PDA

View Full Version : Off Line Actually Not Terrible At Allowing Pressur



Marrdro
06-07-2011, 11:48 AM
According to PFF's charting, the Vikings had 597 passing snaps in 2010. Of those 597 passing snaps, there was pressure on the quarterback on 35.01% of those snaps. . .if that sounds like an excessive number, it's not. It actually puts the Vikings as slightly better than league average.



According to PFF, the Minnesota Vikings had a cumulative total of 2990 offensive line snaps on passing plays in 2010, and on those snaps, the offensive line was responsible for 146 pressures allowed. So, the offensive line allowed pressure on 4.88% of the snaps that they were on the field for in passing situations. Again, this is right around the league average, placing the Vikings at fifteenth overall in that category


There were 308 snaps, according to PFF, where Vikings' backs and tight ends or receivers stayed in to block, and they were responsible for 20 pressures on the quarterback, or 6.49% of the time.


." To put it bluntly, these are quarterback pressures that are caused due to the quarterback holding on to the ball too long. . .or, as PFF puts it, "the quarterback holding on to the ball too long and inviting pressure upon himself." The Vikings. . .well, the Vikings didn't fare so well in this category. And by "didn't fare so well," what I mean is "finished dead last in the NFL." So, between Brett Favre, Tarvaris Jackson, and Joe Webb, at least some of the pressure that the Vikings' offense allowed was due to quarterbacks holding on to the football too long.

Vikings' Offensive Line Actually Not Terrible At Allowing Pressure
(http://www.dailynorseman.com/2011/6/6/2210000/vikings-offensive-line-actually-not-terrible-at-allowing-pressure)
Hmmmmmmmmmmm, hasn't some yutz been on here chanting something about charting games and how the OL is at or above average all the while some on here have been saying they suck.

I think, however, that that same yutz was suprised at how well the backs and TE's graded out. He had them alot worse than these cats did.

2beersTommy
06-07-2011, 11:53 AM
Then there's the third category. . .a category called "Quarterback-Invited Pressures."

really? QB invited pressure? that sounds a little similar to a "self inflicted orgasm"

i_bleed_purple
06-07-2011, 01:34 PM
is there a stat for number of times a runningback was hit behind the line of scrimmage?

Purple Floyd
06-07-2011, 01:52 PM
You missed this little nugget:

So there you have our breakdown of who’s allowing the pressure. You’ll realize there’s a large percentage of pressure unaccounted for, and those are due to unblocked players that come free against roll outs or on overload blitzes, etc. Our goal here, though, is to show where the responsibility lies for all plays that can be attributed.

Hopefully you understand how that omission skews the ratio.


Also, the QB induced pressures were not broken down but I will say that I would believe they would be high for Brett since he was hobbled by injury from the beginning of the year and also hampered by not being in sync due to him not being in camp with the team.

I would be willing to wager that TJ and Webb certainly bumped up that ratio though and made it higher than it was with Brett on the field even in his hobbled condition.


In the end though, posting an article that states our OL is nothing better than average is no vindication for their play. It just reinforces what we have been saying in that the OL is a liability and needs to be upgraded to be considered elite and capable of being a consistent title contender.

marshallvike
06-07-2011, 03:21 PM
You missed this little nugget:

So there you have our breakdown of who’s allowing the pressure. You’ll realize there’s a large percentage of pressure unaccounted for, and those are due to unblocked players that come free against roll outs or on overload blitzes, etc. Our goal here, though, is to show where the responsibility lies for all plays that can be attributed.

Hopefully you understand how that omission skews the ratio.


Also, the QB induced pressures were not broken down but I will say that I would believe they would be high for Brett since he was hobbled by injury from the beginning of the year and also hampered by not being in sync due to him not being in camp with the team.

I would be willing to wager that TJ and Webb certainly bumped up that ratio though and made it higher than it was with Brett on the field even in his hobbled condition.


In the end though, posting an article that states our OL is nothing better than average is no vindication for their play. It just reinforces what we have been saying in that the OL is a liability and needs to be upgraded to be considered elite and capable of being a consistent title contender.

Agreed PF. They are not a terrible line, but definately could use improvement. Maybe they will be better under the new scheme. We can only hope. I would like to see the TOA sign one young offensive lineman coming off his first contract to a long term big money deal as they did with Hutch.

kevoncox
06-07-2011, 04:50 PM
According to PFF's charting, the Vikings had 597 passing snaps in 2010. Of those 597 passing snaps, there was pressure on the quarterback on 35.01% of those snaps. . .if that sounds like an excessive number, it's not. It actually puts the Vikings as slightly better than league average.



According to PFF, the Minnesota Vikings had a cumulative total of 2990 offensive line snaps on passing plays in 2010, and on those snaps, the offensive line was responsible for 146 pressures allowed. So, the offensive line allowed pressure on 4.88% of the snaps that they were on the field for in passing situations. Again, this is right around the league average, placing the Vikings at fifteenth overall in that category


There were 308 snaps, according to PFF, where Vikings' backs and tight ends or receivers stayed in to block, and they were responsible for 20 pressures on the quarterback, or 6.49% of the time.


." To put it bluntly, these are quarterback pressures that are caused due to the quarterback holding on to the ball too long. . .or, as PFF puts it, "the quarterback holding on to the ball too long and inviting pressure upon himself." The Vikings. . .well, the Vikings didn't fare so well in this category. And by "didn't fare so well," what I mean is "finished dead last in the NFL." So, between Brett Favre, Tarvaris Jackson, and Joe Webb, at least some of the pressure that the Vikings' offense allowed was due to quarterbacks holding on to the football too long.

Vikings' Offensive Line Actually Not Terrible At Allowing Pressure
(http://www.dailynorseman.com/2011/6/6/2210000/vikings-offensive-line-actually-not-terrible-at-allowing-pressure)
Hmmmmmmmmmmm, hasn't some yutz been on here chanting something about charting games and how the OL is at or above average all the while some on here have been saying they suck.

I think, however, that that same yutz was suprised at how well the backs and TE's graded out. He had them alot worse than these cats did.

That Yutz was me....
I would like to point out that I saw our pocket routinely demolished with no place to step up into. Maynot count as a pressure but it damn well destroyed the play. Funny that wasn't a problem when ole' Birk was here. Long Peterson runs? Seems like they have disappeared as well.

jargomcfargo
06-07-2011, 05:17 PM
I was watching the top 100 players show on NFLN and they were showing highlites of Welker. One thing I noticede was how clean Brady was in the pocket. Not even a hint of pressure. He stood back there like a statue until the receiver came open, then threw the ball.
I realize those are highlites and don't represent every play, but I've seen this same thing over the years in the few games of the Pats I've watched.

That's the type of line I want to see. Not an average line, nor an above average line. I want a best in the league type line. The Vikings have had it before. No reason to lower our expectations just because it is the Vikings.

So many factors play a role in a team sport that all these PPO debates trying to pin blame on a single player are a little silly.
Sometimes the QB hangs on to the ball too long. Sometimes the receiver doesn't get open. Sometimes the line lets a rusher through the line untouched.

It's a team sport that requires most of the members to play well and have some luck in order to find success.

In 2009 the line played well, the QB played well, and the receivers played well.

All three of those offensive elements suffered injuries in 2010 leading to a craptacular season with the result of the head coach getting fired.

Hopefully we see improvement and good health for our offense this year.

But I'm tired of seeing cast off receivers from the Bears and Eagles, patchwork QB's, and unmotivated, ou of shape, overweight, offensive linemen.

After 50 years of support, Vikings fans have every right to expect more than mediocraty.

Average grants me no solace.

Purple Floyd
06-07-2011, 06:20 PM
I was watching the top 100 players show on NFLN and they were showing highlites of Welker. One thing I noticede was how clean Brady was in the pocket. Not even a hint of pressure. He stood back there like a statue until the receiver came open, then threw the ball.
I realize those are highlites and don't represent every play, but I've seen this same thing over the years in the few games of the Pats I've watched.

That's the type of line I want to see. Not an average line, nor an above average line. I want a best in the league type line. The Vikings have had it before. No reason to lower our expectations just because it is the Vikings.

So many factors play a role in a team sport that all these PPO debates trying to pin blame on a single player are a little silly.
Sometimes the QB hangs on to the ball too long. Sometimes the receiver doesn't get open. Sometimes the line lets a rusher through the line untouched.

It's a team sport that requires most of the members to play well and have some luck in order to find success.

In 2009 the line played well, the QB played well, and the receivers played well.

All three of those offensive elements suffered injuries in 2010 leading to a craptacular season with the result of the head coach getting fired.

Hopefully we see improvement and good health for our offense this year.

But I'm tired of seeing cast off receivers from the Bears and Eagles, patchwork QB's, and unmotivated, ou of shape, overweight, offensive linemen.

After 50 years of support, Vikings fans have every right to expect more than mediocraty.

Average grants me no solace.

Agreed.

It takes more than average year after year to be a contender.

singersp
06-10-2011, 05:01 AM
Also, the QB induced pressures were not broken down but I will say that I would believe they would be high for Brett since he was hobbled by injury from the beginning of the year and also hampered by not being in sync due to him not being in camp with the team.

What injury was he hobbled from at the beginning of the season? He had the offseason surgery & his ankle didn't get re-injured until after the season started.

The lack of Favre not being in sync due to him not being in camp with the team is Favres fault & no one elses. He has selfishly & purposely skipped out on training camp for several of his last NFL years.

i_bleed_purple
06-10-2011, 05:05 AM
Also, the QB induced pressures were not broken down but I will say that I would believe they would be high for Brett since he was hobbled by injury from the beginning of the year and also hampered by not being in sync due to him not being in camp with the team.

What injury was he hobbled from at the beginning of the season? He had the offseason surgery & his ankle didn't get re-injured until after the season started.

The lack of Favre not being in sync due to him not being in camp with the team is Favres fault & no one elses. He has selfishly & purposely skipped out on training camp for several of his last NFL years.

Nobody is arguing tha tlast bit, but you can tell just from watching he wasn't the same this year.

He said his ankle was fine, but it wasn't. It was usable, but not like it was in 09.

That, and his arm held him back this year. Our piss poor line and receiver play didn't help at all, but we can't completely let blame off him.

It was a team effort to play that shitty last year. The ONLY players who seemed to show up each week was Peterson, Harvin, Kluwe, Longwell, Loeffler and Allen after about week 5. The rest was the textbook definition of inconsistent.

Caine
06-10-2011, 08:37 AM
I agree with Singer that the ankle wasn't an issue early, and that Favre was a turd for skipping TC...but I already said that last year...

...but I am dubious about the "QB invited pressure" element because it doesn't appear to take into account Receivers failing to create opportunities, or the fact that some plays take longer to develop than others.

Let's face it, the problems are inter-related. Our Line couldn't keep pressure off, our receivers couldn't get open, and our QB's were forced to eat-it-or-run too many times....not including all the times they simply dumped it off to avoid a loss.

Further, a lack of confidence in our line and receiver corps could lead to play calling that specifically featured shorter expectancy plays - like planned dump offs and quick hitches. These types of plays give the line a chance to look good, because they develop so fast that the pressure CAN'T get there.

But it's all inter-related. We need a better line, we need better receivers, and we need a QB who can do more than "manage the game".

