Who's Disappointed in Jared Allen's Performance Now?
Wasn't there some hand-wringing over how Allen wasn't getting it done after his big purple payday? That guy was dominating last night. 11 sacks now. When's the last time we had someone with a dozen or more sacks, anyway? Randle?
Question of the day: can we beat any of the Falcons, Cardinals or Giants? Without the Williams Wall? I say we have a good chance against Arizona regardless, we can't handle Atlanta's running game without them but will clobber Ryan with them, and the Gints smoke us either way.
11 Comments:
MCA - great call on Allen. Amazing that a couple weeks ago he had that shoulder injury that people questioned whether he would go. As a buddy of mine says, "Jared Allen is a big, dumb animal, but he's our big, dumb animal." He is a force.
We apparently find out Tuesday what happens to the Williams Wall, I think nothing will come of it since it has taken so long to get to the ruling. But, if something does happen, then we can beat Arizona and the Lions and that is about it. We could beat the Giants since they will be in "rest your starters mode." You're right, the Falcons would run all over us.
December 1, 2008 at 10:30 AM
JAN - awesome recap of the game (I am commenting here instead of the post below).
Allen has absolutely paid off for us so far. I can't remember the last time we had a decent pass rush (probably is the Randle days).
Jan - I love the BG-esque outburts. My rationale is that I release all of my bottled-up anger through those outburts, rather than doing other, more costly and stupid things. I also love guys who taunt the opposing crowd in the first quarter when it's 7-0. IT's like chanting "overrated" prematurely - never works out for you.
Not sure if you other guys noticed, but the TV cameras literally started shaking when Berrian was running the ball down the sideline...it reminded me of footage of some 1960s basketball game in an ancient, rickety arena. Awesome...
And speaking of awesome, how sweet was Diesel's / AP's run?
Without the Williams wall we finish 8-8. With the Williams wall, I predict 9-7. The Arizona game scares me, and I think we'll blow either the Atlanta or NYG games. We can only hope that Coughlin sits his starters in that ballgame...which he DIDN'T do last year when facing the Pats in week 17.
December 1, 2008 at 2:49 PM
P.S. How f-ing AWESOME are the Vikes quasi-throwback uniforms?!? Why don't we always wear them? So simple and so classic. It's sort of like the Chargers...they should always wear the powder blues.
December 1, 2008 at 2:56 PM
What more needs to be said. My two cents: the ruling is going to go against the Williams on Tuesday- I believe the NFL rule is pretty clear on this: the players are responsibile for what they put in their body, just because the ingredient isn't listed on the label, doesn't mean you're off the hook. All is not lost, however, since my understanding is that the NFL has known for a long time about this product and what was in it, therefore, I would think both P and K Williams would have a good chance at getting an injunction of some sort against their suspension based on the NFL failing to warn players. Meaning,they might still be around even if the ruling goes against them... Jan willing.
I know Diesel is an animal, but how much punishment can he take? I worry about how one dimensional we are, and how we're cutting short his career due to the defense playing 8,9 in the box and routinely unloading on him. I don't mind that he runs as hard as he does (others criticize that ala Marion Barber), but he shouldn't have to get pounded by so many, so frequently... That said, how about that stiff arm in the 2nd half (not sure if it was on Tillman, or Mike Brown or who) man that was fun to watch.
go Vikes
December 1, 2008 at 3:33 PM
Totally agreed on the unis. Were the helmets a shade darker, too? I liked that a lot.
I, too, worry a bit about using Diesel too much. There's no reason for us to rush a guy 360 times in a season, especially when we have Taylor on the sidelines who should be getting 10 carries a game. On the other hand, Peterson only catches 1.5 passes a game, which helps. And it's the guys who just take punishment who are more likely to get hurt - AP dishes it out. He may wear himself down, of course, but as long as it's him lowering his shoulder on a defender instead of just running in there standing up and getting clocked, he's far less likely to get hurt.
I assume that next year we'll continue to add additional offensive skill players to complement him and lessen our reliance on his running? Like an above-average QB (no offense, Gus) and a possession receiver or tight end with hands.
