Lost in this Oh-so-Vikings loss is that the boys up front were fantastic today.  Great protection and holes you could drive a truck through.

 

Feels like 0-4 coming in a bunch of close losses.

The conservative play calling the second half, capped off by sitting on the FG is annoying as hell.

This game had a half dozen little things that made no sense but the squib kick to end the half was a head scratcher. Twenty seconds left, why not make them start at the 25? The extra ten yards allowed them to kick a 62 yard field goal.

Ok....I was at the game and one decision rubbed me wrong, tell me if I'm alone: The sack to end the Card's last drive was at 2:19.  Zimmer used his second timeout.  Then the punt, a 2 yard Thielen gain, and a Cook run before the 2 minute warning.  

Is 19 seconds (minus punt time) worth more than having two timeouts in your pocket?  I prefer the two TOs.

1 hour ago, TheLeviathan said:

Ok....I was at the game and one decision rubbed me wrong, tell me if I'm alone: The sack to end the Card's last drive was at 2:19.  Zimmer used his second timeout.  Then the punt, a 2 yard Thielen gain, and a Cook run before the 2 minute warning.  

Is 19 seconds (minus punt time) worth more than having two timeouts in your pocket?  I prefer the two TOs.

I think that was ok - three plays for the one time out and the Cook run was a nice one. I wished they had pushed a bit more with 30 seconds left, get a little closer, but really, considering how the defense played, can't really blame the offense at all.

4 hours ago, gunnarthor said:

I think that was ok - three plays for the one time out and the Cook run was a nice one. I wished they had pushed a bit more with 30 seconds left, get a little closer, but really, considering how the defense played, can't really blame the offense at all.

Maybe not the offense itself but certainly the way the offense is called.

In the last two minutes of the half, AZ went combined 99 yards on two drives, getting a TD and a FG taking up only 34 seconds. Obviously Vikings blown coverage helped with that, but sandwiched between those two drives, the Vikings only went 41 yards getting a FG and used 1:13 to do so. It was clear from the beginning of that drive that they planned to settle for a FG the entire time even though every other team in the league would feel a minute and a half is more than enough time to drive down the field and get a TD. 

This offense is too talented not to deserve a 21st century offensive mentality.

5 hours ago, gunnarthor said:

I think that was ok - three plays for the one time out and the Cook run was a nice one. I wished they had pushed a bit more with 30 seconds left, get a little closer, but really, considering how the defense played, can't really blame the offense at all.

It wasn't so much blaming the offense, I thought they played exceptionally well.  They scored 30+, that should win you an NFL game.

It was more the devaluing of the timeout vs. 19 seconds.  To me, burn the 19 seconds and give me that flexible, instant stoppage.  A second timeout might have allowed them to behave differently on the drive down.  But even more I think about how valuable it could have been had the offense not done so well on that drive and it was more of a grind.

1 hour ago, nicksaviking said:

Maybe not the offense itself but certainly the way the offense is called.

In the last two minutes of the half, AZ went combined 99 yards on two drives, getting a TD and a FG taking up only 34 seconds. Obviously Vikings blown coverage helped with that, but sandwiched between those two drives, the Vikings only went 41 yards getting a FG and used 1:13 to do so. It was clear from the beginning of that drive that they planned to settle for a FG the entire time even though every other team in the league would feel a minute and a half is more than enough time to drive down the field and get a TD. 

This offense is too talented not to deserve a 21st century offensive mentality.

I guess I disagree Nick.  I thought the offense was exceptionally well called.  No turnovers, several big plays, the run game gashed them all day long, they did try some different things and the formations were all over the place.  A bit more aggressiveness in situations I can understand, but I can't complain about the offense.

The defense on the other hand....some really boneheaded plays.  Is it just me or did Dantzler come in and look like he totally changed the way the secondary was playing in terms of physicality?

13 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

I guess I disagree Nick.  I thought the offense was exceptionally well called.  No turnovers, several big plays, the run game gashed them all day long, they did try some different things and the formations were all over the place.  A bit more aggressiveness in situations I can understand, but I can't complain about the offense.

The defense on the other hand....some really boneheaded plays.  Is it just me or did Dantzler come in and look like he totally changed the way the secondary was playing in terms of physicality?

The D went from lights out early, to abysmal once they started picking on Beelund again. Have to think Dantzler takes his job next week.

While I agree the offense looks good, I still don't think it was called good in terms of end of half situations. The end of the first half saw three short passes, then insanely two runs, the first one taking 20 seconds off the clock and the second one requiring the final time out to be used. That all but waived the white flag in terms of scoring a TD. After the two rushes, they ran a couple more short passes because they STILL weren't in field goal range.

