Eagles @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 15

[PurpleKoolaid]

I don't root for them to lose during the game, especially against the Eagles, but after the game I realize that wins at this point are more of a detriment to the future of this organization than a benefit.

I know what you mean. But it gets old hearing about how we are screwing up our draft choice(s), when we really don't know who is even going to be out there. And do you really trust this organization, the way it is, with a rookie QB? I know I don't. And I don't trust Rickie making the right pick. He panics. At least this way we know we have a good starting QB next year, while whatever QB Rickie picks gets to watch and learn. Maybe even 2 rookies if we can dump Ponder forever. I love watching my Vikes win. And it ticks me off when people try to make you feel bad for doing that. And a win binds a team, for next year, not just this year.

[purpletinted66]

i noticed freeman was listed inactive, and thought ponder was too - did any body catch who was our official 2nd and 3rd qb's for the game? i wonder what was wrong with freeman...

[PurpleKoolaid]

i noticed freeman was listed inactive, and thought ponder was too - did any body catch who was our official 2nd and 3rd qb's for the game? i wonder what was wrong with freeman...

Nothing. Fraizer just cant let it go.

[Just Me]

Agreed - there are just too many inconsistent calls. But I'm not really sure what can be done about it when penalties like PI are interpretive by the officials. You see one where a defender is draped all over a receiver and no call, and then another where a defender just putting his hand on the receiver will get flagged for it. But yeah, the Gerhart fumble that wasn't overturned after review is a real head scratcher.

As far as the taunting penalty not being offset by the shove, I think that's the way it should be called. It really doesn't do any good to flag both players (unless the 2nd guy throws a punch or something really flagrant - the shove wasn't that bad I didn't think). I think the refs have been instructed to flag the instigator in a case like that. I know a lot of times the ref will only see the retaliator and flag him. I'm sure there are opposite views on this, but this is my opinion.

I can see that view to an extent, but (to me) that only encourages retaliation by the other player (Simpson in the above example). Since the referees will only enforce one of the two fouls (taunting or unsportsmanlike) he'd be ahead to shove the other player back (since apparently the referees are not going to hold him accountable for the shove.)

I'm not saying the taunting isn't an issue, I'm saying it shouldn't be an excuse for a 'free shot' at another player (which is the way I'm seeing this). Call Simpson for the penalty, by all means, but don't turn your ahead on inappropriate behavior of another just because they happen to be the 'victim' of taunting.

[maembe]

i noticed freeman was listed inactive, and thought ponder was too - did any body catch who was our official 2nd and 3rd qb's for the game? i wonder what was wrong with freeman...

Ponder was the 2nd QB. I didn't even see Freeman on the sideline.

[Webbfann]

Except that Cassel was signed to be our backup qb, not a starter. Yeah, he won the game against Pittsburgh and was rewarded with a start the next game, but that doesn't mean that the Vikings shouldn't try to improve themselves by getting a 'starting' qb. So are you saying because they signed Freeman that that is the reason Cassel didn't perform very well against the Panthers? Every player on the team is competing for their job and I don't think you can use signing Freeman as an excuse for his bad game. Now I'm not saying that I agree with throwing him into a game when he didn't really have time to learn the offense, but I understand the logic that they wanted to see what Freeman would do in a game to see if he was their qb of the future. As I said, Cassel was signed to primarily be a backup and not a starter so I don't really see it as a slap in the face. If anything, I would call it a slap in Ponder's face, not Cassel's.

Yes, I have said that the Freeman signing was a slap in the face many times and not only to Cassel, but TO THE WHOLE TEAM who had just found a guy they could (and did) call a leader. And not only was the signing a slap, pulling him after one bad performance was yet another slap, and not putting him back in after Freeman's flop was yet another.

If you think Cassel didn't sign with us because he knew his odds of beating out Ponder for the starting job weren't excellent, I want some of what you're smoking. Of course he signed here in hopes of starting! He's been a starter for most of 5 years! Of course he knew his initial job was backup, but he also knew Ponder was probably a bust and there would be an opening soon because the whole freaking world knew it except Frazier.

[Webbfann]

I'm pretty sure I correctly predicted some disastrous losses this year too.

Yes I think Cassel with our receiving corp is an excellent starting group for next year. I liked what I saw from his first game with us, and he raises the play of everyone on the offense. We should dump Ponder and draft a QB too because you never know what will happen, but we should not start anyone else Matt is playing well and winning. That would be just stupid.

And for god's sake, fire Frazier.

Yes, that's what I meant. I was just wondering if you are one of these guys that always predicts a Vikings win, just out of homerism, in which case you'd have a poor record this year!

You're high on Cassel: do you think he's our starter for next year?

I think we need to re-sign him and draft a guy in the 2nd or 3rd; no one at the very top is a total slam dunk.

[Purple Reign]

I can see that view to an extent, but (to me) that only encourages retaliation by the other player (Simpson in the above example). Since the referees will only enforce one of the two fouls (taunting or unsportsmanlike) he'd be ahead to shove the other player back (since apparently the referees are not going to hold him accountable for the shove.)

I'm not saying the taunting isn't an issue, I'm saying it shouldn't be an excuse for a 'free shot' at another player (which is the way I'm seeing this). Call Simpson for the penalty, by all means, but don't turn your ahead on inappropriate behavior of another just because they happen to be the 'victim' of taunting.

I can see it both ways. But if you call penalties on both players, what good does it really do? They might as well not call anything - ends up being the same result (offsetting penalties). I would also say that it is usually the 2nd person that gets flagged, the refs usually don't see the initial infraction, so I would contend that a player retaliating doesn't necessarily get a 'free shot'.

[Webbfann]

If Cassel is as good as you think he is. Kansas City wouldn't have cut him.

