PDA

View Full Version : Interview With Offensive Coordinator Bill Musgrove



Marrdro
06-20-2011, 04:35 PM
OC Bill Musgrave: Well, our language is based more on the Ron Erhardt system. Of the three different systems that have withstood the test of time in the NFL, you could count Don Coryell's number system, of course Paul Brown and Bill Walsh's West Coast offense system, and Ron Erhardt's system, which has been run for years, with the Pittsburgh Steelers, now with Coach (Ken) Whisenhunt in Arizona, of course it's being run in Atlanta with Mike Mularkey, and portions of it are being implemented in New England, and with the Giants. So our offense will be rooted in that base language.


DN: What kind of blocking scheme do you plan on using, the zone scheme or more of a hat on hat philosophy?

Musgrave: We'll employ both. We want to be an offense that's difficult to defend, so we don't want to paint ourselves into a corner in any way.


The Daily Norseman Exclusive Interview With Offensive Coordinator Bill Musgrove
(http://www.dailynorseman.com/2011/6/17/2229181/interview-offensive-coordinator-Bill-Musgrave)
Both the ZB scheme and the traditional "man on man/Hat on Hat". Hmmmmmm, always said our issue is switching between the two when the QB audibles at the line.

Gonna be interesting to see if that gets fixed.

For those of you who don't know about the Ron Erhardt system. Its better known as theh Erhardt - Perkins system.

Variant of the WCO in that they Run to set up the pass, RB's aren't always used as recievers, but more in the line of blockers in the passing game, and you run multiple plays out of the same 2-2 set.

By the way, get ready for Marrdro to start talking about numbered recievers. the EH systems numbers its recievers instead of using colors or letters like the Walsh system.

Marrdro
06-20-2011, 04:43 PM
Some links on the Erhardt - Perkins system.......

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_England_Patriots_strategy)

Erhardt- Perkins Offensive System!
(http://skinnypost.com/check-the-technique/erhardt-perkins-offensive-system/)

Caine
06-20-2011, 10:40 PM
By the way, get ready for Marrdro to start talking some major bukakke.

Fixed it for you...


:silly:

Caine

12purplepride28
06-21-2011, 12:11 AM
I'm assuming you mean it as some kind of joke, because you misspell his name every time you type it, but you realize it's MusgrAve right? I'm not a grammar nazi, but I feel people should know how to spell our OC's name.

Purple Floyd
06-21-2011, 01:57 AM
I'm assuming you mean it as some kind of joke, because you misspell his name every time you type it, but you realize it's MusgrAve right? I'm not a grammar nazi, but I feel people should know how to spell our OC's name.

Marty gets by with it because he slobbered all over Childress and Jackson's knobs for 5 years. If Caine or myself would do it we would be labeled as negative. Its just part of the makeup of the board.

Purple Floyd
06-21-2011, 02:05 AM
OC Bill Musgrave: Well, our language is based more on the Ron Erhardt system. Of the three different systems that have withstood the test of time in the NFL, you could count Don Coryell's number system, of course Paul Brown and Bill Walsh's West Coast offense system, and Ron Erhardt's system, which has been run for years, with the Pittsburgh Steelers, now with Coach (Ken) Whisenhunt in Arizona, of course it's being run in Atlanta with Mike Mularkey, and portions of it are being implemented in New England, and with the Giants. So our offense will be rooted in that base language.


DN: What kind of blocking scheme do you plan on using, the zone scheme or more of a hat on hat philosophy?

Musgrave: We'll employ both. We want to be an offense that's difficult to defend, so we don't want to paint ourselves into a corner in any way.


The Daily Norseman Exclusive Interview With Offensive Coordinator Bill Musgrove
(http://www.dailynorseman.com/2011/6/17/2229181/interview-offensive-coordinator-Bill-Musgrave)
Both the ZB scheme and the traditional "man on man/Hat on Hat". Hmmmmmm, always said our issue is switching between the two when the QB audibles at the line.

Gonna be interesting to see if that gets fixed.

For those of you who don't know about the Ron Erhardt system. Its better known as theh Erhardt - Perkins system.

Variant of the WCO in that they Run to set up the pass, RB's aren't always used as recievers, but more in the line of blockers in the passing game, and you run multiple plays out of the same 2-2 set.

By the way, get ready for Marrdro to start talking about numbered recievers. the EH systems numbers its recievers instead of using colors or letters like the Walsh system.

So now you are going to explain to us how this jives with your posts stating that he is going to run the exact same offense Chilly ran. In the end this is looking to me like the offense that we should have been running for the past 5 years. You might want to sit down and strap yourself to the chair for this one but if he is going to move the offense closer to what Pittsburgh runs( Which I have been calling for since the end of the Tice era) then I would not be opposed to signing Jackson to a role as the backup QB because I really believe if he is going to ever do anything as a QB it will be in a system like that.

Marrdro
06-21-2011, 12:58 PM
By the way, get ready for Marrdro to start talking some major bukakke.

Fixed it for you...


:silly:

Caine
You crack me up. You did see that they do use multiple WR sets and stretch the field with this scheme (at times).

I know you, along with a few others have been pining for the return of "3 Deep". Although this won't quite remind you of that era, it will get a few more deep balls into the air.

Marrdro
06-21-2011, 12:59 PM
I'm assuming you mean it as some kind of joke, because you misspell his name every time you type it, but you realize it's MusgrAve right? I'm not a grammar nazi, but I feel people should know how to spell our OC's name.
Good point.

I'm not sure I like our new O-Coord. As a means of articulating that I have chosen to call him Musgrove until he shows me that he isn't going to fail here like he has every place else he's been. ;)

Marrdro
06-21-2011, 01:01 PM
I'm assuming you mean it as some kind of joke, because you misspell his name every time you type it, but you realize it's MusgrAve right? I'm not a grammar nazi, but I feel people should know how to spell our OC's name.

Marty gets by with it because he slobbered all over Childress and Jackson's knobs for 5 years. If Caine or myself would do it we would be labeled as negative. Its just part of the makeup of the board.
LOL, you crack me up.

The only reason I get by with it is cause I don't mind getting hacked on for being a bit negative at times. Just like I don't mind being hacked on for being overly optimistic at times as well.

Has nothing to do with the board my friend.:P

Marrdro
06-21-2011, 01:06 PM
OC Bill Musgrave: Well, our language is based more on the Ron Erhardt system. Of the three different systems that have withstood the test of time in the NFL, you could count Don Coryell's number system, of course Paul Brown and Bill Walsh's West Coast offense system, and Ron Erhardt's system, which has been run for years, with the Pittsburgh Steelers, now with Coach (Ken) Whisenhunt in Arizona, of course it's being run in Atlanta with Mike Mularkey, and portions of it are being implemented in New England, and with the Giants. So our offense will be rooted in that base language.


DN: What kind of blocking scheme do you plan on using, the zone scheme or more of a hat on hat philosophy?

Musgrave: We'll employ both. We want to be an offense that's difficult to defend, so we don't want to paint ourselves into a corner in any way.


The Daily Norseman Exclusive Interview With Offensive Coordinator Bill Musgrove
(http://www.dailynorseman.com/2011/6/17/2229181/interview-offensive-coordinator-Bill-Musgrave)
Both the ZB scheme and the traditional "man on man/Hat on Hat". Hmmmmmm, always said our issue is switching between the two when the QB audibles at the line.

Gonna be interesting to see if that gets fixed.

For those of you who don't know about the Ron Erhardt system. Its better known as theh Erhardt - Perkins system.

Variant of the WCO in that they Run to set up the pass, RB's aren't always used as recievers, but more in the line of blockers in the passing game, and you run multiple plays out of the same 2-2 set.

By the way, get ready for Marrdro to start talking about numbered recievers. the EH systems numbers its recievers instead of using colors or letters like the Walsh system.

So now you are going to explain to us how this jives with your posts stating that he is going to run the exact same offense Chilly ran. In the end this is looking to me like the offense that we should have been running for the past 5 years. You might want to sit down and strap yourself to the chair for this one but if he is going to move the offense closer to what Pittsburgh runs( Which I have been calling for since the end of the Tice era) then I would not be opposed to signing Jackson to a role as the backup QB because I really believe if he is going to ever do anything as a QB it will be in a system like that.
Naw, you've been listening to our good friend i_bleed_purple to much.

I do find it interesting, however, that they initially said they were going to move away from the ZB scheme and now we are hearing they aren't.

By the way, I agree with you on your point on TJ especially the "system fit". When we drafted him, all the way up until we brought in the Noodle, that is the system I thought we were going to run.

Our good friend EJ once posted a great article comparing the Tice offense to the Chillers (early ran) offense. Wasn't much difference. Kindof looked like the offense that Webb beat the Iggles with. ;)

Caine
06-21-2011, 02:08 PM
By the way, get ready for Marrdro to start talking some major bukakke.

Fixed it for you...


:silly:

Caine
You crack me up. You did see that they do use multiple WR sets and stretch the field with this scheme (at times).

I know you, along with a few others have been pining for the return of "3 Deep". Although this won't quite remind you of that era, it will get a few more deep balls into the air.

Now all we need is a QB, an O-line, and some WR's....

Caine

Marrdro
06-21-2011, 02:20 PM
By the way, get ready for Marrdro to start talking some major bukakke.

Fixed it for you...


:silly:

Caine
You crack me up. You did see that they do use multiple WR sets and stretch the field with this scheme (at times).

I know you, along with a few others have been pining for the return of "3 Deep". Although this won't quite remind you of that era, it will get a few more deep balls into the air.

Now all we need is a QB, an O-line, and some WR's....

Caine
Judging by the moves the staff has made they agree, but not totally......

My guess,

a. Musgrove is happy with Mac, Hutch, (?) Herrera, Load. Tendered Cook to provide depth, possibly even to step in as the Center.

b. Musgrove is happy with his new QB. Team took him high enough.

c. Musgrove might agree with you on WR's, however, I think his bigger concern was fixing the TE's to match his scheme. Thus the TE so early.

You put the following on the field and it doesn't leave much room for WR's....

BB
Mac Sauce or the Rook
Hutch
(?) Ponder AD
Herrera
Load Shanc
PH

Put a FB in there and you just have Percy.

i_bleed_purple
06-21-2011, 02:21 PM
By the way, get ready for Marrdro to start talking some major bukakke.

Fixed it for you...


:silly:

Caine
You crack me up. You did see that they do use multiple WR sets and stretch the field with this scheme (at times).

I know you, along with a few others have been pining for the return of "3 Deep". Although this won't quite remind you of that era, it will get a few more deep balls into the air.

I challenge you to find even one post of someone "pining" for the return of the high-flying Moss days. They were fun to watch, but we just can't do that.

Fact is, we're not built for that, and have not been for quite some time.

it's nice to see us utilize the deep ball, but we need to be smart about it. Hucking it out there 40 times when we don't have a legitimate deep threat is not a good system.

Marrdro
06-21-2011, 04:56 PM
By the way, get ready for Marrdro to start talking some major bukakke.

Fixed it for you...


:silly:

Caine
You crack me up. You did see that they do use multiple WR sets and stretch the field with this scheme (at times).

I know you, along with a few others have been pining for the return of "3 Deep". Although this won't quite remind you of that era, it will get a few more deep balls into the air.

I challenge you to find even one post of someone "pining" for the return of the high-flying Moss days. They were fun to watch, but we just can't do that.

Fact is, we're not built for that, and have not been for quite some time.

it's nice to see us utilize the deep ball, but we need to be smart about it. Hucking it out there 40 times when we don't have a legitimate deep threat is not a good system.
I don't have to look, it will come out.

Dang near everyone on here hated the "Dink Dunk" approach the WCO brings to the table. Most thought it was going to go away with the nomination of Musgrove (go look at my coach and offense analysis threads and the comments in there).

Again, it will come out.

i_bleed_purple
06-21-2011, 05:00 PM
By the way, get ready for Marrdro to start talking some major bukakke.

Fixed it for you...


:silly:

Caine
You crack me up. You did see that they do use multiple WR sets and stretch the field with this scheme (at times).

I know you, along with a few others have been pining for the return of "3 Deep". Although this won't quite remind you of that era, it will get a few more deep balls into the air.

I challenge you to find even one post of someone "pining" for the return of the high-flying Moss days. They were fun to watch, but we just can't do that.

Fact is, we're not built for that, and have not been for quite some time.

it's nice to see us utilize the deep ball, but we need to be smart about it. Hucking it out there 40 times when we don't have a legitimate deep threat is not a good system.
I don't have to look, it will come out.

Dang near everyone on here hated the "Dink Dunk" approach the WCO brings to the table. Most thought it was going to go away with the nomination of Musgrove (go look at my coach and offense analysis threads and the comments in there).

Again, it will come out.

Just because we hated the 3 yards on 3rd and 7 doesn't mean we want to see nothing but long routes. There is a happy medium, which we saw more of in 2009. Short passes mixed with deep shots and some intermediate routes, all with a good sprinkling of run.

marshallvike
06-21-2011, 10:08 PM
By the way, get ready for Marrdro to start talking some major bukakke.

Fixed it for you...


:silly:

Caine
You crack me up. You did see that they do use multiple WR sets and stretch the field with this scheme (at times).

I know you, along with a few others have been pining for the return of "3 Deep". Although this won't quite remind you of that era, it will get a few more deep balls into the air.

I challenge you to find even one post of someone "pining" for the return of the high-flying Moss days. They were fun to watch, but we just can't do that.

Fact is, we're not built for that, and have not been for quite some time.

it's nice to see us utilize the deep ball, but we need to be smart about it. Hucking it out there 40 times when we don't have a legitimate deep threat is not a good system.
I don't have to look, it will come out.

Dang near everyone on here hated the "Dink Dunk" approach the WCO brings to the table. Most thought it was going to go away with the nomination of Musgrove (go look at my coach and offense analysis threads and the comments in there).

Again, it will come out.

Just because we hated the 3 yards on 3rd and 7 doesn't mean we want to see nothing but long routes. There is a happy medium, which we saw more of in 2009. Short passes mixed with deep shots and some intermediate routes, all with a good sprinkling of run.

Bring on the Berrian ratio!!!!

Purple Floyd
06-21-2011, 10:14 PM
By the way, get ready for Marrdro to start talking some major bukakke.

Fixed it for you...


:silly:

Caine
You crack me up. You did see that they do use multiple WR sets and stretch the field with this scheme (at times).

I know you, along with a few others have been pining for the return of "3 Deep". Although this won't quite remind you of that era, it will get a few more deep balls into the air.

I challenge you to find even one post of someone "pining" for the return of the high-flying Moss days. They were fun to watch, but we just can't do that.

Fact is, we're not built for that, and have not been for quite some time.

it's nice to see us utilize the deep ball, but we need to be smart about it. Hucking it out there 40 times when we don't have a legitimate deep threat is not a good system.
I don't have to look, it will come out.

Dang near everyone on here hated the "Dink Dunk" approach the WCO brings to the table. Most thought it was going to go away with the nomination of Musgrove (go look at my coach and offense analysis threads and the comments in there).

Again, it will come out.

A few quick questions:

1- Do the packers rune the WCO?
2- Is their offense classified as dink and dunk?

No dodges or diversions from the questions, just a simple yes or no and nothing else please.

i_bleed_purple
06-21-2011, 10:38 PM
By the way, get ready for Marrdro to start talking some major bukakke.

Fixed it for you...


:silly:

Caine
You crack me up. You did see that they do use multiple WR sets and stretch the field with this scheme (at times).

I know you, along with a few others have been pining for the return of "3 Deep". Although this won't quite remind you of that era, it will get a few more deep balls into the air.

I challenge you to find even one post of someone "pining" for the return of the high-flying Moss days. They were fun to watch, but we just can't do that.

Fact is, we're not built for that, and have not been for quite some time.

it's nice to see us utilize the deep ball, but we need to be smart about it. Hucking it out there 40 times when we don't have a legitimate deep threat is not a good system.
I don't have to look, it will come out.

Dang near everyone on here hated the "Dink Dunk" approach the WCO brings to the table. Most thought it was going to go away with the nomination of Musgrove (go look at my coach and offense analysis threads and the comments in there).

Again, it will come out.

A few quick questions:

1- Do the packers rune the WCO?
2- Is their offense classified as dink and dunk?

No dodges or diversions from the questions, just a simple yes or no and nothing else please.

OOhhh!! OOhhhh!!! ask me! ask me!

marshallvike
06-21-2011, 10:43 PM
By the way, get ready for Marrdro to start talking some major bukakke.

Fixed it for you...


:silly:

Caine
You crack me up. You did see that they do use multiple WR sets and stretch the field with this scheme (at times).

I know you, along with a few others have been pining for the return of "3 Deep". Although this won't quite remind you of that era, it will get a few more deep balls into the air.

I challenge you to find even one post of someone "pining" for the return of the high-flying Moss days. They were fun to watch, but we just can't do that.

Fact is, we're not built for that, and have not been for quite some time.

it's nice to see us utilize the deep ball, but we need to be smart about it. Hucking it out there 40 times when we don't have a legitimate deep threat is not a good system.
I don't have to look, it will come out.

Dang near everyone on here hated the "Dink Dunk" approach the WCO brings to the table. Most thought it was going to go away with the nomination of Musgrove (go look at my coach and offense analysis threads and the comments in there).

Again, it will come out.

A few quick questions:

1- Do the packers rune the WCO?
2- Is their offense classified as dink and dunk?

No dodges or diversions from the questions, just a simple yes or no and nothing else please.

OOhhh!! OOhhhh!!! ask me! ask me!

Teachers pet:)

Purple Floyd
06-22-2011, 01:13 AM
By the way, get ready for Marrdro to start talking some major bukakke.

Fixed it for you...


:silly:

Caine
You crack me up. You did see that they do use multiple WR sets and stretch the field with this scheme (at times).

I know you, along with a few others have been pining for the return of "3 Deep". Although this won't quite remind you of that era, it will get a few more deep balls into the air.

I challenge you to find even one post of someone "pining" for the return of the high-flying Moss days. They were fun to watch, but we just can't do that.

Fact is, we're not built for that, and have not been for quite some time.

it's nice to see us utilize the deep ball, but we need to be smart about it. Hucking it out there 40 times when we don't have a legitimate deep threat is not a good system.
I don't have to look, it will come out.

Dang near everyone on here hated the "Dink Dunk" approach the WCO brings to the table. Most thought it was going to go away with the nomination of Musgrove (go look at my coach and offense analysis threads and the comments in there).

Again, it will come out.

A few quick questions:

1- Do the packers rune the WCO?
2- Is their offense classified as dink and dunk?

No dodges or diversions from the questions, just a simple yes or no and nothing else please.

OOhhh!! OOhhhh!!! ask me! ask me!

Go for it.

Caine
06-22-2011, 02:33 AM
By the way, get ready for Marrdro to start talking some major bukakke.

Fixed it for you...


:silly:

Caine
You crack me up. You did see that they do use multiple WR sets and stretch the field with this scheme (at times).

I know you, along with a few others have been pining for the return of "3 Deep". Although this won't quite remind you of that era, it will get a few more deep balls into the air.

I challenge you to find even one post of someone "pining" for the return of the high-flying Moss days. They were fun to watch, but we just can't do that.

Fact is, we're not built for that, and have not been for quite some time.

it's nice to see us utilize the deep ball, but we need to be smart about it. Hucking it out there 40 times when we don't have a legitimate deep threat is not a good system.
I don't have to look, it will come out.

Dang near everyone on here hated the "Dink Dunk" approach the WCO brings to the table. Most thought it was going to go away with the nomination of Musgrove (go look at my coach and offense analysis threads and the comments in there).

Again, it will come out.

A few quick questions:

1- Do the packers rune the WCO?
2- Is their offense classified as dink and dunk?

No dodges or diversions from the questions, just a simple yes or no and nothing else please.

OOhhh!! OOhhhh!!! ask me! ask me!

Go for it.

1: Yes.

2: No. They run an offense dependent upon the big play.

Marrdro won't say that because he'd be wrong about too many other things if he did.

Caine

i_bleed_purple
06-22-2011, 01:33 PM
By the way, get ready for Marrdro to start talking some major bukakke.

Fixed it for you...


:silly:

Caine
You crack me up. You did see that they do use multiple WR sets and stretch the field with this scheme (at times).

I know you, along with a few others have been pining for the return of "3 Deep". Although this won't quite remind you of that era, it will get a few more deep balls into the air.

I challenge you to find even one post of someone "pining" for the return of the high-flying Moss days. They were fun to watch, but we just can't do that.

Fact is, we're not built for that, and have not been for quite some time.

it's nice to see us utilize the deep ball, but we need to be smart about it. Hucking it out there 40 times when we don't have a legitimate deep threat is not a good system.
I don't have to look, it will come out.

Dang near everyone on here hated the "Dink Dunk" approach the WCO brings to the table. Most thought it was going to go away with the nomination of Musgrove (go look at my coach and offense analysis threads and the comments in there).

Again, it will come out.

A few quick questions:

1- Do the packers rune the WCO?
2- Is their offense classified as dink and dunk?

No dodges or diversions from the questions, just a simple yes or no and nothing else please.

OOhhh!! OOhhhh!!! ask me! ask me!

Go for it.

1. Yes
2. No


Marrdro's answer:

1. They run a variation of the WCO, but really, all offenses have some roots from the Walsh era. How they differ is *insert more bullshit here* and that is how you dismantle an atomic bomb

2. Did you see that one play where they only gained four yards. I bet the offense is designed more around that, but those PUKERS keep changing the plays, trying to hit the home run. Sometimes it works, but sometimes it doesn't. We don't want to look like the PUKERS do we?

Marrdro
06-22-2011, 02:20 PM
A few quick questions:

1- Do the packers rune the WCO?
2- Is their offense classified as dink and dunk?

No dodges or diversions from the questions, just a simple yes or no and nothing else please.
Why are you asking about the PUKERS offenes and I never dodge or create diversions........;)

1. YES. Truth of the matter is, they are a prime example of a WCO being successfully ran in a cold weather environment. What is an interesting study, however, is the version they run. Typically you would think "Cold Weather"/"Run to setup the Pass" variant, however, they actually pass more than logic would dictate.

2. YES. Haven't checked their website to get actual specifics, but I think if you check their boxscores/game logs you will see that they pass deep about 3 times per half and the rest is short (I had them charted short right for most of the game the last time we played).

i_bleed_purple
06-22-2011, 02:27 PM
A few quick questions:

1- Do the packers rune the WCO?
2- Is their offense classified as dink and dunk?

No dodges or diversions from the questions, just a simple yes or no and nothing else please.
Why are you asking about the PUKERS offenes and I never dodge or create diversions........;)

1. YES.

2. YES.

Random Packers game, Week 12, 17-20 loss vs. the Falcons:

Rodgers: 26/35 - 344 yds.

that's almost 10 yards per ATTEMPT (not even completion)

Not sure how you define dink and dunk, but that ain't it.

Rodgers season: 8.3 yards per attempt. (for comparasons sake, in 09 we managed a measley 7.9 yards per attempt, in what we consider a relatively explosive offense)

They are built on the deep ball, and getting good YAC from guys like Driver and Jones.

Marrdro
06-22-2011, 02:28 PM
2: No. They run an offense dependent upon the big play.

Marrdro won't say that because he'd be wrong about too many other things if he did.

Caine
Marrdro won't say it cause it ain't true.....(5 deep throws vs the Vikes that by all accounts has a defense that is easily exploited by deep passes......

Again, they, like most WCO, dink and dunk and rely on YAC and an occasional deep throw to keep defenses honest.

1st and 10 at GB 31 B.Jackson up the middle to GB 35 for 4 yards (E.Henderson, C.Greenway).
2nd and 6 at GB 35 B.Jackson right end to GB 36 for 1 yard (E.Henderson).
3rd and 5 at GB 36 (Shotgun) A.Rodgers pass incomplete short middle to A.Quarless.
4th and 5 at GB 36 T.Masthay punts 47 yards to MIN 17, Center-B.Goode, fair catch by G.Camarillo

1st and 10 at GB 27 (Shotgun) B.Jackson up the middle to GB 31 for 4 yards (J.Allen).
2nd and 6 at GB 31 B.Jackson left tackle to GB 36 for 5 yards (M.Williams).
3rd and 1 at GB 36 D.Nance up the middle to GB 38 for 2 yards (E.Henderson).
1st and 10 at GB 38 A.Rodgers sacked at GB 28 for -10 yards (R.Edwards).
2nd and 20 at GB 28 (Shotgun) A.Rodgers pass short left to D.Driver to GB 35 for 7 yards (B.Leber, A.Allen).
3rd and 13 at GB 35 (Shotgun) A.Rodgers sacked at GB 30 for -5 yards (J.Allen).
4th and 18 at GB 30 T.Masthay punts 37 yards to MIN 33, Center-B.Goode, fair catch by G.Camarillo.

1st and 10 at GB 35 A.Rodgers pass incomplete short left to D.Driver (J.Allen).
2nd and 10 at GB 35 (Shotgun) A.Rodgers pass short right to D.Driver to GB 41 for 6 yards (C.Cook).
3rd and 4 at GB 41 (Shotgun) A.Rodgers pass incomplete short middle to J.Jones (C.Cook).
4th and 4 at GB 41 T.Masthay punts 31 yards to MIN 28, Center-B.Goode, out of bounds.

1st and 10 at GB 22 A.Rodgers pass incomplete short right to D.Driver.
2nd and 10 at GB 22 B.Jackson right tackle to GB 23 for 1 yard (E.Griffen).
3rd and 9 at GB 23 (Shotgun) A.Rodgers pass deep right to G.Jennings to MIN 30 for 47 yards (M.Williams) [E.Griffen].
1st and 10 at MIN 30 A.Rodgers pass incomplete deep right to B.Swain.
2nd and 10 at MIN 30 (Shotgun) B.Jackson up the middle to MIN 24 for 6 yards (M.Williams, E.Henderson).
3rd and 4 at MIN 24 (Shotgun) A.Rodgers pass incomplete short middle to D.Driver.
4th and 4 at MIN 24 M.Crosby 42 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-B.Goode, Holder-T.Masthay.

1st and 10 at GB 20 A.Rodgers pass short left to G.Jennings to GB 33 for 13 yards (C.Cook, M.Williams).
1st and 10 at GB 33 A.Rodgers pass short left to J.Nelson pushed ob at GB 40 for 7 yards (A.Allen).
2nd and 3 at GB 40 (Shotgun) A.Rodgers pass short right to D.Driver to MIN 50 for 10 yards (M.Williams).
1st and 10 at 50 (Shotgun) A.Rodgers pass short right to D.Lee to MIN 50 for no gain (R.Edwards).
2nd and 10 at 50 (Shotgun) A.Rodgers pass incomplete deep left to J.Jones.
3rd and 10 at 50 (Shotgun) A.Rodgers pass deep right to J.Jones to MIN 11 for 39 yards (H.Abdullah).
1st and 10 at MIN 11 (Shotgun) A.Rodgers pass incomplete short middle to G.Jennings.
2nd and 10 at MIN 11 (Shotgun) A.Rodgers pass short left to G.Jennings for 11 yards, TOUCHDOWN. 10 3
M.Crosby extra point is GOOD, Center-B.Goode, Holder-T.Masthay. 10 3
M.Crosby kicks 68 yards from GB 30 to MIN 2. P.Harvin to MIN 22 for 20 yards (Q.Johnson).

1st and 10 at GB 47 (Shotgun) A.Rodgers scrambles up the middle to MIN 48 for 5 yards (C.Greenway).
2nd and 5 at MIN 48 (Shotgun) A.Rodgers pass short right to A.Quarless to MIN 34 for 14 yards (C.Greenway, H.Abdullah).
Timeout #1 by GB at 00:32.
1st and 10 at MIN 34 (Shotgun) A.Rodgers pass short right to B.Jackson to MIN 27 for 7 yards (C.Cook).
Timeout #2 by GB at 00:22.
2nd and 3 at MIN 27 (Shotgun) A.Rodgers pass short right to J.Jones ran ob at MIN 18 for 9 yards.
1st and 10 at MIN 18 (Shotgun) A.Rodgers pass short right to B.Jackson to MIN 3 for 15 yards (C.Cook).
1st and 3 at MIN 3 (Shotgun) A.Rodgers pass short right to J.Jones for 3 yards, TOUCHDOWN. The Replay Assistant challenged the pass completion ruling, and the play was Upheld. 16 3
M.Crosby extra point is GOOD, Center-B.Goode, Holder-T.Masthay. 17 3
Timeout #3 by GB at 00:05.
M.Crosby kicks 59 yards from GB 30 to MIN 11. P.Harvin pushed ob at MIN 11 for

R.Longwell kicks 65 yards from MIN 30 to GB 5. S.Shields to GB 27 for 22 yards (M.Williams).
1st and 10 at GB 27 B.Jackson right tackle to GB 29 for 2 yards (P.Williams).
2nd and 8 at GB 29 A.Rodgers pass incomplete short right to G.Jennings.
3rd and 8 at GB 29 (Shotgun) A.Rodgers scrambles right tackle to GB 44 for 15 yards (A.Allen).
1st and 10 at GB 44 A.Rodgers pass short right to J.Nelson pushed ob at MIN 48 for 8 yards (C.Greenway).
2nd and 2 at MIN 48 B.Jackson right end to MIN 46 for 2 yards (A.Winfield).
1st and 10 at MIN 46 A.Rodgers pass short left to G.Jennings for 46 yards, TOUCHDOWN. 23 3
M.Crosby extra point is GOOD, Center-B.Goode, Holder-T.Masthay. 24 3
M.Crosby kicks 65 yards from GB 30 to MIN 5. P.Harvin to MIN

1st and 10 at GB 16 A.Rodgers pass short left to G.Jennings to GB 24 for 8 yards (A.Allen).
2nd and 2 at GB 24 A.Rodgers pass short left to B.Jackson to GB 29 for 5 yards (A.Winfield).
1st and 10 at GB 29 D.Nance left end to GB 40 for 11 yards (H.Abdullah).
1st and 10 at GB 40 D.Nance left end to GB 40 for no gain (E.Henderson, J.Allen).
2nd and 10 at GB 40 A.Rodgers pass short right to B.Jackson pushed ob at MIN 49 for 11 yards (F.Walker).
1st and 10 at MIN 49 B.Jackson right end to GB 46 for -5 yards (J.Kennedy).
2nd and 15 at GB 46 (Shotgun) B.Jackson right end to GB 47 for 1 yard (F.Walker).
3rd and 14 at GB 47 (Shotgun) A.Rodgers pass short middle to G.Jennings to MIN 48 for 5 yards (C.Greenway).
4th and 9 at MIN 48 T.Masthay punts 39 yards to MIN 9, Center-B.Goode, fair catch by G.Camarillo.

