Vikings - Cowboys Thread
 

Let's Go Vikings! I wanna see #28 run all over these clowns today...

Re: Vikings - Cowboys Thread
 

Vikes have no Defense but Peterson is awesome...

Re: Vikings - Cowboys Thread
 

Didn't MN start the year w/ a pretty stout D? What happened?

Re: Vikings - Cowboys Thread
 

Touchdown Vikes D!!!
YES

Re: Vikings - Cowboys Thread
 

Hmmm...did Romo pull a hamstring?
Maybe that will affect his mobility in the 2nd half...
I would be estatic if they lost...I kinda doubt it since the Vikings look like we did the first year under Gibbs.

Re: Vikings - Cowboys Thread
 

For everyone down on our team, Dallas played exactly the same as we did on Sunday, doing barely enough to beat an average team with a HORRIBLE qb.

Re: Vikings - Cowboys Thread
 

[quote=BleedBurgundy;367351]For everyone down on our team, Dallas played exactly the same as we did on Sunday, doing barely enough to beat an average team with a HORRIBLE qb.[/quote]

You are a "glass is half full kinda guy" right? The Cardinals, and average team as you say....well they dominated the time of possession against the Skins, had over TWICE the number of total yards than the Skins.

The Cardinals ran 73 plays to only 47 for the Redskins and dominated every statistical category -- except turnovers. The Redskins had three takeaways, which proved to be just enough to negate Arizona's advantage everywhere else.

And even though we hate to admit it, the Redskins were 18" away from losing yet another game in which they had the lead at halftime. Redskins dodges a bullet on thier home field. It was 21-6 at the start of the 4th quarter, and Washington almost lost it with that Rakers field goal. 18" to the right and the outcome would have been different. The difference in this game was the turnovers

But the Dallas game was different, Dallas outgained the Vikings 381-196 and Vikings QB Tavaris Jackson was just 6-of-19 for 72 yards. The Cowboys have given up just three rushing touchdowns all season and have not allowed a single 100-yard rusher. Vikings rookie Adrian Peterson, who rushed for 224 yards last week, was limited to 63 yards rushing.
Additionally, Dallas is the first team this season to score a rushing TD against the Vikings defense. The score does not accurately show how lopsided it could have been. Dallas dominated the TOP, yards from scrimmage, and every aspect of the game except turnovers. Again that score could have easily been 34 - 14, except for turnovers and Dallas running the clock out in the second half.

Re: Vikings - Cowboys Thread
 

[quote=sandtrapjack;367363]You are a "glass is half full kinda guy" right? The Cardinals, and average team as you say....well they dominated the time of possession against the Skins, had over TWICE the number of total yards than the Skins.

The Cardinals ran 73 plays to only 47 for the Redskins and dominated every statistical category -- except turnovers. The Redskins had three takeaways, which proved to be just enough to negate Arizona's advantage everywhere else.

And even though we hate to admit it, the Redskins were 18" away from losing yet another game in which they had the lead at halftime. Redskins dodges a bullet on thier home field. It was 21-6 at the start of the 4th quarter, and Washington almost lost it with that Rakers field goal. 18" to the right and the outcome would have been different. The difference in this game was the turnovers

But the Dallas game was different, Dallas outgained the Vikings 381-196 and Vikings QB Tavaris Jackson was just 6-of-19 for 72 yards. The Cowboys have given up just three rushing touchdowns all season and have not allowed a single 100-yard rusher. Vikings rookie Adrian Peterson, who rushed for 224 yards last week, was limited to 63 yards rushing.
Additionally, Dallas is the first team this season to score a rushing TD against the Vikings defense. The score does not accurately show how lopsided it could have been. Dallas dominated the TOP, yards from scrimmage, and every aspect of the game except turnovers. Again that score could have easily been 34 - 14, except for turnovers and Dallas running the clock out in the second half.[/quote]Still, there's no skill for the "prevention of 9 or more points in less than 30 seconds". Dallas did it against Buffalo, and Arizona basically did it against us. As a team, the Redskins can not take credit for a missed FG, although the Cards also cannot take credit for Suisham's miss. You can't really blame yourself for the onside kick going awry, it was just perfectly executed.

