PDA

View Full Version : WCO/Cover 2 needs to go



SharperImage
09-16-2012, 08:59 PM
The Vikings need a new innovative coaching staff. Our coaching staff is too old school. The Vikings have a 1960's philosophy where you pound the run the run, and have a "Manager" QB to throw 5-10 yards to convert 3n2's! This is ridiculous. We had a dynamic offense for 1 year in the past 6 years that we have been a WCO. The only reason the O was good cause brett favre ran the show, and threw deep.. the coaches let him do what he likes. Name three top WCO offenses? Eagles is the only one, and they are barely WCO. WE CAN THROW DEEP, TEAMS ARE PLAYING MAN 2 MAN PRESS ON US ALL DAY!! COLTS NEVER ZONED WITH THEIR SUCKY CORNERS. THEY HAD 8 IN THE BOX AND MAN'D UP.. WHY DIDN'T WE RUN FLY ROUTES WITH PERCY AND AROMASHADOU. I think the team doesnt trust Ponders arm, and how he over analyzes.. We need a new O, and maybe bring in Landry Jones.

The Cover 2 is the worst. It was effective in the early 90s, but now my brothers Highschool team could pass against it. Zone defense isnt meant to be played EVERY SINGLE DOWN!! You zone here and there when your opponent thinks you are in man coverage. Our Zone sucks! Erin Henderson whiffs on Reggie Wayne and he walks in for a 30 yard td.. Had we been playing man, MAYBE it couldve been contested or swatted. We can't catch INTs with the bend but dont break Defense! Darren Sharper had 9 ints 2 years in a row with us before childress came and made us a Cover 2 defense with Mike Tomlin, MT was a good D coord because he knew how to design blitzes, and disguise coverage. 5 teams in the last 2 years have converted from cover 2 to 3-4 D.. I think Vikes are the only team left thats cover 2. Tampa even left cover 2. COVER 2 Prevent was retarded! It has many holes, and I can't believe we did it 2 FUDGING WEEKS IN A ROW! Winfield only has a job cause he is only useful in Cover 2, man 2 man he is dead to rights. We need a new D

singersp
09-16-2012, 09:12 PM
I already now what Marrdro is going to say. We have the right defensive scheme, but players that don't fit the scheme.

As far as the offense is concerned, when your only two targets are Harvin & AD & you're throwing 0-7 yards max on most of your passes, it doesn't take a genius to defend against it

SharperImage
09-16-2012, 09:25 PM
I already now what Marrdro is going to say. We have the right defensive scheme, but players that don't fit the scheme.

As far as the offense is concerned, when your only two targets are Harvin & AD & you're throwing 0-7 yards max on most of your passes, it doesn't take a genius to defend against it

No. You can't run a cover 2 scheme successfully anymore. NO ONE runs it as their base D anymore. Cover 2 is great to mix in here and there to catch a QB off guard, but not every single frickin down. I Could probably throw against the Vikes D. Our Defense hasnt been good since Ted Cotrell. When Ted was here, we played man, and our safeties were able to roam.. we havent had an OK backfield since Young Winfield/Brian Williams Sharper/Chavous... They were above average and not getting killed Sharper had 9 picks, winfield had 4, Chavous 4, and brian williams 4.. Once we went to cover 2, we havent had a DB had over 4 INTs.

Our Offense except when Brett Favre ran the show for two years has been the famous run run shortpass/screen. We have deep threats... Harvin/Rudolph/Aromashadou/Wright/Simpson soon.. Let Ponder toss the rock.. how can we tell if he is the guy, if we are playing to let him not make mistakes?

skum
09-16-2012, 09:37 PM
The Cover 2 depends so much on whoever is the middle linebacker and getting a good enough pass rush from the front 4.. But we can't do that right now because our middle linebacker and DT's are not good enough as we speak..

Purple Floyd
09-16-2012, 09:43 PM
I hear what you are saying and i have said it myself but in the end changing the scheme without changing the coaches and the players isn't going to change anything.

Let's just say for the sake of argument that we decided to switch from c2 to a 4-3 man defense. Do you think we have the talent to cover any team man to man in the secondary? Do you think we have the coaches to teach them the fundamentals and to put them in the best position to be be successful?

If the question is no then the scheme change is not going to make things better and might make them worse.

Personally I want to see how the next 4-6 weeks go and see if there is any growth on the team and if not then I say it is time to just blow up the FO and change course while the team is still young.

NDVikingFan66
09-16-2012, 09:45 PM
I am very disappointed in our vanilla offense and soft defense. 2 weeks and no takeaways, against young QB's.

We will get killed by NFC North QB's at this rate.

I was willing to give Frasier the benefit of the doubt, but I have him and the rest of the staff on a very short leash.

Johnson14
09-16-2012, 11:07 PM
I am very disappointed in our vanilla offense and soft defense. 2 weeks and no takeaways, against young QB's.

We will get killed by NFC North QB's at this rate.

I was willing to give Frasier the benefit of the doubt, but I have him and the rest of the staff on a very short leash.

Good post ND, pretty much my sentiments exactly on this, Vanilla is getting old, really fast.

Minniman
09-16-2012, 11:40 PM
"With the way defenses have evolved over the years, I have gravitated towards more of the down-the-field throws," Musgrave said.

NFL: Jaguars to install 'West Coast offense' (http://savannahnow.com/stories/050103/SPTJAGUARSoffenseWEB.shtmlhttp://)

SharperImage
09-16-2012, 11:57 PM
The Tampa Two Era Is Over In The NFL | Bleacher Report (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/297094-the-tampa-two-era-is-over-in-the-nfl)

Marrdro
09-17-2012, 06:35 AM
I already now what Marrdro is going to say. We have the right defensive scheme, but players that don't fit the scheme.

As far as the offense is concerned, when your only two targets are Harvin & AD & you're throwing 0-7 yards max on most of your passes, it doesn't take a genius to defend against it
Nope, wrong again. You obviously don't pay attention. What I will say is that the C2 and T2 won't work if the DL can't get pressure on the QB alone.

When that gets done the scheme works.

And it isn't a dead scheme. There are a myriad of variants out there being run today whether its the hybrid 3-4 that the Ravens run or the 4-3 that almost everyone else in the league is shifting back to. Well, with one exception. The Colts who, by the way run the Ravens 3-4 variant of the T2.

Like the WCO, every team uses it. EVERY team.

Marrdro
09-17-2012, 06:39 AM
The Cover 2 depends so much on whoever is the middle linebacker and getting a good enough pass rush from the front 4.. But we can't do that right now because our middle linebacker and DT's are not good enough as we speak..
Tough call to say on our MLB my friend. If you believe the way the announcer did yesterday when he said the MLB has to get deeper than the S's from the snap, I guess our right, but if you look at the scheme (and were Brinkley was on that play) he was in the zone just short of the S's.

Were he is supposed to be.

Go back, watch the play. What happened was Whinny made a damn bad read. He released his man to the S who was already picking up a 7 route from the other side and stuck in his zone with absolutely no one in it to cover.

Our problem does not lye with the secondary or our MLB. It lies solely on our DL and its inability to pressure the QB alone. Nothing more, nothing less.

Marrdro
09-17-2012, 06:43 AM
No. You can't run a cover 2 scheme successfully anymore. NO ONE runs it as their base D anymore.
Hmmmmm, enlighten me. What teams have all these shut down corners that you speak of so that they don't run "MUCH" zone anymore.

Truth is all teams run a zone coverage. All of them and with a couple of exceptions (Jets, Ravens, Philly) rely soley on the C2/T2 scheme as their base with a bit of man mixed in to throw the offense off. Not the other way around.

Seriously, take a look around the league. Whats done on the front end (4-3/3-4) doesn't change the back end my friend.

Marrdro
09-17-2012, 06:46 AM
Winfield only has a job cause he is only useful in Cover 2, man 2 man he is dead to rights. We need a new D
Whinny only has a job because he sells tickets because he plays the run. He absolutely sucks in pass coverage.

And if you fix our DL, you will fix our pass coverage.

singersp
09-17-2012, 07:26 AM
Nope, wrong again. You obviously don't pay attention. What I will say is that the C2 and T2 won't work if the DL can't get pressure on the QB alone.

When that gets done the scheme works.

What you're really trying to say is if we sack the QB on every passing play, the scheme works.

Sorry Marr, but they have brought pressure and passes are still being completed on the fly. Just because there isn't a bunch of sack stats, doesn't mean there isn't pressure.

FYI, in case you forgot, we led the league in sacks last year along with the Eagles with 50. We weren't last, middle or 3rd, we were first.

But you want us to fix that?

singersp
09-17-2012, 07:49 AM
Whinny only has a job because he sells tickets because he plays the run. He absolutely sucks in pass coverage.

And if you fix our DL, you will fix our pass coverage.

You're contradicting yourself there Marty.

Which is it?

If we fix our DL, does Winfield still suck in pass coverage?
If we fix our DL, is Winfield's pass coverage fixed?

How about we fix our backfield so we can play man-to-man or zone & mix them both into our scheme like most teams do? If we don't have DB's fast enough to play man-to-man, then you're going to continually see our backfield get exploited, regardless of DL play.

While we're at it, why don't we teach our LB's & DB's how to tackle by actually wrapping their arms around their opponents? The constant "throw a shoulder into him & hope like hell you knock him off his feet" philosophy isn't working.

The only thing our "bend but don't break" defense is doing for us is slowing down how long it takes for teams to score against us & putting us on the losing side of takeaways vs. giveaways.

