Week 14: Vikings @ Lions predictions

[VikingsFan84]

You need to realize that Vikings will never get any respect until Vikings win the Super Bowl

I realized that about 25 years ago, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the price of eggs.
Whether THE Vikings get respect or not from national media doesn't matter one iota to me. But I can assure you that it does matter to the players and coaches. It will motivate them today.

Well, you are wrong on that since Vikings lost

[Texas Vike]

I realized that about 25 years ago, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the price of eggs.
Whether THE Vikings get respect or not from national media doesn't matter one iota to me. But I can assure you that it does matter to the players and coaches. It will motivate them today.

Well, you are wrong on that since Vikings lost

They lost and the D looked horrible, but I'm pretty sure they were motivated today, so I wasn't wrong about that.

[VikingsFan84]

Well, you are wrong on that since Vikings lost

They lost and the D looked horrible, but I'm pretty sure they were motivated today, so I wasn't wrong about that.

If that makes you feel better than more power to you

[Texas Vike]

They lost and the D looked horrible, but I'm pretty sure they were motivated today, so I wasn't wrong about that.

If that makes you feel better than more power to you

Than?

Not only are you a troll, you're a troll that can't spell. Back on the foe list.

[VikingsFan84]

If that makes you feel better than more power to you

Than?

Not only are you a troll, you're a troll that can't spell. Back on the foe list.

Oh well!

[VikingLord]

Well, you are wrong on that since Vikings lost

They lost and the D looked horrible, but I'm pretty sure they were motivated today, so I wasn't wrong about that.

I think some of them were motivated. Cousins, JJ, Thielen and Osborne all played hard. I can't tell on individual OL performances today. O'Neill got cooked a few times. Brandel did about as well as he's done to this point. Cleveland and Ingram were OK, and Schlottman likewise was OK at center. I felt as groups the Lions DL won the battle against the Vikings OL, though, and not just in the run game, but also rushing the passer. Cousins was under a lot more pressure in his game against the Lions relatively less-heralded DL (compared to some of the DLs the Vikings have faced in recent weeks especially), which surprised me a bit.

I still think KOC's playcalling had a lot to do with the results as well. Very predictable, especially on runs.

Defensively, I don't know what I'm looking at. The Vikings put up some of the worst defensive performances I can recall, so it's hard to say who is playing with motivation on that side of the ball and who is just going through the motions. The DBs don't seem to want it very bad. Could be scheme, but they are the softest group of players. They should do commercials for pillows or something. Might as well get some recognition beyond being the worst secondary in football right now.

The defensive line seems to play hard, but something is missing there too. Where is the pressure in the passing game? Hunter has disappeared for the most part in both the run and pass. Smith is the only guy getting any consistent pressure most games. The interior line does a decent job stopping the run, but zero push. The linebackers are really spotty, especially in pass coverage, and they give up way too much yardage after the catch on short routes.

But I wouldn't say the loss came down to which team was more motivated. I think it came down to which team executed and adjusted better, and that definitely wasn't the Vikings. KOC was thoroughly out-coached today, as was Donatell. While I'm getting used to Donatell's incompetence, KOC's inability to adjust surprised me a little. He seemed intent on forcing things today and he played right into the Lion's hands as a result.

It sucks to watch gritty performances by guys like Cousins and JJ wasted, but its a team game and the rest of the team (most notably the coaches) just didn't show up.

[Texas Vike]

Solid post, as always, VL. I really enjoy reading what you write. You always have measured takes based in careful observation.

Our defense is in shambles and I think we can all see the writing on the wall. If something doesn't change, we won't do anything in the playoffs, where we will face many good offenses.

The whole "motivation" topic in this thread is an unfortunate series of numerous misundertandings, encouraged by one poster's willful gaslighting. I won't rehash the issue. I'll just state that I don't think yesterday's loss was due to overlooking the Lions or lacking motivation (did you see the way Patrick Peterson launched himself with complete disregard for his body on that last FG?), but rather a lack of key players due to injury and poor coaching in all three phases of the game. The defense stunk, but the jump pass by Dalvin at 1st and goal from the one? Terrible call. Getting burned on that fake punt? Inexcusable. Those two plays turned the game around.

[TheCoolerOne]

Solid post, as always, VL. I really enjoy reading what you write. You always have measured takes based in careful observation.

