quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom Sykes

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Jandro

Cousins currently has the slowest snap-to-release in the NFL at 3.15 seconds.

Cousins needs to work more deliberately. He's seen so much pressure yet he continues to be surprised by it every time he drops back.

It seems like that "oh shit" moment happens a whole second elapses before he realizes he better do something.

I don’t think deliberately says it.

He needs to make quicker decisions, period.

I wonder if its all Cousins ... mostly for sure. But I also wonder if Kubiak Stefanski are so focused on establishing a run first / play action passing attack second, that they are calling plays that take a little longer to develop on average. Waiting for LBs to hesitate a nanosecond etc. The Packers weren’t buying it (with a 21 point lead).

The bottom line is, the OL is a work in progress ... it is not the finished product, it is not last year’s line. And PFF has little relevance.

We will see how the line holds up against the Bears ... one of the best DLs with our OL having 3 games under its belt. I think that IMO is the first spot where I would legitimately panic if our pass pro has shown no improvement.

Its symbiotic though - Cousins has to play a lot freakin better, the OL has to start coalescing better on passing downs, and the playcallers need to start attacking the defense in front of the offense better instead of JUST worrying about executing Kubiak’s vaunted system (or Zimmer’s mandate).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Jandro

Our oline appears to be doing an above average job run blocking at least.

I thought if we could run the ball better we'd have opposing defenses on their heels when passing. But that hasn't been the case thus far. We continue to be weak (if not weaker) up the middle.

Bradbury has not come as advertised thus far. Hope he can get it together soon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dana Turner

One thing is for sure, we need to show up at the beginning of games if we are going to have a successful season. We drop behind 21-zip in the first 16 minutes of the game, alful tough to instill hope when you have to score four times against any NFL team, much less GB in their place. So, this is another glaring flaw in this team and it needs to be corrected. It has been brought up over the past couple of years, so it's not new, but what to do about it is apparently a mystery. I'm thinking there needs to be better analysis done to get to the cause of these starts, there must be something common between them, but there have been too many to ignore and slough it off to a bad game.

This is another serious issue that needs to be fixed, just to get us on an even playing field at the start of important games, and lets face it, any given Sunday you can get beat by an inferior team.

It feels like Zimmer comes into the game with a 'let's see what they do' gameplan. How about instead you ANTICIPATE what they might be looking to do. Better yet, come up with three or four likely gameplan scenarios for what the opponent is likely to come out with and have answers for each. Last week, one of those likely scenarios could have been 'Devante Adams is their best player so maybe they'll be trying to go to him early and often - if so - DOUBLE HIM'.

Yes, the Atlanta game was a classic example of that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dana Turner

One thing is for sure, we need to show up at the beginning of games if we are going to have a successful season. We drop behind 21-zip in the first 16 minutes of the game, alful tough to instill hope when you have to score four times against any NFL team, much less GB in their place. So, this is another glaring flaw in this team and it needs to be corrected. It has been brought up over the past couple of years, so it's not new, but what to do about it is apparently a mystery. I'm thinking there needs to be better analysis done to get to the cause of these starts, there must be something common between them, but there have been too many to ignore and slough it off to a bad game.

This is another serious issue that needs to be fixed, just to get us on an even playing field at the start of important games, and lets face it, any given Sunday you can get beat by an inferior team.

It feels like Zimmer comes into the game with a 'let's see what they do' gameplan. How about instead you ANTICIPATE what they might be looking to do. Better yet, come up with three or four likely gameplan scenarios for what the opponent is likely to come out with and have answers for each. Last week, one of those likely scenarios could have been 'Devante Adams is their best player so maybe they'll be trying to go to him early and often - if so - DOUBLE HIM'.

Yes, the Atlanta game was a classic example of that.

