Gameday Thread

[beachboy757]

I fell asleep at the 2:00 minute warning and missed the Kirk fumble.  Made me think of games like week 1 of last season (vs Philly) when the score was 17-23 with under 2 minutes to go. Cousins fumbles and the score turns into 17-30 making the game and defense statistics look worse than how they game really played out.

[Cooleyfan1993]

One thing that probably could’ve had an effect on the outcome of the game was the ref blowing the play dead on that play where it was pretty easy to see Thielen wasn’t touched down at all. That would have been 6 if the ref bothered to be right. 

[purbeast]

7 hours ago, Tsailand said:

 

 

 

The Capitals just did that with their head coach.  We'll see how that works out.

No they didn't, that is not the same at all.

 

Gruden was under contract when McVay left.  Gruden wasn't in a contract year about to make money no matter where he went.

 

It's also been stated multiple times on local sports radio that there is no way McVay would have taken the job here if his path to it was the Redskins firing Gruden to break him out of his contract.  McVay is not that kind of guy who would see Gruden fired only to replace him.  There's simply no scenario where we would have gotten McVay as the HC at the time the Rams got him.

7 hours ago, Destino said:

Maybe, its a huge contract, but I don’t think a reasonable fan watches this game and thinks Kirk is why they lost this one.  That was the case last week when he fumbled his way to an embarrassing loss to Buffalo.  Kirk is the reason they were in this game, and his play wasn’t just “great stats.”  He played a great game.

 

The Vikings gave up more passing touchdowns tonight than the redskins have all season.  So if you want to place blame, maybe start there.

 

Holy crap this is like a time warp from any Redskins loss over the past 3 years.  This looks VERY familiar!  Hell this looks like a post I myself probably made multiple times over the past 3 years.

[purbeast]

1 hour ago, Cooleyfan1993 said:

One thing that probably could’ve had an effect on the outcome of the game was the ref blowing the play dead on that play where it was pretty easy to see Thielen wasn’t touched down at all. That would have been 6 if the ref bothered to be right. 

And the Vikings should be 1-3 if the most ridiculous RFP penalty wasn't called.  

 

It's football - **** happens.

[Destino]

42 minutes ago, purbeast said:

And the Vikings should be 1-3 if the most ridiculous RFP penalty wasn't called.  

 

It's football - **** happens.

That was bitter irony. The Packers Aaron Rodgers is why the rule is being emphasized (interpreted) like it is this season.  The Vikings Anthony Barr landed on him "with his body weight" and broke Rodgers collar bone.  The league acted to stop it.

[purbeast]

5 minutes ago, Destino said:

That was bitter irony. The Packers Aaron Rodgers is why the rule is being emphasized (interpreted) like it is this season.  The Vikings Anthony Barr landed on him "with his body weight" and broke Rodgers collar bone.  The league acted to stop it.

But the hit on Rogers was late as ****, it wasn't in the act of sacking someone.  Not the same play at all.

[SkinsGuy]

Same thing I said last week with Cousins.

 

Great stats-lousy win/loss record.

 

And he's still a turnover machine. At least at the most inopportune times.

[Morrison J]

9 hours ago, Rex Tomb said:

I'm sad we didn't find a way to keep McVay.

Yet the narrative on here from 99% of people when he left was that they couldn't get him out of here quick enough. Our fans are really stupid sometimes. 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

Just now, Morrison J said:

Yet the narrative on here from 99% of people when he left was that they couldn't get him out of here quick enough. Our fans are really stupid sometimes. 

 

Yeah, I can’t help but laugh at all the folks saying we should have fired Jay and hired McVay.  As if they weren’t in the gameday threads a few weeks before he was hired in LA pooping on his playcalling.  There was a very small minority of folks that actually thought he could be boy wonder.  

[SkinsGuy]

17 minutes ago, Morrison J said:

Yet the narrative on here from 99% of people when he left was that they couldn't get him out of here quick enough. Our fans are really stupid sometimes. 

 

So true.