Caine

tastywaves
06-10-2011, 05:08 PM
I agree with Singer that the ankle wasn't an issue early, and that Favre was a turd for skipping TC...but I already said that last year...

...but I am dubious about the "QB invited pressure" element because it doesn't appear to take into account Receivers failing to create opportunities, or the fact that some plays take longer to develop than others.

Let's face it, the problems are inter-related. Our Line couldn't keep pressure off, our receivers couldn't get open, and our QB's were forced to eat-it-or-run too many times....not including all the times they simply dumped it off to avoid a loss.

Further, a lack of confidence in our line and receiver corps could lead to play calling that specifically featured shorter expectancy plays - like planned dump offs and quick hitches. These types of plays give the line a chance to look good, because they develop so fast that the pressure CAN'T get there.

But it's all inter-related. We need a better line, we need better receivers, and we need a QB who can do more than "manage the game".

Caine

But other than that we're pretty solid on offense :laugh:

Negative Nancy my ass.

Purple Floyd
06-11-2011, 03:48 AM
Also, the QB induced pressures were not broken down but I will say that I would believe they would be high for Brett since he was hobbled by injury from the beginning of the year and also hampered by not being in sync due to him not being in camp with the team.

What injury was he hobbled from at the beginning of the season? He had the offseason surgery & his ankle didn't get re-injured until after the season started.

The lack of Favre not being in sync due to him not being in camp with the team is Favres fault & no one elses. He has selfishly & purposely skipped out on training camp for several of his last NFL years.

If you think he had fully recovered from the NFCCG and the off season surgery you need to pay more attention but I would never expect you to acknowledge it due to your love fest for TJ and all. On the other hand I agree totally that he should have had the surgery earlier and have his ass in camp. Actually I will go one step farther and restate what I said before last season that he should have stayed retired and the team should have never brought him back. Not to say that he wasn't a better option than TJ but if he didn't give a shit enough to be here then we didn't need him.

dfosterf
06-11-2011, 11:48 AM
I agree with Singer that the ankle wasn't an issue early, and that Favre was a turd for skipping TC...but I already said that last year...

...but I am dubious about the "QB invited pressure" element because it doesn't appear to take into account Receivers failing to create opportunities, or the fact that some plays take longer to develop than others.

Let's face it, the problems are inter-related. Our Line couldn't keep pressure off, our receivers couldn't get open, and our QB's were forced to eat-it-or-run too many times....not including all the times they simply dumped it off to avoid a loss.

Further, a lack of confidence in our line and receiver corps could lead to play calling that specifically featured shorter expectancy plays - like planned dump offs and quick hitches. These types of plays give the line a chance to look good, because they develop so fast that the pressure CAN'T get there.

But it's all inter-related. We need a better line, we need better receivers, and we need a QB who can do more than "manage the game".

Caine

But other than that we're pretty solid on offense :laugh:

Negative Nancy my ass.

I'd be most concerned about the offensive line and the new QB. The NFC north is going to be a tough place to be as a rookie QB, imo. Detroit's defensive front scares me, and my team has been very busy re-tooling it's offensive line for good reason-(thank GOD- FINALLY). Chicago is outstanding, and my Pack can certainly bring the heat... Dom Capers knows his stuff (except when he 3 man rushes, but I digress) I said it even after your great 2009 season, your o-line looked like a weakness to me, Marr called me friggin' crazy-or words to that effect- I think it's a more pronounced vulnerability than ever before... I'm sorry, that's what I see, and in the context of what's happening in the rest of the division, coupled with a rook QB, it has the real potential to be ugly.

The Vikes have a few too many holes to address everything, and I don't think getting more/better wide receivers would help much in comparison to improvement of the o-line. Your receiving corps is pretty damn good in comparison to your trench. I think those that advocate having an OUTSTANDING offensive line are "hitting the nail on the head"- again, especially in our division. Tom Brady and his level of protection was an excellent example.

AD and the threat of AD certainly helps your offensive line play, but that is not a perfect solution by any means. The problem with reliance upon a running game to hide what I perceive as a weakness evidences itself when you get behind in a game or when the down/distance takes him effectively out of the scheme or play... especially in a passing league with so many high-powered offenses that can quick-strike against you. I don't think that PFF can accurately gauge the effect of that factor, and in some ways when you go ahead and factor in his impact, a strong argument can be made that your offensive line is in fact a bigger liability than what the numbers might suggest. I think one's own eyes are a better judge of that than the mere statistics.

IMO (pretty much a rehash/re-emphasis of what I said a year ago)

kevoncox
06-11-2011, 01:04 PM
I agree with Singer that the ankle wasn't an issue early, and that Favre was a turd for skipping TC...but I already said that last year...

...but I am dubious about the "QB invited pressure" element because it doesn't appear to take into account Receivers failing to create opportunities, or the fact that some plays take longer to develop than others.

Let's face it, the problems are inter-related. Our Line couldn't keep pressure off, our receivers couldn't get open, and our QB's were forced to eat-it-or-run too many times....not including all the times they simply dumped it off to avoid a loss.

Further, a lack of confidence in our line and receiver corps could lead to play calling that specifically featured shorter expectancy plays - like planned dump offs and quick hitches. These types of plays give the line a chance to look good, because they develop so fast that the pressure CAN'T get there.

But it's all inter-related. We need a better line, we need better receivers, and we need a QB who can do more than "manage the game".

Caine

But other than that we're pretty solid on offense :laugh:

Negative Nancy my ass.

I'd be most concerned about the offensive line and the new QB. The NFC north is going to be a tough place to be as a rookie QB, imo. Detroit's defensive front scares me, and my team has been very busy re-tooling it's offensive line for good reason-(thank GOD- FINALLY). Chicago is outstanding, and my Pack can certainly bring the heat... Dom Capers knows his stuff (except when he 3 man rushes, but I digress) I said it even after your great 2009 season, your o-line looked like a weakness to me, Marr called me friggin' crazy-or words to that effect- I think it's a more pronounced vulnerability than ever before... I'm sorry, that's what I see, and in the context of what's happening in the rest of the division, coupled with a rook QB, it has the real potential to be ugly.

The Vikes have a few too many holes to address everything, and I don't think getting more/better wide receivers would help much in comparison to improvement of the o-line. Your receiving corps is pretty damn good in comparison to your trench. I think those that advocate having an OUTSTANDING offensive line are "hitting the nail on the head"- again, especially in our division. Tom Brady and his level of protection was an excellent example.

AD and the threat of AD certainly helps your offensive line play, but that is not a perfect solution by any means. The problem with reliance upon a running game to hide what I perceive as a weakness evidences itself when you get behind in a game or when the down/distance takes him effectively out of the scheme or play... especially in a passing league with so many high-powered offenses that can quick-strike against you. I don't think that PFF can accurately gauge the effect of that factor, and in some ways when you go ahead and factor in his impact, a strong argument can be made that your offensive line is in fact a bigger liability than what the numbers might suggest. I think one's own eyes are a better judge of that than the mere statistics.

IMO (pretty much a rehash/re-emphasis of what I said a year ago)

I would worry about your team more than ours. Last season debacle was due to coming our of the gates slow because of our Qbs poor play. Then key injuries started to pile up. When healthy, we are still the best team in the NFC North. The change in playbook, addition of Ponder with no training camp will hamper us. However, our young backups got valuable playing time last season, something similar happened to your backups the year before. I expecct us to struggle but still compete in the NFC north.

Detroit's line doesn't phase me, until they put on the pads, it's all talk.

dfosterf
06-11-2011, 01:14 PM
[quote="Caine" #1098599]I agree with Singer that the ankle wasn't an issue early, and that Favre was a turd for skipping TC...but I already said that last year...

...but I am dubious about the "QB invited pressure" element because it doesn't appear to take into account Receivers failing to create opportunities, or the fact that some plays take longer to develop than others.

Let's face it, the problems are inter-related. Our Line couldn't keep pressure off, our receivers couldn't get open, and our QB's were forced to eat-it-or-run too many times....not including all the times they simply dumped it off to avoid a loss.

Further, a lack of confidence in our line and receiver corps could lead to play calling that specifically featured shorter expectancy plays - like planned dump offs and quick hitches. These types of plays give the line a chance to look good, because they develop so fast that the pressure CAN'T get there.

But it's all inter-related. We need a better line, we need better receivers, and we need a QB who can do more than "manage the game".

Caine

But other than that we're pretty solid on offense :laugh:

Negative Nancy my ass.

I'd be most concerned about the offensive line and the new QB. The NFC north is going to be a tough place to be as a rookie QB, imo. Detroit's defensive front scares me, and my team has been very busy re-tooling it's offensive line for good reason-(thank GOD- FINALLY). Chicago is outstanding, and my Pack can certainly bring the heat... Dom Capers knows his stuff (except when he 3 man rushes, but I digress) I said it even after your great 2009 season, your o-line looked like a weakness to me, Marr called me friggin' crazy-or words to that effect- I think it's a more pronounced vulnerability than ever before... I'm sorry, that's what I see, and in the context of what's happening in the rest of the division, coupled with a rook QB, it has the real potential to be ugly.

The Vikes have a few too many holes to address everything, and I don't think getting more/better wide receivers would help much in comparison to improvement of the o-line. Your receiving corps is pretty damn good in comparison to your trench. I think those that advocate having an OUTSTANDING offensive line are "hitting the nail on the head"- again, especially in our division. Tom Brady and his level of protection was an excellent example.

AD and the threat of AD certainly helps your offensive line play, but that is not a perfect solution by any means. The problem with reliance upon a running game to hide what I perceive as a weakness evidences itself when you get behind in a game or when the down/distance takes him effectively out of the scheme or play... especially in a passing league with so many high-powered offenses that can quick-strike against you. I don't think that PFF can accurately gauge the effect of that factor, and in some ways when you go ahead and factor in his impact, a strong argument can be made that your offensive line is in fact a bigger liability than what the numbers might suggest. I think one's own eyes are a better judge of that than the mere statistics.

IMO (pretty much a rehash/re-emphasis of what I said a year ago)

Kevincox wrote:
I would worry about your team more than ours...

Heavy alcoholic consumption this early in the morning cannot be good for you.

:P

Purple Floyd
06-11-2011, 01:50 PM
LMAO you two.

I do think it is safe to say that the division is arguably as strong as it has ever been in terms of talent across all 4 teams.

This will be such an interesting year if there is one just from the standpoint of seeing id Detroit is actually putting together a contender, if Green Bay can maintain the level of play they reached at the end of last season, if the Bears can recover from the defeat by the Packers at the end of last year when Cutler bowed out and if the Vikings can retool and contend or whether we are destined for a rebuild and a stint at the bottom of the cellar for a few years.

One way or the other I am excited to see the new staff and how they use and develop the talent on the roster.

singersp
06-11-2011, 06:46 PM
Also, the QB induced pressures were not broken down but I will say that I would believe they would be high for Brett since he was hobbled by injury from the beginning of the year and also hampered by not being in sync due to him not being in camp with the team.

What injury was he hobbled from at the beginning of the season? He had the offseason surgery & his ankle didn't get re-injured until after the season started.

The lack of Favre not being in sync due to him not being in camp with the team is Favres fault & no one elses. He has selfishly & purposely skipped out on training camp for several of his last NFL years.