The only thing the Skins can take blame for is giving up so many passing yards on the final three drives. But can giving up yards alone turn an eight point advantage with 3 to go into a regulation loss? Doubt. The Cardinals caught an insane string of luck to be in the situation they were, and relative to that, the Redskins were much less lucky that he missed the kick. After all, the percentages said he would.

Re: Vikings - Cowboys Thread
 

[QUOTE=sandtrapjack;367363]You are a "glass is half full kinda guy" right? The Cardinals, and average team as you say....well they dominated the time of possession against the Skins, had over TWICE the number of total yards than the Skins.

The Cardinals ran 73 plays to only 47 for the Redskins and dominated every statistical category -- except turnovers. The Redskins had three takeaways, which proved to be just enough to negate Arizona's advantage everywhere else.

And even though we hate to admit it, the Redskins were 18" away from losing yet another game in which they had the lead at halftime. Redskins dodges a bullet on thier home field. It was 21-6 at the start of the 4th quarter, and Washington almost lost it with that Rakers field goal. 18" to the right and the outcome would have been different. The difference in this game was the turnovers

But the Dallas game was different, Dallas outgained the Vikings 381-196 and Vikings QB Tavaris Jackson was just 6-of-19 for 72 yards. The Cowboys have given up just three rushing touchdowns all season and have not allowed a single 100-yard rusher. Vikings rookie Adrian Peterson, who rushed for 224 yards last week, was limited to 63 yards rushing.
Additionally, Dallas is the first team this season to score a rushing TD against the Vikings defense. The score does not accurately show how lopsided it could have been. Dallas dominated the TOP, yards from scrimmage, and every aspect of the game except turnovers. Again that score could have easily been 34 - 14, except for turnovers and Dallas running the clock out in the second half.[/QUOTE]

I said you did barely enough to beat an average team with a horrible quarterback. Not should've would've could've won by more. You DID (hence fact, reality, non-fiction, etc.) barely enough to win. Congrats. That glass is sooo half full.

Re: Vikings - Cowboys Thread
 

[quote=GTripp0012;367365] The Cardinals caught an insane string of luck to be in the situation they were, and relative to that, the Redskins were much less lucky that he missed the kick.[/quote]
LOL.

LUCK? Come on, you could get lucking in one, two, three or even four plays, but not to come back against the so claimed top 5 defense in the NFL and do it with such ease. I don't know who said it, but the saying goes something like "I believe in luck, and the harder I work the more I have" it might've been TJ.

You say the Redskins weren't lucky, are you kidding? If the Cardinals didn't miss the PAT or Boldin throws it just a foot or two higher for the 2 point conversion, or Racker doesn't miss, you would be screaming how inept this offense is and rightly so.

The only thing I liked about the game is how Gibbs didn't do that BS timeout to make Racker redo it. It is about time coaches act like men and take defeat like men too.

Re: Vikings - Cowboys Thread
 

[quote=BleedBurgundy;367351]For everyone down on our team, Dallas played exactly the same as we did on Sunday, doing barely enough to beat an average team with a HORRIBLE qb.[/quote]NO here is how it went:

Dallas dominated and barely won.

The Skins got dominated and barely won.

Re: Vikings - Cowboys Thread
 

[quote=TheBigD;367585]LOL.

LUCK? Come on, you could get lucking in one, two, three or even four plays, but not to come back against the so claimed top 5 defense in the NFL and do it with such ease. I don't know who said it, but the saying goes something like "I believe in luck, and the harder I work the more I have" it might've been TJ.

You say the Redskins weren't lucky, are you kidding? If the Cardinals didn't miss the PAT or Boldin throws it just a foot or two higher for the 2 point conversion, or Racker doesn't miss, you would be screaming how inept this offense is and rightly so.

[B]The only thing I liked about the game is how Gibbs didn't do that BS timeout to make Racker redo it. It is about time coaches act like men and take defeat like men too[/B].[/quote]

I hope the NFL looks at that in the offseason. It's legal but it's definitely a shady move.

I would be absolutely livid to see a game winning kick go through only to have to kick it again because the coach called TO from the sidelines, and the re-kick sails wide.

