SteelKing728 Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 It actually was a very good block! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perrynoid Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 2 minutes ago, SteelKing728 said: It actually was a very good block! It appears to me that the defender slipped and fell on his own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteelKing728 Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 22 minutes ago, perrynoid said: It appears to me that the defender slipped and fell on his own. Nah, definitely Kirk. Let it add to the legacy lol 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sledgehammer Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 3 hours ago, Worm Guts said: One game doesn’t change the narrative, but he has to start somewhere. He has to show up next week now. Well it should do. He was clutch when it mattered with those passes on that last drive. He showed he can handle pressure. Now everybody should find another talking point to blow out of proportion. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Worm Guts Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, sledgehammer said: Well it should do. He was clutch when it mattered with those passes on that last drive. He showed he can handle pressure. Now everybody should find another talking point to blow out of proportion. I definitely disagree there. He wasn’t just signed to play well in one wild card game., and playing well in one out of every five big games doesn’t cut it (or whatever percentage it is). Edited January 6, 2020 by Worm Guts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krauser Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 1 hour ago, Worm Guts said: playing well in one out of every five big games doesn’t cut it (or whatever percentage it is). I see this kind of thinking all the time from Vikings fans and I’m sorry, but it’s way off. It’s revisionist history to say none of their wins were big games, and all of their losses were. The Eagles were 3-2 coming into the Vikings game, and both of their losses were by 5 points or less. Alshon Jeffrey was back for that game. They went on to finish 6-4 for the rest of their season, winning their division. They would’ve had a better record than the Vikings this year, had they won in Minnesota. But the Vikings beat them by 18 points, thanks mainly to a fantastic game from Cousins. The Lions were a good team before Stafford got hurt. Should’ve been 3-1-1 coming in, if the refs hadn’t jobbed them at Lambeau. They didn’t lose another game all year by more than a TD with Stafford playing. Stafford had a great game, but Cousins outdueled him and won by 12, on the road. The Cowboys were very good this year (at least as good as the Seahawks and Packers), but lost almost all of their close games (the opposite of SEA and GB). Vikings beat them on the road, in prime time, and Cousins played well. The Chargers were another team that kept losing close games. They had a positive points didn’t coming into the Vikings game and had beaten up on the Packers at home a few weeks earlier. The Vikings beat them by 29. Their only other loss this year by more than 7 points was by 10, in KC. It’s stupid to think of those wins as games that somehow didn’t really count. In the NFL, basically every game is a big game. Very little separates middle of the table teams from the top of the league, which is why upsets are so common. 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Worm Guts Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 8 minutes ago, Krauser said: I see this kind of thinking all the time from Vikings fans and I’m sorry, but it’s way off. It’s revisionist history to say none of their wins were big games, and all of their losses were. The Eagles were 3-2 coming into the Vikings game, and both of their losses were by 5 points or less. Alshon Jeffrey was back for that game. They went on to finish 6-4 for the rest of their season, winning their division. They would’ve had a better record than the Vikings this year, had they won in Minnesota. But the Vikings beat them by 18 points, thanks mainly to a fantastic game from Cousins. The Lions were a good team before Stafford got hurt. Should’ve been 3-1-1 coming in, if the refs hadn’t jobbed them at Lambeau. They didn’t lose another game all year by more than a TD with Stafford playing. Stafford had a great game, but Cousins outdueled him and won by 12, on the road. The Cowboys were very good this year (at least as good as the Seahawks and Packers), but lost almost all of their close games (the opposite of SEA and GB). Vikings beat them on the road, in prime time, and Cousins played well. The Chargers were another team that kept losing close games. They had a positive points didn’t coming into the Vikings game and had beaten up on the Packers at home a few weeks earlier. The Vikings beat them by 29. Their only other loss this year by more than 7 points was by 10, in KC. It’s stupid to think of those wins as games that somehow didn’t really count. In the NFL, basically every game is a big game. Very little separates middle of the table teams from the top of the league, which is why upsets are so common. Games early in the season are less meaningful than games at the end, when mistakes can't be recovered from. I wouldn't call the Bears/Packers games at the beginning of the year big games, but the last Packers game definitely was, just like the Bears game at the end of last season. And the big issue was that with big stakes on the line in those games, Cousins came up as small as possible. That doesn't mean that will always be the case, as we saw yesterday, but if you want a reputation as a big time player, as somebody who shows up in the clutch, then it has to be more than one game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vike daddy Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 20 minutes ago, Worm Guts said: Games early in the season are less meaningful than games at the end say what? if we had won the CHI or GB game early on, we would have been playing at home most likely, as Division winners. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CriminalMind Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 The play calling is still too conservative. Yes, the pass to Thielen in OT was good, but it was way too conservative in the 4th quarter. Too many run fronts, and they got stuffed. Need more passes to Diggs and Kyle. No attempt at a Sherels return for the win at the end? No potential throw with 1 second left to get flag + possession. We squeaked out the win, but this could have easily been a heartbreaking loss, with the conservative play calling. Need to be more aggressive in SF. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krauser Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 41 minutes ago, Worm Guts said: I wouldn't call the Bears/Packers games at the beginning of the year big games, but the last Packers game definitely was, just like the Bears game at the end of last season. And the big issue was that with big stakes on the line in those games, Cousins came up as small as possible. They lost to the Packers because the OL got overwhelmed and they had no run game. Stefanski abandoned the play action bootleg game and had no answers to scheme open receivers. Cousins wasn’t great but he’s not the reason they lost. The Bears game last year was similar. The entire offense was dysfunctional, as it was for much of the last half of the season (especially in Chicago and Seattle). The whole line of argument is an exercise in moving goal posts: games they won are discounted, games they lost are amplified. It’s a product of pot-stirring sports journalism and sports talk shows, which design narratives to drive engagement, keep people tuning in. I associate it with Coller and Zulgad, mainly because they’re my only exposure to that kind of approach, but it’s the standard on ESPN and every NFL pregame and postgame show. I guess it’s fun and gives people something to argue about, but it doesn’t hold up as analysis. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede700 Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 15 hours ago, SemperFeist said: I love Master. I miss him too as the Vikings' beat guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Worm Guts Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 29 minutes ago, Krauser said: They lost to the Packers because the OL got overwhelmed and they had no run game. Stefanski abandoned the play action bootleg game and had no answers to scheme open receivers. Cousins wasn’t great but he’s not the reason they lost. The Bears game last year was similar. The entire offense was dysfunctional, as it was for much of the last half of the season (especially in Chicago and Seattle). The whole line of argument is an exercise in moving goal posts: games they won are discounted, games they lost are amplified. It’s a product of pot-stirring sports journalism and sports talk shows, which design narratives to drive engagement, keep people tuning in. I associate it with Coller and Zulgad, mainly because they’re my only exposure to that kind of approach, but it’s the standard on ESPN and every NFL pregame and postgame show. I guess it’s fun and gives people something to argue about, but it doesn’t hold up as analysis. Whatever the reason, Cousins obviously didn't step up in those moments. I don't think it takes much of standard to say Cousins hadn't won any meaningful games for the Vikings before yesterday, and especially no meaningful games against good teams. When you point to victories against 3 and 5 win teams, I'm not sure what to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Worm Guts Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, vike daddy said: say what? if we had won the CHI or GB game early on, we would have been playing at home most likely, as Division winners. So? From one perspective all games count the same, but the pressure from every game is not the same. It's like comparing plays made in the 1st quarter to the 4th quarter. Edited January 6, 2020 by Worm Guts 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede700 Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Worm Guts said: Games early in the season are less meaningful than games at the end, when mistakes can't be recovered from. That is an extremely short-sighted view to take, considering if the Vikings beat the Bills last year, as they should have, they would have been in the playoffs and if they had beat the Packers in Week 2, even if they had lost in the same manner to the Packers in in Week 16, we're talking about them still maybe having a shot at getting a bye in Week 17. Every game is meaningful, if you take a long-view, because there are only 16 of them. It's not like a Twins-Yankees game in mid-May. Edited January 6, 2020 by swede700 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Worm Guts Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 Just now, swede700 said: That is an extremely short-sighted view to take, considering if the Vikings beat the Bills last year, as they should have, they would have been in the playoffs and if they had beat the Packers in Week 2, even if they had lost in the same manner to the Packers in in Week 16, we're talking about them still maybe having a shot at getting a bye in Week 17. No. We're just talking about different things. Obviously you can set yourself in a better situation by taking care of business early in the season. But if we're talking about how Cousins responds pressure situations, I don't see that as a pressure situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.