From a Vikes perspective .... what to expect

[Largent80]

I don't see why the OP thinks there is no pressure on the Vikes and all the pressure on Seattle. I see it exactly opposite.

They had a winning record all year long while the hawks started out 2-4. I would say after the Hawks winning the SB 2 years ago and coming within 3 feet of a back to back takes any pressure off the Hawks.

What the Vikes need to realize is this team knows how to win on the road and are winning IN SPITE of all the injuries they have endured.

 

[johnnyfever]

Just to be clear im not saying the had any chance at all to win or even keep that game close as we completely outplayed them, but if you didnt see the plethora of ticky tack and just plain horrible calls against them, im not sure what to say. I know for a fact if those would have been called on us dotnet would have been a firestorm of whining. Im not a vikings fan, but bad officiating is bad officiating. Go back and look at some of the posts on game day, you will see a ton of them, even after the game about how bad it was.

 

[Polaris]

Just to be clear im not saying the had any chance at all to win or even keep that game close as we completely outplayed them, but if you didnt see the plethora of ticky tack and just plain horrible calls against them, im not sure what to say. I know for a fact if those would have been called on us dotnet would have been a firestorm of whining. Im not a vikings fan, but bad officiating is bad officiating. Go back and look at some of the posts on game day, you will see a ton of them, even after the game about how bad it was.

Look at bolded statement: My problem with your first post was that was precisely what you seemed to be saying: i.e. the Vikings might have had a chance had the officials not bent them over. It's just not true. Contrast that with what happened to us against Arizona in Seattle where the refs single-handedly kept a crucial 4th quarter Arizona drive alive with not one but FOUR drive extending penalty calls of which at least two were highly questionable,

 

[Uncle Si]

re: the injury talk..

I think it gone blown out of proportion. It was a big story early in the game because both Smith and Barr left the game, virtually at the same time. If they had not started the game I don't think it gets the air time. Either way, if Thomas and Irvin were both sitting on the sidelines with their helmets held hostage in an undisclosed location after the first drive I'm sure it would have been talked up.

That said, this is a "young" Vikings squad in that their key, impact players, outside AP, are all in their first couple years. The people here are notably excited about the future, but realize the problem they face in the present. I like Seattle in this game, regardless of the weather. I was very confident the first time around and don't think this game will be close by the 4th quarter.

Now, that said, for upsets to happen in the playoffs you typically need the underdog to get explosive plays, turnovers and some luck, and the Vikings can do all three. they have good returners in the punt and kick game. They have AP. and they have a good defense that can make plays. get one or two of those things happening on Sunday and it can get very tricky for the Seahawks.

 

[johnnyfever]

Your quote:"Look at bolded statement: My problem with your first post was that was precisely what you seemed to be saying: i.e. the Vikings might have had a chance had the officials not bent them over. It's just not true. Contrast that with what happened to us against Arizona in Seattle where the refs single-handedly kept a crucial 4th quarter Arizona drive alive with not one but FOUR drive extending penalty calls of which at least two were highly questionable,"

here is my first post below, can you tell me where in it I said they had a chance to win? Its not there because I never even came close to thinking it. All I was saying is the refs had some very bad calls against them, way worse and more frequesnt than normal.

Johnnyfever"]The one thing no one is talking about as far as the last vikes game. The refs seriously bent them over. The whole time I was watching it I felt bad for them, as we are normally the ones on the bad side of calls. I haven't seen a game that poorly officiated for that length of time in forever. We will win, but the refs won't be bringing any presents this sunday.

judging by your rant about the cards game you are just on tilt right now, but dont come at me with your crazytrain.

 

[JPatera76]

Your beyond delusional if you think the Vikings were "bent over". But hey at the rate your going you wont last long here. So my advice would be to take your own and dont come at us with your crazytrain.

 

[marko358]

Only way the Vikes have a shot is if RW gets hurt early on. Even then it would be a coin flip.

 

[johnnyfever]

Jpatera and polaris:
Here is a post from the day of the vikes game FROM OTHER SEAHAWKS FANS ON OUR OWN FORUM!!!! There were a lot of people that saw the horrible officiating. If you are in denial of that, I dont know what to say and I cant help you. Again, to be very clear for you, it would not have made a difference on us winning. We were clearly the better team that day.

