Peter King seeing the light on Vikings; already salivating over a Viking-Saints NFC Championship
by puddnhead on Oct 19, 2009 10:41 AM CDT
49 comments
I have to agree with him: although I fear the Saints, and am not sure right now we are up to beating them (especially if it has to be done with anyone injured on the D side of ball), so one part of me wants no part of them ... still, it would make for an incredibly exciting game, and ultimately that's why we all watch, right?
In general, King has (IMO) something actually worth reading this week -- there are some good quotes from AP in there, and puts down the silly idea that he is "frustrated" and/or not playing well. Finally, King criticizes the playcalling (as many have here already) that left us gong for three at end & giving the ball back to Flacco with two minutes left and only needed a FG to win:
... I think a Minnesota-New Orleans NFC Championship Game would be one of the most anticipated football games of this era. Think of it: Brees and his all-world offense in one corner. Brett Favre, if he survives the year, in the other corner, with his sidekick Adrian Peterson. God, don't let any of those three men get hurt before January.
***
There's nothing wrong with Adrian Peterson. Nothing.
Entering Sunday's game against Baltimore, Peterson was on a four-game streak of being held under 100 yards rushing. That had happened only once, in 2007, in his pro career. What's more, teams were loading up to stop Peterson as much or more than ever, even with Favre in the backfield. Though it kept killing teams because Favre has responded so well, here came the strong safety, creeping down, even on downs when Favre might very well pass. On several plays against Green Bay two weeks ago, Peterson saw nine in the box.
"I get the question all the time, 'Are you frustrated?' '' he told me Sunday afternoon. "Are you kidding me? We're winning, we're playing explosive on offense, and I'm supposed to be frustrated. When the other guys can make plays -- Sidney Rice, Percy Harvin, Bernard Berrian, Visanthe Shiancoe -- that helps us be a better team. Plus, I'm coming out of games fresher now than last year.''
I wonder how teams are going to play Minnesota going forward. We've seen the Vikings for six weeks now. The Ravens looked like they tried to hem in Peterson while relying on their corners to hold up in lots of single coverage. But Peterson rushed for 143 yards on 22 carries, and Favre ate the Baltimore secondary alive -- completing 72 percent of his throws with three touchdowns and no interceptions. There's no better combo platter of rusher and passer out there now, and I challenge you to think back to when there was. Kurt Warner and Marshall Faulk come to mind, but Faulk wasn't the inside runner Peterson is.
"It's hilarious to me, watching Brett,'' Peterson said. "Sooner or later, defenses will understand they can play like that [with eight or nine men up], but Brett's going to get them if they do. The guy's arm is great. His deep ball is outstanding. Whatever they want to do, we're fine with it.'' We can see that.
Two last points on Peterson. We were stunned at NBC Sunday to see the Vikings -- with 2:30 left in the game, trailing Baltimore 31-30, with a third-and-nine at the Ravens' 17 -- to not go aggressively for the first down. "We were a little surprised too,'' Peterson said. Peterson ran for a three-yard gain, with the Vikings happy to settle for the field goal. It was a poor call because the Ravens had scored 21 points in the fourth quarter, the Vikes looked gassed on defense, and even if Ryan Longwell made the field goal, Baltimore would have two minutes to win it. Longwell made it, Baltimore drove into field goal range, and Steve Hauschka lined up for a 44-yarder with two seconds left. Wide left. I don't care if the kick was wide left; if you've got a quarterback as hot as Favre (playing nearly mistake-free in his first six games), you give him a chance to get the touchdown before settling for three.
Finally, Peterson entered the season with a gaudy career average of 5.16 yards per rush in his first two years. Jim Brownish. Just as defenses haven't changed the way they play him, Peterson's production hasn't changed one whit. After six games this year, he's averaging 5.16 yards per rush.
This FanPost was created by a registered user of The Daily Norseman, and does not necessarily reflect the views of the staff of the site. However, since this is a community, that view is no less important.