We have been the worst team in football when it comes to getting interceptions since Frazier took over.

Chazz
09-17-2012, 05:55 PM
I watched SF play a vanilla cover 2 the entire game against a very potent Detroit team and totally shut them down...not quite so dead. We need a stud MLB to be a great cover 2 defense.

Marrdro
09-18-2012, 05:20 AM
I watched SF play a vanilla cover 2 the entire game against a very potent Detroit team and totally shut them down...not quite so dead. We need a stud MLB to be a great cover 2 defense.

Hey Chazz, how ya been.

I was going to jump in again and ask how our good friend thought about the C2 after watching what the Falcons just did to Manning last night using the C2.

Marrdro
09-18-2012, 05:35 AM
Ho hum...... One more time for possible penetration......


You're contradicting yourself there Marty.

Which is it?

If we fix our DL, does Winfield still suck in pass coverage?
If we fix our DL, is Winfield's pass coverage fixed?


Nope, as I've said many many times (most recently as this week) Whinny sucks in coverage. That is related to the coverage he is trying to run, based on the scheme we are running. HIs issue is two fold.....1) he is slow and gets beat off the line which is worse that what plaugued him his first 10 years...He is to small and beats beat up by WR's getting off the line. 2) He continues to bite up on play action and leaves his zone to stop the run. He used to be OK in this dept but again, he is to slow and can't recover well enough anymore.




How about we fix our backfield so we can play man-to-man or zone & mix them both into our scheme like most teams do? If we don't have DB's fast enough to play man-to-man, then you're going to continually see our backfield get exploited, regardless of DL play.
Hey, thats a great idea genius. Quick question, were we gonna find the CB's to do that? Look, its easy to say, hey, lets play man to man (which we do quite a bit by the way if your really paid attention to the issues you bitch at all the time), but those types of CB's just don't grow on trees and the ones that do are gainfully employed making big big bucks losing on other teams that are playing man to man.


While we're at it, why don't we teach our LB's & DB's how to tackle by actually wrapping their arms around their opponents? The constant "throw a shoulder into him & hope like hell you knock him off his feet" philosophy isn't working.

Hmmmm, are you really going to go down that path? Heres another thing for you to watch rocket scientist.....When our LB'rs fill a gap, who has the responsibility for the other gap? Ding Ding Ding Ding....Yup, we have a winner and his name is Steve.......The DLmen......

Seriously Steve, watch the beginning of the play were they miss or look bad on the tackle. 9 out of 10 times you will see that they are trying to get out of their original gap responsibility trying to help out a inept DLmen who just failed to hold his gap or (heavens forbid) missed his tackle) and sometimes can't do it.


The only thing our "bend but don't break" defense is doing for us is slowing down how long it takes for teams to score against us & putting us on the losing side of takeaways vs. giveaways.
Agreed, but what is your constant bitching about it going to do? Give you more opportunities to attack fellow PPO'rs that feel the same way you do?

In the end, this thread openly asks "Does the scheme need to go". A couple of us made very good points that it doesn't because the premise the originator used ("No one uses it anymore") is false. Not only does "No one" use it, damn near everyone uses it.


We have been the worst team in football when it comes to getting interceptions since Frazier took over.
Tomlin as well my friend. Tomlin as well. Again, the problem isn't so much the scheme, the LB'r or the DB's for cripes sake.

Again, use the 49'rs game or even better the Bronco's game last night. When did the INT's come? It wasn't from DB's free lancing and making INT"s. It came when the DL (for goodness sakes) put pressure on the QB and he made a bad throw because he was under duress and wasn't standing in a clean pocket picking apart the zone defense.

Look, I get that your frustrated, but lets tone the bitching down a bit my friend. Lets just have an open discussion again instead of, well, bitching.

Marrdro
09-18-2012, 05:38 AM
What you're really trying to say is if we sack the QB on every passing play, the scheme works.

Sorry Marr, but they have brought pressure and passes are still being completed on the fly. Just because there isn't a bunch of sack stats, doesn't mean there isn't pressure.

FYI, in case you forgot, we led the league in sacks last year along with the Eagles with 50. We weren't last, middle or 3rd, we were first.

But you want us to fix that?
Did I say SACK or did I say PRESSURE. Damn Steve, whats up with you lately.

Think back on how I have always touted pressure vice sacks. Hell, I usually make fun of posters who track sacks.

And this DL hasn't brought pressure. What little they've brought has been late and has been helped by the LB"rs and S's and when they do that guess what scheme the AREN'T RUNNING ANYMORE........

Open your eyes, watch the game.

When we bring a LB'r (been saying it for years) we suck at hiding it. Watch how many times we see a LB'r mugging the line long before the snap.

Again, go back and watch the Bronco's game. They brought LB'rs and S's as well but when they did you didn't see it coming.

singersp
09-18-2012, 07:19 AM
Did I say SACK or did I say PRESSURE. Damn Steve, whats up with you lately.

Think back on how I have always touted pressure vice sacks. Hell, I usually make fun of posters who track sacks.

And this DL hasn't brought pressure. What little they've brought has been late and has been helped by the LB"rs and S's and when they do that guess what scheme the AREN'T RUNNING ANYMORE........

Open your eyes, watch the game.

When we bring a LB'r (been saying it for years) we suck at hiding it. Watch how many times we see a LB'r mugging the line long before the snap.

Again, go back and watch the Bronco's game. They brought LB'rs and S's as well but when they did you didn't see it coming.

I'll make it simple for you. Go find the stats that show defensive QB hurries by team & show me where the Vikings are near the bottom of the list.

I believe you'll see we flush out the QB more times than you think.

I'd like to see the scheme changed, you call that frustration & bitching, yet you want to see DL & LB changes & you call it creative discussion?

Purple Floyd
09-18-2012, 08:30 AM
Hey, thats a great idea genius. Quick question, were we gonna find the CB's to do that? Look, its easy to say, hey, lets play man to man (which we do quite a bit by the way if your really paid attention to the issues you bitch at all the time), but those types of CB's just don't grow on trees and the ones that do are gainfully employed making big big bucks losing on other teams that are playing man to man.



How about this one:



Hey, thats a great idea genius. Quick question, were we gonna find the warpigs to do that? Look, its easy to say, hey, lets collapse the pocket with a premier NT, but those types of NT's just don't grow on trees and the ones that do are gainfully employed making big big bucks losing on other teams that are playing C2.
:rofl:

tastywaves
09-18-2012, 11:40 AM
According to this dude's game notes, we rarely played a cover 2 or Tampa 2 set in game 1.

Jaguars vs. Vikings: Arif's Notes on the Game (Defense and Special Teams) (http://www.dailynorseman.com/2012/9/13/3323156/jaguars-vs-vikings-arifs-notes-on-the-game-defense-and-special-teams)

I didn't get to watch game one very closely, but he makes some interesting observations. Also, I think many would be surprised how often we do play man coverage.

I think the biggest issue we have is not so much in the schemes we play or even the players. It is more with the coaching and how they prepare the team, adjust in the game and mix up the plays to confuse the offense. Creativity is not a part of our DNA, we are predictable, teams figure us out pretty quickly and we are left trying to beat individual matchups with league average positional players in a game that favors the offense. Or more simply put, we don't confuse QB's.

Chazz
09-18-2012, 11:58 PM
Hey Chazz, how ya been.

I was going to jump in again and ask how our good friend thought about the C2 after watching what the Falcons just did to Manning last night using the C2.

I've been good. How about yourself?

Our problem isn't the C2. We have many problems on defense. Having that DT that pushes the pocket back and the QB into JA would certainly help, but wouldn't fix things. What we need most are LBs that can cover a TE man to man and know how to get in the throwing lanes in zone. But that's not our biggest problem. Our biggest problem is that we have no creativity on D. We don't mask our coverages...we don't attack, but react...and worst of all we telegraph our blitzes, whos coming and where they're coming from.(God I HATE that!)

Marrdro
09-19-2012, 06:11 AM
I've been good. How about yourself?

Our problem isn't the C2. We have many problems on defense. Having that DT that pushes the pocket back and the QB into JA would certainly help, but wouldn't fix things. What we need most are LBs that can cover a TE man to man and know how to get in the throwing lanes in zone. But that's not our biggest problem. Our biggest problem is that we have no creativity on D. We don't mask our coverages...we don't attack, but react...and worst of all we telegraph our blitzes, whos coming and where they're coming from.(God I HATE that!)
I like were your going there my friend. Maybe the new guy will fix that issue. I know its been a problem for a couple of years now.

Marrdro
09-19-2012, 06:29 AM
According to this dude's game notes, we rarely played a cover 2 or Tampa 2 set in game 1.

Jaguars vs. Vikings: Arif's Notes on the Game (Defense and Special Teams) (http://www.dailynorseman.com/2012/9/13/3323156/jaguars-vs-vikings-arifs-notes-on-the-game-defense-and-special-teams)

I didn't get to watch game one very closely, but he makes some interesting observations. Also, I think many would be surprised how often we do play man coverage.

I think the biggest issue we have is not so much in the schemes we play or even the players. It is more with the coaching and how they prepare the team, adjust in the game and mix up the plays to confuse the offense. Creativity is not a part of our DNA, we are predictable, teams figure us out pretty quickly and we are left trying to beat individual matchups with league average positional players in a game that favors the offense. Or more simply put, we don't confuse QB's.
Not me.