On 9/9/19 David F. wrote:

Really enjoyed the game. It's nice to just win convincingly from start to finish. I love the excitement of a nail-biter too, don't get me wrong. Defense started the game aggressively and it paid off - and Zimmer made note of that in his post-game presser. NICE! I absolutely LOVED that we only threw the ball ten times. Screw balance. If it's working keep doing it. I don't mind one bit that Atlanta scored a couple of meaningless TDs. For what it's worth, they have a great passing game. I admired how crisp Julio and Ridley ran their routes. As I predicted early in the gameday thread, TE is still the biggest threat to the Zimmer defense and sure enough Hooper caught nine balls for 77 yards. But guess what? The opposing team is full of talented all-world players too! In the end our team was just too much for them. Skol.

When I mentioned that Zimmer verbally noted that starting aggressively paid off I meant that I was hoping to see it continued rather than be an exception to the rule - which is what it was.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom Sykes

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Jandro

Our oline appears to be doing an above average job run blocking at least.

I thought if we could run the ball better we'd have opposing defenses on their heels when passing. But that hasn't been the case thus far. We continue to be weak (if not weaker) up the middle.

Bradbury has not come as advertised thus far. Hope he can get it together soon.

We only have one game to assess our QB, OL, Skill Players, Playcalling, etc. in the passing game (the first game was offensive dominance without the need for passing).

That one game was very poor and its in the books - it counts - but really, it seemed like a comedy of errors on our part ... not sure it is indicative of anything. We'll see, one or two games is not enough to put a label on things.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom Sykes

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Jandro

Our oline appears to be doing an above average job run blocking at least.

I thought if we could run the ball better we'd have opposing defenses on their heels when passing. But that hasn't been the case thus far. We continue to be weak (if not weaker) up the middle.

Bradbury has not come as advertised thus far. Hope he can get it together soon.

We only have one game to assess our QB, OL, Skill Players, Playcalling, etc. in the passing game (the first game was offensive dominance without the need for passing).

That one game was very poor and its in the books - it counts - but really, it seemed like a comedy of errors on our part ... not sure it is indicative of anything. We'll see, one or two games is not enough to put a label on things.

Clearly, you just are not smarmy enough. I mean not smart enough.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dana Turner

One thing is for sure, we need to show up at the beginning of games if we are going to have a successful season. We drop behind 21-zip in the first 16 minutes of the game, alful tough to instill hope when you have to score four times against any NFL team, much less GB in their place. So, this is another glaring flaw in this team and it needs to be corrected. It has been brought up over the past couple of years, so it's not new, but what to do about it is apparently a mystery. I'm thinking there needs to be better analysis done to get to the cause of these starts, there must be something common between them, but there have been too many to ignore and slough it off to a bad game.

This is another serious issue that needs to be fixed, just to get us on an even playing field at the start of important games, and lets face it, any given Sunday you can get beat by an inferior team.

It feels like Zimmer comes into the game with a 'let's see what they do' gameplan. How about instead you ANTICIPATE what they might be looking to do. Better yet, come up with three or four likely gameplan scenarios for what the opponent is likely to come out with and have answers for each. Last week, one of those likely scenarios could have been 'Devante Adams is their best player so maybe they'll be trying to go to him early and often - if so - DOUBLE HIM'.

Yes, the Atlanta game was a classic example of that.

On 9/9/19 David F. wrote:

Really enjoyed the game. It's nice to just win convincingly from start to finish. I love the excitement of a nail-biter too, don't get me wrong. Defense started the game aggressively and it paid off - and Zimmer made note of that in his post-game presser. NICE! I absolutely LOVED that we only threw the ball ten times. Screw balance. If it's working keep doing it. I don't mind one bit that Atlanta scored a couple of meaningless TDs. For what it's worth, they have a great passing game. I admired how crisp Julio and Ridley ran their routes. As I predicted early in the gameday thread, TE is still the biggest threat to the Zimmer defense and sure enough Hooper caught nine balls for 77 yards. But guess what? The opposing team is full of talented all-world players too! In the end our team was just too much for them. Skol.

When I mentioned that Zimmer verbally noted that starting aggressively paid off I meant that I was hoping to see it continued rather than be an exception to the rule - which is what it was.