1st and 10 at MIN 42 change in yard line due to change in possession A.Rodgers scrambles up the middle to MIN 41 for 1 yard (B.Leber).
2nd and 9 at MIN 41 B.Jackson right end to MIN 39 for 2 yards (A.Winfield).
3rd and 7 at MIN 39 (Shotgun) A.Rodgers pass short right to D.Driver to MIN 31 for 8 yards (F.Walker).
1st and 10 at MIN 31 B.Jackson left end to MIN 29 for 2 yards (E.Henderson, J.Allen).
2nd and 8 at MIN 29 D.Nance left tackle to MIN 22 for 7 yards (C.Greenway, B.Leber).
3rd and 1 at MIN 22 A.Rodgers pass deep left to G.Jennings for 22 yards, TOUCHDOWN. 31 3
M.Crosby extra point is GOOD, Center-B.Goode, Holder-T.Masthay.

1st and 10 at GB 41 D.Nance right end to GB 44 for 3 yards (B.Robison).
2nd and 7 at GB 44 D.Nance left end pushed ob at GB 47 for 3 yards (J.Brinkley).
3rd and 4 at GB 47 (Shotgun) M.Flynn pass short left to J.Nelson to MIN 48 for 5 yards (A.Allen).
1st and 10 at MIN 48 D.Nance left end to MIN 46 for 2 yards (H.Farwell).
2nd and 8 at MIN 46 D.Nance up the middle to MIN 39 for 7 yards (E.Griffen).
3rd and 1 at MIN 39 D.Nance right guard to MIN 37 for 2 yards (B.Robison, J.Kennedy).
1st and 10 at MIN 37 M.Flynn scrambles right end to MIN 32 for 5 yards (Tyrell.Johnson).
2nd and 5 at MIN 32 D.Nance right tackle to MIN 29 for 3 yards (J.Kennedy).
3rd and 2 at MIN 29 D.Nance right guard to MIN 28 for 1 yard (H.Farwell, L.Guion).
4th and 1 at MIN 28 D.Nance up the middle to MIN 32 for -4 yards (J.Brinkley).

Vikes vs PUKERS Nov 21 2010 (http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/playbyplay?gameId=301121016&period=4)

LOL, Big play my ass.

i_bleed_purple
06-22-2011, 02:30 PM
You truly amaze me. You'll probably find a way to try and claim that the 07 Patriots offense was based on the run game. That Moss benefited from having Laurence Maroney back there.

Marrdro
06-22-2011, 02:31 PM
1. Yes
2. No


Marrdro's answer:

1. They run a variation of the WCO, but really, all offenses have some roots from the Walsh era. How they differ is *insert more bullshit here* and that is how you dismantle an atomic bomb

2. Did you see that one play where they only gained four yards. I bet the offense is designed more around that, but those PUKERS keep changing the plays, trying to hit the home run. Sometimes it works, but sometimes it doesn't. We don't want to look like the PUKERS do we?
LOL, another one who watches football through a beer bottle.

1. No, not all offenses have some version of the Walsh (era) variant of the WCO in it. Hell, some teams actually don't have a variation of the Coryell WCO variant in them.

Truth of the matter is, there are teams that don't even run a variant of the WCO at all.

2. 5 deep throws against the game I charted. WOW. Thats really trying to exploit the home run.

LOL. Get another beer my friend.

i_bleed_purple
06-22-2011, 02:32 PM
Here's a fun fact.

Aaron Rodgers has the second highest yards per attempt int he league last season, 8.3. Behind only Philip Rivers, who had 8.7 (probably also a dink and dunk offense)

big play my ass indeed.

Marrdro
06-22-2011, 02:34 PM
A few quick questions:

1- Do the packers rune the WCO?
2- Is their offense classified as dink and dunk?

No dodges or diversions from the questions, just a simple yes or no and nothing else please.
Why are you asking about the PUKERS offenes and I never dodge or create diversions........;)

1. YES.

2. YES.

Random Packers game, Week 12, 17-20 loss vs. the Falcons:

Rodgers: 26/35 - 344 yds.

that's almost 10 yards per ATTEMPT (not even completion)

Not sure how you define dink and dunk, but that ain't it.

Rodgers season: 8.3 yards per attempt. (for comparasons sake, in 09 we managed a measley 7.9 yards per attempt, in what we consider a relatively explosive offense)

They are built on the deep ball, and getting good YAC from guys like Driver and Jones.

AAAAAARRRRRRRNNNNNNNNNNNCCCCCCHHHHHHHHHHHH
Wrong answer.

You do realize that the data you are providing includes YAC, not actual distance the ball is thrown.

LOL.

Marrdro
06-22-2011, 02:35 PM
Here's a fun fact.

Aaron Rodgers has the second highest yards per attempt int he league last season, 8.3. Behind only Philip Rivers, who had 8.7 (probably also a dink and dunk offense)

big play my ass indeed.
Keep trying, 4 of us at work are laughing our asses off.

5 DEEP BALLS my friend. 5 DEEP BALLS.

i_bleed_purple
06-22-2011, 02:39 PM
A few quick questions:

1- Do the packers rune the WCO?
2- Is their offense classified as dink and dunk?

No dodges or diversions from the questions, just a simple yes or no and nothing else please.
Why are you asking about the PUKERS offenes and I never dodge or create diversions........;)

1. YES.

2. YES.

Random Packers game, Week 12, 17-20 loss vs. the Falcons:

Rodgers: 26/35 - 344 yds.

that's almost 10 yards per ATTEMPT (not even completion)

Not sure how you define dink and dunk, but that ain't it.

Rodgers season: 8.3 yards per attempt. (for comparasons sake, in 09 we managed a measley 7.9 yards per attempt, in what we consider a relatively explosive offense)

They are built on the deep ball, and getting good YAC from guys like Driver and Jones.

AAAAAARRRRRRRNNNNNNNNNNNCCCCCCHHHHHHHHHHHH
Wrong answer.

You do realize that the data you are providing includes YAC, not actual distance the ball is thrown.

LOL.

http://wp.advancednflstats.com/playerstats.php?year=2010&pos=QB&season=reg

Take it for what it's worth, I can't vouch for the accuracy of this site, but what they do, is list average air yards per attempt. Simply net yards minus team YAC.

Rodgers ranked #4 in the league in air yards/attempt with 6.4. Behind Brady: 6.9, Rivers: 6.7 and Roethlisberger: 6.5

i_bleed_purple
06-22-2011, 02:40 PM
Here's a fun fact.

Aaron Rodgers has the second highest yards per attempt int he league last season, 8.3. Behind only Philip Rivers, who had 8.7 (probably also a dink and dunk offense)

big play my ass indeed.
Keep trying, 4 of us at work are laughing our asses off.

5 DEEP BALLS my friend. 5 DEEP BALLS.

Ok, so there's old Marrdro, new Marrdro. have you developed two new personas as well?

I believe there is a Post-Favre-signing Marrdro. Who's the last one?

Marrdro
06-22-2011, 02:48 PM
A few quick questions:

1- Do the packers rune the WCO?
2- Is their offense classified as dink and dunk?

No dodges or diversions from the questions, just a simple yes or no and nothing else please.
Why are you asking about the PUKERS offenes and I never dodge or create diversions........;)

1. YES.

2. YES.

Random Packers game, Week 12, 17-20 loss vs. the Falcons:

Rodgers: 26/35 - 344 yds.

that's almost 10 yards per ATTEMPT (not even completion)

Not sure how you define dink and dunk, but that ain't it.

Rodgers season: 8.3 yards per attempt. (for comparasons sake, in 09 we managed a measley 7.9 yards per attempt, in what we consider a relatively explosive offense)

They are built on the deep ball, and getting good YAC from guys like Driver and Jones.

AAAAAARRRRRRRNNNNNNNNNNNCCCCCCHHHHHHHHHHHH
Wrong answer.

You do realize that the data you are providing includes YAC, not actual distance the ball is thrown.

LOL.

http://wp.advancednflstats.com/playerstats.php?year=2010&pos=QB&season=reg

Take it for what it's worth, I can't vouch for the accuracy of this site, but what they do, is list average air yards per attempt. Simply net yards minus team YAC.

Rodgers ranked #4 in the league in air yards/attempt with 6.4. Behind Brady: 6.9, Rivers: 6.7 and Roethlisberger: 6.5
Matt Ryan 5.3 Brees 5.0....Whats your point?

Brady without a deep threat dinked and dunked to TE's and small recievers. Ben also dinks and dunks with about 2 to 4 deep shots (going off my memory) per game as well.


......snicker.....Noodle 4.0.....snicker.....

Other McCarthy facts......

1999 - Coached the Noodle. Ran the WCO. Dink Dunk.
2005(or 2004 can't remember) - O-coord 49'rs. Drafted Smith. WCO QB. Ran dink dunk offense.

From the Marty Shot coaching tree. Dink dunk offense.
Worked for Haslett. Dink dunk offense.

Come on my friend. Try as you might (the pining has started now hasn't it) but the days of 3 deep aint coming back with this new regime.

Marrdro
06-22-2011, 02:50 PM
Here's a fun fact.

Aaron Rodgers has the second highest yards per attempt int he league last season, 8.3. Behind only Philip Rivers, who had 8.7 (probably also a dink and dunk offense)

big play my ass indeed.
Keep trying, 4 of us at work are laughing our asses off.

5 DEEP BALLS my friend. 5 DEEP BALLS.

Ok, so there's old Marrdro, new Marrdro. have you developed two new personas as well?

I believe there is a Post-Favre-signing Marrdro. Who's the last one?
LOL, well played.

i_bleed_purple
06-22-2011, 02:54 PM
A few quick questions:

1- Do the packers rune the WCO?
2- Is their offense classified as dink and dunk?

No dodges or diversions from the questions, just a simple yes or no and nothing else please.
Why are you asking about the PUKERS offenes and I never dodge or create diversions........;)

1. YES.

2. YES.

Random Packers game, Week 12, 17-20 loss vs. the Falcons:

Rodgers: 26/35 - 344 yds.

that's almost 10 yards per ATTEMPT (not even completion)

Not sure how you define dink and dunk, but that ain't it.

Rodgers season: 8.3 yards per attempt. (for comparasons sake, in 09 we managed a measley 7.9 yards per attempt, in what we consider a relatively explosive offense)

They are built on the deep ball, and getting good YAC from guys like Driver and Jones.

AAAAAARRRRRRRNNNNNNNNNNNCCCCCCHHHHHHHHHHHH
Wrong answer.

You do realize that the data you are providing includes YAC, not actual distance the ball is thrown.

LOL.

http://wp.advancednflstats.com/playerstats.php?year=2010&pos=QB&season=reg

Take it for what it's worth, I can't vouch for the accuracy of this site, but what they do, is list average air yards per attempt. Simply net yards minus team YAC.

Rodgers ranked #4 in the league in air yards/attempt with 6.4. Behind Brady: 6.9, Rivers: 6.7 and Roethlisberger: 6.5
Matt Ryan 5.3 Brees 5.0....Whats your point?

Brady without a deep threat dinked and dunked to TE's and small recievers. Ben also dinks and dunks with about 2 to 4 deep shots (going off my memory) per game as well.


......snicker.....Noodle 4.0.....snicker.....

Other McCarthy facts......

1999 - Coached the Noodle. Ran the WCO. Dink Dunk.
2005(or 2004 can't remember) - O-coord 49'rs. Drafted Smith. WCO QB. Ran dink dunk offense.

From the Marty Shot coaching tree. Dink dunk offense.
Worked for Haslett. Dink dunk offense.

As usual, ignore stats and make up your own reasoning.

The thing is, all teams utilize the short ball. The Packers seem to be successful when they are able to connect on the mid-long range balls, using the short game so we can't commit to 3 deep or anything like that on defense.

Same with the Steelers. They run well, they hit the underneath stuff well with Ward, but they make you pay with Wallace going deep.

Chargers use Gates on the mid routes very effectively, they have V-Jax and whoever else isn't injured at the moment quite well both deep and short.


According to your definition, ALL teams are entirely dink and dunk apparantly.




Come on my friend. Try as you might (the pining has started now hasn't it) but the days of 3 deep aint coming back with this new regime.

Again, when have I ever said that. This doesn't have anything to do with wanting the high-flying passing game that was there in the Tice days, we just want less dink and dunk. more BALANCE, which those good passing teams have.

Marrdro
06-22-2011, 03:08 PM
A few quick questions:

1- Do the packers rune the WCO?
2- Is their offense classified as dink and dunk?

No dodges or diversions from the questions, just a simple yes or no and nothing else please.
Why are you asking about the PUKERS offenes and I never dodge or create diversions........;)

1. YES.

2. YES.

Random Packers game, Week 12, 17-20 loss vs. the Falcons:

Rodgers: 26/35 - 344 yds.

that's almost 10 yards per ATTEMPT (not even completion)

Not sure how you define dink and dunk, but that ain't it.

Rodgers season: 8.3 yards per attempt. (for comparasons sake, in 09 we managed a measley 7.9 yards per attempt, in what we consider a relatively explosive offense)

They are built on the deep ball, and getting good YAC from guys like Driver and Jones.

AAAAAARRRRRRRNNNNNNNNNNNCCCCCCHHHHHHHHHHHH
Wrong answer.

You do realize that the data you are providing includes YAC, not actual distance the ball is thrown.

LOL.

http://wp.advancednflstats.com/playerstats.php?year=2010&pos=QB&season=reg

Take it for what it's worth, I can't vouch for the accuracy of this site, but what they do, is list average air yards per attempt. Simply net yards minus team YAC.

Rodgers ranked #4 in the league in air yards/attempt with 6.4. Behind Brady: 6.9, Rivers: 6.7 and Roethlisberger: 6.5
Matt Ryan 5.3 Brees 5.0....Whats your point?

Brady without a deep threat dinked and dunked to TE's and small recievers. Ben also dinks and dunks with about 2 to 4 deep shots (going off my memory) per game as well.


......snicker.....Noodle 4.0.....snicker.....

Other McCarthy facts......

1999 - Coached the Noodle. Ran the WCO. Dink Dunk.
2005(or 2004 can't remember) - O-coord 49'rs. Drafted Smith. WCO QB. Ran dink dunk offense.

From the Marty Shot coaching tree. Dink dunk offense.
Worked for Haslett. Dink dunk offense.

As usual, ignore stats and make up your own reasoning.

The thing is, all teams utilize the short ball. The Packers seem to be successful when they are able to connect on the mid-long range balls, using the short game so we can't commit to 3 deep or anything like that on defense.

Same with the Steelers. They run well, they hit the underneath stuff well with Ward, but they make you pay with Wallace going deep.

Chargers use Gates on the mid routes very effectively, they have V-Jax and whoever else isn't injured at the moment quite well both deep and short.


According to your definition, ALL teams are entirely dink and dunk apparantly.




Come on my friend. Try as you might (the pining has started now hasn't it) but the days of 3 deep aint coming back with this new regime.

Again, when have I ever said that. This doesn't have anything to do with wanting the high-flying passing game that was there in the Tice days, we just want less dink and dunk. more BALANCE, which those good passing teams have.
I'm not ignoring the stats, infact I used them as a counter point and then gave you the HC's history that provides insight into what scheme he runs.

What is going on here is you are wrong and just don't want to admit it.

Again, the stat....5 DEEP THROWS.... 5 DEEP THROWS....against a defense that you yourself has a shitty secondary.

Ignoring stats my butt.:P

i_bleed_purple
06-22-2011, 03:11 PM
A few quick questions:

1- Do the packers rune the WCO?
2- Is their offense classified as dink and dunk?

No dodges or diversions from the questions, just a simple yes or no and nothing else please.
Why are you asking about the PUKERS offenes and I never dodge or create diversions........;)

1. YES.

2. YES.

Random Packers game, Week 12, 17-20 loss vs. the Falcons:

Rodgers: 26/35 - 344 yds.

that's almost 10 yards per ATTEMPT (not even completion)

Not sure how you define dink and dunk, but that ain't it.

Rodgers season: 8.3 yards per attempt. (for comparasons sake, in 09 we managed a measley 7.9 yards per attempt, in what we consider a relatively explosive offense)

They are built on the deep ball, and getting good YAC from guys like Driver and Jones.

AAAAAARRRRRRRNNNNNNNNNNNCCCCCCHHHHHHHHHHHH
Wrong answer.

You do realize that the data you are providing includes YAC, not actual distance the ball is thrown.

LOL.

http://wp.advancednflstats.com/playerstats.php?year=2010&pos=QB&season=reg

Take it for what it's worth, I can't vouch for the accuracy of this site, but what they do, is list average air yards per attempt. Simply net yards minus team YAC.

Rodgers ranked #4 in the league in air yards/attempt with 6.4. Behind Brady: 6.9, Rivers: 6.7 and Roethlisberger: 6.5
Matt Ryan 5.3 Brees 5.0....Whats your point?

Brady without a deep threat dinked and dunked to TE's and small recievers. Ben also dinks and dunks with about 2 to 4 deep shots (going off my memory) per game as well.


......snicker.....Noodle 4.0.....snicker.....

Other McCarthy facts......

1999 - Coached the Noodle. Ran the WCO. Dink Dunk.
2005(or 2004 can't remember) - O-coord 49'rs. Drafted Smith. WCO QB. Ran dink dunk offense.

From the Marty Shot coaching tree. Dink dunk offense.
Worked for Haslett. Dink dunk offense.

As usual, ignore stats and make up your own reasoning.

The thing is, all teams utilize the short ball. The Packers seem to be successful when they are able to connect on the mid-long range balls, using the short game so we can't commit to 3 deep or anything like that on defense.

Same with the Steelers. They run well, they hit the underneath stuff well with Ward, but they make you pay with Wallace going deep.

Chargers use Gates on the mid routes very effectively, they have V-Jax and whoever else isn't injured at the moment quite well both deep and short.


According to your definition, ALL teams are entirely dink and dunk apparantly.




Come on my friend. Try as you might (the pining has started now hasn't it) but the days of 3 deep aint coming back with this new regime.

Again, when have I ever said that. This doesn't have anything to do with wanting the high-flying passing game that was there in the Tice days, we just want less dink and dunk. more BALANCE, which those good passing teams have.
I'm not ignoring the stats, infact I used them as a counter point and then gave you the HC's history that provides insight into what scheme he runs.

What is going on here is you are wrong and just don't want to admit it.

Again, the stat....5 DEEP THROWS.... 5 DEEP THROWS....against a defense that you yourself has a shitty secondary.

Ignoring stats my butt.:P
And we all know that your definition of deep throw is accurate.

You claim Favre didn't throw deep in 2009.

I'm just trying to picture Caine's face when he logs in and reads this.

probably looks something like:

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lcpb2qrOlg1qzz1t6o1_400.jpg

Marrdro
06-22-2011, 03:35 PM
A few quick questions:

1- Do the packers rune the WCO?
2- Is their offense classified as dink and dunk?

No dodges or diversions from the questions, just a simple yes or no and nothing else please.
Why are you asking about the PUKERS offenes and I never dodge or create diversions........;)

1. YES.

2. YES.

Random Packers game, Week 12, 17-20 loss vs. the Falcons:

Rodgers: 26/35 - 344 yds.

that's almost 10 yards per ATTEMPT (not even completion)

Not sure how you define dink and dunk, but that ain't it.

Rodgers season: 8.3 yards per attempt. (for comparasons sake, in 09 we managed a measley 7.9 yards per attempt, in what we consider a relatively explosive offense)

They are built on the deep ball, and getting good YAC from guys like Driver and Jones.

AAAAAARRRRRRRNNNNNNNNNNNCCCCCCHHHHHHHHHHHH
Wrong answer.

You do realize that the data you are providing includes YAC, not actual distance the ball is thrown.

LOL.

http://wp.advancednflstats.com/playerstats.php?year=2010&pos=QB&season=reg

Take it for what it's worth, I can't vouch for the accuracy of this site, but what they do, is list average air yards per attempt. Simply net yards minus team YAC.

Rodgers ranked #4 in the league in air yards/attempt with 6.4. Behind Brady: 6.9, Rivers: 6.7 and Roethlisberger: 6.5
Matt Ryan 5.3 Brees 5.0....Whats your point?

Brady without a deep threat dinked and dunked to TE's and small recievers. Ben also dinks and dunks with about 2 to 4 deep shots (going off my memory) per game as well.


......snicker.....Noodle 4.0.....snicker.....

Other McCarthy facts......

1999 - Coached the Noodle. Ran the WCO. Dink Dunk.
2005(or 2004 can't remember) - O-coord 49'rs. Drafted Smith. WCO QB. Ran dink dunk offense.

From the Marty Shot coaching tree. Dink dunk offense.
Worked for Haslett. Dink dunk offense.

As usual, ignore stats and make up your own reasoning.

The thing is, all teams utilize the short ball. The Packers seem to be successful when they are able to connect on the mid-long range balls, using the short game so we can't commit to 3 deep or anything like that on defense.

Same with the Steelers. They run well, they hit the underneath stuff well with Ward, but they make you pay with Wallace going deep.

Chargers use Gates on the mid routes very effectively, they have V-Jax and whoever else isn't injured at the moment quite well both deep and short.


According to your definition, ALL teams are entirely dink and dunk apparantly.




Come on my friend. Try as you might (the pining has started now hasn't it) but the days of 3 deep aint coming back with this new regime.

Again, when have I ever said that. This doesn't have anything to do with wanting the high-flying passing game that was there in the Tice days, we just want less dink and dunk. more BALANCE, which those good passing teams have.
I'm not ignoring the stats, infact I used them as a counter point and then gave you the HC's history that provides insight into what scheme he runs.

What is going on here is you are wrong and just don't want to admit it.

Again, the stat....5 DEEP THROWS.... 5 DEEP THROWS....against a defense that you yourself has a shitty secondary.

Ignoring stats my butt.:P
And we all know that your definition of deep throw is accurate.

You claim Favre didn't throw deep in 2009.

I'm just trying to picture Caine's face when he logs in and reads this.

probably looks something like:

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lcpb2qrOlg1qzz1t6o1_400.jpg
Nope, never said the Noodle didn't throw deep. Again you twist or misunderstand the basics of a discussion.

And for reference purposes, the boxscore that I provided which includes deep and short isn't my typing. Its provided by the site that I pulled it from.

And for one other reference point. Most stat sites defined a deep throw as +40 yards. Some say +20. Both IMHO can be skewed a bit if they don't clarify their numbers with YAC vs actual ball flight.

i_bleed_purple
06-22-2011, 03:37 PM
Quick question for you. How long does a pass need to travel through the air for you to not consider it either a dink, or a dunk?3 yards? 5 yards? 10 yards?

Marrdro
06-22-2011, 03:41 PM
Quick question for you. How long does a pass need to travel through the air for you to not consider it either a dink, or a dunk?3 yards? 5 yards? 10 yards?
Typically I use the standard route tree when I chart a game.

#0=The Zero or Curl Pass. #1=5 yard Cross or In. #2=5 yard Out or Sideline. #3=10 yard Cross. #4=10 yard Out. #5=10 yard Hook or Stop (In). #6=10 yard Hook (Outside). #7=Post. #8=Post Corner. #9=Fly or Go.

i_bleed_purple
06-22-2011, 03:43 PM
Quick question for you. How long does a pass need to travel through the air for you to not consider it either a dink, or a dunk?3 yards? 5 yards? 10 yards?
Typically I use the standard route tree when I chart a game.

#0=The Zero or Curl Pass. #1=5 yard Cross or In. #2=5 yard Out or Sideline. #3=10 yard Cross. #4=10 yard Out. #5=10 yard Hook or Stop (In). #6=10 yard Hook (Outside). #7=Post. #8=Post Corner. #9=Fly or Go.

didn't answer my question

Purple Floyd
06-22-2011, 03:49 PM
A few quick questions:

1- Do the packers rune the WCO?
2- Is their offense classified as dink and dunk?

No dodges or diversions from the questions, just a simple yes or no and nothing else please.
Why are you asking about the PUKERS offenes and I never dodge or create diversions........;)

1. YES. Truth of the matter is, they are a prime example of a WCO being successfully ran in a cold weather environment. What is an interesting study, however, is the version they run. Typically you would think "Cold Weather"/"Run to setup the Pass" variant, however, they actually pass more than logic would dictate.

2. YES. Haven't checked their website to get actual specifics, but I think if you check their boxscores/game logs you will see that they pass deep about 3 times per half and the rest is short (I had them charted short right for most of the game the last time we played).

Was the SB played in the cold weather climate or in climate control? I have to hand it to you. You managed to pull that out of your ass deeper than I thought was possible so props to you on that one lol.

At any rate, if the Packers can generate the offense they did out of the WCO and if you can still classify it as dink and dunk then it says 2 things.
1) Childress was more screwed up that we ever estimated when you look at how he ran the same offense and he should have never been extended and also my stance that he should have been fired after season 1 is now more supported than ever.

2) It goes to show that when you assemble the right talent through the draft and when you tweak the offense to compliment that talent, that you can put together a SB winner without breaking the bank in free agency and you can win a SB even without one major sector of your game ( Running the ball) barely functioning with guys that wouldn't make most rosters.



It also seems to support the notion that by changing the guys running the offense that we have a shot at improving the unit just by being smarter about what we ask the guys to do and by being better at explaining to them what their roles are.

Marrdro
06-22-2011, 03:50 PM
Quick question for you. How long does a pass need to travel through the air for you to not consider it either a dink, or a dunk?3 yards? 5 yards? 10 yards?
Typically I use the standard route tree when I chart a game.

#0=The Zero or Curl Pass. #1=5 yard Cross or In. #2=5 yard Out or Sideline. #3=10 yard Cross. #4=10 yard Out. #5=10 yard Hook or Stop (In). #6=10 yard Hook (Outside). #7=Post. #8=Post Corner. #9=Fly or Go.

didn't answer my question
I forgot, you need a picture drawn and colored.

Taken into context with my previous post about 20 and 40 yards, any 7, 8 or 9 route is considered a "Deep Ball". All other routes (see the 10 and 5 yard distance quoted above) are considered a dink/dunk pass.

Another option to quantify a deep vs short throw, just in case your wondering, is the QB's drop. <3, 3, <5 sometimes a 5, steps are usually associated with a short to intermediate throw, >5, 7, >7 steps are usually associated with intermediate and deep throws, 7 and >7 are always associated with deep throws.

Doesn't mean, however, that if the QB takes a drop that is associated with a deep throw, that he can't hit his checkdown.

i_bleed_purple
06-22-2011, 03:53 PM
Quick question for you. How long does a pass need to travel through the air for you to not consider it either a dink, or a dunk?3 yards? 5 yards? 10 yards?
Typically I use the standard route tree when I chart a game.

#0=The Zero or Curl Pass. #1=5 yard Cross or In. #2=5 yard Out or Sideline. #3=10 yard Cross. #4=10 yard Out. #5=10 yard Hook or Stop (In). #6=10 yard Hook (Outside). #7=Post. #8=Post Corner. #9=Fly or Go.

didn't answer my question
I forgot, you need a picture drawn and colored.

So he has to throw >5 yards for it to not be considered a dink and dunk play?

Just trying to clarify, because if I quote you on this, you'll come back claiming you never said that.

I don't need your explanation on dropbacks and routes, I understand it. My question is very simple, requiring a three word answer at most.

How. Many. Yards. Does. The. Pass. Need. To. Go. For. It. To. Not. Be. A. Dink. Or. A. Dunk?

Marrdro
06-22-2011, 04:01 PM
Was the SB played in the cold weather climate or in climate control? I have to hand it to you. You managed to pull that out of your ass deeper than I thought was possible so props to you on that one lol.

At any rate, if the Packers can generate the offense they did out of the WCO and if you can still classify it as dink and dunk then it says 2 things.
1) Childress was more screwed up that we ever estimated when you look at how he ran the same offense and he should have never been extended and also my stance that he should have been fired after season 1 is now more supported than ever.

