NFL Kickoff 2019
- Thread starter QPR New York
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
The Vikings offence has looked great the last few weeks, defence has been pretty average but with the offence playing like it is/has can afford to play more contain type style and give up some yards. Holton Hill is back from his ban after the Redskins game and he is a good addition to a pretty strong DB corps so should hopefully improve.
The Redskins game is exactly the sort of game where Cousins (and the Vikings as a whole) have choked in the past. At home to a 1-6 team on the back of a decent run, on Prime Time and is Cousins former team as well for added pressure. The Vikings have looked good the last weeks and I can sense the optimism rising for the season.
I'm just waiting for them to **** it all up like they almost certainly will like every other year where they have looked decent. Might not be this week, might not be next week but will happen at some point in a magnificently stupid manner, it is the Vikings way.
The Redskins game is exactly the sort of game where Cousins (and the Vikings as a whole) have choked in the past. At home to a 1-6 team on the back of a decent run, on Prime Time and is Cousins former team as well for added pressure. The Vikings have looked good the last weeks and I can sense the optimism rising for the season.
I'm just waiting for them to **** it all up like they almost certainly will like every other year where they have looked decent. Might not be this week, might not be next week but will happen at some point in a magnificently stupid manner, it is the Vikings way.
Your not very positive Saint .
I think they're a decent team in the making .
Like you say just need a bit of work on the defence
I have seen too many Vikings teams to be positive tbh. They really are one of the most cursed sports teams around, always finding a way to lose/**** things up in spectacular fashion.
Despite the offence looking good the last few weeks I'd still say the strength of the team is the defence, but they are a good, balanced side with a reason to feel optimistic and hopeful about their chances this season. And as a Vikings fan that is just the worst ****ing feeling possible.
On the way back from the USB, what a stadium and the atmosphere... Really loud on every down on defence, and the whole crowd joining in with the Vikings fight song, plus the skol chant is epic in person, did it three times lol...
Also Minnesota seems a beautiful place from what little of it we saw, I'd recommend it even without the football
Also Minnesota seems a beautiful place from what little of it we saw, I'd recommend it even without the football
Unfortunately for us, when we play them next week, Mahomes will be back. Oh well, I guess our winning streak had to end some time.
Interesting that nobody in the whole wide world seems to know the NFL pass interference rules--and that the rules contradict themselves.
As the ball sailed at least 10 yards past him, a Colt receiver slowed to a stop, creating contact with the Steeler who was covering him. The officials ruled defensive pass interference. This was definitely wrong for one reason, because it was a case of "Contact that would normally be considered pass interference, but the pass is clearly uncatchable by the involved players."
But if we forget about that, it was also a case where two of three other clauses mandate offensive interference, even though one mandates defensive interference. The offensive player was guilty of "Contact by a player who is not playing the ball that restricts the opponent’s opportunity to make the catch" since he was absolutely not playing the ball, and restricted the defensive player from continuing to run towards the ball. He was also guilty of "Cutting off the path of an opponent by making contact with him, without playing the ball." It's true that the defensive player was guilty of "Playing through the back of an opponent in an attempt to make a play on the ball." So both players should have been called for interference and the down should have been replayed--if the ball wasn't unplayable, which it clearly was. You can make a reasonable case that the last clause makes an unwritten assumption that the player whose back is being played through must be trying to catch the ball himself, and if he isn't, that one or both of the first two clauses apply. If so, then the play is offensive interference only. In any case, even if the ball is considered catchable, the ruling should not be defensive interference only.
Anyway, after the officials wrongly ruled the play defensive interference and wrongly denied the Steelers' challenge, the announcers only mentioned the uncatchable ball part of the penalty to criticize the ruling. One even said, "It was clearly [offensive] pass interference."
Takeaways.
1. The officials suck
2. The commentators suck
2. The rules suck
As the ball sailed at least 10 yards past him, a Colt receiver slowed to a stop, creating contact with the Steeler who was covering him. The officials ruled defensive pass interference. This was definitely wrong for one reason, because it was a case of "Contact that would normally be considered pass interference, but the pass is clearly uncatchable by the involved players."
But if we forget about that, it was also a case where two of three other clauses mandate offensive interference, even though one mandates defensive interference. The offensive player was guilty of "Contact by a player who is not playing the ball that restricts the opponent’s opportunity to make the catch" since he was absolutely not playing the ball, and restricted the defensive player from continuing to run towards the ball. He was also guilty of "Cutting off the path of an opponent by making contact with him, without playing the ball." It's true that the defensive player was guilty of "Playing through the back of an opponent in an attempt to make a play on the ball." So both players should have been called for interference and the down should have been replayed--if the ball wasn't unplayable, which it clearly was. You can make a reasonable case that the last clause makes an unwritten assumption that the player whose back is being played through must be trying to catch the ball himself, and if he isn't, that one or both of the first two clauses apply. If so, then the play is offensive interference only. In any case, even if the ball is considered catchable, the ruling should not be defensive interference only.
Anyway, after the officials wrongly ruled the play defensive interference and wrongly denied the Steelers' challenge, the announcers only mentioned the uncatchable ball part of the penalty to criticize the ruling. One even said, "It was clearly [offensive] pass interference."
Takeaways.
1. The officials suck
2. The commentators suck
2. The rules suck
Last edited:
Not just kirk, was also on the defence for giving away plays at key moments (the 91 yard return, letting the Chiefs gain about 17 yards in a play after pushing them back to 2nd and 21, then giving them a first down on the next play to set up a relatively easy game winning field goal) and Bailey for missing the extra point which would have meant we could chew down the clock rather than needing to score in the last few minutes. Plus, the play calling was a bit suspect