Yearly a top 10 defense. But to you if it happens once, it's "an exception to the rule"

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dana Turner

One thing is for sure, we need to show up at the beginning of games if we are going to have a successful season. We drop behind 21-zip in the first 16 minutes of the game, alful tough to instill hope when you have to score four times against any NFL team, much less GB in their place. So, this is another glaring flaw in this team and it needs to be corrected. It has been brought up over the past couple of years, so it's not new, but what to do about it is apparently a mystery. I'm thinking there needs to be better analysis done to get to the cause of these starts, there must be something common between them, but there have been too many to ignore and slough it off to a bad game.

This is another serious issue that needs to be fixed, just to get us on an even playing field at the start of important games, and lets face it, any given Sunday you can get beat by an inferior team.

It feels like Zimmer comes into the game with a 'let's see what they do' gameplan. How about instead you ANTICIPATE what they might be looking to do. Better yet, come up with three or four likely gameplan scenarios for what the opponent is likely to come out with and have answers for each. Last week, one of those likely scenarios could have been 'Devante Adams is their best player so maybe they'll be trying to go to him early and often - if so - DOUBLE HIM'.

Yes, the Atlanta game was a classic example of that.

On 9/9/19 David F. wrote:

Really enjoyed the game. It's nice to just win convincingly from start to finish. I love the excitement of a nail-biter too, don't get me wrong. Defense started the game aggressively and it paid off - and Zimmer made note of that in his post-game presser. NICE! I absolutely LOVED that we only threw the ball ten times. Screw balance. If it's working keep doing it. I don't mind one bit that Atlanta scored a couple of meaningless TDs. For what it's worth, they have a great passing game. I admired how crisp Julio and Ridley ran their routes. As I predicted early in the gameday thread, TE is still the biggest threat to the Zimmer defense and sure enough Hooper caught nine balls for 77 yards. But guess what? The opposing team is full of talented all-world players too! In the end our team was just too much for them. Skol.

When I mentioned that Zimmer verbally noted that starting aggressively paid off I meant that I was hoping to see it continued rather than be an exception to the rule - which is what it was.

Yearly a top 10 defense. But to you if it happens once, it's "an exception to the rule"

Rarely beats a winning team. But see you at the 'top 10 defense' celebration parade in February!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom Sykes

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dana Turner

One thing is for sure, we need to show up at the beginning of games if we are going to have a successful season. We drop behind 21-zip in the first 16 minutes of the game, alful tough to instill hope when you have to score four times against any NFL team, much less GB in their place. So, this is another glaring flaw in this team and it needs to be corrected. It has been brought up over the past couple of years, so it's not new, but what to do about it is apparently a mystery. I'm thinking there needs to be better analysis done to get to the cause of these starts, there must be something common between them, but there have been too many to ignore and slough it off to a bad game.

This is another serious issue that needs to be fixed, just to get us on an even playing field at the start of important games, and lets face it, any given Sunday you can get beat by an inferior team.

It feels like Zimmer comes into the game with a 'let's see what they do' gameplan. How about instead you ANTICIPATE what they might be looking to do. Better yet, come up with three or four likely gameplan scenarios for what the opponent is likely to come out with and have answers for each. Last week, one of those likely scenarios could have been 'Devante Adams is their best player so maybe they'll be trying to go to him early and often - if so - DOUBLE HIM'.

Yes, the Atlanta game was a classic example of that.

On 9/9/19 David F. wrote:

Really enjoyed the game. It's nice to just win convincingly from start to finish. I love the excitement of a nail-biter too, don't get me wrong. Defense started the game aggressively and it paid off - and Zimmer made note of that in his post-game presser. NICE! I absolutely LOVED that we only threw the ball ten times. Screw balance. If it's working keep doing it. I don't mind one bit that Atlanta scored a couple of meaningless TDs. For what it's worth, they have a great passing game. I admired how crisp Julio and Ridley ran their routes. As I predicted early in the gameday thread, TE is still the biggest threat to the Zimmer defense and sure enough Hooper caught nine balls for 77 yards. But guess what? The opposing team is full of talented all-world players too! In the end our team was just too much for them. Skol.