2) It goes to show that when you assemble the right talent through the draft and when you tweak the offense to compliment that talent, that you can put together a SB winner without breaking the bank in free agency and you can win a SB even without one major sector of your game ( Running the ball) barely functioning with guys that wouldn't make most rosters.



It also seems to support the notion that by changing the guys running the offense that we have a shot at improving the unit just by being smarter about what we ask the guys to do and by being better at explaining to them what their roles are.
LOL, most of my posts are based on what I remember. Sometimes I get it wrong, most times I don't.

A couple of things I look at from last year.....

1. The Cardinals game...........The Noodle threw for 447 yards and later said that he didn't realize he had that many yards because of all the short throws he was making.

Again a prime example of the WCO working to perfection. Hitting the recievers short, in stride, with them getting YAC.

2. The Patriots and how they changed their passing scheme (mid season). Lots of very short throws, mixed in with TE's running a mix of short to intermediate routes.

On a side note, they ran the ball pretty effectively last year all things considered.

Long story short, the dink dunk concept works and we had the talent to run it. Problem was, we sure didn't seem to want to run it. Was it the HC and the O-coord calling the plays or was it the QB forcing the issue.

I think you know my answer.

Anyways, on to bigger and better things, and back to the topic at hand. As much as some on here hate to admit it, Musgrove isn't really going to change things much. Some verbiage in the passing game (numbers vice colors/or letters) and possibly the blocking scheme for both passing and running. The recent comments about the ZB scheme remaining has me wondering about that though.

Marrdro
06-22-2011, 04:07 PM
Quick question for you. How long does a pass need to travel through the air for you to not consider it either a dink, or a dunk?3 yards? 5 yards? 10 yards?
Typically I use the standard route tree when I chart a game.

#0=The Zero or Curl Pass. #1=5 yard Cross or In. #2=5 yard Out or Sideline. #3=10 yard Cross. #4=10 yard Out. #5=10 yard Hook or Stop (In). #6=10 yard Hook (Outside). #7=Post. #8=Post Corner. #9=Fly or Go.

didn't answer my question
I forgot, you need a picture drawn and colored.

So he has to throw >5 yards for it to not be considered a dink and dunk play?

Just trying to clarify, because if I quote you on this, you'll come back claiming you never said that.

I don't need your explanation on dropbacks and routes, I understand it. My question is very simple, requiring a three word answer at most.

How. Many. Yards. Does. The. Pass. Need. To. Go. For. It. To. Not. Be. A. Dink. Or. A. Dunk?
Not sure why you are struggling to grasp my answer.

0-10 yards - Short
10-20/40 (depending on the stat site) yards - Intermediate
20/40> - (depending on the stat site) yards - Deep

i_bleed_purple
06-22-2011, 04:12 PM
Quick question for you. How long does a pass need to travel through the air for you to not consider it either a dink, or a dunk?3 yards? 5 yards? 10 yards?
Typically I use the standard route tree when I chart a game.

#0=The Zero or Curl Pass. #1=5 yard Cross or In. #2=5 yard Out or Sideline. #3=10 yard Cross. #4=10 yard Out. #5=10 yard Hook or Stop (In). #6=10 yard Hook (Outside). #7=Post. #8=Post Corner. #9=Fly or Go.

didn't answer my question
I forgot, you need a picture drawn and colored.

So he has to throw >5 yards for it to not be considered a dink and dunk play?

Just trying to clarify, because if I quote you on this, you'll come back claiming you never said that.

I don't need your explanation on dropbacks and routes, I understand it. My question is very simple, requiring a three word answer at most.

How. Many. Yards. Does. The. Pass. Need. To. Go. For. It. To. Not. Be. A. Dink. Or. A. Dunk?
Not sure why you are struggling to grasp my answer.

0-10 yards - Short
10-20/40 (depending on the stat site) yards - Intermediate
20/40> - (depending on the stat site) yards - Deep

I'd say 9 straight plays of 10 yard passes is not a dink and dunk offense.

is it explosive? No, but it gets the ball out there far enough to keep the chains moving.


No teams is an 'intermediate' or 'deep' passing team by your definition, in that they average 20 yards per attempt.

The deep passing teams like the Packers, Steelers, etc. are the ones that have a good mix of short plays, but are successful with the big plays.

We, are not successful with the big plays. Steelers, are fantastic at hitting the home run with Wallace.

I'm not sure what's so difficult for you to understand about that.

Marrdro
06-22-2011, 04:20 PM
Quick question for you. How long does a pass need to travel through the air for you to not consider it either a dink, or a dunk?3 yards? 5 yards? 10 yards?
Typically I use the standard route tree when I chart a game.

#0=The Zero or Curl Pass. #1=5 yard Cross or In. #2=5 yard Out or Sideline. #3=10 yard Cross. #4=10 yard Out. #5=10 yard Hook or Stop (In). #6=10 yard Hook (Outside). #7=Post. #8=Post Corner. #9=Fly or Go.

didn't answer my question
I forgot, you need a picture drawn and colored.

So he has to throw >5 yards for it to not be considered a dink and dunk play?

Just trying to clarify, because if I quote you on this, you'll come back claiming you never said that.

I don't need your explanation on dropbacks and routes, I understand it. My question is very simple, requiring a three word answer at most.

How. Many. Yards. Does. The. Pass. Need. To. Go. For. It. To. Not. Be. A. Dink. Or. A. Dunk?
Not sure why you are struggling to grasp my answer.

0-10 yards - Short
10-20/40 (depending on the stat site) yards - Intermediate
20/40> - (depending on the stat site) yards - Deep

I'd say 9 straight plays of 10 yard passes is not a dink and dunk offense.

is it explosive? No, but it gets the ball out there far enough to keep the chains moving.
No teams is an 'intermediate' or 'deep' passing team by your definition, in that they average 20 yards per attempt.

The deep passing teams like the Packers, Steelers, etc. are the ones that have a good mix of short plays, but are successful with the big plays.

We, are not successful with the big plays. Steelers, are fantastic at hitting the home run with Wallace.

I'm not sure what's so difficult for you to understand about that.
Lets be clear here on 2 things........

1. Those plays totaled the yards you specified. It doens't mean it was a throw that far and the reciever fell down. It means the ball travels X yards in the air, was caught and the recieve ran Y more yards.

This is a design of the WCO, normally called a Dink dunk offense.

2. The WCO is a ball control offense. Its designed to use the short to intermediate passing lanes as a means to move the chains down the field over time (short distances), not over long distances.

Because the WCO works by getting small chuncks, it has been labled a "Dink dunk" offense by definition, not by how far a "Dink Dunk" pass is considered.

i_bleed_purple
06-22-2011, 04:27 PM
Quick question for you. How long does a pass need to travel through the air for you to not consider it either a dink, or a dunk?3 yards? 5 yards? 10 yards?
Typically I use the standard route tree when I chart a game.

#0=The Zero or Curl Pass. #1=5 yard Cross or In. #2=5 yard Out or Sideline. #3=10 yard Cross. #4=10 yard Out. #5=10 yard Hook or Stop (In). #6=10 yard Hook (Outside). #7=Post. #8=Post Corner. #9=Fly or Go.

didn't answer my question
I forgot, you need a picture drawn and colored.

So he has to throw >5 yards for it to not be considered a dink and dunk play?

Just trying to clarify, because if I quote you on this, you'll come back claiming you never said that.

I don't need your explanation on dropbacks and routes, I understand it. My question is very simple, requiring a three word answer at most.

How. Many. Yards. Does. The. Pass. Need. To. Go. For. It. To. Not. Be. A. Dink. Or. A. Dunk?
Not sure why you are struggling to grasp my answer.

0-10 yards - Short
10-20/40 (depending on the stat site) yards - Intermediate
20/40> - (depending on the stat site) yards - Deep

I'd say 9 straight plays of 10 yard passes is not a dink and dunk offense.

is it explosive? No, but it gets the ball out there far enough to keep the chains moving.
No teams is an 'intermediate' or 'deep' passing team by your definition, in that they average 20 yards per attempt.

The deep passing teams like the Packers, Steelers, etc. are the ones that have a good mix of short plays, but are successful with the big plays.

We, are not successful with the big plays. Steelers, are fantastic at hitting the home run with Wallace.

I'm not sure what's so difficult for you to understand about that.
Lets be clear here on 2 things........

1. Those plays totaled the yards you specified. It doens't mean it was a throw that far and the reciever fell down. It means the ball travels X yards in the air, was caught and the recieve ran Y more yards.
Yet I asked: How far does the ball have to travel in the air? I'm not certain why you're having difficulty with this



2. The WCO is a ball control offense. Its designed to use the short to intermediate passing lanes as a means to move the chains down the field over time (short distances), not over long distances.

I don't care what the point of a system is. I asked, how far does the ball have to travel in the air?


Because the WCO works by getting small chuncks, it has been labled a "Dink dunk" offense by definition, not by how far a "Dink Dunk" pass is considered.

ah, so you're saying you consider the Packers a dink and dunk offense because they run a WCO, and that's how a WCO is labeled, and you do not base it on how they actually execute their gameplan.

Got it, thanks for the clarification.

Marrdro
06-22-2011, 04:35 PM
Quick question for you. How long does a pass need to travel through the air for you to not consider it either a dink, or a dunk?3 yards? 5 yards? 10 yards?
Typically I use the standard route tree when I chart a game.

#0=The Zero or Curl Pass. #1=5 yard Cross or In. #2=5 yard Out or Sideline. #3=10 yard Cross. #4=10 yard Out. #5=10 yard Hook or Stop (In). #6=10 yard Hook (Outside). #7=Post. #8=Post Corner. #9=Fly or Go.

didn't answer my question
I forgot, you need a picture drawn and colored.

So he has to throw >5 yards for it to not be considered a dink and dunk play?

Just trying to clarify, because if I quote you on this, you'll come back claiming you never said that.

I don't need your explanation on dropbacks and routes, I understand it. My question is very simple, requiring a three word answer at most.

How. Many. Yards. Does. The. Pass. Need. To. Go. For. It. To. Not. Be. A. Dink. Or. A. Dunk?
Not sure why you are struggling to grasp my answer.

0-10 yards - Short
10-20/40 (depending on the stat site) yards - Intermediate
20/40> - (depending on the stat site) yards - Deep

I'd say 9 straight plays of 10 yard passes is not a dink and dunk offense.

is it explosive? No, but it gets the ball out there far enough to keep the chains moving.
No teams is an 'intermediate' or 'deep' passing team by your definition, in that they average 20 yards per attempt.

The deep passing teams like the Packers, Steelers, etc. are the ones that have a good mix of short plays, but are successful with the big plays.

We, are not successful with the big plays. Steelers, are fantastic at hitting the home run with Wallace.

I'm not sure what's so difficult for you to understand about that.
Lets be clear here on 2 things........

1. Those plays totaled the yards you specified. It doens't mean it was a throw that far and the reciever fell down. It means the ball travels X yards in the air, was caught and the recieve ran Y more yards.
Yet I asked: How far does the ball have to travel in the air? I'm not certain why you're having difficulty with this



2. The WCO is a ball control offense. Its designed to use the short to intermediate passing lanes as a means to move the chains down the field over time (short distances), not over long distances.

I don't care what the point of a system is. I asked, how far does the ball have to travel in the air?


Because the WCO works by getting small chuncks, it has been labled a "Dink dunk" offense by definition, not by how far a "Dink Dunk" pass is considered.

ah, so you're saying you consider the Packers a dink and dunk offense because they run a WCO, and that's how a WCO is labeled, and you do not base it on how they actually execute their gameplan.

Got it, thanks for the clarification.
Come on my friend. I knew what you were getting at even though you tried to be sneaky...


I'd say 9 straight plays of 10 yard passes is not a dink and dunk offense.

Now you come with this.....


Yet I asked: How far does the ball have to travel in the air? I'm not certain why you're having difficulty with this


My statement back to you was this....


. Those plays totaled the yards you specified. It doens't mean it was a throw that far and the reciever fell down. It means the ball travels X yards in the air, was caught and the recieve ran Y more yards
Your answer is based that the 9 straight 10 yards gains via the pass equate to 9 passes were the ball traveled 10 yards in the air.

Almost to funny to think that the reciever caught the ball after it flew 10 yards and he didn't try to run but fell down.

Comeon bleed. Your really trying hard but just not getting anyplace.

i_bleed_purple
06-22-2011, 04:39 PM
Your answer is based that the 9 straight 10 yards gains via the pass equate to 9 passes were the ball traveled 10 yards in the air.

Almost to funny to think that the reciever caught the ball after it flew 10 yards and he didn't try to run but fell down.

Comeon bleed. Your really trying hard but just not getting anyplace.

Exactly.

If they run a drive from the 10, with 9 start 10-yard hooks, instant tackle for a touchdown. Do you consider that dink and dunk, or is it a solid drive.

To me, dink and dunk is taking the small little outlets and hoping for some YAC.

What we do all the time on 3rd and long. 3 yard pass to Tahi when he can't run is Dink and Dunk. Throwing a short slant into traffic on 3rd and 10 is dink and dunk.

THrowing 5 yards on 3rd and 5 is being aggressive, based on the situation.

Throwing for 9 straight first downs is not dink and dunk.

Marrdro
06-22-2011, 05:09 PM
Your answer is based that the 9 straight 10 yards gains via the pass equate to 9 passes were the ball traveled 10 yards in the air.

Almost to funny to think that the reciever caught the ball after it flew 10 yards and he didn't try to run but fell down.

Comeon bleed. Your really trying hard but just not getting anyplace.

Exactly.

If they run a drive from the 10, with 9 start 10-yard hooks, instant tackle for a touchdown. Do you consider that dink and dunk, or is it a solid drive.

To me, dink and dunk is taking the small little outlets and hoping for some YAC.

What we do all the time on 3rd and long. 3 yard pass to Tahi when he can't run is Dink and Dunk. Throwing a short slant into traffic on 3rd and 10 is dink and dunk.

THrowing 5 yards on 3rd and 5 is being aggressive, based on the situation.

Throwing for 9 straight first downs is not dink and dunk.
What is it then? The greates show on turf?

Twist it anyway you want, those plays were not hook plays. They were short passes that the QB threw to recievers that were inside of 10 yards, most, if memory serves were inside of 5 yards and the recievers got minimal YAC after our CBs and S's tackled them.

That my friend is what most of you call a dink dunk offense cause it takes time to move the ball and doesn't provide the deep strike almost all of you pine for.

i_bleed_purple
06-22-2011, 05:15 PM
Your answer is based that the 9 straight 10 yards gains via the pass equate to 9 passes were the ball traveled 10 yards in the air.

Almost to funny to think that the reciever caught the ball after it flew 10 yards and he didn't try to run but fell down.

Comeon bleed. Your really trying hard but just not getting anyplace.

Exactly.

If they run a drive from the 10, with 9 start 10-yard hooks, instant tackle for a touchdown. Do you consider that dink and dunk, or is it a solid drive.

To me, dink and dunk is taking the small little outlets and hoping for some YAC.

What we do all the time on 3rd and long. 3 yard pass to Tahi when he can't run is Dink and Dunk. Throwing a short slant into traffic on 3rd and 10 is dink and dunk.

THrowing 5 yards on 3rd and 5 is being aggressive, based on the situation.

Throwing for 9 straight first downs is not dink and dunk.
What is it then? The greates show on turf?

Twist it anyway you want, those plays were not hook plays. They were short passes that the QB threw to recievers that were inside of 10 yards, most, if memory serves were inside of 5 yards and the recievers got minimal YAC after our CBs and S's tackled them.

That my friend is what most of you call a dink dunk offense cause it takes time to move the ball and doesn't provide the deep strike almost all of you pine for.

what the hell are you talking about? I'm asking about a hypothetical situation.

If the offense throws 9 straight 10 yard hooks, it falls under your 0-10 yard definition of a short play. Is that dink and dunk?

don't bring the Rams, or Rogers, or Favre, or anything else into it.

Purely hypothetical question so I should know if I should continue wasting my time arguing something that we have to different definitions on which will change what we're trying to talk about.

I get the feeling our conversation is like this:

You: I hate rocks
Me: Rocks are ok
You: No, a rock fell on me and it fricken hurt
me: I've been hit by a rock, it wasn't bad at all
You: My rock was 3' in diameter
me: oh, my rock was small, small rocks don't hurt
You: Oh, well rocks can be ok then I guess.

Marrdro
06-22-2011, 05:24 PM
Your answer is based that the 9 straight 10 yards gains via the pass equate to 9 passes were the ball traveled 10 yards in the air.

Almost to funny to think that the reciever caught the ball after it flew 10 yards and he didn't try to run but fell down.

Comeon bleed. Your really trying hard but just not getting anyplace.

Exactly.

If they run a drive from the 10, with 9 start 10-yard hooks, instant tackle for a touchdown. Do you consider that dink and dunk, or is it a solid drive.

To me, dink and dunk is taking the small little outlets and hoping for some YAC.

What we do all the time on 3rd and long. 3 yard pass to Tahi when he can't run is Dink and Dunk. Throwing a short slant into traffic on 3rd and 10 is dink and dunk.

THrowing 5 yards on 3rd and 5 is being aggressive, based on the situation.

Throwing for 9 straight first downs is not dink and dunk.
What is it then? The greates show on turf?

Twist it anyway you want, those plays were not hook plays. They were short passes that the QB threw to recievers that were inside of 10 yards, most, if memory serves were inside of 5 yards and the recievers got minimal YAC after our CBs and S's tackled them.

That my friend is what most of you call a dink dunk offense cause it takes time to move the ball and doesn't provide the deep strike almost all of you pine for.

what the hell are you talking about? I'm asking about a hypothetical situation.

If the offense throws 9 straight 10 yard hooks, it falls under your 0-10 yard definition of a short play. Is that dink and dunk?

don't bring the Rams, or Rogers, or Favre, or anything else into it.

Purely hypothetical question so I should know if I should continue wasting my time arguing something that we have to different definitions on which will change what we're trying to talk about.

I get the feeling our conversation is like this:

You: I hate rocks
Me: Rocks are ok
You: No, a rock fell on me and it fricken hurt
me: I've been hit by a rock, it wasn't bad at all
You: My rock was 3' in diameter
me: oh, my rock was small, small rocks don't hurt
You: Oh, well rocks can be ok then I guess.
Take it easy my friend.

I thought you were referencing the plays (not hypothetically) from the box score I used.

And because you automatically call this an aruguement, you might as well quit. I'm not arguing. That is something you seem to want to do all the fricken time.

If you want to figure out if your wasting your time, start with the beginning of this discussion and that was the 2 questions our good friend PF asked.

All of my answers have been focused on that basic premise. You, however, seem to want to go down rabbit holes of short or small/dink or dunk.

i_bleed_purple
06-22-2011, 05:37 PM
All of my answers have been focused on that basic premise.

Your definition of basic must be very broad.

For example, PF asked you for a simple one word answer, you came up with the idea that the Packers run a dink-and-dunk offense (something you are now accusing me of starting.



You, however, seem to want to go down rabbit holes of short or small/dink or dunk.

If you get mad at your kid for shitting on the floor, and he starts taking a piss on the TV, are you going to simply ignore that?

You starting on about how the packers are a short-yardage dink/dunk team is not going to go ignored.

Marrdro
06-22-2011, 05:44 PM
All of my answers have been focused on that basic premise.

Your definition of basic must be very broad.

For example, PF asked you for a simple one word answer, you came up with the idea that the Packers run a dink-and-dunk offense (something you are now accusing me of starting.



You, however, seem to want to go down rabbit holes of short or small/dink or dunk.

If you get mad at your kid for shitting on the floor, and he starts taking a piss on the TV, are you going to simply ignore that?

You starting on about how the packers are a short-yardage dink/dunk team is not going to go ignored.
If anyone is mad its you....:P

And I'm not accusing you. I answered his questions and he agreed with me. You are the one who seems to be disagreeing.

My thoughts, its cause you like to argue and do the right wrong thing.

Long story short, its not my fault you think the PUKERS are some sort of "Greatest Show On Turf" instead of a Dink/Dunk WCO. To back it up I've given you boxscores, Head Coaches history, hell I've even used your own stats and still you persist on going down rabbit holes and using hypotheticalllslsls.

Again its OK. I've got time and enjoy the banter. ;)

i_bleed_purple
06-22-2011, 06:04 PM
All of my answers have been focused on that basic premise.

Your definition of basic must be very broad.

For example, PF asked you for a simple one word answer, you came up with the idea that the Packers run a dink-and-dunk offense (something you are now accusing me of starting.



You, however, seem to want to go down rabbit holes of short or small/dink or dunk.

If you get mad at your kid for shitting on the floor, and he starts taking a piss on the TV, are you going to simply ignore that?

You starting on about how the packers are a short-yardage dink/dunk team is not going to go ignored.
If anyone is mad its you....:P

And I'm not accusing you. I answered his questions and he agreed with me. You are the one who seems to be disagreeing.

My thoughts, its cause you like to argue and do the right wrong thing.

Long story short, its not my fault you think the PUKERS are some sort of "Greatest Show On Turf" instead of a Dink/Dunk WCO. To back it up I've given you boxscores, Head Coaches history, hell I've even used your own stats and still you persist on going down rabbit holes and using hypotheticalllslsls.

Again its OK. I've got time and enjoy the banter. ;)

I'm glad you mentioned the greatest show on turf:

Kurt warner 2001 season 6.2 air yards per attempt.

Rodgers: 6.4

Warner: 4830 pass yards
Rogers: significantly less, but had 4600 only the season before.

Success rate(not sure how that is defined, but here it is anyway)

Warner in 01: 51%
Rogers in 10: 52%

So again, how does that differ much from the 2001 Rams passing style?

i_bleed_purple
06-22-2011, 06:09 PM
Better yet

the validity of your claims that the Steelers and Packers don't throw deep much

% of deep plays (>15 yards)

Roethlisberger: #3 - 26.2% of the time
Rodgers: #9: 23.8% of the time

To compare

#32 Sam Bradford: 12.5%
Drew Brees: #18 @ 20%

Marrdro
06-22-2011, 06:16 PM
All of my answers have been focused on that basic premise.

Your definition of basic must be very broad.

For example, PF asked you for a simple one word answer, you came up with the idea that the Packers run a dink-and-dunk offense (something you are now accusing me of starting.



You, however, seem to want to go down rabbit holes of short or small/dink or dunk.

If you get mad at your kid for shitting on the floor, and he starts taking a piss on the TV, are you going to simply ignore that?

You starting on about how the packers are a short-yardage dink/dunk team is not going to go ignored.
If anyone is mad its you....:P

And I'm not accusing you. I answered his questions and he agreed with me. You are the one who seems to be disagreeing.

My thoughts, its cause you like to argue and do the right wrong thing.

Long story short, its not my fault you think the PUKERS are some sort of "Greatest Show On Turf" instead of a Dink/Dunk WCO. To back it up I've given you boxscores, Head Coaches history, hell I've even used your own stats and still you persist on going down rabbit holes and using hypotheticalllslsls.

Again its OK. I've got time and enjoy the banter. ;)

I'm glad you mentioned the greatest show on turf:

Kurt warner 2001 season 6.2 air yards per attempt.

Rodgers: 6.4

Warner: 4830 pass yards
Rogers: significantly less, but had 4600 only the season before.

Success rate(not sure how that is defined, but here it is anyway)

Warner in 01: 51%
Rogers in 10: 52%

So again, how does that differ much from the 2001 Rams passing style?
The greatest show on turf was predicated on getting the ball out quickly (mostly 5 step drops) to guys running mixes of 3, 5, and 7 routes that crossed each other from side to side over the middle.

If, somehow the defense covered them, it cleared the underneath for a certain HOF (elected this year) RB to catch something underneath (in the middle) that was no longer covered.

After about 2 quarters of that, the 5 step drops went to 7 step drops and the 3, 5 and 7 route stems got longer before the breaks.

The PUKERS on the other hand throw alot of short outside passes (again I had them going right alot in my game notes) that do not include all the crosses/picks that the turf show relied on.

Again, quick throws, short through the air, timing involved with hitting recievers in stride to get YAC, but route trees were different with respect to location on the field were the stems broke.

Marrdro
06-22-2011, 06:19 PM
Better yet

the validity of your claims that the Steelers and Packers don't throw deep much

% of deep plays (>15 yards)

Roethlisberger: #3 - 26.2% of the time
Rodgers: #9: 23.8% of the time

To compare

#32 Sam Bradford: 12.5%
Drew Brees: #18 @ 20%
How did deep get down to 15 yards? I almost always stop at 20 and usually defer to sites that actually use 40 yards.

.....and again.....did the ball go 15 yards through the air or did it get caught somewere around 5 or so and the reciever get YAC?

The steelers and PUKERS WR's get lots of YAC my friend.

i_bleed_purple
06-22-2011, 06:22 PM
Better yet

the validity of your claims that the Steelers and Packers don't throw deep much

% of deep plays (>15 yards)

Roethlisberger: #3 - 26.2% of the time
Rodgers: #9: 23.8% of the time

To compare

#32 Sam Bradford: 12.5%
Drew Brees: #18 @ 20%
How did deep get down to 15 yards? I almost always stop at 20 and usually defer to sites that actually use 40 yards.

.....and again.....did the ball go 15 yards through the air or did it get caught somewere around 5 or so and the reciever get YAC?

The steelers and PUKERS WR's get lots of YAC my friend.

It doesn't matter. Point is, Rogers was getting the ball out there. Moreso than most players in the league.

Marrdro
06-22-2011, 06:30 PM
Better yet

the validity of your claims that the Steelers and Packers don't throw deep much

% of deep plays (>15 yards)

Roethlisberger: #3 - 26.2% of the time
Rodgers: #9: 23.8% of the time

To compare

#32 Sam Bradford: 12.5%
Drew Brees: #18 @ 20%
How did deep get down to 15 yards? I almost always stop at 20 and usually defer to sites that actually use 40 yards.

.....and again.....did the ball go 15 yards through the air or did it get caught somewere around 5 or so and the reciever get YAC?

The steelers and PUKERS WR's get lots of YAC my friend.

It doesn't matter. Point is, Rogers was getting the ball out there. Moreso than most players in the league.
He was throwing it yes. The recievers were catching it as well. The question is, were they catching it and falling down or were they catching it and running with it?

Go back to the box scores (much like I posted) and you can find your answer......Short right, short left, short middle. 5 Deep balls.

i_bleed_purple
06-22-2011, 06:34 PM
Better yet

the validity of your claims that the Steelers and Packers don't throw deep much

% of deep plays (>15 yards)

Roethlisberger: #3 - 26.2% of the time
Rodgers: #9: 23.8% of the time

To compare

#32 Sam Bradford: 12.5%
Drew Brees: #18 @ 20%
How did deep get down to 15 yards? I almost always stop at 20 and usually defer to sites that actually use 40 yards.

.....and again.....did the ball go 15 yards through the air or did it get caught somewere around 5 or so and the reciever get YAC?

The steelers and PUKERS WR's get lots of YAC my friend.

It doesn't matter. Point is, Rogers was getting the ball out there. Moreso than most players in the league.
He was throwing it yes. The recievers were catching it as well. The question is, were they catching it and falling down or were they catching it and running with it?

Go back to the box scores (much like I posted) and you can find your answer......Short right, short left, short middle. 5 Deep balls.

Combine the fact that Rogers gets a good % of 15+ yard passes, and that he has one of the highest air yards per attempt in the league, you tell me.

mountainviking
06-22-2011, 06:41 PM
I've been liking evey little piece I've been reading about the new offense. Of course, with the dang lockout and lack of football new in general, its nice to read anything new in the football world! ;)

Sounds like, run the ball, throw it deep and play to your player's strengths. On defense mostly continuity with, perhaps, a bit more agressive attack.

The way I see it, you don't back off the defense with short throws. The same zone-run blitz that clogs running lanes fills the short zone too. You may spread them out a bit if you have enough threats, but to "back off the defense," you need to threaten to take the top off.


My question is, IF we let Rice go, do we have any legit deep threats on the roster? I like Arcaneux's potential, but I think he's more of a possession, outside blocker type...?

Marrdro
06-23-2011, 03:14 PM
I've been liking evey little piece I've been reading about the new offense. Of course, with the dang lockout and lack of football new in general, its nice to read anything new in the football world! ;)

Sounds like, run the ball, throw it deep and play to your player's strengths. On defense mostly continuity with, perhaps, a bit more agressive attack.

The way I see it, you don't back off the defense with short throws. The same zone-run blitz that clogs running lanes fills the short zone too. You may spread them out a bit if you have enough threats, but to "back off the defense," you need to threaten to take the top off.


My question is, IF we let Rice go, do we have any legit deep threats on the roster? I like Arcaneux's potential, but I think he's more of a possession, outside blocker type...?
I'm not sure were you got that they are going to throw it deep?

If they were going to throw it deep they would have addressed a deep threat in the draft. Instead they get a TE.

Some other articles/posts.....

What will the vikings offense look like (http://www.purplepride.org/forum/2-vikings-fan-forum/1096849-what-will-the-vikings-offense-look-like-under-bil)

Mystery Offense (http://www.purplepride.org/forum/2-vikings-fan-forum/1092428-mystery-offense-will-feature-play-makers#1092447)

Coaching Staff Breakdown (http://www.purplepride.org/forum/2-vikings-fan-forum/1089559-coaching-staff-breakdown#1091575)
In that one I pulled up historical play calling from when he was a O-coord. I think its pretty enlightening when one "Ponders" what type of offense he will run.



