PDA

View Full Version : Pass-happy NFL won't alter Vikings' approach



singersp
09-15-2011, 06:15 AM
Pass-happy NFL won't alter Vikings' approach

The trend in the league is to put the ball in the air, but the Vikings vow to keep it in the hands of Adrian Peterson.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/129850003.html

BloodyHorns82
09-15-2011, 09:22 AM
I hope this approach works. Last week was pitiful. I remember Marrdro harping on Favre for being too washed up to toss the long ball. McNabb looks too scared to toss the long ball. I don't care what excuse the Vikings (or fellow fans) drum up for last week's passing attack (or lack there of), it was absolutely unacceptable.

Purple Floyd
09-15-2011, 10:05 AM
I am really beginning to wonder if we are on a downward spiral with this team. It has been obvious for some time that the league is gearing its rules and format to be more pass happy and the rest of the league and the rest of the division specifically has been trending this way by locking up the best QB they can get and the trend across the league has also been to go after high profile CB's and safeties that can take away a portion of the field and limit the passing game of their opponents.

The Vikings OTOH are running 180 degrees to the contrary on this one. They just signed a RB to a QB type contract, they signed yet another retread QB looking for one last shot at glory and have no legitimate field stretching WR.

marshallvike
09-15-2011, 10:05 AM
If every team had an AD or CJ it wouldn't be a pass happy league.

Purple Floyd
09-15-2011, 10:08 AM
I am sorry but I disagree. If you have a choice of 4 players and those players are Brady, Rodgers,CJ and AP to build a team around Brady and Rodgers will go 1-2 every time.

josdin00
09-15-2011, 10:47 AM
Ok fine, but when have the Vikings had a chance at Brady or Rodgers? They haven't, since those particular drafts,. No one at that time knew that Brady and Rodgers were Brady and Rodgers. Who knows? Ponder could very well be the next Brady or Rodgers. We just don't know yet. In the meantime, the Vikings do have AD. Do you really want to see them minimize his effectiveness by trying to become a clone of the rest of the league? I actually wish they'd go farther in the other direction. Invest more in the offensive line, so that the Vikings could go into each week with the attitude of "We are going to run, and you can't stop us". Until we are able to develop a long term talent at QB, we might as well emphasize our unique approach. After all, all the other teams are trying to stop the pass.

marshallvike
09-15-2011, 11:25 AM
I am sorry but I disagree. If you have a choice of 4 players and those players are Brady, Rodgers,CJ and AP to build a team around Brady and Rodgers will go 1-2 every time.

I agree with your statement PF, but that has nothing to do with what I said.
If a team had an AD or CJ They would likely rely on them to control the clock and beat up the other teams D. Don't you think Brady, or especially Rodgers after the beatings he has taken would love to have AD to give the ball to 25-30 times a game? Less hits on them. A strong running game also keeps your own Defense fresh, and offensive linemen seem to enjoy run blocking far more than pass blocking. Almost any coach would prefer to be able to control the game that way, but few have that option. Of course there are exceptions to that, but most stress the need for a strong run game.
Of course it is not working well for us yet as we have an oline that has not performed up to expectations.

lumberjackgreg
09-15-2011, 11:36 AM
Well something has to change... 39 yards won't cut it. Unless we're aiming to get Andrew Luck.

C Mac D
09-15-2011, 11:37 AM
... and we'll be left in the dust. Per usual.

midgensa
09-15-2011, 02:38 PM
I have no problem with a running style offense ... there are still successful ones out there. But the main difference between ours and the other offenses that like to run the ball ... they all CAN go pass happy when needed ... even the Jets, Steelers and Ravens will completely let it fly and forget the run if that is what they need to do to win.
We can't win with the pass if the run is not working ... and that is where it becomes a problem.

Purple Floyd
09-15-2011, 09:24 PM
I agree with your statement PF, but that has nothing to do with what I said.
If a team had an AD or CJ They would likely rely on them to control the clock and beat up the other teams D. Don't you think Brady, or especially Rodgers after the beatings he has taken would love to have AD to give the ball to 25-30 times a game? Less hits on them. A strong running game also keeps your own Defense fresh, and offensive linemen seem to enjoy run blocking far more than pass blocking. Almost any coach would prefer to be able to control the game that way, but few have that option. Of course there are exceptions to that, but most stress the need for a strong run game.
Of course it is not working well for us yet as we have an oline that has not performed up to expectations.

In theory maybe, but it looks to me like they are using the short passes to replace the running game and spreading the defense out looks like it actually has been reducing the pressure on the QB because the defense can't crowd the LOS or the QB picks them apart.

I would like to think that it is still possible to buck the trend and nothing would make me happier than to see us line up with 2-3 TE's every play and pound the living sh!t out of the opponents but I just don't know if it is going to happen and if the other team does jump out on us then we can't make it up on the ground.

singersp
09-15-2011, 09:51 PM
I am sorry but I disagree. If you have a choice of 4 players and those players are Brady, Rodgers,CJ and AP to build a team around Brady and Rodgers will go 1-2 every time.

And you don't pay those QB's with that talent a shit load of money to hand the ball off.

You surround them with good to great WR's.

The NFL life of a RB is about 6 years. The NFL life of a WR far exceeds that. There are a lot more great receivers in the NFL than there are RB's, It's easier & more efficient to get a bigger ROI with WR's than RB's.

In today's salary cap market the pass-happy league is the most feasible bang for your buck.

MulletMullitia
09-15-2011, 10:03 PM
We have a hall of fame back. Of course we are going to be a run first team. That doesn't mean that we can't utilize a solid play-action gameplan with a steady passing game. Why be a pass-happy team just because it's trendy? We have to use our weapons. Or in this case, our WEAPON (singular).

singersp
09-15-2011, 10:07 PM
Why be a pass-happy team just because it's trendy?

Probably because pass-happy teams are winning Super Bowls.

MulletMullitia
09-15-2011, 10:41 PM
Probably because pass-happy teams are winning Super Bowls.

I mean, those teams have All-Pro quarterbacks. I'd be all for the pass-happy offense if we had one of those. But we don't. And you don't just pull them out of thin air. And you can't just trade for one or pick one up in FA. We have an All-Pro RB, so we will obviously be run-first. Until we get an All-Pro QB, it is totally pointless to have a pass-happy offense. Especially when you have the best RB in the league.

Traveling_Vike
09-16-2011, 01:15 AM
I'd be quite happy if the trend continues. Pass-happy offenses make for pass-heavy defenses. The more that teams have to build to defend the pass, the more our run-heavy approach will benefit.

