Vikings vs. Lions postgame

[J. Kapp 11]

So ... weird.

Had to work yesterday until 8, with the exception of a 3-hour break to watch Vikings-Lions. Came here this morning expecting conversation about the game.

But there's none.

What's up, guys? Great day of football? Game was too boring to talk about? Everybody got drunk? Virtual fistfights in the chat room?

I'll start the conversation.

Yesterday's game was confusing. Rhodes on the bench a lot (not that confusing, but more surprising). The Vikings got a 17-point lead and basically tanked the offense. Zimmer expresses disappointment in not getting the shutout, yet played the softest prevent defense in Vikings history to give up the lone Detroit score.

Yesterday's game was kinda boring. No, it was just plain boring. One nice deep completion to Diggs, and that was about it. Pretty much the only other excitement on offense was the 36-yard completion to Laquon Treadwell, who is weirdly averaging 20.4 yards per reception.

Good
Cousins was pretty sharp. Had a great first half (17-of-20 for 182 and a TD). Then the Vikings mysteriously decided that punting was a great strategy against an overmatched Detroit team. I was honestly surprised to see that we ended up with 10 pass attempts in the second half.

Nice drive for a TD in less than a minute at the end of the first half.

Danielle Hunter. That wasn't fair. Poor Rick Wagner. He had no chance.

The (gulp) DBs. Pretty solid effort against a couple of good receivers. I liked what Mike Hughes showed yesterday. And don't look now, but Andrew Sendejo is second on the team in interceptions (again ... weird).

Rush defense. OK, Detroit is not a good running team. Which means we should have held them down. We did.

Diggs had a nice game and no drops that I can remember.

We're 9-4, which is good because the Rams are getting hot.

Bad
Entertainment value. I don't know what it was, but it was just sort of a turd game to watch. I'm sitting at a restaurant bar watching the game (Fox in my area covered Packers-Redskins, which was even more of a turd game by definition because it was the Packers) and we were all wondering when the game was going to start. Next thing we knew, it was time to go home. New Orleans-San Francisco was on the TV next to the Vikings game, and it was hard not to switch my attention over to that one.

Prevent defense. Again, Zimmer ... don't play prevent then complain when your team doesn't finish the shutout.

We're now 9-4, better than many thought we'd do for the entire season. Up next, the Chargers. Big game. They're all big games now.

What are your thoughts?

[Dames]

There were very few chatting during the game itself. I think we had 5 at the most at one time, but I wasn't there the whole time either. Honestly, there was VERY little to talk about.

The D played very well against an obviously inferior opponent. A shutout would have been fun, but we played too soft in the 2nd half. Not a big deal.

Our offense let them hang in there for too long, but there was never any doubt about the game. Basically, we did as little as we could to get by. We didn't play poorly, but there was just nothing to talk about.

Cook played enough to show that his health was fine. I was surprised he got 19 touches, because he didn't play much in the 2nd half. We didn't need him to. We didn't rush the ball very well though, so that's a bit concerning. (less than 3.4 per carry)

We didn't take many deep shots, but we didn't need it. Cousins was mostly efficient. He was off-target early in the game, and his receivers were helping him a lot. He settled down some after the 1st quarter. But, nothing much to complain about. Just game-script. I was hoping maybe they would open it up more and go for the jugular, because the game was boring.

For one of the few times in my life I was just ready for the game to be done so I could watch the more interesting SF-NO game.

I'm not complaining about a win, and I'm very glad that we handled them fairly easily. We did what we needed to get an important win.

On to the Chargers, who absolutely shredded Jacksonville yesterday. 45-10

[StumpHunter]

The defense came to play against a terrible offense and the offense struggled at times against a terrible defense.

I think Patricia had the scheme to stop our screen and short passing game, he just didn't have the talent to keep the O contained for the entire game. We need Theilen back to add another dimension to the offense or I don't think we win another game this season. Patricia kind of gave the league a blueprint on how to stop the Vikings offense without Theilen, and I guarantee a better Chargers defense will follow that blueprint this Sunday.

Rhodes and Hughes seemed to work pretty well, with 1 reception on the pair. Waynes was the weak link in the secondary against the pass, but was really good as usual against the run. Hill struggled in limited time, but that was in prevent, so who maybe that soft coverage is by design.

The LBers and Dline were really good in this game.

STs we actually saw some nice punt returns.

