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

[VikeManDan]

1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

How much more improvement do you think is going to happen?  Kirk is the epitome of QB purgatory.

For starters I'd like to think he doesn't complete 43% of passes in a game again like he did yesterday. My gut feeling is that if he goes 20/32 instead of 14/32 we might have won that game.

[CWood21]

2 hours ago, VikeManDan said:

For starters I'd like to think he doesn't complete 43% of passes in a game again like he did yesterday. My gut feeling is that if he goes 20/32 instead of 14/32 we might have won that game.

To be fair, the Packers dropped at least 2 INTs yesterday.  Either way, I was talking about his career as a whole.  He's a solid QB, but there's a reason why his winning percentage is .467 over his career.  And it's not because he's been on some super awful teams.

[VikeManDan]

15 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

To be fair, the Packers dropped at least 2 INTs yesterday.  Either way, I was talking about his career as a whole.  He's a solid QB, but there's a reason why his winning percentage is .467 over his career.  And it's not because he's been on some super awful teams.

He’s certainly an enigma. He kept us in the Rams and first Packers game last year but had a few clunkers as well. Seems like we’ll never know which Kirk is gonna show up.

[VikeManDan]

And to be fair we got screwed on the Dalvin Cook OPI. 

[wcblack34]

4 hours ago, Klomp said:

Is he going to come out throwing like Pat Mahomes? Of course not.

Is he capable of more efficient performances like in Week 1? Of course. That would be improvement from what we saw yesterday, would it not?

No. It would be him having good games and then having horrible ones at the worst times. He is what he is. He’s not going to improve to become Drew Brees or even Phillip Rivers. He’s Andy Dalton. On a good day. 

[CWood21]

3 minutes ago, VikeManDan said:

And to be fair we got screwed on the Dalvin Cook OPI. 

You talking about the would be TD?

[VikeManDan]

2 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

You talking about the would be TD?

I am, I’d love to hear your thoughts on it. 

I don’t understand how they can throw a flag when one wasn’t called on the play. Were they reviewing/confirming the TD and then called it? That’s what it sounds like. 

Will other TDs be overturned when being confirmed due to other offensive penalties such as holding? Didn’t really like Riveron’s explanation. 

[vikingsrule]

6 minutes ago, VikeManDan said:

I am, I’d love to hear your thoughts on it. 

I don’t understand how they can throw a flag when one wasn’t called on the play. Were they reviewing/confirming the TD and then called it? That’s what it sounds like. 

Will other TDs be overturned when being confirmed due to other offensive penalties such as holding? Didn’t really like Riveron’s explanation. 

This is my concern that the NFL has just created a major problem. I feel officials should only look for PI if it’s specfically being challenged. Looking for a penalty while reviewing a TD seems to be an unintended consequence of the change. I’m curious to see what happens when more teams lose points due to missed calls on the field that get over turned by replay. Feel like this could just open the door to rigging games, there’s an integrity issue for me at the end of the day. 

Edited September 17, 2019 by vikingsrule

[CWood21]

7 minutes ago, VikeManDan said:

I am, I’d love to hear your thoughts on it. 

I don’t understand how they can throw a flag when one wasn’t called on the play. Were they reviewing/confirming the TD and then called it? That’s what it sounds like. 

Will other TDs be overturned when being confirmed due to other offensive penalties such as holding? Didn’t really like Riveron’s explanation. 

By the letter of the law, the call was correct.  Based on how the rule is supposed to be applied, no.  I don't think that should have been called OPI.  Speaking of OPI, there was way too many OPIs called in that game for my liking.  I believe it was part of the rule change which was a side affect of the NO/LAR game.

[vikesfan89]

I thought they were only to add a flag it pickup a flag if it was obvious. It couldn't have been too obvious with them taking about 5 minutes to review it

[VikeManDan]

3 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

1. By the letter of the law, the call was correct.  Based on how the rule is supposed to be applied, no.  I don't think that should have been called OPI.  

2. Speaking of OPI, there was way too many OPIs called in that game for my liking.  I believe it was part of the rule change which was a side affect of the NO/LAR game.

1. Letter of the law I could buy that. Trying to hide my bias but I’d agree more with Blandino about it being in the grey area. 

2. Agreed, they’re rarely called and we had 3 that were all ticky-tacky and based on how they were calling it I’m surprised there wasn’t more. It was absolutely the rule change from that missed call. 

Tony Dungy hit the nail on the head. He doesn’t know what he would/wouldn’t challenge as a head coach because they’re so inconsistent with it. “Clear and obvious” to some isn’t “clear and obvious” to others.

[CWood21]

Just now, VikeManDan said:

1. Letter of the law I could buy that. Trying to hide my bias but I’d agree more with Blandino about it being in the grey area. 

2. Agreed, they’re rarely called and we had 3 that were all ticky-tacky and based on how they were calling it I’m surprised there wasn’t more. It was absolutely the rule change from that missed call. 

Tony Dungy hit the nail on the head. He doesn’t know what he would/wouldn’t challenge as a head coach because they’re so inconsistent with it. “Clear and obvious” to some isn’t “clear and obvious” to others.

To me, it falls under that catch/no catch BS we were put through for how many years now?  Dalvin Cook didn't do any favors by not really making an attempt to create an opening.  But I think we'd be both be lying if we didn't say that Cook just happening to be in that particular area wasn't by design.  And that's coming from someone who is tired of their team getting called for the most ticky tack OPIs.  I don't think the Packers got away with a SINGLE rub route when McCarthy was HC.

[VikeManDan]

25 minutes ago, vikingsrule said:

This is my concern that the NFL has just created a major problem. I feel officials should only look for PI if it’s specfically being challenged. Looking for a penalty while reviewing a TD seems to be an unintended consequence of the change. I’m curious to see what happens when more teams lose points due to missed calls on the field that get over turned by replay. Feel like this could just open the door to rigging games, there’s an integrity issue for me at the end of the day. 

They should’ve never been looking for penalties though. 

If they truly review the entire play during scoring plays I’m sure every team would’ve had scores called back by now. This was a first. 

Also, I know you’re agreeing with me so I hope I don’t come off as “attacking” you. 

Edited September 17, 2019 by VikeManDan

[Spartacus]

I hate the challenging of penalties that are not clear calls (12 men on the field).... I hated it when they announced it and I hate it even though it benefited my team. That being said the Dalvin Cook call wasn't even the worst OPI in that game. I thought the one on Thielen in the endzone was worse or maybe I just didn't see a push. Dalvin Cook blocked the LB literally out of his zone leaving Diggs wide open. It just wasn't a very good play by Cook there.  (The play may have still been made and most likely Diggs is still in or at least on the 1 without the block).  

[JDBrocks]