It's all action and reaction. If you time it right, you can take great advantage of the other guys trending away from what you do very well.

In the end though, it still really all comes down to balance. Even the best passing teams have to have some rushing to keep the defenses honest. Just like it happens the other way around. You can favor one approach or the other, but you still have to at least try occasionally to do both.

Mark_The_Viking
09-16-2011, 06:24 AM
Surely an explosive O line benefits both sides of the attacking system, passing and running!
A good O line gives a mediocre QB more time and a mediocre RB bigger holes. Replace them with above average players and we can air it or pass it when ever it's needed.

Even if we are in a position to take Luck (and we won't ) we should trade it away for more picks for the O line and lets start building from there. Does a team always have to be built around a QB?

Purple Floyd
09-16-2011, 06:41 AM
I mean, those teams have All-Pro quarterbacks. I'd be all for the pass-happy offense if we had one of those. But we don't. And you don't just pull them out of thin air. And you can't just trade for one or pick one up in FA. We have an All-Pro RB, so we will obviously be run-first. Until we get an All-Pro QB, it is totally pointless to have a pass-happy offense. Especially when you have the best RB in the league.

Funny how both of the QB's I listed were on the board when we drafted. We wouldn't have had to pull them out of thin air.

singersp
09-16-2011, 07:14 AM
I'd be quite happy if the trend continues. Pass-happy offenses make for pass-heavy defenses. The more that teams have to build to defend the pass, the more our run-heavy approach will benefit.

I disagree with that 100%. A pass happy defense, means faster LB's & DB's. When you put them in the box/bring them in close to contain the run, TE's & WR's not going deep have a harder time getting open since everyone's contained in a smaller space. RB's are contained more as well.

The way to get the most yards/production out of your RB is to stretch the defense. The way to stretch the defense is by having a passing game that does exactly that. If you don't have WR's stretching the defense, trying to pass inside the box or short where all the defenders are isn't going to reap benefits.

If you're only star is at RB & you don't have a passing game, teams will key in on the RB & will be able to keep him in check.

If you have a star at RB & another one or two at the WR positions, along with a passing game that can & does go deep, defenders now have to defend both the run & the pass thereby stretching the defense. Now your star RB has less people trying to contain him & has a better chance of breaking some runs.

singersp
09-16-2011, 07:21 AM
Surely an explosive O line benefits both sides of the attacking system, passing and running!
A good O line gives a mediocre QB more time and a mediocre RB bigger holes. Replace them with above average players and we can air it or pass it when ever it's needed.

Even with more time, we still don't have a deep threat. Berrian, if he gets open, doesn't have good enough hands & ends up not catching the pass.

He falls somewhere in between Troy Williamson & Quadry Ismail.

singersp
09-16-2011, 07:24 AM
Musgrave vows team will take more shots down the field

Vikings fans will be happy to hear that offensive coordinator Bill Musgrave also believes that one shot down the field isn't nearly enough over the course of 60 minutes.


http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/blogs/129896258.html

singersp
09-16-2011, 07:32 AM
Musgrave vows team will take more shots down the field

Vikings fans will be happy to hear that offensive coordinator Bill Musgrave also believes that one shot down the field isn't nearly enough over the course of 60 minutes.


http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/blogs/129896258.html


"It is important," Musgrave said. "That's what we're based on is running the ball, featuring Adrian [Peterson] but at the same time getting our quarterback in a rhythm, both down the field and also possession and control-type passes. That's what we want to be and that's what we will be."

I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees it. Run, run, run punt & run, run, pass, punt is not only going to take it's toll on a RB, but not win you most of your games either.

C Mac D
09-16-2011, 08:07 AM
From what I understand, Musgrave has Peterson on his fantasy team.

Marrdro
09-16-2011, 10:37 AM
I hope this approach works. Last week was pitiful. I remember Marrdro harping on Favre for being too washed up to toss the long ball. McNabb looks too scared to toss the long ball. I don't care what excuse the Vikings (or fellow fans) drum up for last week's passing attack (or lack there of), it was absolutely unacceptable.
In Marrdro's defense, the Noodle did have a popped tendon and issues with his shoulder and it wasn't like he threw it deep every other play my friend.

Back to now.......The passing attack will be fine once the damn O-coord starts calling pass plays instead of the stupid "Fancy" crap that we were trying to run last week.

Marrdro
09-16-2011, 10:38 AM
I am really beginning to wonder if we are on a downward spiral with this team. It has been obvious for some time that the league is gearing its rules and format to be more pass happy and the rest of the league and the rest of the division specifically has been trending this way by locking up the best QB they can get and the trend across the league has also been to go after high profile CB's and safeties that can take away a portion of the field and limit the passing game of their opponents.

The Vikings OTOH are running 180 degrees to the contrary on this one. They just signed a RB to a QB type contract, they signed yet another retread QB looking for one last shot at glory and have no legitimate field stretching WR.
I personally think that we will see the "Pass Happy" league come back to earth in a week or two as the defenses start to get their feet under them.

Marrdro
09-16-2011, 10:46 AM
We have a hall of fame back. Of course we are going to be a run first team. That doesn't mean that we can't utilize a solid play-action gameplan with a steady passing game. Why be a pass-happy team just because it's trendy? We have to use our weapons. Or in this case, our WEAPON (singular).
Excellent post.

My friends, I have a quick question for all of you........Were we beat by a "Pass Happy" team last week or were we beat by a "Balanced" that exploited what the defense was giving up?

Answer......They exploited what the defense was giving up.

Sure the Chargers are a "Stretch" the field type of offense, but their O-coord was smart enough to realize that aspect of their game was going to be taken away. They didn't run any fancy "Wildcat" offense, or come out with any super fancy player packages. They just came out in their base offense and hit the underneath stuff that was opened up when our LB'rs vacated those zones in their attempts to pressure the QB.

Are the deep passes fun to watch? Sure, but give me a team that can either run the ball or pass the ball, based on what the defense can't do, and I will be happy.

In our case, we should be running to set up the pass. Its the way our team is built. Establish the run, and then, exploit the defense off of the play action fake.

Isn't that what all of you keep harping on? Running a scheme that fits your players talents?

Freya
09-16-2011, 11:04 AM
Pass-happy NFL won't alter Vikings' approach

The trend in the league is to put the ball in the air, but the Vikings vow to keep it in the hands of Adrian Peterson.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/129850003.html

Clearly, Fraser does not want the opposing teams to be unsure of our intents for offense.

