quote:

ORIGINAL: Ricky J

Everything cool around here?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ragnarök

PFT Power Ranking


7. Saints (1-0; No. 8): It’s been a long time since they’ve been 1-0.

8. Vikings (1-0; No. 11): The Vikings finally figured out how to best use Kirk Cousins... As little as possible.

9. Packers (1-0; No. 16): The “audible thing” provided good cover for the fact that the defense appears to be significantly improved.

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drviking

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pager

Couple of thoughts on the other posts.

We did what Bilichick does. Finally. They couldn't stop the run, we f****** ran it down their throats. Would 1-2 play-actions have helped extend a drive or two late in the game. Sure. But the game was over by mid way through the 3rd Quarter. Atlanta was warming up their back-up. It's a good thing we are pseudo-debating this (instead of "real issues"). Didn't think twice during or after the game about offensive play calling.

Elf has to be on a short leash. Garrett is tough. So is Hicks, Daniels, Clark, Cox, etc, etc, etc. Yes they were attacking him, and so will every other defensive coordinator worth a grain of salt. You can argue 2nd string all day, but Jones best year in the NFL dwarfs Elf's best year. I'm not saying pull him today, but Elf completely whiffed on too many plays not to be worried. Almost got Cousins killed on that fumble. OR you better have a scheme that protects him, which is tough with a rookie Center.

I would say we ran effectively enough. I wouldn't say we ran it down their f****** throats. The Vikings piled up 102 rushing yards on 5 explosive plays, which is quite impressive. We didn't really control the ball that well on the ground outside of that. The remaining 33 runs averaged 2.12 ypc. Even if you take out Cousins's sneak totals of 4 yards on 6 carries, you have 27 carries at an average of 2.47.

The defense and special teams combined to give the offense some short fields and the offense took advantage nicely and turned them into touch downs. When it came to the grind it out, control the ball eat the clock phase of the game, they were not all that effective running the ball.

pretty much anytime we wanted, we could have played action and killed them, they were selling out on the run, but we didnt need to


like i said previously, i would have preferred a few more reps to practice are pass protection, but understand why we didnt

The goal is to win the game. I don't give two flipety doos about how many yards we gained in any facet of the game. This reminds me of how enthralled many are/were of AD's rushing titles. THEY ARE MEANINGLESS.

One come a day there's going to be a parade down Washington Avenue and won't be for anything other than winning enough to get to the Super Bowl and then winning that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

Expect #Vikings CB Mackensie Alexander to miss about 4 weeks with dislocated elbow. Big blow to the Vikings secondary with Hughes and Hill both out.

(Vikeologist on Twitter)

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ricky J

Everything cool around here?

I'd say it is. We're debating whether we won in a good way or a great way. Who wins that argument? Answer: Everyone!

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

The Vikes averaged 4.5 yards per carry. Pulling out the five best carries might help an argument and that's about it. As has been posted by others a few times since the game the Vikes could have run play-action pass to great success any time they wanted but they chose not to - because they didn't need to. I also posted this morning that I really REALLY hope we stuck to the run because we finally got smart and didn't just get lucky and stumble across a winner by chance.

4.5 yards per carry against a defense that knows we're running is complete domination. The Vikes won that game from start to finish with a sound strategy and therefore I don't give two flipety doos. In fact, now I don't even give one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

Expect #Vikings CB Mackensie Alexander to miss about 4 weeks with dislocated elbow. Big blow to the Vikings secondary with Hughes and Hill both out.

(Vikeologist on Twitter)

Great news IMO. Could have been much worse.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drviking

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pager

Couple of thoughts on the other posts.

We did what Bilichick does. Finally. They couldn't stop the run, we f****** ran it down their throats. Would 1-2 play-actions have helped extend a drive or two late in the game. Sure. But the game was over by mid way through the 3rd Quarter. Atlanta was warming up their back-up. It's a good thing we are pseudo-debating this (instead of "real issues"). Didn't think twice during or after the game about offensive play calling.

Elf has to be on a short leash. Garrett is tough. So is Hicks, Daniels, Clark, Cox, etc, etc, etc. Yes they were attacking him, and so will every other defensive coordinator worth a grain of salt. You can argue 2nd string all day, but Jones best year in the NFL dwarfs Elf's best year. I'm not saying pull him today, but Elf completely whiffed on too many plays not to be worried. Almost got Cousins killed on that fumble. OR you better have a scheme that protects him, which is tough with a rookie Center.