If you think he had fully recovered from the NFCCG and the off season surgery you need to pay more attention but I would never expect you to acknowledge it due to your love fest for TJ and all. On the other hand I agree totally that he should have had the surgery earlier and have his ass in camp. Actually I will go one step farther and restate what I said before last season that he should have stayed retired and the team should have never brought him back. Not to say that he wasn't a better option than TJ but if he didn't give a shit enough to be here then we didn't need him.

First off, don't have a love fest with TJ. My stance has always been to play him for the entire year in 2008 to see what you got, rather than knee jerk & put him on the bench & keep him on the back burner for three more years wondering if he'll pan out or not. IMO, that set us back 2 years because as long as he was on the roster, the Vikings made no attempt to draft another QB early in the draft.

His ankle may not have been 100%, but it was close to it. It was far from the hobbling you make it out to be.

He was physically out of shape last year. At least in 2009, he actually had some resemblance of a workout regime to get himself into shape, but last year he basically crawled off his tractor to play after Wilf tossed millions more in cash his way.

I agree that he should have had his surgery earlier not only last year, but in 2009, but then in both cases, he would have not had a viable excuse to miss training camp. Make no mistake about it, the rehab time overlapping training camp both years was not coincidental. IMO, it was just as intentional as was his retirement waffling up until the time training camp was over his past 4-5 years in GB.

Marrdro
06-12-2011, 08:16 PM
You missed this little nugget:

So there you have our breakdown of who’s allowing the pressure. You’ll realize there’s a large percentage of pressure unaccounted for, and those are due to unblocked players that come free against roll outs or on overload blitzes, etc. Our goal here, though, is to show where the responsibility lies for all plays that can be attributed.

Hopefully you understand how that omission skews the ratio.


Also, the QB induced pressures were not broken down but I will say that I would believe they would be high for Brett since he was hobbled by injury from the beginning of the year and also hampered by not being in sync due to him not being in camp with the team.

I would be willing to wager that TJ and Webb certainly bumped up that ratio though and made it higher than it was with Brett on the field even in his hobbled condition.


In the end though, posting an article that states our OL is nothing better than average is no vindication for their play. It just reinforces what we have been saying in that the OL is a liability and needs to be upgraded to be considered elite and capable of being a consistent title contender.
So are you talking about the starters only or the backups who also contributed to the stat, that has them about middle of the pack by the way.

I wonder were they would have been rated if the starters would have played the whole season mixed in with the small issue of protecting a broke dick QB who shouldn't have been on the field to begin with.

On a side note, don't have time to get the numbers myself, but are you saying that TJ and Joe had enough reps between them to really scew the QB "Self Inflicted Wound"?

Marrdro
06-12-2011, 08:18 PM
According to PFF's charting, the Vikings had 597 passing snaps in 2010. Of those 597 passing snaps, there was pressure on the quarterback on 35.01% of those snaps. . .if that sounds like an excessive number, it's not. It actually puts the Vikings as slightly better than league average.



According to PFF, the Minnesota Vikings had a cumulative total of 2990 offensive line snaps on passing plays in 2010, and on those snaps, the offensive line was responsible for 146 pressures allowed. So, the offensive line allowed pressure on 4.88% of the snaps that they were on the field for in passing situations. Again, this is right around the league average, placing the Vikings at fifteenth overall in that category


There were 308 snaps, according to PFF, where Vikings' backs and tight ends or receivers stayed in to block, and they were responsible for 20 pressures on the quarterback, or 6.49% of the time.


." To put it bluntly, these are quarterback pressures that are caused due to the quarterback holding on to the ball too long. . .or, as PFF puts it, "the quarterback holding on to the ball too long and inviting pressure upon himself." The Vikings. . .well, the Vikings didn't fare so well in this category. And by "didn't fare so well," what I mean is "finished dead last in the NFL." So, between Brett Favre, Tarvaris Jackson, and Joe Webb, at least some of the pressure that the Vikings' offense allowed was due to quarterbacks holding on to the football too long.

Vikings' Offensive Line Actually Not Terrible At Allowing Pressure
(http://www.dailynorseman.com/2011/6/6/2210000/vikings-offensive-line-actually-not-terrible-at-allowing-pressure)
Hmmmmmmmmmmm, hasn't some yutz been on here chanting something about charting games and how the OL is at or above average all the while some on here have been saying they suck.

I think, however, that that same yutz was suprised at how well the backs and TE's graded out. He had them alot worse than these cats did.

That Yutz was me....
I would like to point out that I saw our pocket routinely demolished with no place to step up into. Maynot count as a pressure but it damn well destroyed the play. Funny that wasn't a problem when ole' Birk was here. Long Peterson runs? Seems like they have disappeared as well.
LOL, well, I guesss I can agree that you and I have agreed on this subject, but the yutz I was referring to was me. ;)

Marrdro
06-12-2011, 08:21 PM
Also, the QB induced pressures were not broken down but I will say that I would believe they would be high for Brett since he was hobbled by injury from the beginning of the year and also hampered by not being in sync due to him not being in camp with the team.

What injury was he hobbled from at the beginning of the season? He had the offseason surgery & his ankle didn't get re-injured until after the season started.

The lack of Favre not being in sync due to him not being in camp with the team is Favres fault & no one elses. He has selfishly & purposely skipped out on training camp for several of his last NFL years.

Nobody is arguing tha tlast bit, but you can tell just from watching he wasn't the same this year.

He said his ankle was fine, but it wasn't. It was usable, but not like it was in 09.

That, and his arm held him back this year. Our piss poor line and receiver play didn't help at all, but we can't completely let blame off him.

It was a team effort to play that shitty last year. The ONLY players who seemed to show up each week was Peterson, Harvin, Kluwe, Longwell, Loeffler and Allen after about week 5. The rest was the textbook definition of inconsistent.
What is so hard to grasp? A OL that grades out middle of the pack, that had 3 backups in at some point or another all year, isn't piss poor my friend.

Does it have issue? Yes, all lines do, but seriously, piss poor? :dry:

Marrdro
06-12-2011, 08:23 PM
I agree with Singer that the ankle wasn't an issue early, and that Favre was a turd for skipping TC...but I already said that last year...

...but I am dubious about the "QB invited pressure" element because it doesn't appear to take into account Receivers failing to create opportunities, or the fact that some plays take longer to develop than others.

Let's face it, the problems are inter-related. Our Line couldn't keep pressure off, our receivers couldn't get open, and our QB's were forced to eat-it-or-run too many times....not including all the times they simply dumped it off to avoid a loss.

Further, a lack of confidence in our line and receiver corps could lead to play calling that specifically featured shorter expectancy plays - like planned dump offs and quick hitches. These types of plays give the line a chance to look good, because they develop so fast that the pressure CAN'T get there.

But it's all inter-related. We need a better line, we need better receivers, and we need a QB who can do more than "manage the game".

Caine
THERE IT IS.......A post from the Caine of old.

Top shelf, top shelf indeed. Glad to have you back. Especially love the point about play calling my friend.

Marrdro
06-12-2011, 08:30 PM
Well, as part of their look at pass protection in the NFL in 2010, Pro Football Focus threw a couple more categories in the mix. They looked at what percentage of pressures from opposing defenses wound up turning into sacks, and how many blockers teams had a tendency to leave in on each play. Those three categories together combined to give PFF their 2010 Team Pass Protection Rankings.

In what's going to come as a surprise to many. . .and I know it surprised the hell out of me. . .the Minnesota Vikings are in the top half of the league in these rankings, clocking in at thirteenth overall (actually, they're tied for eleventh with the New Orleans Saints and the Miami Dolphins, but PFF puts them at thirteen. . .I'm sure they have their reasons). They're even the second-best team in the NFC North in this category, according to Pro Football Focus. . .and the top team in the division isn't who you probably think it is.




They might not be able to run block all that well, but there are plenty of worse units in pass protection than the Vikings’ offensive line. The real stories coming from the other guys. Along with his struggles in catching the ball, Adrian Peterson’s pass blocking skills leave you wanting – only one halfback finished with a worse rating in pass protection. At the other end of the spectrum, only one tight end finished with a higher rating than Jim Kleinsasser. The quarterbacks didn’t make anyone look better than they were.




However, this leads me to my big question, and the big question that so many other people have about this offensive line. . .why in the hell can't this group run block worth a damn? You have a pair of 350-pound tackles on the outside, a future Hall of Famer at one guard spot, a mauler at the other guard spot, a guy like Klenisasser that basically acts like a third tackle when he's out there. . .is John Sullivan that overmatched most of the time, or has the scheme the past couple of years just been that terrible when it comes to run blocking? I mean, it makes Adrian Peterson's performance the past couple of years seem that much more amazing, doesn't it? Hopefully the addition of Jeff Davidson, the architect of some pretty powerful rushing offenses with the Carolina Panthers, can serve to remedy this.




More From Pro Football Focus On The Vikings' Pass Protection
(http://www.dailynorseman.com/2011/6/12/2220075/more-from-pro-football-focus-on-the-vikings-pass-protection)
I wonder if AD doesn't have something to do with the run blocking at times? Lets not forget how Theenimy always got down on him when it came to his technique (first two steps).

In short, teams know he isn't going to go to the primary whole, so they just sit back and wait for the cutback, eliminating the big runs.

And no Bleed, I'm not saying anything that might be misunderstood as sticking up for the OL. I'm just wondering thats all. ;)

Purple Floyd
06-12-2011, 08:56 PM
You missed this little nugget:

So there you have our breakdown of who’s allowing the pressure. You’ll realize there’s a large percentage of pressure unaccounted for, and those are due to unblocked players that come free against roll outs or on overload blitzes, etc. Our goal here, though, is to show where the responsibility lies for all plays that can be attributed.

Hopefully you understand how that omission skews the ratio.


Also, the QB induced pressures were not broken down but I will say that I would believe they would be high for Brett since he was hobbled by injury from the beginning of the year and also hampered by not being in sync due to him not being in camp with the team.

I would be willing to wager that TJ and Webb certainly bumped up that ratio though and made it higher than it was with Brett on the field even in his hobbled condition.


In the end though, posting an article that states our OL is nothing better than average is no vindication for their play. It just reinforces what we have been saying in that the OL is a liability and needs to be upgraded to be considered elite and capable of being a consistent title contender.
So are you talking about the starters only or the backups who also contributed to the stat, that has them about middle of the pack by the way.

I wonder were they would have been rated if the starters would have played the whole season mixed in with the small issue of protecting a broke dick QB who shouldn't have been on the field to begin with.

On a side note, don't have time to get the numbers myself, but are you saying that TJ and Joe had enough reps between them to really scew the QB "Self Inflicted Wound"?

It's a team game. Every team has to rely on the backups stepping in and doing their jobs during the season so it is a cop out to use reserves as an excuse for lack of production or execution.

Quick question:

How many backups did Green Bay have to rely on compared to the vikings last season and how did both teams seasons end again? When the staff can do what GB did with injuries and win a SB through it all you can get back to me on it.

dfosterf
06-13-2011, 07:48 PM
You missed this little nugget:

So there you have our breakdown of who’s allowing the pressure. You’ll realize there’s a large percentage of pressure unaccounted for, and those are due to unblocked players that come free against roll outs or on overload blitzes, etc. Our goal here, though, is to show where the responsibility lies for all plays that can be attributed.