When I mentioned that Zimmer verbally noted that starting aggressively paid off I meant that I was hoping to see it continued rather than be an exception to the rule - which is what it was.

Yearly a top 10 defense. But to you if it happens once, it's "an exception to the rule"

Rarely beats a winning team. But see you at the 'top 10 defense' celebration parade in February!

That's right, top ten defenses mostly get in the way of beating winning teams. Stupid top ten defenses!

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dana Turner

One thing is for sure, we need to show up at the beginning of games if we are going to have a successful season. We drop behind 21-zip in the first 16 minutes of the game, alful tough to instill hope when you have to score four times against any NFL team, much less GB in their place. So, this is another glaring flaw in this team and it needs to be corrected. It has been brought up over the past couple of years, so it's not new, but what to do about it is apparently a mystery. I'm thinking there needs to be better analysis done to get to the cause of these starts, there must be something common between them, but there have been too many to ignore and slough it off to a bad game.

This is another serious issue that needs to be fixed, just to get us on an even playing field at the start of important games, and lets face it, any given Sunday you can get beat by an inferior team.

It feels like Zimmer comes into the game with a 'let's see what they do' gameplan. How about instead you ANTICIPATE what they might be looking to do. Better yet, come up with three or four likely gameplan scenarios for what the opponent is likely to come out with and have answers for each. Last week, one of those likely scenarios could have been 'Devante Adams is their best player so maybe they'll be trying to go to him early and often - if so - DOUBLE HIM'.

Yes, the Atlanta game was a classic example of that.

On 9/9/19 David F. wrote:

Really enjoyed the game. It's nice to just win convincingly from start to finish. I love the excitement of a nail-biter too, don't get me wrong. Defense started the game aggressively and it paid off - and Zimmer made note of that in his post-game presser. NICE! I absolutely LOVED that we only threw the ball ten times. Screw balance. If it's working keep doing it. I don't mind one bit that Atlanta scored a couple of meaningless TDs. For what it's worth, they have a great passing game. I admired how crisp Julio and Ridley ran their routes. As I predicted early in the gameday thread, TE is still the biggest threat to the Zimmer defense and sure enough Hooper caught nine balls for 77 yards. But guess what? The opposing team is full of talented all-world players too! In the end our team was just too much for them. Skol.

When I mentioned that Zimmer verbally noted that starting aggressively paid off I meant that I was hoping to see it continued rather than be an exception to the rule - which is what it was.

Yearly a top 10 defense. But to you if it happens once, it's "an exception to the rule"

Rarely beats a winning team. But see you at the 'top 10 defense' celebration parade in February!

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom Sykes

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dana Turner

One thing is for sure, we need to show up at the beginning of games if we are going to have a successful season. We drop behind 21-zip in the first 16 minutes of the game, alful tough to instill hope when you have to score four times against any NFL team, much less GB in their place. So, this is another glaring flaw in this team and it needs to be corrected. It has been brought up over the past couple of years, so it's not new, but what to do about it is apparently a mystery. I'm thinking there needs to be better analysis done to get to the cause of these starts, there must be something common between them, but there have been too many to ignore and slough it off to a bad game.

This is another serious issue that needs to be fixed, just to get us on an even playing field at the start of important games, and lets face it, any given Sunday you can get beat by an inferior team.

It feels like Zimmer comes into the game with a 'let's see what they do' gameplan. How about instead you ANTICIPATE what they might be looking to do. Better yet, come up with three or four likely gameplan scenarios for what the opponent is likely to come out with and have answers for each. Last week, one of those likely scenarios could have been 'Devante Adams is their best player so maybe they'll be trying to go to him early and often - if so - DOUBLE HIM'.

Yes, the Atlanta game was a classic example of that.