Its pretty simple to see, when the LB is sent, you are no long in a traditional C2 cause someone has to cover that void. When a S comes up in the box, your in a C3. The play Whinny got burned on was a prime example of them being in a "man up" coverage as he had no dedicated S to that 1/4 behind him.

Long story short, and back to the original question posed by the originator of the thread....The answer still remains NO. Nothing wrong with the C2 scheme.

By the way, great find my friend. Some of the stuff like this is what I am holding back on.......


Overall, the zone packages seem fine, but I would like zone plays to be more situational if possible. Hook and curl zones are generally designed to operate within 7-10 yards from the line of scrimmage, but there were too many third downs that were passing plays under 5 yards that were converted because of the high zones. Calling for plays designed to prevent shorter passes in third down situations would probably be superior. Many of the "poor coverage mistakes" by the defensive backs in this situation actually seem to come from executing the plays that were called.

There is evidence of that on the DL play as well when you look at how far out of plays JA has been of late.

For those of you who don't normally read the articles that are provided, I recommend you do in this case. A very nice breakdown of all positions/players is provided.

Marrdro
09-19-2012, 06:40 AM
How about this one:

:rofl:
But we have had the chance to draft both positions and have in the DB situation, but haven't on the DT position and we still have the same issue even after throwing high picks at the CB position.



B
2012
1
29
29
Harrison Smith
Notre Dame



2012
3
3
66
Josh Robinson
Central Florida



2012
5
4
139
Robert Blanton
Notre Dame



2011
5
8
139
Brandon Burton
Utah



2011
6
5
170
Mistral Raymond
South Florida



2010
2
2
34
Chris Cook
Virginia



2009
3
22
86
Asher Allen
Georgia



2009
7
22
231
Jamarca Sanford
Mississippi



2008
2
12
43
Tyrell Johnson
Arkansas State



2007
3
8
72
Marcus McCauley
Fresno State



2006
2
16
48
Cedric Griffin
Texas



2006
5
17
149
Greg Blue
Georgia



Truth is, we haven't drafted a true DT/NT since maybe Hovan if you think could be considered a 1 tech. I tend to think of him as more of a 3.



T
2011
4
9
106
Christian Ballard
Iowa



2008
5
17
152
Letroy Guion
Florida State



2005
6
17
191
C.J. Mosley
Missouri



2002
7
7
218
Chad Beasley
Virginia Tech



2001
2
26
57
Willie Howard
Stanford



2001
4
35
130
Shawn Worthen
Texas Christian



2000
1
25
25
Chris Hovan
Boston College

Marrdro
09-19-2012, 06:46 AM
I'll make it simple for you. Go find the stats that show defensive QB hurries by team & show me where the Vikings are near the bottom of the list.

I believe you'll see we flush out the QB more times than you think.

Go find the stats yourself. I've posted them enough. My guess you already did and saw the same numbers sliding that I'm talking about.

In the end, we haven't pressured the QB this year like we need to. When we have brought pressure it is the result of a S, CB or LB blitzing to help the DL. The truth is we let two untested QB's look like all pro's this year, when both have been made to look otherwise by teams that run the same scheme we do because they pressured the QB.

Reality is a bitch my friend. :)


I'd like to see the scheme changed, you call that frustration & bitching, yet you want to see DL & LB changes & you call it creative discussion?
Let me ask you a question....Are you convinced I want to keep the C2 scheme? If so, you couldn't be more wrong.

I'd love to be able to play man to man. Hell, I thought we were even going to see something akin to it under Pagac with the "Zone Press" look that we never saw last year. So if your using that as the vocal point of your bitching, you'd better back the truck up my friend. I'm only discussing that which we have to discuss and that's the zone your beloved coaches want to run.

tastywaves
09-19-2012, 12:12 PM
By the way, great find my friend. Some of the stuff like this is what I am holding back on.......

There is evidence of that on the DL play as well when you look at how far out of plays JA has been of late.

For those of you who don't normally read the articles that are provided, I recommend you do in this case. A very nice breakdown of all positions/players is provided.

This guy puts some effort into his game notes and appears to have a neutral eye, check out his notes for the offense.

Vikings vs. Colts: Arif's Notes on the Game (Offense) (http://www.dailynorseman.com/2012/9/19/3355002/vikings-vs-colts-arifs-notes-on-the-game-offense#storyjump)

Some highlights from his notes:
-Gives Musgrave credit for working to the player's strengths vs. enforcing a scheme
-Puts a lot of the conservative play on the WR's inability to break coverage (including the TE's)
-Feels that Ponder is doing what's being asked of him which is still limited, partly because of the WR's and partly because he is still getting up to speed
-Thinks Kalil is playing well and that Loadholt should be on notice
-Good pass blocking, but overall poor run blocking by almost every player

Probably should be in the game notes thread, but I think it helps address a lot of the WCO anxiety many on this site feel is the basis of our issues.

Purple Floyd
09-19-2012, 02:58 PM
But we have had the chance to draft both positions and have in the DB situation, but haven't on the DT position and we still have the same issue even after throwing high picks at the CB position.



B
2012
1
29
29
Harrison Smith
Notre Dame



2012
3
3
66
Josh Robinson
Central Florida



2012
5
4
139
Robert Blanton
Notre Dame



2011
5
8
139
Brandon Burton
Utah



2011
6
5
170
Mistral Raymond
South Florida



2010
2
2
34
Chris Cook
Virginia



2009
3
22
86
Asher Allen
Georgia



2009
7
22
231
Jamarca Sanford
Mississippi



2008
2
12
43
Tyrell Johnson
Arkansas State



2007
3
8
72
Marcus McCauley
Fresno State



2006
2
16
48
Cedric Griffin
Texas



2006
5
17
149
Greg Blue
Georgia



Truth is, we haven't drafted a true DT/NT since maybe Hovan if you think could be considered a 1 tech. I tend to think of him as more of a 3.



T
2011
4
9
106
Christian Ballard
Iowa



2008
5
17
152
Letroy Guion
Florida State



2005
6
17
191
C.J. Mosley
Missouri



2002
7
7
218
Chad Beasley
Virginia Tech



2001
2
26
57
Willie Howard
Stanford



2001
4
35
130
Shawn Worthen
Texas Christian



2000
1
25
25
Chris Hovan
Boston College





By looking at the way the secondary has played over the past decade I would say we haven't drafted a true CB or S either.:rofl:

Reignman
09-19-2012, 03:39 PM
The Tampa 2 has got to go ... NOW! Does it really matter what we switch to? Could it possibly be worse than what we have now? I get that you need the right parts for the scheme, but Frazier has had how many years to get it fixed, and he hasn't. Don't forget, he was the DC under Chiller so I would at least expect the defense to be shored up by now.

The T2 is supposed to be an aggressive, hard hitting, ball hawking scheme. That doesn't sound anything like our "let em catch it, try to wrestle him down, and don't worry about takeaways" version. How the hell can you not be concerned about the lack of takeaways? It's the single most important stat in football. This scheme isn't fooling any team in the league anymore.

Besides, the Tampa 2 worked great for Tampa because they had the likes of Sapp, Rice, Brooks, Quarles, Kelly, Lynch, and Jackson roaming around on their defense. That talent pool would've made any scheme look brilliant. They had twice as many interceptions in 1 damn Superbowl (5) than our defense has dating back to week 5 last year. We've only had 2 interceptions (Grossman and McCown) in that time. That's 13 games, including an NFL record 9 game stretch last year where we had 0. In that same 9 game stretch we allowed 25 passing TD's and a combined QB rating of 132.1 (196/267 2409 yds 25 td 0 int). That's beyond pathetic.

Minniman
09-20-2012, 10:30 AM
There is nothing wrong with the WCO. The Vikings just do not run it as well as they could.

Percy Harvin is a near perfect back for the WCO. He should get more touches.

SharperImage
09-20-2012, 11:38 PM
You are right there isn't nothing wrong with the WCO. When we had Favre he made it into the 2nd best offense in the league, and made chilly look like an offensive mastermind. Thing is though.. WE THREW THE BALL DOWN THE FIELD. Favre had 52 completions 20+ and 13 40+. The WCO can work if our coaches stop being stubborn and realize that this is a PASSING LEAGUE NOW!!! and we have a great RB that we can catch people off guard with, but you can't be a PRIMARILY RUNNING TEAM!! The Texans can THROW THE BALL.. the Titans can't throw worth shit, and look how fucking HORRIBLE they look. CJ2K can't even get 40 yards in a game. The Ravens can throw, Jags can't and they get their ass beat too. This is a stretch the field league, and unfortunately ponder can't stretch the field with zip. All Ponders passes downfield have a better hangtime than Kluwe's punts! Thats why I wanted Ryan Mallett, he is a true NFL QB. Now Mallett sits on the bench behind Brady, and he takes over 2 years from now, and the pats continue to rip people apart! Ponder is TOO smart for his own good over thinking plays! Ponder doesn't have an above avg or elite arm. Gabbert has an elite arm and showed it. We chose an old school QB, in the New Era NFL. No top 16 QB has a noodle arm. Christian Ponder = Brad Johnson. Brad Johnson didn't suck, but Brad would get killed with this new hybrid D, and linebackers who can actually cover now. Brad never threw past 20 yards unless it was wide open. Corners and LBs are faster and stronger and smarter, so you need a QB who can thread needles, and launch it downfield so your WR can make a play.. Not a guy who floats it in the air giving the Defender time to think about it, and judge it! Ponder only has zip on 5-15 yard throws, which is why he won't throw further than that! We need a new YOUNG head coach to come in with a NEW YOUNG PHILOSOPHY and get the OLD SCHOOL WAYS THE HELL OUTTA HERE.