Hopefully you understand how that omission skews the ratio.


Also, the QB induced pressures were not broken down but I will say that I would believe they would be high for Brett since he was hobbled by injury from the beginning of the year and also hampered by not being in sync due to him not being in camp with the team.

I would be willing to wager that TJ and Webb certainly bumped up that ratio though and made it higher than it was with Brett on the field even in his hobbled condition.


In the end though, posting an article that states our OL is nothing better than average is no vindication for their play. It just reinforces what we have been saying in that the OL is a liability and needs to be upgraded to be considered elite and capable of being a consistent title contender.
So are you talking about the starters only or the backups who also contributed to the stat, that has them about middle of the pack by the way.

I wonder were they would have been rated if the starters would have played the whole season mixed in with the small issue of protecting a broke dick QB who shouldn't have been on the field to begin with.

On a side note, don't have time to get the numbers myself, but are you saying that TJ and Joe had enough reps between them to really scew the QB "Self Inflicted Wound"?

It's a team game. Every team has to rely on the backups stepping in and doing their jobs during the season so it is a cop out to use reserves as an excuse for lack of production or execution.

Quick question:

How many backups did Green Bay have to rely on compared to the vikings last season and how did both teams seasons end again? When the staff can do what GB did with injuries and win a SB through it all you can get back to me on it.

Outstanding post, reflecting superior insight. :P

jargomcfargo
06-15-2011, 05:24 PM
I think we can all agree the O-line could have been better.

I'll bang this drum one more time. Ryan Cook may be a free agent and I think we should sign him again. I would like to see him compete with Sullivan at center this year. I think he wins that battle.

I would like to kick loadholdt insde to compete with Herrera for right guard. The loser of that competition becomes the utility lineman; probably Herrera.

Bring in one of several free agent right tackles available this year.

I realize this is all my pipe dream, but the one thing I really hope they do is give Cook some time at center.

ejmat
06-15-2011, 05:56 PM
I winder if there is a stat that says why a QB holds onto the ball. Because I seem to recall from memory many times where the QB held onto the ball because he was being pressured right away. Yes there were a few times where Favre held the ball too long. However there were also times where he held the ball because he had no choice. I'm sure the PFF stats don't take that tangeable into consideration.

There are many reasons for being pressured. Just one more reason I don't look at stats to tell the entire story. Why don't we put things into perspective? I think we all can agree the more stats to go by the better measure you can get. So if we are going to go by Brett Favre and holding the ball too long let's look at his 20 year career. I doubt there is anything out there that could substantiate Favre as holding the ball too long unless there was pressure. The guy reads defenses better than most QBs that has ever played the game. There is only so much one can do.

Let's face it. The OL sucked last year. The QB had pressure very quickly on a lot of passing plays during the season. There is also the "stat" of how many times our RBs were hit in the backfield or how many times there was actually a decent hole to run through.

slavinator
06-15-2011, 06:11 PM
I think we can all agree the O-line could have been better.

I'll bang this drum one more time. Ryan Cook may be a free agent and I think we should sign him again. I would like to see him compete with Sullivan at center this year. I think he wins that battle.

I would like to kick loadholdt insde to compete with Herrera for right guard. The loser of that competition becomes the utility lineman; probably Herrera.

Bring in one of several free agent right tackles available this year.

I realize this is all my pipe dream, but the one thing I really hope they do is give Cook some time at center.

You are not alone in wanting to see Cook compete at Center.

Marrdro
06-16-2011, 08:47 PM
You missed this little nugget:

So there you have our breakdown of who’s allowing the pressure. You’ll realize there’s a large percentage of pressure unaccounted for, and those are due to unblocked players that come free against roll outs or on overload blitzes, etc. Our goal here, though, is to show where the responsibility lies for all plays that can be attributed.

Hopefully you understand how that omission skews the ratio.


Also, the QB induced pressures were not broken down but I will say that I would believe they would be high for Brett since he was hobbled by injury from the beginning of the year and also hampered by not being in sync due to him not being in camp with the team.

I would be willing to wager that TJ and Webb certainly bumped up that ratio though and made it higher than it was with Brett on the field even in his hobbled condition.


In the end though, posting an article that states our OL is nothing better than average is no vindication for their play. It just reinforces what we have been saying in that the OL is a liability and needs to be upgraded to be considered elite and capable of being a consistent title contender.
So are you talking about the starters only or the backups who also contributed to the stat, that has them about middle of the pack by the way.

I wonder were they would have been rated if the starters would have played the whole season mixed in with the small issue of protecting a broke dick QB who shouldn't have been on the field to begin with.

On a side note, don't have time to get the numbers myself, but are you saying that TJ and Joe had enough reps between them to really scew the QB "Self Inflicted Wound"?

It's a team game. Every team has to rely on the backups stepping in and doing their jobs during the season so it is a cop out to use reserves as an excuse for lack of production or execution.

Quick question:

How many backups did Green Bay have to rely on compared to the vikings last season and how did both teams seasons end again? When the staff can do what GB did with injuries and win a SB through it all you can get back to me on it.
Go back in history, wasn't to long ago I was talking about that. Truth is, the PUKERS had issues and injuries, but not like we did.

Not to mention, they had a QB that could carry the OL instead of one that made it look like shit. ;)

Marrdro
06-16-2011, 08:53 PM
I winder if there is a stat that says why a QB holds onto the ball. Because I seem to recall from memory many times where the QB held onto the ball because he was being pressured right away. Yes there were a few times where Favre held the ball too long. However there were also times where he held the ball because he had no choice. I'm sure the PFF stats don't take that tangeable into consideration.

There are many reasons for being pressured. Just one more reason I don't look at stats to tell the entire story. Why don't we put things into perspective? I think we all can agree the more stats to go by the better measure you can get. So if we are going to go by Brett Favre and holding the ball too long let's look at his 20 year career. I doubt there is anything out there that could substantiate Favre as holding the ball too long unless there was pressure. The guy reads defenses better than most QBs that has ever played the game. There is only so much one can do.

Let's face it. The OL sucked last year. The QB had pressure very quickly on a lot of passing plays during the season. There is also the "stat" of how many times our RBs were hit in the backfield or how many times there was actually a decent hole to run through.
Although I am sure you put some thought into that post, to me it looks like nothing more than your attempt at covering up for the old man again.

Sigh.....

In the end, the page that put up the stats doesn't have a feeling one way or another (OL or Noodle) when they made thier assesments. I for one would assume that their opinion is a bit more inline with the truth of what happened instead of a guy on PPO who loves the Noodle.

(You know I'm just hacking a bit). :P

Go back my friend. Start with the NFC throw into the endzone against the 49rs, then again at the throw that ended our dreams in the 09 NFCC game and then alot of them this year. He (your bubba) opted to wait on the deep guy instead of hitting the guy standing short on the sideline.

Can he read a defense? Sure.....Did he sometimes play with his own agenda in mind? Sure as well. Anyone who looks at this objectively (as the stats guy did) will agree with me on that my friend. Even you I think.

i_bleed_purple
06-16-2011, 08:55 PM
Go back in history, wasn't to long ago I was talking about that. Truth is, the PUKERS had issues and injuries, but not like we did.

Not to mention, they had a QB that could carry the OL instead of one that made it look like shit. ;)

You've gone completely mental haven't you?

Vikings key injuries:
Brett Favre
Sidney Rice
Madieu Williams (Couple games)
Tyrell Johnson (couple games)
Adrian Peterson (couple games)
Steve Hutchinson (bunch of games)
Hererra (bunch of games)
Sullivan (handful of games)
Ray Edwars (couple games)
Percy Harvin (couple games)




Packers Key injuries:
(found a handy list including games missed)
Grant 15 (IR)
Tauscher 13(IR)
Burnett 12 (IR)
Barnett 12 (IR)
Neal 14 (IR)
Finley 11 (IR)
Poppinga 10 (IR)
Jones 10 (IR)
Harris 9
Bigby 9
Pickett 3
Shields 2
Chillar 2
Matthews 1
Driver 1
Quarless 1

Now who again had it worse with injuries? Oh yeah, the team that won the superbowl. 8 starters on IR. Eight.

i_bleed_purple
06-16-2011, 08:58 PM
Go back my friend. Start with the NFC throw into the endzone against the 49rs, then again at the throw that ended our dreams in the 09 NFCC game and then alot of them this year. He (your bubba) opted to wait on the deep guy instead of hitting the guy standing short on the sideline.

Are you fucking kidding me?

Against the 49ers, he didn't have any other option. If he threw it short, we lose the game. Plain and simple. There was NO. OTHER. OPTION. We were down by 4 points. Even if he threw it to the 15 and we kick a field goal, we still lose.

Marrdro
06-16-2011, 08:59 PM
I think we can all agree the O-line could have been better.

I'll bang this drum one more time. Ryan Cook may be a free agent and I think we should sign him again. I would like to see him compete with Sullivan at center this year. I think he wins that battle.

I would like to kick loadholdt insde to compete with Herrera for right guard. The loser of that competition becomes the utility lineman; probably Herrera.

Bring in one of several free agent right tackles available this year.

I realize this is all my pipe dream, but the one thing I really hope they do is give Cook some time at center.

You are not alone in wanting to see Cook compete at Center.
They are going to have to do something with respect to the scheme shift. Both Sully and Coop were drafted to run the ZB scheme.

At 6'4 Fusco of slipper rock has some room to add the bulk that I think Sully can't. Maybe he will be the guy but I don't think the staff wants to have a rookie QB and rookie Center making the line calls and play adjustments this year. Cook just might be the answer for a year or two.

If nothing else, he has proven to be a valuable backup/swing man even though most on here won't admit it.

Marrdro
06-16-2011, 09:00 PM
Go back in history, wasn't to long ago I was talking about that. Truth is, the PUKERS had issues and injuries, but not like we did.

Not to mention, they had a QB that could carry the OL instead of one that made it look like shit. ;)

You've gone completely mental haven't you?

Vikings key injuries:
Brett Favre
Sidney Rice
Madieu Williams (Couple games)
Tyrell Johnson (couple games)
Adrian Peterson (couple games)
Steve Hutchinson (bunch of games)
Hererra (bunch of games)
Sullivan (handful of games)
Ray Edwars (couple games)
Percy Harvin (couple games)




Packers Key injuries:
(found a handy list including games missed)
Grant 15 (IR)
Tauscher 13(IR)
Burnett 12 (IR)
Barnett 12 (IR)
Neal 14 (IR)
Finley 11 (IR)
Poppinga 10 (IR)
Jones 10 (IR)
Harris 9
Bigby 9
Pickett 3
Shields 2
Chillar 2
Matthews 1
Driver 1
Quarless 1

Now who again had it worse with injuries? Oh yeah, the team that won the superbowl. 8 starters on IR. Eight.
Comeon, just cause their list is longer doesn't mean the players were more important. I know I haven't been on much but you should know I will raise the bullshit flag on a post like that.

Marrdro
06-16-2011, 09:02 PM
Go back my friend. Start with the NFC throw into the endzone against the 49rs, then again at the throw that ended our dreams in the 09 NFCC game and then alot of them this year. He (your bubba) opted to wait on the deep guy instead of hitting the guy standing short on the sideline.

Are you fucking kidding me?