 

The general attitude I remember about McVay's departure was "good riddance".

 

Now folks want to act like he was a lone bright spot on a dysfunctional team that the front office foolishly let get away.

 

20/20 hindsight is something else.

[MisterPinstripe]

9 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

The defense really isn’t that bad overall.    With that Dline they will always be fine.  They force offenses to have to let it go quick and as the game wears on they can dominate, as happened tonight.  The rest of the league wants no part of a shootout with Donald and Suh pinning their ears back. 

I have a hard time seeing that.

 

You give up 422 yards passing, 31 points, 50% 3rd down conversion rate, you are not playing good defense. They stopped the run, definitely, but it doesnt matter much when you cannot stop the pass at all. Thankfully for them the Vikings defense has been awful and was worse tonight then they were. The Rams didnt give up many points to the Raiders and the Cardinals to start the year, but we are quickly discovering those are bad teams. As long as the offense doesnt go up against a defense that slows them down they will probably be okay, I just dont think that will happen once they reach the playoffs. Luckily for them they arent going to be hitting too many good defenses so they should still put up lots of points. Saints vs Rams might eclipse 150 points.

 

And lets not forget this is a VIkings OL that is hurt and not played well. Heck they had Tom Compton against Suh and Donald and they didnt really start getting pressure until late in the game.

[Destino]

2 hours ago, purbeast said:

But the hit on Rogers was late as ****, it wasn't in the act of sacking someone.  Not the same play at all.

Why would that matter?  The leagues concern is injury not fair play.  They can’t keep aging QB superstars in the league without trying to keep them healthy, so they’re removing the hits most likely to cause injury one by one.  Rodgers got hurt so defenders can’t land on QBs anymore, late or not.  

[purbeast]

2 minutes ago, Destino said:

Why would that matter?  The leagues concern is injury not fair play.  They can’t keep aging QB superstars in the league without trying to keep them healthy, so they’re removing the hits most likely to cause injury one by one.  Rodgers got hurt so defenders can’t land on QBs anymore, late or not.  

Because one was a legit sack and one was a dirty late hit?  Can you not see the difference between the two hits?  They aren't even in the same league as far as "being able to cause injuries"

[Destino]

10 minutes ago, purbeast said:

Because one was a legit sack and one was a dirty late hit?  Can you not see the difference between the two hits?  They aren't even in the same league as far as "being able to cause injuries"

You’re saying that the QB having the ball somehow reinforces collar bones and shoulders?  I’ve been watching QBs get both of those injuries by being tackled, and having a defender land on them, with and without the ball for decades.  Same goes for concussion caused by hits to the helmet caused by flailing lineman.  Ball or no ball, late or not late, the injury risk is there.  Same goes for hits below the knees.  

 

Dirty doesnt factor in anymore.  The league is protecting financial interests. 

[purbeast]

1 minute ago, Destino said:

You’re saying that the QB having the ball somehow reinforces collar bones and shoulders?  I’ve been watching QBs get both of those injuries by being tackled, and having a defender land on them, with and without the ball for decades.  Same goes for concussion caused by hits to the helmet caused by flailing lineman.  Ball or no ball, late or not late, the injury risk is there.  Same goes for hits below the knees.  

 

Dirty doesnt factor in anymore.  The league is protecting financial interests. 

Well you didn't directly answer my question but you're basically saying that you can't see the difference between the hit on Rogers and the hits that Matthews put on Cousins.  

 

Gotcha.

 

If that's the case then yeah, there's really nothing to discuss.

[Cooleyfan1993]

4 hours ago, purbeast said:

And the Vikings should be 1-3 if the most ridiculous RFP penalty wasn't called.  

 

It's football - **** happens.

Yeah I’m not arguing that at all, that is very true, they should be 1-3. I’m just saying that at the same time they could have been 2-1-1 had the ref not blown the play dead 

[zCommander]

@purbeast didn't that rule help Alex in the last game.

 

I see where you coming from and Destino as well. But one dirty act by someone now equals punishment for all. The league can't have two rules: one for dirty hit and one for not. The refs can't tell the difference as it is anyways.