Purple Floyd
09-22-2012, 09:07 AM
Cornerbacks and LBs are faster and stronger and smarter


Not ours apparently.;)

Freya
09-22-2012, 01:37 PM
Cover 2 is an idiotic scheme in almost any format.

Man coverage has much better potential and should always be preferred, imo.

6-7 guys tied up on the line or in the backfield leaves only 4 (usually at most) heading out, down field. The math says that with 2 corners and 2 safeties, that issue is covered. End of problem. With 7 defenders up near the line and the QB usually dropping out of play right away...that leaves 7 D's to cover 6 O's. Is that really a problem?!

And btw..........wtf is with the playing it soft, BS?!?! Jam those receivers at the line and throw them off their timed routes. Sorry.....bit of a side note, there. :D

Marrdro
09-24-2012, 01:26 PM
You are right there isn't nothing wrong with the WCO. When we had Favre he made it into the 2nd best offense in the league, and made chilly look like an offensive mastermind. Thing is though.. WE THREW THE BALL DOWN THE FIELD. Favre had 52 completions 20+ and 13 40+. The WCO can work if our coaches stop being stubborn and realize that this is a PASSING LEAGUE NOW!!! and we have a great RB that we can catch people off guard with, but you can't be a PRIMARILY RUNNING TEAM!! The Texans can THROW THE BALL.. the Titans can't throw worth shit, and look how fucking HORRIBLE they look. CJ2K can't even get 40 yards in a game. The Ravens can throw, Jags can't and they get their ass beat too. This is a stretch the field league, and unfortunately ponder can't stretch the field with zip. All Ponders passes downfield have a better hangtime than Kluwe's punts! Thats why I wanted Ryan Mallett, he is a true NFL QB. Now Mallett sits on the bench behind Brady, and he takes over 2 years from now, and the pats continue to rip people apart! Ponder is TOO smart for his own good over thinking plays! Ponder doesn't have an above avg or elite arm. Gabbert has an elite arm and showed it. We chose an old school QB, in the New Era NFL. No top 16 QB has a noodle arm. Christian Ponder = Brad Johnson. Brad Johnson didn't suck, but Brad would get killed with this new hybrid D, and linebackers who can actually cover now. Brad never threw past 20 yards unless it was wide open. Corners and LBs are faster and stronger and smarter, so you need a QB who can thread needles, and launch it downfield so your WR can make a play.. Not a guy who floats it in the air giving the Defender time to think about it, and judge it! Ponder only has zip on 5-15 yard throws, which is why he won't throw further than that! We need a new YOUNG head coach to come in with a NEW YOUNG PHILOSOPHY and get the OLD SCHOOL WAYS THE HELL OUTTA HERE.

Hmmmmmm, care to recant any of that my friend.......:)

San Francisco at Minnesota | Sunday September 23, 2012 | NFL - Yahoo! Sports (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/boxscore?gid=20120923016&page=plays)

Marrdro
09-24-2012, 01:27 PM
There is nothing wrong with the WCO. The Vikings just do not run it as well as they could.

Percy Harvin is a near perfect back for the WCO. He should get more touches.
And we have a winner. Spot on my friend.

Marrdro
09-24-2012, 01:30 PM
By looking at the way the secondary has played over the past decade I would say we haven't drafted a true CB or S either.:rofl:
LOL, well played. Well played indeed. Quick question.....did you think our secondary played better yesterday or do you think they looked better because of the DL play made them look better?

As I watched the game, I sure saw alot of DB's and LB'rs dropping into zones/handing off players in zones than I did man to man coverage.

Heck Cooks INT was a result of consistent pressure on the QB (making him hurry a throw) than it was from a DB providing man coverage. To tell the truth, Cook was doing just that. Standing back (way behind the receiver) waiting in his zone.

tastywaves
09-24-2012, 01:41 PM
LOL, well played. Well played indeed. Quick question.....did you think our secondary played better yesterday or do you think they looked better because of the DL play made them look better?

As I watched the game, I sure saw alot of DB's and LB'rs dropping into zones/handing off players in zones than I did man to man coverage.

Heck Cooks INT was a result of consistent pressure on the QB (making him hurry a throw) than it was from a DB providing man coverage. To tell the truth, Cook was doing just that. Standing back (way behind the receiver) waiting in his zone.

Is this a replacement Marrdro watching the game? I believe it was the rookie Josh Robinson who got the INT and not Cook.

So, if I'm understanding you correct. Our DB's just need to sit back in their zones all by themselves and wait for the DL to apply sufficient pressure to the QB that he throws errantly to the position they happen to be hanging out in. Coverage, schmoverage.

Marrdro
09-24-2012, 02:59 PM
Is this a replacement Marrdro watching the game? I believe it was the rookie Josh Robinson who got the INT and not Cook.

So, if I'm understanding you correct. Our DB's just need to sit back in their zones all by themselves and wait for the DL to apply sufficient pressure to the QB that he throws errantly to the position they happen to be hanging out in. Coverage, schmoverage.

Even I, like the replacement refs, type names in that don't coincide with the players......:)

No, thats not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, like yesterday, if the whole defense plays the right way in the scheme, INT's will come and they don't need to come from DB's going out there and providing blanket coverages all the time.

tastywaves
09-24-2012, 04:18 PM
Even I, like the replacement refs, type names in that don't coincide with the players......:)

No, thats not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, like yesterday, if the whole defense plays the right way in the scheme, INT's will come and they don't need to come from DB's going out there and providing blanket coverages all the time.

Then why do you demand it from Winfield? Isn't he just the victim of a poor DL effort?

Purple Floyd
09-24-2012, 04:54 PM
LOL, well played. Well played indeed. Quick question.....did you think our secondary played better yesterday or do you think they looked better because of the DL play made them look better?

As I watched the game, I sure saw alot of DB's and LB'rs dropping into zones/handing off players in zones than I did man to man coverage.

Heck Cooks INT was a result of consistent pressure on the QB (making him hurry a throw) than it was from a DB providing man coverage. To tell the truth, Cook was doing just that. Standing back (way behind the receiver) waiting in his zone.

I think even a broken clock is right twice a day and even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. This was one game and even though I give them all of the credit in the world for playing a heck of a game, it will take a few more before I consider it a trend.
At this point I am giving the benefit of the doubt to the changes at LB with Henderson being out. We also lost a starting Safety and IMHO depth is not at the point where that won't go unnoticed.

Marrdro
09-27-2012, 08:56 AM
I think even a broken clock is right twice a day and even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. This was one game and even though I give them all of the credit in the world for playing a heck of a game, it will take a few more before I consider it a trend.
At this point I am giving the benefit of the doubt to the changes at LB with Henderson being out. We also lost a starting Safety and IMHO depth is not at the point where that won't go unnoticed.

Fair enough. I for one don't think Jamarcus is a drop off at S. Kid did pretty good last year at times as one would expect from a kid learning on the field.

And the replacement at LB was Brinkley, who most contend on here can't get deep enough in the zone on pass plays, which he did quite well yesterday, especially when he wasn't forced to cheat up on the line faking a sugar blitz.

Marrdro
09-27-2012, 08:58 AM
Then why do you demand it from Winfield? Isn't he just the victim of a poor DL effort?
But I don't demand it with Whinny. My issue with him has always been that he gets caught cheating up on the run which leaves to big of a hole between his zone and the S's zone (or LB'rs if he's dropping).

Long story short, my issue with has nothing to do with man to man coverage.

tastywaves
09-27-2012, 11:11 AM
But I don't demand it with Whinny. My issue with him has always been that he gets caught cheating up on the run which leaves to big of a hole between his zone and the S's zone (or LB'rs if he's dropping).

Long story short, my issue with has nothing to do with man to man coverage.

The overall point is that no matter how good your front 4 is performing, you still need to have adequate play in the secondary. When the secondary gets burned, quite often it is on them and not just the front 4. Do you think Seattle would have obtained 8 sacks on Rodgers if they didn't have decent play from the secondary? 3 of their DB's were pro bowler's last year.

If the DL is under performing, obviously it puts more stress on the secondary. QB's and WR's in this league will beat any secondary given enough time. I just don't think you can simplify the defense down to one aspect. Great defenses are good across the board and not just at nose tackle.

singersp
09-28-2012, 07:22 AM
But I don't demand it with Whinny. My issue with him has always been that he gets caught cheating up on the run which leaves to big of a hole between his zone and the S's zone (or LB'rs if he's dropping).

Long story short, my issue with has nothing to do with man to man coverage.

When he's cheating on the run, do you have a problem with Winfield blowing past the LB (who happens to be standing still waiting for the RB to come to him) & nailing the RB for little gain or a loss?

singersp
09-28-2012, 07:28 AM
The overall point is that no matter how good your front 4 is performing, you still need to have adequate play in the secondary. When the secondary gets burned, quite often it is on them and not just the front 4. Do you think Seattle would have obtained 8 sacks on Rodgers if they didn't have decent play from the secondary? 3 of their DB's were pro bowler's last year.

If the DL is under performing, obviously it puts more stress on the secondary. QB's and WR's in this league will beat any secondary given enough time. I just don't think you can simplify the defense down to one aspect. Great defenses are good across the board and not just at nose tackle.