Against the 49ers, he didn't have any other option. If he threw it short, we lose the game. Plain and simple. There was NO. OTHER. OPTION. We were down by 4 points. Even if he threw it to the 15 and we kick a field goal, we still lose.
Again you show your level of knowledge. How much time was on the clock? Time enough for two plays my friend and a WR was open on the sideline that would have moved the chains, killed the clock etc. Instead he opted for the "Glory" pass.

In the end it worked and was amazing, but it wasn't necessary. It was a Noodle being a Noodle.

ejmat
06-16-2011, 09:05 PM
Go back my friend. Start with the NFC throw into the endzone against the 49rs, then again at the throw that ended our dreams in the 09 NFCC game and then alot of them this year. He (your bubba) opted to wait on the deep guy instead of hitting the guy standing short on the sideline.

Are you fucking kidding me?

Against the 49ers, he didn't have any other option. If he threw it short, we lose the game. Plain and simple. There was NO. OTHER. OPTION. We were down by 4 points. Even if he threw it to the 15 and we kick a field goal, we still lose.
Again you show your level of knowledge. How much time was on the clock? Time enough for two plays my friend and a WR was open on the sideline that would have moved the chains, killed the clock etc. Instead he opted for the "Glory" pass.

In the end it worked and was amazing, but it wasn't necessary. It was a Noodle being a Noodle.
And if it didn't work there was STILL enough time to throw another pass. I would rather have to throw from the 37 yard line than the 15 yard line. You have more room for the defense to screw up. Either way, it didn't matter and it worked perfectly. Can't knock the guy for trying to win the game (which in fact, he did).

i_bleed_purple
06-16-2011, 09:08 PM
Go back in history, wasn't to long ago I was talking about that. Truth is, the PUKERS had issues and injuries, but not like we did.

Not to mention, they had a QB that could carry the OL instead of one that made it look like shit. ;)

You've gone completely mental haven't you?

Vikings key injuries:
Brett Favre
Sidney Rice
Madieu Williams (Couple games)
Tyrell Johnson (couple games)
Adrian Peterson (couple games)
Steve Hutchinson (bunch of games)
Hererra (bunch of games)
Sullivan (handful of games)
Ray Edwars (couple games)
Percy Harvin (couple games)




Packers Key injuries:
(found a handy list including games missed)
Grant 15 (IR)
Tauscher 13(IR)
Burnett 12 (IR)
Barnett 12 (IR)
Neal 14 (IR)
Finley 11 (IR)
Poppinga 10 (IR)
Jones 10 (IR)
Harris 9
Bigby 9
Pickett 3
Shields 2
Chillar 2
Matthews 1
Driver 1
Quarless 1

Now who again had it worse with injuries? Oh yeah, the team that won the superbowl. 8 starters on IR. Eight.
Comeon, just cause their list is longer doesn't mean the players were more important. I know I haven't been on much but you should know I will raise the bullshit flag on a post like that.

My bullshit flag is at full mast now.

8 STARTERS.

How many starters did we have on IR? ZERO

We had a bunch of guys miss a bunch of games. Some of them started missing games later on, when we were pretty much finished anyway.

I didn't even include the backups the Packers had on the injury report, I believe there was another couple on IR, and a bunch more that missed games.

We were not as banged us as you like to believe. I can't seem to find a list that shows how many games each player missed, but I guarantee it's far fewer than the Packers.

They were without
starting RB for 15 games
starting LT for 13 games
starting SS 12 games
Staarting MLB for 12 games
starting FB 14 games
Starting TE 11 games
Starting OLB 10 games
Starting ILB 10 games

Not to mention their backup SS missed 9 games after the starter went down.

Rather than bitching about how hard it was to play with a banged up squad, they made an impressive push and won the superbowl.

We have fewer injuries, miss fewer games, missing fewer starters and played like crap.

ejmat
06-16-2011, 09:09 PM
I winder if there is a stat that says why a QB holds onto the ball. Because I seem to recall from memory many times where the QB held onto the ball because he was being pressured right away. Yes there were a few times where Favre held the ball too long. However there were also times where he held the ball because he had no choice. I'm sure the PFF stats don't take that tangeable into consideration.

There are many reasons for being pressured. Just one more reason I don't look at stats to tell the entire story. Why don't we put things into perspective? I think we all can agree the more stats to go by the better measure you can get. So if we are going to go by Brett Favre and holding the ball too long let's look at his 20 year career. I doubt there is anything out there that could substantiate Favre as holding the ball too long unless there was pressure. The guy reads defenses better than most QBs that has ever played the game. There is only so much one can do.

Let's face it. The OL sucked last year. The QB had pressure very quickly on a lot of passing plays during the season. There is also the "stat" of how many times our RBs were hit in the backfield or how many times there was actually a decent hole to run through.
Although I am sure you put some thought into that post, to me it looks like nothing more than your attempt at covering up for the old man again.

Sigh.....

In the end, the page that put up the stats doesn't have a feeling one way or another (OL or Noodle) when they made thier assesments. I for one would assume that their opinion is a bit more inline with the truth of what happened instead of a guy on PPO who loves the Noodle.

(You know I'm just hacking a bit). :P

Go back my friend. Start with the NFC throw into the endzone against the 49rs, then again at the throw that ended our dreams in the 09 NFCC game and then alot of them this year. He (your bubba) opted to wait on the deep guy instead of hitting the guy standing short on the sideline.

Can he read a defense? Sure.....Did he sometimes play with his own agenda in mind? Sure as well. Anyone who looks at this objectively (as the stats guy did) will agree with me on that my friend. Even you I think.
Maybe I am covering up but a fact is a fact. He knows defenses well and I even admitted he did hold the ball too long on some plays. However, there were still pressures directly after the ball was snapped. Why? Because our OL wasn't good. They weren't that great in 09 either however he was able to do what he needed to do because they had a guy that could spread the field. They didn't have that in 2010 and it showed.

Again, there is more to it than stats. They tell a story but not the entire story as most of them do. Go back and look at his entire career. 20 years is much more of a better sample size than one year. The line stunk and has been not that good for several years now.

Marrdro
06-16-2011, 09:10 PM
Go back my friend. Start with the NFC throw into the endzone against the 49rs, then again at the throw that ended our dreams in the 09 NFCC game and then alot of them this year. He (your bubba) opted to wait on the deep guy instead of hitting the guy standing short on the sideline.

Are you fucking kidding me?

Against the 49ers, he didn't have any other option. If he threw it short, we lose the game. Plain and simple. There was NO. OTHER. OPTION. We were down by 4 points. Even if he threw it to the 15 and we kick a field goal, we still lose.
Again you show your level of knowledge. How much time was on the clock? Time enough for two plays my friend and a WR was open on the sideline that would have moved the chains, killed the clock etc. Instead he opted for the "Glory" pass.

In the end it worked and was amazing, but it wasn't necessary. It was a Noodle being a Noodle.
And if it didn't work there was STILL enough time to throw another pass. I would rather have to throw from the 37 yard line than the 15 yard line. You have more room for the defense to screw up. Either way, it didn't matter and it worked perfectly. Can't knock the guy for trying to win the game (which in fact, he did).
I agree, but you, like me have looked at it with an open mind which links to the point of the stats.....The Noodle holds the ball way to long and in alot of instances, doesn't have to.

Bleed on the other refuses to see things like that.

By the way, it was still an amazing play. Have it right behind the Moss Toss. If the Noodle wasn't a PUKER I might have it tied or maybe even ahead (just barely) ;)

Marrdro
06-16-2011, 09:13 PM
Go back in history, wasn't to long ago I was talking about that. Truth is, the PUKERS had issues and injuries, but not like we did.

Not to mention, they had a QB that could carry the OL instead of one that made it look like shit. ;)

You've gone completely mental haven't you?

Vikings key injuries:
Brett Favre
Sidney Rice
Madieu Williams (Couple games)
Tyrell Johnson (couple games)
Adrian Peterson (couple games)
Steve Hutchinson (bunch of games)
Hererra (bunch of games)
Sullivan (handful of games)
Ray Edwars (couple games)
Percy Harvin (couple games)




Packers Key injuries:
(found a handy list including games missed)
Grant 15 (IR)
Tauscher 13(IR)
Burnett 12 (IR)
Barnett 12 (IR)
Neal 14 (IR)
Finley 11 (IR)
Poppinga 10 (IR)
Jones 10 (IR)
Harris 9
Bigby 9
Pickett 3
Shields 2
Chillar 2
Matthews 1
Driver 1
Quarless 1

Now who again had it worse with injuries? Oh yeah, the team that won the superbowl. 8 starters on IR. Eight.
Comeon, just cause their list is longer doesn't mean the players were more important. I know I haven't been on much but you should know I will raise the bullshit flag on a post like that.

My bullshit flag is at full mast now.

8 STARTERS.

How many starters did we have on IR? ZERO

We had a bunch of guys miss a bunch of games. Some of them started missing games later on, when we were pretty much finished anyway.

I didn't even include the backups the Packers had on the injury report, I believe there was another couple on IR, and a bunch more that missed games.

We were not as banged us as you like to believe. I can't seem to find a list that shows how many games each player missed, but I guarantee it's far fewer than the Packers.

They were without
starting RB for 15 games
starting LT for 13 games
starting SS 12 games
Staarting MLB for 12 games
starting FB 14 games
Starting TE 11 games
Starting OLB 10 games
Starting ILB 10 games

Not to mention their backup SS missed 9 games after the starter went down.

Rather than bitching about how hard it was to play with a banged up squad, they made an impressive push and won the superbowl.

We have fewer injuries, miss fewer games, missing fewer starters and played like crap.
But see, here is were you continue to slide down the "I don't have a clue what Marrdro is saying" lane.

What is the name of the thread? What area am I talking? List all the defensive players you want, it still doesn't synch with the ones we had out and the ones they had out (ON THE OFFENSE)......SNICKER.....

Again, nice list, lots of nice BLAH BLAH BLAH but nothing relevant to the discussion other than you trying to cover for the old fart named the NOODLE.

i_bleed_purple
06-16-2011, 09:16 PM
Go back my friend. Start with the NFC throw into the endzone against the 49rs, then again at the throw that ended our dreams in the 09 NFCC game and then alot of them this year. He (your bubba) opted to wait on the deep guy instead of hitting the guy standing short on the sideline.

Are you fucking kidding me?

Against the 49ers, he didn't have any other option. If he threw it short, we lose the game. Plain and simple. There was NO. OTHER. OPTION. We were down by 4 points. Even if he threw it to the 15 and we kick a field goal, we still lose.
Again you show your level of knowledge. How much time was on the clock? Time enough for two plays my friend and a WR was open on the sideline that would have moved the chains, killed the clock etc. Instead he opted for the "Glory" pass.

In the end it worked and was amazing, but it wasn't necessary. It was a Noodle being a Noodle.
Your hatred to Favre really knows no bounds.

12 seconds left, theoretically he could make a short pass, which HAS to get out of bounds or they burn a Timeout. That's at least 6 seconds off the clock which brings them to 6 seconds, make or break.

Plus, the guy you claim was open was far left sideline, with the Corner not too far away. He makes that throw, and you'll just bitch about him throwing across the field like that.

Fact is, if Lewis doesn't make that catch, nobody does.

If Favre tries to hit that sideline route, good chance it gets picked.

