Week 4: VIKINGS (2-1) at Bears (2-1)

[Snake Plissken]

32 minutes ago, gopherwrestler said:

1. Ok

2. What does this change?

3. Who do we cut to improve us. Cousins? Still a huge paycheck next year? No reason to bench him. Instantly is the best backup QB in the NFL. Honestly every other veteran has played fine and won’t complain. You can say Rhodes but even in a bad game his contract is fair pay for a top 15 cornerback.

4. Good luck at a 8-8 record 

5. I thought we were drafting a Qb and not a offensive lineman. 

6. Nothing.

   Sometimes you have to take one step back to take 3 steps forward. 

Or to use a wrestling analogy.  Sometimes when you are down you have to give up the escape and 1 point to go for the takedown and the 2. 

I am not a guy who is content with mediocrity.  I’d also risk losing by more points in going for the win than be content riding out a loss. 

1. I’ll take that as agreement  

2.  A new coach can change a lot.   Seemed to have worked alright for teams like the Eagles, Rams, Chiefs.  I’d rather risk failing trying a new coach than the one we have

3.  Usually a team cuts or trades overpriced veterans to bring in younger cheaper players or to free up money to acquire or keep players. We will see at the end of the season.  Rudolph,  Reiff, Griffin,  Rhodes are possibilities. 

4.  That’s possible. Sometimes you have to go 8-8 before you get to 10-6, 12-4...

5.  Step 4 comes before step 5.  The plan would not include acquiring no FAs and giving up an entire draft  

6.  You don’t know if you don’t try. 

 

I don’t see the team going far in 2019 or 20-21 with the current model.  I don’t think Zimmer is good enough and I don’t think Cousins is good enough.  I think we need to look to identify and draft a franchise QB in the 2020. Based on the above and team situation I would want the HC and QB invested together. 

With a young QB I would want  players around him that would both protect in early development and grow with more competitive with.  Offensively that core is ONeill, Bradbury, Cook, Mattison, Theilen, Diggs, Smith JR  along with Veterans like Kline and hopefully Samia and Udoh  

CK has a no trade clause, but drafting a QBOTF might encourage him to waive it. Hopefully we could find a place where he would be happier his final season 

 

 

[Eric dunn]

2 hours ago, wcblack34 said:

Shamar wasn’t a problem today. 

 Or a fan of moving O’Neill. 

Zimmer wasn’t brilliant enough to beat a career backup. 

But yes, major changes need to happen. 

Right, he wasnt a problem. But he isnt a difference maker. He's just a guy, nothing special. 

And im not a fan of moving O'Neill either. But realistically there isnt a better option at LT next year. And another year of Riley Rieff is not acceptable. We can draft someone if we are in position, but if we take a QB then OT will have to take a back seat. I think we need to get our QB and then worry about everything else. O'Neil would be best probably staying at RT, but he has elite athleticism & has experience at LT. So if it comes down to RR or O'Neil at LT next year, id choose the O'Neil. 

His defense only gave up ONE TD all day, and the offense gave CHI good field position most of the time. The defense did enough to win, as they have all year long. They arent elite or historically great, but they are plenty good to win big games. If you dont think Zim is one of the best defensive minds in the game then there's no sense in arguing. 

[Eric dunn]

3 hours ago, PrplChilPill said:

So the run first offensive philosophy stays? this isn't 1974, but zimmer thinks it is.

I believe this is a common misconception about Zim. Does he want to run the ball? Sure. But he's stated many times that he just wants balance. He wants to rely on his defense & have his offense milk clock. Thats how this team is built, so why not go with the grain instead of against it? This formula has proven to work just fine, and got us to an NFCCG a few years ago. He has his flaws, but the Vikings two loses arent on him. And some of the best teams in the league are run first teams. The difference is QB. 

If the Vikings had a QB that they felt more comfortable chunking it 25 times a game im sure they would be more open to it. But they cant trust Kirk, look at the GB game. 

[PrplChilPill]

9 minutes ago, Eric dunn said:

I believe this is a common misconception about Zim. Does he want to run the ball? Sure. But he's stated many times that he just wants balance. He wants to rely on his defense & have his offense milk clock. Thats how this team is built, so why not go with the grain instead of against it? This formula has proven to work just fine, and got us to an NFCCG a few years ago. He has his flaws, but the Vikings two loses arent on him. And some of the best teams in the league are run first teams. The difference is QB. 

If the Vikings had a QB that they felt more comfortable chunking it 25 times a game im sure they would be more open to it. But they cant trust Kirk, look at the GB game. 

Again. Not about just this year. One playoff win. 

Zimmer can claim he wants balance, but thru every OC and QB, this has been the offense. 

And, what changes this year or next? 

Edited September 30, 2019 by PrplChilPill

[Eric dunn]

The only positive outlook i have on today is that if had Kirk made that one deep throw to Thielen & Zim doesnt use that horrible TO before the break, we probably win today. Im not a what if guy and i give the Bears a ton of credit for their W today. But just changing those two things makes the game 14-13 Vikings. The OL played poorly, but there were enough opportunities to make plays. Also the Diggs fumble occured in FG range, so that had an impact too. 

The margin of error is that small against good teams, that one or two missed or botched plays end up being the difference in games sometimes. 

[vikesfan89]

3 minutes ago, Eric dunn said:

The only positive outlook i have on today is that if had Kirk made that one deep throw to Thielen & Zim doesnt use that horrible TO before the break, we probably win today. Im not a what if guy and i give the Bears a ton of credit for their W today. But just changing those two things makes the game 14-13 Vikings. The OL played poorly, but there were enough opportunities to make plays. Also the Diggs fumble occured in FG range, so that had an impact too. 

