Cards Vikings Game Thread

[New Mexico]

41 yards - you must be some freaking kicker mate!

Not a chip shot, but he should have made it. I'll put this loss on Rackers too. That missed field goal cost us likely seven points.

Missed field goal-3 points
Shoulda been field goal when we went for it on 4th and 13-3 points
Shoulda been extra point when we went for the 2 point conversion-1 point

He's got a pretty mouth, but cut his f-ing ass at the end of the year.

 

[Russ Smith]

I'm much more of a believer in not holding off a two point conversion for later. If you feel you need to go for it, do it then. Fail or succeed, you know for the rest of the game what you need to score to win. Not being in the position of "well, we are down one score if we can get the two point conversion, or two if not."

As it stood, we knew exactly what to do, and we damn near did it. I'd rather have the low-odds plays occur earlier in the fourth, than try to rely on them as the clock runs out.

That's the way I think too, my main "argument" is it's not a right or wrong call, it's only right or wrong after you know the outcome.

I didn't understand Brewsters saying the defense scores so the offense has to rush out cold, exact same thing is true for the Viking defense since they weren't on the field for the TD.

 

[English on tour]

Not a chip shot, but he should have made it. I'll put this loss on Rackers too. That missed field goal cost us likely seven points.

Missed field goal-3 points
Shoulda been field goal when we went for it on 4th and 13-3 points
Shoulda been extra point when we went for the 2 point conversion-1 point

He's got a pretty mouth, but cut his f-ing ass at the end of the year.

onside kick?

 

[Crimson Warrior]

I don't like chasing points, and I didn't really like the call.

Here are the passing stats

hollywood = 31/51 for 405 with 1 TD and 2 Int (seems very jake like to me).

Boldin = 9 catches for 140

Fitz = 11 catches for 172

 

[New Mexico]

onside kick?

Ok. He's got a pretty onside kick too. We wouldn't have needed it if he would have hit his 41 yarder.

 

[SoCal Cardfan]

Not a chip shot, but he should have made it. I'll put this loss on Rackers too. That missed field goal cost us likely seven points.

Missed field goal-3 points
Shoulda been field goal when we went for it on 4th and 13-3 points
Shoulda been extra point when we went for the 2 point conversion-1 point

He's got a pretty mouth, but cut his f-ing ass at the end of the year.

I dunno about cutting him, he still puts more kickoffs in the end-zone than most.

But he needs to figure something out.

 

[Pariah]

Rackers missed a FG. Big Deal. He didn't lose the game, the defense did. We couldn't stop the run but we made up for it be being completely ineffectual at pass defense.

We also got lucky the replay officials didn't have a clean look at the fumble that AW returned. I don't think there was anyway that was a legit fumble.

On the otherhand, I think the non-catch by fitz in the waning seconds should have been ruled a force-out.

 

[Crimson Warrior]

41 yards - you must be some freaking kicker mate!

What does that mean exactly?

I gather that you think I'm being too hard on him.

 

[New Mexico]

I don't like chasing points, and I didn't really like the call.

Here are the passing stats

hollywood = 31/51 for 405 with 1 TD and 2 Int (seems very jake like to me).

Boldin = 9 catches for 140

Fitz = 11 catches for 172

I've seen Jake play. I've met Jake. Matt is no Jake.

 

[English on tour]

I have to agree. Rackers hsould have made the 41 yarder with ease. No excuse for the miss at all. Dome, Hold and snap were perfect. HE blew!

im not excusing the miss anything under 50 i expect see go over!

just making it sound like hes shanked an extra point is not on!

over 40 is no gimmie - and the way hes gone.....i would have missed the game tie kick too!

 

[Pariah]

Also, how many touchbacks did Rackers have today? Answer: a lot.

It's not on Rackers.

 

[New Mexico]

I dunno about cutting him, he still puts more kickoffs in the end-zone than most.

But he needs to figure something out.

Not nearly as many as last year, and not nearly enough to overcome his blown field goals in the Chiefs, Bears, and Vikings games.

 

[Pariah]

hollywood = 31/51 for 405 with 1 TD and 2 Int (seems very jake like to me).

One of those INTs wasn't particularly a "bad," he HAD to throw the ball up there in the last seconds.

 

[Crimson Warrior]

Rackers missed a FG. Big Deal. He didn't lose the game, the defense did. We couldn't stop the run but we made up for it be being completely ineffectual at pass defense.

We also got lucky the replay officials didn't have a clean look at the fumble that AW returned. I don't think there was anyway that was a legit fumble.

On the otherhand, I think the non-catch by fitz in the waning seconds should have been ruled a force-out.

wrong - the defense was weak early no question. But AW put us back in the game, and the D held them scoreless for the rest of the 4th quarter.


wrong - one camera angle showed the ball apparently coming loose while he was still up.


wrong - that was actually a decent call. The defender made very little contact with him.



- sorry dude. It seems you and I seldom agree.

 

[English on tour]

What does that mean exactly?

I gather that you think I'm being too hard on him.

its like i'm not from round these parts

just saying its not a chip shot that all!


i like rackers, and think he will come good again - that said he HAS sucked this year!

 

[Pariah]

- sorry dude. It seems you and I seldom agree.

I'm not sorry.

 

[New Mexico]

???

So if he had made it we would have had 3 extra point, and we wouldn't have been forced to go for 2, which adds 4 total extra point to our score.

That means we still lose the game 30 - 31.

Please re-read my post. Rackers cost us seven points. We should have won 33-31.

 

[Crimson Warrior]

I've seen Jake play. I've met Jake. Matt is no Jake.

Just saying that looks like the lines jake used to put up here.

 

[Billy Bob]

A fantom call on Bergan may have cost us 7 points

 

[Crimson Warrior]

Two more sacks for Dansby.

Anybody still down on him?

 

[D-Dogg]

hollywood = 31/51 for 405 with 1 TD and 2 Int (seems very jake like to me).

How so? The second INT was a jump ball hail mary as time expired, that could have just as easily been a score to win the game.

I saw nothing "jakish" about Matt's game today. At all.

 

[Buckybird]

Dansby is a stud!!! He will be even better next year when he is not on the line
covering the TE. He and AW and Hayes are the only play makers we have on D.

 

[New Mexico]

At least it was entertaining at the end. I guess I'm just satisfied that we didn't get blown out on the road again.

 

[Crimson Warrior]

How so? The second INT was a jump ball hail mary as time expired, that could have just as easily been a score to win the game.

I saw nothing "jakish" about Matt's game today. At all.

I agree they don't have the same style.

Jake always had three or four throws that s/h/b picked. Matt didn't, at least in this game.

Matt is smarter and bigger, with a moderately better arm.

My only point was that Jake used to put up similar numbers in his attempts to bring us back from double digit deficits.

 

[ReddBird]

I've always liked Jake. In his early years, he played all-out. Down 21-0, he'd never give up.

I like Matt BETTER. He plays all-out and he makes better choices. That last INT? In the same situation, any QB with heart tries for it.