Our defense is in shambles and I think we can all see the writing on the wall. If something doesn't change, we won't do anything in the playoffs, where we will face many good offenses.

The whole "motivation" topic in this thread is an unfortunate series of numerous misundertandings, encouraged by one poster's willful gaslighting. I won't rehash the issue. I'll just state that I don't think yesterday's loss was due to overlooking the Lions or lacking motivation (did you see the way Patrick Peterson launched himself with complete disregard for his body on that last FG?), but rather a lack of key players due to injury and poor coaching in all three phases of the game. The defense stunk, but the jump pass by Dalvin at 1st and goal from the one? Terrible call. Getting burned on that fake punt? Inexcusable. Those two plays turned the game around.

I didn't mind the pop pass attempt. It was going to work, Mundt was set to leak out uncovered. Ingram just got completely decimated on his assignment.

Process over results for me--that was a quality play design. Obviously the results were disastrous, but they set it up right, the Lions were primed to bite, and it is innovation at the goalline, which is something I am all for, considering the past few years of being hellbent on pounding the rock inside the 10 until we score or turn it over on downs.

[Texas Vike]

Solid post, as always, VL. I really enjoy reading what you write. You always have measured takes based in careful observation.

Our defense is in shambles and I think we can all see the writing on the wall. If something doesn't change, we won't do anything in the playoffs, where we will face many good offenses.

The whole "motivation" topic in this thread is an unfortunate series of numerous misundertandings, encouraged by one poster's willful gaslighting. I won't rehash the issue. I'll just state that I don't think yesterday's loss was due to overlooking the Lions or lacking motivation (did you see the way Patrick Peterson launched himself with complete disregard for his body on that last FG?), but rather a lack of key players due to injury and poor coaching in all three phases of the game. The defense stunk, but the jump pass by Dalvin at 1st and goal from the one? Terrible call. Getting burned on that fake punt? Inexcusable. Those two plays turned the game around.

I didn't mind the pop pass attempt. It was going to work, Mundt was set to leak out uncovered. Ingram just got completely decimated on his assignment.

Process over results for me--that was a quality play design. Obviously the results were disastrous, but they set it up right, the Lions were primed to bite, and it is innovation at the goalline, which is something I am all for, considering the past few years of being hellbent on pounding the rock inside the 10 until we score or turn it over on downs.

Totally get what you're saying and part of me is with you. On the other hand, 4 tries from the one? Just pound the rock. Heck, give it to Ham and let him lean in.
But I absolutely do agree with you in general terms: I love KOC's innovation at the goal line. Yesterday, with a decimated OL, I don't know if it was the right call. Maybe it was more on Dalvin and Ingram's lack of execution? And, yes, you could argue that pounding the rock with a decimated OL doesn't make sense either. I get it. Necessity is the mother of invention.

Help me remember: have we seen Dalvin throw effectively before? He looked discombobulated from the second he got the ball.

[TheCoolerOne]

I didn't mind the pop pass attempt. It was going to work, Mundt was set to leak out uncovered. Ingram just got completely decimated on his assignment.

Process over results for me--that was a quality play design. Obviously the results were disastrous, but they set it up right, the Lions were primed to bite, and it is innovation at the goalline, which is something I am all for, considering the past few years of being hellbent on pounding the rock inside the 10 until we score or turn it over on downs.

Totally get what you're saying and part of me is with you. On the other hand, 4 tries from the one? Just pound the rock. Heck, give it to Ham and let him lean in.
But I absolutely do agree with you in general terms: I love KOC's innovation at the goal line. Yesterday, with a decimated OL, I don't know if it was the right call. Maybe it was more on Dalvin and Ingram's lack of execution? And, yes, you could argue that pounding the rock with a decimated OL doesn't make sense either. I get it. Necessity is the mother of invention.

Help me remember: have we seen Dalvin throw effectively before? He looked discombobulated from the second he got the ball.

I don't know that he has, but someone pointed out on a postcast--that play is something you install on Tuesday and practice all week. If that's the case, they certainly liked what they saw from the reps, and picked their spot to call it. I guess I would need to take another look at the play, but from how I remember it, Dalvin was flummoxed because the penetration was so sudden that it ruined everything.

