Talk Vikes and Other MN Sports Talk Vikes and Other MN Sports

Forums  Register  Login  My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums 

Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ  Ticket List  Log Out

RE: General Vikes Talk

 
Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [The Minnesota Vikings] >> Vikes Talk >> RE: General Vikes Talk Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: General Vikes Talk - 1/29/2018 11:44:03 PM   
69in09


Posts: 8479
Joined: 1/13/2009
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
IMO; We didn't have the "best defense" in the NFL.

We might have nudged out a few teams for least yards or least scoring, but we were not good at creating turnovers, in fact I believe we were 22nd in the league in doing so.

For instance Jacksonville gave up about 10 more yards per game, but created 11 more turnovers.

I really believe we need to add an impact UT, or a great situational pass rusher (better than Robison) if we really want to be a feared defense.

_____________________________

This is my burner account.
Post #: 26
RE: General Vikes Talk - 1/29/2018 11:48:20 PM   
69in09


Posts: 8479
Joined: 1/13/2009
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

quote:

ORIGINAL: drviking

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

I don't know about him not being a top ten quarterback. I was thinking that he was as good as some of the players in the Pro Bowl. There were three from each team and then of course Brady and Wentz deserved to be there, but weren't. I do believe that Case would have to be considered in the next grouping based on his season. I would say that it's debatable.

You can make the point that this season was an outlier and that he needs to do it again to deserve the top ten ranking. I guess I could agree with that.


i look at it like this...

WHERE can we REASONABLY expect improvement on offense

LT...marginal improvement, Reiff was elite for the first half of the season, fell off a bit in the 2nd half
LG...probably could find an upgrade, so improvement could be had
C....not really, should be even better next year
RG....probably could find an upgrade, but it was solid, marginal improvement
RT....Remmers was solid/pretty good the first half, marginal improvement

TE....probably could use some speed, but pretty productive, marginal improvement

WR...maybe need some size, marginal improvement at best (unless you talk depth)

RB....not much improvement to be had


so that leaves QB

Case had his best season, but has some very obvious limitations. IMO, he had his Derek Anderson/Nick Foles year


i could be wrong, but I dont see him as a top 20 QB long term....was he this year? sure. probably top 10, but i can list a lot of QBs i would rather take a shot with


When you have the best defense in the NFL, you still would like an elite quarterback, but if you can't get one of those then you would like an efficient quarterback who doesn't make mistakes and you complement him with a nice rushing attack.

The problem is that this team was not the kind of team that could come from behind by two touchdowns. In the Eagles game we fell behind. Part of that was on the offense by giving up the ball and even allowing the Eagles defense to score. Philadelphia is a very tough place to play and the 75,000 fans made it a really tough environment. The defense also gave up some huge plays. We can say that that was inexplicable, but they also did that in the Carolina game (on the road) That might have been the game that we lost the Super Bowl on. That was a game where we could have prevailed. The Eagles would have had a tough time winning at our place and that is where the game would have been if we had beat the Panthers.

The Lions game could also have been a difference maker. The bleeping Lions beat us at our place. We were down because we already lost our starting quarterback, and then we lost our stud running back in the game. Case was not up to the challenge. I remember that the Lions secondary played really aggressively and the refs let them play. Murray was still not 100% coming back from surgery and so it was on Case to find a way at home to win that game- but he could not. He was the backup and he still didn't have his wings, yet, like he did on a couple subsequent games. Maybe he could have prevailed if he had a couple more games under his belt. I actually think one of the main reasons he did better in the middle of the season was because Murray got better. Having a good running attack can make any quarterback look better. Look at Dak Prescott.

So how can we get better? Getting Cook back next year will really make the offense look better, but I think we should continue to look to upgrade the offensive line. A quarterback will look better if he has time to throw, too.

Our team made a big step forward in improvement this year largely because our offensive line improved. Imagine if we can take one more huge step. I would focus on that during the off-season.


I concur. Shurmur made our offense better than the sum of it's parts.

We have two good/great WRs, an above average TE. The rest of the pieces we had on offense are average or worse. Cook is a dynamic piece, if he can return to form.

_____________________________

This is my burner account.
Post #: 27
RE: General Vikes Talk - 1/29/2018 11:52:58 PM   
thebigo


Posts: 24569
Joined: 7/14/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 69in09

IMO; We didn't have the "best defense" in the NFL.