0 recs |
49 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Yes read that article....
Think his assessments were pretty objective…notice also he is giving credit to the NFC North as being one of two best Divisions?
Good to know we have some more nail-biters coming up….to include potentially NO in a division championship game (I would also like to see this)…
Let’s activate Allen for next week…We may need him w Winfield issue….and also look for someone to bring in at a reasonable price ($ and draft choices)…
GO VIKINGS!
I would rather be IN the Arena than watching from the stands...That is my life!
* Read Teddy Roosevelt's "Man in the Arena" if you need further explanation...
by vikingfanfrom afar on Oct 19, 2009 11:07 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Oh yeah, I’m willing to bet that, if Winfield is out, it’s going to be Paymah that’s deactivated and Allen that’s coming in. Couldn’t believe he was on the field all game, since I didn’t know Winfield was hurt.
by Frost on Oct 19, 2009 12:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
As much as I don’t like the idea of Winfield injured, I am excited to see what Allen can do against a real WR like Ward or Holmes.
Let Winfield sit and get better, we don’t need him aggravating something that could last a long time.
by Bjorno on Oct 20, 2009 3:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Turf Toe
According to About.com;
Athletes diagnosed with turf toe should avoid their sport at least three weeks to allow the joint capsule to heal. Without doing so, the injury can progress, and can lead to an even longer recuperation. It is not uncommon for athletes to try to come back too soon, or to try to play through the injury. Unfortunately, this usually leads to a more chronic injury, and ultimately a longer recovery.
We could be without Winfield for a little while… but better for him to heal up right and have him at the end of the season when he’s critically needed, I think.
Ah, ah,
We come from the land of the ice and snow,
From the midnight sun where the hot springs blow.
The hammer of the gods will drive our ships to new lands,
To fight the horde, singing and crying: Valhalla, I am coming!
SKOL!
by DCPurple on Oct 23, 2009 9:18 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It rally sucks that lambeau game is before bye instead of after
But I agree. Keep focused on big picture.
by puddnhead on Oct 23, 2009 1:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree with something he said
I don’t care if the kick was wide left; if you’ve got a quarterback as hot as Favre (playing nearly mistake-free in his first six games), you give him a chance to get the touchdown before settling for three.
I think Chilly made the right call running the ball to keep the clock going. I read somewhere this morning that Chilly said that getting time off of the clock was of prime importance. I couldn’t agree more. What if Favre misses or the receiver drops or he get’s picked. I say run it and drain time. Flacco get’s more time then they likely either score a TD or move the ball even closer to give Hausaljdfkjasdkfka a better shot at making that FG. It was the correct call to run it there, IMO.
by Figgs on Oct 19, 2009 12:53 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
hey it won the game
so you can’t say it was poor play calling.
by hickenizgriz on Oct 19, 2009 12:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
We did not win the game
The Ravens kicker lost it. We did not determine the outcome, we were just spectators, & the beneficiaries. Chilly’s playcalling while we had the ball did not make that kick go wide left.
by puddnhead on Oct 19, 2009 1:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
so the first 3 quarters didnt count?
Well in that case sir… we did lose.
by hickenizgriz on Oct 19, 2009 1:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's how it goes
The Vikings won vs. SF by actively putting together an amazing comeback drive that SF had failed to do. The Ravens lost to the Vikings by missing a FG that probably would have been good 6-7 out of 10×.
Did you see or hear about the NE-TEN beatdown? Or of NO shredding PHI and NYG? That’s how it’s really done!
by KC Viking on Oct 19, 2009 2:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Peter King’s comments, Figgs comments, and my reply each specifically referring to the last set of downs our offense our offense had.