Deadskins. Here he was actually the O-coord.
Rushing attempts 525
Passing attempts 481
Sacks 35
TOP 31:44:00

Jags. Again, the O-coord.
Rushing attempts 481
Passing attempts 515
Sacks 24
TOP 30:09:00



I took the liberty of pulling the box score/play by play from the first and last games. Key things to note is that very few passes went for more than 15 yards. If you consider that the WR got a few yards YAC, the passes weren't very long or very high risk.

........snipped boxscores........

In short, alot of assumptions on my part, however, based on history and our players, we are not going to see a scheme change. In fact, we are probably going to see a offense much like we saw in 2008, possibly with a little more passing like we saw in 2009 but definately no major scheme change.

jargomcfargo
06-23-2011, 05:31 PM
Marrdro said


In short, alot of assumptions on my part, however, based on history and our players, we are not going to see a scheme change. In fact, we are probably going to see a offense much like we saw in 2008, possibly with a little more passing like we saw in 2009 but definately no major scheme change.

Does Green Bay run a traditional west coast offense?

The WCO has become more of a philosophy than a rigid system. Originally developed under Bill Walsh, it stresses timing, choreography, route precision, throwing accurately to spots, and quarterback footwork.

Most offenses utilize some elements of the WCO but coaches have modified the system to match their personel. Now there are many versions and variations that are much different than the original version.

The version Mike McCarthy runs is much different than what Bill Walsh ran.

McCarthy uses zone blocking. Walsh primarily used man to man.

McCarthy uses multiple tight ends with one back formations. Walsh used split back formations with one tight end.

McCarthy uses 3 and sometimes 4 wide receivers. Walsh mostly used 2.

McCarthy places little emphasis on quarterback footwork and even uses the shotgun. Quarterback footwork was a key element in Walshes system with receivers routes choreographed with the quarterbacks footwork.

So even though McCarthy runs a horizontal, dink and dunk, yards after the catch type offense, it's quite a bit different than Bill Walsh ran.

Just because Musgrave says he will incorporate elements of the west coast offense doesn't tell us much about what his offense will look like.

It's pretty safe to assume it will mirror Atlanta's offense to some degree and should be tailored to fit the players strengths.

Childress seemed to be a coach that tried to match his players to his system.

Hopefully Musgrave will match his system to meet his players strengths.

One thing I certainly don't expect is Musgraves offense looking the same as the Childress/Bevell offense.

Similarities, yes.

The same, no.

Purple Floyd
06-23-2011, 11:57 PM
Does Green Bay run a traditional west coast offense?

Good luck, I tried that one already.;)


The WCO has become more of a philosophy than a rigid system. Originally developed under Bill Walsh, it stresses timing, choreography, route precision, throwing accurately to spots, and quarterback footwork.

Egad, is that what they were trying to do for the past 5 years?:huh:


Most offenses utilize some elements of the WCO but coaches have modified the system to match their personel. Now there are many versions and variations that are much different than the original version.
I can name one that didn't;)




One thing I certainly don't expect is Musgraves offense looking the same as the Childress/Bevell offense.


God I hope not.

Marrdro
06-27-2011, 06:12 PM
Marrdro said


In short, alot of assumptions on my part, however, based on history and our players, we are not going to see a scheme change. In fact, we are probably going to see a offense much like we saw in 2008, possibly with a little more passing like we saw in 2009 but definately no major scheme change.

Does Green Bay run a traditional west coast offense?

The WCO has become more of a philosophy than a rigid system. Originally developed under Bill Walsh, it stresses timing, choreography, route precision, throwing accurately to spots, and quarterback footwork.

Most offenses utilize some elements of the WCO but coaches have modified the system to match their personel. Now there are many versions and variations that are much different than the original version.

The version Mike McCarthy runs is much different than what Bill Walsh ran.

McCarthy uses zone blocking. Walsh primarily used man to man.

McCarthy uses multiple tight ends with one back formations. Walsh used split back formations with one tight end.

McCarthy uses 3 and sometimes 4 wide receivers. Walsh mostly used 2.

McCarthy places little emphasis on quarterback footwork and even uses the shotgun. Quarterback footwork was a key element in Walshes system with receivers routes choreographed with the quarterbacks footwork.

So even though McCarthy runs a horizontal, dink and dunk, yards after the catch type offense, it's quite a bit different than Bill Walsh ran.

Just because Musgrave says he will incorporate elements of the west coast offense doesn't tell us much about what his offense will look like.

It's pretty safe to assume it will mirror Atlanta's offense to some degree and should be tailored to fit the players strengths.

Childress seemed to be a coach that tried to match his players to his system.

Hopefully Musgrave will match his system to meet his players strengths.

One thing I certainly don't expect is Musgraves offense looking the same as the Childress/Bevell offense.

Similarities, yes.

The same, no.
Couple of thoughts....

As always, a quality post Doc that I don't see much to disagree with, however,

a. Walsh put alot of emphasis on the QB's footwork. ALOT. Right after his death we got to see a old clip of him working with Joe (after Joe had retired) and he was still hacking on him about his footwork. :)

b. Players strengths. I kindof think its funny that most people felt that the Chiller would run a system that didn't play to his players strengths. The bigger issue is, why did he have players on his roster that didn't match his system?

I mean, I can understand it in 2006 when the roster wasn't what it would eventually turn into, but in 2009, it was pretty much all players he should have had a hand in putting on the roster.

Again, why wouldn't they fit his scheme or the scheme fit their strengths. Just doesn't make sense to me.

c. The same? Never said the same. What I said was that I think it will look alot like the 2008 season were the TE had a big role. Lets not forget, Shancs numbers almost doubled from 2007 to 2008.

My belief is because the OL started to click and he could start getting into routes a bit more. Last years drop off, IMHO was a direct reflection of the OL needing help a bit more because of all the injuries and not a drop off in his abilities to catch a football.

In the end, I believe that the last thing the Chiller wanted to do was to sling it all over the place. I suspect Musgrove is thinking along the same lines.

Ball control, eat up small chuncks, but do it consistently and don't give the ball up via the turnover/pick.

Marrdro
06-27-2011, 06:14 PM
Does Green Bay run a traditional west coast offense?

Good luck, I tried that one already.;)


And when I used actual game stats to show they don't chuck it deep, but rather only throw deep 5 times a game, you relented.:P :P :P

Its OK, was a good convo until you quit. :laugh:

i_bleed_purple
06-27-2011, 06:17 PM
Does Green Bay run a traditional west coast offense?

Good luck, I tried that one already.;)


And when I used actual game stats to show they don't chuck it deep, but rather only throw deep 5 times a game, you relented.:P :P :P

Its OK, was a good convo until you quit. :laugh:

because 'discussing' certain things with you is like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2Rdf0n_Lsg

jargomcfargo
06-27-2011, 06:27 PM
Marrdro said


In short, alot of assumptions on my part, however, based on history and our players, we are not going to see a scheme change. In fact, we are probably going to see a offense much like we saw in 2008, possibly with a little more passing like we saw in 2009 but definately no major scheme change.

Does Green Bay run a traditional west coast offense?

The WCO has become more of a philosophy than a rigid system. Originally developed under Bill Walsh, it stresses timing, choreography, route precision, throwing accurately to spots, and quarterback footwork.

Most offenses utilize some elements of the WCO but coaches have modified the system to match their personel. Now there are many versions and variations that are much different than the original version.

The version Mike McCarthy runs is much different than what Bill Walsh ran.

McCarthy uses zone blocking. Walsh primarily used man to man.

McCarthy uses multiple tight ends with one back formations. Walsh used split back formations with one tight end.

McCarthy uses 3 and sometimes 4 wide receivers. Walsh mostly used 2.

McCarthy places little emphasis on quarterback footwork and even uses the shotgun. Quarterback footwork was a key element in Walshes system with receivers routes choreographed with the quarterbacks footwork.

So even though McCarthy runs a horizontal, dink and dunk, yards after the catch type offense, it's quite a bit different than Bill Walsh ran.

Just because Musgrave says he will incorporate elements of the west coast offense doesn't tell us much about what his offense will look like.

It's pretty safe to assume it will mirror Atlanta's offense to some degree and should be tailored to fit the players strengths.

Childress seemed to be a coach that tried to match his players to his system.

Hopefully Musgrave will match his system to meet his players strengths.

One thing I certainly don't expect is Musgraves offense looking the same as the Childress/Bevell offense.

Similarities, yes.

The same, no.
Couple of thoughts....

As always, a quality post Doc that I don't see much to disagree with, however,

a. Walsh put alot of emphasis on the QB's footwork. ALOT. Right after his death we got to see a old clip of him working with Joe (after Joe had retired) and he was still hacking on him about his footwork. :)

b. Players strengths. I kindof think its funny that most people felt that the Chiller would run a system that didn't play to his players strengths. The bigger issue is, why did he have players on his roster that didn't match his system?

I mean, I can understand it in 2006 when the roster wasn't what it would eventually turn into, but in 2009, it was pretty much all players he should have had a hand in putting on the roster.

Again, why wouldn't they fit his scheme or the scheme fit their strengths. Just doesn't make sense to me.

c. The same? Never said the same. What I said was that I think it will look alot like the 2008 season were the TE had a big role. Lets not forget, Shancs numbers almost doubled from 2007 to 2008.

My belief is because the OL started to click and he could start getting into routes a bit more. Last years drop off, IMHO was a direct reflection of the OL needing help a bit more because of all the injuries and not a drop off in his abilities to catch a football.

In the end, I believe that the last thing the Chiller wanted to do was to sling it all over the place. I suspect Musgrove is thinking along the same lines.

Ball control, eat up small chuncks, but do it consistently and don't give the ball up via the turnover/pick.

Ok. I'm tracking now I think. Just a couple of comments.

Not sure Chillar had as much say in 'shopping for the groceries' as some think. For example, what was Rosenfels doing on this team?

Second, from 2008 on, Schiancoe had a prominant role in the offense until last year.
I attribute most of his 2010 decline to not having Rice for most of the year.
But in 2007 the line was so poor he had to stay in and block, just like you said.
I think he will become a key element in our offense again this year.

Marrdro
06-27-2011, 06:31 PM
Ok. I'm tracking now I think. Just a couple of comments.

Not sure Chillar had as much say in 'shopping for the groceries' as some think. For example, what was Rosenfels doing on this team?

Second, from 2008 on, Schiancoe had a prominant role in the offense until last year.
I attribute most of his 2010 decline to not having Rice for most of the year.
But in 2007 the line was so poor he had to stay in and block, just like you said.
I think he will become a key element in our offense again this year.
No thinking about it. Your tracking.

I think the "Grocieries" were found because the Chiller, if he had any strenghts, did a good job articulating to the FO pukes, what type of players he wanted.

Couple that with the increased funds to the scouting department and you have a good chance of drafting better than the previous regime did.

In the end, I still long for a GM who does all that (gets the grocieries) and a HC who doesn't have a hand in it.

Caine
06-27-2011, 07:31 PM
Ok. I'm tracking now I think. Just a couple of comments.

Not sure Chillar had as much say in 'shopping for the groceries' as some think. For example, what was Rosenfels doing on this team?

Second, from 2008 on, Schiancoe had a prominant role in the offense until last year.
I attribute most of his 2010 decline to not having Rice for most of the year.
But in 2007 the line was so poor he had to stay in and block, just like you said.
I think he will become a key element in our offense again this year.
No thinking about it. Your tracking.

I think the "Grocieries" were found because the Chiller, if he had any strenghts, did a good job articulating to the FO pukes, what type of players he wanted.

Couple that with the increased funds to the scouting department and you have a good chance of drafting better than the previous regime did.

In the end, I still long for a GM who does all that (gets the grocieries) and a HC who doesn't have a hand in it.

Yup, here's a note from Chiller to the FO "Pukes"


Bitches,

I need a receiver. I want one who is tall, and can run. Catching is nice, but not a deal breaker. As always, give priority to any former Eagles.

Lord Chiller

PS: tell Zygi to kiss my ass about Moss. I run this team, and if he wants me to come up to the owners box and kick his real-estate selling ass, I will.

PPS: And get Mark Wilf out of the locker room...he just creeps me out.

I think this was the last note he sent...

Caine

Marrdro
06-27-2011, 07:36 PM
Ok. I'm tracking now I think. Just a couple of comments.

Not sure Chillar had as much say in 'shopping for the groceries' as some think. For example, what was Rosenfels doing on this team?

Second, from 2008 on, Schiancoe had a prominant role in the offense until last year.
I attribute most of his 2010 decline to not having Rice for most of the year.
But in 2007 the line was so poor he had to stay in and block, just like you said.
I think he will become a key element in our offense again this year.
No thinking about it. Your tracking.

I think the "Grocieries" were found because the Chiller, if he had any strenghts, did a good job articulating to the FO pukes, what type of players he wanted.

Couple that with the increased funds to the scouting department and you have a good chance of drafting better than the previous regime did.

In the end, I still long for a GM who does all that (gets the grocieries) and a HC who doesn't have a hand in it.

Yup, here's a note from Chiller to the FO "Pukes"


Bitches,

I need a receiver. I want one who is tall, and can run. Catching is nice, but not a deal breaker. As always, give priority to any former Eagles.

Lord Chiller

PS: tell Zygi to kiss my ass about Moss. I run this team, and if he wants me to come up to the owners box and kick his real-estate selling ass, I will.

PPS: And get Mark Will out of the locker room...he just creeps me out.

I think this was the last note he sent...

Caine
LOL> Old Caine, bringing the "A" game and a bit of humor, all on the same day......:lol:

Purple Floyd
06-28-2011, 12:24 AM
Does Green Bay run a traditional west coast offense?

Good luck, I tried that one already.;)


And when I used actual game stats to show they don't chuck it deep, but rather only throw deep 5 times a game, you relented.:P :P :P

Its OK, was a good convo until you quit. :laugh:

I think you need to go back and look again because I never relent and I never quit.;)

That being said I have to admit you pulling that cold weather variation out of your ass was quite a feat. You must have used an extra long forceps to drag that baby out of the abyss.

And in your answer it also is obvious that you missed the point totally and just exposed yourself and your love of the Chiller KAO. You see, the KAO and the Packers offense are as close to each other in terminology and origin as you can get. The extreme difference in the results that each team got out of that offense is that Childress and Co did a terrible job of fitting the myriad of formations and possible plays to the talent that he had on the roster.

Marrdro
06-28-2011, 03:01 PM
Does Green Bay run a traditional west coast offense?

Good luck, I tried that one already.;)


And when I used actual game stats to show they don't chuck it deep, but rather only throw deep 5 times a game, you relented.:P :P :P

Its OK, was a good convo until you quit. :laugh:

I think you need to go back and look again because I never relent and I never quit.;)

That being said I have to admit you pulling that cold weather variation out of your ass was quite a feat. You must have used an extra long forceps to drag that baby out of the abyss.

And in your answer it also is obvious that you missed the point totally and just exposed yourself and your love of the Chiller KAO. You see, the KAO and the Packers offense are as close to each other in terminology and origin as you can get. The extreme difference in the results that each team got out of that offense is that Childress and Co did a terrible job of fitting the myriad of formations and possible plays to the talent that he had on the roster.
I give the Chiller no credit for anything he did with the WCO.

My fondness for it goes back to Coach Walsh and a bit is thrown towards Coach Coryell.

i_bleed_purple
06-28-2011, 03:04 PM
Does Green Bay run a traditional west coast offense?

Good luck, I tried that one already.;)


And when I used actual game stats to show they don't chuck it deep, but rather only throw deep 5 times a game, you relented.:P :P :P

Its OK, was a good convo until you quit. :laugh:

I think you need to go back and look again because I never relent and I never quit.;)

That being said I have to admit you pulling that cold weather variation out of your ass was quite a feat. You must have used an extra long forceps to drag that baby out of the abyss.

And in your answer it also is obvious that you missed the point totally and just exposed yourself and your love of the Chiller KAO. You see, the KAO and the Packers offense are as close to each other in terminology and origin as you can get. The extreme difference in the results that each team got out of that offense is that Childress and Co did a terrible job of fitting the myriad of formations and possible plays to the talent that he had on the roster.
I give the Chiller no credit for anything he did with the WCO.

My fondness for it goes back to Coach Walsh and a bit is thrown towards Coach Coryell.

Because Walsh and Coryell came up with the exact scheme we run.... :whistle:

I give Childress credit for ASSEMBLING (note: not drawing up) an offense that can run it when everything clicks perfectly without issue. I also knock him for assembling that same offense, and forcing square pegs into starfish shaped holes.

Marrdro
06-28-2011, 03:10 PM
Does Green Bay run a traditional west coast offense?

Good luck, I tried that one already.;)


And when I used actual game stats to show they don't chuck it deep, but rather only throw deep 5 times a game, you relented.:P :P :P

Its OK, was a good convo until you quit. :laugh:

I think you need to go back and look again because I never relent and I never quit.;)

That being said I have to admit you pulling that cold weather variation out of your ass was quite a feat. You must have used an extra long forceps to drag that baby out of the abyss.

And in your answer it also is obvious that you missed the point totally and just exposed yourself and your love of the Chiller KAO. You see, the KAO and the Packers offense are as close to each other in terminology and origin as you can get. The extreme difference in the results that each team got out of that offense is that Childress and Co did a terrible job of fitting the myriad of formations and possible plays to the talent that he had on the roster.
I give the Chiller no credit for anything he did with the WCO.

My fondness for it goes back to Coach Walsh and a bit is thrown towards Coach Coryell.

Because Walsh and Coryell came up with the exact scheme we run.... :whistle:

I give Childress credit for ASSEMBLING (note: not drawing up) an offense that can run it when everything clicks perfectly without issue. I also knock him for assembling that same offense, and forcing square pegs into starfish shaped holes.
Walsh and Coryell have 2 different schemes. Truth is, if you really study the variants, Walsh had two different schemes of his own.

Again, I hear alot of people say that the Chiller didn't run the offense suited for his players talents, but to date, no one has elobarated/explained what they mean by that.

As I said, it makes absolutely no sense to think that the staff wouldn't bring in players that fit the scheme. Until I hear something that makes me say "I can track with that" I'm gonna keep raising the bullshit flag on the whole Square Pegs into a Starfish shaped Hole.

i_bleed_purple
06-28-2011, 03:20 PM
Does Green Bay run a traditional west coast offense?

Good luck, I tried that one already.;)


And when I used actual game stats to show they don't chuck it deep, but rather only throw deep 5 times a game, you relented.:P :P :P

Its OK, was a good convo until you quit. :laugh:

I think you need to go back and look again because I never relent and I never quit.;)

That being said I have to admit you pulling that cold weather variation out of your ass was quite a feat. You must have used an extra long forceps to drag that baby out of the abyss.

And in your answer it also is obvious that you missed the point totally and just exposed yourself and your love of the Chiller KAO. You see, the KAO and the Packers offense are as close to each other in terminology and origin as you can get. The extreme difference in the results that each team got out of that offense is that Childress and Co did a terrible job of fitting the myriad of formations and possible plays to the talent that he had on the roster.
I give the Chiller no credit for anything he did with the WCO.

My fondness for it goes back to Coach Walsh and a bit is thrown towards Coach Coryell.

Because Walsh and Coryell came up with the exact scheme we run.... :whistle:

I give Childress credit for ASSEMBLING (note: not drawing up) an offense that can run it when everything clicks perfectly without issue. I also knock him for assembling that same offense, and forcing square pegs into starfish shaped holes.
Walsh and Coryell have 2 different schemes. Truth is, if you really study the variants, Walsh had two different schemes of his own.

Again, I hear alot of people say that the Chiller didn't run the offense suited for his players talents, but to date, no one has elobarated/explained what they mean by that.

As I said, it makes absolutely no sense to think that the staff wouldn't bring in players that fit the scheme. Until I hear something that makes me say "I can track with that" I'm gonna keep raising the bullshit flag on the whole Square Pegs into a Starfish shaped Hole.

Ways Childress didn't use players totheir potential:

1. Big, slow-footed big-boys to run a zone-blocking scheme: The standard definition of zone-blocking calls for quickers, agile blockers.
2. Letting the only OL we had who actually could move around semi-effectively go to the Ravens.
3. Getting a fast, inaccurate QB and expecting him to become a precision WCO QB
4. Getting slow LB's (exception Greenway), to run a Tampa-2, especially EJ, who I believe is the slowest of our starting 3, who is expected to cover the most ground
5. Getting slower, physical Corners, then ahving them play off the receivers rather than using their abilities to jam/disrupt the timing.
6. Using a slow/declining Pat WIlliams in a Tampa-2, which is supposed to rely on four pass rushing DL
7. Refusal to use Peterson on routes in the flats or screens (despite the fact out of the rare times he does, it usually works pretty well)
8. Extreme predictability when switching between CT/AD
9. Despite the fact Moss didn't have outstanding numbers, when he and Berrian were outside, that opened up Harvin for some big gains and important catches. He was promptly cut, because apparantly Harvin being utilized to the best of his potential wasn't cool.
10. When we found something that worked, we stray away from it until it's too late to come back
11. Lining Peterson up as a wideout
I can go on.

Marrdro
06-28-2011, 03:36 PM
1. Big, slow-footed big-boys to run a zone-blocking scheme: The standard definition of zone-blocking calls for quickers, agile blockers.

And yet, our guys were faster than 3 other ZBing teams.


2. Letting the only OL we had who actually could move around semi-effectively go to the Ravens.
First, how is that forcing a player into a scheme he doens't fit. Truth is, Birk couldn't pull anymore. Still can't. Watch the Ravens and you will see why they have 4 centers on their roster (again) going into the ofseason).


3. Getting a fast, inaccurate QB and expecting him to become a precision WCO QB
Just one? Which one you talking about? The one who's accuracey kept going up each and every year?



4. Getting slow LB's (exception Greenway), to run a Tampa-2, especially EJ, who I believe is the slowest of our starting 3, who is expected to cover the most ground
Your opinion. EJ actually was being considered as playing to a probowl level before his injury. Not sure that equates to slow.


5. Getting slower, physical Corners, then ahving them play off the receivers rather than using their abilities to jam/disrupt the timing.
Obviously you missed Griff lining up on the best reciever and jamming him all the time. Now if you want to talk about Whinny, maybe I will agree. Cook and Allen are by now means considered slow.

Makes me wonder (as many times as you've used slow) what timing source you are using.


6. Using a slow/declining Pat WIlliams in a Tampa-2, which is supposed to rely on four pass rushing DL
I actually almost agree with you on this one, but only the last 2 years. The first year he made him slim down (actually wouldn't let him practice with the team) so that he could increase his field speed.



7. Refusal to use Peterson on routes in the flats or screens (despite the fact out of the rare times he does, it usually works pretty well)
Did you just watch the youtube clip? I think AD's inability to execute in the passing game kindof held him back cause he sure used CT alot in that role.


8. Extreme predictability when switching between CT/AD
First, all teams are predictable. Second, how does that equate to using players in the wrong situation. Now your just making shit up so that you have lots of items.


9. Despite the fact Moss didn't have outstanding numbers, when he and Berrian were outside, that opened up Harvin for some big gains and important catches. He was promptly cut, because apparantly Harvin being utilized to the best of his potential wasn't cool.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH. Deep breath. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

WTF are you talking about. He cut Moss cause of alot of things. Truth of the matter is, the recievers had their best game (and the Noodles best yardage total ever) after he cut Moss.


10. When we found something that worked, we stray away from it until it's too late to come back
What?


11. Lining Peterson up as a wideout
Now a RB can't split out wide? Didn't you just type item 7?


I can go on.
I'm sure you can, but why bother. None make sense.

i_bleed_purple
06-28-2011, 03:46 PM
1. Big, slow-footed big-boys to run a zone-blocking scheme: The standard definition of zone-blocking calls for quickers, agile blockers.

And yet, our guys were faster than 3 other ZBing teams.
Based on what? Combine 40 times? LOL!



2. Letting the only OL we had who actually could move around semi-effectively go to the Ravens.
First, how is that forcing a player into a scheme he doens't fit. Truth is, Birk couldn't pull anymore. Still can't. Watch the Ravens and you will see why they have 4 centers on their roster (again) going into the ofseason).
And yet he started and played all 16 games for the past 5 seasons. Even though he may have lost a step, he's a far better blocker than Sullivan has been for us, he's about equal as far as mobility goes. I'd by far rather have him than any Center currently on Roster.



3. Getting a fast, inaccurate QB and expecting him to become a precision WCO QB
Just one? Which one you talking about? The one who's accuracey kept going up each and every year?
Up and up? You must be referring to Webb who actually showed actual improvement over the course of the season.




[quote]4. Getting slow LB's (exception Greenway), to run a Tampa-2, especially EJ, who I believe is the slowest of our starting 3, who is expected to cover the most ground
Your opinion. EJ actually was being considered as playing to a probowl level before his injury. Not sure that equates to slow.
Yeah, pro-bowl level in a non-T2 scheme. EJ is better suited as a run enforcer or a blizer. He's quick to the hole, he's good at pressuring the QB, but he's not a guy you want defending the whole middle of a field. He simply doesn't have the speed to do that. He's about closing speed and initial burst.




5. Getting slower, physical Corners, then ahving them play off the receivers rather than using their abilities to jam/disrupt the timing.
Obviously you missed Griff lining up on the best reciever and jamming him all the time. Now if you want to talk about Whinny, maybe I will agree. Cook and Allen are by now means considered slow.
Cook and Allen are rather average when it comes to corner speed. We don't have any truly fast players. I can't really comment on Cook, since he played all of about 4 games? Griffen really only started turning it up the past couple seasons. Prior to that he was a liability as he was learning the position.



Makes me wonder (as many times as you've used slow) what timing source you are using.
Madden ;) (just kidding obviously)



6. Using a slow/declining Pat WIlliams in a Tampa-2, which is supposed to rely on four pass rushing DL
I actually almost agree with you on this one, but only the last 2 years. The first year he made him slim down (actually wouldn't let him practice with the team) so that he could increase his field speed.



7. Refusal to use Peterson on routes in the flats or screens (despite the fact out of the rare times he does, it usually works pretty well)
Did you just watch the youtube clip? I think AD's inability to execute in the passing game kindof held him back cause he sure used CT alot in that role.
Inability? He drops some balls over the middle. He's not a guy who will go up and contest for a ball, but hit him open in stride, and he'll make teams pay. He's much faster than most linebackers who will try and cover him, so he can get out wide quicker, and make somebody miss.




9. Despite the fact Moss didn't have outstanding numbers, when he and Berrian were outside, that opened up Harvin for some big gains and important catches. He was promptly cut, because apparantly Harvin being utilized to the best of his potential wasn't cool.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH. Deep breath. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

WTF are you talking about. He cut Moss cause of alot of things. Truth of the matter is, the recievers had their best game (and the Noodles best yardage total ever) after he cut Moss.
Yup. Harvin had 97 yards vs. the Jets (a toe-tap away from a win and about 130 yards), a poor game the following week, and a 70 yard game vs. the Packers. Even though Moss didn't personally light the world on fire with us, only somebody with an agenda against him will argue that he helped other players, even by just being a decoy.




11. Lining Peterson up as a wideout
Now a RB can't split out wide? Didn't you just type item 7?
Difference between splitting out wide and running RB routes.

peterson is not a guy who's going to win many one-on-one matchups for a ball. Split him out with a corner or safety, and he instantly becomes less effective as a receiver. He' be better motioned in the slot where hopefully a LB will follow him. Best yet out of the backfield.



I can go on.
I'm sure you can, but why bother. None make sense.

Only to someone who doesn't want to believe them.

Marrdro
06-28-2011, 07:26 PM
And yet he started and played all 16 games for the past 5 seasons. Even though he may have lost a step, he's a far better blocker than Sullivan has been for us, he's about equal as far as mobility goes. I'd by far rather have him than any Center currently on Roster.

I will agree he was based on 2010 performance, but in 2009, I wouldn't.


Up and up? You must be referring to Webb who actually showed actual improvement over the course of the season.
LOL, you looked at the stat page didn't you.


Yeah, pro-bowl level in a non-T2 scheme. EJ is better suited as a run enforcer or a blizer. He's quick to the hole, he's good at pressuring the QB, but he's not a guy you want defending the whole middle of a field. He simply doesn't have the speed to do that. He's about closing speed and initial burst.
What? Leber and Chad, atleast statistically are better at pressuring the QB.

Quick question, again, is EJ playing a MLB in a T2 or a C2 scheme? Might help alleviate some confusion here.


Cook and Allen are rather average when it comes to corner speed. We don't have any truly fast players. I can't really comment on Cook, since he played all of about 4 games? Griffen really only started turning it up the past couple seasons. Prior to that he was a liability as he was learning the position.
If they were faster they would be on a team like the Jets who require "Shut Down" CB's to have blazing speed. For our defense, our CB's are plenty fast enough.


Madden ;) (just kidding obviously)
...snicker....Well played.


Inability? He drops some balls over the middle. He's not a guy who will go up and contest for a ball, but hit him open in stride, and he'll make teams pay. He's much faster than most linebackers who will try and cover him, so he can get out wide quicker, and make somebody miss.