I don't know if he can throw it, but they were at the 6 yard line, so it wasn't setting him up to try and yoke it forty yards. It probably ends up being a 9-11 yard rainbow to a guy standing by himself in the middle of the endzone.

I even think the play was in part designed to help the patchwork OL, just a hat on a hat situation for as long as it takes Dalvin to set up to throw. At 1.5 a clip, the run blocking wasn't exactly giving you the confidence that four tries from the 6 would be a sure thing.

[VikingLord]

I didn't mind the pop pass attempt. It was going to work, Mundt was set to leak out uncovered. Ingram just got completely decimated on his assignment.

Process over results for me--that was a quality play design. Obviously the results were disastrous, but they set it up right, the Lions were primed to bite, and it is innovation at the goalline, which is something I am all for, considering the past few years of being hellbent on pounding the rock inside the 10 until we score or turn it over on downs.

It's too cute play design and unnecessary. Just play action the run with Cook and let Kirk throw the ball. Not that that guarantees the play would be successful either, but handing it to Cook, having him stutter step things only to then have to throw it is like building one of those complex traps to catch a mouse when a simpler trap would do the same job.

The biggest criticism I have of KOC's gameplan yesterday were the run plays, especially on first downs. Every single one he had everyone in tight, allowing the Lions to bring all of their DBs up tight to attack the gaps, which they did with relative ease all game. That is how one of the worst run defenses in the NFL all season ends up allowing only 35 yards rushing for a game.

And KOC, for the first time I can remember, seemed to imply it was the player's inability to execute that caused that and not how obvious the running formations were or the formations themselves. I was flabbergasted by what I was seeing and how consistently the Vikings kept at it. Literally all game was like that.

Not sure what KOC had in mind yesterday. He can blame having two starting OL out if he wants or blame Cook or whoever, but that was just inflexible, piss poor play calling and design. The Vikings were saved only by warrior performances from guys like Cousins and his receivers.

[TheCoolerOne]

I didn't mind the pop pass attempt. It was going to work, Mundt was set to leak out uncovered. Ingram just got completely decimated on his assignment.

Process over results for me--that was a quality play design. Obviously the results were disastrous, but they set it up right, the Lions were primed to bite, and it is innovation at the goalline, which is something I am all for, considering the past few years of being hellbent on pounding the rock inside the 10 until we score or turn it over on downs.

It's too cute play design and unnecessary. Just play action the run with Cook and let Kirk throw the ball. Not that that guarantees the play would be successful either, but handing it to Cook, having him stutter step things only to then have to throw it is like building one of those complex traps to catch a mouse when a simpler trap would do the same job.

The biggest criticism I have of KOC's gameplan yesterday were the run plays, especially on first downs. Every single one he had everyone in tight, allowing the Lions to bring all of their DBs up tight to attack the gaps, which they did with relative ease all game. That is how one of the worst run defenses in the NFL all season ends up allowing only 35 yards rushing for a game.

And KOC, for the first time I can remember, seemed to imply it was the player's inability to execute that caused that and not how obvious the running formations were or the formations themselves. I was flabbergasted by what I was seeing and how consistently the Vikings kept at it. Literally all game was like that.

Not sure what KOC had in mind yesterday. He can blame having two starting OL out if he wants or blame Cook or whoever, but that was just inflexible, piss poor play calling and design. The Vikings were saved only by warrior performances from guys like Cousins and his receivers.

I get it, but that seems reactive to me. If it worked, it's not a conversation, right? I mean whatever game it was where they ran a little jet sweep with Reagor on the one yard line was cute, but it worked, and they've actually come back to that formation in several goal line situations and run something completely different on it, like the fullback dive against the Bills, I think?

Anyway, it's only a flop if it's a flop, so I just am looking at it from a design perspective, and I don't think there was anything wrong with it.

[VikingLord]

I get it, but that seems reactive to me. If it worked, it's not a conversation, right? I mean whatever game it was where they ran a little jet sweep with Reagor on the one yard line was cute, but it worked, and they've actually come back to that formation in several goal line situations and run something completely different on it, like the fullback dive against the Bills, I think?

Anyway, it's only a flop if it's a flop, so I just am looking at it from a design perspective, and I don't think there was anything wrong with it.