+1

Don't know why Marty can't see our point on getting a quality secondary that plays great man to man & zone. Having a secondary that plays well only when the DL does may be OK for him, but I prefer a secondary that plays great even when the DL doesn't & vice-versa.

Marrdro
09-28-2012, 09:41 AM
+1

Don't know why Marty can't see our point on getting a quality secondary that plays great man to man & zone. Having a secondary that plays well only when the DL does may be OK for him, but I prefer a secondary that plays great even when the DL doesn't & vice-versa.

But I can see your point. You just don't see the point that the ability to go out and find "Quality" like you want (Shut down CB's) is limited by the talent that comes out.

You want to understand that point, go watch the jets this weekend and see how they do without theirs. Bet they run alot of C2......:)

Marrdro
09-28-2012, 09:42 AM
When he's cheating on the run, do you have a problem with Winfield blowing past the LB (who happens to be standing still waiting for the RB to come to him) & nailing the RB for little gain or a loss?
Nope, if its a running play. Do you have a problem when he cheats up on a run play that winds up being a pass play that allows the Jag receiver to cover the whole dang field?

Marrdro
09-28-2012, 09:44 AM
The overall point is that no matter how good your front 4 is performing, you still need to have adequate play in the secondary. When the secondary gets burned, quite often it is on them and not just the front 4. Do you think Seattle would have obtained 8 sacks on Rodgers if they didn't have decent play from the secondary? 3 of their DB's were pro bowler's last year.

If the DL is under performing, obviously it puts more stress on the secondary. QB's and WR's in this league will beat any secondary given enough time. I just don't think you can simplify the defense down to one aspect. Great defenses are good across the board and not just at nose tackle.
Well said.

I just happen to believe that we have decent enough DB's in the backfield. I just think that we need to give them a bit more time and our DL should help them out a bit by getting to the QB a bit more often.

Problem is, around these parts, everyone still thinks we have the dominant DL from days gone past when we don't.

Just saying.

tastywaves
09-28-2012, 11:02 AM
Well said.

I just happen to believe that we have decent enough DB's in the backfield. I just think that we need to give them a bit more time and our DL should help them out a bit by getting to the QB a bit more often.

Problem is, around these parts, everyone still thinks we have the dominant DL from days gone past when we don't.

Just saying.

Good to see you coming around.

I think we have upgraded this year and have the potential for adequate play this year, but you've been giving the secondary a free ride for the last several years when we were clearly one of the worst secondaries in the NFL. Always putting the blame on the DL.

I would be thrilled if by the end of the season, we look at the greatest weakness on our defense being the interior of our defensive line.

BTW: I'm not necessarily of the belief that you have to have shut down corners on your team to be an effective defense. It helps, but many times at too high of a cost. I think safety play has been the bigger issue for this team and am hopeful that Harrison will continue to develop into a long term quality starter for us.

Marrdro
10-01-2012, 10:50 AM
Good to see you coming around.

I think we have upgraded this year and have the potential for adequate play this year, but you've been giving the secondary a free ride for the last several years when we were clearly one of the worst secondaries in the NFL. Always putting the blame on the DL.

I would be thrilled if by the end of the season, we look at the greatest weakness on our defense being the interior of our defensive line.

BTW: I'm not necessarily of the belief that you have to have shut down corners on your team to be an effective defense. It helps, but many times at too high of a cost. I think safety play has been the bigger issue for this team and am hopeful that Harrison will continue to develop into a long term quality starter for us.

I wonder how many are seeing things my way after watching the defense play almost a flawless game yesterday.

It all started with Guion getting that sack when he was left alone and ended when Griff was given chances to put the QB down when we needed someone to put him down. Thats why I always blame the DL. If the scheme breaks down, its almost always because they didn't do their job. When they don't, you force the other areas (LB'rs and DB's) to help which weakens them in their areas.

In the end, your BTW was right and proven yesterday. We don't need shut down DB's. We just need the whole defense to do their job and the scheme works. That allows them to do just their job, which is more than enough to be successful in this scheme.

tastywaves
10-01-2012, 12:17 PM
I wonder how many are seeing things my way after watching the defense play almost a flawless game yesterday.

It all started with Guion getting that sack when he was left alone and ended when Griff was given chances to put the QB down when we needed someone to put him down. Thats why I always blame the DL. If the scheme breaks down, its almost always because they didn't do their job. When they don't, you force the other areas (LB'rs and DB's) to help which weakens them in their areas.

In the end, your BTW was right and proven yesterday. We don't need shut down DB's. We just need the whole defense to do their job and the scheme works. That allows them to do just their job, which is more than enough to be successful in this scheme.

A 2 TD lead for a large part of the second half greatly helps our defensive scheme be effective. That being said, we have failed for many years holding a lead with this same philosophy. Biggest reason IMO, is improved secondary play from both the safeties and the DB's.

I don't remember Guion being left alone, but I do remember Griffen having a free shot at Stafford. The Griffen sack was because the Vikings brought more guys than Detroit could block and left Griffen alone. This wasn't a 4 against 5 or 6 situation. Quite often we were using extra rushers to put pressure on Stafford.

The scheme can break down very easily even when the DL does their job. Everyone has a job to do and weakness in any area will cause the team to suffer. We have had a lot of weaknesses outside of the DL over the last several years.

Marrdro
10-01-2012, 02:01 PM
A 2 TD lead for a large part of the second half greatly helps our defensive scheme be effective. That being said, we have failed for many years holding a lead with this same philosophy. Biggest reason IMO, is improved secondary play from both the safeties and the DB's.

I don't remember Guion being left alone, but I do remember Griffen having a free shot at Stafford. The Griffen sack was because the Vikings brought more guys than Detroit could block and left Griffen alone. This wasn't a 4 against 5 or 6 situation. Quite often we were using extra rushers to put pressure on Stafford.

The scheme can break down very easily even when the DL does their job. Everyone has a job to do and weakness in any area will cause the team to suffer. We have had a lot of weaknesses outside of the DL over the last several years.
Guion wasn't alone. His sack came when he was singled up and he ate the guy up.

As to Griff, your correct. 1 of his 4 hits he was left alone because Chad brought it to the inside.

JA's sack and several other plays were just the front 4 rushed, you could almost say they were coverage sacks because of how long Stafford had the ball and didn't have a place to go with it.

tastywaves
10-01-2012, 03:43 PM
Guion wasn't alone. His sack came when he was singled up and he ate the guy up.

As to Griff, your correct. 1 of his 4 hits he was left alone because Chad brought it to the inside.

JA's sack and several other plays were just the front 4 rushed, you could almost say they were coverage sacks because of how long Stafford had the ball and didn't have a place to go with it.

So are you giving the secondary credit for the DL's success?

Marrdro
10-02-2012, 08:15 AM
So are you giving the secondary credit for the DL's success?
Quite the contrary. I'm saying that the DB's are able to do that because the DL is doing it by themselves.

Just making the small point that because the zones are flooded with DB's and LB'rs, coverage sacks will come.

In the end, this scheme will work and it will look good, but it will only look good if the effort comes from every stage and it all starts with the DLmen doing it without help.

Purple Floyd
10-02-2012, 09:34 AM
It seems to me when we were getting the best pressure it was because we were sending LB's and Safeties in after the QB.

tastywaves
10-02-2012, 11:14 AM
Quite the contrary. I'm saying that the DB's are able to do that because the DL is doing it by themselves.

Just making the small point that because the zones are flooded with DB's and LB'rs, coverage sacks will come.

In the end, this scheme will work and it will look good, but it will only look good if the effort comes from every stage and it all starts with the DLmen doing it without help.

Hmmmm.....I think you need to give the secondary and LB'ers more credit on a coverage sack than the DL.


Coverage sack definition --- sack of the quarterback that takes place after about 3 seconds after the snap; caused by inability of the quarterback to find an open receiver because of excellent pass coverage on the receivers

I like how you turn that around to saying that the DL pressure allowed us to drop the back 7 into coverage when by definition they were not applying much pressure (ie., coverage sack) ;)

If the QB's were hitting open guys quickly with only 4 pass rushers, I think you would still lay the blame on the DL for not getting to the QB faster. When does it ever become the fault of the secondary? And I'm not asking for shut down coverage corners, just want the back end of the team doing what they are being asked to do. The last couple years, they haven't done so well, this year they are doing better. This is not due to improved DL play IMO, but because we upgraded the talent in the secondary. Many ways to skin the cat to improve a defense regardless of how true you want to be to the philosophy of a particular scheme.

And not to confuse things too much, but as Floyd points out, we did bring extra pass rushers many times against Stafford which led to a lot of our success. I don't see that changing.

Marrdro
10-02-2012, 12:15 PM
Hmmmm.....I think you need to give the secondary and LB'ers more credit on a coverage sack than the DL.



I like how you turn that around to saying that the DL pressure allowed us to drop the back 7 into coverage when by definition they were not applying much pressure (ie., coverage sack) ;)

If the QB's were hitting open guys quickly with only 4 pass rushers, I think you would still lay the blame on the DL for not getting to the QB faster. When does it ever become the fault of the secondary? And I'm not asking for shut down coverage corners, just want the back end of the team doing what they are being asked to do. The last couple years, they haven't done so well, this year they are doing better. This is not due to improved DL play IMO, but because we upgraded the talent in the secondary. Many ways to skin the cat to improve a defense regardless of how true you want to be to the philosophy of a particular scheme.

