Who Gets The Deflated Ball?

I've been hearing this myth all over the place today, and I'm not sure where it got started, but it's not true. In 2006, week 16 the Vikings had an eerily similar game at Lambeau as last night. TJack went 10/20 for 50 yards, Taylor only had 49 yards rushing and the Vikings only picked up 3 first downs the entire game. 104 total yards, 10 punts, 9 3-n-outs, and a partridge in a pear tree.

The Vikings actually took a 7-6 lead late in the 3rd on a Smoot pick-6 of Favre. Our longest drive of the game was 22 yards and we never crossed midfield. Had the ball in Packers territory once after a 2nd Favre INT, but TJack returned the favor with an INT of his own.

And we also had a game in 1991 where we only had 6 first downs at New Orleans and lost 26-donut.

Ahhhh now I see where 1971 came from. That was the last time we had 7 or fewer first downs in a HOME game. Week 13 vs the Lions, but we won that game 29-10 lol. We had another home game in 1971 where we only had 5 first downs, against Green Bay (WTF is our problem getting first downs against the Packers lol?), but we won that game too 3-0.

That's also the team record for fewest FD's in a game. We had 7 FD's in 2 other games, in 1967 vs Detroit (tied 10-10), and in 1969 vs the 49ers (won 10-7). So you could say last night was the first time we had exactly 7 FD's in a game and lost (2-1-1).

You're like the 4th person across 4 different place that I heard it so it got me wondering. Didn't seem right lol. Maybe it said "home game", but people missed that part.

It’s about wins losses for me. Enjoy the stats. 

Do you understand what a straw man argument is?

Do you not think I know that wins are all the count in the end, I could care less about stats, but that wasn't what we were discussing.

You made a ridiculous statement that our running game would be better without Dalvin, and that was proven to be totally and utterly wrong. And then when you get called out on it, your rebuttal is to start a wins and losses discussion.

Maybe that's really how your mind works, but it's coming off as nothing but trolling.

I also qualified the statement as to why I thought And said that. You conveniently left that out of the conversation. You instead used stats to support your argument. 

The reason, in more detail for you, I suggested the running game will be better without cook, is discipline. The zone blocking schemes, of which I have posted several videos on here, has reads. The back reads x, in Gibbsology, its the first down linemen outside in on oz. When you have a back who can do it, Terrell Davis, Olandis Gary, 28 for the falcons when Alex Gibbs was with the falcons, the system is really good. But Gibbs also says that when a back get 4 yards and doesnt follow the system, to shut your mouth. Cook is making the coaches shut their mouth a lot, but he is also hurting them a lot. When the back reads it correctly, like we saw with GB, and Seattle, the system is really hard to defend. That discipline is also why Denver could produce 1000 yard back after 1000 yard back after....We have seen that affect in Seattle as well, as every year its a different back. That discipline also affects the play action, bootlegs that everybody said wasn’t tried. That is set up when the backside of the plays has to pursue hard, when the down linemen on the play side is wrong consistently. 

I am not suggesting Dalvin Cook is not a great running back. Far from it. But being great back is not necessarily a necessity to be a great back in KUBIAK’s system. IF cook every consistently buys into the system, WE have a chance to be special.

Understand I am not denying cook and his impact. I just thought the offense flowed better, the run game was more strictly interpreted. Cook gets away with a lot, but he is playing outside the rules.

Reignman: It's that Madden glitch where a player doesn't move after the ball is snaps! It happened in real life, at least for a couple seconds!