Re: Vikings - Cowboys Thread
 

[QUOTE=TheBigD;367590]NO here is how it went:

Dallas dominated and barely won.

The Skins got dominated and barely won.[/QUOTE]

What is so hard about admitting you did barely enough to win? Yes, you moved the ball with ease for much of the game... but the score was close at the end...

Re: Vikings - Cowboys Thread
 

[quote=BleedBurgundy;367657]What is so hard about admitting you did barely enough to win? Yes, you moved the ball with ease for much of the game... but the score was close at the end...[/quote]Dude, you even quoted what I said. Can't you read? I said "Dallas Dominated and [B]BARELY[/B] won".

Re: Vikings - Cowboys Thread
 

No, I can't. Thanks for pointing out my learning disability. I'm actually having this read to me right now...

You B-A-R-E-L-Y won that game. I watched it. Had the vikings been quarterbacked by a legit NFL qb, your defense was toast.

Re: Vikings - Cowboys Thread
 

[quote=BleedBurgundy;367662]No, I can't. Thanks for pointing out my learning disability. I'm actually having this read to me right now...

You B-A-R-E-L-Y won that game. I watched it. Had the vikings been quarterbacked by a legit NFL qb, your defense was toast.[/quote]
Seriously?? This is coming from someone whose team barely won against the Cardinals and got dominated in every aspect of the game. Let's see, other than the Lions' game, tell me which game the offense looked solid? Even the game Dallas lost they scored 27. The Skins offense could not put away and 0-6 team AT HOME and had to wait for their kicker to save them in OT.

I am not pointing out anything and I am not insulting anyone. But you quoted what I said. Isaid in my post that Dallas barely won, and you wanted me to "admit" to what I have already said.

I know you are frustrated, but instead of ranting about how barely Dallas won, you should be more concerned about how your team will do next weekend.

Re: Vikings - Cowboys Thread
 

I am not talking about us, I can freely freaking admit that we barely won. I'm a realist. Focus on the issue at hand. The point of everything I said is that if you look around the league this week, including but not limited to the Dallas Fucking Cowboys, you will see that a lot of solid teams struggled with not so solid teams. If this offends your delicate sensibilities, too bad.

What the hell is the point of your posts? What are you arguing about? I'm saying we barely won, I'm just saying we shouldn't get too down about it since other good teams (hey, that's a friggin' compliment) i.e. the Cowboys also played poorly...

Re: Vikings - Cowboys Thread
 

[quote=BleedBurgundy;367732]I am not talking about us, I can freely freaking admit that we barely won. I'm a realist. Focus on the issue at hand. The point of everything I said is that if you look around the league this week, including but not limited to the Dallas Fucking Cowboys, you will see that a lot of solid teams struggled with not so solid teams. If this offends your delicate sensibilities, too bad.

What the hell is the point of your posts? What are you arguing about? I'm saying we barely won, I'm just saying we shouldn't get too down about it since other good teams (hey, that's a friggin' compliment) i.e. the Cowboys also played poorly...[/quote]
I am not offended, mad or even bothered by your comments. You are the one who responded to my post after I pointed out the differences. Both teams barely won, but Dallas looked good barely winning where as the Skins, well looked like the 2nd half Skins they have been this season.

Look at the yards gained and yards allowed for the Skins, Dallas and each of their respective opponents. Look at the margin of victory of the two games. How are those the same is just beyond me. Plus, the bright spot on the Skins team, before Sundays game, was the D. They didn't look good in the second half either.

Your sig suggests that we "Breath.think.Post"
Here is mine for you
Breath.Breath.Breath.Think.Post.

You are mad, and rightly so, but at the wrong person.

Re: Vikings - Cowboys Thread
 

[QUOTE=TheBigD;367585]LOL.

LUCK? Come on, you could get lucking in one, two, three or even four plays, but not to come back against the so claimed top 5 defense in the NFL and do it with such ease. I don't know who said it, but the saying goes something like "I believe in luck, and the harder I work the more I have" it might've been TJ.