Difference between splitting out wide and running RB routes.

peterson is not a guy who's going to win many one-on-one matchups for a ball. Split him out with a corner or safety, and he instantly becomes less effective as a receiver. He' be better motioned in the slot where hopefully a LB will follow him. Best yet out of the backfield.
Lumped some together. Are you saying that if AD split out wide that a LB wouldn't be on him then? And if so, who would win getting off the line AD or the LB'r.

If your not saying that, then your assumming that they defense is now in a dime look and have a CB or S out there with AD. If your saying that, what caused them to go into the dime? Surely it wasn't AD starting out lined up behind the QB.

In short, you lost me.



Yup. Harvin had 97 yards vs. the Jets (a toe-tap away from a win and about 130 yards), a poor game the following week, and a 70 yard game vs. the Packers. Even though Moss didn't personally light the world on fire with us, only somebody with an agenda against him will argue that he helped other players, even by just being a decoy.

LOL, I have an agenda against Moss? I am sure he is worried to death that some yutz on the internet said that the WR corps without him, in the next game, put up a 460 yard game and the QB put up the most yards of his HOF career.

LOL, agenda.


Only to someone who doesn't want to believe them.
Has noting to do with belief. Has everything to do with someone saying that a organization would bring in players that didn't fit the scheme.

Purple Floyd
06-29-2011, 03:44 AM
Has noting to do with belief. Has everything to do with someone saying that a organization would bring in players that didn't fit the scheme.

Happens all of the time. Heck, when you look at one of the dumbest things this franchise ever did you will see a classic example.

Look at when we traded for Herschel Walker- He was the prototypical I formation back all through college and with the Cowboys and he was fantastic in that system. Then the Vikings trade for him and Burnsie was running the WCO with a split back set and after they started to make him adjust to that scheme he was done for.
Tarvaris Jackson as a WCO QB was another.

SpaceMTN69
06-29-2011, 05:28 AM
I foresee many 2 TE sets in the future for these Minnesota Vikings. Having (2) quality pass catchers at the TE position, I believe, is going to make the transition to the pro game much easier for Ponder and this offense. While Shiancoe will definitely start Day 1, it wouldn't shock me in the elast bit if as the season rares on that Rudolph sees more and more time. I love the matchup problems the big 6'6 TE from Notre Dame will cause.

Aside from the passing game, does anyone else tend to notice that Adrian Peterson is a much more effective runner when he doesn't have a FB leading the way for him? Oh and heres to a new era of offense where teams wont be able to assume run when MIN trots out (2) TE's. Everytime a defense seen Dugan and Kleinsasser take the field, they stacked the box.

Marrdro
06-29-2011, 02:17 PM
Has noting to do with belief. Has everything to do with someone saying that a organization would bring in players that didn't fit the scheme.

Happens all of the time. Heck, when you look at one of the dumbest things this franchise ever did you will see a classic example.

Look at when we traded for Herschel Walker- He was the prototypical I formation back all through college and with the Cowboys and he was fantastic in that system. Then the Vikings trade for him and Burnsie was running the WCO with a split back set and after they started to make him adjust to that scheme he was done for.
Tarvaris Jackson as a WCO QB was another.
Happens to organizations all the time that draft (or trade for) talent alone and don't draft players that fit the scheme.

If you look at the players brought in under the last regime (the Chiller era), all of the players (including TJ) fit the scheme.

Every draft guide/scouting report etc, had TJ projected as a WCO project QB.

Marrdro
06-29-2011, 02:20 PM
I foresee many 2 TE sets in the future for these Minnesota Vikings. Having (2) quality pass catchers at the TE position, I believe, is going to make the transition to the pro game much easier for Ponder and this offense. While Shiancoe will definitely start Day 1, it wouldn't shock me in the elast bit if as the season rares on that Rudolph sees more and more time. I love the matchup problems the big 6'6 TE from Notre Dame will cause.

Aside from the passing game, does anyone else tend to notice that Adrian Peterson is a much more effective runner when he doesn't have a FB leading the way for him? Oh and heres to a new era of offense where teams wont be able to assume run when MIN trots out (2) TE's. Everytime a defense seen Dugan and Kleinsasser take the field, they stacked the box.
Some yutz (Marrdro) has actually tried to point that out several times. Heck, he's even gone so far as to wonder why they even carry a "FB" on the roster as its almost a dead position.

Interesting study is to look at FB's and were they are drafted in the last 3 - 5 years.

jargomcfargo
06-29-2011, 05:32 PM
I foresee many 2 TE sets in the future for these Minnesota Vikings. Having (2) quality pass catchers at the TE position, I believe, is going to make the transition to the pro game much easier for Ponder and this offense. While Shiancoe will definitely start Day 1, it wouldn't shock me in the elast bit if as the season rares on that Rudolph sees more and more time. I love the matchup problems the big 6'6 TE from Notre Dame will cause.

Aside from the passing game, does anyone else tend to notice that Adrian Peterson is a much more effective runner when he doesn't have a FB leading the way for him? Oh and heres to a new era of offense where teams wont be able to assume run when MIN trots out (2) TE's. Everytime a defense seen Dugan and Kleinsasser take the field, they stacked the box.
Some yutz (Marrdro) has actually tried to point that out several times. Heck, he's even gone so far as to wonder why they even carry a "FB" on the roster as its almost a dead position.

Interesting study is to look at FB's and were they are drafted in the last 3 - 5 years.

You bang that drum quite a bit. I haven't seen a lot of disagreement but I do have a comment.

Peterson takes a quick look to see if there is a hole where he is supposed to run then goes elsewhere frequently. He's not patient enough to follow his blocks.
In addition, Tahi isn't a great blocking fullback like Richardson was.

If Peterson followed his blockers better as Bienemy was trying to teach him, the fullback would play a bigger role in the Vikings running game.

tastywaves
06-29-2011, 05:58 PM
I foresee many 2 TE sets in the future for these Minnesota Vikings. Having (2) quality pass catchers at the TE position, I believe, is going to make the transition to the pro game much easier for Ponder and this offense. While Shiancoe will definitely start Day 1, it wouldn't shock me in the elast bit if as the season rares on that Rudolph sees more and more time. I love the matchup problems the big 6'6 TE from Notre Dame will cause.

Aside from the passing game, does anyone else tend to notice that Adrian Peterson is a much more effective runner when he doesn't have a FB leading the way for him? Oh and heres to a new era of offense where teams wont be able to assume run when MIN trots out (2) TE's. Everytime a defense seen Dugan and Kleinsasser take the field, they stacked the box.
Some yutz (Marrdro) has actually tried to point that out several times. Heck, he's even gone so far as to wonder why they even carry a "FB" on the roster as its almost a dead position.

Interesting study is to look at FB's and were they are drafted in the last 3 - 5 years.

You bang that drum quite a bit. I haven't seen a lot of disagreement but I do have a comment.

Peterson takes a quick look to see if there is a hole where he is supposed to run then goes elsewhere frequently. He's not patient enough to follow his blocks.
In addition, Tahi isn't a great blocking fullback like Richardson was.

If Peterson followed his blockers better as Bienemy was trying to teach him, the fullback would play a bigger role in the Vikings running game.

Good points. If the FB is not doing his job properly (ala Tahi), he is more of a hindrance than a help. And AP does have a tendency to act first, think later. Uber confidence in his ability can be a hindrance at times.

Some teams actually do significantly benefit by having a quality FB on the field. Whether it is a dying position or not, don't know, but I wouldn't give up on it just yet.

Marrdro
06-29-2011, 06:05 PM
I foresee many 2 TE sets in the future for these Minnesota Vikings. Having (2) quality pass catchers at the TE position, I believe, is going to make the transition to the pro game much easier for Ponder and this offense. While Shiancoe will definitely start Day 1, it wouldn't shock me in the elast bit if as the season rares on that Rudolph sees more and more time. I love the matchup problems the big 6'6 TE from Notre Dame will cause.

Aside from the passing game, does anyone else tend to notice that Adrian Peterson is a much more effective runner when he doesn't have a FB leading the way for him? Oh and heres to a new era of offense where teams wont be able to assume run when MIN trots out (2) TE's. Everytime a defense seen Dugan and Kleinsasser take the field, they stacked the box.
Some yutz (Marrdro) has actually tried to point that out several times. Heck, he's even gone so far as to wonder why they even carry a "FB" on the roster as its almost a dead position.

Interesting study is to look at FB's and were they are drafted in the last 3 - 5 years.

You bang that drum quite a bit. I haven't seen a lot of disagreement but I do have a comment.

Peterson takes a quick look to see if there is a hole where he is supposed to run then goes elsewhere frequently. He's not patient enough to follow his blocks.
In addition, Tahi isn't a great blocking fullback like Richardson was.

If Peterson followed his blockers better as Bienemy was trying to teach him, the fullback would play a bigger role in the Vikings running game.
Ahhhh my friend, you know the way to my heart.....Take it to a new level with respect to a discussion of this nature........

Agree with your comments in total but put this on and let it boil a bit.......Maybe Tahi was also trying to read the holes the way AD did and shift his sight read on his blocking to the "new" spot (one cut) AD was reading.

I know if that was the case, it would be almost impossible to do unless both of them worked together for many years.

I know a few are going to jump all over this, however, if you compare it to a QB and WR reading a defense (and calling a "Check with Me" sight adjustment) it isn't to far fetched that they wouldn't work on it at times.

i_bleed_purple
06-29-2011, 06:06 PM
I foresee many 2 TE sets in the future for these Minnesota Vikings. Having (2) quality pass catchers at the TE position, I believe, is going to make the transition to the pro game much easier for Ponder and this offense. While Shiancoe will definitely start Day 1, it wouldn't shock me in the elast bit if as the season rares on that Rudolph sees more and more time. I love the matchup problems the big 6'6 TE from Notre Dame will cause.

Aside from the passing game, does anyone else tend to notice that Adrian Peterson is a much more effective runner when he doesn't have a FB leading the way for him? Oh and heres to a new era of offense where teams wont be able to assume run when MIN trots out (2) TE's. Everytime a defense seen Dugan and Kleinsasser take the field, they stacked the box.
Some yutz (Marrdro) has actually tried to point that out several times. Heck, he's even gone so far as to wonder why they even carry a "FB" on the roster as its almost a dead position.

Interesting study is to look at FB's and were they are drafted in the last 3 - 5 years.

You bang that drum quite a bit. I haven't seen a lot of disagreement but I do have a comment.

Peterson takes a quick look to see if there is a hole where he is supposed to run then goes elsewhere frequently. He's not patient enough to follow his blocks.
In addition, Tahi isn't a great blocking fullback like Richardson was.

If Peterson followed his blockers better as Bienemy was trying to teach him, the fullback would play a bigger role in the Vikings running game.

Good points. If the FB is not doing his job properly (ala Tahi), he is more of a hindrance than a help. And AP does have a tendency to act first, think later. Uber confidence in his ability can be a hindrance at times.

Some teams actually do significantly benefit by having a quality FB on the field. Whether it is a dying position or not, don't know, but I wouldn't give up on it just yet.

*coughJETScough*

Although, Marrdro will claim that despite starting 10 games and playing in all 16... yet again, he still doesn't have it and isn't used in their system....

Marrdro
06-29-2011, 06:07 PM
I foresee many 2 TE sets in the future for these Minnesota Vikings. Having (2) quality pass catchers at the TE position, I believe, is going to make the transition to the pro game much easier for Ponder and this offense. While Shiancoe will definitely start Day 1, it wouldn't shock me in the elast bit if as the season rares on that Rudolph sees more and more time. I love the matchup problems the big 6'6 TE from Notre Dame will cause.

Aside from the passing game, does anyone else tend to notice that Adrian Peterson is a much more effective runner when he doesn't have a FB leading the way for him? Oh and heres to a new era of offense where teams wont be able to assume run when MIN trots out (2) TE's. Everytime a defense seen Dugan and Kleinsasser take the field, they stacked the box.
Some yutz (Marrdro) has actually tried to point that out several times. Heck, he's even gone so far as to wonder why they even carry a "FB" on the roster as its almost a dead position.

Interesting study is to look at FB's and were they are drafted in the last 3 - 5 years.

You bang that drum quite a bit. I haven't seen a lot of disagreement but I do have a comment.

Peterson takes a quick look to see if there is a hole where he is supposed to run then goes elsewhere frequently. He's not patient enough to follow his blocks.
In addition, Tahi isn't a great blocking fullback like Richardson was.

If Peterson followed his blockers better as Bienemy was trying to teach him, the fullback would play a bigger role in the Vikings running game.

Good points. If the FB is not doing his job properly (ala Tahi), he is more of a hindrance than a help. And AP does have a tendency to act first, think later. Uber confidence in his ability can be a hindrance at times.

Some teams actually do significantly benefit by having a quality FB on the field. Whether it is a dying position or not, don't know, but I wouldn't give up on it just yet.
I posted a youtube the other day for Bleed based on one of his questions. Very few of AD's long runs (outside the redzone) had a FB in front of him.

Again, he doesn't like one in front of him regardless of what people think about T-rich and those comments.

tastywaves
06-29-2011, 06:14 PM
I foresee many 2 TE sets in the future for these Minnesota Vikings. Having (2) quality pass catchers at the TE position, I believe, is going to make the transition to the pro game much easier for Ponder and this offense. While Shiancoe will definitely start Day 1, it wouldn't shock me in the elast bit if as the season rares on that Rudolph sees more and more time. I love the matchup problems the big 6'6 TE from Notre Dame will cause.

Aside from the passing game, does anyone else tend to notice that Adrian Peterson is a much more effective runner when he doesn't have a FB leading the way for him? Oh and heres to a new era of offense where teams wont be able to assume run when MIN trots out (2) TE's. Everytime a defense seen Dugan and Kleinsasser take the field, they stacked the box.
Some yutz (Marrdro) has actually tried to point that out several times. Heck, he's even gone so far as to wonder why they even carry a "FB" on the roster as its almost a dead position.

Interesting study is to look at FB's and were they are drafted in the last 3 - 5 years.

You bang that drum quite a bit. I haven't seen a lot of disagreement but I do have a comment.

Peterson takes a quick look to see if there is a hole where he is supposed to run then goes elsewhere frequently. He's not patient enough to follow his blocks.
In addition, Tahi isn't a great blocking fullback like Richardson was.

If Peterson followed his blockers better as Bienemy was trying to teach him, the fullback would play a bigger role in the Vikings running game.

Good points. If the FB is not doing his job properly (ala Tahi), he is more of a hindrance than a help. And AP does have a tendency to act first, think later. Uber confidence in his ability can be a hindrance at times.

Some teams actually do significantly benefit by having a quality FB on the field. Whether it is a dying position or not, don't know, but I wouldn't give up on it just yet.
I posted a youtube the other day for Bleed based on one of his questions. Very few of AD's long runs (outside the redzone) had a FB in front of him.

Again, he doesn't like one in front of him regardless of what people think about T-rich and those comments.

I don't disagree about AD, however, I don't think our situation helps with your observation that the FB position is a dead position.

In AD's mind, he is superman. Having lineman in front of him only serve to slow him down. He only allows them on the field because because he cares about their families well being.

jargomcfargo
06-29-2011, 06:15 PM
I foresee many 2 TE sets in the future for these Minnesota Vikings. Having (2) quality pass catchers at the TE position, I believe, is going to make the transition to the pro game much easier for Ponder and this offense. While Shiancoe will definitely start Day 1, it wouldn't shock me in the elast bit if as the season rares on that Rudolph sees more and more time. I love the matchup problems the big 6'6 TE from Notre Dame will cause.

Aside from the passing game, does anyone else tend to notice that Adrian Peterson is a much more effective runner when he doesn't have a FB leading the way for him? Oh and heres to a new era of offense where teams wont be able to assume run when MIN trots out (2) TE's. Everytime a defense seen Dugan and Kleinsasser take the field, they stacked the box.
Some yutz (Marrdro) has actually tried to point that out several times. Heck, he's even gone so far as to wonder why they even carry a "FB" on the roster as its almost a dead position.

Interesting study is to look at FB's and were they are drafted in the last 3 - 5 years.

You bang that drum quite a bit. I haven't seen a lot of disagreement but I do have a comment.

Peterson takes a quick look to see if there is a hole where he is supposed to run then goes elsewhere frequently. He's not patient enough to follow his blocks.
In addition, Tahi isn't a great blocking fullback like Richardson was.

If Peterson followed his blockers better as Bienemy was trying to teach him, the fullback would play a bigger role in the Vikings running game.
Ahhhh my friend, you know the way to my heart.....Take it to a new level with respect to a discussion of this nature........

Agree with your comments in total but put this on and let it boil a bit.......Maybe Tahi was also trying to read the holes the way AD did and shift his sight read on his blocking to the "new" spot (one cut) AD was reading.

I know if that was the case, it would be almost impossible to do unless both of them worked together for many years.

I know a few are going to jump all over this, however, if you compare it to a QB and WR reading a defense (and calling a "Check with Me" sight adjustment) it isn't to far fetched that they wouldn't work on it at times.
Interesting thought. I don't think that is the case though simply based on the fact that AD doesn't follow Tahi that often.

Marrdro
06-29-2011, 06:17 PM
I foresee many 2 TE sets in the future for these Minnesota Vikings. Having (2) quality pass catchers at the TE position, I believe, is going to make the transition to the pro game much easier for Ponder and this offense. While Shiancoe will definitely start Day 1, it wouldn't shock me in the elast bit if as the season rares on that Rudolph sees more and more time. I love the matchup problems the big 6'6 TE from Notre Dame will cause.

Aside from the passing game, does anyone else tend to notice that Adrian Peterson is a much more effective runner when he doesn't have a FB leading the way for him? Oh and heres to a new era of offense where teams wont be able to assume run when MIN trots out (2) TE's. Everytime a defense seen Dugan and Kleinsasser take the field, they stacked the box.
Some yutz (Marrdro) has actually tried to point that out several times. Heck, he's even gone so far as to wonder why they even carry a "FB" on the roster as its almost a dead position.

Interesting study is to look at FB's and were they are drafted in the last 3 - 5 years.

You bang that drum quite a bit. I haven't seen a lot of disagreement but I do have a comment.

Peterson takes a quick look to see if there is a hole where he is supposed to run then goes elsewhere frequently. He's not patient enough to follow his blocks.
In addition, Tahi isn't a great blocking fullback like Richardson was.

If Peterson followed his blockers better as Bienemy was trying to teach him, the fullback would play a bigger role in the Vikings running game.
Ahhhh my friend, you know the way to my heart.....Take it to a new level with respect to a discussion of this nature........

Agree with your comments in total but put this on and let it boil a bit.......Maybe Tahi was also trying to read the holes the way AD did and shift his sight read on his blocking to the "new" spot (one cut) AD was reading.

I know if that was the case, it would be almost impossible to do unless both of them worked together for many years.

I know a few are going to jump all over this, however, if you compare it to a QB and WR reading a defense (and calling a "Check with Me" sight adjustment) it isn't to far fetched that they wouldn't work on it at times.
Interesting thought. I don't think that is the case though simply based on the fact that AD doesn't follow Tahi that often.
Of course its not the case, just an idea I've had running in my head for a while now.

If you could get a FB and a RB on the same page as that (both made the same read and same cut) defenses wouldn't be able to stop it.

tastywaves
06-29-2011, 06:20 PM
I foresee many 2 TE sets in the future for these Minnesota Vikings. Having (2) quality pass catchers at the TE position, I believe, is going to make the transition to the pro game much easier for Ponder and this offense. While Shiancoe will definitely start Day 1, it wouldn't shock me in the elast bit if as the season rares on that Rudolph sees more and more time. I love the matchup problems the big 6'6 TE from Notre Dame will cause.

Aside from the passing game, does anyone else tend to notice that Adrian Peterson is a much more effective runner when he doesn't have a FB leading the way for him? Oh and heres to a new era of offense where teams wont be able to assume run when MIN trots out (2) TE's. Everytime a defense seen Dugan and Kleinsasser take the field, they stacked the box.
Some yutz (Marrdro) has actually tried to point that out several times. Heck, he's even gone so far as to wonder why they even carry a "FB" on the roster as its almost a dead position.

Interesting study is to look at FB's and were they are drafted in the last 3 - 5 years.

You bang that drum quite a bit. I haven't seen a lot of disagreement but I do have a comment.

Peterson takes a quick look to see if there is a hole where he is supposed to run then goes elsewhere frequently. He's not patient enough to follow his blocks.
In addition, Tahi isn't a great blocking fullback like Richardson was.

If Peterson followed his blockers better as Bienemy was trying to teach him, the fullback would play a bigger role in the Vikings running game.
Ahhhh my friend, you know the way to my heart.....Take it to a new level with respect to a discussion of this nature........

Agree with your comments in total but put this on and let it boil a bit.......Maybe Tahi was also trying to read the holes the way AD did and shift his sight read on his blocking to the "new" spot (one cut) AD was reading.

I know if that was the case, it would be almost impossible to do unless both of them worked together for many years.

I know a few are going to jump all over this, however, if you compare it to a QB and WR reading a defense (and calling a "Check with Me" sight adjustment) it isn't to far fetched that they wouldn't work on it at times.
Interesting thought. I don't think that is the case though simply based on the fact that AD doesn't follow Tahi that often.
Of course its not the case, just an idea I've had running in my head for a while now.

If you could get a FB and a RB on the same page as that (both made the same read and same cut) defenses wouldn't be able to stop it.

I heard telepathy was a key part of Childress' KAO. I believe he co-authored "Telepathy for Dummies".

Marrdro
06-29-2011, 06:25 PM
I heard telepathy was a key part of Childress' KAO. I believe he co-authored "Telepathy for Dummies".
Haw, ......well played.

Truth be told, the two students (AD and Tahi) really don't strike me as the sharpest arrows in the quiver. Doubt they could have passed that class.

i_bleed_purple
06-29-2011, 06:59 PM
I foresee many 2 TE sets in the future for these Minnesota Vikings. Having (2) quality pass catchers at the TE position, I believe, is going to make the transition to the pro game much easier for Ponder and this offense. While Shiancoe will definitely start Day 1, it wouldn't shock me in the elast bit if as the season rares on that Rudolph sees more and more time. I love the matchup problems the big 6'6 TE from Notre Dame will cause.

Aside from the passing game, does anyone else tend to notice that Adrian Peterson is a much more effective runner when he doesn't have a FB leading the way for him? Oh and heres to a new era of offense where teams wont be able to assume run when MIN trots out (2) TE's. Everytime a defense seen Dugan and Kleinsasser take the field, they stacked the box.
Some yutz (Marrdro) has actually tried to point that out several times. Heck, he's even gone so far as to wonder why they even carry a "FB" on the roster as its almost a dead position.

Interesting study is to look at FB's and were they are drafted in the last 3 - 5 years.

You bang that drum quite a bit. I haven't seen a lot of disagreement but I do have a comment.

Peterson takes a quick look to see if there is a hole where he is supposed to run then goes elsewhere frequently. He's not patient enough to follow his blocks.
In addition, Tahi isn't a great blocking fullback like Richardson was.

If Peterson followed his blockers better as Bienemy was trying to teach him, the fullback would play a bigger role in the Vikings running game.
Ahhhh my friend, you know the way to my heart.....Take it to a new level with respect to a discussion of this nature........

Agree with your comments in total but put this on and let it boil a bit.......Maybe Tahi was also trying to read the holes the way AD did and shift his sight read on his blocking to the "new" spot (one cut) AD was reading.

I know if that was the case, it would be almost impossible to do unless both of them worked together for many years.

I know a few are going to jump all over this, however, if you compare it to a QB and WR reading a defense (and calling a "Check with Me" sight adjustment) it isn't to far fetched that they wouldn't work on it at times.
Interesting thought. I don't think that is the case though simply based on the fact that AD doesn't follow Tahi that often.
Of course its not the case, just an idea I've had running in my head for a while now.

If you could get a FB and a RB on the same page as that (both made the same read and same cut) defenses wouldn't be able to stop it.

I heard telepathy was a key part of Childress' KAO. I believe he co-authored "Telepathy for Dummies".

Childress was actually one of the Jedi Warriors in Men Who Stare At Goats
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHFsl2-QtpA

marstc09
06-29-2011, 08:13 PM
I will refrain from taking you seriously until you spell his name right. :)

Purple Floyd
06-30-2011, 03:08 PM
I foresee many 2 TE sets in the future for these Minnesota Vikings. Having (2) quality pass catchers at the TE position, I believe, is going to make the transition to the pro game much easier for Ponder and this offense. While Shiancoe will definitely start Day 1, it wouldn't shock me in the elast bit if as the season rares on that Rudolph sees more and more time. I love the matchup problems the big 6'6 TE from Notre Dame will cause.

Aside from the passing game, does anyone else tend to notice that Adrian Peterson is a much more effective runner when he doesn't have a FB leading the way for him? Oh and heres to a new era of offense where teams wont be able to assume run when MIN trots out (2) TE's. Everytime a defense seen Dugan and Kleinsasser take the field, they stacked the box.
Some yutz (Marrdro) has actually tried to point that out several times. Heck, he's even gone so far as to wonder why they even carry a "FB" on the roster as its almost a dead position.

Interesting study is to look at FB's and were they are drafted in the last 3 - 5 years.

You bang that drum quite a bit. I haven't seen a lot of disagreement but I do have a comment.

Peterson takes a quick look to see if there is a hole where he is supposed to run then goes elsewhere frequently. He's not patient enough to follow his blocks.
In addition, Tahi isn't a great blocking fullback like Richardson was.

If Peterson followed his blockers better as Bienemy was trying to teach him, the fullback would play a bigger role in the Vikings running game.
Ahhhh my friend, you know the way to my heart.....Take it to a new level with respect to a discussion of this nature........

Agree with your comments in total but put this on and let it boil a bit.......Maybe Tahi was also trying to read the holes the way AD did and shift his sight read on his blocking to the "new" spot (one cut) AD was reading.

I know if that was the case, it would be almost impossible to do unless both of them worked together for many years.

I know a few are going to jump all over this, however, if you compare it to a QB and WR reading a defense (and calling a "Check with Me" sight adjustment) it isn't to far fetched that they wouldn't work on it at times.
Interesting thought. I don't think that is the case though simply based on the fact that AD doesn't follow Tahi that often.
Of course its not the case, just an idea I've had running in my head for a while now.

If you could get a FB and a RB on the same page as that (both made the same read and same cut) defenses wouldn't be able to stop it.

I heard telepathy was a key part of Childress' KAO. I believe he co-authored "Telepathy for Dummies".

Childress was actually one of the Jedi Warriors in Men Who Stare At Goats
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHFsl2-QtpA

I believe he had a relationship with goats but I doubt it had anything to do with staring.

Marrdro
06-30-2011, 03:11 PM
I will refrain from taking you seriously until you spell his name right. :)
And I will spell his name right when he shows me he isn't going to do the same thing he's done every place he's been the O-coord.

Long story short, I learned my lesson with the Chiller. Not buying into anything they are selling until they prove me they know what they are doing.

Besides, when did you ever spell the Chillers name right?

Purple Floyd
06-30-2011, 03:13 PM
I foresee many 2 TE sets in the future for these Minnesota Vikings. Having (2) quality pass catchers at the TE position, I believe, is going to make the transition to the pro game much easier for Ponder and this offense. While Shiancoe will definitely start Day 1, it wouldn't shock me in the elast bit if as the season rares on that Rudolph sees more and more time. I love the matchup problems the big 6'6 TE from Notre Dame will cause.

Aside from the passing game, does anyone else tend to notice that Adrian Peterson is a much more effective runner when he doesn't have a FB leading the way for him? Oh and heres to a new era of offense where teams wont be able to assume run when MIN trots out (2) TE's. Everytime a defense seen Dugan and Kleinsasser take the field, they stacked the box.
Some yutz (Marrdro) has actually tried to point that out several times. Heck, he's even gone so far as to wonder why they even carry a "FB" on the roster as its almost a dead position.

Interesting study is to look at FB's and were they are drafted in the last 3 - 5 years.

You bang that drum quite a bit. I haven't seen a lot of disagreement but I do have a comment.

Peterson takes a quick look to see if there is a hole where he is supposed to run then goes elsewhere frequently. He's not patient enough to follow his blocks.
In addition, Tahi isn't a great blocking fullback like Richardson was.

If Peterson followed his blockers better as Bienemy was trying to teach him, the fullback would play a bigger role in the Vikings running game.

Good points. If the FB is not doing his job properly (ala Tahi), he is more of a hindrance than a help. And AP does have a tendency to act first, think later. Uber confidence in his ability can be a hindrance at times.

Some teams actually do significantly benefit by having a quality FB on the field. Whether it is a dying position or not, don't know, but I wouldn't give up on it just yet.
I posted a youtube the other day for Bleed based on one of his questions. Very few of AD's long runs (outside the redzone) had a FB in front of him.

Again, he doesn't like one in front of him regardless of what people think about T-rich and those comments.

Once again you are only looking at the topic skin deep when the real answer lies below the surface.

The fullback in football is like the body blow in boxing. They are rarely responsible for the K.O but the do the hard work that wears down the opponent and sets them up for the K.O.