**Note to all NFL teams..............The Vikings have announced that they will be running a one dimensional offense that is called "The Peterson Show". Please make a note of it. Thank you.

C Mac D
09-16-2011, 11:09 AM
Clearly, Fraser does not want the opposing teams to be unsure of our intents for offense.

**Note to all NFL teams..............The Vikings have announced that they will be running a one dimensional offense that is called "The Peterson Show". Please make a note of it. Thank you.

Don't think this was a secret. Have you seen our WR corps? It's embarrassing.

Marrdro
09-16-2011, 11:32 AM
Don't think this was a secret. Have you seen our WR corps? It's embarrassing.
No one will see our WR Corps if the O-coord doesn't send them on the field and call a play or two for them.

C Mac D
09-16-2011, 11:53 AM
Clearly, Fraser does not want the opposing teams to be unsure of our intents for offense.

**Note to all NFL teams..............The Vikings have announced that they will be running a one dimensional offense that is called "The Peterson Show". Please make a note of it. Thank you.


No one will see our WR Corps if the O-coord doesn't send them on the field and call a play or two for them.

Now, don't you think there's a reason for that? Between our aging (aged) QB and our no-name WRs, you can't really blame him.

Sure, we have to be more creative with our play calls and gameplan, but the ball should be going to either Harvin, Peterson, Shank or Rudolph. There's no talent among WR corps (aside from Harvin obviously).

And why is Harvin returning kick offs? Sure he scored a TD, but it's not a wise move. Just sayin'.

Marrdro
09-16-2011, 12:04 PM
Now, don't you think there's a reason for that? Between our aging (aged) QB and our no-name WRs, you can't really blame him.

Sure, we have to be more creative with our play calls and gameplan, but the ball should be going to either Harvin, Peterson, Shank or Rudolph. There's no talent among WR corps (aside from Harvin obviously).

And why is Harvin returning kick offs? Sure he scored a TD, but it's not a wise move. Just sayin'.
I don't think creativity has anything to do with it. In fact, I think our problem last week (atleast on offense) was that he was trying to be to creative.

It seems everyone on here is craving for the deep pass and looking to lay the blame at the OL, QB and WR's feet when in fact there are multiple sources out there (1 vid/several articles) that quote the O-coord or HC as saying they just didn't try to throw it deep much.

All this team needs to do this week, like they should have done last week and weeks to come is to line up with AD in the backfield, 2 TE's and 2 WR's as their base package and then just execute the plays.

After you get it going with that base set, then you can start with the PH in the backfield and (heaven forbid) the Blazer but you have to establish your base offense first with a sound game plan designed to use that offense.

Freakout
09-16-2011, 12:36 PM
Excellent post.

My friends, I have a quick question for all of you........Were we beat by a "Pass Happy" team last week or were we beat by a "Balanced" that exploited what the defense was giving up?

Answer......They exploited what the defense was giving up.

Sure the Chargers are a "Stretch" the field type of offense, but their O-coord was smart enough to realize that aspect of their game was going to be taken away. They didn't run any fancy "Wildcat" offense, or come out with any super fancy player packages. They just came out in their base offense and hit the underneath stuff that was opened up when our LB'rs vacated those zones in their attempts to pressure the QB.

Are the deep passes fun to watch? Sure, but give me a team that can either run the ball or pass the ball, based on what the defense can't do, and I will be happy.

In our case, we should be running to set up the pass. Its the way our team is built. Establish the run, and then, exploit the defense off of the play action fake.

Isn't that what all of you keep harping on? Running a scheme that fits your players talents?

I am not sure we are built that way Marr. I believe they want to pretend that we are capable of playing that way but our offensive line just isn't up to it.

You like mentioning that we have a average / middle of the pack offensive line. That makes it harder to be successful offensively as a running team. To be a successful team built on the run your offensive line better be at least top 10.

Freakout
09-16-2011, 12:39 PM
Don't think this was a secret. Have you seen our WR corps? It's embarrassing.

Frustrating part is that Braylon Edwards was available and while he isn't amazing he is still a big improvement over Berrian.

Marrdro
09-16-2011, 12:45 PM
I am not sure we are built that way Marr. I believe they want to pretend that we are capable of playing that way but our offensive line just isn't up to it.

You like mentioning that we have a average / middle of the pack offensive line. That makes it harder to be successful offensively as a running team. To be a successful team built on the run your offensive line better be at least top 10.
I can see you point my friend, but I still harken back to last week when we watched Dnabb go through his progressions with time and settle for Jenkins.

Most of the passes weren't even designed to get to a second progression. Most were designed for quick releases to a primary reciever with very few options available if that reciever didn't come open.

Then if you look at the run blocking, it was pretty effective. If you take away the 3 or 4 time AD actually ran away from a good lane, right into the double in the ZB scheme, the OL did a pretty good job in that regard.

Heck, they really never bothered Dnabb that much. 2 QB sacks and 2 QB hits aren't very much especially if you look at how little pressure we got on Rivers and we had 2 QB Sacks and 6 QB hits.

Marrdro
09-16-2011, 12:47 PM
Frustrating part is that Braylon Edwards was available and while he isn't amazing he is still a big improvement over Berrian.
I wouldn't have minded Braylon but he really doesn't play the same position as Berrian. If we signed Braylon we probably wouldn't have signed Jenkins.

Again, as admited by our coaches this week, Berrian wasn't the problem. They just didn't call the plays.

C Mac D
09-16-2011, 01:06 PM
Clearly, Fraser does not want the opposing teams to be unsure of our intents for offense.

**Note to all NFL teams..............The Vikings have announced that they will be running a one dimensional offense that is called "The Peterson Show". Please make a note of it. Thank you.


I don't think creativity has anything to do with it. In fact, I think our problem last week (atleast on offense) was that he was trying to be to creative.

It seems everyone on here is craving for the deep pass and looking to lay the blame at the OL, QB and WR's feet when in fact there are multiple sources out there (1 vid/several articles) that quote the O-coord or HC as saying they just didn't try to throw it deep much.

All this team needs to do this week, like they should have done last week and weeks to come is to line up with AD in the backfield, 2 TE's and 2 WR's as their base package and then just execute the plays.

After you get it going with that base set, then you can start with the PH in the backfield and (heaven forbid) the Blazer but you have to establish your base offense first with a sound game plan designed to use that offense.



I didn't even mention throwing the ball deep...

And despite the "multiple sources" out there that say the O-coord or HC just didn't try to throw it deep much.... that's simply because the coaches can't throw their players under the bus after game 1. Anyone who watched Charlie Johnson last week knows our OL is a BIG reason why our offense was ineffective. Saying anything else is simply ignoring reality.