I think it's more complex than it has to be. Cook is a RB, and the Vikings could get the same effect and result on that play via a simple play action to Cook where Cousins then turns and throws. If a defender was going to ignore Mundt releasing and focus on Cook, he's going to bite on that regardless of whether Cook actually gets the ball, especially if Cook sells it by plunging hard into the line.

Cook also notably fumbled on the play, probably because he was trying to sell the run with the stutter while bringing the ball up to throw it. Cousins could have fumbled on the play had he kept it too, but Cousins is less likely to do that since he's a QB and does that all the time. He routinely protects the ball when its in a throwing position. Cook doesn't do that very often, and that also increases the risk.

So while I agree with you that had it worked it wouldn't have been criticized as much, it wasn't necessary to use an overly complex play design to accomplish something a simpler design would have accomplished.

KOC got overly cute there and he paid for it.

The jet sweep to Reagor isn't really that complex. It's a quick hitter hand off to a player in motion who then takes it in. The motion makes it a little more complicated, but not that risky in my view.

[TheCoolerOne]

I get it, but that seems reactive to me. If it worked, it's not a conversation, right? I mean whatever game it was where they ran a little jet sweep with Reagor on the one yard line was cute, but it worked, and they've actually come back to that formation in several goal line situations and run something completely different on it, like the fullback dive against the Bills, I think?

Anyway, it's only a flop if it's a flop, so I just am looking at it from a design perspective, and I don't think there was anything wrong with it.

I think it's more complex than it has to be. Cook is a RB, and the Vikings could get the same effect and result on that play via a simple play action to Cook where Cousins then turns and throws. If a defender was going to ignore Mundt releasing and focus on Cook, he's going to bite on that regardless of whether Cook actually gets the ball, especially if Cook sells it by plunging hard into the line.

Cook also notably fumbled on the play, probably because he was trying to sell the run with the stutter while bringing the ball up to throw it. Cousins could have fumbled on the play had he kept it too, but Cousins is less likely to do that since he's a QB and does that all the time. He routinely protects the ball when its in a throwing position. Cook doesn't do that very often, and that also increases the risk.

So while I agree with you that had it worked it wouldn't have been criticized as much, it wasn't necessary to use an overly complex play design to accomplish something a simpler design would have accomplished.

KOC got overly cute there and he paid for it.

The jet sweep to Reagor isn't really that complex. It's a quick hitter hand off to a player in motion who then takes it in. The motion makes it a little more complicated, but not that risky in my view.

Yeah, maybe. Personally I don't mind the call, and again I think the design was sound. Could they have scored on something with much lower risk? For sure. Would they have scored on that if Ingram did anything resembling his job? For sure, I think, too.

And just from a conceptual standpoint, I appreciate the idea that around the goalline, all options are on the table. All players are a threat. Again, didn't work, looked foolish ultimately, but I love the willingness to try something new.

[VikingLord]

Yeah, maybe. Personally I don't mind the call, and again I think the design was sound. Could they have scored on something with much lower risk? For sure. Would they have scored on that if Ingram did anything resembling his job? For sure, I think, too.

You make a good point regarding execution by Ingram on the play, as a complete failure like that could have caused any play call to fail as a result. KOC is relying on his guys to execute at least partially.

I just think there is a time to be cute, a time to be aggressive, a time to be more practical, and a time to be conservative. KOC seemed dead-set on the aggressive approach yesterday. Maybe it's his youth, but in my opinion, slow-and-steady would have won the race yesterday.

It will be very interesting now to see how KOC approaches the Colts defense. The Colts are not a bad team. They're a bit sketchy offensively as Matt Ryan is a shell of his former self, but they nearly beat the Eagles and their defense is good enough to replicate whatever the Lions did to the Vikings run offense yesterday for sure.

Personally, I'd like to see KOC get aggressive early (if he's going to get aggressive on offense) by taking some deep shots in the passing game. I think a few early deep shots does a lot psychologically to the opposing secondary players. They can't safely bunch up close to the LOS pre-snap on early downs because they have to account for the ball going over their heads. Even if those attempts don't work, they set a tone for the game. I think the last thing the Vikings offense can afford to do again is allow the opposing defense to stack up around the LOS on early downs. Even if they get Darrisaw and Bradbury back 100%, that is not going to be winning offensive football.