Having an experienced fullback who know who to isolate and hit in order to soften them up and expose them later in the game for a big run is what separates TRich from guys like Tahi.

i_bleed_purple
06-30-2011, 03:15 PM
I foresee many 2 TE sets in the future for these Minnesota Vikings. Having (2) quality pass catchers at the TE position, I believe, is going to make the transition to the pro game much easier for Ponder and this offense. While Shiancoe will definitely start Day 1, it wouldn't shock me in the elast bit if as the season rares on that Rudolph sees more and more time. I love the matchup problems the big 6'6 TE from Notre Dame will cause.

Aside from the passing game, does anyone else tend to notice that Adrian Peterson is a much more effective runner when he doesn't have a FB leading the way for him? Oh and heres to a new era of offense where teams wont be able to assume run when MIN trots out (2) TE's. Everytime a defense seen Dugan and Kleinsasser take the field, they stacked the box.
Some yutz (Marrdro) has actually tried to point that out several times. Heck, he's even gone so far as to wonder why they even carry a "FB" on the roster as its almost a dead position.

Interesting study is to look at FB's and were they are drafted in the last 3 - 5 years.

You bang that drum quite a bit. I haven't seen a lot of disagreement but I do have a comment.

Peterson takes a quick look to see if there is a hole where he is supposed to run then goes elsewhere frequently. He's not patient enough to follow his blocks.
In addition, Tahi isn't a great blocking fullback like Richardson was.

If Peterson followed his blockers better as Bienemy was trying to teach him, the fullback would play a bigger role in the Vikings running game.

Good points. If the FB is not doing his job properly (ala Tahi), he is more of a hindrance than a help. And AP does have a tendency to act first, think later. Uber confidence in his ability can be a hindrance at times.

Some teams actually do significantly benefit by having a quality FB on the field. Whether it is a dying position or not, don't know, but I wouldn't give up on it just yet.
I posted a youtube the other day for Bleed based on one of his questions. Very few of AD's long runs (outside the redzone) had a FB in front of him.

Again, he doesn't like one in front of him regardless of what people think about T-rich and those comments.

Once again you are only looking at the topic skin deep when the real answer lies below the surface.

The fullback in football is like the body blow in boxing. They are rarely responsible for the K.O but the do the hard work that wears down the opponent and sets them up for the K.O.

Having an experienced fullback who know who to isolate and hit in order to soften them up and expose them later in the game for a big run is what separates TRich from guys like Tahi.
http://goallineblitz.com/images/game/forum/smileys/clap.gif

Well put.

Marrdro
06-30-2011, 03:21 PM
I foresee many 2 TE sets in the future for these Minnesota Vikings. Having (2) quality pass catchers at the TE position, I believe, is going to make the transition to the pro game much easier for Ponder and this offense. While Shiancoe will definitely start Day 1, it wouldn't shock me in the elast bit if as the season rares on that Rudolph sees more and more time. I love the matchup problems the big 6'6 TE from Notre Dame will cause.

Aside from the passing game, does anyone else tend to notice that Adrian Peterson is a much more effective runner when he doesn't have a FB leading the way for him? Oh and heres to a new era of offense where teams wont be able to assume run when MIN trots out (2) TE's. Everytime a defense seen Dugan and Kleinsasser take the field, they stacked the box.
Some yutz (Marrdro) has actually tried to point that out several times. Heck, he's even gone so far as to wonder why they even carry a "FB" on the roster as its almost a dead position.

Interesting study is to look at FB's and were they are drafted in the last 3 - 5 years.

You bang that drum quite a bit. I haven't seen a lot of disagreement but I do have a comment.

Peterson takes a quick look to see if there is a hole where he is supposed to run then goes elsewhere frequently. He's not patient enough to follow his blocks.
In addition, Tahi isn't a great blocking fullback like Richardson was.

If Peterson followed his blockers better as Bienemy was trying to teach him, the fullback would play a bigger role in the Vikings running game.

Good points. If the FB is not doing his job properly (ala Tahi), he is more of a hindrance than a help. And AP does have a tendency to act first, think later. Uber confidence in his ability can be a hindrance at times.

Some teams actually do significantly benefit by having a quality FB on the field. Whether it is a dying position or not, don't know, but I wouldn't give up on it just yet.
I posted a youtube the other day for Bleed based on one of his questions. Very few of AD's long runs (outside the redzone) had a FB in front of him.

Again, he doesn't like one in front of him regardless of what people think about T-rich and those comments.

Once again you are only looking at the topic skin deep when the real answer lies below the surface.

The fullback in football is like the body blow in boxing. They are rarely responsible for the K.O but the do the hard work that wears down the opponent and sets them up for the K.O.

Having an experienced fullback who know who to isolate and hit in order to soften them up and expose them later in the game for a big run is what separates TRich from guys like Tahi.
But the body blow only works if it is used.

On a side note, T-rich wasn't known for his blocking skills, although he was good at them. T-rich was known for his effectiveness as a weapon.

Those numbers slipped as a Viking and as a Jet. Mostly cause the boxer didn't use the body blow very much.
Body Blows (http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/901/tony-richardson)

Purple Floyd
06-30-2011, 03:22 PM
I foresee many 2 TE sets in the future for these Minnesota Vikings. Having (2) quality pass catchers at the TE position, I believe, is going to make the transition to the pro game much easier for Ponder and this offense. While Shiancoe will definitely start Day 1, it wouldn't shock me in the elast bit if as the season rares on that Rudolph sees more and more time. I love the matchup problems the big 6'6 TE from Notre Dame will cause.

Aside from the passing game, does anyone else tend to notice that Adrian Peterson is a much more effective runner when he doesn't have a FB leading the way for him? Oh and heres to a new era of offense where teams wont be able to assume run when MIN trots out (2) TE's. Everytime a defense seen Dugan and Kleinsasser take the field, they stacked the box.
Some yutz (Marrdro) has actually tried to point that out several times. Heck, he's even gone so far as to wonder why they even carry a "FB" on the roster as its almost a dead position.

Interesting study is to look at FB's and were they are drafted in the last 3 - 5 years.

You bang that drum quite a bit. I haven't seen a lot of disagreement but I do have a comment.

Peterson takes a quick look to see if there is a hole where he is supposed to run then goes elsewhere frequently. He's not patient enough to follow his blocks.
In addition, Tahi isn't a great blocking fullback like Richardson was.

If Peterson followed his blockers better as Bienemy was trying to teach him, the fullback would play a bigger role in the Vikings running game.

Good points. If the FB is not doing his job properly (ala Tahi), he is more of a hindrance than a help. And AP does have a tendency to act first, think later. Uber confidence in his ability can be a hindrance at times.

Some teams actually do significantly benefit by having a quality FB on the field. Whether it is a dying position or not, don't know, but I wouldn't give up on it just yet.
I posted a youtube the other day for Bleed based on one of his questions. Very few of AD's long runs (outside the redzone) had a FB in front of him.

Again, he doesn't like one in front of him regardless of what people think about T-rich and those comments.

Once again you are only looking at the topic skin deep when the real answer lies below the surface.

The fullback in football is like the body blow in boxing. They are rarely responsible for the K.O but the do the hard work that wears down the opponent and sets them up for the K.O.

Having an experienced fullback who know who to isolate and hit in order to soften them up and expose them later in the game for a big run is what separates TRich from guys like Tahi.
http://goallineblitz.com/images/game/forum/smileys/clap.gif

Well put.

We just need to keep teaching our old friend about the subtle intricacies of the game that don't show up in Madden or the sports talk shows.;)

Purple Floyd
06-30-2011, 03:25 PM
I foresee many 2 TE sets in the future for these Minnesota Vikings. Having (2) quality pass catchers at the TE position, I believe, is going to make the transition to the pro game much easier for Ponder and this offense. While Shiancoe will definitely start Day 1, it wouldn't shock me in the elast bit if as the season rares on that Rudolph sees more and more time. I love the matchup problems the big 6'6 TE from Notre Dame will cause.

Aside from the passing game, does anyone else tend to notice that Adrian Peterson is a much more effective runner when he doesn't have a FB leading the way for him? Oh and heres to a new era of offense where teams wont be able to assume run when MIN trots out (2) TE's. Everytime a defense seen Dugan and Kleinsasser take the field, they stacked the box.
Some yutz (Marrdro) has actually tried to point that out several times. Heck, he's even gone so far as to wonder why they even carry a "FB" on the roster as its almost a dead position.

Interesting study is to look at FB's and were they are drafted in the last 3 - 5 years.

You bang that drum quite a bit. I haven't seen a lot of disagreement but I do have a comment.

Peterson takes a quick look to see if there is a hole where he is supposed to run then goes elsewhere frequently. He's not patient enough to follow his blocks.
In addition, Tahi isn't a great blocking fullback like Richardson was.

If Peterson followed his blockers better as Bienemy was trying to teach him, the fullback would play a bigger role in the Vikings running game.

Good points. If the FB is not doing his job properly (ala Tahi), he is more of a hindrance than a help. And AP does have a tendency to act first, think later. Uber confidence in his ability can be a hindrance at times.

Some teams actually do significantly benefit by having a quality FB on the field. Whether it is a dying position or not, don't know, but I wouldn't give up on it just yet.
I posted a youtube the other day for Bleed based on one of his questions. Very few of AD's long runs (outside the redzone) had a FB in front of him.

Again, he doesn't like one in front of him regardless of what people think about T-rich and those comments.

Once again you are only looking at the topic skin deep when the real answer lies below the surface.

The fullback in football is like the body blow in boxing. They are rarely responsible for the K.O but the do the hard work that wears down the opponent and sets them up for the K.O.

Having an experienced fullback who know who to isolate and hit in order to soften them up and expose them later in the game for a big run is what separates TRich from guys like Tahi.
But the body blow only works if it is used.

On a side note, T-rich wasn't known for his blocking skills, although he was good at them. T-rich was known for his effectiveness as a weapon.

Those numbers slipped as a Viking and as a Jet. Mostly cause the boxer didn't use the body blow very much.
Body Blows (http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/901/tony-richardson)

Those are rushing stats goofball. :silly: I was talking about blocking. Oh well, I will have to work a bit harder in tandem with Bleed on getting you up to speed on fullbacks and their role as blockers.

Marrdro
06-30-2011, 03:29 PM
I foresee many 2 TE sets in the future for these Minnesota Vikings. Having (2) quality pass catchers at the TE position, I believe, is going to make the transition to the pro game much easier for Ponder and this offense. While Shiancoe will definitely start Day 1, it wouldn't shock me in the elast bit if as the season rares on that Rudolph sees more and more time. I love the matchup problems the big 6'6 TE from Notre Dame will cause.

Aside from the passing game, does anyone else tend to notice that Adrian Peterson is a much more effective runner when he doesn't have a FB leading the way for him? Oh and heres to a new era of offense where teams wont be able to assume run when MIN trots out (2) TE's. Everytime a defense seen Dugan and Kleinsasser take the field, they stacked the box.
Some yutz (Marrdro) has actually tried to point that out several times. Heck, he's even gone so far as to wonder why they even carry a "FB" on the roster as its almost a dead position.

Interesting study is to look at FB's and were they are drafted in the last 3 - 5 years.

You bang that drum quite a bit. I haven't seen a lot of disagreement but I do have a comment.

Peterson takes a quick look to see if there is a hole where he is supposed to run then goes elsewhere frequently. He's not patient enough to follow his blocks.
In addition, Tahi isn't a great blocking fullback like Richardson was.

If Peterson followed his blockers better as Bienemy was trying to teach him, the fullback would play a bigger role in the Vikings running game.

Good points. If the FB is not doing his job properly (ala Tahi), he is more of a hindrance than a help. And AP does have a tendency to act first, think later. Uber confidence in his ability can be a hindrance at times.

Some teams actually do significantly benefit by having a quality FB on the field. Whether it is a dying position or not, don't know, but I wouldn't give up on it just yet.
I posted a youtube the other day for Bleed based on one of his questions. Very few of AD's long runs (outside the redzone) had a FB in front of him.

Again, he doesn't like one in front of him regardless of what people think about T-rich and those comments.

Once again you are only looking at the topic skin deep when the real answer lies below the surface.

The fullback in football is like the body blow in boxing. They are rarely responsible for the K.O but the do the hard work that wears down the opponent and sets them up for the K.O.

Having an experienced fullback who know who to isolate and hit in order to soften them up and expose them later in the game for a big run is what separates TRich from guys like Tahi.
But the body blow only works if it is used.

On a side note, T-rich wasn't known for his blocking skills, although he was good at them. T-rich was known for his effectiveness as a weapon.

Those numbers slipped as a Viking and as a Jet. Mostly cause the boxer didn't use the body blow very much.
Body Blows (http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/901/tony-richardson)

Those are rushing stats goofball. :silly: I was talking about blocking. Oh well, I will have to work a bit harder in tandem with Bleed on getting you up to speed on fullbacks and their role as blockers.
Of course they are rushing stats. Directly related to my reply to you....

Maybe you should stay away from Bleed a bit. Seems he is rubbing off on you. :P

Purple Floyd
06-30-2011, 03:35 PM
I foresee many 2 TE sets in the future for these Minnesota Vikings. Having (2) quality pass catchers at the TE position, I believe, is going to make the transition to the pro game much easier for Ponder and this offense. While Shiancoe will definitely start Day 1, it wouldn't shock me in the elast bit if as the season rares on that Rudolph sees more and more time. I love the matchup problems the big 6'6 TE from Notre Dame will cause.

Aside from the passing game, does anyone else tend to notice that Adrian Peterson is a much more effective runner when he doesn't have a FB leading the way for him? Oh and heres to a new era of offense where teams wont be able to assume run when MIN trots out (2) TE's. Everytime a defense seen Dugan and Kleinsasser take the field, they stacked the box.
Some yutz (Marrdro) has actually tried to point that out several times. Heck, he's even gone so far as to wonder why they even carry a "FB" on the roster as its almost a dead position.

Interesting study is to look at FB's and were they are drafted in the last 3 - 5 years.

You bang that drum quite a bit. I haven't seen a lot of disagreement but I do have a comment.

Peterson takes a quick look to see if there is a hole where he is supposed to run then goes elsewhere frequently. He's not patient enough to follow his blocks.
In addition, Tahi isn't a great blocking fullback like Richardson was.

If Peterson followed his blockers better as Bienemy was trying to teach him, the fullback would play a bigger role in the Vikings running game.

Good points. If the FB is not doing his job properly (ala Tahi), he is more of a hindrance than a help. And AP does have a tendency to act first, think later. Uber confidence in his ability can be a hindrance at times.

Some teams actually do significantly benefit by having a quality FB on the field. Whether it is a dying position or not, don't know, but I wouldn't give up on it just yet.
I posted a youtube the other day for Bleed based on one of his questions. Very few of AD's long runs (outside the redzone) had a FB in front of him.

Again, he doesn't like one in front of him regardless of what people think about T-rich and those comments.

Once again you are only looking at the topic skin deep when the real answer lies below the surface.

The fullback in football is like the body blow in boxing. They are rarely responsible for the K.O but the do the hard work that wears down the opponent and sets them up for the K.O.

Having an experienced fullback who know who to isolate and hit in order to soften them up and expose them later in the game for a big run is what separates TRich from guys like Tahi.
But the body blow only works if it is used.

On a side note, T-rich wasn't known for his blocking skills, although he was good at them. T-rich was known for his effectiveness as a weapon.

Those numbers slipped as a Viking and as a Jet. Mostly cause the boxer didn't use the body blow very much.
Body Blows (http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/901/tony-richardson)

Counter punch:
http://subscribers.footballguys.com/players/RichTo00-1.php

2010 Game Summaries

Week 10 - Normally just a blocker (if you can call one of the best blocking full backs of all time 'just a blocker'), Richardson was targeted twice in this game and made both catches. It was clear in both cases that Richardson was a last ditch target for QB Mark Sanchez.

Week 11 - Richardson's chief duties were, as always, blocking for Sanchez and leading the way for Tomlinson and Greene. He also took a handoff from Brad Smith and gained a few yards up the middle, but it was an unusual play you won't see much.

Week 16 - Richardson had some success running vs blocking on Sunday, and was able to gain first downs on both of his carries. He also had a nice run after the catch at the end of the first half for seven yards. The bulk of his duties were, as always, blocking, but he showed he still had something left carrying the ball as well.

Week 17 - Richardson, like many of the vets, had a light day, popping in and out of the game, but giving more snaps to rookie John Conner. Richardson did his usual solid job blocking on pass downs and did fine running the ball as well. Conner, at this point, is a better and more effective ball carrier then Richardson, but Richardson is still the better fullback overall and will be key in any playoff run the Jets manage to make.

Volley 2:
http://fans.kcchiefs.com/service/displayDiscussionThreads.kickAction?as=118586&w=252128&d=513620&ac=new

You’re a fool if you say T-Rich is washed up, you need to read some stats and watch some games before you start judging on age. He made Adrian Peterson and Thomas Jones' stats so much better by becoming the starting FB. Peterson started 9 games in 2007 with 12 TD's and 5.6 average compared to when Richardson left, Peterson's stats went down to 10 TD's with a 4.8 yard average starting all 16 games. Before Richardson showed up in NY Jones had 1 TD, a 3.6 yard average, 310 attempts and 1,119 yards. Then when Richardson showed up in 2008 Jones got 13 TD's, a 4.5 yard average, 290 rushes for 1,312 yards and you know what Jones did this season all with Tony leading the way. He played in all 32 games for the two seasons he played with the Jets and 14 of the 16 in 07' when he was with the Vikings. He has no injury problems so I have no idea where you all figured that. There is NOTHING wrong with bringing Tony Richardson into KC.

Number 3:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/sports/football/14richardson.html?pagewanted=all

Dick Vermeil, his coach in Kansas City, said Richardson carved holes from anticipation, from knowing not only where defenders were going, but also the precise moment they would arrive. He crunched linebackers instead of numbers, yet still found what he had sought in accounting: a definitive answer for each assignment.

Adrian Peterson, a running back Richardson blocked for on the Vikings last season, says sometimes he catches a Jets game on TV, turns to teammates and says, “You miss that, huh?”

Richardson always gave Peterson the same advice: it’s all about longevity. Still, Richardson never felt secure in the N.F.L. He was the first running back since Bo Jackson to start at Auburn as a freshman, but he was not drafted.

Marrdro
06-30-2011, 03:41 PM
I foresee many 2 TE sets in the future for these Minnesota Vikings. Having (2) quality pass catchers at the TE position, I believe, is going to make the transition to the pro game much easier for Ponder and this offense. While Shiancoe will definitely start Day 1, it wouldn't shock me in the elast bit if as the season rares on that Rudolph sees more and more time. I love the matchup problems the big 6'6 TE from Notre Dame will cause.

Aside from the passing game, does anyone else tend to notice that Adrian Peterson is a much more effective runner when he doesn't have a FB leading the way for him? Oh and heres to a new era of offense where teams wont be able to assume run when MIN trots out (2) TE's. Everytime a defense seen Dugan and Kleinsasser take the field, they stacked the box.
Some yutz (Marrdro) has actually tried to point that out several times. Heck, he's even gone so far as to wonder why they even carry a "FB" on the roster as its almost a dead position.

Interesting study is to look at FB's and were they are drafted in the last 3 - 5 years.

You bang that drum quite a bit. I haven't seen a lot of disagreement but I do have a comment.

Peterson takes a quick look to see if there is a hole where he is supposed to run then goes elsewhere frequently. He's not patient enough to follow his blocks.
In addition, Tahi isn't a great blocking fullback like Richardson was.

If Peterson followed his blockers better as Bienemy was trying to teach him, the fullback would play a bigger role in the Vikings running game.

Good points. If the FB is not doing his job properly (ala Tahi), he is more of a hindrance than a help. And AP does have a tendency to act first, think later. Uber confidence in his ability can be a hindrance at times.

Some teams actually do significantly benefit by having a quality FB on the field. Whether it is a dying position or not, don't know, but I wouldn't give up on it just yet.
I posted a youtube the other day for Bleed based on one of his questions. Very few of AD's long runs (outside the redzone) had a FB in front of him.

Again, he doesn't like one in front of him regardless of what people think about T-rich and those comments.

Once again you are only looking at the topic skin deep when the real answer lies below the surface.

The fullback in football is like the body blow in boxing. They are rarely responsible for the K.O but the do the hard work that wears down the opponent and sets them up for the K.O.

Having an experienced fullback who know who to isolate and hit in order to soften them up and expose them later in the game for a big run is what separates TRich from guys like Tahi.
But the body blow only works if it is used.

On a side note, T-rich wasn't known for his blocking skills, although he was good at them. T-rich was known for his effectiveness as a weapon.

Those numbers slipped as a Viking and as a Jet. Mostly cause the boxer didn't use the body blow very much.
Body Blows (http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/901/tony-richardson)

Counter punch:
http://subscribers.footballguys.com/players/RichTo00-1.php

2010 Game Summaries

Week 10 - Normally just a blocker (if you can call one of the best blocking full backs of all time 'just a blocker'), Richardson was targeted twice in this game and made both catches. It was clear in both cases that Richardson was a last ditch target for QB Mark Sanchez.

Week 11 - Richardson's chief duties were, as always, blocking for Sanchez and leading the way for Tomlinson and Greene. He also took a handoff from Brad Smith and gained a few yards up the middle, but it was an unusual play you won't see much.

Week 16 - Richardson had some success running vs blocking on Sunday, and was able to gain first downs on both of his carries. He also had a nice run after the catch at the end of the first half for seven yards. The bulk of his duties were, as always, blocking, but he showed he still had something left carrying the ball as well.

Week 17 - Richardson, like many of the vets, had a light day, popping in and out of the game, but giving more snaps to rookie John Conner. Richardson did his usual solid job blocking on pass downs and did fine running the ball as well. Conner, at this point, is a better and more effective ball carrier then Richardson, but Richardson is still the better fullback overall and will be key in any playoff run the Jets manage to make.

Volley 2:
http://fans.kcchiefs.com/service/displayDiscussionThreads.kickAction?as=118586&w=252128&d=513620&ac=new

You’re a fool if you say T-Rich is washed up, you need to read some stats and watch some games before you start judging on age. He made Adrian Peterson and Thomas Jones' stats so much better by becoming the starting FB. Peterson started 9 games in 2007 with 12 TD's and 5.6 average compared to when Richardson left, Peterson's stats went down to 10 TD's with a 4.8 yard average starting all 16 games. Before Richardson showed up in NY Jones had 1 TD, a 3.6 yard average, 310 attempts and 1,119 yards. Then when Richardson showed up in 2008 Jones got 13 TD's, a 4.5 yard average, 290 rushes for 1,312 yards and you know what Jones did this season all with Tony leading the way. He played in all 32 games for the two seasons he played with the Jets and 14 of the 16 in 07' when he was with the Vikings. He has no injury problems so I have no idea where you all figured that. There is NOTHING wrong with bringing Tony Richardson into KC.

Number 3:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/sports/football/14richardson.html?pagewanted=all

Dick Vermeil, his coach in Kansas City, said Richardson carved holes from anticipation, from knowing not only where defenders were going, but also the precise moment they would arrive. He crunched linebackers instead of numbers, yet still found what he had sought in accounting: a definitive answer for each assignment.

Adrian Peterson, a running back Richardson blocked for on the Vikings last season, says sometimes he catches a Jets game on TV, turns to teammates and says, “You miss that, huh?”

Richardson always gave Peterson the same advice: it’s all about longevity. Still, Richardson never felt secure in the N.F.L. He was the first running back since Bo Jackson to start at Auburn as a freshman, but he was not drafted.
Good stuff. Still doesn't dispute that in KC he was used as a weapon and isn't anymore.

As to the blocking comments. Nothing in there disputes that he wasn't known for his offensive skills other than some sports hacks comments.


Richardson, like many of the vets, had a light day, popping in and out of the game, but giving more snaps to rookie John Conner
I did a game breakdown of T-rich, mostly cause of all the love for him on here.

I think, if memory serves, he was in on only 1/3 of the offensive plays.

i_bleed_purple
06-30-2011, 03:53 PM
But the body blow only works if it is used.

On a side note, T-rich wasn't known for his blocking skills, although he was good at them. T-rich was known for his effectiveness as a weapon.

Those numbers slipped as a Viking and as a Jet. Mostly cause the boxer didn't use the body blow very much.
Body Blows (http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/901/tony-richardson)

What is this.... I don't even....

*Mind explodes*

Did you ignore the entire 90's and 2000s?

Richardson had exactly 3 seasons where he was used really as a weapon.
1999: 84 rush, 387 yards, 24 rec, 141 yards
2000: 147 rush 697 yards, 58 rec 468 yards
2001: 56 rush, 191 ayrds, 30 rec, 265

Those were his highest totals ever for rushing and receiving in a season, and both happened early on in his career.

He was known as just an extraordinary fullback. A ferocious blocker, who is also capable of catching and running. We didn't use him much as a receiver in Minny, but when we did, he was fairly effective.

i_bleed_purple
06-30-2011, 03:56 PM
Good stuff. Still doesn't dispute that in KC he was used as a weapon and isn't anymore.

:huh:

He was used as a "weapon" for exactly 3 seasons. (you can argue maybe 4)

He has a total of 24 combined touchdowns, with 14 of those coming over that span of 3 seasons.

The rest of the time he was used to block, and to throw to maybe 10-15 times a season at most.

He was always a blocker, who can be used as a reliable outlet underneath. He was never mainly a runner/receiving type FB like guys like Hester or Weaver are.

Marrdro
06-30-2011, 04:01 PM
But the body blow only works if it is used.

On a side note, T-rich wasn't known for his blocking skills, although he was good at them. T-rich was known for his effectiveness as a weapon.

Those numbers slipped as a Viking and as a Jet. Mostly cause the boxer didn't use the body blow very much.
Body Blows (http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/901/tony-richardson)

What is this.... I don't even....

*Mind explodes*

Did you ignore the entire 90's and 2000s?

Richardson had exactly 3 seasons where he was used really as a weapon.
1999: 84 rush, 387 yards, 24 rec, 141 yards
2000: 147 rush 697 yards, 58 rec 468 yards
2001: 56 rush, 191 ayrds, 30 rec, 265

Those were his highest totals ever for rushing and receiving in a season, and both happened early on in his career.

He was known as just an extraordinary fullback. A ferocious blocker, who is also capable of catching and running. We didn't use him much as a receiver in Minny, but when we did, he was fairly effective.
I posted the stats. I know what they say. Show me were they say "Freocious blocker".

By the way, you missed that you quickly went into using him as a weapon and how well he did when used.......

Again, we've gone down this road before. Most don't have a clue wrt blocking schemes and if the OL, let alone a FB is doing his job. Very few recognize that there isn't a FB on the field for a lions share of the snaps.

Its a dying position. This is from 2006. Take a look a it and then go ahead and look at the FB's that are drafted. Hell, take alook at rosters in the NFL and see how many actually have a FB on them.

Fullback’s Role in N.F.L. Undergoes Transition to Blocker From Rusher
(http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/sports/football/26fullback.html?ex=1322197200&en=178b05cb07f2a890&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss)

i_bleed_purple
06-30-2011, 04:03 PM
Further disproving your attempted discussion point.

in 1999-2001, Ricahrdson had 1275 rush yards, 874 rec. yards

in all other seasons, not including those 3, he had 452 rush yards, 669 rec. yards.

jargomcfargo
06-30-2011, 04:05 PM
To say Tony Richardson wasn't known for his blocking skills is akin to saying Brett Favre had a noodle arm; absurd.

Richardson is widely accepted as one of the best blocking fullbacks of all time.

He was known as a star maker. He has blocked for Marcus Allen(briefly), Priest Holmes, Larry Johnson, Adrian Peterson, LT, and Greene.

If you want to measure using yards, you have to look at their yards.

A fullback may not be a necessary piece in some offenses, but Richardson's blocking has been an asset on every team he has played for.

Now that his career appears to be at an end, I would still rather have him on the Vikings than Tahi, and I'll bet AD would too.

i_bleed_purple
06-30-2011, 04:05 PM
But the body blow only works if it is used.

On a side note, T-rich wasn't known for his blocking skills, although he was good at them. T-rich was known for his effectiveness as a weapon.

Those numbers slipped as a Viking and as a Jet. Mostly cause the boxer didn't use the body blow very much.
Body Blows (http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/901/tony-richardson)

What is this.... I don't even....

*Mind explodes*

Did you ignore the entire 90's and 2000s?

Richardson had exactly 3 seasons where he was used really as a weapon.
1999: 84 rush, 387 yards, 24 rec, 141 yards
2000: 147 rush 697 yards, 58 rec 468 yards
2001: 56 rush, 191 ayrds, 30 rec, 265

Those were his highest totals ever for rushing and receiving in a season, and both happened early on in his career.

He was known as just an extraordinary fullback. A ferocious blocker, who is also capable of catching and running. We didn't use him much as a receiver in Minny, but when we did, he was fairly effective.
I posted the stats. I know what they say. Show me were they say "Freocious blocker".

By the way, you missed that you quickly went into using him as a weapon and how well he did when used.......

Again, we've gone down this road before. Most don't have a clue wrt blocking schemes and if the OL, let alone a FB is doing his job. Very few recognize that there isn't a FB on the field for a lions share of the snaps.

Its a dying position. This is from 2006. Take a look a it and then go ahead and look at the FB's that are drafted. Hell, take alook at rosters in the NFL and see how many actually have a FB on them.