Add to that our pathetic excuse for a QB and our marginal (that's a compliment) WRs... and you have the makings of an atrocious offense.

Can't imagine why the coaches wouldn't want to throw it down field much... weird...

And that "Blazer" package was not creative. Joe Webb simply running into our OL doesn't really constitute a 'creative play'.

tastywaves
09-16-2011, 01:12 PM
I can see you point my friend, but I still harken back to last week when we watched Dnabb go through his progressions with time and settle for Jenkins.

Most of the passes weren't even designed to get to a second progression. Most were designed for quick releases to a primary reciever with very few options available if that reciever didn't come open.

Then if you look at the run blocking, it was pretty effective. If you take away the 3 or 4 time AD actually ran away from a good lane, right into the double in the ZB scheme, the OL did a pretty good job in that regard.

Heck, they really never bothered Dnabb that much. 2 QB sacks and 2 QB hits aren't very much especially if you look at how little pressure we got on Rivers and we had 2 QB Sacks and 6 QB hits.

Musgrave appears to agree with you:


I think our pass protection is quite good. Our guys have done a good job of bonding together. Were happy with Charlie [Johnson] at left tackle. Weve got our older guys, I should say our experienced guys, at the guard positions. [John Sullivan] has had a super offseason and we know we feel good about Phil [Loadholt] at the right tackle. Our protection is doing well and were looking forward to showing that in production from here on out, unlike we did on Sunday.

The Vikings are a conservative team, I don't see that changing. Both on defense as well as on offense. Having a conservative defense can be good if you have an effective offense, however, when the offense is failing to convert on 3rd downs and take time off the clock, it's like a double whammy for us. A team that primarily plays a Cover 2 defense, should expect to see a lot of time on the field. If the offense doesn't counter this by making long effective drives, it will continue to show up as a fourth quarter melt down as our guys wear down over the course of the game.

Getting an early lead like we had last Sunday seem to only exaggerate our conservative nature.

I'll give them a break since it was game one

Marrdro
09-16-2011, 01:13 PM
I didn't even mention throwing the ball deep...

And despite the "multiple sources" out there that say the O-coord or HC just didn't try to throw it deep much.... that's simply because the coaches can't throw their players under the bus after game 1. Anyone who watched Charlie Johnson last week knows our OL is a BIG reason why our offense was ineffective. Saying anything else is simply ignoring reality.

Add to that our pathetic excuse for a QB and our marginal (that's a compliment) WRs... and you have the makings of an atrocious offense.

Can't imagine why the coaches wouldn't want to throw it down field much... weird...

And that "Blazer" package was not creative. Joe Webb simply running into our OL doesn't really constitute a 'creative play'.
Obviously you are of the mind that our coaches don't speak the truth. How about this, how many 7 step drops did you see? How many plays was our deep threat (Berrian) actually on the field?

Here's a hint, Berrian was on the field for 1 seven step drop. The other time he was targeted the QB was no were near taking a 7 step drop.

As to the Blazer. I don't think its creative. I think its assine t keep trying to run a "Wildcat" play when the rest of the league has quit doing it.

Marrdro
09-16-2011, 01:17 PM
Musgrave appears to agree with you:



The Vikings are a conservative team, I don't see that changing. Both on defense as well as on offense. Having a conservative defense can be good if you have an effective offense, however, when the offense is failing to convert on 3rd downs and take time off the clock, it's like a double whammy for us. A team that primarily plays a Cover 2 defense, should expect to see a lot of time on the field. If the offense doesn't counter this by making long effective drives, it will continue to show up as a fourth quarter melt down as our guys wear down over the course of the game.

Getting an early lead like we had last Sunday seem to only exaggerate our conservative nature.

I'll give them a break since it was game one
Good stuff my friend. Just one point of clarification.

I think we are a conservative offense when it comes to our base set but I think we can be very exciting out of that base set once we establish it.

For the Chargers game, I don't think ole Musgrove really tried to establish anything. It appeared to me that he was just trying to run a bunch of different plays out of the 2 and 3 TE sets just to see if something might work.

Lets watch this week. I think you will see more 12 (1 RB/2TE) and 11 (1 RB/1 TE) sets which should give Dnabb more options at the line to adjust to what the defense shows.

C Mac D
09-16-2011, 01:24 PM
Clearly, Fraser does not want the opposing teams to be unsure of our intents for offense.

**Note to all NFL teams..............The Vikings have announced that they will be running a one dimensional offense that is called "The Peterson Show". Please make a note of it. Thank you.


Obviously you are of the mind that our coaches don't speak the truth. How about this, how many 7 step drops did you see? How many plays was our deep threat (Berrian) actually on the field?

Here's a hint, Berrian was on the field for 1 seven step drop. The other time he was targeted the QB was no were near taking a 7 step drop.

As to the Blazer. I don't think its creative. I think its assine t keep trying to run a "Wildcat" play when the rest of the league has quit doing it.

Why are you harking on the deep threat/Berrian? Once again, I NEVER BROUGHT UP THE DEEP PASS...

I clearly said in my initial post that we need to start utilizing the Shank and Rudolph more and you immediately respond with "Everyone expects the deep ball..."

Do you even read before you reply?

And I don't care what Musgrave said, anyone who understands the game of football and watched Charlie Johnson on Sunday knows he played poorly. Our entire line did.

tastywaves
09-16-2011, 01:29 PM
Good stuff my friend. Just one point of clarification.

I think we are a conservative offense when it comes to our base set but I think we can be very exciting out of that base set once we establish it.

For the Chargers game, I don't think ole Musgrove really tried to establish anything. It appeared to me that he was just trying to run a bunch of different plays out of the 2 and 3 TE sets just to see if something might work.

Lets watch this week. I think you will see more 12 (1 RB/2TE) and 11 (1 RB/1 TE) sets which should give Dnabb more options at the line to adjust to what the defense shows.

Theoretically, sure. But by nature, we are a conservative team. Which isn't necessarily all bad, just makes it more important to execute the little things better.

I'm sure we will see a better showing this weekend :)

Marrdro
09-16-2011, 01:37 PM
Now, don't you think there's a reason for that? Between our aging (aged) QB and our no-name WRs, you can't really blame him.

So you don't think this reply has anything to do with Deep throws? The post before it you hack on the WR corps in total. Again, assumption on my part is, someplace between the lines, you are talking about our ability to run the full route tree, including the deep ones.