Not a very interesting game and not a lot to glean from it outside of that we need Theilen back.

[ERIK the PURPLE]

Yeah, the game was definitely on the boring side, especially in the second half. The first half score of 17-0 was definitely deceiving as it could easily have been 10-3. I spent much of the first half dropping f bombs as the Vikes continually shot themselves in the foot. I mean it seemed like the entire first half was played on the Lions side of the field.
Also, I’m definitely done with watching CJ or Dalvin crash up the middle on short yardage situations. We don’t move people off the line of scrimmage well enough to succeed at that (see Bear’s game). Speaking of the Bears, I would love to see them beat GB this week. I don’t know about you but Rodgers is really starting to look old out there. Winning the Division and possibly getting a bye if we win out would really make this season special.

[cstelter]

We're 9-4, which is good because the Rams are getting hot.

Ugh-- I'm conflicted about next week. On the one had if the Bears beat the Packers, then all we need to do is win our final 3 to get the division and possibly (very remote) even a bye. OTOH if the Bears beat the Packers and we manage to lose 2 of the next 3, I think we lose the wildcard to the Bears (or we both lose the wildcard to the Rams).

OTOH if the Packers win and we win just one more we don't need to worry about the Bears-- just the Rams. Had SEA taken care of the Rams last night having the Packers beat the Bears was feeling like the more "sure thing" to the Vikings being in the playoffs.

Today, our path to the playoffs just seems in jeopardy, which is awful for a team that simply needs 3 wins-- one against a 5-8 team, one against a 7-6 team and one against a 10-2 team, two of which are at home. But if we lose just one game against either the Packers or Bears and we have 4 conference losses meaning LARams would get the wildcard by winning their final 3 against the Cowboys, 49ers, & Cardinals. Granted the 49ers game is a tough one.

I guess I just have flashbacks to many former teams which have been in a win out and good things happen that end with "No! No! The Arizona Cardinals have knocked the Vikings out of the playofs"

If they can win these final 3, (which I think they *should* be able to), all will be fine and we'll either be a 12-4 wildcard team or division champs should the bears or even the lions manage to beat GB down the stretch. But there are not-so-unrealistic scenarios where just one or two losses has it all slipping away.

[Pondering Her Percy]

We're 9-4, which is good because the Rams are getting hot.

Ugh-- I'm conflicted about next week. On the one had if the Bears beat the Packers, then all we need to do is win our final 3 to get the division and possibly (very remote) even a bye. OTOH if the Bears beat the Packers and we manage to lose 2 of the next 3, I think we lose the wildcard to the Bears (or we both lose the wildcard to the Rams).

OTOH if the Packers win and we win just one more we don't need to worry about the Bears-- just the Rams. Had SEA taken care of the Rams last night having the Packers beat the Bears was feeling like the more "sure thing" to the Vikings being in the playoffs.

Today, our path to the playoffs just seems in jeopardy, which is awful for a team that simply needs 3 wins-- one against a 5-8 team, one against a 7-6 team and one against a 10-2 team, two of which are at home. But if we lose just one game against either the Packers or Bears and we have 4 conference losses meaning LARams would get the wildcard by winning their final 3 against the Cowboys, 49ers, & Cardinals. Granted the 49ers game is a tough one.

I guess I just have flashbacks to many former teams which have been in a win out and good things happen that end with "No! No! The Arizona Cardinals have knocked the Vikings out of the playofs"

If they can win these final 3, (which I think they *should* be able to), all will be fine and we'll either be a 12-4 wildcard team or division champs should the bears or even the lions manage to beat GB down the stretch. But there are not-so-unrealistic scenarios where just one or two losses has it all slipping away.

I think the Bears can definitely beat the Packers. I mean what is better for us? The Packers beating the bears and getting them off our back or the Bears winning and giving us a shot at the division?

The rams schedule is tougher than it seems. The only home game they have is Arizona. Dallas isnt a gimme game and SF on the road is tough. Seattle really blew it last night. Their defense is just not anywhere near what it use to be.

As for us, I dont know why but I'm not worried about any of these remaining games. Nobody panics more in the pocket than Rivers. Zim NEEDS to blitz him early and often and have these DEs pin their ears back. Granted we have to contain Gordon but there should be no reason we cant get after Rivers and rattle this entire offense. He's turned the ball over non-stop this year. Their defense is solid and should be a good test for this offense. They are #4 in total defense. We really need to get this running game back on track. Their defense is 4th against the pass but only 17th against the run. I really fricken hope Thielen is back. I feel like this is the never ending hamstring injury.

