Vikings @ Lions Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 15

A forum for the hard core Minnesota Vikings fan. Discuss upcoming games, opponents, trades, draft or what ever is on the minds of Viking fans!

Moderator: Moderators

frosted
Career Elite Player
Posts: 2157
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 12:30 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Vikings @ Lions Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 15

Post by frosted »

Guys, I spoke with Norv tonight. This was actually a handoff to Asiata, it just looked like a pass on film.

Seriously. We were all wrong. Go figure.

But really, at the end of the day, I think it was an inaccurate pass, exacerbated by the stumble/trip/jostling of Charles. Teddy needs to throw that pass better..I was just trying to argue that it was still catchable.

Also, I'll go to my grave believing that the route was designed to be cut towards the sideline and the line of scrimmage. Everything I've seen on video of the play, and know about the technique of a wide receiver's steps into the break on that particular route bring me to that conclusion.

Now, I'm officially going to retire myself from this argument and this god forsaken thread.

The end.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
808vikingsfan
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3927
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:45 pm
Location: Hawaii
x 151

Re: Vikings @ Lions Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 15

Post by 808vikingsfan »

Here's Bridgewaters comments. Sorry if it was already posted:
“You try to have short-term memory when you throw those interceptions,” Bridgewater said. “The first one was a bang-bang play. Charles (Johnson) just wasn’t able to make a play for the ball. I think it sailed a little high over his head, but that’s one of those throws that I make nine out of 10 times in practice. The second one, it was just a horrible throw. I was late and you never want to be late during an out route. I left the ball inside.”
BRIDGEWATER ALLAYING ZIMMER’S EARLY FEARS
Joined: Aug 2006
Deleted: Sept 12 2014
Reborn: Sept 17 2014
Pondering Her Percy
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9241
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Location: Watertown, NY
x 1117

Re: Vikings @ Lions Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 15

Post by Pondering Her Percy »

frosted wrote:Guys, I spoke with Norv tonight. This was actually a handoff to Asiata, it just looked like a pass on film.

Seriously. We were all wrong. Go figure.

But really, at the end of the day, I think it was an inaccurate pass, exacerbated by the stumble/trip/jostling of Charles. Teddy needs to throw that pass better..I was just trying to argue that it was still catchable.

Also, I'll go to my grave believing that the route was designed to be cut towards the sideline and the line of scrimmage. Everything I've seen on video of the play, and know about the technique of a wide receiver's steps into the break on that particular route bring me to that conclusion.

Now, I'm officially going to retire myself from this argument and this god forsaken thread.

The end.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I just want to wish you best of luck after your retirement sir .... I'm right with ya :D
The saddest thing in life is wasted talent and the choices you make will shape your life forever.
-Chazz Palminteri
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: Vikings @ Lions Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 15

Post by Mothman »

Pondering Her Percy wrote:I was simply providing the link to basically try and end the argument. You say logical, good faith discussion yet you sit there calling what I am saying "excuses" and that I "think I know what I'm talking about but I don't" when literally nobody is agreeing with you. By me saying "someone" is just nitpicking. I wasn't going to throw your name all over the board and call you out. I meant nothing by it and was keeping it as civil as possible. As for the "forming my opinion, don't trouble me with facts" garbage....I've told you how I felt about the pass and its pretty darn similar to everyone else on here which is OUR opinion ...
It's actually quite different from what others are saying . As far as I can tell, you are the only one claiming the ball was out in front of Johnson and catchable for that reason. The other people saying it was catchable seem to be saying he could have extended upward to make the catch after coming out of his break. Both the video and still shots clearly show that the ball was never out in front of Johnson. That's not a matter of speculation or opinion and it's not a subjective point of view. It's evident on film.