I would say we ran effectively enough. I wouldn't say we ran it down their f****** throats. The Vikings piled up 102 rushing yards on 5 explosive plays, which is quite impressive. We didn't really control the ball that well on the ground outside of that. The remaining 33 runs averaged 2.12 ypc. Even if you take out Cousins's sneak totals of 4 yards on 6 carries, you have 27 carries at an average of 2.47.

The defense and special teams combined to give the offense some short fields and the offense took advantage nicely and turned them into touch downs. When it came to the grind it out, control the ball eat the clock phase of the game, they were not all that effective running the ball.

pretty much anytime we wanted, we could have played action and killed them, they were selling out on the run, but we didnt need to


like i said previously, i would have preferred a few more reps to practice are pass protection, but understand why we didnt

The goal is to win the game. I don't give two flipety doos about how many yards we gained in any facet of the game. This reminds me of how enthralled many are/were of AD's rushing titles. THEY ARE MEANINGLESS.

One come a day there's going to be a parade down Washington Avenue and won't be for anything other than winning enough to get to the Super Bowl and then winning that.

But then why Washington Avenue? Nicollet Mall, so Mary Tyler Moore can look on is what Sean McVay and the cool kids would do...... Washington Ave hasn't been important since the mills started closing. Belichek would have traded it for a third-rounder.......

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

The Vikes averaged 4.5 yards per carry. Pulling out the five best carries might help an argument and that's about it. As has been posted by others a few times since the game the Vikes could have run play-action pass to great success any time they wanted but they chose not to - because they didn't need to. I also posted this morning that I really REALLY hope we stuck to the run because we finally got smart and didn't just get lucky and stumble across a winner by chance.

4.5 yards per carry against a defense that knows we're running is complete domination. The Vikes won that game from start to finish with a sound strategy and therefore I don't give two flipety doos. In fact, now I don't even give one.

It's not about winning an argument. It's about objectively assessing the running game over the course of the entire game. 68% of our offensive plays averaged 2.12 yards. You can argue that they didn't wind up needing to mix in a couple of passes to keep the defense honest, but that doesn't make it a good strategy. When your offense is that inefficient, you put a tremendous burden on the defense to make the strategy work. Keep giving the ball back to the other team and you invite them to get back in the game. You can call it brilliant game planning if you want. I think it's also a case of the Vikings away with it.

FWIW, the Viking coaches have also alluded to the fact that weren't entirely happy with the running game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

The Vikes averaged 4.5 yards per carry. Pulling out the five best carries might help an argument and that's about it. As has been posted by others a few times since the game the Vikes could have run play-action pass to great success any time they wanted but they chose not to - because they didn't need to. I also posted this morning that I really REALLY hope we stuck to the run because we finally got smart and didn't just get lucky and stumble across a winner by chance.

4.5 yards per carry against a defense that knows we're running is complete domination. The Vikes won that game from start to finish with a sound strategy and therefore I don't give two flipety doos. In fact, now I don't even give one.

It's not about winning an argument. It's about objectively assessing the running game over the course of the entire game. 68% of our offensive plays averaged 2.12 yards. You can argue that they didn't wind up needing to mix in a couple of passes to keep the defense honest, but that doesn't make it a good strategy. When your offense is that inefficient, you put a tremendous burden on the defense to make the strategy work. Keep giving the ball back to the other team and you invite them to get back in the game. You can call it brilliant game planning if you want. I think it's also a case of the Vikings away with it.

FWIW, the Viking coaches have also alluded to the fact that weren't entirely happy with the running game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drviking

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pager

Couple of thoughts on the other posts.

We did what Bilichick does. Finally. They couldn't stop the run, we f****** ran it down their throats. Would 1-2 play-actions have helped extend a drive or two late in the game. Sure. But the game was over by mid way through the 3rd Quarter. Atlanta was warming up their back-up. It's a good thing we are pseudo-debating this (instead of "real issues"). Didn't think twice during or after the game about offensive play calling.

Elf has to be on a short leash. Garrett is tough. So is Hicks, Daniels, Clark, Cox, etc, etc, etc. Yes they were attacking him, and so will every other defensive coordinator worth a grain of salt. You can argue 2nd string all day, but Jones best year in the NFL dwarfs Elf's best year. I'm not saying pull him today, but Elf completely whiffed on too many plays not to be worried. Almost got Cousins killed on that fumble. OR you better have a scheme that protects him, which is tough with a rookie Center.

I would say we ran effectively enough. I wouldn't say we ran it down their f****** throats. The Vikings piled up 102 rushing yards on 5 explosive plays, which is quite impressive. We didn't really control the ball that well on the ground outside of that. The remaining 33 runs averaged 2.12 ypc. Even if you take out Cousins's sneak totals of 4 yards on 6 carries, you have 27 carries at an average of 2.47.