Marrdro
09-16-2011, 01:39 PM
I didn't even mention throwing the ball deep...

And despite the "multiple sources" out there that say the O-coord or HC just didn't try to throw it deep much.... that's simply because the coaches can't throw their players under the bus after game
So this doesn't link with Berrian or deep throws either?

Comeon, you didn't specifically mention deep routes but you did hack on the whole WR corps. Again, to me that means the full route tree.

Remember, your not dealing with Z here. I actually will point out real football stuff if given the chance.

Marrdro
09-16-2011, 01:40 PM
Theoretically, sure. But by nature, we are a conservative team. Which isn't necessarily all bad, just makes it more important to execute the little things better.

I'm sure we will see a better showing this weekend :)
Agree with you in total.

C Mac D
09-16-2011, 01:44 PM
So this doesn't link with Berrian or deep throws either?

Comeon, you didn't specifically mention deep routes but you did hack on the whole WR corps. Again, to me that means the full route tree.

Remember, your not dealing with Z here. I actually will point out real football stuff if given the chance.

Yes... I hack on the WR corps because they're not good, nothing to do with the deep ball. In football, WR's only purpose isn't the deep ball. Surprising, I know.

And my point is that the coaches aren't calling deep passes is because our current personnel cannot execute these plays consistently because of the lack of talent.... hence why I say we need to focus on Shank and Rudolph more.

So, here's where you bring up the deep pass again...

Marrdro
09-16-2011, 01:50 PM
Yes... I hack on the WR corps because they're not good, nothing to do with the deep ball. In football, WR's only purpose isn't the deep ball. Surprising, I know.

And my point is that the coaches aren't calling deep passes is because our current personnel cannot execute these plays consistently because of the lack of talent.... hence why I say we need to focus on Shank and Rudolph more.

So, here's where you bring up the deep pass again...
LOL, yes, if it will keep the discussion going.......you haven't been gone that long to forget that about me. :)

Good point about the coaches and execution of plays like the deep pass.

Problem is, atleast for me, you can't keep going to things like the TE's and RB's short so much as the defense just has to cheat up to stop that, which also clogs things up for AD (running) and the short stuff to Percy.

We didn't even see an attempt at the intermediate other than 2 or 3 nice plays to Jenkins were you think they would have run Shanc and Rudy into.

To be successfull you have to have a balanced set of plays being called that make the defense cover the entire field (short, intermediate and yes, Deep) or nothing will work. Remember, the defense isn't just standing over there watching. They are also trying to execute.

The lack of those types of plays being called made it easy for the defense to execute and hard for us.

Jkurtkrauss
09-16-2011, 01:57 PM
Conservative offense is fine as long as you have a VERY good defense, see Tampa and Baltimore SB teams.

I think our defense is below average, due to 2ndary issues.

C Mac D
09-16-2011, 02:00 PM
Aside from that discussion: I noticed we utilized Kleinsasser in the passing game during the preseason (reminiscent of the Tice years) but didn't utilize him at all in the Chargers game.

Although, I'm sure if our coaching staff had Mike Tolbert, they wouldn't know how to use him either.

MulletMullitia
09-16-2011, 02:18 PM
Aside from that discussion: I noticed we utilized Kleinsasser in the passing game during the preseason (reminiscent of the Tice years) but didn't utilize him at all in the Chargers game.

Although, I'm sure if our coaching staff had Mike Tolbert, they wouldn't know how to use him either.

He way way too valuable as a blocker last week. He was the only player we had that could block anybody. I think that's why he didn't see any routes.

singersp
09-16-2011, 06:40 PM
No one will see our WR Corps if the O-coord doesn't send them on the field and call a play or two for them.

I'm guessing you didn't read the article where Frazier stated more deep pass plays were called than what you saw.

I mentioned earlier this week as well that you had no idea how many were actually called & they probably did call more but they just didn't happen for one reason or another *cough... Lobster Boy dropping passes/not getting open cough*

You were wrong again.

singersp
09-16-2011, 06:48 PM
Then if you look at the run blocking, it was pretty effective. If you take away the 3 or 4 time AD actually ran away from a good lane, right into the double in the ZB scheme, the OL did a pretty good job in that regard.


Really? If you take away his 46 yard run, he only averaged 3.5 YPC.

singersp
09-16-2011, 06:53 PM
I wouldn't have minded Braylon but he really doesn't play the same position as Berrian. If we signed Braylon we probably wouldn't have signed Jenkins.

Again, as admited by our coaches this week, Berrian wasn't the problem. They just didn't call the plays.

Try reading the article.


Musgrave was asked if quarterback Donovan McNabb passed up any called deep passes on Sunday.

"Thinking back on it, it seems like it was a long time ago because we're focused on Tampa," Musgrave said. "But there may have been a couple.

Did you ever stop & think, even for a moment that the reason they don't call more deep plays is because Lobster Boy drops too many passes?

Purple Floyd
09-17-2011, 08:14 AM
Excellent post.

My friends, I have a quick question for all of you........Were we beat by a "Pass Happy" team last week or were we beat by a "Balanced" that exploited what the defense was giving up?

Well since the defense was giving up yards in both the pass and the run what does it really matter? In the end we were not able to stop either in the 4th quarter because the defense was gassed from being on the field about 30 or 40 more plays than the offense. And we are supposed to be the ball control kings with AP running the ball.


Answer......They exploited what the defense was giving up which was nearly everything. No need to even try to throw deep routes when you can get the yardage you need in the shorter ones because the CB's can't stop them.


Sure the Chargers are a "Stretch" the field type of offense, but their O-coord was smart enough to realize that aspect of their game was going to be taken away. They didn't run any fancy "Wildcat" offense, or come out with any super fancy player packages. They just came out in their base offense and hit the underneath stuff that was opened up when our LB'rs vacated those zones in their attempts to pressure the QB.

It wasn't that we took away the deep stuff as much as we didn't take away anything else so they didn't need it. If you can get 350 passing yards in a game with short passes because the CB's need a 10 yard cushion and can't tackle all that well then why even bother with a deep one? And late in the game when the defense is gassed, why go deep when the running game is now opened up?


Are the deep passes fun to watch? Sure, but give me a team that can either run the ball or pass the ball, based on what the defense can't do, and I will be happy.

That is what our opponents will be doing all year.


In our case, we should be running to set up the pass. Its the way our team is built. Establish the run, and then, exploit the defense off of the play action fake.

In order to do the play action fake thingy you first need to have a real passing game that the defense respects.


Isn't that what all of you keep harping on? Running a scheme that fits your players talents?