Fullback’s Role in N.F.L. Undergoes Transition to Blocker From Rusher
(http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/sports/football/26fullback.html?ex=1322197200&en=178b05cb07f2a890&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss)

Yes, I'm sure you going by memory claiming that Richardson wasn't a blocking FB is more reputable of a source than almost two decades of reporters, analysts, players and coaches who describe him as a great blocker.

Doesn't matter about schemes, it matters if he can block a man in front of him. If he hits the wrong hole, but absolutely wrecks a LB, he's at least done SOMETHING right, even if it was the wrong something.

in comparason, Tahi hits the wrong hole, looks confused, makes a half-hearted attempt at a block and gets knocked on his ass.

Purple Floyd
06-30-2011, 04:13 PM
To say Tony Richardson wasn't known for his blocking skills is akin to saying Brett Favre had a noodle arm; absurd.

Richardson is widely accepted as one of the best blocking fullbacks of all time.

He was known as a star maker. He has blocked for Marcus Allen(briefly), Priest Holmes, Larry Johnson, Adrian Peterson, LT, and Greene.

If you want to measure using yards, you have to look at their yards.

A fullback may not be a necessary piece in some offenses, but Richardson's blocking has been an asset on every team he has played for.

Now that his career appears to be at an end, I would still rather have him on the Vikings than Tahi, and I'll bet AD would too.
+1

You just moved up several columns on the spreadsheet.

Marrdro
06-30-2011, 04:21 PM
To say Tony Richardson wasn't known for his blocking skills is akin to saying Brett Favre had a noodle arm; absurd.

Richardson is widely accepted as one of the best blocking fullbacks of all time.

He was known as a star maker. He has blocked for Marcus Allen(briefly), Priest Holmes, Larry Johnson, Adrian Peterson, LT, and Greene.

If you want to measure using yards, you have to look at their yards.

A fullback may not be a necessary piece in some offenses, but Richardson's blocking has been an asset on every team he has played for.

Now that his career appears to be at an end, I would still rather have him on the Vikings than Tahi, and I'll bet AD would too.
All based on an opinion though isn't it?

Marcus Allen made everyone look good and T-rich had nothing to do with that. AD has done fine without him. The OL at the Jets is the reason Green and LT have suceeded. My guess the KC lines had alot to do with the success of the players you ref as well.

Again, he made he got his recogniztion when he was used as a weapon in KC.

Purple Floyd
06-30-2011, 04:23 PM
Good stuff. Still doesn't dispute that in KC he was used as a weapon and isn't anymore.

And just where did I ever either dispute or elude to that topic. My original post and all subsequent posts,which seem to be lost on you, is that AP was able to perform better when TR was on the team. If you look back it seems that every back that ran behind him has a similar story line.


As to the blocking comments. Nothing in there disputes that he wasn't known for his offensive skills other than some sports hacks comments.
As compared to you( A sports hack) that has a different opinion. lol.



I did a game breakdown of T-rich, mostly cause of all the love for him on here.

I think, if memory serves, he was in on only 1/3 of the offensive plays.

Well that settles the debate. You broke down a game and from there all the truths were exposed lol.

Did you also break down how many times he singled out a specific LB or Safety on those plays and softened them up so it was easier for the RB to get past them on the plays where he was on the bench? I remember specifically posting that for you in one of those threads but obviously it was lost on you.

Purple Floyd
06-30-2011, 04:24 PM
I foresee many 2 TE sets in the future for these Minnesota Vikings. Having (2) quality pass catchers at the TE position, I believe, is going to make the transition to the pro game much easier for Ponder and this offense. While Shiancoe will definitely start Day 1, it wouldn't shock me in the elast bit if as the season rares on that Rudolph sees more and more time. I love the matchup problems the big 6'6 TE from Notre Dame will cause.

Aside from the passing game, does anyone else tend to notice that Adrian Peterson is a much more effective runner when he doesn't have a FB leading the way for him? Oh and heres to a new era of offense where teams wont be able to assume run when MIN trots out (2) TE's. Everytime a defense seen Dugan and Kleinsasser take the field, they stacked the box.
Some yutz (Marrdro) has actually tried to point that out several times. Heck, he's even gone so far as to wonder why they even carry a "FB" on the roster as its almost a dead position.

Interesting study is to look at FB's and were they are drafted in the last 3 - 5 years.

You bang that drum quite a bit. I haven't seen a lot of disagreement but I do have a comment.

Peterson takes a quick look to see if there is a hole where he is supposed to run then goes elsewhere frequently. He's not patient enough to follow his blocks.
In addition, Tahi isn't a great blocking fullback like Richardson was.

If Peterson followed his blockers better as Bienemy was trying to teach him, the fullback would play a bigger role in the Vikings running game.

Good points. If the FB is not doing his job properly (ala Tahi), he is more of a hindrance than a help. And AP does have a tendency to act first, think later. Uber confidence in his ability can be a hindrance at times.

Some teams actually do significantly benefit by having a quality FB on the field. Whether it is a dying position or not, don't know, but I wouldn't give up on it just yet.
I posted a youtube the other day for Bleed based on one of his questions. Very few of AD's long runs (outside the redzone) had a FB in front of him.

Again, he doesn't like one in front of him regardless of what people think about T-rich and those comments.

Once again you are only looking at the topic skin deep when the real answer lies below the surface.

The fullback in football is like the body blow in boxing. They are rarely responsible for the K.O but the do the hard work that wears down the opponent and sets them up for the K.O.

Having an experienced fullback who know who to isolate and hit in order to soften them up and expose them later in the game for a big run is what separates TRich from guys like Tahi.
But the body blow only works if it is used.

On a side note, T-rich wasn't known for his blocking skills, although he was good at them. T-rich was known for his effectiveness as a weapon.

Those numbers slipped as a Viking and as a Jet. Mostly cause the boxer didn't use the body blow very much.
Body Blows (http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/901/tony-richardson)

Those are rushing stats goofball. :silly: I was talking about blocking. Oh well, I will have to work a bit harder in tandem with Bleed on getting you up to speed on fullbacks and their role as blockers.
Of course they are rushing stats. Directly related to my reply to you....

Maybe you should stay away from Bleed a bit. Seems he is rubbing off on you. :P

Only Marty would post rushing stats in order to prove a point on the effectiveness of a blocking fullback.

i_bleed_purple
06-30-2011, 04:25 PM
I'm going to start replying to Marrdro using Marrdro quotes

i_bleed_purple
06-30-2011, 04:25 PM
To say Tony Richardson wasn't known for his blocking skills is akin to saying Brett Favre had a noodle arm; absurd.

Richardson is widely accepted as one of the best blocking fullbacks of all time.

He was known as a star maker. He has blocked for Marcus Allen(briefly), Priest Holmes, Larry Johnson, Adrian Peterson, LT, and Greene.

If you want to measure using yards, you have to look at their yards.

A fullback may not be a necessary piece in some offenses, but Richardson's blocking has been an asset on every team he has played for.

Now that his career appears to be at an end, I would still rather have him on the Vikings than Tahi, and I'll bet AD would too.
All based on an opinion though isn't it?

Marcus Allen made everyone look good and T-rich had nothing to do with that. AD has done fine without him. The OL at the Jets is the reason Green and LT have suceeded. My guess the KC lines had alot to do with the success of the players you ref as well.

Again, he made he got his recogniztion when he was used as a weapon in KC.



Not in my book. Sometimes I wonder were you come up with these things.

Purple Floyd
06-30-2011, 04:28 PM
To say Tony Richardson wasn't known for his blocking skills is akin to saying Brett Favre had a noodle arm; absurd.

Richardson is widely accepted as one of the best blocking fullbacks of all time.

He was known as a star maker. He has blocked for Marcus Allen(briefly), Priest Holmes, Larry Johnson, Adrian Peterson, LT, and Greene.

If you want to measure using yards, you have to look at their yards.

A fullback may not be a necessary piece in some offenses, but Richardson's blocking has been an asset on every team he has played for.

Now that his career appears to be at an end, I would still rather have him on the Vikings than Tahi, and I'll bet AD would too.
All based on an opinion though isn't it?

Marcus Allen made everyone look good and T-rich had nothing to do with that. AD has done fine without him. The OL at the Jets is the reason Green and LT have suceeded. My guess the KC lines had alot to do with the success of the players you ref as well.

Again, he made he got his recogniztion when he was used as a weapon in KC.

You seem confused. Are you in the comm closet again?

Marrdro
06-30-2011, 04:30 PM
Larry Johnson.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYdjssfbkWw
Priest Holmes. See him alot in these. I actually give him credit for 3 good blocks. All the rest are kindof like the very first one. Guy falls down or T-rich barely makes contact. Alot of the good blocking comes from the 2 pullers you see KC using alot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oMO9CfG03A

In short, is he a good FB? Yes. Is some of his prowess a bit blown up? Yes as well.

i_bleed_purple
06-30-2011, 04:33 PM
Larry Johnson.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYdjssfbkWw
Priest Holmes. See him alot in these. I actually give him credit for 3 good blocks. All the rest are kindof like the very first one. Guy falls down or T-rich barely makes contact. Alot of the good blocking comes from the 2 pullers you see KC using alot.

You realize using a highlight video to disprove a FB's blocking ability is in no way a representation of the FB.

Alot of highlights of runs are from either blown up blocking that the RB evaded, great blocking which the RB used to get in, or a bit of both.

They don't show the 4 yard gain for the first down that the FB sealed the edge on

They don't show the 3-6 yard gains that soften the defense.

Is TRich the best blocking back of all-time? Probably not.

is he one of the best blocking backs of the 2000s? Absolutely. If nto THE best.

What's next, you're going to claim AP isn't very good at being strong?

Marrdro
06-30-2011, 04:38 PM
Larry Johnson.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYdjssfbkWw
Priest Holmes. See him alot in these. I actually give him credit for 3 good blocks. All the rest are kindof like the very first one. Guy falls down or T-rich barely makes contact. Alot of the good blocking comes from the 2 pullers you see KC using alot.

You realize using a highlight video to disprove a FB's blocking ability is in no way a representation of the FB.

Alot of highlights of runs are from either blown up blocking that the RB evaded, great blocking which the RB used to get in, or a bit of both.

They don't show the 4 yard gain for the first down that the FB sealed the edge on

They don't show the 3-6 yard gains that soften the defense.

Is TRich the best blocking back of all-time? Probably not.

is he one of the best blocking backs of the 2000s? Absolutely. If nto THE best.

What's next, you're going to claim AP isn't very good at being strong?
I'm just showing what I can find. If he was so good wouldn't he be a key part of the blocks for the players doc mentions?

Again, just putting up what I find.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d33NiqyyZ9c

i_bleed_purple
06-30-2011, 04:40 PM
Larry Johnson.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYdjssfbkWw
Priest Holmes. See him alot in these. I actually give him credit for 3 good blocks. All the rest are kindof like the very first one. Guy falls down or T-rich barely makes contact. Alot of the good blocking comes from the 2 pullers you see KC using alot.

You realize using a highlight video to disprove a FB's blocking ability is in no way a representation of the FB.

Alot of highlights of runs are from either blown up blocking that the RB evaded, great blocking which the RB used to get in, or a bit of both.

They don't show the 4 yard gain for the first down that the FB sealed the edge on

They don't show the 3-6 yard gains that soften the defense.

Is TRich the best blocking back of all-time? Probably not.

is he one of the best blocking backs of the 2000s? Absolutely. If nto THE best.

What's next, you're going to claim AP isn't very good at being strong?
I'm just showing what I can find. If he was so good wouldn't he be a key part of the blocks for the players doc mentions?

Again, just putting up what I find.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d33NiqyyZ9c

And I can find a video of Madieu Williams laying out AP.
I can also find a video of Jay Cutler trucking through M-Will.

By internet logic, that means Cutler is a better runner than AP.

Point?

i_bleed_purple
06-30-2011, 04:41 PM
Sometimes I wonder if you sit at home brainstorming asinine things to 'discuss' here just to kill some time at work.



Sometimes I wonder were you come up with these things.

Marrdro
06-30-2011, 04:42 PM
And I can find a video of Madieu Williams laying out AP.

Point?
How does that have anything to do with the discussion at hand? I am using youtube to find some stuff. When I searched for your beloved FB I get that and some roast like stuff.

So then I go to the RB's that Doc mentioned and even during the plays that actually have him in there, I just don't see what your so in love with.

As with all discussions, if you want me to change my mind, find something that will.

So far, PF's was about the best try.

Marrdro
06-30-2011, 04:44 PM
Sometimes I wonder if you sit at home brainstorming asinine things to 'discuss' here just to kill some time at work.



Sometimes I wonder were you come up with these things.
LOL, when I'm at home, the last thing I think about is PPO or work. Besides, you above all others know that I just follow the topic and discuss whatever someone wants to.

To think that I would have an agenda gives me way to much credit. I'm just not that complex my friend.

Those that have met me can attest to that. :lol:

i_bleed_purple
06-30-2011, 04:53 PM
But that's the issue with FBs, you'll never find a 'highlight' video of a blocking back.

to compare:
Leonard Weaver highlights:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fvcHYqvuQQ

Jacob Hester highlights:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jacob+hester+highlights&aq=f

easy to find highlights of your "weapon" FB's, not so much for the hard-nosed blocking back.

Marrdro
06-30-2011, 04:58 PM
easy to find highlights of your "weapon" FB's, not so much for the hard-nosed blocking back.
I hear ya. Again gets back to my point about people wanting the FB to be a weapon again.

As to hard-nosed blocking. Again I offer up the Priest youtube. He is in alot of the plays and I just don't see the "Ferociousness" that you spoke of.

Gets back to my other point. I've watched alot of T-rich, especially since he was a Viking. I think alot of what you guys say is really just something you've read. Again, I just don't see the evidence that you say is there.

The Jets game I kept game notes and provided last year cemented it for me.

HOF FB? Yes. Deserving? Yes. A bit over hyped? I think so.

i_bleed_purple
06-30-2011, 04:59 PM
easy to find highlights of your "weapon" FB's, not so much for the hard-nosed blocking back.
I hear ya. Again gets back to my point about people wanting the FB to be a weapon again.

As to hard-nosed blocking. Again I offer up the Priest youtube. He is in alot of the plays and I just don't see the "Ferociousness" that you spoke of.

Gets back to my other point. I've watched alot of T-rich, especially since he was a Viking. I think alot of what you guys say is really just something you've read. Again, I just don't see the evidence that you say is there.

The Jets game I kept game notes and provided last year cemented it for me.

HOF FB? Yes. Deserving? Yes. A bit over hyped? I think so.

So you made notes of a guy in his 17th season vs. the Vikings and base your assumption on that, just because you can't find proof that he once was a dominating FB, and still is a pretty darn good one?

Ok.

jargomcfargo
06-30-2011, 05:02 PM
Sometimes I wonder if you sit at home brainstorming asinine things to 'discuss' here just to kill some time at work.



Sometimes I wonder were you come up with these things.
LOL, when I'm at home, the last thing I think about is PPO or work. Besides, you above all others know that I just follow the topic and discuss whatever someone wants to.

To think that I would have an agenda gives me way to much credit. I'm just not that complex my friend.

Those that have met me can attest to that. :lol:

While your assertion that the fullback is becoming a defunct position holds some merrit, saying Richardson isn't a good blocker doesn't.

Fullback has always been an unsung position, much like offensive linemen.

Living where I live I have seen a fair amount of Chiefs games when T Rich played for them. I saw every Vikings game T Rich played in. And I've seen a few of his Jets games.

The fullback is being used less overall but is just one cog in the gear. You can't say the offensive line was the reason the running back did well and discount the fullback, just as you can't give all the credit to the fullback and not the line.

So many debates here are about one player or another when the truth, in fact, only lies in his position within a unit or team context.

Just as individual awards are rediculous, so goes individual blame in most cases.

So my statement about Richardson's blocking abilities is based on what I have seen and the success the backs he has blocked for have had.
I'm not sure how to quantify that with stats.

So I guess you could dismiss it as theory.

Shall we apply that same standard to your posts?

Marrdro
06-30-2011, 05:05 PM
easy to find highlights of your "weapon" FB's, not so much for the hard-nosed blocking back.
I hear ya. Again gets back to my point about people wanting the FB to be a weapon again.

As to hard-nosed blocking. Again I offer up the Priest youtube. He is in alot of the plays and I just don't see the "Ferociousness" that you spoke of.

Gets back to my other point. I've watched alot of T-rich, especially since he was a Viking. I think alot of what you guys say is really just something you've read. Again, I just don't see the evidence that you say is there.

The Jets game I kept game notes and provided last year cemented it for me.

HOF FB? Yes. Deserving? Yes. A bit over hyped? I think so.

So you made notes of a guy in his 17th season vs. the Vikings and base your assumption on that, just because you can't find proof that he once was a dominating FB, and still is a pretty darn good one?

Ok.
Of course I didn't base my assumption just on that one.

I chart all Vikings games (you should see my new chart. Its cool) and watch almost every replay that comes on and have for years.

Mix in all the crap I read (Books/articles/blogs) and I think I've got a pretty good idea about players and the game.

On a side note, I love the youtube era. Mix in all the clips you can find on the NFL channel and its almost (well not almost) as good as having the game tape I really crave.

Purple Floyd
06-30-2011, 05:26 PM
easy to find highlights of your "weapon" FB's, not so much for the hard-nosed blocking back.
I hear ya. Again gets back to my point about people wanting the FB to be a weapon again.

As to hard-nosed blocking. Again I offer up the Priest youtube. He is in alot of the plays and I just don't see the "Ferociousness" that you spoke of.

Gets back to my other point. I've watched alot of T-rich, especially since he was a Viking. I think alot of what you guys say is really just something you've read. Again, I just don't see the evidence that you say is there.

The Jets game I kept game notes and provided last year cemented it for me.

HOF FB? Yes. Deserving? Yes. A bit over hyped? I think so.

So you made notes of a guy in his 17th season vs. the Vikings and base your assumption on that, just because you can't find proof that he once was a dominating FB, and still is a pretty darn good one?

Ok.
Of course I didn't base my assumption just on that one.

I chart all Vikings games (you should see my new chart. Its cool) and watch almost every replay that comes on and have for years.

Mix in all the crap I read (Books/articles/blogs) and I think I've got a pretty good idea about players and the game.

On a side note, I love the youtube era. Mix in all the clips you can find on the NFL channel and its almost (well not almost) as good as having the game tape I really crave.

OK.

Just for shits and giggles take a picture of said chart and post it for us today.

Let me guess, the batteries are dead in your digicam?

jargomcfargo
06-30-2011, 06:40 PM
Debates about Tony Richardson are off topic so I looked for how Atlanta uses a fullback in their offense as a way to guess what Musgrave might do.
I'm on dial up today so it took awhile.

Atlantas fullback was the NFC probowl fullback last year. I didn't find much on his role but it appears he is an important part of Mularky's offense in blocking and blitz pickup.

I also discovered that Atlanta's run first offense is actually a very balanced attack that is a dink and dunk offense.(gee,I wonder who might pat himself on the back after hearing that!lol!)

I also found articles that said Atlanta had used 2 fullbacks at times and Green Bay 3. I assume that was all in short yardage situations.

First some stats, then some links.

2010 Stats Atlanta

Rushes : 497 Attempts
Rushes: 1891 Yards
Rushes : 111 First Downs
Rushes: 14 TDs

Passes : 577 Attempts
Passes: 3567 Yards
Passes : 200 First Downs
Passes: 28 TDs

I think 'methodical' would describe our offense better. We are run heavy, even if we pass more than run. Additionally, because our YPA is fairly low we don't seem to have a very dynamic pass attack. Mularkey also seems to spend a lot of time setting up the pass thru the run as well.


Atlanta Falcons’ Fullback Ovie Mughelli Selected For The 2011 Pro Bowl in The NFC Division
December 29, 2010 • 0 comments
Atlanta Falcons’ Fullback Ovie Mughelli selected for the 2011 Pro Bowl in the NFC Division. This is Mughelli’s first Pro Bowl nomination in his eight-year career in the National Football League. Mughelli also has made history for the Atlanta Falcons, as the first ever Fullback to be selected into the Pro Bowl.
A Wake Forest graduate where Mughelli got his first taste of the Fullback position, the NFC Pro Bowl selection is a major milestone after much success as a starting, lead blocker for the Falcons offense.
About OVIE MUGHELLI
Ovie is an eight-year NFL veteran, signed by the Atlanta Falcons in March 2007 and a 4th round draft pick for the Baltimore Ravens in 2003. One of the biggest Fullbacks in the NFL, Ovie is known for being a power blocker, for being able to pick up blitzes, and has one of the best special team minds in the game. Ovie had a breakout 2009 season, as the coveted blocker.

http://www.satellitetv-news.com/atlanta-falcons-fullback-ovie-mughelli-selected-for-the-2011-pro-bowl-in-the-nfc-division/


Fullback Ovie Mughelli was key to ground game
8:26 pm November 28, 2010, by D. Orlando Ledbetter
Fullback Ovie Mughelli came up with a couple of clutch plays for the Falcons.
Mughelli also had the key block on Michael Turner’s 1-yard touchdown run on a fourth-and-goal play in the fourth quarter.
“Just blow the guy up,” Mughelli said. “I hit him, he knifed down and I pushed him. I did my job. If my man is in the end zone, then I’ve done my job.”

http://blogs.ajc.com/atlanta-falcons-blog/2010/11/28/fullback-ovie-mughelli-was-key-to-ground-game/


2011 Falcons Roster Breakdown: Michael Turner And Jacquizz Rodgers Will Be A Dangerous One-Two Punch
Jun 04 9:01a by Alexander Shirkey
For the past decade, the Falcons' offensive successes have almost always been a product of a great ground game, and 2010 was no exception. The Falcons' rushing attack ranked 12th in the NFL and will be led once again by Michael Turner, who posted 1371 yards and 12 rush TD's on the year. The numbers aren't mind blowing, but with the offensive reliance on the passing game steadily increasing this shouldn't be too concerning.
However, make no mistake: even though Matt Ryan had a stellar year at QB for the team, still expect offensive coordinator Mike Mularkey to remain committed to the ground game. It's worth noting that since hiring Mularkey in 2008, the team has ranked 2nd, 11th, and 5th in team rushing attempts..
As far as fullback is concerned, Ovie Mughelli is still the no-doubt starter, and has been both a solid run-blocker and a great all aroud fullback during his tenure as an Atlanta Falcon.

http://atlanta.sbnation.com/atlanta-falcons/2011/6/4/2206188/2011-falcons-roster-breakdown-michael-turner-jacquizz-rodgers

Last an older bleacher report on the Atlanta offense that is actually pretty good.


The offense is simple. But it sure is effective.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/179954-simple-but-deadly-five-plays-atlanta-falcons-use-in-its-arsenal

I think Musgrave will bring a similar offense to the Vikings.

12purplepride28
06-30-2011, 07:29 PM
And I can find a video of Madieu Williams laying out AP.

Point?
How does that have anything to do with the discussion at hand?


It has everything to do with it. He's stating that you can't draw conclusions from one highlight. Ok, so Asomugha blew up Trich. So? MWill layed out AP. So if you wanna say that because Tony got "blown up" by Asomugha that means he sucks, draw the same conclusion from AP.

Marrdro
07-04-2011, 01:34 PM
It has everything to do with it. He's stating that you can't draw conclusions from one highlight.
Did you happen to take a glance at the vid that showed all the plays from a "Record Setting" season for a RB? Lots and lots of highlights one can use to draw a conclusion.

Marrdro
07-04-2011, 01:41 PM
So my statement about Richardson's blocking abilities is based on what I have seen and the success the backs he has blocked for have had.
I'm not sure how to quantify that with stats.


I can buy into that my friend. Truth of the matter is, I completely forgot about him blocking for Priest. Much to my delight, that season highlight Vid shows him in action more than any other vid I could find.

Again, I offer it as an example of what, as with you, I've seen.



So I guess you could dismiss it as theory.

Shall we apply that same standard to your posts?
Feel free. You above all others know that I don't put as much credence into opinions of a yutz with a keyboard as some do on here.

On a side note, if more people treated this site for what it is, instead of what they want it to be, I have a strange feeling we wouldn't lose some many quality posters because they got into a little tiff with someone else over something they believed was alot more important than it really is.

In the end, its just a discussion. Nothing more, nothing else. ;)

i_bleed_purple
07-04-2011, 01:44 PM
On a side note, if more people treated this site for what it is, instead of what they want it to be, I have a strange feeling we wouldn't lose some many quality posters because they got into a little tiff with someone else over something they believed was alot more important than it really is.

So we should start saying whatever the hell we want, regardless of how outrageous it may sound, and everyone should accept it as fact?

Don't think so.

Marrdro
07-04-2011, 01:45 PM
easy to find highlights of your "weapon" FB's, not so much for the hard-nosed blocking back.
I hear ya. Again gets back to my point about people wanting the FB to be a weapon again.

As to hard-nosed blocking. Again I offer up the Priest youtube. He is in alot of the plays and I just don't see the "Ferociousness" that you spoke of.

Gets back to my other point. I've watched alot of T-rich, especially since he was a Viking. I think alot of what you guys say is really just something you've read. Again, I just don't see the evidence that you say is there.

The Jets game I kept game notes and provided last year cemented it for me.

HOF FB? Yes. Deserving? Yes. A bit over hyped? I think so.

So you made notes of a guy in his 17th season vs. the Vikings and base your assumption on that, just because you can't find proof that he once was a dominating FB, and still is a pretty darn good one?

Ok.
Of course I didn't base my assumption just on that one.

I chart all Vikings games (you should see my new chart. Its cool) and watch almost every replay that comes on and have for years.

Mix in all the crap I read (Books/articles/blogs) and I think I've got a pretty good idea about players and the game.

On a side note, I love the youtube era. Mix in all the clips you can find on the NFL channel and its almost (well not almost) as good as having the game tape I really crave.

OK.

Just for shits and giggles take a picture of said chart and post it for us today.

Let me guess, the batteries are dead in your digicam?
I usually have better luck sending it to you in a attachment to your email account, however, lets see if this works.

http://photos-f.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/261318_2230356721063_1312228742_2638540_5961865_s.jpg

Marrdro
07-04-2011, 01:47 PM
It worked......

I usually have better luck using 2 of them. One for the first half and one for the second half. I use blue for the offensive plays and red for the defensive plays. Straight line is a run/curved line is a pass (much the same as you see on some fantasy sites.

Marrdro
07-04-2011, 01:50 PM
On a side note, if more people treated this site for what it is, instead of what they want it to be, I have a strange feeling we wouldn't lose some many quality posters because they got into a little tiff with someone else over something they believed was alot more important than it really is.

So we should start saying whatever the hell we want, regardless of how outrageous it may sound, and everyone should accept it as fact?

Don't think so.
But why do you have to take it as fact? A discussion is nothing more than throwing out IDEA's based on observations/things read etc etc etc.

As I've said to you over and over and over again, quit worrying about rightr/wrong/facts etc. You'll have alot more fun IMHO.

People who take this site to seriously tend to not have fun and eventually get pissed and leave.

Again, its a discussion site. No one is going to jail or going to lose their life over a discussion about the game we love right?

i_bleed_purple
07-04-2011, 01:53 PM
On a side note, if more people treated this site for what it is, instead of what they want it to be, I have a strange feeling we wouldn't lose some many quality posters because they got into a little tiff with someone else over something they believed was alot more important than it really is.

So we should start saying whatever the hell we want, regardless of how outrageous it may sound, and everyone should accept it as fact?

Don't think so.
But why do you have to take it as fact? A discussion is nothing more than throwing out IDEA's based on observations/things read etc etc etc.

Yes, go ahead and throw out all the IDEA's you want. But if nobody here generally accepts your ideas, continually pushing them as if they are correct over our ideas might just rub some people the wrong way.

If you want somewhere that you can say whatever the hell you want, and the average IQ is 40, leading most of them to believe you, try Rubechat. If you want more of an intelligent conversation, where people have their own Ideas that are likely different from yours, here is better.


As I've said to you over and over and over again, quit worrying about rightr/wrong/facts etc. You'll have alot more fun IMHO.
Doubt that.

Think about it. If I accepted every idea you throw out there, what the hell would I do all day at work?

Marrdro
07-04-2011, 02:04 PM
On a side note, if more people treated this site for what it is, instead of what they want it to be, I have a strange feeling we wouldn't lose some many quality posters because they got into a little tiff with someone else over something they believed was alot more important than it really is.

So we should start saying whatever the hell we want, regardless of how outrageous it may sound, and everyone should accept it as fact?

Don't think so.
But why do you have to take it as fact? A discussion is nothing more than throwing out IDEA's based on observations/things read etc etc etc.

Yes, go ahead and throw out all the IDEA's you want. But if nobody here generally accepts your ideas, continually pushing them as if they are correct over our ideas might just rub some people the wrong way.

If you want somewhere that you can say whatever the hell you want, and the average IQ is 40, leading most of them to believe you, try Rubechat. If you want more of an intelligent conversation, where people have their own Ideas that are likely different from yours, here is better.


As I've said to you over and over and over again, quit worrying about rightr/wrong/facts etc. You'll have alot more fun IMHO.
Doubt that.