The defense and special teams combined to give the offense some short fields and the offense took advantage nicely and turned them into touch downs. When it came to the grind it out, control the ball eat the clock phase of the game, they were not all that effective running the ball.

pretty much anytime we wanted, we could have played action and killed them, they were selling out on the run, but we didnt need to


like i said previously, i would have preferred a few more reps to practice are pass protection, but understand why we didnt

The goal is to win the game. I don't give two flipety doos about how many yards we gained in any facet of the game. This reminds me of how enthralled many are/were of AD's rushing titles. THEY ARE MEANINGLESS.

One come a day there's going to be a parade down Washington Avenue and won't be for anything other than winning enough to get to the Super Bowl and then winning that.

But then why Washington Avenue? Nicollet Mall, so Mary Tyler Moore can look on is what Sean McVay and the cool kids would do...... Washington Ave hasn't been important since the mills started closing. Belichek would have traded it for a third-rounder.......

I always envisioned it would be Nicollet Mall in the past. I'm not sure if it's wide enough and now they really limit traffic in the area. Washington Avenue has lots of wide open space. Or why not go up and down multiple streets?

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

The Vikes averaged 4.5 yards per carry. Pulling out the five best carries might help an argument and that's about it. As has been posted by others a few times since the game the Vikes could have run play-action pass to great success any time they wanted but they chose not to - because they didn't need to. I also posted this morning that I really REALLY hope we stuck to the run because we finally got smart and didn't just get lucky and stumble across a winner by chance.

4.5 yards per carry against a defense that knows we're running is complete domination. The Vikes won that game from start to finish with a sound strategy and therefore I don't give two flipety doos. In fact, now I don't even give one.

It's not about winning an argument. It's about objectively assessing the running game over the course of the entire game. 68% of our offensive plays averaged 2.12 yards. You can argue that they didn't wind up needing to mix in a couple of passes to keep the defense honest, but that doesn't make it a good strategy. When your offense is that inefficient, you put a tremendous burden on the defense to make the strategy work. Keep giving the ball back to the other team and you invite them to get back in the game. You can call it brilliant game planning if you want. I think it's also a case of the Vikings away with it.

FWIW, the Viking coaches have also alluded to the fact that weren't entirely happy with the running game.

Pick-sixes suck too. We didn't have any of those and that was a good thing. Up 28-0 I have no problem putting the burden on the D. It's where the majority of our resources have been spent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: geoffrey greitzer

Anyone believing PFF should stop now.
Elf rated higher than Garrett...r u flipping kidding me.
Whomever came up with ELF ON THE SHELF, needs a gold star!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

The Vikes averaged 4.5 yards per carry. Pulling out the five best carries might help an argument and that's about it. As has been posted by others a few times since the game the Vikes could have run play-action pass to great success any time they wanted but they chose not to - because they didn't need to. I also posted this morning that I really REALLY hope we stuck to the run because we finally got smart and didn't just get lucky and stumble across a winner by chance.

4.5 yards per carry against a defense that knows we're running is complete domination. The Vikes won that game from start to finish with a sound strategy and therefore I don't give two flipety doos. In fact, now I don't even give one.

It's not about winning an argument. It's about objectively assessing the running game over the course of the entire game. 68% of our offensive plays averaged 2.12 yards. You can argue that they didn't wind up needing to mix in a couple of passes to keep the defense honest, but that doesn't make it a good strategy. When your offense is that inefficient, you put a tremendous burden on the defense to make the strategy work. Keep giving the ball back to the other team and you invite them to get back in the game. You can call it brilliant game planning if you want. I think it's also a case of the Vikings away with it.

FWIW, the Viking coaches have also alluded to the fact that weren't entirely happy with the running game.

Pick-sixes suck too. We didn't have any of those and that was a good thing. Up 28-0 I have no problem putting the burden on the D. It's where the majority of our resources have been spent.

Fumble recovery TDs suck too. The potential is there for something bad to happen on any offensive play, no matter what you call. I guarantee you that the Pats would not simply run the ball and punted it back against a defense that was selling out to stop the run. All it takes is a couple of well timed high percentage throws to keep the defense honest and the chains moving. Look, go ahead and be happy with it. I'M happy with the win. Just don't try to convince me it was a brilliant strategy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

The Vikes averaged 4.5 yards per carry. Pulling out the five best carries might help an argument and that's about it. As has been posted by others a few times since the game the Vikes could have run play-action pass to great success any time they wanted but they chose not to - because they didn't need to. I also posted this morning that I really REALLY hope we stuck to the run because we finally got smart and didn't just get lucky and stumble across a winner by chance.

