Jump to content

Defense - Raising the Barr


vike daddy

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Dolmonite26 said:

Hmmmm....but this

So can we make definitive statements or not? Just checking

 

Also how is using the most recent, and therefore most useful, game against the Saints as a point of analysis bad logic?.....it's relevant and very logically sound to use as a jumping off point in making predictions for up coming game.

Please inform me where I said we were going to do anything? I left it wide open with a non definitive statement. 

"Our defense can only do so much". Where am I implying what "will" happen there?

 

"We have to get our offense up and running".  Where is my, "definitive statement" there?  I made an observation and a hope of mine into words. I never stated we were going to do anything. I hope we do.

Please don't misrepresent my statements to make yours half way necessary. 

 

It's logical to make predictions, yes. What is not logical is to state exactly what we are going to do to a team that has underwent vast changes since, What -- 18 weeks ago? We have no idea what is going to happen against the Saints, and to pretend we do is asinine.

There is no jumping off point in this discussion. We know what our defense can do, and a pretty good idea of what the NO offense can do. So, we HOPE That Rhodes locks down Thomas. We hope that Kendricks and Barr can contain Kumara and Ingram. We hope our secondary can hold of Brees. We HOPE because we are not fortune tellers, nor do any if us have clairvoyance instilled in us; at least I wouldn't think. I mean, maybe you do. In which case, disregard everything I just said, and you're right about everything.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't make any assertion or claim to be right about....anything.

I just find it odd that you pointed out that there is no way for us to know with certainty anything about future events. Which is a rather obvious and useless observation, that you contradicted by saying that the defense is going have to get up for this game.

Its a rather definitive statement about what the Saints offense will do, and therefore what the Vikes defense will have to do. Given you're complete undermining of Sem's prediction (made in rather certain terms, yes) I just found it odd.

Semfi laid out as a counter argument why the Vikings matchup up well with the Saints offense.  Which you dismissed by saying that we don't know what will happen so you can't say it will, again, obviously, but its no grounds for complete dismissal.

Is there reason to think Rhodes can't matchup well with MT (which he did the last time they played).  Can you actually advance an argument for that? Our LBs have shut down RBs in the passing game this year, is there a reason they won't in this game?

Again, using the week one game as a data point in an argument is no where close to bad logic, and for good measure predictions by themselves cant be invalid or valid.  They can simply be proven true or false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Morleericks said:

 We HOPE because we are not fortune tellers, nor do any if us have clairvoyance instilled in us; at least I wouldn't think. I mean, maybe you do. In which case, disregard everything I just said, and you're right about everything.

hey new guy... lighten up. we try real hard around her not to get pisssy and personal like this with each other. in fact we pride ourselves on our restraint that keeps it from happening.

we disagree sometimes, hey maybe lots of times. but we're fans of the same team and that makes us distant brothers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, vike daddy said:

hey new guy... lighten up. we try real hard around her not to get pisssy and personal like this with each other. in fact we pride ourselves on our restraint that keeps it from happening.

we disagree sometimes, hey maybe lots of times. but we're fans of the same team and that makes us distant brothers.

Where do I seem pissy?

It was a response. A detailed response, but it seemed necessary given why he quoted me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Morleericks said:

Where do I seem pissy?

It was a response. A detailed response but it seemed necessary given why he quoted me.

the sarcasm at the end, an obvious slight against the guy -

"nor do any if us have clairvoyance instilled in us; at least I wouldn't think. I mean, maybe you do. In which case, disregard everything I just said, and you're right about everything."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dolmonite26 said:

I didn't make any assertion or claim to be right about....anything.

I just find it odd that you pointed out that there is no way for us to know with certainty anything about future events. Which is a rather obvious and useless observation, that you contradicted by saying that the defense is going have to get up for this game.

Its a rather definitive statement about what the Saints offense will do, and therefore what the Vikes defense will have to do. Given you're complete undermining of Sem's prediction (made in rather certain terms, yes) I just found it odd.

Semfi laid out as a counter argument why the Vikings matchup up well with the Saints offense.  Which you dismissed by saying that we don't know what will happen so you can't say it will, again, obviously, but its no grounds for complete dismissal.

Is there reason to think Rhodes can't matchup well with MT (which he did the last time they played).  Can you actually advance an argument for that? Our LBs have shut down RBs in the passing game this year, is there a reason they won't in this game?

Again, using the week one game as a data point in an argument is no where close to bad logic, and for good measure predictions by themselves cant be invalid or valid.  They can simply be proven true or false.

I wasn't tagged in this quote. I'll have to get back to this later.

No one knows anything and the NO game was 18 weeks ago, was my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, vike daddy said:

the sarcasm at the end, an obvious slight against the guy -

"nor do any if us have clairvoyance instilled in us; at least I wouldn't think. I mean, maybe you do. In which case, disregard everything I just said, and you're right about everything."

That wasn't funny?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Touchdowns allowed by the defense at US Bank Stadium
Week 1: 1:56 in 4th up 29-12 (garbage time)
Week 3: 8:47 in 3rd up 28-3, 0:00 in 3rd up 31-10 (garbage time)
Week 4: 8:00 in 3rd
Week 6: 10:40 in 2nd
Week 7: 0:00 in 4th up 24-9 (as garbage time as you can get)
Week 11: 10:42 in 1st score 0-0 (first drive)
Week 15: 4:22 in 4th up 34-0 (garbage time)
Week 17: Special teams TD

So of the 8 touchdowns allowed by the defense at home, five of them were in garbage time and one was on the first drive of the game 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...