Preseason game #2: Vikings - Cardinals game thread 8/16
Moderator: Moderators
Re: Preseason game #2: Vikings - Cardinals game thread 8/16
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.
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!
Re: Preseason game #2: Vikings - Cardinals game thread 8/16
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.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 ???
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?"
-
- 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
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.Eli wrote:Kalil had some plays where he looked like he did much of last year. He looks confused or something.
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.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?"
“Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that.” --- Bill Shankly
-
- 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
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.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.
- 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
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.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.
Re: Preseason game #2: Vikings - Cardinals game thread 8/16
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...
- 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
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.
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.
Re: Preseason game #2: Vikings - Cardinals game thread 8/16
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.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.
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.
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.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.
"Our playoff loss to the Vikings in '87 was probably the most traumatic experience I had in sports." -- Bill Walsh
- 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
Yes, but his intent was to pass it forward, and that's why they let the record stand.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.
-
- Hall of Fame Candidate
- Posts: 3565
- Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:55 pm
Re: Preseason game #2: Vikings - Cardinals game thread 8/16
I have to agree but I was pretty excited to watch Patterson last year (his rookie season).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.
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.
Best to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool rather than open it and remove all doubt.
-
- 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
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
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
Re: Preseason game #2: Vikings - Cardinals game thread 8/16
This post hit me somewhere special and all of a sudden my excitement level is far too high to be sensible.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.