bankerboy Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 You say that you can't pick and choose what to include and what not to include in making a point. Then, you go on and pick and choose what happened at the very end of the game as reason why they didn't win. Perhaps there were three things or plays during the first 7/8 of the game that could be selected that could explain why the Vikes didn't win by more? I'm guessing that since your second point dealt with offensive play calling for 3 plays that I could find some issues with the Vikings play calling in 7/8 of the game, for starters. Again, my point was not that the Vikings exceeded expectations more than the Niners. Quite the opposite, the Niners definitely exceeded expectations more, all things considered. If that's your point, you are correct, in my view. The portion of my post dealing with the 49ers reasons for not winning were not related to "picking/choosing" stats. (Since those items clearly didn't happen.) That was more of a rant as to why they lost it. To your point, there are many things the Vikings can point to that they should have done to execute better. (and potential score more....Berrian's multiple drops for starters) My many point is that (in my opinion), the 49ers performance is more impressive. (Given playing on the road, without Gore, etc etc.) Clearly that's an opinion and you know what they say about those. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Outside of the stats sheet (which you only seem preoccupied with) the Vikings, AT HOME played against an opponent without their BEST OFFENSIVE PLAYER and needed a last minute hail mary to win. Yep Az, you are right! the Viking DOMINATED San Fran! Outside of the stats, The Vikings were outplayed all day. AD never got going, the defense allowed a LOT of passes to vernon Davis when San Fran's WRs are a step above the Seahawks LAST year and not really a threat. AZ, does your world of football only encompass stats? If so, then what would have said if favre DOESNT complete that pass? That the Vikings outplayed San Fran all day? Would you triumphantly held upn your stat sheet and said "look at this! This says the Vikings are awesome!!" I severely doubt it . . . . . If you would have read my other posts, I congratulated the Vikes on a win that shoulda/coulda been a bad home loss. You've already been told multiple times, but the stats do show who outplayed who. Sure, a few big plays either way can always determine the outcome of a game, but look at things like first downs, yards, time of position, etc if you want to see which team is imposing its will on the other. You can make a case that MN did not "dominate" SF, but there's no way you can say SF dominated MN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 You can make a case that MN did not "dominate" SF, but there's no way you can say SF dominated MN. but...but.... the niners had their best player go down early. surely that means they outplayed them, no? I mean, come on....you can't measure which team was outplaying the other by yards or first downs or time of possession. the niners outplayed the vikings because the vikings were favored and gore got injured. how can you dispute this logic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 but...but.... the niners had their best player go down early. surely that means they outplayed them, no? I mean, come on....you can't measure which team was outplaying the other by yards or first downs or time of possession. the niners outplayed the vikings because the vikings were favored and gore got injured. how can you dispute this logic? Also, Singletary was clearly more intense on the sidelines than Chilly. Therefore, the Niners outplayed the Vikes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 but...but.... the niners had their best player go down early. surely that means they outplayed them, no? I mean, come on....you can't measure which team was outplaying the other by yards or first downs or time of possession. the niners outplayed the vikings because the vikings were favored and gore got injured. how can you dispute this logic? Ya think maybe wallace is a shizidiot alias? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 I am done. Your stats dont encompass things like missed tackles, drops, and how much time each Qb had to throw. Methinks some of you are mistaking the quantifiable stats that make up fantasy football versus the small differences that clearly define how teams are different actually playing the game. To me, things like the hyped Vikings line getting handily single blocked most of the game in passing situations . . and San Fran winning . . tell a lot. I defer to the Vikes fans . . . . the Vikes played their best game possible, they clearly outplayed San Fran (according to yahoo stats) and barely eked out a home win on a last second hail mary. Does that make you feel better? I would rather admit that my team played badly and won in SPITE of poor play/coaching than staunchly defend how they played well and could barely defeat a team without its best offnsive player. But that is just me . . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterwing Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 niners are a good team. go vikes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Ya think maybe wallace is a shizidiot alias? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Negative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 I am done. Your stats dont encompass things like missed tackles, drops, and how much time each Qb had to throw. well, you know, actually they do. when you miss tackles, you give up more yards/first downs, and the like. when you drop passes or can't block, you end up with fewer yards, first downs, and time of possession. I defer to the Vikes fans . . . . the Vikes played their best game possible, they clearly outplayed San Fran (according to yahoo stats) and barely eked out a home win on a last second hail mary. Does that make you feel better? I would rather admit that my team played badly and won in SPITE of poor play/coaching than staunchly defend how they played well and could barely defeat a team without its best offnsive player. But that is just me . . . you are really starting to sound like an idiot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Let me know when you guys are done comparing me to . .well . . anyone else who was previously here. West Virgin has been doing it for months . . . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 you are really starting to sound like an idiot. Then I have finally sunk to your level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Then I have finally sunk to your level. I thought you were done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Stats do not always tell the story. A team may have more first downs and have a big time of possesion advantage and still get smoked. A 60 yard pass play shows up with less than 30 seconds of time of possesion and one first down. 9 plays to gain 41 yards may look like 7 minutes of possesion and 4 first downs. I don't think either team domintaed the other but it seemed like the niners had control more than the Vikes did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 It doesn't matter who dominated who on a stat sheet, or on a sheet that tallies missed tackles... It matters who won, which was the Vikings. Even if the niners dominated, or whatever is being talked about, that makes the Vikings win more impressive. They didn't play the best game, but still found a way to win. That's what good teams do. /thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Oh, and hats off to Favre. Hell of a play to Lewis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 I thought you were done. His is a common tale........ he made a statement, which was proven wrong. Instead of just admitting "Hey, after looking at the stats, I guess I was a bit off on my statement" Instead, he twists and twists and twists, to no avail. However, he believes he is right and everyone else is wrong. Common tale indeed. *Sigh* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 awesome throw, awesome catch. how do you not love that as a (non-niner) football fan? I have to admit, I like favre more and more as a football player and a competitor the farther he gets away from his peak physical abilities. it's a shame the people who used to be his fans are reduced to such monotonous, whiny bitterness over the whole thing. I think he showed he can still play football and help his team win. Yup, that has gotten more tiresome than Favre's off season drama. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 And they were still winning at that point. Yes, the 49ers outplayed the Vikes most of the day, but the Vikes produced when it counted and won the game. The Vikes escaped with a win that easily could have gone the other way, and the 49ers did not have their best offensive player. Not really sure how you can argue otherwise . . . .but hey! have fun! Yup - your right...the 49ers outplayed the vikes most of the game... Vikings did not allow a 3rd down conversion on Sunday For the first time in more than a decade, the Vikings defense did not allow a third-down conversion in Sunday's 27-24 victory against the San Francisco 49ers. The 49ers finished 0-for-11 on their third-down attempts. The last time the Vikings held an opponent without a third-down conversion came in 1998, when the Chicago Bears were 0-for-13 in a 48-22 loss. The Vikings held the New Orleans Saints to 0-for-7 on third down a month earlier that season. "It's rare to see 0-11," Vikings coach Brad Childress said. "That usually speaks to the caliber of defense being played on first and second down as well." Those three games were the only time the Vikings have blanked an opponent on third down since 1991, when STATS, Inc. began tracking that statistic. Since 2000, an NFL team has held its opponent without a third-down conversion only 30 times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.