We might have nudged out a few teams for least yards or least scoring, but we were not good at creating turnovers, in fact I believe we were 22nd in the league in doing so.

For instance Jacksonville gave up about 10 more yards per game, but created 11 more turnovers.

I really believe we need to add an impact UT, or a great situational pass rusher (better than Robison) if we really want to be a feared defense.


Getting turnovers contribute towards fewer yards given up, and fewer points scored against. So the TO differential actually increases the points given up and yardage given up edge of the Vikings in terms of steady and consistent dominating defense not reliant on big plays/TOs.
Post #: 28
RE: General Vikes Talk - 1/30/2018 12:04:51 AM   
69in09


Posts: 8479
Joined: 1/13/2009
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: 69in09

IMO; We didn't have the "best defense" in the NFL.

We might have nudged out a few teams for least yards or least scoring, but we were not good at creating turnovers, in fact I believe we were 22nd in the league in doing so.

For instance Jacksonville gave up about 10 more yards per game, but created 11 more turnovers.

I really believe we need to add an impact UT, or a great situational pass rusher (better than Robison) if we really want to be a feared defense.


Getting turnovers contribute towards fewer yards given up, and fewer points scored against. So the TO differential actually increases the points given up and yardage given up edge of the Vikings in terms of steady and consistent dominating defense not reliant on big plays/TOs.


I am uncertain of what you just said.

But I know it is wrong.

_____________________________

This is my burner account.
Post #: 29
RE: General Vikes Talk - 1/30/2018 12:08:34 AM   
thebigo


Posts: 24569
Joined: 7/14/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 69in09

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: 69in09

IMO; We didn't have the "best defense" in the NFL.

We might have nudged out a few teams for least yards or least scoring, but we were not good at creating turnovers, in fact I believe we were 22nd in the league in doing so.

For instance Jacksonville gave up about 10 more yards per game, but created 11 more turnovers.

I really believe we need to add an impact UT, or a great situational pass rusher (better than Robison) if we really want to be a feared defense.


Getting turnovers contribute towards fewer yards given up, and fewer points scored against. So the TO differential actually increases the points given up and yardage given up edge of the Vikings in terms of steady and consistent dominating defense not reliant on big plays/TOs.


I am uncertain of what you just said.

But I know it is wrong.


Bottom line is points given up. 50 TOs, 2 TOs. Doesn't matter.
Post #: 30
RE: General Vikes Talk - 1/30/2018 12:44:44 AM   
Bruce Johnson

 

Posts: 12412
Joined: 8/27/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 69in09

IMO; We didn't have the "best defense" in the NFL.

We might have nudged out a few teams for least yards or least scoring, but we were not good at creating turnovers, in fact I believe we were 22nd in the league in doing so.

For instance Jacksonville gave up about 10 more yards per game, but created 11 more turnovers.

I really believe we need to add an impact UT, or a great situational pass rusher (better than Robison) if we really want to be a feared defense.


I was surprised to realize that Tom Johnson only had three sacks this year. I do agree that when the middle of the pocket collapses good things happen and one of them would be more turnovers.

_____________________________

I do think it is wonderful that football can bring people together from different persuasions. We need more of that and less of what divides us.
Post #: 31
RE: General Vikes Talk - 1/30/2018 9:21:01 AM   
SoMnFan


Posts: 83859
Status: offline
MVP poll on ESPN
Pretty honest ranking, and evaluation, of Keenum's year.
Brady, Wentz and Gurley were 1, 2, and 3.



4. Case Keenum, QB, Minnesota Vikings

Regular-season passing: 325-for-325 (67.6 percent); 3,547 yards; 22 TDs; 7 INTs; 71.3 Total QBR

The case for Keenum: Like Wentz and Brady, Keenum was the quarterback for one of the league's four 13-3 teams. Forget the fact that his emergence from third-stringer to playoff starter was one of the season's best stories, Keenum delivered the statistical goods. He was second in QBR -- right between Wentz -- and second in completion percentages, threw one fewer interception than Brady did and kept the Minnesota offense on track after Sam Bradford got hurt.

The case against Keenum: Kind of a meh 12th in passing yards and touchdown passes, seventh in passer rating, 13th in yards per attempt ... not that those are numbers to sneeze at, but if you're trying to crack a top three like this one, they're not great enough.
Post #: 32
RE: General Vikes Talk - 1/30/2018 11:18:02 AM   
David F.