So no, in that context, the first three quarters did not count in this dicussion.
by puddnhead on Oct 19, 2009 4:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually
We did win the game. Chilly’s playcalling gave the kicker the opportunity to kick it wide left. A game is the whole 60 minutes.
by Figgs on Oct 19, 2009 2:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
We won
It wasn’t Chilly’s call at the end of the game that hurt us, it was his calls in the second quarter that almost killed us. I swear if he doesn’t start realizing the 14 points is not a comfortable lead I’m going to go Chuck Norris on him.
by Grime on Oct 19, 2009 2:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or his 3 straight run plays
after the big Rice catch that caused them to have to settle for a field goal. I know this caused the Raven to burn their last 2 time-outs which helped at the end, but it also almost cost the game.
"Skol pa fiskande"
by NobleSavage on Oct 19, 2009 2:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s actually what the initial discussion was about, but Grime just got done saying they were not as important as the calle in Q2.
Me, I’m more willing to forgive/not second guess decisions made with 40 minutes left to play and hard-to-tell what what consequences will be, than decisons made with two minutes left, and everyone in that stadium knew what the consequences would be: Ravens would get the ball back with plenty of time on the clock, even though we did run, and only needing a FG to win.
by puddnhead on Oct 19, 2009 4:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you serious?! GO FOR SEVEN!!!
I say run it and drain time.
Does everyone realize that it only drained about 10 seconds off the clock? The two minute warning would have stopped the clock anyway. Why not take a shot at the endzone to put the game away? There was WAY too much playing not to lose yesterday, and it came within a couple feet of costing us. This timid play calling will hurt us in the playoffs.
by ericj69 on Oct 19, 2009 2:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree. WAY too conservative at the end.
"Skol pa fiskande"
by NobleSavage on Oct 19, 2009 3:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That 10 seconds gives Flacco another play at the end of the game.
by Figgs on Oct 19, 2009 3:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Correction
That 10 seconds “could have” given Flacco another play at the end of the game if it was incomplete or whatnot. Plus, who says Chilly isn’t going for seven or a first down with the run? I think that he was. He was just concerned about keeping the clock running, which I think was smart.
by Figgs on Oct 19, 2009 3:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
your right. We won the game, that’s all that matters. I was just really PO’d at the time. But I still say Eric is right. That type of play calling will hurt us in the playoffs.
"Skol pa fiskande"
by NobleSavage on Oct 19, 2009 3:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, no I don't think it does, although it is getting a bit speculative at this point
36 seconds left, 3rd down, do you really run any kind of play that you wouldn’t have run with 26 seconds left?
by puddnhead on Oct 19, 2009 4:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
At least a “safe” throw like a screen or something…at least give a guy a CHANCE to make a play and get the first down.
by cutlassbob on Oct 20, 2009 5:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Favre
He said we can win all our game. A long the way we need to stay healthy and with some luck. The truth is all good team need some luck. 1998 we have the best record but we lost to ATL. Is that luck?
by vikefansd on Oct 19, 2009 2:25 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Exactly.
The Vikings were really the better team in ‘98 despite losing that game to Gary Andersen’s first missed FG of the year. The Ravens may prove to be the better team by the end of this season.
by KC Viking on Oct 19, 2009 2:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You had to bring that up
Man, we would have whipped the Broncos in the Super Bowl if we hadn’t lost to the Falcons.
by HiWayRobry on Oct 20, 2009 12:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah right
Yeah, and if I had a feather up my ass I’d be tickled pink.
by iowaron on Oct 20, 2009 2:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Believe it or not
I’m STILL not sold on the Saints
they’ve started really hot before, only to fade down the stretch
Son, when you participate in sporting events, it's not whether you win or lose: it's how drunk you get. ~Homer Simpson
by thewild_viking_twins on Oct 19, 2009 4:06 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Curious, have you read/seen highlights of what they did to Giants yesterday? And if so, were you not sold on the Giants either?
Besides, Vikings fans should know better than to talk about how other teams often fade down the stretch ;)
by puddnhead on Oct 19, 2009 4:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
OMFG Someone ranked the Vikings #1 in the NFC!!!
by boomy44 on Oct 19, 2009 4:40 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Defense
Gents, our offensive play calling, though never “ideal,” was fine IMO.
