Monday, October 02, 2006

My Kingdom For An Offense

When I sat down at the bar to watch the Vikings game, I had high hopes. A win against the Bills would put the Vikings in the drivers’ seat for the playoffs, likely only needing to go 7-5 against an easy schedule to get in. And their prospects for victory looked good, considering the Bills were a worse version of the three teams the Vikings had already played.

Then the game happened, and, well, it was ugly. U-G-L-Y. The offense was atrocious. There were penalties, bad throws, no holes to speak of for the running backs, worse throws, and a nine yard punt. Nine F*&%*@# Yards.

And unlike the past three games, the defense wasn’t playing well enough to make up for it. Now, I’m not saying that it’s the defenses’ fault. They even came up with a huge stop to get the Vikings’ the ball back with enough time to have a shot at a game winning drive. But when J.P. Losman looks like Jim Kelly, you aren’t on you’re “A” game. And when you’re tired and off your game, bad things tend to happen. Like Losman channeling Steve Young and scrambling for 15 yards. And, of course, the “tackling” on Peerless Price’s touchdown. See what I mean? When you’re on the field all game and not playing well, it can only lead to bad things. Bad, bad things. And when they happened it was over for the Vikings. They needed their defense to step up if they were going to win, because their offense sure as hell wasn’t going to do it.

Now, I may have missed something, but it seemed like every single player on the Viking’s offense played poorly today. I’m actually having trouble writing this post because I have no clue where to start. Should I start with the abysmal run blocking? Chester Taylor’s inability to make someone miss (and make no mistake about it, he had lots of chances to break tackles in the backfield). Or maybe I should discuss the receivers’ inability to get open. Or haul in a pass when they did.

Luckily for this post, however, there is a pretty obvious choice in the “who played the worst” contest. And that would be Brad Johnson. Remember when I thought the Vikings should give him more money? Well, I’m an idiot. If I were to choose two words to describe him, they would be “old” and “bad”. Or maybe “washed up”. Or “why did Tarvaris get hurt, I want him to be the starter now because Brad Radke and his torn labrum and fractured shoulder can throw the ball harder than Brad Johnson and could probably make better decisions too”. Ok, I know, that’s not two words, but I think it probably describes the situation best. I want to start a quarterback controversy, but I will give up watching the Vikings before I call for Brooks Bollinger to start. I may be an idiot, but what I am not sir, is an idiot. Then again, we did just sign Drew Henson. I hear he’s pretty talented…


Pacifist Viking said...

I think this is why he didn't get a raise. Childress and co. knew BJ wasn't any answer, that at best in his 38th year he could be a functional caretaker while the new system got installed.

Tarvaris Jackson is the future, but I actually said the words "Brooks Bollinger" on Sunday. The defense is good enough to keep people under 20, but not dominant enough to win games on its own. We need an offense that can put it in the endzone (maybe the Lions are the cure for what ails us).

twins15 said...

Johnson was just awful yesterday. We all know he's immobile and has a noodle arm, but he hung his hat on the decision-making. Well, he's not making real good decisions anymore either.

I never thought I'd say this... but maybe it's Brooks Bollinger time?

TBird41 said...

I can't do it. I don't care how bad BJ is (and I think he's pretty bad. And has been since we signed him). I'm not calling for Brooks freaking Bollinger to be the Vikings' starting quarterback. If Tarvaris wasn't hurt, I'd be leading the chants, but Brooks Bollinger? That being said, if Childress wants to begin the Bollinger era on Sunday (or Monday, or whenever the game is), I'm not going to complain.

Pacifist and Twins15: I'm going to be putting links to both of your sites up soon--it's on my list of things to do. Thanks for stopping by all the time and sorry it's taken me so long

Anonymous said...

anyone read the comments childrss made about the final play in todays startribune? "maybe" we should have taken a shot at the end zone. wow. i was definitely all for his hiring but the final play gainst the Bears and now this is awful. inexcusable if you ask me

TBird41 said...

I'm not sure what quote you are referring to. Here's the only one from Childress I found on the matter:
"We could have done that," he said. "Whether or not you had 14 seconds to get that done ... [I] probably could have done a better job of calling a play there. Whether it'd be a shot in the end zone, whether it'd be one that was closer to the sideline to help that guy get out of bounds."

Without seeing the actual play drawn up, I think a lot of the blame has to go on Brad Johnson, not Childress. Johnson should know better than to throw a ball over the middle with so little time on the clock.

And I'm not as worried about Childress' play calling right new. This is his first time doing it, so there are bound to be a few problems. If they persist, however, that's when I'll start getting worried.