 

But I have a bigger problem with this rule now. What the rule has done is made the ref behind the QB to look at him and is no longer seeing long holds on Kerrigan or any other DE. Saw that last night in the game as well and it was a very long hold too. The kind of one no one can miss. In the replay you could see the long hold was happening but the ref was looking at the QB instead. 

 

What the league should do is get a QB watching ref only. 

[purbeast]

26 minutes ago, zskins said:

@purbeast didn't that rule help Alex in the last game.

 

I see where you coming from and Destino as well. But one dirty act by someone now equals punishment for all. The league can't have two rules: one for dirty hit and one for not. The refs can't tell the difference as it is anyways.

 

But I have a bigger problem with this rule now. What the rule has done is made the ref behind the QB to look at him and is no longer seeing long holds on Kerrigan or any other DE. Saw that last night in the game as well and it was a very long hold too. The kind of one no one can miss. In the replay you could see the long hold was happening but the ref was looking at the QB instead. 

 

What the league should do is get a QB watching ref only. 

In the end, no that didn't help them at all.  In the next 3 plays they got a 10yd holding penalty and a loss of yards on a run I believe, and ended up punting pretty close to where the sack took place.  SO no it didn't really help him at all.

 

But at the time, I was watching the game with my brother and was yelling at the screen at what a terrible call it was.  I don't care if it helped us for a few seconds, it was an awful call for an awful rule.

[Destino]

2 hours ago, purbeast said:

Well you didn't directly answer my question but you're basically saying that you can't see the difference between the hit on Rogers and the hits that Matthews put on Cousins.  

 

Gotcha.

 

If that's the case then yeah, there's really nothing to discuss.

I see the difference in terms of fair play and competition.  Ones a late hit which has been against the rules for a while.  I don’t see the differences in terms of injury risk.  A QB crushed into the ground with the ball or just after he’s thrown the ball are equally vulnerable to forces involved in that sort of collision.  That’s what the nfl is worried about, and that’s why they’ve gone to the extreme of banning the standard tackle taught to everyone when they first play football.  

 

This is just the latest adjustment for QBs.  Can’t touch their helmets, can’t hit them below the knees, and can’t hit them if the slide.  Defended aren’t even risking hitting them as they run for the sideline, choosing instead to let them run out.  Like it or not (and I do not) the rule has changed and this particular rule changes in response to Rodgers injury.  

[purbeast]

10 minutes ago, Destino said:

I see the difference in terms of fair play and competition.  Ones a late hit which has been against the rules for a while.  I don’t see the differences in terms of injury risk.  A QB crushed into the ground with the ball or just after he’s thrown the ball are equally vulnerable to forces involved in that sort of collision.  That’s what the nfl is worried about, and that’s why they’ve gone to the extreme of banning the standard tackle taught to everyone when they first play football.  

 

This is just the latest adjustment for QBs.  Can’t touch their helmets, can’t hit them below the knees, and can’t hit them if the slide.  Defended aren’t even risking hitting them as they run for the sideline, choosing instead to let them run out.  Like it or not (and I do not) the rule has changed and this particular rule changes in response to Rodgers injury.  

But they are two completely different hits.  Matthews did NOT drive Cousin's upper body into the ground after the hit.  He hit him in the torso and tackled him and let up big time as he got up off of him.  He even uses his left hand to brace himself on the ground AS he is sacking Cousins.  The dude who hits Rogers even has both of his feet off the ground as he lands with his weight on top of Rogers.  They are just two completely different hits, regardless of one being late and one being while the QB held onto the ball. 

 

Cousins hit:

 

Rogers hit:

 

[Tsailand]

4 hours ago, MisterPinstripe said:

You give up 422 yards passing, 31 points, 50% 3rd down conversion rate, you are not playing good defense.

 

Your argument here is "Kirk put up big numbers on the Rams defense therefore they are not a good defense therefore Kirk putting up big numbers on them is not an achievement".   How about look at their actual play on the field.  Were they good? No.  Were they miles better than the trash fire Vikings D? Yes.