As for GB, I think they are the biggest joke of a 10-3 team I've seen. Their defense is NOT good for as much as the media talked them up early on. And it sucks we played them when we did because if we played them anytime after week 4, when this offense started hitting it's stride, they are toast IMO. Rodgers doesnt scare me anymore. I'm more worried about Jones than him to be honest.

As for Chicago, if they are eliminated I can see them laying down week 17. If not, Trubisky is playing much better. But for whatever reason, it's still not a game that worries me.

Going to get real interesting soon. It's sad that a really good team in the NFC is going to miss the playoffs but you have joke teams like Pitt getting into the playoffs in the AFC. I dont even think Buffalo is that good. Just a crap schedule. Houston is notorious for playing to their level of competition. They go beat NE but get smoked by Denver. NE looks much weaker than what we've seen in the past. The two best teams are Baltimore and KC I think and KC is still somewhat of a question mark IMO. The NFC compared to the AFC is so lopsided it's not even funny.

[VikingLord]

It was kind of hard to watch after the game against the Seahawks. It just seems like the Vikings missed a huge opportunity against the Seahawks, and, at least for me, the pervading feeling watching the Vikings against the Lions was "meh". The Lions were a team they should beat, and maybe even beat convincingly, but there is almost a vibe that this is just another one of those years where the Vikings are good but not great, competitive against better teams but not capable of winning those games, etc.

On the bright side, the Rams took a highlighter out and showed how to beat the Seahawks. If you can get ahead of them and force them to throw, they're dead. Trick is to get them into that position.

But back to the Vikings.... Yeah, I know. "Meh" is not the emotion I should have after a win. It sucks to think like that, and I'm sure some on here will call me out on it, but so far, it is what it is, and yesterday's result is pretty much par for the course of this season. The defense did play better, and the offense was efficient if unspectacular. It would have been nice to see the offense get more aggressive down the field, but taking what is there and executing those plays well is fine as long as the result is a win.

I'm beginning to wonder if we'll see Thielen again this season. Whatever is going on with his hammy seems a lot more significant than what was originally reported. His absence is going to hurt if the Vikings make the playoffs.

[Dames]

Ugh-- I'm conflicted about next week. On the one had if the Bears beat the Packers, then all we need to do is win our final 3 to get the division and possibly (very remote) even a bye. OTOH if the Bears beat the Packers and we manage to lose 2 of the next 3, I think we lose the wildcard to the Bears (or we both lose the wildcard to the Rams).

OTOH if the Packers win and we win just one more we don't need to worry about the Bears-- just the Rams. Had SEA taken care of the Rams last night having the Packers beat the Bears was feeling like the more "sure thing" to the Vikings being in the playoffs.

I'm mildly mixed about this one too, but I have to cheer for the Bears. It potentially gives us a much better path in the playoffs. Yes, there is definite risk that we let the Bears steal our spot, but the way I see it, I'd rather have a week at home, than be forced to go on the road. We want to go in on winning streak, so I'd prefer we just take care of business ourselves rather than having the Packers do our dirty work. If the Packers win, well... it's fine for us, but basically gives us no shot at the division. (We would have a ~10% chance if the Packers win, even if we win.) BTW, the Bears winning doesn't really affect our chances as long as we keep winning. The Rams are currently a much bigger threat to us.

Today, our path to the playoffs just seems in jeopardy, which is awful for a team that simply needs 3 wins-- one against a 5-8 team, one against a 7-6 team and one against a 10-2 team, two of which are at home. But if we lose just one game against either the Packers or Bears and we have 4 conference losses meaning LARams would get the wildcard by winning their final 3 against the Cowboys, 49ers, & Cardinals. Granted the 49ers game is a tough one.

I guess I just have flashbacks to many former teams which have been in a win out and good things happen that end with "No! No! The Arizona Cardinals have knocked the Vikings out of the playofs"

If they can win these final 3, (which I think they *should* be able to), all will be fine and we'll either be a 12-4 wildcard team or division champs should the bears or even the lions manage to beat GB down the stretch. But there are not-so-unrealistic scenarios where just one or two losses has it all slipping away.

