Preseason game #2: Vikings - Cardinals game thread 8/16

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

User avatar
jackal
Strong Safety
Posts: 11583
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:05 am
Location: California
x 5

Re: Preseason game #2: Vikings - Cardinals game thread 8/16

Post by jackal »

Biggest concern after watching game ... First string OL especially left side Both Kalil and Johnson were very ineffective
early in the game. They seemed to get better after a few series ???

Biggest improvement our secondary seems much better and turns and looks for the ball now... for the most part ...


Cassel looked really good and used his feet a few times to hurt Arizona too. Teddy has improved, but I hope sits this year.
I think Bridge Water and the Vikings, would both benefit from this.
no one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Eli
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7946
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2004 5:52 pm

Re: Preseason game #2: Vikings - Cardinals game thread 8/16

Post by Eli »

jackal wrote:Biggest concern after watching game ... First string OL especially left side Both Kalil and Johnson were very ineffective early in the game. They seemed to get better after a few series ???
Kalil had some plays where he looked like he did much of last year. He looks confused or something. I don't understand what has happened to him.

Far and away my biggest concern, though, is Anthony Barr. If anyone gets a chance to rewatch the Cardinals game, pay attention to Barr when he's playing behind the line of scrimmage. He looks like he has no idea what he's doing. He looks so unlike a quality linebacker that it's frightening. He doesn't pursue plays, he doesn't fight off blocks, he can't even figure out how to get around players who've fallen on the ground. There were many play where Barr never even comes in contact with anyone else on the field - he isn't blocked, he doesn't run into anyone, he doesn't even touch anyone with his hands. He takes a few steps and when the play is over, he's standing there looking like "What happened?"
dead_poet
Commissioner
Posts: 24788
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
x 108

Re: Preseason game #2: Vikings - Cardinals game thread 8/16

Post by dead_poet »

Eli wrote:Kalil had some plays where he looked like he did much of last year. He looks confused or something.
There was one play in particular early I recall that I think was simply a blown assignment (it did look like it was his error, which happens). I'll have to re-watch again and try and focus on him specifically but I don't think he's getting repeatedly beaten in pass protection. It gets hard to tell sometimes with run blocking with so many bodies but run blocking was one area his rookie year I remember him needing improvement. I'm not worried...yet. It helps a bit when he's the only guy (out of the three heavily linked to the Vikings on/before the 2012 draft) that's starting (Blackmon suspended and Claiborne injured/nearly "bust"-worthy). While it'd be sweet to have Kuechly (arguably the second best guy of the draft other than Luck), that would've meant the hole at LT. It can't help having one of the leagues worse guards next to you.
Far and away my biggest concern, though, is Anthony Barr. If anyone gets a chance to rewatch the Cardinals game, pay attention to Barr when he's playing behind the line of scrimmage. He looks like he has no idea what he's doing. He looks so unlike a quality linebacker that it's frightening. He doesn't pursue plays, he doesn't fight off blocks, he can't even figure out how to get around players who've fallen on the ground. There were many play where Barr never even comes in contact with anyone else on the field - he isn't blocked, he doesn't run into anyone, he doesn't even touch anyone with his hands. He takes a few steps and when the play is over, he's standing there looking like "What happened?"
He's arguably more raw as a rookie than Patterson. He's only been playing the position for three years. There's going to be quite the learning curve. Thankfully he's in good hands. My expectations for him early are relatively low. I'm hoping we'll see some solid improvement out of him throughout the year. It'll be rough going initially, though, which is to be expected.
“Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that.” --- Bill Shankly
Purple Reign
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1292
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:17 pm
Location: St. Paul, MN
x 6

Re: Preseason game #2: Vikings - Cardinals game thread 8/16

Post by Purple Reign »

Adrianpeterson28mvp wrote: Exactly. What if it was really windy and an attempted backwards lateral ended up going forward. Would it still count because the intent was to lateral it backwards. What about the college kicker who kicked a ball in the air and it was so windy that it resulted in a negative punt. Should those negative yards not count because he intended to push it forward?