4.5 yards per carry against a defense that knows we're running is complete domination. The Vikes won that game from start to finish with a sound strategy and therefore I don't give two flipety doos. In fact, now I don't even give one.

It's not about winning an argument. It's about objectively assessing the running game over the course of the entire game. 68% of our offensive plays averaged 2.12 yards. You can argue that they didn't wind up needing to mix in a couple of passes to keep the defense honest, but that doesn't make it a good strategy. When your offense is that inefficient, you put a tremendous burden on the defense to make the strategy work. Keep giving the ball back to the other team and you invite them to get back in the game. You can call it brilliant game planning if you want. I think it's also a case of the Vikings away with it.

FWIW, the Viking coaches have also alluded to the fact that weren't entirely happy with the running game.

Pick-sixes suck too. We didn't have any of those and that was a good thing. Up 28-0 I have no problem putting the burden on the D. It's where the majority of our resources have been spent.

Fumble recovery TDs suck too. The potential is there for something bad to happen on any offensive play, no matter what you call. I guarantee you that the Pats would not simply run the ball and punted it back against a defense that was selling out to stop the run. All it takes is a couple of well timed high percentage throws to keep the defense honest and the chains moving. Look, go ahead and be happy with it. I'M happy with the win. Just don't try to convince me it was a brilliant strategy.

Yes they do. We were lucky we didn't see one when Elflein's defender breezed right through for the strip sack on Cousins.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

The Vikes averaged 4.5 yards per carry. Pulling out the five best carries might help an argument and that's about it. As has been posted by others a few times since the game the Vikes could have run play-action pass to great success any time they wanted but they chose not to - because they didn't need to. I also posted this morning that I really REALLY hope we stuck to the run because we finally got smart and didn't just get lucky and stumble across a winner by chance.

4.5 yards per carry against a defense that knows we're running is complete domination. The Vikes won that game from start to finish with a sound strategy and therefore I don't give two flipety doos. In fact, now I don't even give one.

It's not about winning an argument. It's about objectively assessing the running game over the course of the entire game. 68% of our offensive plays averaged 2.12 yards. You can argue that they didn't wind up needing to mix in a couple of passes to keep the defense honest, but that doesn't make it a good strategy. When your offense is that inefficient, you put a tremendous burden on the defense to make the strategy work. Keep giving the ball back to the other team and you invite them to get back in the game. You can call it brilliant game planning if you want. I think it's also a case of the Vikings away with it.

FWIW, the Viking coaches have also alluded to the fact that weren't entirely happy with the running game.

Pick-sixes suck too. We didn't have any of those and that was a good thing. Up 28-0 I have no problem putting the burden on the D. It's where the majority of our resources have been spent.

Fumble recovery TDs suck too. The potential is there for something bad to happen on any offensive play, no matter what you call. I guarantee you that the Pats would not simply run the ball and punted it back against a defense that was selling out to stop the run. All it takes is a couple of well timed high percentage throws to keep the defense honest and the chains moving. Look, go ahead and be happy with it. I'M happy with the win. Just don't try to convince me it was a brilliant strategy.

Yes they do. We were lucky we didn't see one when Elflein's defender breezed right through for the strip sack on Cousins.

Yes, you're right. Elflein missed a block. We should never pass again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

The Vikes averaged 4.5 yards per carry. Pulling out the five best carries might help an argument and that's about it. As has been posted by others a few times since the game the Vikes could have run play-action pass to great success any time they wanted but they chose not to - because they didn't need to. I also posted this morning that I really REALLY hope we stuck to the run because we finally got smart and didn't just get lucky and stumble across a winner by chance.

4.5 yards per carry against a defense that knows we're running is complete domination. The Vikes won that game from start to finish with a sound strategy and therefore I don't give two flipety doos. In fact, now I don't even give one.

It's not about winning an argument. It's about objectively assessing the running game over the course of the entire game. 68% of our offensive plays averaged 2.12 yards. You can argue that they didn't wind up needing to mix in a couple of passes to keep the defense honest, but that doesn't make it a good strategy. When your offense is that inefficient, you put a tremendous burden on the defense to make the strategy work. Keep giving the ball back to the other team and you invite them to get back in the game. You can call it brilliant game planning if you want. I think it's also a case of the Vikings away with it.

FWIW, the Viking coaches have also alluded to the fact that weren't entirely happy with the running game.