And not to confuse things too much, but as Floyd points out, we did bring extra pass rushers many times against Stafford which led to a lot of our success. I don't see that changing.
Fault lies with the scheme with me my friend. Not the individual players or position groups.

I do admit, however, that I do look to the bigs up front first, as you contend. Its my nature. Same goes for the offense. If they are doing their job everyone else looks good doing theirs.

Many times.......??? Obviously you didn't listen to (or read) what our HC had to say about that.

Marrdro
10-02-2012, 12:17 PM
It seems to me when we were getting the best pressure it was because we were sending LB's and Safeties in after the QB.
I quit charting the games this year as my hands are usually full with my grandson, however, that was not the case last weekend.

Very few pressures came from the back seven, at least from what I saw. Leslie's quotes kindof back that up.

jmcdon00
10-02-2012, 12:54 PM
My biggest gripe was they went to the prevent defense late in the game. We all know the prevent defense prevents nothing, and the Lions drove the length of the field and scored their lone touchdown against it(took about 2minutes off the clock).
We still won the game, but the Lions got an opportunity to tie it up at the end that should have never been given.
I would like to see more aggressive play calling from the offense and defense when they have a lead late.

tastywaves
10-02-2012, 03:31 PM
Fault lies with the scheme with me my friend. Not the individual players or position groups.

I do admit, however, that I do look to the bigs up front first, as you contend. Its my nature. Same goes for the offense. If they are doing their job everyone else looks good doing theirs.

Many times.......??? Obviously you didn't listen to (or read) what our HC had to say about that.

LOL, ok, maybe it wasn't many times. I just seem to remember a few of the plays where we got to the QB there were more than 4 guys rushing.

The pass defense played better yesterday than I expected against a good passing offense like Detroit. It helped that we got a lead and could emphasize a conservative deep coverage defense. Even Cook seemed to be playing a bit of a deep zone at times. A number of dropped passes by Detroit helped, but I think the secondary should be given a fair amount of credit for their performance yesterday. As well as the DL of course ;)

I will agree with your overall point though that the Cover/Tampa 2 defense is still a valid approach as long as you have the right talent and execution.

singersp
10-03-2012, 06:20 AM
Fault lies with the scheme with me my friend.

That's what I wanted to hear. Yet you don't want the Vikings to adjust the scheme?

Marrdro
10-03-2012, 07:33 AM
My biggest gripe was they went to the prevent defense late in the game. We all know the prevent defense prevents nothing, and the Lions drove the length of the field and scored their lone touchdown against it(took about 2minutes off the clock).
We still won the game, but the Lions got an opportunity to tie it up at the end that should have never been given.
I would like to see more aggressive play calling from the offense and defense when they have a lead late.

I hate it as well, but when you look at how much time came off the clock for them to get the score and our outcome and then compare that to what happened in the Panthers Falcons game I bet the Panther fans are saying, ....

"....Damn, I wish they would have went into a prevent defense and kept their DB's back a big more so that the long pass wouldn't have happened...."

Kindof a catch 22 if you ask me. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Marrdro
10-03-2012, 07:36 AM
LOL, ok, maybe it wasn't many times. I just seem to remember a few of the plays where we got to the QB there were more than 4 guys rushing.

The pass defense played better yesterday than I expected against a good passing offense like Detroit. It helped that we got a lead and could emphasize a conservative deep coverage defense. Even Cook seemed to be playing a bit of a deep zone at times. A number of dropped passes by Detroit helped, but I think the secondary should be given a fair amount of credit for their performance yesterday. As well as the DL of course ;)

I will agree with your overall point though that the Cover/Tampa 2 defense is still a valid approach as long as you have the right talent and execution.

LOL, no worries. Don't get me wrong, I agree that you just can't send the front 4. You have to mix in a blitzer to keep them honest. I'm just saying that you should be able to get it done, for the most part, with the bigs so that you don't weaken your back end.

Another thing I was waiting for someone to chime in on is that they disguised those blitzes alot better that last 2 weeks. I absolutely hated all the "Mug" looks we showed all the time.

Marrdro
10-03-2012, 07:43 AM
That's what I wanted to hear. Yet you don't want the Vikings to adjust the scheme?
But I do. The issue is personnel. Show me all the guys we will be able to draft next year that will allow it.

Heck, show me the plan to add all the FA's we need that will allow it.

In the end you can't. That is why ALL teams rely on some variant of "Zone" coverage on the backend. Just not enough talent to allow otherwise. Prime example...=....Jets. keep on watching how that D struggles without their shutdown guy.

singersp
10-05-2012, 08:03 AM
Nope, wrong again. You obviously don't pay attention. What I will say is that the C2 and T2 won't work if the DL can't get pressure on the QB alone.

When that gets done the scheme works.

And it isn't a dead scheme. There are a myriad of variants out there being run today whether its the hybrid 3-4 that the Ravens run or the 4-3 that almost everyone else in the league is shifting back to. Well, with one exception. The Colts who, by the way run the Ravens 3-4 variant of the T2.

Like the WCO, every team uses it. EVERY team.


Chicago Bears and Minnesota Vikings are only teams using cover 2 defense - ESPN The Magazine - ESPN (http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8392529/chicago-bears-minnesota-vikings-only-teams-using-cover-2-defense-espn-magazine)



only two teams -- the Bears and Vikings -- consider the cover 2 to be their base defense. Most teams are switching to more combination man coverages

Marrdro
10-05-2012, 09:40 AM
Chicago Bears and Minnesota Vikings are only teams using cover 2 defense - ESPN The Magazine - ESPN (http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8392529/chicago-bears-minnesota-vikings-only-teams-using-cover-2-defense-espn-magazine)

And your point is?

I knew I should have put this article in my other post..........:)


The cover 2 remains a part of most defensive playbooks and likely will never entirely die.

Chicago Bears and Minnesota Vikings are only teams using cover 2 defense - ESPN The Magazine - ESPN (http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8392529/chicago-bears-minnesota-vikings-only-teams-using-cover-2-defense-espn-magazine)

singersp
10-06-2012, 09:23 AM
And your point is?

I knew I should have put this article in my other post..........:)



Chicago Bears and Minnesota Vikings are only teams using cover 2 defense - ESPN The Magazine - ESPN (http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8392529/chicago-bears-minnesota-vikings-only-teams-using-cover-2-defense-espn-magazine)

There's a difference between it being "a part" of a teams defense and being it's corp defense.

It's like saying we or all teams are a vertical offense because we and all teams do throw deep passes.

Marrdro
10-08-2012, 09:22 AM
Anyone beeeyyyyatching about the scheme today? Even ole Whinny got a gift INT thrown to him because the DL was getting after it.

tastywaves
10-08-2012, 11:31 AM
Anyone beeeyyyyatching about the scheme today? Even ole Whinny got a gift INT thrown to him because the DL was getting after it.

They varied there look on defense many times yesterday. DL rotation was like a carousel as well as the alignments. Whinny's INT wasn't a gift, it was a good read and reaction by him. He is still a gamer and will take his shots when he sees them.

Purple Floyd
10-08-2012, 12:00 PM
Anyone beeeyyyyatching about the scheme today? Even ole Whinny got a gift INT thrown to him because the DL was getting after it.

Did anyone notice how they even threw in the 4-6 on the Titans?

I like the way they are hitting out there. That is the first time in over 20 years I have said that. And they are proving that we have a better DL without that War Pig than we did with one as I have been telling you for some time. As to the secondary- They have been more aggressive and challenging the WR's rather than giving them a free 10 yards every pass so yeah, that is a big step up and as we have been saying, they have changed the scheme to be more effective.

You may try to spin it that this is the same scheme but it in no way resembles what they have been doing in the past other than they are still putting 11 on the field.

tastywaves
10-08-2012, 12:04 PM
Did anyone notice how they even threw in the 4-6 on the Titans?

I like the way they are hitting out there. That is the first time in over 20 years I have said that. And they are proving that we have a better DL without that War Pig than we did with one as I have been telling you for some time. As to the secondary- They have been more aggressive and challenging the WR's rather than giving them a free 10 yards every pass so yeah, that is a big step up and as we have been saying, they have changed the scheme to be more effective.

You may try to spin it that this is the same scheme but it in no way resembles what they have been doing in the past other than they are still putting 11 on the field.

Thank you sir. Glad somebody else is seeing it they way I do. I have never seen so many different defensive formations from MN as I did yesterday. And their aggression is on both sides of the ball and maybe the single biggest reason for our success to this point. Got to give coaching a lot of credit for it.

Marrdro
10-08-2012, 12:24 PM
They varied there look on defense many times yesterday. DL rotation was like a carousel as well as the alignments. Whinny's INT wasn't a gift, it was a good read and reaction by him. He is still a gamer and will take his shots when he sees them.
Don't get me wrong, The cat has played above my expectations. I just couldn't help but notice that when they needed yards, they threw in his direction yesterday more times than not.

Marrdro
10-08-2012, 12:25 PM
Did anyone notice how they even threw in the 4-6 on the Titans?

I like the way they are hitting out there. That is the first time in over 20 years I have said that. And they are proving that we have a better DL without that War Pig than we did with one as I have been telling you for some time. As to the secondary- They have been more aggressive and challenging the WR's rather than giving them a free 10 yards every pass so yeah, that is a big step up and as we have been saying, they have changed the scheme to be more effective.