Intent shouldn't be considered in the NFL, a result, is a result. I'm not too worked up about that single play anymore. Just some consistency among the rules would be nice. The rule says one thing, the rule appears to be broken, but it's let go because one's "intent" differentiated from what actually happened? Not how it should work.
So are you saying if a player tried to dive on loose ball and it squirted forward then it should be a penalty? That is why the rule specifically states a player can not 'intentionally' bat the ball forward. While I agree it would make the ref's job easier, I don't think you can remove intent in that situation.
User avatar
Thaumaturgist
Pro Bowl Elite Player
Posts: 908
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 7:29 am
x 83
Contact:

Re: Preseason game #2: Vikings - Cardinals game thread 8/16

Post by Thaumaturgist »

Purple Reign wrote:
So are you saying if a player tried to dive on loose ball and it squirted forward then it should be a penalty? That is why the rule specifically states a player can not 'intentionally' bat the ball forward. While I agree it would make the ref's job easier, I don't think you can remove intent in that situation.
I know what you're saying, but how do you know for sure what the intent was? Maybe it's clear in that situation, but isn't it cleaner to just say a fumble can't move forward? Then there is no judging intent which may be subjective.
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: Preseason game #2: Vikings - Cardinals game thread 8/16

Post by Mothman »

Thaumaturgist wrote: I know what you're saying, but how do you know for sure what the intent was? Maybe it's clear in that situation, but isn't it cleaner to just say a fumble can't move forward? Then there is no judging intent which may be subjective.

I think they're probably mean visible intent, not the player's thought process. It's a way to differentiate between situations like the hypothetical dive Purple Reign mentioned, the wind interference someone else mentioned, odd rolls of the ball, etc. If a player clearly tries to pitch or bat the ball in a legal direction and then it bounces, rolls, gets deflected, blown or otherwise sent in a different direction, the officials probably base their choice on the intent indicated by the initial trajectory of the ball and what they saw the player try to do.

Put simply, if they can see that the ball started off going in the right direction, they don't care what happens next. They'll consider it a legal play and a live ball.

That's what Saturday's decision and a reading of the various rules involved suggests to me anyway...
User avatar
PurpleKoolaid
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8641
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 9:52 pm
x 28

Re: Preseason game #2: Vikings - Cardinals game thread 8/16

Post by PurpleKoolaid »

As far as the offense, I think we will be in much better form at the start of the season. But again, Kalil has bust written all over him. I said this last year too. Load is looking better in almost every aspect of a OT.

The D is going to be the big problem. Why we picked a freak like Barr, that has only 1 real ability, rushing the passer, still has me wondering. We need run stoppers, and for the love of god, a LB that can cover. Barr isn't that. The opponents are going to tear us apart in the middle all day long, unless Zimmer has some plan he hasn't shown us. I just cant believe Jasper is starting for us again.
Reignman
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1372
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 1:58 am

Re: Preseason game #2: Vikings - Cardinals game thread 8/16

Post by Reignman »

Thaumaturgist wrote: I know what you're saying, but how do you know for sure what the intent was? Maybe it's clear in that situation, but isn't it cleaner to just say a fumble can't move forward? Then there is no judging intent which may be subjective.
I think we can make it even easier than that. Why don't we just say all backward laterals/passes are subject to the same rules and standards, and avoid a refs interpretation of intent entirely? The end result was the ball was moving forward. But I could care less either way, on all 4th down and 2 minute plays, the fumbling player should be the only player who can advance the loose ball. Should be simple. And if you want to bring intent into the equation, then the center intended to snap the ball to Lindley, not the lineman or Bauman. Lindley got credited with the fumble.