On 9/9/19 David F. wrote:

Really enjoyed the game. It's nice to just win convincingly from start to finish. I love the excitement of a nail-biter too, don't get me wrong. Defense started the game aggressively and it paid off - and Zimmer made note of that in his post-game presser. NICE! I absolutely LOVED that we only threw the ball ten times. Screw balance. If it's working keep doing it. I don't mind one bit that Atlanta scored a couple of meaningless TDs. For what it's worth, they have a great passing game. I admired how crisp Julio and Ridley ran their routes. As I predicted early in the gameday thread, TE is still the biggest threat to the Zimmer defense and sure enough Hooper caught nine balls for 77 yards. But guess what? The opposing team is full of talented all-world players too! In the end our team was just too much for them. Skol.

When I mentioned that Zimmer verbally noted that starting aggressively paid off I meant that I was hoping to see it continued rather than be an exception to the rule - which is what it was.

Yearly a top 10 defense. But to you if it happens once, it's "an exception to the rule"

Rarely beats a winning team. But see you at the 'top 10 defense' celebration parade in February!

That's right, top ten defenses mostly get in the way of beating winning teams. Stupid top ten defenses!

If we devoted the amount of resources to the offense that we do to the defense we'd have a top-10 offense. That wouldn't necessarily mean we'd win more games or be a legitimate threat to win a Super Bowl. We were an 8-7-1 dumpster fire last season.

THE GOAL OF FOOTBALL IS TO WIN THE DAMN GAMES.

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom Sykes

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dana Turner

One thing is for sure, we need to show up at the beginning of games if we are going to have a successful season. We drop behind 21-zip in the first 16 minutes of the game, alful tough to instill hope when you have to score four times against any NFL team, much less GB in their place. So, this is another glaring flaw in this team and it needs to be corrected. It has been brought up over the past couple of years, so it's not new, but what to do about it is apparently a mystery. I'm thinking there needs to be better analysis done to get to the cause of these starts, there must be something common between them, but there have been too many to ignore and slough it off to a bad game.

This is another serious issue that needs to be fixed, just to get us on an even playing field at the start of important games, and lets face it, any given Sunday you can get beat by an inferior team.

It feels like Zimmer comes into the game with a 'let's see what they do' gameplan. How about instead you ANTICIPATE what they might be looking to do. Better yet, come up with three or four likely gameplan scenarios for what the opponent is likely to come out with and have answers for each. Last week, one of those likely scenarios could have been 'Devante Adams is their best player so maybe they'll be trying to go to him early and often - if so - DOUBLE HIM'.

Yes, the Atlanta game was a classic example of that.

On 9/9/19 David F. wrote:

Really enjoyed the game. It's nice to just win convincingly from start to finish. I love the excitement of a nail-biter too, don't get me wrong. Defense started the game aggressively and it paid off - and Zimmer made note of that in his post-game presser. NICE! I absolutely LOVED that we only threw the ball ten times. Screw balance. If it's working keep doing it. I don't mind one bit that Atlanta scored a couple of meaningless TDs. For what it's worth, they have a great passing game. I admired how crisp Julio and Ridley ran their routes. As I predicted early in the gameday thread, TE is still the biggest threat to the Zimmer defense and sure enough Hooper caught nine balls for 77 yards. But guess what? The opposing team is full of talented all-world players too! In the end our team was just too much for them. Skol.

When I mentioned that Zimmer verbally noted that starting aggressively paid off I meant that I was hoping to see it continued rather than be an exception to the rule - which is what it was.

Yearly a top 10 defense. But to you if it happens once, it's "an exception to the rule"

Rarely beats a winning team. But see you at the 'top 10 defense' celebration parade in February!

That's right, top ten defenses mostly get in the way of beating winning teams. Stupid top ten defenses!

If we devoted the amount of resources to the offense that we do to the defense we'd have a top-10 offense. That wouldn't necessarily mean we'd win more games or be a legitimate threat to win a Super Bowl. We were an 8-7-1 dumpster fire last season.