As for what everyone else thinks; most seem to agree that the pass was high, even though we disagree on the exact nature of the route.
... and what facts are you even providing??!!!
Actual visual evidence of what I've described.
That you "think" you know what route he was running when you have no clue what the play call was??
I'm not claiming to know the play call. Regardless of what was called, we can see the route Johnson actually ran. That's on film. I'm not sure why it's a sticking point since every angle of the play shows the pass was high. It would have been high on a comeback route as well as on a down and out. That's not where the ball is supposed to be thrown on either of those routes. I contend it was a down and out because Johnson ran an L-shaped route and after his break, he stayed almost parallel to the hashmarks, which isn't how a comeback route is typically run (on that route, the receiver literally comes back toward the line of scrimmage, usually toward the QB, which is clearly not what Johnson did).
That you "think" you know where the ball should have been placed when you didn't even have a clear view from the field??
I've seen video of the play from 4 different angles: broadcast standard, isolation replay on Johnson, end zone all-22 and side view all-22. I can clearly follow the trajectory of the ball on all 4 of those, although it's harder to see on the side view. On top of all that, it's football 101 that the ball is not supposed to be thrown over the receiver's head on any of the routes in question. On an out route, the idea is to hit the receiver on the numbers or to throw it lower and away, so it can't be intercepted. Throwing it high is the last thing you want to do, for obvious reasons. On a comeback route, the ball should be thrown on the numbers.
That you "think" it wasn't a catchable ball when a 6'2 WR is basically bent over touching his toes, so in turn, you have no way to tell if it was or not??
I've said it might have been catchable but "catchable " does not = "good pass".
That you "think" the LB had a better shot at it than Johnson did??
That's self-evident. All you have to do is look. The LB's hand gets quite near the ball as it passes. Johnson's hands never get near it and it's directly above him, which means it was thrown behind him since he's in motion from left to right. It's right there on film and the screen shots. All you have to do is look.
....point is, there aren't any facts. There is nothing but speculation from both sides of the argument.
That's simply not true. There's visual evidence of exactly what occurred on the play. That's factual information, not speculation.

I'll happily drop this now but honestly, I'm open-minded and if I'm wrong about any of the above, if I've described the play inaccurately, either the way the route was run or the placement of the pass being high and somewhat behind the receiver, I'd genuinely appreciate it if someone could show me the contrary evidence on film (here or via PM). From the start, my objective was to gain a clear understanding what happened on the play and to provide visual evidence from the film for those who don't have access to it. That's it.
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: Vikings @ Lions Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 15

Post by Mothman »

DKSweets wrote:I truly see nothing in any of the screen caps that confirm your point of view. To be fair, I see nothing to prove my point of view, either. It's all subjective, and we're going to have different opinions on how the play was intended. I strongly believe I'm right, but I have no issue with you strongly believing that you are right. Everybody seems to have a different outlook on the play.

I have nothing to add to this conversation that hasn't been said, but I have enjoyed discussing it with you without it getting personal.

I did too. Thanks for that, DK. :)
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: Vikings @ Lions Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 15

Post by Mothman »

frosted wrote:Guys, I spoke with Norv tonight. This was actually a handoff to Asiata, it just looked like a pass on film.

Seriously. We were all wrong. Go figure.
:lol: Norv is really crafty!
Pondering Her Percy
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9241
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Location: Watertown, NY
x 1117

Re: Vikings @ Lions Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 15

Post by Pondering Her Percy »

Mothman wrote: It's actually quite different from what others are saying . As far as I can tell, you are the only one claiming the ball was out in front of Johnson and catchable for that reason. The other people saying it was catchable seem to be saying he could have extended upward to make the catch after coming out of his break. Both the video and still shots clearly show that the ball was never out in front of Johnson. That's not a matter of speculation or opinion and it's not a subjective point of view. It's evident on film.