[B]You say the Redskins weren't lucky, are you kidding? If the Cardinals didn't miss the PAT or Boldin throws it just a foot or two higher for the 2 point conversion, or Racker doesn't miss, you would be screaming how inept this offense is and rightly so.[/B]

The only thing I liked about the game is how Gibbs didn't do that BS timeout to make Racker redo it. It is about time coaches act like men and take defeat like men too.[/QUOTE]

That's just silly. [B]If [/B]the Redskins hadn't missed that field goal in the 2nd half, Rackers' field goal attempt would not have meant anything. [B]If [/B]the refs hadn't given the Cardinals two BS penalties on two 3rd downs in a TD drive, Rackers field goal attempt would not have meant a thing. [B] If [/B]the Cardinals had not gotten a funky bounce on the onside kick, Rackers' field goal attempt would have meant nothing.

Ifs are stupid. All that matters is whether you got a "W" or a "L."

Re: Vikings - Cowboys Thread
 

[QUOTE=TheBigD;367757]I am not offended, mad or even bothered by your comments. You are the one who responded to my post after I pointed out the differences. Both teams barely won, but Dallas looked good barely winning where as the Skins, well looked like the 2nd half Skins they have been this season.

Look at the yards gained and yards allowed for the Skins, Dallas and each of their respective opponents. Look at the margin of victory of the two games. How are those the same is just beyond me. Plus, the bright spot on the Skins team, before Sundays game, was the D. They didn't look good in the second half either.

Your sig suggests that we "Breath.think.Post"
Here is mine for you
Breath.Breath.Breath.Think.Post.

You are mad, and rightly so, but at the wrong person.[/QUOTE]


I responded because your posts were pointless. They were simply making excuses for why you're team was barely able to beat a weak opponent. I'm done with this conversation.

Re: Vikings - Cowboys Thread
 

[quote=BleedBurgundy;367662]No, I can't. Thanks for pointing out my learning disability. I'm actually having this read to me right now...

You B-A-R-E-L-Y won that game. I watched it. Had the vikings been quarterbacked by a legit NFL qb, your defense was toast.[/quote]

Maybe, but the Vikes really do not have a legit #1 WR to complement a QB either. They have a very good 2 headed running attack, and a stout run defense.

Now I am unclear as to the definition of "barely won" is it a 10 point spread? 14? 21? I would not say Dallas barely won, they beat a lesser opponent they were supposed to beat. (BTW the spread at gametime was 9.5, and Dallas covered, I am not so sure that Washington even covered.) "Barely" is such a relative term. But one would have to classify a 2 point difference as barely, expecially since it was very close to a Cardinals upset.

Not to mention after this week the Redskins will be 4-3 and Dallas 6-1 and a 2 game lead in the division with 9 games to go.

If you don't believe me just ask Joe Gibbs. And I quote:

[quote=Joe Gibbs]
ASHBURN, Va. -- [URL="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=5937"][COLOR=#000000]Clinton Portis[/COLOR][/URL] is having the worst stretch of his career. [URL="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=5463"][COLOR=#000000]Santana Moss[/COLOR][/URL] has a total of 8 yards receiving in his last two games. [URL="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=7201"][COLOR=#000000]Jason Campbell[/COLOR][/URL] put up the kind of numbers Sunday that had fans screaming for [URL="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=2485"][COLOR=#000000]Mark Brunell[/COLOR][/URL]'s benching three years ago.
The [URL="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=was"][COLOR=#000000]Washington Redskins[/COLOR][/URL] had barely enough offense to beat the [URL="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=ari"][COLOR=#000000]Arizona Cardinals[/COLOR][/URL]. That kind of output won't do next week against the juggernaut otherwise known as the [URL="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=nwe"][COLOR=#000000]New England Patriots[/COLOR][/URL].
[b]"We'll probably be the biggest underdog in the history of sports," coach Joe Gibbs said Monday. "Has anything held up against them? Do you have a game plan that will work against them? If you do, leave it here. Because I don't think anybody else has got one right now. We're going to struggle hard."[/b][/quote]

[url=http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=nfl&id=3075116]ESPN - Gibbs: Redskins are 'biggest underdog in the history of sports' - NFL[/url]

Re: Vikings - Cowboys Thread
 

We didn't lose yet, Jack.