THE GOAL OF FOOTBALL IS TO WIN THE DAMN GAMES.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dana Turner

One thing is for sure, we need to show up at the beginning of games if we are going to have a successful season. We drop behind 21-zip in the first 16 minutes of the game, alful tough to instill hope when you have to score four times against any NFL team, much less GB in their place. So, this is another glaring flaw in this team and it needs to be corrected. It has been brought up over the past couple of years, so it's not new, but what to do about it is apparently a mystery. I'm thinking there needs to be better analysis done to get to the cause of these starts, there must be something common between them, but there have been too many to ignore and slough it off to a bad game.

This is another serious issue that needs to be fixed, just to get us on an even playing field at the start of important games, and lets face it, any given Sunday you can get beat by an inferior team.

It feels like Zimmer comes into the game with a 'let's see what they do' gameplan. How about instead you ANTICIPATE what they might be looking to do. Better yet, come up with three or four likely gameplan scenarios for what the opponent is likely to come out with and have answers for each. Last week, one of those likely scenarios could have been 'Devante Adams is their best player so maybe they'll be trying to go to him early and often - if so - DOUBLE HIM'.

Yes, the Atlanta game was a classic example of that.

On 9/9/19 David F. wrote:

Really enjoyed the game. It's nice to just win convincingly from start to finish. I love the excitement of a nail-biter too, don't get me wrong. Defense started the game aggressively and it paid off - and Zimmer made note of that in his post-game presser. NICE! I absolutely LOVED that we only threw the ball ten times. Screw balance. If it's working keep doing it. I don't mind one bit that Atlanta scored a couple of meaningless TDs. For what it's worth, they have a great passing game. I admired how crisp Julio and Ridley ran their routes. As I predicted early in the gameday thread, TE is still the biggest threat to the Zimmer defense and sure enough Hooper caught nine balls for 77 yards. But guess what? The opposing team is full of talented all-world players too! In the end our team was just too much for them. Skol.

When I mentioned that Zimmer verbally noted that starting aggressively paid off I meant that I was hoping to see it continued rather than be an exception to the rule - which is what it was.

Yearly a top 10 defense. But to you if it happens once, it's "an exception to the rule"

Rarely beats a winning team. But see you at the 'top 10 defense' celebration parade in February!

I see you've danced from "It feels like Zimmer comes into the game with a 'let's see what they do' gameplan." to "Rarely beats a winning team.".

Must be some tough schedules we've had considering he's won 60% of the games he's head coached.

What's the next dance?

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dana Turner

One thing is for sure, we need to show up at the beginning of games if we are going to have a successful season. We drop behind 21-zip in the first 16 minutes of the game, alful tough to instill hope when you have to score four times against any NFL team, much less GB in their place. So, this is another glaring flaw in this team and it needs to be corrected. It has been brought up over the past couple of years, so it's not new, but what to do about it is apparently a mystery. I'm thinking there needs to be better analysis done to get to the cause of these starts, there must be something common between them, but there have been too many to ignore and slough it off to a bad game.

This is another serious issue that needs to be fixed, just to get us on an even playing field at the start of important games, and lets face it, any given Sunday you can get beat by an inferior team.

It feels like Zimmer comes into the game with a 'let's see what they do' gameplan. How about instead you ANTICIPATE what they might be looking to do. Better yet, come up with three or four likely gameplan scenarios for what the opponent is likely to come out with and have answers for each. Last week, one of those likely scenarios could have been 'Devante Adams is their best player so maybe they'll be trying to go to him early and often - if so - DOUBLE HIM'.

Yes, the Atlanta game was a classic example of that.