Yep. And if a scheme that results in 39 yards passing is what that means then they might want to take a look at the collective talents and possibly retool.

singersp
09-18-2011, 05:50 AM
Run-first Vikings are swimming against the tide in pass-happy NFL

The Vikings made Adrian Peterson the highest-paid running back in NFL history the same weekend quarterbacks rocketed the passing game into the stratosphere, raising questions about whether Minnesota's $36 million guaranteed investment was shrewd or shortsighted.

http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_18920076

Purple Floyd
09-18-2011, 08:49 AM
Whether they are a running or passing team they are only going to go as far as the OL takes them and this current version isn't taking them very far.

Marrdro
09-19-2011, 12:32 PM
Try reading the article.



Did you ever stop & think, even for a moment that the reason they don't call more deep plays is because Lobster Boy drops too many passes?
Go listen to Leslie and then read the article and then get back to me.

Marrdro
09-19-2011, 12:34 PM
Well since the defense was giving up yards in both the pass and the run what does it really matter? In the end we were not able to stop either in the 4th quarter because the defense was gassed from being on the field about 30 or 40 more plays than the offense. And we are supposed to be the ball control kings with AP running the ball.

which was nearly everything. No need to even try to throw deep routes when you can get the yardage you need in the shorter ones because the CB's can't stop them.



It wasn't that we took away the deep stuff as much as we didn't take away anything else so they didn't need it. If you can get 350 passing yards in a game with short passes because the CB's need a 10 yard cushion and can't tackle all that well then why even bother with a deep one? And late in the game when the defense is gassed, why go deep when the running game is now opened up?



That is what our opponents will be doing all year.



In order to do the play action fake thingy you first need to have a real passing game that the defense respects.



Yep. And if a scheme that results in 39 yards passing is what that means then they might want to take a look at the collective talents and possibly retool.
We didn't give up everything. We stopped the run and the deep and intermediate passing routes. What we couldn't stop were the passes to the short zones, again, cause the LB'rs were busy helping the DLmen.

Marrdro
09-19-2011, 12:37 PM
Really? If you take away his 46 yard run, he only averaged 3.5 YPC.
So why in the hell would you take away the 46 yard run? Makes no sense at all. Thats like saying take away all the runs Barry Sanders had that got good yards and all you would have are negative yard runs.

AD takes risks. He cuts away from the intended lane cause it will only get him minimal yards. Sometimes that results in him getting almost nothing. I don't hack on him for that cause in the end, at some point, the risk will result in him getting a "46 yarder" so that someone can say, "if you take the 46 yarder away".......:)

Marrdro
09-19-2011, 12:38 PM
I'm guessing you didn't read the article where Frazier stated more deep pass plays were called than what you saw.

I mentioned earlier this week as well that you had no idea how many were actually called & they probably did call more but they just didn't happen for one reason or another *cough... Lobster Boy dropping passes/not getting open cough*

You were wrong again.
Again, I can read and I know how articles are written. Go listen to the video clip I posted of what he actually said and then get back to me.

Purple Floyd
09-19-2011, 07:21 PM
We didn't give up everything. We stopped the run and the deep and intermediate passing routes. What we couldn't stop were the passes to the short zones, again, cause the LB'rs were busy helping the DLmen.

Why don't you go back and look at the last 2 TD's which were a run and an intermediate to deep pass and then get back to me.

Marrdro
09-20-2011, 01:00 PM
Why don't you go back and look at the last 2 TD's which were a run and an intermediate to deep pass and then get back to me.
And ignore all the rest of the plays in those drives..........Why?

Now your trying to do what CmacD does. Change the rules of the discussion.

Purple Floyd
09-20-2011, 02:03 PM
And ignore all the rest of the plays in those drives..........Why?

Now your trying to do what CmacD does. Change the rules of the discussion.

Because those plays led to scores and your argument was that they stooped the run and the int-deep passes.

It is easy for you to stand by your claim if you ignore the evidence that refutes it.

Marrdro
09-20-2011, 02:10 PM
Because those plays led to scores and your argument was that they stooped the run and the int-deep passes.

It is easy for you to stand by your claim if you ignore the evidence that refutes it.
I see your point but you are mixing apples and oranges in a way. I said they stopped things, but eventually things melted down and I offered evidence of why it melted down which resulted in those scores.

Kindof like this week. Things were clicking as long as we helped out with a S, CB and a LB every once in a while. After Cook went down we quite doing that and the Bucs exploited the secondary.

Nothing new here. My view on the Cover 2 has always been that if you don't get pressure on the QB he will pick apart our secondary.

Purple Floyd
09-20-2011, 02:17 PM
I see your point but you are mixing apples and oranges in a way. I said they stopped things, but eventually things melted down and I offered evidence of why it melted down which resulted in those scores.

Kindof like this week. Things were clicking as long as we helped out with a S, CB and a LB every once in a while. After Cook went down we quite doing that and the Bucs exploited the secondary.

Nothing new here. My view on the Cover 2 has always been that if you don't get pressure on the QB he will pick apart our secondary.

I am not mixing apples and oranges- you are just moving the bar in order to justify your position.

You either stop the pass or you don't. - They didn't and it led to a score.
You either stop the run or you don't.- They didn't and it lead to another score.

If they melted down in the secondary and it led to missed tackles and WR's getting behind the CB's for a TD then there is no other way to look at it than they didn't stop it.

I would rather that you pull out your "A" game and dazzle me with the brilliance that I know you have than the try to baffle me with bu!!shit because I own the factory.

Marrdro
09-20-2011, 02:25 PM
I am not mixing apples and oranges- you are just moving the bar in order to justify your position.

You either stop the pass or you don't. - They didn't and it led to a score.
You either stop the run or you don't.- They didn't and it lead to another score.

If they melted down in the secondary and it led to missed tackles and WR's getting behind the CB's for a TD then there is no other way to look at it than they didn't stop it.

I would rather that you pull out your "A" game and dazzle me with the brilliance that I know you have than the try to baffle me with bu!!shit because I own the factory.
LOL, I can buy that last point. Problem is your almost at the point of the discussion were your putting everything on the secondary and leaving the DL and LB'rs out of the equation.

In almost every instance, the DL, then the LB'r and then the Secondary should make a play.

Purple Floyd
09-20-2011, 02:58 PM
LOL, I can buy that last point. Problem is your almost at the point of the discussion were your putting everything on the secondary and leaving the DL and LB'rs out of the equation.

In almost every instance, the DL, then the LB'r and then the Secondary should make a play.

