Week 3: Raiders (1-1) at VIKINGS (1-1)

[swede700]

Game 3

 at     

 

When:  1:00 PM EST September 22nd

Where: U.S. Bank Stadium (Minneapolis, MN)

TV/Radio: FOX (TV), KFAN 100.3 (Radio)

Announcers: **** Stockton, Mark Schlereth, Jennifer Hale

Coverage Map:  https://506sports.com/2019/03-FOX-V4.png

Notable Injuries:

Vikings - Questionable: LB Anthony Barr (groin), LB Ben Gedeon (groin), OG Pat Elfelin (knee), CB Mike Hughes (knee), Doubtful: None, Out: CB Mackensie Alexander (elbow)

Raiders - Questionable: None, Doubtful: None, Out: None

Please keep all discussion about the game here.

Edited September 20, 2019 by swede700

[VikeManDan]

Hopefully Dalvin 100-200 and Kirk 200-300, I think that is going to be the sweet spot all year.

I turn 30 on Sunday so it would be great if they can get another convincing home win like they did against Atlanta, but I'll be happy with a win!

 

[Vikes_Bolts1228]

This is the game to get Kirk on track.

I know running the ball has been greatly successful two games into the season but it'll mean nothing if Kirk can't get into a rhythm.

I'd like to see Kirk throw 20-25 times regardless of the score. Gotta get him going and I think Oakland is the team to do it against before heading to Chicago.

[vikingsrule]

34 minutes ago, Vikes_Bolts1228 said:

This is the game to get Kirk on track.

I know running the ball has been greatly successful two games into the season but it'll mean nothing if Kirk can't get into a rhythm.

I'd like to see Kirk throw 20-25 times regardless of the score. Gotta get him going and I think Oakland is the team to do it against before heading to Chicago.

I think it will be closer to the Falcons game in that the passing game won’t really be a factor due to being a one sided game. I feel Cousins needs to get his confidence back but i wouldn’t expect big numbers from him unless the Raiders make the game competitive.

[SteelKing728]

I wish we had drafted Carr back in 2014. I think he would've seen his full potential here.

But that's a case of Rick Spielman always taking 'his guy' over superior talent (Bridgewater over Carr, Waynes over Peters, Treadwell over Thomas and Bradbury over Dillard). That's hindsight logic though.

Anyways, we need to get back on track this week. I think we will being home. Skol!

[swede700]

18 minutes ago, SteelKing728 said:

I wish we had drafted Carr back in 2014. I think he would've seen his full potential here.

But that's a case of Rick Spielman always taking 'his guy' over superior talent (Bridgewater over Carr, Waynes over Peters, Treadwell over Thomas and Bradbury over Dillard). That's hindsight logic though.

Anyways, we need to get back on track this week. I think we will being home. Skol!

It has to be hindsight logic/revisionist history, because there were very little who suggested that any of those guys had superior talent to what Spielman took.  Bridgewater, in fact, in many mocks prior to the draft was expected to go #1 overall and Treadwell was expected to go in the top half of the draft.  And where has superior talent gotten Marcus Peters...he's already on his 2nd team and is having less of any impact every year as he progresses.  It's rather ridiculous to even suggest otherwise at this point.  

 

Edited September 16, 2019 by swede700

[SteelKing728]

3 minutes ago, swede700 said:

It has to be hindsight logic/revisionist history, because there were very little who suggested that any of those guys had superior talent to what Spielman took.  Bridgewater, in fact, in many mocks prior to the draft was expected to go #1 overall and Treadwell was expected to go in the top half of the draft.  It's rather ridiculous to even suggest otherwise at this point.  

 

I really liked Teddy, but to thought Carr had HOF potential.

I wanted Doctson over Treadwell first and foremost. I thought Thomas was great value for the Saints in round 2.

Oh well. Not important now!

[swede700]

Just now, SteelKing728 said:

I really liked Teddy, but to thought Carr had HOF potential.

I wanted Doctson over Treadwell first and foremost. I thought Thomas was great value for the Saints in round 2.

Oh well. Not important now!

No, it's certainly water under the bridge at this point.  I think I thought it was a toss-up between Doctson and Treadwell at that point (but, who knows, in my middle age, I can't remember what I thought 10 minutes ago, let alone several years ago  ), Mike Thomas, while certainly in the mix, I don't think he necessarily was in that tier.  He's certainly far superseded what most thought.  

[Guest]

If the Raiders score first, I would suggest benching Cousins.  I don't want him leading the offense when the team is behind on the scoreboard.  Even if it's after the first series.

[vike daddy]

20 minutes ago, SteelKing728 said:

I really liked Teddy, but to thought Carr had HOF potential.

I wanted Doctson over Treadwell first and foremost. I thought Thomas was great value for the Saints in round 2.

Oh well. Not important now!

and you thought Tavaris Jackson needed "more time" too.

everyone has their good and bad predictions, and it's not like Carr has sniffed HOF potential.


i really like to talk football here, but so many guys like to talk about themselves and their armchair GM'ing, patting themselves on the back when a hindsight aided prediction comes through. who cares?

[vike daddy]

8 minutes ago, Virginia Viking said:

If the Raiders score first, I would suggest benching Cousins.  I don't want him leading the offense when the team is behind on the scoreboard.  Even if it's after the first series.

terrible idea.

[VikeManDan]

12 minutes ago, Virginia Viking said:

If the Raiders score first, I would suggest benching Cousins.  I don't want him leading the offense when the team is behind on the scoreboard.  Even if it's after the first series.

I'm really really really glad you're not the coach.

[swede700]

3 minutes ago, vike daddy said:

terrible idea.

Absolutely terrible idea.  Whether most like it or not, they have to ride with Cousins for this year, good or bad.  In the end, he'll still have plenty of good to him, but until he proves otherwise, they can't count on him in crunch-time.  

[JDBrocks]

1 hour ago, Virginia Viking said:

If the Raiders score first, I would suggest benching Cousins.  I don't want him leading the offense when the team is behind on the scoreboard.  Even if it's after the first series.

As has been mentioned - it can not be understated how bad this idea is. They might as well bench him for the season or cut him if they go this route. Your dislike of Cousins is well documented, but this would set the team back so far.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, JDBrocks said:

As has been mentioned - it can not be understated how bad this idea is. They might as well bench him for the season or cut him if they go this route. Your dislike of Cousins is well documented, but this would set the team back so far.

Well, it is pretty much documented that he's not very good when he has to come from behind.  It has nothing to do with talent as it is really a mental thing.  What are the Vikings to do if they find themselves, say 14 points behind in the 2nd half to Oakland?  Do you trust Cousins to lead the offense back?  Do you place it on the defense to not only stop the Raiders but to also score points?  Trust the kicking game to make five field goals?

And for the record...I don't dislike Kirk Cousins.  As I have said before, he's a good person and a great teammate.  I just don't trust him when the game is on the line.  I think the evidence is on my side.