I find that absurd.
I understand the basic math involved but think about it: the Vikings and Packers finished in a tie in week 2. They had 14 more games in which to determine their own fate and despite the tie, the Vikes were undefeated at that point in the season, at 1-0-1. The playoff spot was clearly lost later, with a no-show against Buffalo and with prime time losses to the Rams, Saints, Bears and Seahawks. It was lost with ineffective offensive performances, particularly against Seattle and Chicago late in the season. It was lost with terrible run defense against winning teams after the bye. It was lost when they were swept by the NFC North winner.
Carlson's misses cost the Vikings half a game in the standings and even putting that much on him is a stretch since it's a team game. He missed two long kicks and then blew a chance at victory by missing a very make-able kick in OT so sure, he deserves criticism. His misses did impact the outcome of that game but that outcome wasn't solely on his shoulders (or leg). He shouldn't be a scapegoat for the loss or the team's inability to reach the postseason. Even in that game, it's not as if he allowed the 29 points GB scored (including a TD on a blocked punt). The Vikes tied that game as a team, just like they won 8 games as a team and lost 7, including 4 down the stretch, any one of which could have helped them reach the postseason if they'd simply played winning football.
Why am I posting about this? I don't know.
It's not as if I have much interest in Carlson one way or the other. I think I just get tired of the excuse-making. Behind the idea that Carlson's misses in week 2 cost the Vikes a playoff spot, there's an implication that they were victims of his performance in that game rather than a team that still had every opportunity in front of them after he was cut and was simply unable to make the playoffs.