Because Kansas City decides who is and isn't a good QB? That is a ridiculous statement. Its like saying the car I bought can't be any good or the person wouldn't have sold it. It makes no sense and has no logic attached to it.

He's a backup, who can step in for a few games and play well. He is not a long term starter.

Actually no, he's a 4-5 year starter, who can start as long as he is playing well, and with our receiving corp he seems to play pretty darned well.

[Purple Reign]

If you think Cassel didn't sign with us because he knew his odds of beating out Ponder for the starting job weren't excellent, I want some of what you're smoking. Of course he signed here in hopes of starting! He's been a starter for most of 5 years! Of course he knew his initial job was backup, but he also knew Ponder was probably a bust and there would be an opening soon because the whole freaking world knew it except Frazier.

I sure would hope that Cassel would think he had a shot at being the starting qb, every qb should think that way otherwise they shouldn't be playing. But the Vikings were up front with him when they signed him and told him that Ponder was their starting qb and his role would be the backup. Like someone else said, if he is so great, why did KC (and other teams) let him go? I believe he is an excellent backup, but not a full time starter (IMO). Possibly could be the starter next year if they let Ponder go and draft a qb and want him to sit a year. Yeah, Cassel has been a starter for the last 5 years, but he has been very inconsistent. If he can prove that he can put up numbers consistently like he did today - then of course but I don't think the Vikings are looking at him as their long term starter.

[Webbfann]

I'm seriously starting to think you're related to Cassel.

4-5 year starter?

Even Matt Cassel himself doesn't believe that.

At best he's a 1 year bridge while someone sits and learns behind him.

There you go with telling us what Matt thinks again.

Man, you need to stop whatever you are doing to your brain cells. Matt Cassel started for most of the last 4-5 years. Get it now?

[Just Me]

I can see it both ways. But if you call penalties on both players, what good does it really do? They might as well not call anything - ends up being the same result (offsetting penalties). I would also say that it is usually the 2nd person that gets flagged, the refs usually don't see the initial infraction, so I would contend that a player retaliating doesn't necessarily get a 'free shot'.

I think you are right, but my points are these:

1) Had the Eagles player NOT retaliated for the alleged taunting then there is no issue. Simpson would have allegedly taunted the Eagles player and deserved the penalty. End of story.
2) The Eagles player actually took a chance by shoving Simpson because there is a chance the referee never sees/hears the taunt and only the Eagle player gets flagged.
3) When both fouls are observed (the taunting happened before the shove) you really are saying "it's OK" to react negatively (IMHO inappropriately) to another players bad behavior.

Let's assume (for purposes of making my point) that instead of taunting, Simpson pushed the other player down after the whistle. If the Eagles player retaliated then, wouldn't the refs have called unsportsmanlike on both players? Why is "taunting" treated any differently?

[purpletinted66]

We took care of a top offensive-bottom defensive squad in the Eagles handily in this matchup. With the playcalls emphasizing the passing game, I hope we can work as well on the road and against the top 10 defenses of the Bengals and Lions. I think our defense is improving lately, especially in light of some advantage provided by improved offense.

It was cool that Cassel was getting the ball distributed to anybody open rather than a favorite: with the PI at the end he would have been over 400 yards and all our receivers were able to make some hay. I hope when they figure in Peterson again, that they keep it tricky by picking up those stacked boxes with sharp audibles and work in shovel passes and pitches in lone set back formations.

[Purple bruise]

HAHAHAHA this could quite possibly be the worst Vikings home loss in a long time. Good thing I am starting Nick Foles in my fantasy playoffs!


But hey, at least we activated Harrison Smith to play in 3 meaningless games so we can risk further injury to him!


Also, it is just GREAT to see Josh Freeman inactive again.


Here is to all the laughs that will arise today during the game! Skol.

Who is laughing now

[Purple bruise]

I can't get over this rhetoric about "tanking games". Of course the fewer wins the better position in the draft and I do get that BUT.... This is a business where coaches, players and the GM are all struggling to keep their jobs. They need as many wins as possible to do so. They need to put the best "product" on the field week in and week out regardless of their record.
Another important aspect to this are the season ticket holders and fans that attend and watch the games each week. Would anyone like to go to a game, spend money on expensive tickets knowing that "their team" is going to tank the game. How about the sponsers? Do they want to pour their dollars into a team that is intentionally trying to lose game...hell no.
Gambling is a multi-billion dollar business in pro sports and like it or not teams cannot intentionally lose games. It is unethical and in some circumstance illegal. Staying on that thought how do you intentionally lose a game? Do you have your kicker botch a field goal, your running back fumble, tell you players to "miss" tackles, have your QB throw intentional interceptions. If that were to happen the team would surely get fined, lose draft picks and yes even maybe lose their franchise.
As it turns out this team is doing all of those things anyway but are not doing them on purpose. All of the close losses that have happened to them are not a result of tanking games. In fact, many knowledgeable people have commented on how this team HAS NOT QUIT and plays hard every week. Kudos to them!
Some players have performance clauses based on number of games played, number of receptions, rushing yards, tackles, sacks etc. if they are healthy enough to play does anyone suppose that they would not want to? Would they want to give another player the chance to take their job away from them, hell no. Again I would remind people that this is not only a game but a business.[/quote]

Saint said,
"I think your taking the term "tanking" too literal. I would be surprised if there were a fan out there that wants/expects our team to just quit and actually try to lose games. It's more from a fan's perspective, either being ok with a loss because of the draft position, or in some cases hoping for a loss for draft position."[/quote]

Seriously What message boards have you been reading? There are lots of fans saying that the Vikes are foolish to try and win games and they should "tank them".