Jeopardy is maybe too strong of a word, because we are in the driver's seat, but we are not a lock for sure. Not much went our way this weekend other than the Viking winning. The SF win kept our dreams alive for a bye, but our playoffs chances technically got worse this week. We are at 72% now to make the playoffs.

There's actually a scenario where the Vikes and the Rams win out, we get the 2 seed, and the Packers lose 2 of 3 to finish 11-5 and miss the playoffs completely. Rams get 6 seed. That would be delicious. Of course, we go also go 11-5 and miss the playoffs too. There are so many things that can happen.

It starts with taking care of business in LA next week. Not an easy task.

[StumpHunter]

I was actually happy Seattle lost. The Rams winning just hurts our chances of getting the 6 seed, but it actually helps us improve our seeding in the playoffs. If we can't stay ahead of the Rams we don't deserve to make the playoffs, and being the #5 seed is so much better than limping in as the #6 seed.

Who would you rather play at home WC weekend? GB or Dallas? That Rams win gave us a shot to go to Dallas.

[The negotiator]

Something that is baffling me is how much separation is there with our receivers? Maybe I’m looking at this wrong and you guys have an answer. In Washington, Kirk had two 1000 yd receivers who could flat out get open, especially Jackson. He could track down anything deep. We have two great receivers. Granted, Thieland is out and Diggs is double teamed a lot. But even the two throws to Diggs were spectacular catches. The one where he gets both feet in on the sideline and the deep ball where he made a highlight reel catch. He was covered like a blanket on both catches. Both were throws that had to be perfect.
Kirk, for most of the game had time to throw. Is it that the rest of the receiving core just can’t get open. Is it the zone coverage that throws them off. When you watch some of the other really good teams play, they seem to have really creative play calling. Kirk didn’t have the talent in Washington but he had McVey and Shanahan for awhile. They had some innovative plays to create 7-8 wins on a bad team. Are we just a vanilla offense. Watching those other games yesterday, guys are open, sometimes backyard football, but for the most part guys are open a lot.
We have really good players for the most part, but something is missing. A win is a win and we are 9-4, but it feels like opposing teams can key in on what we do well because we are not as creative when we really need a play to keep a drive going. I like our team and would be interested in anyone’s take. I think we will make the playoffs, just not sure how far we can go.

[mansquatch]

Not much to say about the game itself, it was a very methodical win, not really exciting. We were at home and defensively, we were too much for their injury depleted offense. Defensively, their unit gave us challenges, so for me the biggest positive was how well the Vikings did taking care of the football and not taking stupid risks. Very disciplined.

Looking ahead, I agree that all games are must win. Again, GB showed that it isn't the juggernaut it's record initially indicates. They had to hold on against a hapless Redskins team, unable to muster much second half offense after going up 14-0 early. GB vs CHI is this week,, IMO, the best chance for GB to stumble. Bears have been surging, but their past three wins are not that impressive, they beat NYG, Lions, and Dallas. Of the 3, the DAL win is the only impressive win. Still, it should give them some confidence going into the rivalry game against GB. We need them to knock off the Pack.

NO stumbled vs. SF. They play Colts, @ Titans, and @ Panthers. The next two are teams that need to win for playoff aspirations. The #2 seed is still in play, no guarantee they will win out.

Vikings need to keep winning and then see how the Saints/ Packers shake out.

[Dames]

It was kind of hard to watch after the game against the Seahawks. It just seems like the Vikings missed a huge opportunity against the Seahawks, and, at least for me, the pervading feeling watching the Vikings against the Lions was "meh". The Lions were a team they should beat, and maybe even beat convincingly, but there is almost a vibe that this is just another one of those years where the Vikings are good but not great, competitive against better teams but not capable of winning those games, etc.

Honestly, it felt way more like the Vikings just went purposely vanilla (like they did against Washington) vs under-performing. I think had they really wanted to push the ball down-field, they could have. Kirk was hitting what he wanted, they just weren't calling much. It's not a strategy I like at all, but I felt that was what they were doing. Purposely holding back. Sure, they made some mistakes, but they were not aggressive outside the drive before the half. They made that drive look easy. I think if they had come out firing in the 2nd half instead of being conservative it would have turned into a massive blow out.

On the bright side, the Rams took a highlighter out and showed how to beat the Seahawks. If you can get ahead of them and force them to throw, they're dead. Trick is to get them into that position.

