Week 2 - Vikings @ Packers Discussion

Because it's then fun to come here and complain like the rest of us lol? That's why I keep coming back. I feed off the misery.

Now try again, but put a little more complaint into it. Ohhh I know, start with Cousins. I'm sure you're even more mad that we cut Sloter now. Oh wait, that's me.

Then someone needs to complain about Boyd, I don't think anyone has mentioned his name yet and he screwed up plenty. Isn't he the guy who hit the punt returner on the ground? I'm sure one of those early TD passes were against him too. He's lucky he's a rookie.

Well I'm not going to complain too much about the penalty on that play. At worst they called the wrong penalty, but it was a penalty. I knew it right when it happened. I believe that was Boyd, and I hope Zimmer chewed his rookie ass. He intentionally drove his elbow into the guys head driving it into the ground. You just can't do that. Didn't need to do that. Packers got flagged for holding so it would have pinned them inside the 10, but the hit made it offsetting. Probably didn't matter, the Packers picked up 2 first downs on the ensuing drive and only left 9 seconds on the clock for us.

I would just like to point out how Zim cost us 13 important seconds at the end of this game because of something I thought every coach understood, which is how it's better to take your timeouts on the front side of the 2 minute warning. And here's why.

Zim got off on the right foot by taking the 1st timeout at 2:19. Remember that number, 2:19. There will be some math later. Now for some reason he didn't take TO #2 and 3 until after the 2 minute warning. Do you see how much time was run off the clock by TO #3? 13 seconds. Do you remember the 2:19 I told you to remember 5 words ago? Well it's time for that math. 2:19 minus 0:13 is 2:06, which would have ran down to 2:00. Are you still with me? Which sounds like more time 2:00 or 1:47? I swear it's not a trick question. The Packers ran 1:47 down to 0:09 which didn't leave us too many options to go 80 yards. Had Zim taken the TO's ahead of the 2 min warning, they would have ran 2:00 down to 0:22.

I know we don't have many more options with 0:22 seconds either (FYI 0:13 + 0:09 = 0:22), but here in the Championship Mindset Club, we'll take all the extra options you can give us. Instead of running 1 play against super prevent D, we probably would have gotten at least 3. We're all familiar with the big chunks prevent D gives up because we're Vikings fans. I know I know, Cousins probably gets sack fumbled or throws an INT anyway, but 3 is more than enough to get into hail mary range in our fantasy scenario where he isn't a complete sack of sh*t, so we at least have a shot to pull off another Minneapolis Miracle. The Green Bay Godsend? The Green Bay Gift? The Great Green Bay Bomb? Pillaged a Pack of Pouting Packers? Well the name isn't important.

The point is, Zim dropped the ball here. He didn't put his team in the best possible position to win at the end. How fun would it have been to hail mary the Packers out of Lambeau? This team rarely creates any positive memories for us because it rarely puts itself in a position to, because it's either too busy playing dumb or soft.

The other important thing about letting the clock run down to the 2 minute warning was the fact that we gave the Packers all that extra time to figure out what they were going to run on 2nd and 6. If we stop them there and then again on 3rd down, then we have a boat load more time than 0:22. Instead they had enough time to figure out the perfect 7 yard pass play to move the chains.

Agreed. Cousins forced the throw to Diggs, and it was 1st down. If you take risks on 3rd or 4th down, it makes sense. On 1st down with the Packers defense reeling, throw it away. Can Cousins get smarter about when to take the risk and when not to?
I hope so, because if he can't, the Vikes will lose too many winnable games like this game.

This Vikings team showed grit coming back, and I doubt Cousins will be this awful going forward. If he completes even 60% of his passes, the Vikings score two more touchdowns. With a tough defense, a great running game and a decent passing game, the Vikings could be very good. Can Stefanski and Kubiak help Cousins relax and play smarter? Kubiak has helped less talented QBs win, and he won a Super Bowl with Manning when he could not play like Payton Manning. All is not lost.

Players and refs made mistakes today, and when the whole team plays smarter, the Vikings will win more.

I have read many comments about the offensive pass interference penalty, by illegally blocking, called on Cook. I have watched the play several times at regular speed and in slow motion, and this is my view of the situation:

First, Cook started his route and was met by a defender providing a legal chuck. Cook engaged and continued his route. This was correctly not called.

Second, Cook was running a clearing route by design. This was not a pick route, as he was too deep to cause a crossing pick for Diggs.

Third, the second defender moved in front of Cook creating the engagement. Cook had position and continued his route. Blocking off a poorly positioned defender while running a route is not the same as blocking a player. The defender chose his position.

Fourth, it is clear that this defender was assigned to cover Cook as a receiver once Cook had entered the defender's zone, and that is what the defender did. He was not assigned to cover Diggs.

Fifth, there is a clear mismatch of players in the area. When Diggs came free, he was wide open. If the defender had seen Diggs crossing, and had come up to defend him, Cook would have been wide open. The defender could not cover both routes, and he chose to cover and engage Cook. In any case from that point going forward, one receiver would be wide open. Did the refs in New York actually believe this one defender was in position to cover both players ... including one player crossing from the opposite side of the field that the defender had been looking? Either Diggs was open or Cook would have been.

Sixth, there is no indication that the defender thought he was illegally blocked. The defender engaged Cook and was out of the play when it came to covering Diggs. The defender is looking to his left and at the quarterback almost the entire play. He didn't see Diggs until just before the catch was made, and the position he selected to cover Cook was not a good position to cover Diggs as well.

Conclusion: this was incidental contact first initiated by the defender cutting off the receiver's route. The defender is allowed to do this and, by the chuck rule, must continue to engage the receiver in order for this not to be defensive holding. Note here that a receiver is allowed to put his arms up if the defender is making contact or providing a chuck. Cook does not extend his arms or grasp the defender by the shoulder pads in order to throw a block, and Cook does continue his route. The defender was in position to defend Cook, but he was out of position to defend Diggs.

The referees assumed all contact was initiated and continued by Cook when the logic of the situation indicates that the defender initiated contact by his actions and continued contact in order to impede Cook. Because this was a potential clearing route, it was advantageous for Cook to allow this and keep in front of the defender. Cook was not required to give up his position in order for the defender to make a miraculous play.


This is the key part of the NFL rules, and there was certainly question to whether the contact was incidental on this play.

We should trade for Jalen Ramsey lol. We need help at corner. Give the jags Rhodes or Waynes and a first rd pick