Jump to content

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


swede700
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, vikingsrule said:

I’m sure booing had more to do with the fact that most turn to sports to get away from life and don’t need to be reminded of what’s going on in the world at every moment. At the end of the day, entertain me. If you can’t, I’ll find something else to do on my weekends, and many others will as well. Hey, I did buy a 20 acre farmstead so believe me, I’ve got a lot of work ahead of me where that void can be quickly filled. For the fans that bought tickets to watch football, and I’m sure they aren’t cheap with a 17k capacity, it might be a bit frustrating to have to deal with these displays that at the end of the day, are fairly meaningless.

Very cool that the Vikes will be honoring Floyd’s family at the stadium. That’s a great way to go about getting justice for Floyd. Watching millionaire athletes virtue signal, not so much. 

The only problem i really had was the preaching of unity yet they played 2 national anthems for two different groups of people which is the opposite of unity, is it not? I just found that weird. 

Texans did the right thing and the midfield unity didn't deserved to be boo'd. I just think after 20 minutes of pre game dedicated to that cause, fans just wanted football.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I forgot about the 8 active linemen rule, it’ll take some time to get used to the Covid era rosters. Activating Jones would make sense. I don’t think there’s any point in having Udoh active if Hill would play RT ahead of him (in the window where it looked like Reiff was leaving, the story was that Hill would be starting ahead of Udoh at RT with O’Neill switching sides). Cleveland also reportedly wasn’t close to ready though maybe he’s doing better as practices continue behind closed doors.

Connelly was good on special teams last year for the Giants. He’s supposed to be healthy. I can’t remember the Vikings ever going into a game with fewer than 5 LBs active. If he’s not ready to play, they’ll elevate Nickerson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Krauser said:

I forgot about the 8 active linemen rule, it’ll take some time to get used to the Covid era rosters. Activating Jones would make sense. I don’t think there’s any point in having Udoh active if Hill would play RT ahead of him (in the window where it looked like Reiff was leaving, the story was that Hill would be starting ahead of Udoh at RT with O’Neill switching sides). Cleveland also reportedly wasn’t close to ready though maybe he’s doing better as practices continue behind closed doors.

Connelly was good on special teams last year for the Giants. He’s supposed to be healthy. I can’t remember the Vikings ever going into a game with fewer than 5 LBs active. If he’s not ready to play, they’ll elevate Nickerson.

I remembered the RT story wrong. I was thinking the story was that Udoh would take over at RT with O'Neill switching. If it was Hill that was taking over I agree with you that he would be the active backup tackle. As far as Cleveland, I wasn't sure would be the best bet at backup guard so I went with the higher draft pick. I know nothing there. I had to pick someone and chose optimism for the rookie.

As far as Connelly, if the coaches think he is comfortable with what he needs to do he does have a good shot of being active. I am only guessing that he hasn't had time for that. We've seen players come in and play pretty quickly. Most of those have worked out better than Josh Freeman. I do think it is tougher to jump in on the defensive side where you have to understand everything. On offense, often you can get by with a player just knowing a few things and calling plays he knows for the plays he is in there. You are right that 4 is pretty light at LB. I recognized that when I was making my guess but wasn't ready to project another practice squad activation. Nickerson would make sense if Connelly isn't ready.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/11/2020 at 8:30 AM, Cearbhall said:

I am not sure if you are a troll or just can't read. You said that more people thought Diggs was a 2. Now you are moving the bar to say people didn't think he was 1A. From what I recall, there were a fair number of people on both sides of which was 1A and which was 1B.

Here is what was actually said:

Push back: nope it was a debate of 1A versus 1B.

Response:

Push back: nope more people didn't think he was a number 2, possibly not a single person thought that. You were just reminded that the debate was 1A vs 1B. My conclusion: you have a bad memory.

Your response moves the target to whether more people thought he was 1B. This is not the argument you were making. You argument now lacks integrity. My conclusion: You are trolling. Alternative conclusion: You can't read. Not certain which, so that is reader's choice.