Exactly. It really makes the Vikings strategy on Defense last week even more frustrating. Had they tried to lock down the run like I wanted them to, I think we win that game. Just a real head-scratcher for me why they let them run it down their throats. I don't get that at all.

But back to the Vikings.... Yeah, I know. "Meh" is not the emotion I should have after a win. It sucks to think like that, and I'm sure some on here will call me out on it, but so far, it is what it is, and yesterday's result is pretty much par for the course of this season. The defense did play better, and the offense was efficient if unspectacular. It would have been nice to see the offense get more aggressive down the field, but taking what is there and executing those plays well is fine as long as the result is a win.

I don't think there is any other way to describe that game. I feel the same way. We took care of business and got the win, but there isn't much to celebrate other than we made it look relatively easy. There was never a spot where it felt like there was danger of letting it slip away. I would have preferred they keep the pedal down, but I think I just wanted something to happen. For me, I don't feel at all discouraged by how the players executed. I think this was game-flow related. Had the momentum started to shift, I think we could have flipped the switch on Offense.

I'm beginning to wonder if we'll see Thielen again this season. Whatever is going on with his hammy seems a lot more significant than what was originally reported. His absence is going to hurt if the Vikings make the playoffs.

I won't lie, it's worrying me too. There is a rumor that he expects to be back next week. I hope so... as long as he is well. We really could use him. He changes our passing game so much. If we don't have him for the playoffs, I don't like our chances nearly as much. Bisi and Treadwell are fine, but nothing special. Much better suited as WR3 or WR4. On the other hand, we could be really dangerous if Thielen is back and healthy.

[VikeFanInEagleLand]

Something that is baffling me is how much separation is there with our receivers? Maybe I’m looking at this wrong and you guys have an answer. In Washington, Kirk had two 1000 yd receivers who could flat out get open, especially Jackson. He could track down anything deep. We have two great receivers. Granted, Thieland is out and Diggs is double teamed a lot. But even the two throws to Diggs were spectacular catches. The one where he gets both feet in on the sideline and the deep ball where he made a highlight reel catch. He was covered like a blanket on both catches. Both were throws that had to be perfect.
Kirk, for most of the game had time to throw. Is it that the rest of the receiving core just can’t get open. Is it the zone coverage that throws them off. When you watch some of the other really good teams play, they seem to have really creative play calling. Kirk didn’t have the talent in Washington but he had McVey and Shanahan for awhile. They had some innovative plays to create 7-8 wins on a bad team. Are we just a vanilla offense. Watching those other games yesterday, guys are open, sometimes backyard football, but for the most part guys are open a lot.
We have really good players for the most part, but something is missing. A win is a win and we are 9-4, but it feels like opposing teams can key in on what we do well because we are not as creative when we really need a play to keep a drive going. I like our team and would be interested in anyone’s take. I think we will make the playoffs, just not sure how far we can go.

I don't really know why there aren't more passes being thrown downfield, unless that's a definite offensive game plan. Essentially looking at dump passes first and then downfield if that's not there? There were two plays yesterday where they showed a replay after the play from behind the QB angle (I'm pretty sure one of the plays was a shot pass to Ham)...both plays Cousins had no pressure and showed a receiver wide open downfield (I couldn't make out who they were) but both wee dumped off short.

I hope that they start opening things up soon.

[mansquatch]

the short passing of late has been in response to playing teams with strong pass rushers. That and our OL/RB are probably NFL best in the screen game. This is a great example of how much better Stefanski / Kubiak has been at game planning vs. the JDF disaster. Coaching matters...

[StumpHunter]

the short passing of late has been in response to playing teams with strong pass rushers. That and our OL/RB are probably NFL best in the screen game. This is a great example of how much better Stefanski / Kubiak has been at game planning vs. the JDF disaster. Coaching matters...

I don't think so. If that were the case, you would see a dramatic decrease in time to throw, and we haven't outside of the Denver game. With the Denver game, Cousins averaged more air yards per completion than any of the past 4 games. Which is weird because they have the best pass rush we have faced, and got to Cousins more than any team since Chicago.

Plus, Seattle is actually really bad at rushing the passer this season, yet we only had 2 passes completed over 10 yards.

It is almost like the play calling gets way more conservative when we play big games. Like they are afraid of a repeat of GB and Chicago.