Baltimore’s previous drives were 33 yards, :07, TD; 73 yards, :49, TD; and 75 yards, 1:33, TD. Our defense completely disappeared.
Vikes were in go-ahead field goal range with 2:51 left. The 3 runs kept the clock moving, caused the Ravens to use their last two timeouts, and we kicked off with 1:56 left and a 2 point lead.
If a pass attempt went incomplete, given the previous “drives” of the Ravens, imagine if they’d had more time on the clock AND/or a timeout?
King talks about the hot hand of Favre and going for 7, but AD had some pretty hot feet, too. Not counting a potential turnovers, worst case from running is losing 2-3 yards but the clock rolls. Worst case passing? Loss of 7+ yards from a sack or an incomplete pass and a stopped clock.
Also, I’d like to give a shout out for lack of penalties. Only 3-15 this game.
Go Vikes!!!!!
by JasonAve6413 on Oct 19, 2009 5:01 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
If a pass attempt went incomplete, given the previous "drives" of the Ravens, imagine if they’d had more time on the clock AND/or a timeout?
OK, then, given all that … why do you leave them in a position where they only need a FG to win it, instead of a TD? If you’re thinking is that the only thing that stops the Ravens from coming back and retaking the league is the clock, then … wasn’t leaving 1:56 on the clock zand only needing a FG to win, actually a lot riskier than, say, leaving 2:15 on the clock and a needing a TD to win??? Surely making them go the estra 30+ yards was more important than leaving 20 more seconds on the clock, even if they were unstoppable?
by puddnhead on Oct 19, 2009 5:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No.....
You quoted my one point about clock/timeouts, but other concerns with a pass are sack/loss of yards. I kept it simple in my previous comments, but when we need the points, going for a pass in that situation opens up a lot more negative possibilities.
But in general, yeah – I think with no abilitiy to stop the clock, getting into FG range could be tougher than going the extra 30 if you can go up the middle of the field.
I just don’t think this is a clear cut case of Chilly’s poor clock management skills. There are plenty of those to choose from, but this isn’t one of them.
by JasonAve6413 on Oct 19, 2009 11:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
part of the problem was
a lack of long offensive drives to keep the defense off of the field to let them rest. We were getting pretty banged up at CB and I am sure that they would have appreciated a few less 3 and outs.
1 of 2 things happened as the game progressed. The ravens either adjusted their D, or the vikes got more conservative on drives and didn’t go for it as much to put both points on the board (6, not 3) and let the defense have a little more time to get on the same page and stay fresh.
I have played a lot of zone before and if you aren’t on the same page you give up a lot of big yards. We had 2 new CBs on the field for stretches…not ideal for a zone D. They needed some extra time on the sidelines for the coaches to pull Paymah aside to show him pictures of positions from the current game and where he should be.
by TheEvilProfessor on Oct 20, 2009 9:24 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
4 field goals
Bottom line 4 field goals in the second half. If even 1 of them is a TD game over. We need to convert. Kicking a 50 yarder on 3rd & 8 is one thing . If its 1st and goal & you get down to 4th down with less than five yards you go for it. So you don’t get the 3 points. Now they are starting from inside the 5. Our defense at home cmon. Great teams have to rely on their defense to get the job done sometimes. If you hold them to 3 & out your going to get the ball back in great shape with another chance to score right away anyway.
by iowaron on Oct 20, 2009 3:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i know i was pretty pissed off at chilly yesterday
but one of our biggest gripes on here in the past has been chillys clock management issues. i think he was doing what he thought was best as far as clock management is concerned. i think, all in all, given the win, it was the right call at the time. the rest of the pussy ass playcalling (second quarter) is still bullshit in my opinion, and wouldn’t have had us in that situation in the first place if we had been more aggressive to begin with, but i digress……
I piss people off on a fairly regular basis. I cherish my right to speak my mind, whether I sound like an uneducated savage or not. I've never been accused of keeping what I think a secret, nor will I ever. Don't like it? I don't care.