What would you do, risk a pick for a first down, or risk a pick for a TD?

no, don't answer, I already know what the asnwer is. Whatever the opposite that Favre did is. Am I right?

i_bleed_purple
06-16-2011, 09:17 PM
Go back my friend. Start with the NFC throw into the endzone against the 49rs, then again at the throw that ended our dreams in the 09 NFCC game and then alot of them this year. He (your bubba) opted to wait on the deep guy instead of hitting the guy standing short on the sideline.

Are you fucking kidding me?

Against the 49ers, he didn't have any other option. If he threw it short, we lose the game. Plain and simple. There was NO. OTHER. OPTION. We were down by 4 points. Even if he threw it to the 15 and we kick a field goal, we still lose.
Again you show your level of knowledge. How much time was on the clock? Time enough for two plays my friend and a WR was open on the sideline that would have moved the chains, killed the clock etc. Instead he opted for the "Glory" pass.

In the end it worked and was amazing, but it wasn't necessary. It was a Noodle being a Noodle.
And if it didn't work there was STILL enough time to throw another pass. I would rather have to throw from the 37 yard line than the 15 yard line. You have more room for the defense to screw up. Either way, it didn't matter and it worked perfectly. Can't knock the guy for trying to win the game (which in fact, he did).
I agree, but you, like me have looked at it with an open mind which links to the point of the stats.....The Noodle holds the ball way to long and in alot of instances, doesn't have to.

Bleed on the other refuses to see things like that.

By the way, it was still an amazing play. Have it right behind the Moss Toss. If the Noodle wasn't a PUKER I might have it tied or maybe even ahead (just barely) ;)

When have I EVER said Favre didn't hold the ball too long?

Just you twisting works to support whatever ass-backwards idea is in your head at the time being.

i_bleed_purple
06-16-2011, 09:19 PM
But see, here is were you continue to slide down the "I don't have a clue what Marrdro is saying" lane.

What is the name of the thread? What area am I talking? List all the defensive players you want, it still doesn't synch with the ones we had out and the ones they had out (ON THE OFFENSE)......SNICKER.....

Again, nice list, lots of nice BLAH BLAH BLAH but nothing relevant to the discussion other than you trying to cover for the old fart named the NOODLE.

Nobody has a clue what you are saying, I'm not even certain you do.

Packers were missing their starting LT for almost the entire Season, and a Guard I believe?

We were missing a LG for a few games, a crappy Center for af ew games, and an inconsistent Guard for a few games.

Loadholt regressed on his own, no injury there
Mac is Mac

Twist that all you want, fact is, their backups played better than our starters, and far better than our backups.

Marrdro
06-16-2011, 09:26 PM
I winder if there is a stat that says why a QB holds onto the ball. Because I seem to recall from memory many times where the QB held onto the ball because he was being pressured right away. Yes there were a few times where Favre held the ball too long. However there were also times where he held the ball because he had no choice. I'm sure the PFF stats don't take that tangeable into consideration.

There are many reasons for being pressured. Just one more reason I don't look at stats to tell the entire story. Why don't we put things into perspective? I think we all can agree the more stats to go by the better measure you can get. So if we are going to go by Brett Favre and holding the ball too long let's look at his 20 year career. I doubt there is anything out there that could substantiate Favre as holding the ball too long unless there was pressure. The guy reads defenses better than most QBs that has ever played the game. There is only so much one can do.

Let's face it. The OL sucked last year. The QB had pressure very quickly on a lot of passing plays during the season. There is also the "stat" of how many times our RBs were hit in the backfield or how many times there was actually a decent hole to run through.
Although I am sure you put some thought into that post, to me it looks like nothing more than your attempt at covering up for the old man again.

Sigh.....

In the end, the page that put up the stats doesn't have a feeling one way or another (OL or Noodle) when they made thier assesments. I for one would assume that their opinion is a bit more inline with the truth of what happened instead of a guy on PPO who loves the Noodle.

(You know I'm just hacking a bit). :P

Go back my friend. Start with the NFC throw into the endzone against the 49rs, then again at the throw that ended our dreams in the 09 NFCC game and then alot of them this year. He (your bubba) opted to wait on the deep guy instead of hitting the guy standing short on the sideline.

Can he read a defense? Sure.....Did he sometimes play with his own agenda in mind? Sure as well. Anyone who looks at this objectively (as the stats guy did) will agree with me on that my friend. Even you I think.
Maybe I am covering up but a fact is a fact. He knows defenses well and I even admitted he did hold the ball too long on some plays. However, there were still pressures directly after the ball was snapped. Why? Because our OL wasn't good. They weren't that great in 09 either however he was able to do what he needed to do because they had a guy that could spread the field. They didn't have that in 2010 and it showed.

Again, there is more to it than stats. They tell a story but not the entire story as most of them do. Go back and look at his entire career. 20 years is much more of a better sample size than one year. The line stunk and has been not that good for several years now.
The OL wasn't ranked number one, it was ranked in the middle of the pack so yes, there were issues that the OL had. I have never once said otherwise.

What I've said was that the OL was middle of the pack, just as these new stats confirm.

By the way, even the top ranked OL gave up sacks and their QB had pressure. Take a look. It might be suprising to you who that was.

Marrdro
06-16-2011, 09:30 PM
But see, here is were you continue to slide down the "I don't have a clue what Marrdro is saying" lane.

What is the name of the thread? What area am I talking? List all the defensive players you want, it still doesn't synch with the ones we had out and the ones they had out (ON THE OFFENSE)......SNICKER.....

Again, nice list, lots of nice BLAH BLAH BLAH but nothing relevant to the discussion other than you trying to cover for the old fart named the NOODLE.

Nobody has a clue what you are saying, I'm not even certain you do.

Packers were missing their starting LT for almost the entire Season, and a Guard I believe?

We were missing a LG for a few games, a crappy Center for af ew games, and an inconsistent Guard for a few games.

Loadholt regressed on his own, no injury there
Mac is Mac

Twist that all you want, fact is, their backups played better than our starters, and far better than our backups.
Nope, me and EJ seem to be on the same page. Atleast he sees my point. Doesn't mean he agrees, but he sees. That means he atleast understands enough to have a viable conversation.

As to your assesment, just take a look at how how slam our guys. Crappy, Inconsistent, regressed, Mac is Mac.

That crappy, inconsistend, mac is mac ranked in the middle of the league my friend. Somehow I just can't seem to agree with your assesment.

Are they the greatest? Nope. Are they crappy? Nope. They are in the middle of the pack.

Keep trying though. I've missed talking ball.

i_bleed_purple
06-16-2011, 10:14 PM
Are they the greatest? Nope. Are they crappy? Nope. They are in the middle of the pack.

That is the key phrase right htere. Middle of the pack based on what? Pressures? We ALL know stats don't tell the story. Middle of the road based on sacks? Again, stat's for OL tell us really nothing.

Remember two years ago I believe, someone pulled sacks allowed stats for linemen, and Birk ranked near the top of the league with only 1 or 2. You were quick to dismiss those. These are no better. They are unofficial stats, that don't take into account a whole lot of things.

Ok, they're middle of the road at not allowing what is defined as a recordable QB pressure. Doesn't mean they're good at preventing the QB from being pressured.

The thing is, OL is really one of those things you have to watch. Stats HELP, but they can never successfully rank a unit. watching our OL consistently miss assignments, get blown up in the middle, blow blocks is what puts us in the bottom half to me.

Yes, I don't watch every snap of every game, but the important thing to me, is that middle of the pack is not good enough.

middle of the pack is 16th. There are not 16 playoff teams. There are 12.

We are not playing like a playoff team should in almost all facets

our run game, yes.
Our run defense, yes

our pass D, No
Our run blocking God no
our pass blocking, No
our passing, No
our coaching with Childress, No.

Fact is, we have alot of work to do. We need to see more consistent performances out of almost everyone. NOBODY gets a free pass, and only a few people can say that they were the bright spot on a very dull team last year.

marshallvike
06-16-2011, 10:47 PM
Are they the greatest? Nope. Are they crappy? Nope. They are in the middle of the pack.

That is the key phrase right htere. Middle of the pack based on what? Pressures? We ALL know stats don't tell the story. Middle of the road based on sacks? Again, stat's for OL tell us really nothing.

Remember two years ago I believe, someone pulled sacks allowed stats for linemen, and Birk ranked near the top of the league with only 1 or 2. You were quick to dismiss those. These are no better. They are unofficial stats, that don't take into account a whole lot of things.

Ok, they're middle of the road at not allowing what is defined as a recordable QB pressure. Doesn't mean they're good at preventing the QB from being pressured.

The thing is, OL is really one of those things you have to watch. Stats HELP, but they can never successfully rank a unit. watching our OL consistently miss assignments, get blown up in the middle, blow blocks is what puts us in the bottom half to me.

Yes, I don't watch every snap of every game, but the important thing to me, is that middle of the pack is not good enough.

middle of the pack is 16th. There are not 16 playoff teams. There are 12.

We are not playing like a playoff team should in almost all facets

our run game, yes.
Our run defense, yes

our pass D, No
Our run blocking God no
our pass blocking, No
our passing, No
our coaching with Childress, No.

Fact is, we have alot of work to do. We need to see more consistent performances out of almost everyone. NOBODY gets a free pass, and only a few people can say that they were the bright spot on a very dull team last year.

You are right i_b_p, middle of the pack isn't worth a crap.
I do believe, however, that everyone will perform better with the new staff and scheme. Doesn't mean we will win more, as we are likely to lose a lot of talent to FA, but the players we still have may look better.

Purple Floyd
06-17-2011, 03:46 AM
You missed this little nugget:

So there you have our breakdown of who’s allowing the pressure. You’ll realize there’s a large percentage of pressure unaccounted for, and those are due to unblocked players that come free against roll outs or on overload blitzes, etc. Our goal here, though, is to show where the responsibility lies for all plays that can be attributed.

Hopefully you understand how that omission skews the ratio.


Also, the QB induced pressures were not broken down but I will say that I would believe they would be high for Brett since he was hobbled by injury from the beginning of the year and also hampered by not being in sync due to him not being in camp with the team.

I would be willing to wager that TJ and Webb certainly bumped up that ratio though and made it higher than it was with Brett on the field even in his hobbled condition.


In the end though, posting an article that states our OL is nothing better than average is no vindication for their play. It just reinforces what we have been saying in that the OL is a liability and needs to be upgraded to be considered elite and capable of being a consistent title contender.
So are you talking about the starters only or the backups who also contributed to the stat, that has them about middle of the pack by the way.

I wonder were they would have been rated if the starters would have played the whole season mixed in with the small issue of protecting a broke dick QB who shouldn't have been on the field to begin with.

On a side note, don't have time to get the numbers myself, but are you saying that TJ and Joe had enough reps between them to really scew the QB "Self Inflicted Wound"?

It's a team game. Every team has to rely on the backups stepping in and doing their jobs during the season so it is a cop out to use reserves as an excuse for lack of production or execution.

Quick question:

How many backups did Green Bay have to rely on compared to the vikings last season and how did both teams seasons end again? When the staff can do what GB did with injuries and win a SB through it all you can get back to me on it.
Go back in history, wasn't to long ago I was talking about that. Truth is, the PUKERS had issues and injuries, but not like we did.

