...perhaps the worst whiff on a cornerback blitz in the history of MFN, missing the obvious tackle for loss for a safety. Must have been rushing with his eyes closed but then somehow recovers to make the tackle after a 4 yard gain.
Last edited 10/03/2026 1:39 am
Re: Complete whiff on an obvious tackle for loss...
Re: Complete whiff on an obvious tackle for loss...
by
Vikings_Fan
@
10/04/2026 7:00 am
...original post poorly written by me. I meant that the "whiff" was that the CB didn't even recognize the RB as the ball carrier and didn't attempt a tackle. He apparently just waved hello while sprinting right by him. Usually, even with a poor tackle rating such as this CB has, the tackle would at least be attempted and then this RB (strength of 84 and break tackle of 100) would have run him over but be slowed down, even if slightly. With an intelligence rating of 97 that this CB has, he should have at least recognized the ball carrier and attempted the tackle, even if unsuccessful. That's why I posted this instance in the Bug Box.
Re: Complete whiff on an obvious tackle for loss...
by
Shanman
@
10/04/2026 7:24 am
My theory: CB had his bell rung on a previous play and was seeing double. Tried to tackle the wrong guy.
Re: Complete whiff on an obvious tackle for loss...
by
martinwarnett
@
10/04/2026 12:45 pm
Vikings_Fan wrote:
...original post poorly written by me. I meant that the "whiff" was that the CB didn't even recognize the RB as the ball carrier and didn't attempt a tackle. He apparently just waved hello while sprinting right by him. Usually, even with a poor tackle rating such as this CB has, the tackle would at least be attempted and then this RB (strength of 84 and break tackle of 100) would have run him over but be slowed down, even if slightly. With an intelligence rating of 97 that this CB has, he should have at least recognized the ball carrier and attempted the tackle, even if unsuccessful. That's why I posted this instance in the Bug Box.
Very valid point - Zone recognition was a problem against runs, but that's not the case here.