Actually I'm not, In fact I have been fairly straightforward in my stance that the LB group looks like it needs to be upgraded and I also think the DL is still under evaluation. I am going to reserve my opinion until KW has a few weeks in the group to see how they work together but if you look at the DL as a unit we have:

KW- premier at his position
JA- Premier at his position
BR- Average at his position
Guion/Ballard- Jury is out yet.

You have 2 premier players that can play on any team in the league, one at least average player in Robison and then the guys replacing PW. That is about as solid as you get in the league. Very few teams have better talent across the board than that unit has without having big deficiencies somewhere else on the roster.

Now- Look at the secondary:

Winfield- slightly above average at his position. Tackles great historically but has been missing some this year. May be losing a second step.

Griffin- Average at his position.Had 2 major knee recons in last 2 years. looks to be a step slower than primary WR's.

Sanford- Below average. Would not start on most teams

Abdullah- Below average also.

Throw in Johnson and whoever you want and it is still glaringly obvious that there is no comparison in talent in the two groups. So yes, I feel there is less ( Not none, but less) concern in the DL than in the secondary.

Marrdro
09-21-2011, 01:41 PM
Actually I'm not, In fact I have been fairly straightforward in my stance that the LB group looks like it needs to be upgraded and I also think the DL is still under evaluation. I am going to reserve my opinion until KW has a few weeks in the group to see how they work together but if you look at the DL as a unit we have:

KW- premier at his position
JA- Premier at his position
BR- Average at his position
Guion/Ballard- Jury is out yet.

You have 2 premier players that can play on any team in the league, one at least average player in Robison and then the guys replacing PW. That is about as solid as you get in the league. Very few teams have better talent across the board than that unit has without having big deficiencies somewhere else on the roster.

Now- Look at the secondary:

Winfield- slightly above average at his position. Tackles great historically but has been missing some this year. May be losing a second step.

Griffin- Average at his position.Had 2 major knee recons in last 2 years. looks to be a step slower than primary WR's.

Sanford- Below average. Would not start on most teams

Abdullah- Below average also.

Throw in Johnson and whoever you want and it is still glaringly obvious that there is no comparison in talent in the two groups. So yes, I feel there is less ( Not none, but less) concern in the DL than in the secondary.
All good points with the exception of some of your grading.

K-dubb. Look, I love the guy and have more of his jersey's than any other Viking. Other than a signed Tark Jersey, K-dubb is the only one I have signed but let me say this, I do not think he is a premier DT anymore. Still pretty damn good, but not the tops.

Not sure how you can say Hussain is below average and then give Whinny an above average. Whinny sucks in pass coverage. If he was any better than average they wouldn't keep trying to find a replacement for him. His only asset his his ability to play in and around the line in run support. By the way, I think Cook is an excellent replacement for him. By he end of this year, I think he and Griff will be rolling.

So far our secondary has done a pretty good job against some pretty good passers with very little help form the front 4 as we saw early last year.

C Mac D
09-21-2011, 05:52 PM
Leslie Fraizer Defends Vikings' Plan to Limit Percy Harvin:
http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/Notebook_Leslie_Frazier_defends_Vikings_plan_to_limit_Percy_Harvin092111

This really astounds me and makes me think we haven't moved that far away from the Childress regime. We continue to help our opponents by not utilizing our players strengths and keeping our best players off the field.

I bet our opponents are THRILLED to hear Harvin will only be on the field for 45% of the snaps. Our coaches simply don't understand how to effectively game-plan and utilize our talent (I was saying this same thing last year... it's getting old). We shouldn't have hired Childress' replacement from within the Childress regime.

I also like how we bring in yet another "Offensive mind" that hasn't won a championship at any level. His remedy? Leave Harvin on the bench. Genius.

C Mac D
09-21-2011, 06:04 PM
Leslie Fraizer Defends Vikings' Plan to Limit Percy Harvin:
http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/Notebook_Leslie_Frazier_defends_Vikings_plan_to_limit_Percy_Harvin092111

*snip*

Just to add to this... I love this quote:


Despite consecutive second-half collapses in each of the Vikings' first two games, Frazier said he hasn't gotten more involved this week in game-planning.

singersp
09-21-2011, 08:06 PM
Leslie Fraizer Defends Vikings' Plan to Limit Percy Harvin:
http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/Notebook_Leslie_Frazier_defends_Vikings_plan_to_limit_Percy_Harvin092111

I also like how we bring in yet another "Offensive mind" that hasn't won a championship at any level. His remedy? Leave Harvin on the bench. Genius.

The WR's & TE's combined to catch 15 passes for 165 yards last Sunday.

Harvin alone caught 7 of those passes for 76 of those yards,. That's almost half!

Yep! The smart thing to do is keep Harvin off the field for 55% of the snaps (sarcasm off)

WTF are they thinking?

Zeus
09-21-2011, 08:12 PM
The WR's & TE's combined to catch 15 passes for 165 yards last Sunday.

Harvin alone caught 7 of those passes for 76 of those yards,. That's almost half!

Yep! The smart thing to do is keep Harvin off the field for 55% of the snaps (sarcasm off)

WTF are they thinking?

Well, one thing could be that, at his slight stature, he's worthless as a blocker for AD (true).

Another could be, as Frazier explained, that Harvin is not part of several goal-line sets.

I thought, after my re-watching of the game, that Harvin was used in several creative ways (as an RB, on an end-around, the downfield passes which have been noted, a WR screen) which made great use of his talents. Having him on the field for plays in which his contribution would solely be as decoy or blocker seems absurd to me.

=Z=

singersp
09-21-2011, 08:15 PM
McNabb also has to deal with the lack of a true No. 1 receiver. The Vikings allowed former Pro Bowler wide receiver Sidney Rice to leave in the offseason. Through two games, McNabb has only had one pass play longer than 20 yards - a designed 42-yard screen to backup running back Toby Gerhart.

http://www.mlive.com/lions/index.ssf/2011/09/minnesota_vikings_aerial_attac.html

Zeus
09-21-2011, 08:16 PM
McNabb also has to deal with the lack of a true No. 1 receiver. The Vikings allowed former Pro Bowler wide receiver Sidney Rice to leave in the offseason. Through two games, McNabb has only had one pass play longer than 20 yards - a designed 42-yard screen to backup running back Toby Gerhart.

http://www.mlive.com/lions/index.ssf/2011/09/minnesota_vikings_aerial_attac.html

And Sidney Rice has zero fucking catches. Come on, Singer, that's a BS quote.