Not to mention, they had a QB that could carry the OL instead of one that made it look like shit. ;)

Are you serious? They lost way more players, and key players than we did last year.

And yes, I will give you that Brett and Jackson were not able to carry the team. But hey, if the staff would have fixed the QB spot it would have been a moot point. Actually it is still a moot point because what I said was true and you are just taking the stance of a happy loser.

Purple Floyd
06-17-2011, 03:52 AM
Go back my friend. Start with the NFC throw into the endzone against the 49rs, then again at the throw that ended our dreams in the 09 NFCC game and then alot of them this year. He (your bubba) opted to wait on the deep guy instead of hitting the guy standing short on the sideline.

Are you fucking kidding me?

Against the 49ers, he didn't have any other option. If he threw it short, we lose the game. Plain and simple. There was NO. OTHER. OPTION. We were down by 4 points. Even if he threw it to the 15 and we kick a field goal, we still lose.
Again you show your level of knowledge. How much time was on the clock? Time enough for two plays my friend and a WR was open on the sideline that would have moved the chains, killed the clock etc. Instead he opted for the "Glory" pass.

In the end it worked and was amazing, but it wasn't necessary. It was a Noodle being a Noodle.

Just to get this straight- You professed the quality of Childress as a coach, the talent of Tarvaris Jackson, how Birk was the problem with the OL and that we had a quality secondary and yet you are questioning the knowledge of someone else? Is that right?

Purple Floyd
06-17-2011, 03:57 AM
Go back in history, wasn't to long ago I was talking about that. Truth is, the PUKERS had issues and injuries, but not like we did.

Not to mention, they had a QB that could carry the OL instead of one that made it look like shit. ;)

You've gone completely mental haven't you?

Vikings key injuries:
Brett Favre
Sidney Rice
Madieu Williams (Couple games)
Tyrell Johnson (couple games)
Adrian Peterson (couple games)
Steve Hutchinson (bunch of games)
Hererra (bunch of games)
Sullivan (handful of games)
Ray Edwars (couple games)
Percy Harvin (couple games)




Packers Key injuries:
(found a handy list including games missed)
Grant 15 (IR)
Tauscher 13(IR)
Burnett 12 (IR)
Barnett 12 (IR)
Neal 14 (IR)
Finley 11 (IR)
Poppinga 10 (IR)
Jones 10 (IR)
Harris 9
Bigby 9
Pickett 3
Shields 2
Chillar 2
Matthews 1
Driver 1
Quarless 1

Now who again had it worse with injuries? Oh yeah, the team that won the superbowl. 8 starters on IR. Eight.
Comeon, just cause their list is longer doesn't mean the players were more important. I know I haven't been on much but you should know I will raise the bullshit flag on a post like that.

My bullshit flag is at full mast now.

8 STARTERS.

How many starters did we have on IR? ZERO

We had a bunch of guys miss a bunch of games. Some of them started missing games later on, when we were pretty much finished anyway.

I didn't even include the backups the Packers had on the injury report, I believe there was another couple on IR, and a bunch more that missed games.

We were not as banged us as you like to believe. I can't seem to find a list that shows how many games each player missed, but I guarantee it's far fewer than the Packers.

They were without
starting RB for 15 games
starting LT for 13 games
starting SS 12 games
Staarting MLB for 12 games
starting FB 14 games
Starting TE 11 games
Starting OLB 10 games
Starting ILB 10 games

Not to mention their backup SS missed 9 games after the starter went down.

Rather than bitching about how hard it was to play with a banged up squad, they made an impressive push and won the superbowl.

We have fewer injuries, miss fewer games, missing fewer starters and played like crap.

The interesting part of all of this is if you would look at Marr's comments on the offseason leading up to last year you would see him proclaiming that Childress had done such a great job of building the team with players that fit his scheme that we couldn't even expect a draft pick to come in and get any playing time because of the depth on the roster. Funny how the story changes now huh?

Caine
06-17-2011, 02:29 PM
Go back in history, wasn't to long ago I was talking about that. Truth is, the PUKERS had issues and injuries, but not like we did.

Not to mention, they had a QB that could carry the OL instead of one that made it look like shit. ;)

You've gone completely mental haven't you?

Vikings key injuries:
Brett Favre
Sidney Rice
Madieu Williams (Couple games)
Tyrell Johnson (couple games)
Adrian Peterson (couple games)
Steve Hutchinson (bunch of games)
Hererra (bunch of games)
Sullivan (handful of games)
Ray Edwars (couple games)
Percy Harvin (couple games)




Packers Key injuries:
(found a handy list including games missed)
Grant 15 (IR)
Tauscher 13(IR)
Burnett 12 (IR)
Barnett 12 (IR)
Neal 14 (IR)
Finley 11 (IR)
Poppinga 10 (IR)
Jones 10 (IR)
Harris 9
Bigby 9
Pickett 3
Shields 2
Chillar 2
Matthews 1
Driver 1
Quarless 1

Now who again had it worse with injuries? Oh yeah, the team that won the superbowl. 8 starters on IR. Eight.
Comeon, just cause their list is longer doesn't mean the players were more important. I know I haven't been on much but you should know I will raise the bullshit flag on a post like that.

My bullshit flag is at full mast now.

8 STARTERS.

How many starters did we have on IR? ZERO

We had a bunch of guys miss a bunch of games. Some of them started missing games later on, when we were pretty much finished anyway.

I didn't even include the backups the Packers had on the injury report, I believe there was another couple on IR, and a bunch more that missed games.

We were not as banged us as you like to believe. I can't seem to find a list that shows how many games each player missed, but I guarantee it's far fewer than the Packers.

They were without
starting RB for 15 games
starting LT for 13 games
starting SS 12 games
Staarting MLB for 12 games
starting FB 14 games
Starting TE 11 games
Starting OLB 10 games
Starting ILB 10 games

Not to mention their backup SS missed 9 games after the starter went down.

Rather than bitching about how hard it was to play with a banged up squad, they made an impressive push and won the superbowl.

We have fewer injuries, miss fewer games, missing fewer starters and played like crap.

The interesting part of all of this is if you would look at Marr's comments on the offseason leading up to last year you would see him proclaiming that Childress had done such a great job of building the team with players that fit his scheme that we couldn't even expect a draft pick to come in and get any playing time because of the depth on the roster. Funny how the story changes now huh?

You know, I had forgotten all about that, but you're right. Marrdro was telling us all how deep our team was and how we were "drafting for depth"...

Shallow as a shower....

Caine

Purple Floyd
06-19-2011, 04:59 AM
Go back in history, wasn't to long ago I was talking about that. Truth is, the PUKERS had issues and injuries, but not like we did.

Not to mention, they had a QB that could carry the OL instead of one that made it look like shit. ;)

You've gone completely mental haven't you?

Vikings key injuries:
Brett Favre
Sidney Rice
Madieu Williams (Couple games)
Tyrell Johnson (couple games)
Adrian Peterson (couple games)
Steve Hutchinson (bunch of games)
Hererra (bunch of games)
Sullivan (handful of games)
Ray Edwars (couple games)
Percy Harvin (couple games)




Packers Key injuries:
(found a handy list including games missed)
Grant 15 (IR)
Tauscher 13(IR)
Burnett 12 (IR)
Barnett 12 (IR)
Neal 14 (IR)
Finley 11 (IR)
Poppinga 10 (IR)
Jones 10 (IR)
Harris 9
Bigby 9
Pickett 3
Shields 2
Chillar 2
Matthews 1
Driver 1
Quarless 1

Now who again had it worse with injuries? Oh yeah, the team that won the superbowl. 8 starters on IR. Eight.
Comeon, just cause their list is longer doesn't mean the players were more important. I know I haven't been on much but you should know I will raise the bullshit flag on a post like that.

My bullshit flag is at full mast now.

8 STARTERS.

How many starters did we have on IR? ZERO

We had a bunch of guys miss a bunch of games. Some of them started missing games later on, when we were pretty much finished anyway.

I didn't even include the backups the Packers had on the injury report, I believe there was another couple on IR, and a bunch more that missed games.

We were not as banged us as you like to believe. I can't seem to find a list that shows how many games each player missed, but I guarantee it's far fewer than the Packers.

They were without
starting RB for 15 games
starting LT for 13 games
starting SS 12 games
Staarting MLB for 12 games
starting FB 14 games
Starting TE 11 games
Starting OLB 10 games
Starting ILB 10 games

Not to mention their backup SS missed 9 games after the starter went down.

Rather than bitching about how hard it was to play with a banged up squad, they made an impressive push and won the superbowl.

We have fewer injuries, miss fewer games, missing fewer starters and played like crap.

The interesting part of all of this is if you would look at Marr's comments on the offseason leading up to last year you would see him proclaiming that Childress had done such a great job of building the team with players that fit his scheme that we couldn't even expect a draft pick to come in and get any playing time because of the depth on the roster. Funny how the story changes now huh?

You know, I had forgotten all about that, but you're right. Marrdro was telling us all how deep our team was and how we were "drafting for depth"...

Shallow as a shower....

Caine

I have a memory like a steel trap. It just bit him in the ass lol.

Marrdro
06-20-2011, 03:41 PM
Are they the greatest? Nope. Are they crappy? Nope. They are in the middle of the pack.

That is the key phrase right htere. Middle of the pack based on what? Pressures? We ALL know stats don't tell the story. Middle of the road based on sacks? Again, stat's for OL tell us really nothing.

Remember two years ago I believe, someone pulled sacks allowed stats for linemen, and Birk ranked near the top of the league with only 1 or 2. You were quick to dismiss those. These are no better. They are unofficial stats, that don't take into account a whole lot of things.



Again your way off. If you remember (obviously you don't) I said it was hard to blame or give credit to a C in a ZB'ing scheme because of the complexity of the scheme when it came to helping and then disengaging and what happened if the G and the C didn't get it right.

As usual you are now turning that into something completely different than what I said.




Ok, they're middle of the road at not allowing what is defined as a recordable QB pressure. Doesn't mean they're good at preventing the QB from being pressured.

The thing is, OL is really one of those things you have to watch. Stats HELP, but they can never successfully rank a unit. watching our OL consistently miss assignments, get blown up in the middle, blow blocks is what puts us in the bottom half to me.

Yes, I don't watch every snap of every game, but the important thing to me, is that middle of the pack is not good enough.

Fact is, we have alot of work to do. We need to see more consistent performances out of almost everyone. NOBODY gets a free pass, and only a few people can say that they were the bright spot on a very dull team last year.
Who ever said middle of the pack was good enough and who ever said that they didn't have issues?

My point in all of this is that YOU say they are CRAPPY when in fact they aren't.

That is pretty simple to understand, however, as usual, I suspect you will miss the point altogether......Its OK, I still like trying to get my point across and have missed it.

Now that I'm back out of the closet I am sure we will have many many more opportunities to talk around each other. :P

Marrdro
06-20-2011, 03:45 PM
Go back my friend. Start with the NFC throw into the endzone against the 49rs, then again at the throw that ended our dreams in the 09 NFCC game and then alot of them this year. He (your bubba) opted to wait on the deep guy instead of hitting the guy standing short on the sideline.

Are you fucking kidding me?