Posts: 6939
Joined: 12/31/2007
Status: offline
I'd like for the myth of 'Keenum was a 3rd-stringer' to get put to bed. He was the backup. Teddy cracked the roster once and that was after Bradford was out.

_____________________________

I've come to the conclusion that I'm in an unhealthy co-dependent relationship with the Vikings. Damn it.
Post #: 33
RE: General Vikes Talk - 1/30/2018 11:26:23 AM   
JT2

 

Posts: 12699
Joined: 2/15/2011
From: United States
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

I'd like for the myth of 'Keenum was a 3rd-stringer' to get put to bed. He was the backup. Teddy cracked the roster once and that was after Bradford was out.


Right. I'd like to know when he was #3 on our QB depth chart.

Keenum had a great season, but came up small when it mattered most.

No need to embellish the story.
Post #: 34
RE: General Vikes Talk - 1/30/2018 11:27:41 AM   
SoMnFan


Posts: 83859
Status: offline
Sorry fellas.
Post #: 35
RE: General Vikes Talk - 1/30/2018 11:53:58 AM   
Trekgeekscott


Posts: 35173
Joined: 7/16/2007
From: United Federation of Planets
Status: offline
Case Keenum.

The real problem here is what each person believes is the real Case Keenum. This season was great. But was it a harbinger of things to come, or a fluke, or just right person at the right time.

1. He had a great year. I loved the moxy. I loved the mobility being used to allow his recievers time to get open. I loved the gunslinger mentality. I loved the on field cheerleader. He was the right guy at the right time and it led us all the way to the NFCCG. But then that moxy disappeard in that game.
2. Why did he have a great year. Was it all those intangibles? Did Shurmer have something to do with it calling a brilliant game plan? and it all fell apart in the NFCCG cause Shurmer had NYG football on the brain?

Before this year Keenum was at best a backup. He was never any real good. So we have to determine whether we think he's the second coming of Gannon. Or if he's just another journeyman who fell into the right situation to excel.

I am of the belief that 1. Pat Shurmer had a lot to do with it. Seeing as how Nick Foles has his one good season with Shurmer and became less than ordinary after that kind of lends credence to this belief. 2. our receivers bailed him out on many occasions making sometimes miraculous catches. This leads me to believe that other QBs that are more talented physically or other QBs with equal or better mental abilities would also have success. This is a guy that came out of nowhere to have a great season. He was never drafted. released more than once by a QB starved team the Texans. Released by the moribund Rams whose only other option was at the time what looked like a first round bust in Jared Goff. Nobody wanted him and we got him for cheap to hold a clipboard. Now somebody is going to pay him a lot and I fear that will be the Vikings and he will return to the previous level of suck that was his career pre Vikings because he wont have Shurmer to guide him. I have a real fear that he will end up looking like Randall Cunningham 99.

I am not saying Teddy is our saviour, but I have a gut feeling that they didn't play him much and benched him in the playoffs because they want people to think there is something wrong and he's 100% Ready to go.

Bradford is just to much of a risk with his history. I think we end up keeping Teddy, unless we pull off some sort of coup and grab up Brees.

Keenum just has too many question marks to commit to long term. So I think it will be Teddy (who has his own questionmarks, but he knows the playbook inside and out, the coach and his teammates love him, and anyone can throw to these recievers and succeed). I think they also pursue competition for him and Keenum could be that competition but it has to be at a reasonable price.

QB is a mess and must be our top priority this offseason.

_____________________________

All of us are entitled to our own opinion. None of us are entitled to our own facts. - Alan Page
Post #: 36
RE: General Vikes Talk - 1/30/2018 12:16:57 PM   
ronhextall


Posts: 4260
Joined: 7/19/2007
Status: online
If the only keep Bridgewater then Speilman's job should be on the line.

Bridgewater IMO has all the unanswered questions Keenum has plus an exploded knee. The season would be over before it started if Teddy is the only QB and he looks like Bradford did against the Bears.

IMO.

1. Brees Not likely but you make the phone call

2. Franchise Keenum for one year and sign Teddy for backup money. May the best man win.
Post #: 37
RE: General Vikes Talk - 1/30/2018 12:58:15 PM   
69in09


Posts: 8479
Joined: 1/13/2009
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
I don’t see our QB situation as a “mess” at all.