2 pages and 69 posts:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=119496

If I knew how to find that game day forum on this site there are atleast 15 to 20 more posts about how bad the officiating was.

 

[Polaris]

johnnyfever,

By bringing up the officiating the way you did, you ARE in fact at least strongly implying that it would have made a difference.

The fact is it wouldn't have. I am not saying the officiating was good; it wasn't. However to say that the Vikes were "bent over" implies that they lost because of it and that isn't the case. Seattle has a MUCH better case of that vis a vis Arizona in Seattle than the Vikes.

Sorry, but I'm not going to let this stand.

Edit: As for the Cards game, Aaron Shatz, from football outsiders commented on the officiating on that game. He flat out said that that game was the worst game of Arizona's season (until this last Sunday) and that game was (to date) Seattle's best game, but the DVOA didn't account for the disparity in the officiating. If you actually WATCHED that game, you'd know what he meant (and Schatz is independent). There was one crucial Arizona drive alone that was CRITICAL to them in the fourth quarter that was kept alive not once but FOUR TIMES by penalties, and at least two of them were highly questionable at best. Given Seattle was ahead at the time and it was well into the fourth quarter, if that drive fails, chances are really good Seattle wins that game (which the DVOA from that game predicts).

 

[MontanaHawk05]

- O-line issues. Vikes lost 2 starters in pre-season in RT Loadholt and Center John Sullivan. LT Kalil had 2 knee surgeries in offseason and hasn't lived up to expectations. LG Fusco switched from RG and has been brutal, giving up the most QB pressures of an OG in the NFL. To make matters worse, Norv Turner has called for the most 7-step drops of anyone in the NFL. Since Vikings are dead last in pass attempts, it means we have the highest % of 7-step drops in the NFL and the results have been brutal. When Turner calls for shorter pass patterns Teddy has played well, but right now Teddy is #1 in NFL with most QB pressures at 46% of all dropbacks he gets pressured and that's a major reason our passing offense is so lackluster - it's not all Teddy's fault.

You should post here more. You wouldn't believe how hard it is to convince people that play-calling affects OL and QB performance.[/quote]

 

[johnnyfever]

You reading something not there isnt implication. I never implied, and have since really tried to explain to you that it wouldnt have made a difference. The fact remains though that you still cant accept the fact that my original post stated, even with the other members and posts I linked to back it up. It was atrociuos officiating. Period. The vikings were bent over. Remember that 1st and 40 drive? Even my wife, who isnt a football fan thought it was pretty ridiculous. That is exactly what I said, and that is exactly what I meant.

I will say if the officiating was more even in that game they would have at least scored a field goal.

 

[Polaris]

You reading something not there isnt implication. I never implied, and have since really tried to explain to you that it wouldnt have made a difference. The fact remains though that you still cant accept the fact that my original post stated, even with the other members and posts I linked to back it up. It was atrociuos officiating. Period. The vikings were bent over. Remember that 1st and 40 drive? Even my wife, who isnt a football fan thought it was pretty ridiculous. That is exactly what I said, and that is exactly what I meant.

I will say if the officiating was more even in that game they would have at least scored a field goal.

If you don't think it would have made a difference (and it wouldn't have), then don't bring it up. Bringing it up at all implies it would have made a difference and reads as an excuse for what happened. Sometimes bad officiating really DOES cost teams games (ask the Lions), but not here. Also the term "bent over" implies that the officials were all on Seattle's side and that's not really true either. Did Seattle get a bit of penalty luck on that time? Sure. However, if you look at yards gained and first downs gained by penalty, Seattle rates near the bottom. If you look at called penalties against teams when they face Seattle, they called called FAR LESS than average. Overall, Seattle is at the bottom of the NFL in penalty luck (which is measurable) and it's not especially close....so don't whine to us about how Minny got "bent over". I don't care.

 

[johnnyfever]

Let me ask you this polaris. What would the score have been in that game with even officiating, and what is your prediction of the score in the game this sunday? Please answer. My answer would be the first game would have been 38 to 17, my prediction of this sundays game is 34 to 16 hawks.