Against the 49ers, he didn't have any other option. If he threw it short, we lose the game. Plain and simple. There was NO. OTHER. OPTION. We were down by 4 points. Even if he threw it to the 15 and we kick a field goal, we still lose.
Again you show your level of knowledge. How much time was on the clock? Time enough for two plays my friend and a WR was open on the sideline that would have moved the chains, killed the clock etc. Instead he opted for the "Glory" pass.

In the end it worked and was amazing, but it wasn't necessary. It was a Noodle being a Noodle.

Just to get this straight- You professed the quality of Childress as a coach, the talent of Tarvaris Jackson, how Birk was the problem with the OL and that we had a quality secondary and yet you are questioning the knowledge of someone else? Is that right?
Just to make sure your rigth on my stance..........

Have you seen Birk play? When the line was healty in 09 our young Center graded out equal to or just below ole Matt. Long story short, our issues on the OL have nothing to do with Matt leaving. Again, 09 is evidence of that.

Yes I have a beer bet on on TJ's play this year.

The Chiller. I only wanted him to stay because of the issues that will come about because we don't maintain consistency at the top with respect to our Coaching staff. Doesn't mean I liked him or didn't have issues with him.

Marrdro
06-20-2011, 03:47 PM
The interesting part of all of this is if you would look at Marr's comments on the offseason leading up to last year you would see him proclaiming that Childress had done such a great job of building the team with players that fit his scheme that we couldn't even expect a draft pick to come in and get any playing time because of the depth on the roster. Funny how the story changes now huh?
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.......Barring injuries to starters, how many rookies replaced starters?

Marrdro
06-20-2011, 03:48 PM
You know, I had forgotten all about that, but you're right. Marrdro was telling us all how deep our team was and how we were "drafting for depth"...

Shallow as a shower....

Caine
Same question to you my friend. :P

mountainviking
06-20-2011, 04:53 PM
ON the injury discussion, the Pack had more injuries but spread out over more positions. WE had a rash of injuries at 3 spots: OL, CB, and QB. So while they were going to their 2nd tier guys, we had to dig down past 3rd and 4th guy and in some cases actually sign somebody off of a practice squad.

The middle of our OL got blowed up play after play after play last season. Didn't matter whether we were running or attempting to pass. IF we can't fix that, our offense will once again be bottom of the league in points scored no matter who our QB, RB, and WRs are!

Part of those stats should be attributed to the gambler tossing the ball away early cuz he saw the jailbreak coming, and then late in the season, to Webb taking off running on what was supposed to be a passing play. Our OL stunk last season, plain and simple. Hopefully, being healthier will help!! But, with Herrera healing the knee, Hutch getting older and Sully seeming a bit under-sized, we may be in for more of the same! DOH!! :ohmy:

Marrdro
06-20-2011, 04:58 PM
ON the injury discussion, the Pack had more injuries but spread out over more positions. WE had a rash of injuries at 3 spots: OL, CB, and QB. So while they were going to their 2nd tier guys, we had to dig down past 3rd and 4th guy and in some cases actually sign somebody off of a practice squad.

The middle of our OL got blowed up play after play after play last season. Didn't matter whether we were running or attempting to pass. IF we can't fix that, our offense will once again be bottom of the league in points scored no matter who our QB, RB, and WRs are!

Part of those stats should be attributed to the gambler tossing the ball away early cuz he saw the jailbreak coming, and then late in the season, to Webb taking off running on what was supposed to be a passing play. Our OL stunk last season, plain and simple. Hopefully, being healthier will help!! But, with Herrera healing the knee, Hutch getting older and Sully seeming a bit under-sized, we may be in for more of the same! DOH!! :ohmy:
If I was to get my pick of middle of the league or bottom of the league I will take middle of the league, especially considering that we had 3 backups in the middle of that line last year. ;)

Caine
06-20-2011, 10:34 PM
You know, I had forgotten all about that, but you're right. Marrdro was telling us all how deep our team was and how we were "drafting for depth"...

Shallow as a shower....

Caine
Same question to you my friend. :P

How many starters played like starters?

And that beer bet is already won...Jackson won't even see the field this year.

Caine

Marrdro
06-21-2011, 01:48 PM
You are right i_b_p, middle of the pack isn't worth a crap.
I do believe, however, that everyone will perform better with the new staff and scheme. Doesn't mean we will win more, as we are likely to lose a lot of talent to FA, but the players we still have may look better.
The question then begs, .......Are they crap now?

I still say that the OL, with all its starters in there, are better than most of you think. I use 2009 as proof. I then contend (take it one step further) and say that if we were ranked middle of the league in 2010 with backups in the middle for a good share of the season, we have some nice depth.

Caine
06-21-2011, 01:53 PM
You are right i_b_p, middle of the pack isn't worth a crap.
I do believe, however, that everyone will perform better with the new staff and scheme. Doesn't mean we will win more, as we are likely to lose a lot of talent to FA, but the players we still have may look better.
The question then begs, .......Are they crap now?

I still say that the OL, with all its starters in there, are better than most of you think. I use 2009 as proof. I then contend (take it one step further) and say that if we were ranked middle of the league in 2010 with backups in the middle for a good share of the season, we have some nice depth.

Apparently we DON'T. When "nice depth" equate with "16th"?

Nice depth would keep us in the hunt. Nice depth would be guys who could start on quality teams.

We most certainly do NOT have that.

Further, I'm not so certain that our Line woes will diminish this season. Where have we gotten better? Do you think that McKinnie and his clone Loadholt have been busting ass this offseason? I don't.

I think we're in the same O-Line pickle we've been in for the past 5-6 years.

Caine

Marrdro
06-21-2011, 01:59 PM
You know, I had forgotten all about that, but you're right. Marrdro was telling us all how deep our team was and how we were "drafting for depth"...

Shallow as a shower....

Caine
Same question to you my friend. :P

How many starters played like starters?

And that beer bet is already won...Jackson won't even see the field this year.

Caine
Your better at dodging questions than I am especially when your point, that tried to prove me wrong, failed........ :P

By the way, I believe this team won't have many openings for a rookie to step into either.

My quess....

QB Yup(Obvious)
RB Nope
FB Nope (Drafted Tahi's replacement last year)
WR Nope (they will either resign Rice or bring in a vet, maybe one from Canada)
TE Nope (Our Rook will see lots of reps though)
OL Nope (Maybe C, but I don't see that happening, not with a Rook QB)
DE Nope (Griff will step in for Ray)
DL Nope (Guion will step in for Phat Pat)
LB Nope (I eventually grew to like the Homan pick but he is a project. I think Jasper gets a shot if they don't resign Erin)
CB Nope (Griff/Cook/Allen/Whinny - Tough group of 4 competing for 2 starters spots)
S Nope (I know you guys don't like him. I believe can be upgraded, but not by Burton or Raymond)

Marrdro
06-21-2011, 02:01 PM
You are right i_b_p, middle of the pack isn't worth a crap.
I do believe, however, that everyone will perform better with the new staff and scheme. Doesn't mean we will win more, as we are likely to lose a lot of talent to FA, but the players we still have may look better.
The question then begs, .......Are they crap now?

I still say that the OL, with all its starters in there, are better than most of you think. I use 2009 as proof. I then contend (take it one step further) and say that if we were ranked middle of the league in 2010 with backups in the middle for a good share of the season, we have some nice depth.

Apparently we DON'T. When "nice depth" equate with "16th"?

Nice depth would keep us in the hunt. Nice depth would be guys who could start on quality teams.

We most certainly do NOT have that.

Further, I'm not so certain that our Line woes will diminish this season. Where have we gotten better? Do you think that McKinnie and his clone Loadholt have been busting ass this offseason? I don't.

I think we're in the same O-Line pickle we've been in for the past 5-6 years.

Caine
It wasn't our OL that got us in the pickle my friend. They had a hand in it but I would say the following had a bigger hand......

a. Inept QB play.
b. No WR's.
c. DL that was non existant for the first 2/3'rds of the year.

Caine
06-21-2011, 02:06 PM
You are right i_b_p, middle of the pack isn't worth a crap.
I do believe, however, that everyone will perform better with the new staff and scheme. Doesn't mean we will win more, as we are likely to lose a lot of talent to FA, but the players we still have may look better.
The question then begs, .......Are they crap now?

I still say that the OL, with all its starters in there, are better than most of you think. I use 2009 as proof. I then contend (take it one step further) and say that if we were ranked middle of the league in 2010 with backups in the middle for a good share of the season, we have some nice depth.

Apparently we DON'T. When "nice depth" equate with "16th"?

Nice depth would keep us in the hunt. Nice depth would be guys who could start on quality teams.

We most certainly do NOT have that.

Further, I'm not so certain that our Line woes will diminish this season. Where have we gotten better? Do you think that McKinnie and his clone Loadholt have been busting ass this offseason? I don't.

I think we're in the same O-Line pickle we've been in for the past 5-6 years.

Caine
It wasn't our OL that got us in the pickle my friend. They had a hand in it but I would say the following had a bigger hand......

a. Inept QB play. <-- O-Line contributed to this.
b. No WR's. I thought they could carry a QB????
c. DL that was non existant for the first 2/3'rds of the year. <--- Sort of doesn't make sense. D-line couldn't get off the field. O-Line had plenty of rest, then Offense would 3-n-out. Seems to me that the O-line hurt teh D-line far more than the other way around.

See my RED comments in your post.

i_bleed_purple
06-21-2011, 02:07 PM
By the way, I believe this team won't have many openings for a rookie to step into either.

My quess....

QB Yup(Obvious)
RB Nope
FB Nope (Drafted Tahi's replacement last year)
WR Nope (they will either resign Rice or bring in a vet, maybe one from Canada)
TE Nope (Our Rook will see lots of reps though)
OL Nope (Maybe C, but I don't see that happening, not with a Rook QB)
DE Nope (Griff will step in for Ray)
DL Nope (Guion will step in for Phat Pat)
LB Nope (I eventually grew to like the Homan pick but he is a project. I think Jasper gets a shot if they don't resign Erin)
CB Nope (Griff/Cook/Allen/Whinny - Tough group of 4 competing for 2 starters spots)
S Nope (I know you guys don't like him. I believe can be upgraded, but not by Burton or Raymond)

Really?!


QB Yup(Obvious)
RB Nope
FB Nope (Drafted Tahi's replacement last year)
WR Ah, so the Canada kid... first year in the league, that would make him what now? And aren't you the one always going on about depth and how we don't have a true #1, but role players at WR? We've got Harvin, Berrian and hopefully Rice. Plenty of room for a Rook to make a splash.
TE Rudolph will get a LOT of playing time. Think Greg Olsen/Desmond Clark his rookie year. Nice one-two punch at TE
OL Yup If someone's still hurt/underperforming, it's not out of the question to see a Rook come in.
DE whathisface will play on the line, rotating in and out.
DL Nope (Guion will step in for Phat Pat)
LB Nope So our SLB will be who? Ben gone, Brinkley is a MLB, Erin hasn't shown anything yet that makes a case for him starting. Gonna be some competition here in TC
CB Winfield: Been hurt on and off. Griffin, coming off not one, but TWO torn ACL's, Cook: Played 3? games last year, Allen: Sucks, Sheppard: Gone.

Pleanty of room here.
S I'd be inclined to agree here. I think if Tyrell can pull his head out of his ass, him and Abdullah can make a decent pair. If not, we've got a bunch of guys who've been here a while to step in.