Vikings @ Panthers

[ATL_Predator+ 1,196]

[Vin+ 3,121]

https://twitter.com/CauldronICYMI/status/780149506885025793

 

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

And you wonder why you throw three INT...

I didn't get to watch this game live, but just looking at the Vikings stat sheet, I am not sure how they won so convincingly -- then I checked out the Panthers side and I realized exactly why that was. Cam sucked, there was no run game, Kelvin and Devin both shut out? Other then the always steady Greg Olsen, the biggest contributor looked to be a 31 year old Ted Ginn -- that isn't going to win you many games in the league.

If it wasn't obvious before, Mike Zimmer has a reallllllly good defense. And he's done it with some good players but also some unheralded ones and some not so great ones. Opposing defenses are going to have seriously pull their weight in any attempt to beat the Vikings this year.

[Thanatos 2,847]

The 3 INTs is very misleading. Not saying Cam played great, but 1 of those INTs was on a deep shot to Ted Ginn on 3rd and long with :07 to go in the half. Was just taking a shot, INT hurts nothing, we were out of FG range.

 

Another one was on 4th and 10 with 2:40 to go needing two TDs. Cam just threw it up as he was taking a sack from a completely unblocked pass rusher and was literally in the process of being thrown to the ground. Might as well at least put it up there and hope something happens.

 

Panthers defense allowed 13 points, and 3 of those points came off a Newton interception that had the Vikings starting in our territory. That should be good enough for a win. ST was awful, offense was awful.

Edited September 26, 2016 by Thanatos

[Thanatos 2,847]

 

I'm a 'me' fan.

 

you dont think a team that beat a supposed high powered offense that was also beat by a second string QB/Pats,can beat a 3rd String QB agaist a team they are quite familiar with?

 

I'll take Bills.

 

3rd string? Garrapolo is going to be the QB for the Patriots. Gronk will be back. So no, I don't.

 

Patriots will be 4-0 after next Sunday and the AFC East will be out of reach for everyone else, considering they will have at least a 2 game lead on the next closest team and Brady will be back.

[Thanatos 2,847]

 

south sucks? Carolina wont be able to keep up with Saints and Falcons point production this year.

 

The mighty Saints that scored 10 points against the Giants? Those Saints? Nawlins will give us a fight in the dome, they will get rocked in Charlotte.

 

Thank you, I love Monopoly Man as my avatar.

Edited September 26, 2016 by Thanatos

[Cherry 1,302]

The Saints? Have a defense?

 

 

Bruh

[Bay 2,003]

it was 13 points..and they only had 16 scored on them which says they now have a defense.

Or it says the Giants had an off game offensively

[BigBen07 285]

Or as tonight's game shows, the Giants offense was having a bad day.

[Bay 2,003]

[Cherry 1,302]

The Saints are who we thought they were. A team that can only win on the back of Drew Brees. That defense has and will continue to be trash.

[Cherry 1,302]

They've been waiting on their secondary to balance out for two years. It's shit. Byrd is washed. Vacarro fell off. Breaux is out with an injury. Sterling Moore and Ken Crawley aren't bad but they will get burnt when the pass rush fails to get anything.

[Cherry 1,302]

Actually I didn't think the Broncos would not make the SB because Manning went down. I actually thought they had a better shot with Osweiler. Manning sucked

[RazorStar 4,025]

Actually everyone thought Peyton was sinking the team and it was clear the Broncos were winning in spite of Manning, and at least half of Brock's games were in spite of him as well. We played our best games in the playoffs because it took Manning that long to realize he just had to Dilfer it, that he couldn't throw a frozen rope 20 yards downfield anymore. And he still almost blew it in the super bowl.

 

Assuming anyone here is in the majority is a poor assumption to make, Phil.

[Thanatos 2,847]

 

last year you thought Manning going down screwed the Broncos out of a SB. Last year you thought the Panthers wouldnt lose the SB. Last year you thought the Falcons were on their way to the playoffs during the first 6 games.

Last year you thought the Patriots were pretty much an easy write in to the SB.

Last year you thought the Bengals could make the afc championship game.

last year you didnt think the Panthers would blow out the Seahawks in the playoff game.

week to week you thought many things that never happened.

 

have you not learned from your assumptions yet?

 

1) Nope, TGP thought that they had a better shot with Osweiler.

2) Nope, I said the Falcons lack of any sort of defense was going to bite them in the ass when they played good teams that could limit that offense- and I'm saying it again this year.

3) Yes, NE was favored over Denver, but its the Patriots. They win a lot.

4) Lmao no.

5) Because the Hawks have literally *never* been blown out under Russell Wilson. That game even ended within 7 points. The largest margin of defeat for the Hawks since Wilson took over is 10, I think.

 

You're claiming all this and yet you also are predicting lots of things. If your point is, as you said in another thread, that the NFL is chaos and its very hard to predict- I agree entirely. If you're saying you have the answers and everyone else doesn't, well then I guess we'll see.

Edited September 28, 2016 by Thanatos

[Thanatos 2,847]

So you asked him if he learned from his assumptions yet and then just assumed he believed everything you said last year merely because the majority of nfl fans did?

 

The irony is strong with this one.

[Cherry 1,302]

You're trying to assume that I believed all the media hype shit from last year yet I sucked a rookie QB's dick who was supposed to go seventh round or undrafted. Don't assume anything about my opinions fam.

[BwareDWare94 723]

The largest deficit being 10 since Wilson took over is almost completely coincidental. If the Seahawks don't have a great D/ST over the past few years the whole "RW is a great QB" narrative doesn't even exist and instead we're spending more time talking about how anemic the Seahawks offense is for long stretches of time.

Edited September 28, 2016 by BwareDWare94

[Thanatos 2,847]

I was merely saying that suggesting the Hawks as a team wouldn't get blown out was a perfectly reasonable thought process based on past events. They literally never had been blown out.