Think about it. If I accepted every idea you throw out there, what the hell would I do all day at work?
Take it one step further, why do you have to accept it? Typically a "discussion" has two sides to the idea being discussed.

And I don't push my ideas. I throw them out there. If someone wants to discuss them, I'm ready. If they don't, I throw another idea out there.

On a side note, I think your quantity of "Nobody" is a bit overboard don't you think?

Back to the topic (or were we left the topic), show me one of the "FEROCIOUS" (your word) blocks you said ole T-rich layed out there. Again, I gave you a pretty good sample to choose from.

My contention, you can't. Why? Cause, just as Doc said, your going from your memory of T-richs play. I'm going from mine based on memory, coupled with some youtube clips (I'm getting to like ole youtube).

As with most players, their skills sometimes get a bit "Exagerated" by fans. This is the case.

Heck, one could almost say that ole T-rich, in the Priest Vid, blocked almost as bad as some on here say Tahi does.

i_bleed_purple
07-04-2011, 02:19 PM
On a side note, if more people treated this site for what it is, instead of what they want it to be, I have a strange feeling we wouldn't lose some many quality posters because they got into a little tiff with someone else over something they believed was alot more important than it really is.

So we should start saying whatever the hell we want, regardless of how outrageous it may sound, and everyone should accept it as fact?

Don't think so.
But why do you have to take it as fact? A discussion is nothing more than throwing out IDEA's based on observations/things read etc etc etc.

Yes, go ahead and throw out all the IDEA's you want. But if nobody here generally accepts your ideas, continually pushing them as if they are correct over our ideas might just rub some people the wrong way.

If you want somewhere that you can say whatever the hell you want, and the average IQ is 40, leading most of them to believe you, try Rubechat. If you want more of an intelligent conversation, where people have their own Ideas that are likely different from yours, here is better.


As I've said to you over and over and over again, quit worrying about rightr/wrong/facts etc. You'll have alot more fun IMHO.
Doubt that.

Think about it. If I accepted every idea you throw out there, what the hell would I do all day at work?
Take it one step further, why do you have to accept it? Typically a "discussion" has two sides to the idea being discussed.

And I don't push my ideas. I throw them out there. If someone wants to discuss them, I'm ready. If they don't, I throw another idea out there.

On a side note, I think your quantity of "Nobody" is a bit overboard don't you think?

Back to the topic (or were we left the topic), show me one of the "FEROCIOUS" (your word) blocks you said ole T-rich layed out there. Again, I gave you a pretty good sample to choose from.

My contention, you can't. Why? Cause, just as Doc said, your going from your memory of T-richs play. I'm going from mine based on memory, coupled with some youtube clips (I'm getting to like ole youtube).

As with most players, their skills sometimes get a bit "Exagerated" by fans. This is the case.

Heck, one could almost say that ole T-rich, in the Priest Vid, blocked almost as bad as some on here say Tahi does.

Again, cannot get what you want because a) I'm not sifting through a bunch of video, and b) There are no FB blocking highlights. There are examples out there, they're just going to be hard to find.

I recall when we first announced that T-Rich was to be a Viking, they were talking about it on the NFLN, how it would help boost our run game that had been rather anemic until the arrival of Rich and Taylor.


But for your viewing pleasure: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oMO9CfG03A

2003 Priest Holmes
Used a LOT of I form, and he made alot of blocks.

i_bleed_purple
07-04-2011, 08:23 PM
Cutting back to a second about how the FB isn't used in our scheme.


Do you remember the first player we signed under Childress?

http://purplepride.org/forum/39-offseason-2006draftfa/317418-vikings-sign-godspeed#317418

Caine
07-05-2011, 02:52 AM
On a side note, if more people treated this site for what it is, instead of what they want it to be, I have a strange feeling we wouldn't lose some many quality posters because they got into a little tiff with someone else over something they believed was alot more important than it really is.

So we should start saying whatever the hell we want, regardless of how outrageous it may sound, and everyone should accept it as fact?

Don't think so.
But why do you have to take it as fact? A discussion is nothing more than throwing out IDEA's based on observations/things read etc etc etc.

Yes, go ahead and throw out all the IDEA's you want. But if nobody here generally accepts your ideas, continually pushing them as if they are correct over our ideas might just rub some people the wrong way.

If you want somewhere that you can say whatever the hell you want, and the average IQ is 40, leading most of them to believe you, try Rubechat. If you want more of an intelligent conversation, where people have their own Ideas that are likely different from yours, here is better.


As I've said to you over and over and over again, quit worrying about rightr/wrong/facts etc. You'll have alot more fun IMHO.
Doubt that.

Think about it. If I accepted every idea you throw out there, what the hell would I do all day at work?
Take it one step further, why do you have to accept it? Typically a "discussion" has two sides to the idea being discussed.

And I don't push my ideas. I throw them out there. If someone wants to discuss them, I'm ready. If they don't, I throw another idea out there.

On a side note, I think your quantity of "Nobody" is a bit overboard don't you think?

Back to the topic (or were we left the topic), show me one of the "FEROCIOUS" (your word) blocks you said ole T-rich layed out there. Again, I gave you a pretty good sample to choose from.

My contention, you can't. Why? Cause, just as Doc said, your going from your memory of T-richs play. I'm going from mine based on memory, coupled with some youtube clips (I'm getting to like ole youtube).

As with most players, their skills sometimes get a bit "Exagerated" by fans. This is the case.

Heck, one could almost say that ole T-rich, in the Priest Vid, blocked almost as bad as some on here say Tahi does.

Not sure which "Quality posters" we've lost due to "discussion points"...

Most people who post opinions don't get beat down...only those who chose to do so in a way that represents those opinions as facts, when they actually aren't. When they do that, they get challenged to "prove" their assertions - much like you do - and they often can't, because their assertions are opinion based, not facts.

The further from factual they are, the more they get called out, until they finally decide that we - the posters here who don't accept random blatherings as gospel - are simply out to get them (rather than accept the notion that THEY are fundamentally wrong), and they leave.

Can't say that I think those are "quality posters"...

Caine

Marrdro
07-05-2011, 12:38 PM
2003 Priest Holmes
Used a LOT of I form, and he made alot of blocks.
Thats the same one I posted above. Take a look at the block he throws at time 00:47. Alot of that in there and nothing "FEROCIOUS" about them. Hell, he just barely gets in the way.

Marrdro
07-05-2011, 12:40 PM
Cutting back to a second about how the FB isn't used in our scheme.


Do you remember the first player we signed under Childress?

http://purplepride.org/forum/39-offseason-2006draftfa/317418-vikings-sign-godspeed#317418
I never said it wasn't used in our scheme. I said it isn't used the way you guys want it to be (As a weapon).

The FB, in the Chillers scheme was to be a "No Neck Knee Bender". Thats it. Nothing else.

On a side note, I also said that because he wasn't used as an offensive threat, you guys thought Tahi wasn't effective.

Marrdro
07-05-2011, 12:45 PM
Not sure which "Quality posters" we've lost due to "discussion points"...

Most people who post opinions don't get beat down...only those who chose to do so in a way that represents those opinions as facts, when they actually aren't. When they do that, they get challenged to "prove" their assertions - much like you do - and they often can't, because their assertions are opinion based, not facts.

The further from factual they are, the more they get called out, until they finally decide that we - the posters here who don't accept random blatherings as gospel - are simply out to get them (rather than accept the notion that THEY are fundamentally wrong), and they leave.

Can't say that I think those are "quality posters"...

Caine
LOL

Called out.....

Beat down.....

Fundamentally wrong......

Need I say more?

i_bleed_purple
07-05-2011, 01:39 PM
Cutting back to a second about how the FB isn't used in our scheme.


Do you remember the first player we signed under Childress?

http://purplepride.org/forum/39-offseason-2006draftfa/317418-vikings-sign-godspeed#317418
I never said it wasn't used in our scheme. I said it isn't used the way you guys want it to be (As a weapon).
Again, NOBODY has claimedt hey want a weapon as a FB. We called out Tahi because he sucks in EVERY.SINGLE.ASPECT of the game. The guy can't run with the ball, so we need to not throw to him. he can't block, so take him out. This whole "FB as a weapon" is more drivel you came up with. Looka t Richardsons stats here. Most people wanted him back, but we didn't really use him as a weapon, he was mainly a blocker, who had the ability to take the odd ball his way.


The FB, in the Chillers scheme was to be a "No Neck Knee Bender". Thats it. Nothing else. Something Tahi couldn't do.


On a side note, I also said that because he wasn't used as an offensive threat, you guys thought Tahi wasn't effective.
No, we've gone over this literally dozens of times, We thought Tahi wasn't effective because he can not block. No more, no less.

Marrdro
07-05-2011, 04:19 PM
Cutting back to a second about how the FB isn't used in our scheme.


Do you remember the first player we signed under Childress?

http://purplepride.org/forum/39-offseason-2006draftfa/317418-vikings-sign-godspeed#317418
I never said it wasn't used in our scheme. I said it isn't used the way you guys want it to be (As a weapon).
Again, NOBODY has claimedt hey want a weapon as a FB. We called out Tahi because he sucks in EVERY.SINGLE.ASPECT of the game. The guy can't run with the ball, so we need to not throw to him. he can't block, so take him out. This whole "FB as a weapon" is more drivel you came up with. Looka t Richardsons stats here. Most people wanted him back, but we didn't really use him as a weapon, he was mainly a blocker, who had the ability to take the odd ball his way.


The FB, in the Chillers scheme was to be a "No Neck Knee Bender". Thats it. Nothing else. Something Tahi couldn't do.


On a side note, I also said that because he wasn't used as an offensive threat, you guys thought Tahi wasn't effective.
No, we've gone over this literally dozens of times, We thought Tahi wasn't effective because he can not block. No more, no less.
You can't say no one my friend. Go look in the Tahi thread. Several came forth and admitted that is what they want.

Heck a few even went so far as to recant some of their comments about how poorly they felt he blocked.

i_bleed_purple
07-05-2011, 04:26 PM
Cutting back to a second about how the FB isn't used in our scheme.


Do you remember the first player we signed under Childress?

http://purplepride.org/forum/39-offseason-2006draftfa/317418-vikings-sign-godspeed#317418
I never said it wasn't used in our scheme. I said it isn't used the way you guys want it to be (As a weapon).
Again, NOBODY has claimedt hey want a weapon as a FB. We called out Tahi because he sucks in EVERY.SINGLE.ASPECT of the game. The guy can't run with the ball, so we need to not throw to him. he can't block, so take him out. This whole "FB as a weapon" is more drivel you came up with. Looka t Richardsons stats here. Most people wanted him back, but we didn't really use him as a weapon, he was mainly a blocker, who had the ability to take the odd ball his way.


The FB, in the Chillers scheme was to be a "No Neck Knee Bender". Thats it. Nothing else. Something Tahi couldn't do.


On a side note, I also said that because he wasn't used as an offensive threat, you guys thought Tahi wasn't effective.
No, we've gone over this literally dozens of times, We thought Tahi wasn't effective because he can not block. No more, no less.
You can't say no one my friend. Go look in the Tahi thread. Several came forth and admitted that is what they want.

Heck a few even went so far as to recant some of their comments about how poorly they felt he blocked.

Link?

I'm sure someone said it would be nice if he COULD, but most in there claim that if he can't catch/run, then stop giving him chances.

He can't be used as a weapon, and he can't be used as a blocker. What exactly is he good for then?

Marrdro
07-05-2011, 04:49 PM
Cutting back to a second about how the FB isn't used in our scheme.


Do you remember the first player we signed under Childress?

http://purplepride.org/forum/39-offseason-2006draftfa/317418-vikings-sign-godspeed#317418
I never said it wasn't used in our scheme. I said it isn't used the way you guys want it to be (As a weapon).
Again, NOBODY has claimedt hey want a weapon as a FB. We called out Tahi because he sucks in EVERY.SINGLE.ASPECT of the game. The guy can't run with the ball, so we need to not throw to him. he can't block, so take him out. This whole "FB as a weapon" is more drivel you came up with. Looka t Richardsons stats here. Most people wanted him back, but we didn't really use him as a weapon, he was mainly a blocker, who had the ability to take the odd ball his way.


The FB, in the Chillers scheme was to be a "No Neck Knee Bender". Thats it. Nothing else. Something Tahi couldn't do.


On a side note, I also said that because he wasn't used as an offensive threat, you guys thought Tahi wasn't effective.
No, we've gone over this literally dozens of times, We thought Tahi wasn't effective because he can not block. No more, no less.
You can't say no one my friend. Go look in the Tahi thread. Several came forth and admitted that is what they want.

Heck a few even went so far as to recant some of their comments about how poorly they felt he blocked.

Link?

I'm sure someone said it would be nice if he COULD, but most in there claim that if he can't catch/run, then stop giving him chances.

He can't be used as a weapon, and he can't be used as a blocker. What exactly is he good for then?
How sure are you? As sure as you were about how "FEROCIOUS" T-rich was?

Still waiting for that one to be backed up by the guy who claims he is right about everything. :P

jargomcfargo
07-05-2011, 04:49 PM
Cutting back to a second about how the FB isn't used in our scheme.


Do you remember the first player we signed under Childress?

http://purplepride.org/forum/39-offseason-2006draftfa/317418-vikings-sign-godspeed#317418
I never said it wasn't used in our scheme. I said it isn't used the way you guys want it to be (As a weapon).
Again, NOBODY has claimedt hey want a weapon as a FB. We called out Tahi because he sucks in EVERY.SINGLE.ASPECT of the game. The guy can't run with the ball, so we need to not throw to him. he can't block, so take him out. This whole "FB as a weapon" is more drivel you came up with. Looka t Richardsons stats here. Most people wanted him back, but we didn't really use him as a weapon, he was mainly a blocker, who had the ability to take the odd ball his way.


The FB, in the Chillers scheme was to be a "No Neck Knee Bender". Thats it. Nothing else. Something Tahi couldn't do.


On a side note, I also said that because he wasn't used as an offensive threat, you guys thought Tahi wasn't effective.
No, we've gone over this literally dozens of times, We thought Tahi wasn't effective because he can not block. No more, no less.
You can't say no one my friend. Go look in the Tahi thread. Several came forth and admitted that is what they want.

Heck a few even went so far as to recant some of their comments about how poorly they felt he blocked.

Link?

I'm sure someone said it would be nice if he COULD, but most in there claim that if he can't catch/run, then stop giving him chances.

He can't be used as a weapon, and he can't be used as a blocker. What exactly is he good for then?

He's the king of the one yard swing pass.

Marrdro
07-05-2011, 04:51 PM
He's the king of the one yard swing pass.
LOL, well played Doc.

On a side note, I wonder if Tahi knows how much grief I take for him? :lol:

Caine
07-05-2011, 04:56 PM
He's the king of the one yard swing pass.
LOL, well played Doc.

On a side note, I wonder if Tahi knows how much grief I take for him? :lol:

He'd probably follow you on twitter if you put up your account...

Caine

Marrdro
07-05-2011, 05:01 PM
He's the king of the one yard swing pass.
LOL, well played Doc.

On a side note, I wonder if Tahi knows how much grief I take for him? :lol:

He'd probably follow you on twitter if you put up your account...

Caine
Chuckle......I just started to really put a few things on Facebook. Might be a few more years before I fold and become a "Twit".

Caine
07-05-2011, 05:02 PM
He's the king of the one yard swing pass.
LOL, well played Doc.

On a side note, I wonder if Tahi knows how much grief I take for him? :lol:

He'd probably follow you on twitter if you put up your account...

Caine
Chuckle......I just started to really put a few things on Facebook. Might be a few more years before I fold and become a "Twit".

Don't be so hard on yourself....I've thought you were a twit for years....

:evil:

Caine

Marrdro
07-05-2011, 05:08 PM
He's the king of the one yard swing pass.
LOL, well played Doc.

On a side note, I wonder if Tahi knows how much grief I take for him? :lol:

He'd probably follow you on twitter if you put up your account...

Caine
Chuckle......I just started to really put a few things on Facebook. Might be a few more years before I fold and become a "Twit".

Don't be so hard on yourself....I've thought you were a twit for years....

:evil:

Caine
LOL.

I don't know whats funnier, your disdain for things like Tahi, TJ and BR or that you love to argue and can't beat a guy in an arguement that only wants to discuss things.

In the end, you still crack me up.;)

Caine
07-05-2011, 05:18 PM
He's the king of the one yard swing pass.
LOL, well played Doc.

On a side note, I wonder if Tahi knows how much grief I take for him? :lol:

He'd probably follow you on twitter if you put up your account...

Caine
Chuckle......I just started to really put a few things on Facebook. Might be a few more years before I fold and become a "Twit".

Don't be so hard on yourself....I've thought you were a twit for years....

:evil:

Caine
LOL.

I don't know whats funnier, your disdain for things like Tahi, TJ and BR or that you love to argue and can't beat a guy in an arguement that only wants to discuss things.

In the end, you still crack me up.;)

1: I don't dislike Tahi...I accept him for what he is. I avoid the Tahi bashing because I think he does what he's asked. Granted, I'm not overly impressed by him either, but I don't bash him.

2: I only bashed TJ to prove a point. I don't hate the kid....I also don't believe in him.

3: BR is BS...it really is that simple.

4: And all the beatings I've administered to you must have caused brain damage for you to post that last part. You're like the kid who keeps repeating, "I know you are, but what am I?"....

Caine

Marrdro
07-05-2011, 05:29 PM
He's the king of the one yard swing pass.
LOL, well played Doc.

On a side note, I wonder if Tahi knows how much grief I take for him? :lol:

He'd probably follow you on twitter if you put up your account...

Caine
Chuckle......I just started to really put a few things on Facebook. Might be a few more years before I fold and become a "Twit".

Don't be so hard on yourself....I've thought you were a twit for years....

:evil:

Caine
LOL.

I don't know whats funnier, your disdain for things like Tahi, TJ and BR or that you love to argue and can't beat a guy in an arguement that only wants to discuss things.

In the end, you still crack me up.;)

1: I don't dislike Tahi...I accept him for what he is. I avoid the Tahi bashing because I think he does what he's asked. Granted, I'm not overly impressed by him either, but I don't bash him.

2: I only bashed TJ to prove a point. I don't hate the kid....I also don't believe in him.

3: BR is BS...it really is that simple.

4: And all the beatings I've administered to you must have caused brain damage for you to post that last part. You're like the kid who keeps repeating, "I know you are, but what am I?"....

Caine
Beatings....LOL.

The beer is gonna taste good.;)

Caine
07-05-2011, 05:35 PM
He's the king of the one yard swing pass.
LOL, well played Doc.

On a side note, I wonder if Tahi knows how much grief I take for him? :lol:

He'd probably follow you on twitter if you put up your account...

Caine
Chuckle......I just started to really put a few things on Facebook. Might be a few more years before I fold and become a "Twit".

Don't be so hard on yourself....I've thought you were a twit for years....

:evil:

Caine
LOL.

I don't know whats funnier, your disdain for things like Tahi, TJ and BR or that you love to argue and can't beat a guy in an arguement that only wants to discuss things.

In the end, you still crack me up.;)

1: I don't dislike Tahi...I accept him for what he is. I avoid the Tahi bashing because I think he does what he's asked. Granted, I'm not overly impressed by him either, but I don't bash him.

2: I only bashed TJ to prove a point. I don't hate the kid....I also don't believe in him.

3: BR is BS...it really is that simple.

4: And all the beatings I've administered to you must have caused brain damage for you to post that last part. You're like the kid who keeps repeating, "I know you are, but what am I?"....

Caine
Beatings....LOL.

The beer is gonna taste good.;)

How will you know? You're BUYING it, not drinking it...

Purple Floyd
07-05-2011, 11:03 PM
easy to find highlights of your "weapon" FB's, not so much for the hard-nosed blocking back.
I hear ya. Again gets back to my point about people wanting the FB to be a weapon again.

As to hard-nosed blocking. Again I offer up the Priest youtube. He is in alot of the plays and I just don't see the "Ferociousness" that you spoke of.

Gets back to my other point. I've watched alot of T-rich, especially since he was a Viking. I think alot of what you guys say is really just something you've read. Again, I just don't see the evidence that you say is there.

The Jets game I kept game notes and provided last year cemented it for me.

HOF FB? Yes. Deserving? Yes. A bit over hyped? I think so.

So you made notes of a guy in his 17th season vs. the Vikings and base your assumption on that, just because you can't find proof that he once was a dominating FB, and still is a pretty darn good one?

Ok.
Of course I didn't base my assumption just on that one.

I chart all Vikings games (you should see my new chart. Its cool) and watch almost every replay that comes on and have for years.

Mix in all the crap I read (Books/articles/blogs) and I think I've got a pretty good idea about players and the game.

On a side note, I love the youtube era. Mix in all the clips you can find on the NFL channel and its almost (well not almost) as good as having the game tape I really crave.

OK.

Just for shits and giggles take a picture of said chart and post it for us today.

Let me guess, the batteries are dead in your digicam?
I usually have better luck sending it to you in a attachment to your email account, however, lets see if this works.

http://photos-f.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/261318_2230356721063_1312228742_2638540_5961865_s.jpg

Holy shit, the chart is in Braille. Now I understand my friend....:woohoo:

jargomcfargo
07-05-2011, 11:07 PM
easy to find highlights of your "weapon" FB's, not so much for the hard-nosed blocking back.
I hear ya. Again gets back to my point about people wanting the FB to be a weapon again.

As to hard-nosed blocking. Again I offer up the Priest youtube. He is in alot of the plays and I just don't see the "Ferociousness" that you spoke of.

Gets back to my other point. I've watched alot of T-rich, especially since he was a Viking. I think alot of what you guys say is really just something you've read. Again, I just don't see the evidence that you say is there.

The Jets game I kept game notes and provided last year cemented it for me.

HOF FB? Yes. Deserving? Yes. A bit over hyped? I think so.

So you made notes of a guy in his 17th season vs. the Vikings and base your assumption on that, just because you can't find proof that he once was a dominating FB, and still is a pretty darn good one?

Ok.
Of course I didn't base my assumption just on that one.

I chart all Vikings games (you should see my new chart. Its cool) and watch almost every replay that comes on and have for years.

Mix in all the crap I read (Books/articles/blogs) and I think I've got a pretty good idea about players and the game.

On a side note, I love the youtube era. Mix in all the clips you can find on the NFL channel and its almost (well not almost) as good as having the game tape I really crave.

OK.

Just for shits and giggles take a picture of said chart and post it for us today.

Let me guess, the batteries are dead in your digicam?
I usually have better luck sending it to you in a attachment to your email account, however, lets see if this works.

http://photos-f.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/261318_2230356721063_1312228742_2638540_5961865_s.jpg

Holy shit, the chart is in Braille. Now I understand my friend....:woohoo:

+1 Well played sir.

12purplepride28
07-06-2011, 12:23 AM
He's the king of the one yard swing pass.
LOL, well played Doc.

On a side note, I wonder if Tahi knows how much grief I take for him? :lol:

He'd probably follow you on twitter if you put up your account...

Caine

I got tahi to retweet me, just for shits and gigs.

"@tahi38 hey can I get a RT for a huge fan of one of the most underrated Vikings?"

He has like 500 followers so I knew he'd RT me. Highlight of my life.

mountainviking
07-19-2011, 03:42 PM
Has there been any other info/talk about what style of offense we're going to be running? I'm thinking, if we like the 2 TE set so much, there won't be many reps left for a FB. Or, possibly, even slot WRs...?

We might be seeing a lot of Shank, Kleiny and Rudolf as our underneath threats, which would mean only 2 WRs onfield at a time, and may, at least slightly, reduce our need at WR. Maybe, Harvin and Arceneaux are our starters!?

jargomcfargo
07-19-2011, 06:01 PM
Has there been any other info/talk about what style of offense we're going to be running? I'm thinking, if we like the 2 TE set so much, there won't be many reps left for a FB. Or, possibly, even slot WRs...?

We might be seeing a lot of Shank, Kleiny and Rudolf as our underneath threats, which would mean only 2 WRs onfield at a time, and may, at least slightly, reduce our need at WR. Maybe, Harvin and Arceneaux are our starters!?

Many think Musgrave will run an offense similar to Mularkey's in Atlanta.

Mularkey runs a variation of the dink and dunk WCO as Marrdro calls it.

They do use a fullback in the run game. In fact I think he went to the probowl last year. They like to run a counter play out of the I formation with a one tight end set. The fullback starts strong side and cuts back for a seal block on the weak side. The line zone blocks to the strong side. The tight end goes out on a fake route. The slot receiver on the weak side takes his man to the flat and the wideout blocks the corner, also on the weak side.

They also like play action and screens and throw a lot of outs and comebacks. They primarily try to get their best receiver in single coverage by flooding zones.

They also use the two tight end sets which gives them more plays to choose from and possible mismatches.
They were fourth in the league with 450 plays using two tight ends last year.

They also use no huddle offenses at times. That is something I feel Ponder will eventually be good at.

Mularkey's plays are simple but effective. I expect to see something similar from Musgrave.

However we don't have White or Tony G.

If we go get Jackson, or keep Rice, and Rudolph pans out, it will become much easier.

EDIT
Here's an update from an article about Schiancoe and Rudolph that appeared today 7-20-11.


Shiancoe received a copy of the Vikings' new playbook from Ponder, too, and described the offense as "receiver-friendly." Details of the scheme remain sketchy because the NFL lockout wiped out offseason practices, but Ponder said there are "a lot of two-tight end sets" and Shiancoe pointed to offensive coordinator Bill Musgrave's recent history with a team that does the same.
"Just look at the Falcons," Shiancoe said. "That's all I'm going to say about that."


http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/Notebook_Visanthe_Shiancoe_will_show_Kyle_Rudolph_everything_I_know071911

mountainviking
07-20-2011, 04:25 PM
Has there been any other info/talk about what style of offense we're going to be running? I'm thinking, if we like the 2 TE set so much, there won't be many reps left for a FB. Or, possibly, even slot WRs...?

We might be seeing a lot of Shank, Kleiny and Rudolf as our underneath threats, which would mean only 2 WRs onfield at a time, and may, at least slightly, reduce our need at WR. Maybe, Harvin and Arceneaux are our starters!?

Many think Musgrave will run an offense similar to Mularkey's in Atlanta.

Mularkey runs a variation of the dink and dunk WCO as Marrdro calls it.

They do use a fullback in the run game. In fact I think he went to the probowl last year. They like to run a counter play out of the I formation with a one tight end set. The fullback starts strong side and cuts back for a seal block on the weak side. The line zone blocks to the strong side. The tight end goes out on a fake route. The slot receiver on the weak side takes his man to the flat and the wideout blocks the corner, also on the weak side.

They also like play action and screens and throw a lot of outs and comebacks. They primarily try to get their best receiver in single coverage by flooding zones.

They also use the two tight end sets which gives them more plays to choose from and possible mismatches.
They were fourth in the league with 450 plays using two tight ends last year.

They also use no huddle offenses at times. That is something I feel Ponder will eventually be good at.

Mularkey's plays are simple but effective. I expect to see something similar from Musgrave.

However we don't have White or Tony G.

If we go get Jackson, or keep Rice, and Rudolph pans out, it will become much easier.

EDIT
Here's an update from an article about Schiancoe and Rudolph that appeared today 7-20-11.


Shiancoe received a copy of the Vikings' new playbook from Ponder, too, and described the offense as "receiver-friendly." Details of the scheme remain sketchy because the NFL lockout wiped out offseason practices, but Ponder said there are "a lot of two-tight end sets" and Shiancoe pointed to offensive coordinator Bill Musgrave's recent history with a team that does the same.
"Just look at the Falcons," Shiancoe said. "That's all I'm going to say about that."


http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/Notebook_Visanthe_Shiancoe_will_show_Kyle_Rudolph_everything_I_know071911

Nice! Thanks!!!

So, turns out, Atlanta ran the most plays from scrimmage last year, so 450 2TE sets would be about 41%. Pretty big chunk. I have the feeling we're going to be asking our WRs to block outside a bit more too. Kinda seems APs big, game breaking plays went way down when our size/will to block outside at WR went away...?

I always thought we should run more play-action. With a RB like Peterson, we're always going to see loaded boxes until we can beat them deep consistently and a play-action fake can really help that angle out if your RB is getting his yards up front!


SKOL VIKINGS!!!

Purple Floyd
07-22-2011, 03:10 AM
Play action may be an option this year. Prior to that we had Jackson who is in no way a play action QB. Brett could before he was old and busted but that is what he was when he was here. Then you look at Bollinger, Gus etc and it is pretty apparent why play action was not a staple in this offense. Not sure whether Pober has the chops for it either.

marstc09
07-23-2011, 09:18 PM
I always called him Childress in the begining. He created Worthless, note me.

Purple Floyd
07-23-2011, 09:50 PM
I always called him Childress in the begining. He created Worthless, note me.

Say what?

jargomcfargo
07-24-2011, 01:21 AM
I always called him Childress in the begining. He created Worthless, note me.

Say what?

For those who love stats... 10% chance heatstroke...90% chance Peyote!

Purple Floyd
07-24-2011, 04:08 AM
I always called him Childress in the begining. He created Worthless, note me.

Say what?

For those who love stats... 10% chance heatstroke...90% chance Peyote!

Give me the odds on it beibg a combination of the two lol.