I think we are in a great position to pick our favorite and maybe 2 of our 3 QBs.

We also have had these guys under our roof so we have the best information to make our decision.

Lastly, whoever we don’t sign we get compensation back. All of these guys will likely get contracts that will put us in position to get a 3rd rounder coming back to us if we don’t sign them. Also even if we don’t choose Keenum, we could franchise him and that could be a tradeable asset.

We are in a good position, just trust Rick to do his thing.

_____________________________

This is my burner account.
Post #: 38
RE: General Vikes Talk - 1/30/2018 1:36:54 PM   
David F.


Posts: 6939
Joined: 12/31/2007
Status: offline
quote:

I am not saying Teddy is our saviour, but I have a gut feeling that they didn't play him much and benched him in the playoffs because they want people to think there is something wrong and he's 100% Ready to go.


If that is true then it's the second-most irresponsible and poor move the coaches ever did in 2017. #1 of course being starting Bradford at the Bears and leaving him in way too long after seeing he couldn't produce at an NFL level or even just protect himself.

_____________________________

I've come to the conclusion that I'm in an unhealthy co-dependent relationship with the Vikings. Damn it.
Post #: 39
RE: General Vikes Talk - 1/30/2018 1:53:14 PM   
TJSweens


Posts: 28739
Joined: 7/16/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

I am not saying Teddy is our saviour, but I have a gut feeling that they didn't play him much and benched him in the playoffs because they want people to think there is something wrong and he's 100% Ready to go.


If that is true then it's the second-most irresponsible and poor move the coaches ever did in 2017. #1 of course being starting Bradford at the Bears and leaving him in way too long after seeing he couldn't produce at an NFL level or even just protect himself.


They benched him in the playoffs because Bradford was ready and Teddy wasn't. Teddy showed that he clearly wasn't ready to play in his brief stint. He will need to go through all the OTA's, mini camps and training camp before he will be anywhere near ready for game action.

_____________________________

Baseball must be a wonderful game to survive the fools who run it. - Harold Kaese
Post #: 40
RE: General Vikes Talk - 1/30/2018 1:55:59 PM   
Lars


Posts: 11696
Joined: 7/16/2007
From: Midi-chlorians
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 69in09

I don’t see our QB situation as a “mess” at all.

I think we are in a great position to pick our favorite and maybe 2 of our 3 QBs.

We also have had these guys under our roof so we have the best information to make our decision.

Lastly, whoever we don’t sign we get compensation back. All of these guys will likely get contracts that will put us in position to get a 3rd rounder coming back to us if we don’t sign them. Also even if we don’t choose Keenum, we could franchise him and that could be a tradeable asset.

We are in a good position, just trust Rick to do his thing.


Agreed. We have the inside track on 3 guys, who all have considerable strengths and have had success on this team.. The GM and coaches have more intel on them than anyone. I'm trusting they will make the right choice(s).

_____________________________

<this space for rent>
Post #: 41
RE: General Vikes Talk - 1/30/2018 2:02:49 PM   
TJSweens


Posts: 28739
Joined: 7/16/2007
Status: offline
I don't know that getting compensatory picks for any of them is true.

_____________________________

Baseball must be a wonderful game to survive the fools who run it. - Harold Kaese
Post #: 42
RE: General Vikes Talk - 1/30/2018 2:08:44 PM   
bohumm

 

Posts: 3814
Joined: 10/28/2007
From: Altadena, CA
Status: offline
From PFT:

After explaining that Bridgewater had been “throwing dimes on us in practice” during the 2017 season, Kendricks provided a more specific assessment of where Bridgewater currently is.

“When I know when a route’s coming and I’m practicing against him and I feel like I’m in a perfect position to guard it and Teddy puts a ball in the outside corner,” Kendricks said, “and he completes it on me in practice where I get frustrated and I’m talking about it the rest of the practice, I can say that man can definitely still play, absolutely.”
Post #: 43
RE: General Vikes Talk - 1/30/2018 2:16:13 PM   
The Happy Norseman

 

Posts: 346
Joined: 12/2/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 69in09

IMO; We didn't have the "best defense" in the NFL.

We might have nudged out a few teams for least yards or least scoring, but we were not good at creating turnovers, in fact I believe we were 22nd in the league in doing so.