Either way, it is not a debate for the game day thread, other than discussion on how we think the Vikings offense will be changed with just one number 1 WR. We did see that too much last year so we have some ideas but it is a new year and the team had since the trade to plan for it. How will the Packers defend Thielen now? How will the Vikings answer?

The fact that you just tried to belittle me by questioning my reading comprehension while quoting and highlighting EXACTLY what I said and made even more of a fool of yourself is pretty funny. Where in either post did I even signal that the argument was 1A vs 1B? Maybe you might want to slowly read a post next time before trying to take it there? I CLEARLY stated that you have revisionist history because from what I have read, people did not believe Stefon Diggs was 1A or 1B, people here believed that Adam Thielen was a number one, and Stefon Diggs was a number 2. I stated that “I”, as in illadelegend215, felt Stefon diggs was 1A as to thielens 1b opposed to the many comments that I’ve read who have placed him not as 1B, but as a #2. My response never moved to the “target more people believed Stefon diggs was viewed as a 1b” because I never said that. For clarification, and to ensure you comprehend what I have posted, and pretty much anyone else with average reading comprehension skills were able to read, my argument: people viewed diggs as a number 2 and not 1A or 1B. 

You simply somehow assumed that I switched back and forth with arguments, and we all know the saying for assumptions, or maybe in fact you are trolling? Either way, I agree that we should focus on the topic which is GB vs Min. Regardless if you believe the argument was either diggs was 1A to thielens 1b or if you are one of the many in this forum that believed thielen was a number 1 while diggs was a number 2, Diggs is no longer on this unit. This will now force teams to have each top corner they have either shadow thielen or bring in double teams. I do not believe Jefferson has the same skill set that Stefon diggs provides and that he will have issues adjusting to NFL corners. Also, I also believe our below average pass protection will cost us the opportunity to even see if Jefferson can win routes against nfl corners because cousins, who has terrible pocket awareness, will be taking multiple sacks. I think (and I hope I’m wrong) Jaire Alexander should do well against thielen, and we will have to find running lanes for our newly 5 year extended running back Dalvin Cook to make his money. Packers did not do well with the screen game, which is something Cook strives at so maybe we can answer that way. 

 

Edited by Illadelegend215
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Illadelegend215 said:

You simply somehow assumed that I switched back and forth with arguments

No. I didn't assume. You did switch your argument. It is right in what I quoted. You said, as I quoted, "you must have the bad memory of you think a majority of the people here thought diggs was 1A"

Prior to that you said, as I quoted, "I’ll put it this way. Diggs was viewed here as a complimentary #2." and "I thought diggs was 1A for sure, but I noticed more ppl here thought diggs was just a number 2 receiver.

You first argued that people thought Diggs was a #2. Later, you moved the target to whether the majority thought Diggs was 1A. The response you were getting was based on you suggesting people saw him as a 2, which they did not. You suddenly change it to "majority of people didn't think he as a 1A". That is a dishonest argument.

Edited by Cearbhall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Checking the forum for first time in a long time hoping to see a productive game day thread. Instead greeted with more bickering between forum members which was the main reason I stopped checking a while back. So disheartening... why can’t we all just assume positive intent and have good healthy debates?

Looking forward to the game! Will be great to have football and the Vikings back in my life. Skol!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eaganfootball4 said:

Checking the forum for first time in a long time hoping to see a productive game day thread. Instead greeted with more bickering between forum members which was the main reason I stopped checking a while back. So disheartening... 

i haven't gone in to a game day thread for years, at least while the game is live.

it is entertaining though to go in to them after a game is over, and where we played poorly at first and then came back and won. so many guys giving up on the team early on get handed their crow.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cearbhall said:

No. I didn't assume. You did switch your argument. It is right in what I quoted. You said, as I quoted, "you must have the bad memory of you think a majority of the people here thought diggs was 1A"

Prior to that you said, as I quoted, "I’ll put it this way. Diggs was viewed here as a complimentary #2." and "I thought diggs was 1A for sure, but I noticed more ppl here thought diggs was just a number 2 receiver.

You first argued that people thought Diggs was a #2. Later, you moved the target to whether the majority thought Diggs was 1A. The response you were getting was based on you suggesting people saw him as a 2, which they did not. You suddenly change it to "majority of people didn't think he as a 1A". That is a dishonest argument.