Pick-sixes suck too. We didn't have any of those and that was a good thing. Up 28-0 I have no problem putting the burden on the D. It's where the majority of our resources have been spent.

Fumble recovery TDs suck too. The potential is there for something bad to happen on any offensive play, no matter what you call. I guarantee you that the Pats would not simply run the ball and punted it back against a defense that was selling out to stop the run. All it takes is a couple of well timed high percentage throws to keep the defense honest and the chains moving. Look, go ahead and be happy with it. I'M happy with the win. Just don't try to convince me it was a brilliant strategy.

Yes they do. We were lucky we didn't see one when Elflein's defender breezed right through for the strip sack on Cousins.

Yes, you're right. Elflein missed a block. We should never pass again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drviking

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pager

Couple of thoughts on the other posts.

We did what Bilichick does. Finally. They couldn't stop the run, we f****** ran it down their throats. Would 1-2 play-actions have helped extend a drive or two late in the game. Sure. But the game was over by mid way through the 3rd Quarter. Atlanta was warming up their back-up. It's a good thing we are pseudo-debating this (instead of "real issues"). Didn't think twice during or after the game about offensive play calling.

Elf has to be on a short leash. Garrett is tough. So is Hicks, Daniels, Clark, Cox, etc, etc, etc. Yes they were attacking him, and so will every other defensive coordinator worth a grain of salt. You can argue 2nd string all day, but Jones best year in the NFL dwarfs Elf's best year. I'm not saying pull him today, but Elf completely whiffed on too many plays not to be worried. Almost got Cousins killed on that fumble. OR you better have a scheme that protects him, which is tough with a rookie Center.

I would say we ran effectively enough. I wouldn't say we ran it down their f****** throats. The Vikings piled up 102 rushing yards on 5 explosive plays, which is quite impressive. We didn't really control the ball that well on the ground outside of that. The remaining 33 runs averaged 2.12 ypc. Even if you take out Cousins's sneak totals of 4 yards on 6 carries, you have 27 carries at an average of 2.47.

The defense and special teams combined to give the offense some short fields and the offense took advantage nicely and turned them into touch downs. When it came to the grind it out, control the ball eat the clock phase of the game, they were not all that effective running the ball.

pretty much anytime we wanted, we could have played action and killed them, they were selling out on the run, but we didnt need to


like i said previously, i would have preferred a few more reps to practice are pass protection, but understand why we didnt

The goal is to win the game. I don't give two flipety doos about how many yards we gained in any facet of the game. This reminds me of how enthralled many are/were of AD's rushing titles. THEY ARE MEANINGLESS.

One come a day there's going to be a parade down Washington Avenue and won't be for anything other than winning enough to get to the Super Bowl and then winning that.

You should and it's nothing at all like being enthralled with AD's rushing titles. I am talking about TEAM performance, not individual. The fact is that Atlanta was 29th in the NFL against the run. Our strategy once we got ahead was to run and chew the clock. The strategy worked because of the effectiveness of the defense. Not because of the effectiveness of the running game.

The Vikes averaged 4.5 yards per carry. Pulling out the five best carries might help an argument and that's about it. As has been posted by others a few times since the game the Vikes could have run play-action pass to great success any time they wanted but they chose not to - because they didn't need to. I also posted this morning that I really REALLY hope we stuck to the run because we finally got smart and didn't just get lucky and stumble across a winner by chance.

4.5 yards per carry against a defense that knows we're running is complete domination. The Vikes won that game from start to finish with a sound strategy and therefore I don't give two flipety doos. In fact, now I don't even give one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drviking

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

Expect #Vikings CB Mackensie Alexander to miss about 4 weeks with dislocated elbow. Big blow to the Vikings secondary with Hughes and Hill both out.

(Vikeologist on Twitter)

Great news IMO. Could have been much worse.

It will be fun to see what are secondary looks like in the second half of the year

Rhodes Waynes Mac Hughes Hill.... that's a pretty salty secondary

Throw in Harris Harry Kearse

quote:

ORIGINAL: kevinemmer

quote:

ORIGINAL: drviking

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

Expect #Vikings CB Mackensie Alexander to miss about 4 weeks with dislocated elbow. Big blow to the Vikings secondary with Hughes and Hill both out.

(Vikeologist on Twitter)

Great news IMO. Could have been much worse.

It will be fun to see what are secondary looks like in the second half of the year

Rhodes Waynes Mac Hughes Hill.... that's a pretty salty secondary

Throw in Harris Harry Kearse

Something I've noticed with Rhodes that has not diminished is his strength when he brings people down.

If he gets his hands on someone, even a tenuous grip, they rarely get away and are going down with some force.