VikingLord wrote:I don't know that I'm complaining per se, but anyone who thinks this was another solid won ala the one against the 49ers is high on purple Kool Aid. The Vikes beat the 49ers convincingly. The Lions could have won that game had their receivers not had a case of the dropsies.
But the Lions didn't win the game. The Vikings won. The Lions lost. That's not going to change.
VikingLord wrote:This looks like Chilly-ball to me. It's the definition of it. Run AD, run AD, run Gerhart, compress the field, throw it short to Harvin, check down, check down, check down, then chuck-and-duck 2-3 times per game and hope for something good to happen.
Yeah, right. Ponder's 27 yard pass to Simpson with only 2:47 minutes left in the game from their own 19 yard line is Chili ball? No, it's not and you know it. Ponder being allowed to audible is Chili ball? Nope. Even Favre got in hot water for doing that. And running AD is solely Chili ball? Come on. BTW, what's wrong with a back as good as AD running a lot?
The Vikings need to open things up. They did throw deep and they'll probably continue to do that, maybe at a greater rate. But don't expect the team to rely solely on spread offenses and do nothing but hurl the ball downfield. It's not going to happen and they probably wouldn't win doing it. Personally, I like the winning part of what they're doing.
VikingLord wrote:That's Chilly-ball, and it's not complaining to point out that is how the Vikes played on offense yesterday and it would have cost them had they not had two returns for touchdowns (something that has happened only 3 times in their 50+ year history).
I see. So you don't respect Harvin or Sherels for having the skills to do that. You think that the two returns for TDs was what, some paranormal event? I don't care if it's the only time it happened. It did happen and it contributed to a win.