Frazier post-game (@NYG) press conference

[VikingHoard]

http://www.vikings.com/media-vault/vide ... f7c9d5aab1

Mostly what you'd expect from Frazier. Mentioned they "played hard" a few times, "didn't make enough plays", repeated "missed opportunities" 5 or 6 times, said they'd have to go back and look at it and see what went wrong.

Of particular note was at just before 2 minutes in he says "So we had some missed opportunities that really, in a game like this when our defense is playing so well and keeps coming up with stops and limiting their opportunities, to not get it done is very frustrating."

I admit, I didn't watch the last half of the game, (although I sort of followed it on nfl.com), but I didn't see our defense playing "so well" during the first half and the giants scored more points in the second. What I saw was most of the stops to their offense seemed to be due to their own screw-ups and not great plays by our defense. Is this comment as off base as I think it is?

[Funkytown]

You're right. Our defense got lucky with missed opportunities by their offense, but played decent at times.

However, compared to our offense?

Our defense was:

[Hunter Morrow]

Zero passion. Zero. Maybe he just really is the Wilfs and Spielman's fall guy.

1:08...

"We had a lot of guys at the line of scrimmage so we couldn't set the run up like we wanted to."

Pardon me, but when you have a guy like Adrian Peterson, don't you use his threat to set your passing game up?
Once you've established a pass threat by hurting your opponent for playing 8 and 9 in the box it opens you up for more 7 and 6 man fronts
and pitches, reverses, screens and other more advanced and threatening running offense against fewer defenders
other than Peterson up the gut 20 times for 30 yards?

That seems like such a backwards thing to say here. "Set up the run" by running obvious plays against 8 and 9 defenders.

[thatguy]

Zero passion. Zero. Maybe he just really is the Wilfs and Spielman's fall guy.

1:08...

"We had a lot of guys at the line of scrimmage so we couldn't set the run up like we wanted to."

Pardon me, but when you have a guy like Adrian Peterson, don't you use his threat to set your passing game up?
Once you've established a pass threat by hurting your opponent for playing 8 and 9 in the box it opens you up for more 7 and 6 man fronts
and pitches, reverses, screens and other more advanced and threatening running offense against fewer defenders
other than Peterson up the gut 20 times for 30 yards?

That seems like such a backwards thing to say here. "Set up the run" by running obvious plays against 8 and 9 defenders.

That's been the philosophy of this team for several years now...this is a Peterson-centric offense. Defenses almost always sell-out against the run against the Vikings. Not much that the Vikings can do with such uncertainty at the QB position. As Freeman settles down like I think he's capable of and opens up the passing game, a better ground game is sure to follow. Make no mistake, this is still a run-first offense.

[PurpleKoolaid]

That's been the philosophy of this team for several years now...this is a Peterson-centric offense. Defenses almost always sell-out against the run against the Vikings. Not much that the Vikings can do with such uncertainty at the QB position. As Freeman settles down like I think he's capable of and opens up the passing game, a better ground game is sure to follow. Make no mistake, this is still a run-first offense.

How can you say that? Tonight, with a QB that prolly hasn't found time yet to find a place to live, and he is sticnking up the place, and its a close game, and AD gets the ball 13 times? Do you read your own posts? How does that make us run first offense? How about last week with 10 carries?