 

[Uncle Si]

If you all would like to start a thread, or revisit an existing one, regarding the officiating of the previous Vikes-Seahawks game please do so.

If not, the OP had very good intentions and it would be great to get back to some informative pre-game discussion instead of bickering supposition.

 

[gowazzu02]

Welcome.... We share a hatred for that prima donna Rodgers and his blowhard coach.

That being said, I hope you have a miserable Sunday!!!

One thing that does scare me, is the cold neutralizing our speed. That is no bueno.

 

[Scottemojo]

I look at this game from all angles, and it looks the same.

If the Vikes try to execute the same type of offense as last time, our D is all over it. Which leaves them with misdirection, pulling guards, ignoring WRs deep to get to the TE. All of which is what I expect.

The Vikings returning some defensive starters, no matter how good, is not the fulcrum of this game. Special teams is not likely the fulcrum either, both teams are good there.

Can Minnesota implement an opposite of last time offensive gameplan, with a young group, in the first two quarters of what for most is their first playoff game, vs a group who defensively owned them last time? Then after they do that, can they bludgeon Seattle with a run game to keep Russ and Co off the field?

They have to bank on over pursuit. They have to count on over aggression by our D. They can't make this a matchup of our D-line vs their O-line, and they can't hang the game on young WRs vs our in the groove secondary. What is left? Power football, RB flare passes, screens, and TE seams. None seem the way to put up the 27 points, minimum, they need to win, IMO.

The only team who has consistently beaten the Hawks in 2015 has been...the Hawks. That is really what Vikings fans have to hang their hat on.

 

[Polaris]

Let me ask you this polaris. What would the score have been in that game with even officiating, and what is your prediction of the score in the game this sunday? Please answer. My answer would be the first game would have been 38 to 17, my prediction of this sundays game is 34 to 16 hawks.

I will answer this and then drop it. The mods are right that officiating deserves it's own topic. WIth even officiating, I think Minny's offense scores a field goal. Call it 38-10. As for this Sunday, I think the VIkes will do better because they'll be motivated from the last game and simply because the game did snowball on them and they will run AP more. I suspect it will be something like 20-6. The weather more than anything else will insure a lower scoring game.

 

[johnnyfever]

I took the OP as bringing up points from last game to this one that effected and will effect points put on the board. My addition to the conversation was that poor officiating caused a loss of arount 3 to 10 points for the vikes last game. We are going to have players we didnt have active in that game and they are as well. I just think to dismiss the officiating as not effecting the point total last game is incorrect. Just my opinion, but I think it is valid and very pertinent to to OP's original topic. If you read the thread from gameday I referenced earlier, it will surely jog some memories and maybe some can see my point. Just my opinion.

Not sure why polaris took such offense to my opinion, but im done with that conversation as it makes no sense. My original post speaks for itself. He interpreted something that is not written and that I did not say and took offense to it. Thats his deal, not mine.

 

[johnnyfever]

The cold and the wind scare me the most. Supposedly before this season they installed an underfield heating system, but at zero degrees and wind, I can still see that turf being hard. We have 3 more road games after this one, and dont need the injuries.

 

[Polaris]

The cold and the wind scare me the most. Supposedly before this season they installed an underfield heating system, but at zero degrees and wind, I can still see that turf being hard. We have 3 more road games after this one, and dont need the injuries.

Seattle is actually a very good cold weather team, and plays outside consistently. Until this year the Vikings were a dome team, so I really don't see how the Vikings have an innate advantage from the weather (esp given that Russel Wilson played QB in WIS in college). That said, cold weather does slow down the game and it makes the passing game harder (the ball becomes as hard as a rock and manual dexterity is notably reduced). This will affect both teams and that will help the Vikes only because it's a bit of an equalizer. That said, I don't think it's going to be nearly enough. If you have to rely on weather to save you, then you're already behind the 8-ball. Worse I think it's inevitable that the Vikings are going to wind up getting behind, and the cold weather makes a team that's already bad at coming from behind even worse....and that will be fatal for Minnesota.

Edit PS: Wind IMO is a more important factor than simple cold, but from what I'm reading the actual wind won't be (much) of an issue (save for wind-chill)