by IABerserker1 on Oct 19, 2009 5:28 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Help me petition Chuck Norris
to come up here and teach Chilly the meaning of beat down! Ok not really serious… Welll ok I sorta am.
by Grime on Oct 20, 2009 8:11 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
In order of importance
1st we had to score points
2nd we had to burn all of their timeouts
3rd we had to burn as much time as possible
I like most of you was majorly pissed off at the time, but on reflection I think Chilly-Dip did the right thing. A sack or turnover possibly would have prevented number 1 above.
by SouthernNorseman on Oct 20, 2009 6:57 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I like most of you was majorly pissed off at the time, but on reflection I think Chilly-Dip did the right thing. A sack or turnover possibly would have prevented number 1 above.
You are using conventional reasoning here, which is not a bad thing, but … let me just be devil’s advocate a moment, for sake of debate.
1) Sack: A sack was a concern, but arguably we were close enough that it would not have been a killer had it happened. Longwell’s FG was 31 yards. So I don’t think this should have been a factor in the decison.
2) Turnover: You are assuming it is more likely that Favre would throw a pick, than AP fumble. But even ignoring that Favre touches the ball almost every play — even just looking at pass attempts only — Favre has 2 INT and 0 fumbles in 178 pass attempts this year. AP has two fumbles (both lost) in 121 rushing attempts. So this, looking at how things have gone year to date, was not only not a factor in deciding to run, it is perhaps even an arguement FOR passing instead of running. If you let go of preconceived notions & truisms & look at cold hard facts, that is the conclusion.
by puddnhead on Oct 20, 2009 8:49 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Saints don't scare me much.
Ok. I lied. They look pretty darn good. If there peaking now thats a good thing. If they get even better thats a bad thing for rest of the league. The Vikes are not peaking and although we look really good at times we are not hitting on all 8 cylinders all of the time.
We can get better so as long as we can keep winning as we improve thats about the best we can hope for. Losing that game to the Ravens would have been a good lesson, but almost losing is even better. Our guys know what needs to be fixed and the fact that it didn’t cost us the game helps.
by iowaron on Oct 20, 2009 2:44 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Our QB looked pretty disappointed toward the end of the game...
In my mind, he was watching the D give up the game.
Wonder if he will have something to say to the team about 4th Quarter performance this week?
I BELIEVE...
On the improbable Vikings win against the Ravens...
" OH MY HOLY BALLSACK " - IABerserker1
by ArizonaVikingsFan on Oct 20, 2009 2:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Did we forget thatthe Vikes were behind???
I am at a loss as to why fans keep complaining about our last Field Goal. We were behind with 2:28 to go. An interception LOSES the game. Thats it. Thats why you run the ball. Take the risk out and rely on your Defense. Yes, I know they had been horrid. But they are still able to rush the passer and defend. In fact they did manage to stop Baltimore at a point far enough away to have the kicker miss. The closer the field goal the more likely to make it.
The clock issue was a bonus for us on the 3rd down play. We needed the score and we didn’t need a sack or an interception.
by lifelongvike on Oct 20, 2009 6:07 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
As I pointed out earlier
Even ignoring that Favre touches the ball almost every play — even just looking at pass attempts only — Favre has 2 INT and 0 fumbles in 178 pass attempts this year. AP has two fumbles (both lost) in 121 rushing attempts. So this, looking at how things have gone year to date, was not only not a factor in deciding to run, it is perhaps even an arguement FOR passing instead of running. If you let go of preconceived notions & truisms & look at cold hard facts, that is the conclusion.
by puddnhead on Oct 21, 2009 4:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe
We passed on third and goal with 5:00 to play to AP. Tackle for a loss. No sure things. I just don’t fault the coach. I would have been PO’d if something had gone wrong on that last 3rd down. I do understand your point however.
by lifelongvike on Oct 21, 2009 8:49 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