 

 

 

In 154 career starts Alex Smith has never passed for 400+ yards.  Kirk has done it 5 times in 61 starts.

 

Smith has 12 games with 3+ TDs and no ints.  Kirk has 9. 

 

There are maybe eight active NFL QBs who could have done what Kirk did for the first 58 minutes last night.  Yes, the other seven are a lot less likely to have fumbled away the game at the end.  But Alex Smith is not even in the conversation, because he would not even have kept the game close.  It would have been over at halftime.

[Destino]

50 minutes ago, purbeast said:

But they are two completely different hits.  Matthews did NOT drive Cousin's upper body into the ground after the hit.  He hit him in the torso and tackled him and let up big time as he got up off of him.  He even uses his left hand to brace himself on the ground AS he is sacking Cousins.  The dude who hits Rogers even has both of his feet off the ground as he lands with his weight on top of Rogers.  They are just two completely different hits, regardless of one being late and one being while the QB held onto the ball. 

Other than the timing I think those two hits are more similar than your admitting.  Not the same, but not night and day different either from the perspective of what the league is trying to eliminate.  What that is specifically is written in the rule itself, which reads as follows:

 

Quote

When tackling a passer who is in a defenseless posture (e.g., during or just after throwing a pass), a defensive player must not unnecessarily or violently throw him down or land on top of him with all or most of the defender’s weight.

 

And let’s go to the replay...

 

He certainly lands on Cousins with that right shoulder, before he catches himself with his left hand.  This is exactly what they’re trying to get rid of because we’ve all see QB landing sideways like that with a defender on top of them injure shoulders, collar bones, and ribs over the years.  

 

It also happens to be a pretty standard form tackle, and not at all dirty.  The nfl is less worried about the apparent absurdity of banning form tackling however, than they are keeping QBs healthy.  They have a lot invested in older QBs at the moment.  

[zCommander]

1 hour ago, purbeast said:

In the end, no that didn't help them at all.  In the next 3 plays they got a 10yd holding penalty and a loss of yards on a run I believe, and ended up punting pretty close to where the sack took place.  SO no it didn't really help him at all.

 

But at the time, I was watching the game with my brother and was yelling at the screen at what a terrible call it was.  I don't care if it helped us for a few seconds, it was an awful call for an awful rule.

 

At the time of the hit they got free 15 yards for something that wasn't there. Nothing more nothing less.

What happened after that is not what I am talking about.

[ExoDus84]

5 hours ago, SkinsGuy said:

 

So true.

 

The general attitude I remember about McVay's departure was "good riddance".

 

Now folks want to act like he was a lone bright spot on a dysfunctional team that the front office foolishly let get away.

 

20/20 hindsight is something else.

 

Not I. I was pretty sad to see him go. Loved what he did with our offense and thought he'd be a great replacement for Gruden eventually. 

 

Rams got a good one. 

[purbeast]

3 hours ago, Destino said:

Other than the timing I think those two hits are more similar than your admitting.  Not the same, but not night and day different either from the perspective of what the league is trying to eliminate.  What that is specifically is written in the rule itself, which reads as follows:

 

 

And let’s go to the replay...

 

He certainly lands on Cousins with that right shoulder, before he catches himself with his left hand.  This is exactly what they’re trying to get rid of because we’ve all see QB landing sideways like that with a defender on top of them injure shoulders, collar bones, and ribs over the years.  

 

It also happens to be a pretty standard form tackle, and not at all dirty.  The nfl is less worried about the apparent absurdity of banning form tackling however, than they are keeping QBs healthy.  They have a lot invested in older QBs at the moment.  

Way to cherry pick 1 frame out of a whole video.  A still pictures doesn't show much when it's the action we're talking about here.  This reminds me of the one frame that people were showing when Tom Wilson got suspended in the playoffs for his "hit to the head" and they used the still pictures to tell a different story of what really happened.

 

We will agree to disagree.