=Z=

singersp
09-21-2011, 08:19 PM
Well, one thing could be that, at his slight stature, he's worthless as a blocker for AD (true).
=Z=

Actually, FALSE!


Frazier didn't really explain why it's the right approach, but he did rule out a few reasons. He said coaches have no concerns about Harvin's downfield run blocking, saying: "He's a very good run-blocker [and is] surprising some of those linebackers and [defensive backs] when he comes back and cracks."

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/31548/why-is-percy-harvin-a-part-time-player

Zeus
09-21-2011, 08:22 PM
Actually, FALSE!

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/31548/why-is-percy-harvin-a-part-time-player

That's great. Not what I was getting at, however. I was more getting at some of the bunched TE sets with a single WR that they have been running.

And, having just re-watched the game, I didn't see Harvin make one single downfield block on an AD run (or a Toby run, for that matter). I did see Jenkins make those blocks - and JimmyK.

=Z=

singersp
09-21-2011, 08:23 PM
And Sidney Rice has zero fucking catches. Come on, Singer, that's a BS quote.

=Z=

The fact that Rice has 0 catches has nothing to do with it. Read the part in bold again. That's why I highlighted it.


McNabb also has to deal with the lack of a true No. 1 receiver.

Pretty simple. Nothing BS about it, unless you feel Berrian is a true No. 1 receiver.

Zeus
09-21-2011, 08:26 PM
The fact that Rice has 0 catches has nothing to do with it. Read the part in bold again. That's why I highlighted it.



Pretty simple. Nothing BS about it, unless you feel Berrian is a true No. 1 receiver.

If the part about Rice has nothing to do with it, why include it in your post?

And I think the concept of a "true No. 1 receiver" is overrated. Who is the Patriots "true No. 1 receiver"?

=Z=

singersp
09-21-2011, 08:29 PM
That's great. Not what I was getting at, however.

=Z=

When you say "he's worthless as a blocker for AD (true)" there's no other way to take it other than you feel he's worthless as a blocker for AD.

Am I supposed to rearrange the words for some other meaning?

singersp
09-21-2011, 08:31 PM
If the part about Rice has nothing to do with it, why include it in your post?

And I think the concept of a "true No. 1 receiver" is overrated. Who is the Patriots "true No. 1 receiver"?

=Z=

Because it was part of Frazier's quote. It happened to be in the middle of two parts I bolded.

Zeus
09-21-2011, 08:32 PM
When you say "he's worthless as a blocker for AD (true)" there's no other way to take it other than you feel he's worthless as a blocker for AD.

Am I supposed to rearrange the words for some other meaning?

I should have been more clear.

Just as you should have not included the bit about Rice in your post.

=Z=

Zeus
09-21-2011, 08:39 PM
If the part about Rice has nothing to do with it, why include it in your post?

And I think the concept of a "true No. 1 receiver" is overrated. Who is the Patriots "true No. 1 receiver"?

=Z=


Because it was part of Frazier's quote. It happened to be in the middle of two parts I bolded.

That bit about not re-signing Rice was NOT part of Frazier's quote.

And I still want you to tell me who the Patriot's #1 WR is.

=Z=

singersp
09-21-2011, 09:12 PM
I should have been more clear.

Just as you should have not included the bit about Rice in your post.

=Z=

Sorry it was the authors sentences I quoted, not Frazier's.

Brady's go to guy is typically Welker, but they run a far different offense than we do here.

With the box stuffed against AD, running routes with TE's & WR's in that same area where the defenders already are isn't going to produce favorable results. We still need someone who can legitimately take defenders with him down field to pull them out of the box.

Purple Floyd
09-21-2011, 09:51 PM
All good points with the exception of some of your grading.

K-dubb. Look, I love the guy and have more of his jersey's than any other Viking. Other than a signed Tark Jersey, K-dubb is the only one I have signed but let me say this, I do not think he is a premier DT anymore. Still pretty damn good, but not the tops.

Not sure how you can say Hussain is below average and then give Whinny an above average. Whinny sucks in pass coverage. If he was any better than average they wouldn't keep trying to find a replacement for him. His only asset his his ability to play in and around the line in run support. By the way, I think Cook is an excellent replacement for him. By he end of this year, I think he and Griff will be rolling.

So far our secondary has done a pretty good job against some pretty good passers with very little help form the front 4 as we saw early last year.

WQell, lets put it this way- If you are downgrading KW from Premier to something less then the entire secondary certainly is reduced from what I graded them because there isn't a player in the secondary sans Winny that is even qualified to carry his jock so my point stands.

bleedpurple
09-22-2011, 12:22 PM
how did a topic about offense get to a topic about defense...??? lol...

winny is decent but I think griff is better... the D-line and the linebackers are the real problem with the defense.. even thought they've been solid... We overspent for Greenway btw... $10 mill for that dude?... we're the suckers... he can't cover a bed with a bed spread...

O-line is garbage, and Harvin doesn't play enough.. McNabb needs to get in shape and some glasses...

Jenkins plays more than Harvin?? really?... nuff said...

Marrdro
09-23-2011, 09:00 AM
With the box stuffed against AD, running routes with TE's & WR's in that same area where the defenders already are isn't going to produce favorable results. We still need someone who can legitimately take defenders with him down field to pull them out of the box.
I can almost agree with that in total, however, you must first explain to me how they keep doing it without a legitimate "Deep" threat?

If you watch them, they don't get it done by stretching the field vertically, they get it done by stretching the defense horizontally and vertically.

In short, Brady is putting up a hell of alot of yards and very few of them are "Deep" passes my friend.

In the end, its all about the routes, and the associated rubs/scrapes/picks that those routes produce so that recievers get open in that traffic.

Marrdro
09-23-2011, 09:03 AM
And I think the concept of a "true No. 1 receiver" is overrated.

=Z=
A certain yutz has been trying to convince him about that for as long as he has known him my friend. Good luck with that effort. :)

Marrdro
09-23-2011, 09:06 AM
Well, one thing could be that, at his slight stature, he's worthless as a blocker for AD (true).

Another could be, as Frazier explained, that Harvin is not part of several goal-line sets.

I thought, after my re-watching of the game, that Harvin was used in several creative ways (as an RB, on an end-around, the downfield passes which have been noted, a WR screen) which made great use of his talents. Having him on the field for plays in which his contribution would solely be as decoy or blocker seems absurd to me.

=Z=
I was hoping to see if you saw the same thing in the re-air that I saw when I watched it with beer soaked eyes, specifically the number of "Deep Balls" that were/weren't catchable.