On 9/9/19 David F. wrote:

Really enjoyed the game. It's nice to just win convincingly from start to finish. I love the excitement of a nail-biter too, don't get me wrong. Defense started the game aggressively and it paid off - and Zimmer made note of that in his post-game presser. NICE! I absolutely LOVED that we only threw the ball ten times. Screw balance. If it's working keep doing it. I don't mind one bit that Atlanta scored a couple of meaningless TDs. For what it's worth, they have a great passing game. I admired how crisp Julio and Ridley ran their routes. As I predicted early in the gameday thread, TE is still the biggest threat to the Zimmer defense and sure enough Hooper caught nine balls for 77 yards. But guess what? The opposing team is full of talented all-world players too! In the end our team was just too much for them. Skol.

When I mentioned that Zimmer verbally noted that starting aggressively paid off I meant that I was hoping to see it continued rather than be an exception to the rule - which is what it was.

Yearly a top 10 defense. But to you if it happens once, it's "an exception to the rule"

Rarely beats a winning team. But see you at the 'top 10 defense' celebration parade in February!

I see you've danced from "It feels like Zimmer comes into the game with a 'let's see what they do' gameplan." to "Rarely beats a winning team.".

Must be some tough schedules we've had considering he's won 60% of the games he's head coached.

What's the next dance?

I don't see any dancing. Personally I prefer the robot. I also prefer smart effective game plans and adjustments within the game that show there was some educated research ahead of the game that directly relates to specific player matchup exploitations and tendencies of the opponent to be capitalized on. Or, we can just spend more high draft picks on the defense to keep our precious 'top-ten' status and offensively continue with the 'run the ball and stop the run' idiocy that thus far has netting the franchise absolutely NOTHING in terms of winning anything important.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dana Turner

Plain and simple, the teams with the top tier QB's win. Seattle, Pittsburgh, New England, GB, NO now KC all have top tier QB's and are teams that are always good, better than %60 winners every year. The big problem is finding the top tier QB, there simply aren't that many to be had. The Vikings were hoping Cousins would be one of those guys, but it is painfully obvious he won't. He can be good, he can certainly throw a beautiful ball, the strike to Diggs last week was perfect, but as most of us know, arm talent isn't the end all, or Jeff George would be a HOFer.

Who will be drafting our next starting QB, I don't know, but very few teams get lucky like New Orleans and get to trade for a future HOF guy. Many of us have pointed out that there have been many teams that went to the dance with Mid-tier QB's, this is true, but very few of those teams were consistently good, six-seven years in a row type stuff and in GB, Pitt, NE we're talking ten years solid good play. All because they have a QB that the rest of the league is hoping to find. Hell, in KC they recognized what the had and got rid of the Mid-tier guy they had, Washington did it when they let Cousins walk. The NFL is full of guys like Cousins, hell, I can't even remember the guy that played for Denver and was traded to Chicago, supposed to be their savior, just Mid-tier guys, you can win with them on a good Sunday, but consistently is a different story.

I hope the Vikings can draft the next Tom Brady, Rogers, Breeze, who knows, for NW it was pure luck, but for now, this team has to rally around this Mid-tier guy that we have piloting our offense. Maybe the rest of the team will elevate itself and carry us on to a fine season, we shall see! Skol Vikings

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Jandro

Our oline appears to be doing an above average job run blocking at least.

I thought if we could run the ball better we'd have opposing defenses on their heels when passing. But that hasn't been the case thus far. We continue to be weak (if not weaker) up the middle.

Bradbury has not come as advertised thus far. Hope he can get it together soon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

BREAKING: Multiple sources are reporting #Vikings CB Mike Hughes is expected to be active and will likely return to game action today vs. Oakland.

(Sean Borman on Twitter)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Jandro

Our oline appears to be doing an above average job run blocking at least.

I thought if we could run the ball better we'd have opposing defenses on their heels when passing. But that hasn't been the case thus far. We continue to be weak (if not weaker) up the middle.

Bradbury has not come as advertised thus far. Hope he can get it together soon.

This is my favorite writer on the Vikings, now. (Ludford) With regard to Bradbury I have to wonder based on what he says here if the Vikings should consider putting in Jones at center.

http://www.dailynorseman.com/2019/9/21/20877120/early-insights-minnesota-vikings-season