Modern offenses with two timeouts left take advantage of the other team trying to protect the sideline and have their way throwing to open (or even unopen) guys in the middle of the field. Even when they are out of timeouts, other teams still take sideline shots down the field. The Vikings still go super conservative and do dump offs and quick outs; it seems clear they think it is more imperative to stop the clock than to grab massive chunks of yards.

Twice in a row, they have had a chance to win a game by driving down and scoring. The offense stayed out and lost the ball (according to the refs) in Week 1 and their kicker missed a makeable field goal. The strategy is sound, but you have to execute. 

2 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

The D went from lights out early, to abysmal once they started picking on Beelund again. Have to think Dantzler takes his job next week.

While I agree the offense looks good, I still don't think it was called good in terms of end of half situations. The end of the first half saw three short passes, then insanely two runs, the first one taking 20 seconds off the clock and the second one requiring the final time out to be used. That all but waived the white flag in terms of scoring a TD. After the two rushes, they ran a couple more short passes because they STILL weren't in field goal range.

Modern offenses with two timeouts left take advantage of the other team trying to protect the sideline and have their way throwing to open (or even unopen) guys in the middle of the field. Even when they are out of timeouts, other teams still take sideline shots down the field. The Vikings still go super conservative and do dump offs and quick outs; it seems clear they think it is more imperative to stop the clock than to grab massive chunks of yards.

I can get behind that explanation, that makes sense.  I will say, the Bucs are as modern an offense as there is and they won their first game much the way we intended to win yesterday.  As stringer said, I think the wins were there for the taking, the problem is the execution.

But I have had similar thoughts to what you say here about our inside-2-minutes offense.

Throwing Cook out there, run after run when you could see he wasn't cutting well was another annoyance.

I get Zimmer and the offense is 1980 inspired, but what is the point of 30 mill guaranteed for Cousins, Jefferson and Thielen when the RB is hurt?

2 hours ago, a-wan said:

Throwing Cook out there, run after run when you could see he wasn't cutting well was another annoyance.

I get Zimmer and the offense is 1980 inspired, but what is the point of 30 mill guaranteed for Cousins, Jefferson and Thielen when the RB is hurt?

Guaranteeing that much money to Cook was always a bad move.  Running backs, harsh as this is to say, should just be dudes you grind on rookie contracts and move on.  If Mattison ain't good enough to come in and be 80% of Cook then we don't have a good enough backup.

2 hours ago, a-wan said:

Throwing Cook out there, run after run when you could see he wasn't cutting well was another annoyance.

I get Zimmer and the offense is 1980 inspired, but what is the point of 30 mill guaranteed for Cousins, Jefferson and Thielen when the RB is hurt?

Agreed. They have to protect him more.

10 hours ago, gunnarthor said:

Agreed. They have to protect him more.

I'm more in Levi's line of thinking. I wasn't necessarily saying protect Cook, but that an injured Cook isn't as useful.

Way too conservative on offense, as always. And, he's no defensive genius. I'm ready for this to be blown up.

That said, they could easily be 2-0, and I could be wrong.

Are we the best 0-2 team? Or is there a better one?

23 hours ago, sampleSizeOfOne said:

Are we the best 0-2 team? Or is there a better one?

Somehow after only two weeks, there's only six 0-2 teams. 

Most look terrible, but maybe Indy would give the Vikings a run for the title. If they were healthy.

They might be the best 0-2 team, but I would not be shocked if they were 0-3 soon.....nor if they were 1-2, frankly. I can't figure them out.

14 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

They might be the best 0-2 team, but I would not be shocked if they were 0-3 soon.....nor if they were 1-2, frankly. I can't figure them out.

One week they almost beat the 4-0 Seahawks in Seattle and another they get blown out by the 0-5 Falcons.

Zimmer can either win this game or find another job.

No Dalvin Cook today. Let’s see what this offense looks like as a passing team today. 

Just now, Vanimal46 said:

No Dalvin Cook today. Let’s see what this offense looks like as a passing team today. 

Mattison is still solid. They’ll probably still utilize him.

Bench Breeland ffs

Sluggish start by the D… Breeland continues to get picked on. Still baffling to me that Dantzler isn’t starting. 

That was an excellent first drive to respond back. Tie game! 

*Defensive Genius!*

Our defense is light years away from being a feared unit. It used to be a major milestone when opposing teams approached 100 rushing yards. Now teams clear 6 lane freeways for their running backs. 

I don't understand how this defense is this bad.

This is a nice looking offense