dirty work, which allows players like Kendricks, Smith and Sendejo to knife in and make plays. But, while Barr is fairly fundamentally strong, and reliable to take care of his assignment, there really is nothing overly special about him. For a guy his size, you would expect him to blow up more plays in the backfield. With his speed, you’d expect him to make more plays down the line, in coverage, and as a rusher. But they don’t show up all that often. And maybe more importantly, he’s not a big play maker. He only has 2 career interceptions in 62 games. He has only 1 fumble recovery in his last 50 games. And he’s only forced 1 fumble in the past 2 seasons. 

[vikingsrule]

26 minutes ago, MNPackfan32 said:

Sheesh. That's brutal...

 

Do you think he would make a better EDGE Rusher than playing off the ball? When he was coming out, I thought he was going to be a prototype EDGE Rusher. 

He hasn't shown much ability as a blitzer though the opportunities have been limited on the edge. You'd expect more production and splash plays for his ability but it isn't there. I have a hard time seeing a long term spot on the team hopefully he can net the Vikes a 3rd round comp pick.

[Klomp]

I think part of the problem with Barr is the expectation of what we thought he would be. Everyone's looking for the splash plays for someone at that size. In reality, he's just a solid LB. Sometimes, a player going unnoticed is better than a player being noticed for countless negative plays.

[SemperFeist]

19 minutes ago, Klomp said:

I think part of the problem with Barr is the expectation of what we thought he would be. Everyone's looking for the splash plays for someone at that size. In reality, he's just a solid LB. Sometimes, a player going unnoticed is better than a player being noticed for countless negative plays.

It’s not his size, or his speed, that brought on those expectations. It was the splash plays that he made as a rookie and during his 2nd year that brought on the playmaking expectations. 

Then he got called out by the Head Coach for coasting in 2016, and last year he improved from a fundamental standpoint (didn’t miss too many tackles), but the big plays were nonexistent. And through 2 games this year, it’s been the same. 

[Guest]

16 hours ago, SemperFeist said:

It’s not his size, or his speed, that brought on those expectations. It was the splash plays that he made as a rookie and during his 2nd year that brought on the playmaking expectations. 

Then he got called out by the Head Coach for coasting in 2016, and last year he improved from a fundamental standpoint (didn’t miss too many tackles), but the big plays were nonexistent. And through 2 games this year, it’s been the same. 

So Viking fans, which player is more valuable to the goals of the defense?  Player A--looks to make the big, splash play, is aggressive, but often out of position, or penalized...or, Player B--fundamentally sound, good tackler, above average in coverage...does his job, but doesn't make big splashy plays.  Again, the choice is, which is more valuable to the overall goals of the defense, not necessarily what fans want to see.

[Klomp]

3 minutes ago, Virginia Viking said:

So Viking fans, which player is more valuable to the goals of the defense?  Player A--looks to make the big, splash play, is aggressive, but often out of position, or penalized...or, Player B--fundamentally sound, good tackler, above average in coverage...does his job, but doesn't make big splashy plays.  Again, the choice is, which is more valuable to the overall goals of the defense, not necessarily what fans want to see.

Well said.