I think the Williams boys are out for the remainder of the regular season. If the policy is "you and you alone are responsible for what you put in your body" I don't know why the league failing to tell them what's in a diuretic changes that policy or if I were a judge would convince me to issue an injunction against a penalty. There's probably not a league directive against sniffing glue, either, but it kind of goes without saying you shouldn't do it.
December 1, 2008 at 4:39 PM
Good point on the injunction possibility MCA- I'll defer to you on this one for obvious reasons.
Re: Deiesel, while normally he does dish it out, there were multiple crushing hits he took yesterday where he was the punishee and not the punisher. Both behind the line hits and in the flat before he got his engines going. And even in cases where he drives the action, and trys to go for that extra yard or two- it doesn't take much for a high ankle sprain or similar. It's a given that we need to run the ball often, but, like you said, C. Taylor, a more than serviceable back, who gets 6.7 carries per game, spends the rest of his time counting his $218,750 per game, which comes out to $32K per carry... nice work if you can get it. Use Chester more, use Chester more.
December 1, 2008 at 6:26 PM
The word around here (and by "here" I mean my desk at work, is that the suspension isn't going to happen as apparently the NFL knew about the substance but didn't put it on the list; lots of legal wrangling to ensue. On a side note, Berrian was on the radio a few weeks ago talking about this whole thing and said that he has tried to contact the league office twice to find out about a substance (the league has a 1-800 to call) and he couldn't get through to anyone either time. Food for thought.
As for the unis on Sunday night, they were throwbacks and the other difference was the face mask was gray. I agree: totally cool.
December 2, 2008 at 8:55 AM
jan, that's the kind of local knowledge we need. Makes me glad you moved back home and still listen to sports talk radio. Berrian's point about the league not responding to inquiries about a product is a very interesting twist: they want to be all hardcore about over the counter stuff, and tell the players it's incumbent upon them to ask for approval, then the league better get someone to staff the phones.
I still think they win on the merits if they hose the players on this one and stick to their guns, but it looks like maybe the calculus of lost time and money, as well as the negative p.r. hit from being painted as intentionally entrapping players might dissuade them. Good for the Vikes if so.
December 2, 2008 at 9:57 AM
Oh, yeah, one last thing: anyone else's first thought when Berrian made that catch the other night "Troy Williamson would have dropped that?"
December 2, 2008 at 3:55 PM
SHI*!! The Williams' suspension was upheld by the NFL today. When will this organization EVER catch a break!?!? Figures...we finally get a big, potentially season-defining, win and our run-stoppers get suspended. I hope Jared Allen has plenty of energy left for this weekend.
I totally forgot that we lost to the 0-12 Lions in 2001. Sweet. Is this a fait accompli?
December 2, 2008 at 5:08 PM
Alright, everybody calm down.
1. We're not losing to Detroit. Did you guys watch that game Thursday? They're much worse than they were in 2001. I know that's hard to believe, but the Lions just keep exceeding expectations of crapitude. Diesel and "Hi-Tops" (C. Taylor - get it?) go hog wild and Daunte throws a couple picks.
2. All they have to do is win one of the last three to get to 9-7. The Bears would then have to sweep to win.
They can't tie us at 9-7, because we'll win any tiebreaker if they lose one of their remaining four. Please explain, MCA, you ask? My pleasure: assuming the Vikes beat Detroit and one more, should the Bears go 3-1, they're both at 9-7, even up head to head and 4-2 in the division. The third tie breaker is common opponents. We're at 4-3 against those opponents and the Bears 1-4, so we'd have to lose to Atlanta and the Bears would have to beat Jax, NO and Houston. Ahh, but if they do that and finish 9-7 that means they lost to the Pack and we don't even get to the third tiebreaker because Chicago would finish 3-3 against the division.
So they have to win it outright by sweeping, and c'mon, the Bears are not capable of winning four games in a row, I don't care who they're against or where they take place.
3. The Pack can beat us if we go 2-2 and they sweep, however, as their sweep implies beating the Bears and Lions a second time and thus winning the vs. division tiebreaker at 5-1. But again, I don't see this as mattering because, despite the easy schedule they have the rest of the way, I just don't see them running the table with the way their defense is getting torched lately.
4. Think of the confidence boost the team would get from getting the Wall back for the playoffs.
5. Think of how little this or anything else would matter if we get Dallas in the first round of the playoffs.
December 2, 2008 at 6:08 PM
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home