As for what everyone else thinks; most seem to agree that the pass was high, even though we disagree on the exact nature of the route.
Actual visual evidence of what I've described.
I'm not claiming to know the play call. Regardless of what was called, we can see the route Johnson actually ran. That's on film. I'm not sure why it's a sticking point since every angle of the play shows the pass was high. It would have been high on a comeback route as well as on a down and out. That's not where the ball is supposed to be thrown on either of those routes. I contend it was a down and out because Johnson ran an L-shaped route and after his break, he stayed almost parallel to the hashmarks, which isn't how a comeback route is typically run (on that route, the receiver literally comes back toward the line of scrimmage, usually toward the QB, which is clearly not what Johnson did).
I've seen video of the play from 4 different angles: broadcast standard, isolation replay on Johnson, end zone all-22 and side view all-22. I can clearly follow the trajectory of the ball on all 4 of those, although it's harder to see on the side view. On top of all that, it's football 101 that the ball is not supposed to be thrown over the receiver's head on any of the routes in question. On an out route, the idea is to hit the receiver on the numbers or to throw it lower and away, so it can't be intercepted. Throwing it high is the last thing you want to do, for obvious reasons. On a comeback route, the ball should be thrown on the numbers.
I've said it might have been catchable but "catchable " does not = "good pass".
That's self-evident. All you have to do is look. The LB's hand gets quite near the ball as it passes. Johnson's hands never get near it and it's directly above him, which means it was thrown by behind him since he's in motion from left to right. It's right there on film and the screen shots. All you have to do is look.

That you "think" you know how WR's think and basically imply that Johnson is talking out of his rear and just "has Teddy's back"??
That's simply not true. There's visual evidence of exactly what occurred on the play. That's factual information, not speculation.

I'll happily drop this now but honestly, I'm open-minded and if I'm wrong about any of the above, if I've described the play inaccurately, either the way the route was run or the placement of the pass being high and somewhat behind the receiver, I'd genuinely appreciate it if someone could show me the contrary evidence on film (here or via PM). From the start, my objective was to gain a clear understanding what happened on the play and to provide visual evidence from the film for those who don't have access to it. That's it.
Listen I could have plenty more responses to that but as I said, I'm done repeating myself and I'm at work so I really don't have the time. I've already pointed to the exact shot that showed the ball in front of him. So as I said above along with Frosted, I retire! Let's move on
The saddest thing in life is wasted talent and the choices you make will shape your life forever.
-Chazz Palminteri
yezzir
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3868
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 3:05 pm

Re: Vikings @ Lions Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 15

Post by yezzir »

frosted wrote:Guys, I spoke with Norv tonight. This was actually a handoff to Asiata, it just looked like a pass on film.

Seriously. We were all wrong. Go figure.

But really, at the end of the day, I think it was an inaccurate pass, exacerbated by the stumble/trip/jostling of Charles. Teddy needs to throw that pass better..I was just trying to argue that it was still catchable.

Also, I'll go to my grave believing that the route was designed to be cut towards the sideline and the line of scrimmage. Everything I've seen on video of the play, and know about the technique of a wide receiver's steps into the break on that particular route bring me to that conclusion.

Now, I'm officially going to retire myself from this argument and this god forsaken thread.

The end.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
After reading through the last couple pages, the ball shouldn't have been thrown. With that said, had Johnson not stumbled, the ball would have been catchable for him. Would have been a reach, but with the trajectory of the ball coming in, he could've had it.
User avatar
PurpleKoolaid
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8641
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 9:52 pm
x 28

Re: Vikings @ Lions Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 15

Post by PurpleKoolaid »

Johnson 'stumbled' because the LB made him stumble. Any other team, that's holding at the very least. And who the heck is anyone to say if he hadnt stumbled, it wouldn't have been an accurately thrown ball to be caught. Like the Jennings ball, or the ball Brady threw, or the one Rogers threw. Rogers was throwing bad ball after bad ball. He just get gets the benefit of the refs when its close. But to say, that's was an uncatchable throw, is absurd. Jennings made a pretty darn good one. Ofc, he did have a LB hanging on him and altering his feet. I have never seen someone go to such length to make sure every frigging person on a message board new its was an absolutely poorly thrown ball.
Demi
Commissioner
Posts: 23785
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 4:24 pm
x 8

Re: Vikings @ Lions Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 15

Post by Demi »

Would have been a catch if he hadn't stumbled...and had arms as long as he was tall. :?
Post Reply