Tom Sykes
Posts: 5896
Joined: 7/27/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Brad H
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tom Sykes
quote:
ORIGINAL: Brad H
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tom Sykes
quote:
ORIGINAL: Brad H
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jeff Jesser
LOL. Now, the right side of my brain wants to chime in.
IF... SD isn't so God awful in the first half, and we get a few TD's when we should have, that's a totally different game.
You guys make it sound like scoring a TD was an easy task. The fourth down pass missed to Jefferson in the corner of the end zone was a rushed throw because he had someone (safety, I think) bearing down on him. The one in the back of the end zone he had to throw against his body running left, with guys bearing down on him. Neither of those are easy throws.
The two bad throws were the two misses to Hockenson, one on third-and-18 and the other on an out pattern on third and long. Those two throws were chains movers and would have kept the Detroit defense on the field.
One thing Detroit did was take away running lanes for Darnold. He's been very good at escaping rushes and picking up first downs with his legs. Those lanes were not there on Sunday. They were disciplined and kept him contained, forcing our woeful offensive line to try and protect. Given our offensive coordinator never made any adjustments and continued to run 25-30-yard patterns, we had little success.
It was a terrible job from O'Connell. Darnold was not put in a position to succeed. The Vikings were gashing the Lions with the run. O'Connell would get across midfield and go away from it. Winning in the playoffs (or big games) has to be ugly at times. Not everything is a beauty contest.
I remember watching Belichick and the Patriots run the ball close to 15 straight times in one game because the defense wasn't stopping it. That was with Tom Brady and Randy Moss on the field. Sometimes you have to take what the defense gives you and be happy with it. You think the Chiefs were disappointed in winning with Isaiah Pacheco last season?
If your offensive line can't protect and you are averaging 4-5 yards-per-carry, why would you put your offense in a position to get your quarterback sacked and put yourself in third and long every possession? And then, even worse, continue to do it over and over with no recognition that it isn't working.
You’re such a Darnold apologist.
Everybody and their mother agrees KOC called a poor game and refused to adapt to the def scheme. We all agree SD had constant people in his face, many running free.
We should all agree that they left no room for Sam to to escape forward, which he’s good at when its there. However, his molasses spin move out the back window to evade rushers, turning his back and then running in a gigantic crop circle … those things are visible from outer space. After the third or fourth time, I would have had our OL trip him before he started, take the initial sack with minimal loss of yards and less embarrassment.
All that and more … but to deny he was completely flustered, was holding the ball too long / over-throwing and-or-had bad ball placement / was not using his underneath options … is just that, denial. No play, no matter how slow developing has everybody running a slow developing route. No pass play has only one or two options.
Apparently you missed the posts within hours after the game where I said he didn't play well.
And BTW, you aren't an apologist when you are saying the obvious.
Saying Sam didn't play well is like saying the Titanic sank. That's not really putting your opinion out there.
Putting most of the iceberg's blame on the dinner menu or the housekeeping service makes you an apologist.
Sam should be blamed for his part and KOC for his. Both deserve a lion's share of the blame. (and Det a ton of credit)
It's true, I don't read all your posts. But I have read several since the Lions game ... and over the course of the season.
What is obvious is that JJM has become your new pariah (replacing Cousins) ... and that you favor Darnold ... although IMO its not beneath you to simply use Sam as a stick to poke at the team and its fans over possible heir apparent JJM.
What's really obvious is that it doesn't matter either way.
I hope JJ McCarthy wins five Super Bowls. Irregardless, I'm not replacing a guy with 14 wins and the #6 passer rating in the league with a guy that has never completed a pass in the NFL if I don't have to. That would be GM malpractice. At the very least, you franchise tag Darnold and get something for your initial investment in a trade.
The bottom line is, it is in the best interest of the franchise to have Darnold under contract because he is a commodity. I don't see them signing him to a long-term deal, nor do I think they should. A franchise tag is the best of both worlds.
Do I like McCarthy? I thought it was a bad choice when they drafted him. The guy played in a running offense and rarely had to run a two-minute offense or played from behind. IMO, the last five minutes of halves is the most important part of any game.
Giving the keys of the Lamborghini to a kid that has never completed a pass would be stupid. Especially when the current guy just had the second most wins in franchise history.
Obviously the current regime doesn't agree with your assessment of JJM or they wouldn't have drafted him. With a definite plan at some point to give the kid the keys to the Lamborghini.
Another case of, what's obvious to you is whatever is opposite the team.
< Message edited by Tom Sykes -- 1/8/2025 6:07:05 PM >
|
Printable Version
RE: General Vikes Talk - 
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