You may try to spin it that this is the same scheme but it in no way resembles what they have been doing in the past other than they are still putting 11 on the field.
I did not see the 4-6. Very observant of you to see it.

In the end, other than a few looks like that, for the most part, regardless of what they are doing on the DL (and its rotation) they are still playing zone behind it, whether it be a C2, C3, etc.

Marrdro
10-08-2012, 12:26 PM
Thank you sir. Glad somebody else is seeing it they way I do. I have never seen so many different defensive formations from MN as I did yesterday. And their aggression is on both sides of the ball and maybe the single biggest reason for our success to this point. Got to give coaching a lot of credit for it.
Gotta give the coaching a heck of alot of credit. Unless of course you thinks its the vets out there doing something this year they didn't do last year when it comes to teaching youngsters.....snicker...

Purple Floyd
10-08-2012, 12:33 PM
I did not see the 4-6. Very observant of you to see it.

In the end, other than a few looks like that, for the most part, regardless of what they are doing on the DL (and its rotation) they are still playing zone behind it, whether it be a C2, C3, etc.rewatch the first quarter. I will bump you up a notch in the spreadsheet if you can name the plays for me.

Marrdro
10-08-2012, 12:56 PM
rewatch the first quarter. I will bump you up a notch in the spreadsheet if you can name the plays for me.
I never record a game. I rely on NFL network to re-air and the NFL page to revisit plays.

Purple Floyd
10-08-2012, 02:14 PM
Man, you need to get with the programs. That lack of information at your disposal could lead to faulty takes like the weakness of the defense being caused by the lack of a war pig.:rofl:

idahovikefan7
10-08-2012, 03:57 PM
I guess it wasn't as much issue of the scheme as I thought it was, but more so on the players and talent we had.

It's been amazing seeing our secondary actually make plays for the ball. It's been a while since we've seen anything like that. For several years in this scheme it seemed they were almost letting the recievers catch the ball, while no defender was even 10 yards in range of the play.

Cook is definitely earning my respect, and I love the way Harrison plays ball. If both players can keep out of trouble on and off the field we may finally have ourselves a good secondary for years to come. Something I think we've all been waiting for...

kevoncox
10-08-2012, 06:51 PM
Man, you need to get with the programs. That lack of information at your disposal could lead to faulty takes like the weakness of the defense being caused by the lack of a war pig.:rofl:

I know we all give Marr a hard time but... he is correct in his assesnment of our defensive needs. Now he is wrong in saying that the front 4 should bare the blame instead of our pathetic safties/cbs but the lack of a true penetrating DT that can eat up blocks/space and allow KW to play his natural role is apperent. This weekend, I saw less of our traditional under scheme and alot more 3 - 3 looks with a Will or Sam covering containment. I think we have modified it a bit boys and the change from EJ Henderson is forcing the QBs to look elsewhere besides down the middle of the field that was always open.....

I love the fast start but I am fearful of the last 8 games. Our Divisional games can decide if we are an 8 and 8 team or if me make it to a Superbowl. I wager we will be unbeatable at home. Only the GMen Scare me at this point.

Purple Floyd
10-08-2012, 07:25 PM
I know we all give Marr a hard time but... he is correct in his assesnment of our defensive needs. Now he is wrong in saying that the front 4 should bare the blame instead of our pathetic safties/cbs but the lack of a true penetrating DT that can eat up blocks/space and allow KW to play his natural role is apperent. This weekend, I saw less of our traditional under scheme and alot more 3 - 3 looks with a Will or Sam covering containment. I think we have modified it a bit boys and the change from EJ Henderson is forcing the QBs to look elsewhere besides down the middle of the field that was always open.....



I disagree with that If you have said NT then sure, you can use them that way but you can also be very effective with DT's that are more agile, athletic and quicker. The Vikings have proven in the past that they can have a KADL either way. Point being-

1989 Vikings defensive line- 71 sacks. Who was their warpig? Thomas?He was the mold KW was cast in. Millard? Nope. High motor guy.

2009 Vikings DL-46 Sacks. Had PW as the War Pig and then Edwards, Williams and Allen.

Two very stout DL's that both worked but got after it in different ways.

The end point is you take your roster and you draw up the defense to suit your talent and what they do well. If you happen to have a Pat Williams on the roster then by all means use him to plug up the middle. But if you don't have him but you have Millard,Randle,Thomas on the roster you can still be elite as long as you use them right.

singersp
10-09-2012, 05:47 AM
Anyone beeeyyyyatching about the scheme today? Even ole Whinny got a gift INT thrown to him because the DL was getting after it.

Nope, they adjusted the scheme to have more man to man coverage & allowed "more ball hawking" like they said they were going to do over 1 week ago.

Anyone beeeyyyyatching about the DL this week? They're still bringing pressure like they have been all year, Even more so.

singersp
10-09-2012, 05:53 AM
Man, you need to get with the programs. That lack of information at your disposal could lead to faulty takes like the weakness of the defense being caused by the lack of a war pig.:rofl:


+1

Check and mate!

Marrdro
10-09-2012, 02:28 PM
I know we all give Marr a hard time but... he is correct in his assesnment of our defensive needs. Now he is wrong in saying that the front 4 should bare the blame instead of our pathetic safties/cbs but the lack of a true penetrating DT that can eat up blocks/space and allow KW to play his natural role is apperent. This weekend, I saw less of our traditional under scheme and alot more 3 - 3 looks with a Will or Sam covering containment. I think we have modified it a bit boys and the change from EJ Henderson is forcing the QBs to look elsewhere besides down the middle of the field that was always open.....

I love the fast start but I am fearful of the last 8 games. Our Divisional games can decide if we are an 8 and 8 team or if me make it to a Superbowl. I wager we will be unbeatable at home. Only the GMen Scare me at this point.
I'm not solely blaming the DL....What I'm saying is that without the DLmens ability to get pressure alone (CONSISTENTLY), we have to send LB'rs and DB's. This weakens the overall scheme.

Not sure why thats so hard to get across.

Love your comment on Jasper. Do you see him (as well as the other LB'rs) lining up deeper or is it just me?

As to the fast start. Interesting.....Do you agree that the "kids" are playing better than the "Old" guys and all the easier games leading up to those harder games will pay big dividends later on when the "Kids" have to face better teams?

Marrdro
10-09-2012, 02:33 PM
I disagree with that If you have said NT then sure, you can use them that way but you can also be very effective with DT's that are more agile, athletic and quicker. The Vikings have proven in the past that they can have a KADL either way. Point being-

1989 Vikings defensive line- 71 sacks. Who was their warpig? Thomas?He was the mold KW was cast in. Millard? Nope. High motor guy.

2009 Vikings DL-46 Sacks. Had PW as the War Pig and then Edwards, Williams and Allen.

Two very stout DL's that both worked but got after it in different ways.

The end point is you take your roster and you draw up the defense to suit your talent and what they do well. If you happen to have a Pat Williams on the roster then by all means use him to plug up the middle. But if you don't have him but you have Millard,Randle,Thomas on the roster you can still be elite as long as you use them right.
So you first go out and find players, then develop your defense? WOW.

By the way, Thomas played the UT. So did Newton. Just because they didn't dump the scale at the weight your thinking doesn't mean they couldn't play the position.

Marrdro
10-09-2012, 02:36 PM
Nope, they adjusted the scheme to have more man to man coverage & allowed "more ball hawking" like they said they were going to do over 1 week ago.

Anyone beeeyyyyatching about the DL this week? They're still bringing pressure like they have been all year, Even more so.
Wait a minute. Before you said they didn't play man. Now your saying they did?

What makes you say that, because the CB's were tight up to the line? What were the S's doing? Up in the box or back in their zones?

Just because they are up tight doesn't mean they aren't in zone. Heck, the C2 actually has the CB's play tight and push receivers to the LB'rs inside.

Purple Floyd
10-09-2012, 06:17 PM
So you first go out and find players, then develop your defense? WOW.

Your point is what? Isn't that what Childress did with Jackson?

Actually my point was we have a first year DC and he has to coach the guys he was given every DC is going to do things different than the last one and different than they guy who will replace him some day. To think he can start out on day 1 with every player having the skill set he wants is ludicrous. You have to take the talent you have on the roster and make the defense work with them.


By the way, Thomas played the UT. So did Newton. Just because they didn't dump the scale at the weight your thinking doesn't mean they couldn't play the position.


Now you are getting confusing. A Nose Tackle plays a 0-1 tech from what I know and and under tackle plays a 3 tech on either the strong side or the weak side depending on if they are playing an over or under alignment. So are you looking for a nose tackle to line up right over the center and either take him straight up or shadow the strong side gap or are you looking for an undertackle that lines up outside the guard? Or are you talking about one guy who can play all of those spots from straight up over the center to the Guards outside shoulder?

And by the way, if you read that post again I made the case that we can have a great defense no matter where we play our Tackles if we do it right and my examples were of a range of different tackles that were all effective at what they did.

singersp
10-10-2012, 05:50 AM
Wait a minute. Before you said they didn't play man. Now your saying they did?

What makes you say that, because the CB's were tight up to the line? What were the S's doing? Up in the box or back in their zones?

Just because they are up tight doesn't mean they aren't in zone. Heck, the C2 actually has the CB's play tight and push receivers to the LB'rs inside.

Earlier in the year they weren't playing a lot of man to man. The last few weeks they've been playing more man to man & it's shown with balls being batted away, passes not being caught & interception/near interception plays being made.