The margin of error is that small against good teams, that one or two missed or botched plays end up being the difference in games sometimes. 

Romo was saying they called the timeout because they had 12 men on the field?

[Eric dunn]

2 minutes ago, PrplChilPill said:

Again. Not about just this year. One playoff win. 

Not everyone is the Patriots. Its hard getting to and winning in the playoffs. Zim has overcome some pretty huge obstacles in his tenure as the Vikings HC,  that have had ripple effects on the team as a whole. And i think he has still kept this team playing hard and competing. Teddy's knee 2 weeks before the season, eye procedures, Everson problems, Bradfords knee problems week 2, Dalvin ACL mid season, Sparano's death. He has dealt with alot of adversity, but this team never quit on him. 

Also im sure he had a say in Kirk coming to the Vikings, but do i think he was all in on him coming? I do not, i think Zim believed in Teddy & Rick made the final call to bring in Kirk. 

 

[byuvike88]

6 hours ago, Klomp said:

It's obvious our defensive strategy is to not allow the big play. The hope is that they won't be able to dink and dunk their way for a touchdown on every possession. Eventually the defense will make a stop.

I get that was the strategy. But when they are killing you on it, and limit your offense to 2 possessions in the first half, it's probably not the best strategy. They did the same thing in week 17 last year. Dink and dunk for 15 plays and drain the clock while scoring. 

[Eric dunn]

3 minutes ago, vikesfan89 said:

Romo was saying they called the timeout because they had 12 men on the field?

Zim said post game that wasnt the case and it was in fact just a bad decision. And there was some confusion because the Bears ran out Piniero i believe and then starting running out there punter to swap, which probably cause MIN to panic and run out Sherels. But if you go back and watch, when the Vikings called that timeout there was only like 2 seconds left on the Bears play clock. So they were likely going to accept the 5 yard penalty to give their punter some more room to pin MIN inside the 5. It was a puzzling move by Zimmer, but the defense should have made the stop. 

 

[vikesfan89]

1 minute ago, Eric dunn said:

Zim said post game that wasnt the case and it was in fact just a bad decision. And there was some confusion because the Bears ran out Piniero i believe and then starting running out there punter to swap, which probably cause MIN to panic and run out Sherels. But if you go back and watch, when the Vikings called that timeout there was only like 2 seconds left on the Bears play clock. So they were likely going to accept the 5 yard penalty to give their punter some more room to pin MIN inside the 5. It was a puzzling move by Zimmer, but the defense should have made the stop. 

 

Ah yeah then it didn't make much sense

[Klomp]

28 minutes ago, byuvike88 said:

I get that was the strategy. But when they are killing you on it, and limit your offense to 2 possessions in the first half, it's probably not the best strategy. They did the same thing in week 17 last year. Dink and dunk for 15 plays and drain the clock while scoring. 

They only scored 16 points this week. The defensive strategy was fine. Have to be able to score more than one time in nine possessions.

[Klomp]

I know it's easy to be dejected about the loss, especially losing another in-division game. My optimistic take is that it's hard to win on the road, and we probably just played two of our hardest road games of the season. I don't expect this to be the norm.

We're .500, not winless. We have a decent shot to win our next four games. Sitting 6-2 (or even 5-3) going into November wouldn't be all that bad. I know everyone wants to go undefeated and it sucks to lose within the division, but we're going to be fine.

[byuvike88]

22 minutes ago, Klomp said:

They only scored 16 points this week. The defensive strategy was fine. Have to be able to score more than one time in nine possessions.

No they definitely played better the second half. But they are still lacking the total dominance that the Bears have had. They need to create turnovers. It's not just about the points. They controlled the 1st half entirely. 

[Torchezim]

10 minutes ago, Klomp said:

I know it's easy to be dejected about the loss, especially losing another in-division game. My optimistic take is that it's hard to win on the road, and we probably just played two of our hardest road games of the season. I don't expect this to be the norm.

We're .500, not winless. We have a decent shot to win our next four games. Sitting 6-2 (or even 5-3) going into November wouldn't be all that bad. I know everyone wants to go undefeated and it sucks to lose within the division, but we're going to be fine.

I honestly hope we are not fine. I, along with many others, believe this is going nowhere slowly. Yes, we played two of our most important games on the road and came up short. Expected at that.

Cousins will play just well enough to ruin our draft position but nowhere good enough to win any meaningful game.

As someone pointed out earlier - I hope we don't back into a low seeded playoff spot and then Cousins pulls off a Flacco; managing the game just enough to get to the NFCC and earn a long term extension from us. Seeing how today went, that probably isn't going to happen but you never know.

I don't want to be "fine" with this front office and this QB. Just fine isn't good enough and it has shown for a while now.

[byuvike88]

16 minutes ago, Klomp said:

I know it's easy to be dejected about the loss, especially losing another in-division game. My optimistic take is that it's hard to win on the road, and we probably just played two of our hardest road games of the season. I don't expect this to be the norm.

We're .500, not winless. We have a decent shot to win our next four games. Sitting 6-2 (or even 5-3) going into November wouldn't be all that bad. I know everyone wants to go undefeated and it sucks to lose within the division, but we're going to be fine.

I've been going back and forth on this. I realize that they have really stunk in Soldier field that last 15 years, but how many big games in a row is this that the Vikings, especially Cousins hasn't shown up going back to the Bears away game last year, the Patriots game, the Seahawks game, the Bears game at home, the Packers game, and then this game. My optimisms that the offense will stop under performing is starting to wear off. 

There is absolutely no reason the Vikings should score only 6 points in a game when they have Thielen, Diggs, Rudolph, Cook, Smith, and Mattison. The Redskins moved the ball better on that defense.