My friend, even reading what I said, you are confusing yourself:

Just like you quoted, I first said “I’ll put it this way, diggs was viewed here as a complimentary receiver” which means people viewed diggs as a “number two receiver” in comparison to thielen who was labeled the “number one receiver”.

In the same post to which you quoted, I said that I viewed Stefon Diggs as a 1A but more people viewed Diggs as a number 2. That means that I, illadelegend215, viewed Stefon Diggs as the 1A receiver in comparison  to Adam Thielen who I felt was the 1B receiver, however, a majority of the posters in the Vikings forums, beleived Stefon diggs was a complimentary number 2 receiver in comparison to Adam Thielen who posters in the Vikings forum beleived was the clear number 1 receiver.

The latter post you quoted “you must have bad memory of you think most people here thought diggs was 1A” means exactly what I have been saying. I said you were wrong to think that most people thought diggs was 1A receiver in comparison to Thielen being 1B, in reality most people on the Vikings forum thought Stefon diggs was the number 2 receiver instead of 1A. 
 

It is actually really simple. Your mind is locked onto “either 1A receiver or 1B receiver” when it could actually be 1A or a 2 receiver in general. That’s where the disconnect is. I think you were so excited to “embarrass” me that you tried to point out that flaw to question my football knowledge and it didn’t work. Regardless let’s just stick to packers vs Vikings as I stated earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly this is the least interested I think I've ever been in a season. Not sure I'll watch much....we'll see if that changes tomorrow.

I have very little knowledge about this team. Still know the big names, but just haven't been spending time getting caught up in little details.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, RpMc said:

As @Krauser foretold.

Yep, with this new information I am adjusting my game day roster. I have Boone inactive again to clear the a spot for Nickerson. I still have Udoh over Hill but not really sure about that. @Krauser said that Hill was filling in at RT. It that is true I think it would be Hill, but I am not sure it is true. I used Google-Fu to see who was playing RT during practice when Reiff was mulling his options. The answer I came up with was Udoh, which may explain why I was thinking Udoh. I don't know if the source I read was correct though. It was this article on si.com.

Without clarity on the Udoh/Hill as backup what I have now looks like this (I am still not thrilled with the backup Gs but I don't really know who else they would activate):

QB(2): Cousins, Mannion
OL(8): Reiff, Dozier, Bradbury, Elflein, O'Neill, Udoh, Samia, Cleveland
WR(4): Thielen, Johnson, Jefferson, Beebe
TE(3): Rudolph, Smith, Conklin
RB(3): Cook, Mattison, Abdullah
FB(1): Ham

DE(4): Ngakoue, Odenigbo, Yarbrough, Holmes
DT(4): Stepehn, Johnson, Watts, Mata'afa
CB(6): Hughes, Hill, Hand, Gladney, Dantzler, Boyd
S(3):  Smith, Harris, Meadors
LB(5): Barr, Kendricks, Wilson, Dye, Nickerson

ST(5): Bailey, Chisena, Colquitt, Cutting, Osborn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cearbhall said:

Yep, with this new information I am adjusting my game day roster. I have Boone inactive again to clear the a spot for Nickerson. I still have Udoh over Hill but not really sure about that. @Krauser said that Hill was filling in at RT. It that is true I think it would be Hill, but I am not sure it is true. I used Google-Fu to see who was playing RT during practice when Reiff was mulling his options. The answer I came up with was Udoh, which may explain why I was thinking Udoh. I don't know if the source I read was correct though. It was this article on si.com.

There was a report after that practice that while they experimented with O’Neill at LT and Udoh at RT, Hill would be the game 1 starter at RT if Reiff was released.

More to the point, I don’t think they’ll have Udoh active ahead of Hill because Hill can back up either side. Even if they might consider O’Neill as a longterm starter at LT, they won’t want him switching sides in the middle of a game. 

I guess they might activate both of the backup tackles since there’s some value in having 8 active OL, but I’d guess Samia, Cleveland, Hill if they’re dressing 3 backups (and Jones isn’t added to the roster, which he wasn’t). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...