For instance Jacksonville gave up about 10 more yards per game, but created 11 more turnovers.

I really believe we need to add an impact UT, or a great situational pass rusher (better than Robison) if we really want to be a feared defense.


Behind solving the QB issue, finding a stud DT should be the teams top priority. Either Sign Sheldon Richardson or draft Maurice Hurst, or do both. Philly showed how important a dominant D Line is to a team's success.

_____________________________

If the Cubs can win the World Series...
Post #: 44
RE: General Vikes Talk - 1/30/2018 3:21:00 PM   
69in09


Posts: 8479
Joined: 1/13/2009
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: The Happy Norseman

quote:

ORIGINAL: 69in09

IMO; We didn't have the "best defense" in the NFL.

We might have nudged out a few teams for least yards or least scoring, but we were not good at creating turnovers, in fact I believe we were 22nd in the league in doing so.

For instance Jacksonville gave up about 10 more yards per game, but created 11 more turnovers.

I really believe we need to add an impact UT, or a great situational pass rusher (better than Robison) if we really want to be a feared defense.


Behind solving the QB issue, finding a stud DT should be the teams top priority. Either Sign Sheldon Richardson or draft Maurice Hurst, or do both. Philly showed how important a dominant D Line is to a team's success.


The pre-draft rumors were big that we were looking at McDowell last year. Thankfully, we got Cook instead.

It seems every year several teams cut quality interior linemen. I’d be much more in favor of a veteran (preferable a “street” veteran) than bringing in a rookie at the stage our team is at.

_____________________________

This is my burner account.
Post #: 45
RE: General Vikes Talk - 1/30/2018 3:47:47 PM   
69in09


Posts: 8479
Joined: 1/13/2009
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
I’m interested in what people see a possible “Bridgewater failure” looking like?

If the team is confident in his knee moving forward AND they believe he was “the guy” in the first place how many ways can this go wrong?

1) Teddy wasn’t a huge mobility guy in the first place.
2) He has adopted his brace, which should prevent anything catastrophic happening.
3) Despite his light frame, he had no significant college or HS injuries.
4) His one throw against Cincinnati aside, he has received great reviews from practices.
5) August is still 6 months away, you have to believe he’ll be even more ready 2 years past the injury.

I’m not really on one side of this yet. I’m just trying to think of all the possible outcomes.


_____________________________

This is my burner account.
Post #: 46
RE: General Vikes Talk - 1/30/2018 4:04:20 PM   
TJSweens


Posts: 28739
Joined: 7/16/2007
Status: offline
Teddy was very mobile pre-injury. He had to be, playing behind that O-line. He wasn't a running QB, but he was extremely mobile.

_____________________________

Baseball must be a wonderful game to survive the fools who run it. - Harold Kaese
Post #: 47
RE: General Vikes Talk - 1/30/2018 4:04:24 PM   
Lars


Posts: 11696
Joined: 7/16/2007
From: Midi-chlorians
Status: offline
Honestly, a little bummed out today. I was thinking that this was going to be our year to at least get to the SB - and maybe even win it..... <sigh>

Oh well - we have a good team - and the needle is pointing up. Let's go get it in 2018!

_____________________________

<this space for rent>
Post #: 48
RE: General Vikes Talk - 1/30/2018 4:04:55 PM   
Lars


Posts: 11696
Joined: 7/16/2007
From: Midi-chlorians
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

Teddy was very mobile pre-injury. He had to be, playing behind that O-line. He wasn't a running QB, but he was extremely mobile.


Yes, just didn't have the best pocket awareness, IMHO

_____________________________

<this space for rent>
Post #: 49
RE: General Vikes Talk - 1/30/2018 4:24:18 PM   
69in09


Posts: 8479
Joined: 1/13/2009
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

Teddy was very mobile pre-injury. He had to be, playing behind that O-line. He wasn't a running QB, but he was extremely mobile.


I guess I have to be real specific here.

Teddy was never going to make a living running the ball. He’s not Russell Wilson, but sure, he’s got a little shake.

I read the comments section on one of the Bridgewater articles and Bills fans were speculating that he was a “younger version of Tyrod Taylor”. Sheet Ignorance on several levels.

_____________________________

This is my burner account.
Post #: 50
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [The Minnesota Vikings] >> Vikes Talk >> RE: General Vikes Talk Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode