Jump to content

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


swede700

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, vikesfan89 said:

Osborn played 81% of the snaps so they must have been in 3 wide a lot.  Is that going to be a change going forward or is it just until the new tight ends get up to speed? 

If Osborn is better than the second TE, that’s how they should play it. I’d hate to cut into his play time due to an offensive philosophy that forces Herndon on the field. He had himself a nice game. 

Edited by vikingsrule
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, vikesfan89 said:

Osborn played 81% of the snaps so they must have been in 3 wide a lot.  Is that going to be a change going forward or is it just until the new tight ends get up to speed? 

They said that they were likely to go more in that direction after Smith Jr’s injury. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, SemperFeist said:

They didn’t score from the 1 yard line. 

I probably should have figured that. 

My first thought was that they should be able to punch it but we've seen them not able to get in from the 1 before.  They easily could have had another penalty to push them back. 

Unless there was very little chance of it being overturned its hard to blame anyone for taking a chance that it does get overturned for a TD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, swede700 said:

Yes.  I wouldn't trust anything that comes from ESPN.   I suspect that ESPN took the lazy way out and put them in last because of alphabetical order.  

That’s right, we are 1st by default. We are the only NFC central team not to lose to another NFC opponent. If the playoffs started today, we would go in as the number one seed from the NFC central lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, marshpit23 said:

That’s right, we are 1st by default. We are the only NFC central team not to lose to another NFC opponent. If the playoffs started today, we would go in as the number one seed from the NFC central lol

You gotta take the positives where you can find them.  Although, we haven't been in the NFC Central for nearly 20 years.  🤣

And we're first because we didn't get obliterated like the other NFC North teams, not because we didn't play another NFC team.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, swede700 said:

You gotta take the positives where you can find them.  Although, we haven't been in the NFC Central for nearly 20 years.  🤣

And we're first because we didn't get obliterated like the other NFC North teams, not because we didn't play another NFC team.  

Haha NFC central…man I’m getting old and a poor historian, too. 
 

I thought that conference records were part of the tie breaking process and I’m pretty sure I’m wrong with that as well. In retrospect, I shouldn’t have posted a reply to begin with lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, marshpit23 said:

Haha NFC central…man I’m getting old and a poor historian, too. 
 

I thought that conference records were part of the tie breaking process and I’m pretty sure I’m wrong with that as well. In retrospect, I shouldn’t have posted a reply to begin with lol

Conference records are a higher on the tiebreaker, but since all of the teams are at .000 in the conference, it doesn't matter that the other teams played NFC teams and the Vikings didn'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.

×
×
  • Create New...