When the CB are near their receiver & stick with him thru his routes, I call that man to man, which is far different than 5 to 10 yard cushions we've seen a lot of where they give up the short pass, tackle them & keep them from getting the big play.

If you're trying to tell me that when a CB stays up tight to the receiver that's still C2 zone defense & not man to man, then what in the hell do you call man to man,,,giving piggy-back rides?

Purple Floyd
10-10-2012, 07:57 AM
Well that depends on the route but you can press and still be in zone if you hand the WR off to another defender after they get to a certain point on the field. In man they would lock onto the WR for their whole route. Conversely you could be in man coverage and still give a ten yard cushion if that is what the coaches called for,

Marrdro
10-10-2012, 01:02 PM
Earlier in the year they weren't playing a lot of man to man. The last few weeks they've been playing more man to man & it's shown with balls being batted away, passes not being caught & interception/near interception plays being made.

When the CB are near their receiver & stick with him thru his routes, I call that man to man, which is far different than 5 to 10 yard cushions we've seen a lot of where they give up the short pass, tackle them & keep them from getting the big play.

If you're trying to tell me that when a CB stays up tight to the receiver that's still C2 zone defense & not man to man, then what in the hell do you call man to man,,,giving piggy-back rides?

If they are up on the line, it can be zone, if they run with him in their zone it is still zone, if they hand him off and stay in their zone its cover 1, 2, 3. If they run with him out of their zone and stay with him through his whole route (and don't get help from the S) its man to man.

Again, you have to watch not only what the S does but what the CB does when he gets to the edge of his zone.

Marrdro
10-10-2012, 01:03 PM
Well that depends on the route but you can press and still be in zone if you hand the WR off to another defender after they get to a certain point on the field. In man they would lock onto the WR for their whole route. Conversely you could be in man coverage and still give a ten yard cushion if that is what the coaches called for,
Purps got it.

Marrdro
10-10-2012, 01:11 PM
To think he can start out on day 1 with every player having the skill set he wants is ludicrous. You have to take the talent you have on the roster and make the defense work with them.

I can live with that.




Now you are getting confusing. A Nose Tackle plays a 0-1 tech from what I know and and under tackle plays a 3 tech on either the strong side or the weak side depending on if they are playing an over or under alignment. So are you looking for a nose tackle to line up right over the center and either take him straight up or shadow the strong side gap or are you looking for an undertackle that lines up outside the guard? Or are you talking about one guy who can play all of those spots from straight up over the center to the Guards outside shoulder?

And when have you seen me not twist things to keep a thread going? Comeon my friend. Its my modus operandi and you know it.

Anyway, what do you think Noga and Ball played then? Lined up the same as Phat Pat did but in essence played heads up on the C or G that they lined up on.

Purple Floyd
10-15-2012, 08:00 AM
Bump lol

SharperImage
09-23-2013, 03:04 AM
WHERE YOU AT MARRDRO? Still believe in the Cover 2? Just because JA and Kevin Williams arent carving up teams anymore, its made our D look ridiculous. A defense that depends on front 4 pressure for it to work is laughable. Since JA isnt getting any pressure, and K-Dub isnt, the opposing QB has all day in the pocket to survey the field, take a smoke break, check his fantasy football team and then complete the pass..

Reignman
09-23-2013, 04:26 AM
Sadly this thread was from last year but it reads like it's talking about our current defense. The cover 0 is worse than ever and still making every QB look like Montana.

singersp
09-23-2013, 07:15 AM
WHERE YOU AT MARRDRO? Still believe in the Cover 2? Just because JA and Kevin Williams arent carving up teams anymore, its made our D look ridiculous. A defense that depends on front 4 pressure for it to work is laughable. Since JA isnt getting any pressure, and K-Dub isnt, the opposing QB has all day in the pocket to survey the field, take a smoke break, check his fantasy football team and then complete the pass..

He's over at Facebook on the MN Vikings Fan Page still bragging up & supporting Ponder because he has a few people licking his boots buying into what he is selling. He's also still pushing the "our scheme is fine, the DB's suck because the front 4 aren't getting any pressure" theory as well.

Minniman
09-23-2013, 08:11 AM
He's also still pushing the "our scheme is fine, the DB's suck because the front 4 aren't getting any pressure" theory as well.
If the front four do not get pressure, the DBs will be exposed in any scheme.

The Tampa 2 requires quick cover safeties and ball hawking corners. It requires pressure up front. The scheme requires a middle linebacker with great cover skills. The Tampa 2 is a good defense for a team that has a high powered offense that scores many points, as the Tampa 2 is designed to scuttle long drives and take away the quick retaliatory strike.

Does that sound like the Vikings in 1998? Does it look like the Colts with Manning? Do the Vikings have that kind of offense now? Do the Vikings have the personnel now?

The Vikings do not have the personnel to run the Tampa 2. Even if they did, the offense is designed around the ground game which is less efficient than an offense designed around the passing game. The combination of schemes is like a government with low taxes and high spending, as it often leaves a deficit of scoring.

purplehelmut
09-23-2013, 09:17 AM
Doesn't matter what defense we're running, if it gives up 30 points a game something has to change. Right now the Pants on Fire Defense might be better. This team shows a lack of motivation and fire- critical ingredients for good defense.

skum
09-23-2013, 09:35 AM
We can play all the different schemes on defence we want, but we just don't have the talent in the backfield to stop anyone from passing against us.. The only player that has quality is Harrison Smith, Josh Robinson is not a starting caliber player, but a backup.. Xavier Rhodes was beat out by Robinson, AJ Jefferson is terrible and Chris Cook has 0 career INTs.

Its not the scheme. Plenty of teams has been successfull with a cover 2 type scheme.. They just had better players.

purplehelmut
09-23-2013, 12:45 PM
Aside from Smith, I don't think we have a starting caliber DB on the team.

bleedpurple
09-23-2013, 12:55 PM
Sadly this thread was from last year but it reads like it's talking about our current defense. The cover 0 is worse than ever and still making every QB look like Montana.

including 3rd stringer journey man... named Brian Hoyer...

Bill_89
09-23-2013, 07:28 PM
I do think the Vikings would be best served by accepting the reality of the modern NFL. This is a passing league. Like many, I'm tired of the excessive use of FBs and TEs. I think the base set should be Jennings, Patterson, Simpson or Wright, Rudolph and AP in the backfield. Open it up and create some space. Force other teams to use more CBs, which may ironically open up more holes in the ground game. Peterson is perceived as a power-runner, but he seems to be way more effective in space.

I think scheme is part of the problem on defense too. Especially with the decline of JA and KWill, there's not enough pressure with the front four. I would like to see more blitzes. They're going to get carved up over the middle either way. Their best chance of getting off the field is to sack the QB or force a turn-over. If they give up a big play every now and then, so be it. At least that'll address the fatigue excuse.

singersp
09-24-2013, 07:27 AM
I do think the Vikings would be best served by accepting the reality of the modern NFL. This is a passing league. Like many, I'm tired of the excessive use of FBs and TEs. I think the base set should be Jennings, Patterson, Simpson or Wright, Rudolph and AP in the backfield. Open it up and create some space. Force other teams to use more CBs, which may ironically open up more holes in the ground game. Peterson is perceived as a power-runner, but he seems to be way more effective in space.

I think scheme is part of the problem on defense too. Especially with the decline of JA and KWill, there's not enough pressure with the front four. I would like to see more blitzes. They're going to get carved up over the middle either way. Their best chance of getting off the field is to sack the QB or force a turn-over. If they give up a big play every now and then, so be it. At least that'll address the fatigue excuse.

When you build your OL & QB around primarily pounding the ball with very little regard to the thought of having to pass it & you have to resort to passing the ball because your running game is almost shut down, you're not going to have a lot of success.

Purple Floyd
09-24-2013, 09:26 AM
Interestingly they had Killer Lewis ( Ray to some of you) on after MNF last night and asked him about stopping Peyton Manning and he said that last year before the playoffs he went to the coaches and told them they needed to run a zone defense against the broncos to win and that after watching the playoff games he has played in if teams went with man on man coverage he won every game and the only times he was beaten was when teams went with a zone defense and used a ball control offense.

bleedpurple
09-24-2013, 10:52 AM
I do think the Vikings would be best served by accepting the reality of the modern NFL. This is a passing league. Like many, I'm tired of the excessive use of FBs and TEs. I think the base set should be Jennings, Patterson, Simpson or Wright, Rudolph and AP in the backfield. Open it up and create some space. Force other teams to use more CBs, which may ironically open up more holes in the ground game. Peterson is perceived as a power-runner, but he seems to be way more effective in space.

I think scheme is part of the problem on defense too. Especially with the decline of JA and KWill, there's not enough pressure with the front four. I would like to see more blitzes. They're going to get carved up over the middle either way. Their best chance of getting off the field is to sack the QB or force a turn-over. If they give up a big play every now and then, so be it. At least that'll address the fatigue excuse.

Even when we blitz, we rarely get there.... best thing to do would be to give Griffen more run.

bleedpurple
09-24-2013, 10:53 AM
Interestingly they had Killer Lewis ( Ray to some of you) on after MNF last night and asked him about stopping Peyton Manning and he said that last year before the playoffs he went to the coaches and told them they needed to run a zone defense against the broncos to win and that after watching the playoff games he has played in if teams went with man on man coverage he won every game and the only times he was beaten was when teams went with a zone defense and used a ball control offense.

uhhh... too bad we don't play Peyton and the broncos this year!!