Atlanta studs and duds

[HardRightEdge]

By the way, Ryan had an even better target to his right. I think it was the TE who had a step on the safety (Burnett?) running towards the sideline just inside the goal line. Ryan could have tossed the ball towards the pylon for an even easier score, IMO.

True, but it looks like the progression was left to right and Ryan didn't need to get that far.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I say he "needs" to make that play to beat the better teams in the same way I say Rodgers needs to not throw interceptions to beat good teams, or we can't fumble the ball. Or we need to control the clock, or we need to get sacks, or we need to cause fumbles, etc, etc to beat the good teams.

But those "needs" are not the same. Generalized objectives are quite a different thing from focusing unjustly on one single contested ball.

 

[scotscheese]

don't think there was any real duds in this game. i thought for a team that had so many out injured we did really well, and can consider ourselves unfortunate not to have beat a very good on form atlanta team. thats not to say that i wasn't pissed and disapointed about the last, say quarter, as i thought we had them and were gonna win.

onve we get a couple of our big defensive players back and if rodgers carrys on like this game, then i think we can make a good run in the playoffs. hate to admit that the top spot is probably too far to pull back though, and even worse that they(vikqueens) have played well well enough to probably deserve it.

i'm gonna go taze myself for that last sentence

 

[Deleted member 6794]

By the way, Ryan had an even better target to his right. I think it was the TE who had a step on the safety (Burnett?) running towards the sideline just inside the goal line. Ryan could have tossed the ball towards the pylon for an even easier score, IMO.

The pass to Hooper would have been way more difficult for Ryan than throwing to Sanu.

hate to admit that the top spot is probably too far to pull back though, and even worse that they(vikqueens) have played well well enough to probably deserve it.

It seems like you haven't watched a lot of the Vikings games over the last two weeks.

 

[Mondio]

But those "needs" are not the same. Generalized objectives are quite a different thing from focusing unjustly on one single contested ball.

The only reason they are not the same is because I didn't name another specific play. There are plenty of plays where I can say "Jordy needs to catch that ball" and we win. There are plenty I could say "Adams needs to fight that defender for the ball" and we'd win. I'm sure I could go back and find a time where there was an ill timed fumble and say," he needs to hang on to that ball" if we want to win these tight games.

Anyway, it was a play he could have made, any interception worth a **** is going to take a good play by the DB. Gunter was in position, it would have been a great play, but you're not going to get much closer or better opportunities than that unless they just throw it to you. Him getting a game sealing int on that ball is far from an impossibility. We'll see similar ints from other guys again this year too.

 

[JK64]

It came to me in flash! The ultimate solution!

Don't allow the opponent to march down the field, 75 yards in the final 4 minutes, thus losing the game. The fact Atlanta had 2 timeouts they did not need to use makes the point all that much sharper.

We've seen this time and time again, where Capers goes into bend-don't-break mode with the lead, getting pushed back into his own red zone where he can make a final stand in the short field. Occasionally it works out, like against SD last season, but somehow it fails against better competition.

If fans and analysts searched their heart of hearts (or rewound the tape), they would know that the reason they are obsessed with the offense, where less than 30 points is a disappointment, they would realize where that uneasy feeling they get in the back half of the 4th. quarter with less than a 9 point lead against teams with decent offenses actually comes from.

This post is so good that it needs to be brought back up.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The only reason they are not the same is because I didn't name another specific play. There are plenty of plays where I can say "Jordy needs to catch that ball" and we win. There are plenty I could say "Adams needs to fight that defender for the ball" and we'd win. I'm sure I could go back and find a time where there was an ill timed fumble and say," he needs to hang on to that ball" if we want to win these tight games.

That goes to my point. It's not the one particular play; it's the frequency with which opportunities go by the boards.

Anyway, it was a play he could have made, any interception worth a **** is going to take a good play by the DB. Gunter was in position, it would have been a great play, but you're not going to get much closer or better opportunities than that unless they just throw it to you. Him getting a game sealing int on that ball is far from an impossibility. We'll see similar ints from other guys again this year too.

The highlighted passage goes to my point as well, and is my criteria for focusing a critique. If a play is not made, but making it would require a "great play", it's hardly worthy of being a specific bone of contention.

It's probably worth observing that the preponderance of interceptions are thrown right to a defender, either by mis-throw, a bad route or a route jump, or the ball is simply tipped right to him. "Great plays", in the sense that we would use with a receiver catching a contested ball, are fairly rare among DBs.

But again, you did not see the replay, so your contention that we'll see "similar ints from other guys" is really just blind conjecture.

 

[Mondio]

I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue anymore, but to satisfy you, you're right. Blind conjecture? I did see the game, I do t need super slow mo replays to know Gunter had a good shot at that play. Just ask him

For everyone else, against better teams that generally make fewer mistakes, hence being a better team, making great plays goes a long ways in determining the outcome rather than hoping they throw you a bone.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue anymore....

Consider it mutual.

 

[Pkrjones]

EXCELLENT decision... now onto the Indy game?

 

[HardRightEdge]

EXCELLENT decision... now onto the Indy game?

Nobody was twisting your arm to read that exchange, or anything else for that matter.

If I get around to watching a recent replay of a Colts game I might move on to the Indy game. Otherwise, I'll limit my interest to the Packer injury report until after the game is played.

 

[Half Empty]

True, nobody's twisting my arm to read the drivel above (or in the 'is it harder to win the division or a wild card?' **** measuring contest) - the problem is that I don't know it's drivel until I've already read it. One of you should just revert to the old 'case closed' argument, and the rest of us can get back to the thread topic.

 

[HardRightEdge]

True, nobody's twisting my arm to read the drivel above (or in the 'is it harder to win the division or a wild card?' **** measuring contest) - the problem is that I don't know it's drivel until I've already read it. One of you should just revert to the old 'case closed' argument, and the rest of us can get back to the thread topic.

You're a bit confused. I had no dog in that division vs. wildcard hunt other than to say "it's too early to tell".

I suggest you take the same tack here that I have taken with that thread...don't read the instigators if you don't think it's worth your time.

 

[Croak]

Ok guys. Keep it civil.

 

[scotscheese]

It seems like you haven't watched a lot of the Vikings games over the last two weeks.

you're right I haven't, being in the UK I only really watch Packers games when they are on tv here. more than a glimmer of hope at winning the div now that we are only one game behind them