nfl.com
(1:20) (Shotgun) 14-R.Lindley FUMBLES (Aborted) at MIN 10, recovered by ARI-35-Z.Bauman at MIN 10. 35-Z.Bauman for 10 yards, TOUCHDOWN. The Replay Official challenged the backward pass ruling, and the play was Upheld. The ruling on the field stands.
John_Viveiros wrote:Not that it's important - thank God it was preseason, and not the NFC Championship game screwing us over - but intent is really superfluous in any other setting I can think of for such things. If a QB lobs a pass to a running back towards the sidelines, and it starts out slightly forward, but the wind blows it so that it hits the ground slightly behind where it is thrown, it's a lateral/fumble. It's where the ball ends up, not the QB's intent or the direction of first motion.
That's exactly how I look at it. Wind can screw up intent, why not friction? Did the lineman intend to put a little spin on the ball lol? Heck sometimes it's not even wind. Most swing passes are designed to be forward, but some of them end up being backward because the back takes a deeper route, or QB throws it too soon. Remember the controversy with Peyton Mannings passing yards record last year? A backward pass was incorrectly ruled, reviewed, and allowed to stand as a forward pass so Manning could keep the record. Had the "pass" been dropped, it would have been a fumble, not incomplete.
"Our playoff loss to the Vikings in '87 was probably the most traumatic experience I had in sports." -- Bill Walsh
User avatar
Thaumaturgist
Pro Bowl Elite Player
Posts: 908
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 7:29 am
x 83
Contact:

Re: Preseason game #2: Vikings - Cardinals game thread 8/16

Post by Thaumaturgist »

Reignman wrote:That's exactly how I look at it. Wind can screw up intent, why not friction? Did the lineman intend to put a little spin on the ball lol? Heck sometimes it's not even wind. Most swing passes are designed to be forward, but some of them end up being backward because the back takes a deeper route, or QB throws it too soon. Remember the controversy with Peyton Mannings passing yards record last year? A backward pass was incorrectly ruled, reviewed, and allowed to stand as a forward pass so Manning could keep the record. Had the "pass" been dropped, it would have been a fumble, not incomplete.
Yes, but his intent was to pass it forward, and that's why they let the record stand. :wink: :rofl:
Purple bruise
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3565
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:55 pm

Re: Preseason game #2: Vikings - Cardinals game thread 8/16

Post by Purple bruise »

acousticrock wrote:Watching Teddy destroy the Cardinals on that final drive reminded me of the AD's first preseason when he ran over those Jets players on his way out of bounds. They were both special rookie preseason moments. Made me realize I haven't been this excited for a rookie since AD.
I have to agree but I was pretty excited to watch Patterson last year (his rookie season).
Do not mistake KINDNESS for WEAKNESS!


Best to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool rather than open it and remove all doubt.
indianation65
Pro Bowl Elite Player
Posts: 545
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 9:52 am
x 3

Re: Preseason game #2: Vikings - Cardinals game thread 8/16

Post by indianation65 »

The NFL Network is televising past preseason games. The Vikings aren't getting much love. Oh well, it's expected...I've seen one heading for the Vikes/Cards game. It was in the middle of the night.

GB, Browns, Pats, Seahawks seem to get most of the airtime, so far.

Addendum: After the Vikings kick major tail this year they'll get more air next season. It's the way things work. Being in Dallas sure is hard on a Viking fan.

...wisdom
...spirits in the wind and the trees
DK Sweets
Career Elite Player
Posts: 2908
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 8:46 am
Location: Missouri

Re: Preseason game #2: Vikings - Cardinals game thread 8/16

Post by DK Sweets »

acousticrock wrote:Watching Teddy destroy the Cardinals on that final drive reminded me of the AD's first preseason when he ran over those Jets players on his way out of bounds. They were both special rookie preseason moments. Made me realize I haven't been this excited for a rookie since AD.
This post hit me somewhere special and all of a sudden my excitement level is far too high to be sensible.

Image
Post Reply