PDA

View Full Version : Interesting stat from TB game



Prophet
09-15-2005, 10:19 PM
The time of possession was almost dead even in the loss to TB.

TB: 30:34
V: 29:26

That is amazing considering the Vikings only rushed the ball 12 times. Considering this was only an 11 pt. loss, imagine the unbalanced time of possession if the Vikings were controlling the clock with a running game.

Mr. Purple
09-15-2005, 10:21 PM
That is good. Like ive said, its weird that our defense kept us in that game. Im so used to our offense keeping us in the game. Imagine when our offense gets rolling with the defense which IMO can play even better then they did sunday. We will be scary!

VKG4LFE
09-15-2005, 10:26 PM
That's cuz in the second half we held them to virtually nothing with our D. I believe after the first half they were up almost 2 to 1 in TOP.

magicci
09-16-2005, 12:53 AM
our d got better throughout the game, the gelled in the first half and came to play second half. last year our d was like this, first half we sucked and the second half we were ok.

Mr Anderson
09-16-2005, 03:00 AM
And if anyone gives you shit about Caddilac Williams you say


"I'LL KICK YOU IN THE NUTS"
http://vcsel.micro.uiuc.edu/~leejc/images/cartman_ang.gif


And say, he averaged 2.9 ypc, and only rushed for 77 yards until he broke that 71 yard TD run. So he really got shut down.

Also tell them we picked off their terrible QB twice, and we beat ourselves on offense and there is no reason we should have lost that game.


SKOL Vikings!

midgensa
09-16-2005, 03:04 AM
Yeah, we actually dominated the game except for the three stats that count, turnovers, big plays on offense and ... of course ... the score.

prefernfl
09-16-2005, 03:33 AM
"midgensa" wrote:

Yeah, we actually dominated the game except for the three stats that count, turnovers, big plays on offense and ... of course ... the score.

Dominated?

Total Yards: Bucs 345 Vikes 248...take away the 71-yarder by Caddy and it is still 276-248 Bucs in yards.

So how can you say dominated?

smootpepper
09-16-2005, 04:06 AM
"prefernfl" wrote:

"midgensa" wrote:

Yeah, we actually dominated the game except for the three stats that count, turnovers, big plays on offense and ... of course ... the score.

Dominated?

Total Yards: Bucs 345 Vikes 248...take away the 71-yarder by Caddy and it is still 276-248 Bucs in yards.

So how can you say dominated?

I dont think he means offensive domination. But with the D we would have been ranked 7th in the league (minus the 71). Granted it is only one week of play but if you seen how we gave up 400 yards to the bears last year in one game and 325 in the other (ranked 32 on O) you could prob. see the huge improvement on our D this year.

Overall we only gave up 3 huge gains (minus the 71 yard run with 1:50 left in the game), all of which were on our bench warmers (brown and williams). Brown fell down on his 1st play in the game and gave up 30 some yards, williams missed a tackle (went for 41 yards) and gave up a pass (on 3rd and 9 for a gain of 14), which led to 2 scores. Now take those big plays away and you didnt get over 200 yards on our starting D, and that is with us turning the ball over 5 times.

Overall I think we played really good D, I dont think caddy should get all the credit he is getting from the media. They make it sound like he ran all over us, but he only averaged 2.9 ypc through 58 minutes of gameplay. Overall I think what won the game for Tampa was the play of our Oline.

mnjamie
09-16-2005, 04:16 AM
"Mr Anderson" wrote:

And if anyone gives you pooh about Caddilac Williams you say


"I'LL KICK YOU IN THE NUTS"
http://vcsel.micro.uiuc.edu/~leejc/images/cartman_ang.gif


And say, he averaged 2.9 ypc, and only rushed for 77 yards until he broke that 71 yard TD run. So he really got shut down.

Also tell them we picked off their terrible QB twice, and we beat ourselves on offense and there is no reason we should have lost that game.


SKOL Vikings!



Agreed. But if you listen to all the "Experts" on the tube, he's the next Emmit Smith I do believe I hear more that once ... lol .. the makes me laugh ........

:fart:

viks_fan21
09-16-2005, 04:33 AM
even in t.o.p. i had no idea

prefernfl
09-16-2005, 05:49 AM
I agree that the Viking D is vastly improved...it didn't have alot of options out there but to go up.

I think a defense that has been ignored for alot of years is finally getting some playmakers over there.

As for Caddy? Alot of backs get their stats "padded" by 1-2 big runs per game. Look at Barry Sanders for example. Barry could be held in check for several runs, then he'd bust off an 80+ yard run.

I do think Minny's o-line play was poor, but I also think the Buc D had some to do with that. And Week One is hardly the first time that Pepper has turned the ball over. His first few years in the league, I recall Vike fans screaming for his head due to his INT's and fumbles. Alot of Vike fans were clammoring for Todd Bouman at the time.

Always remember, there are 53 men across the field from the Vike bench that are trying to win also.

ultravikingfan
09-16-2005, 05:54 AM
"prefernfl" wrote:

Always remember, there are 53 men across the field from the Vike bench that are trying to win also.

I wouldn't call Griese a man.

More like a sissy! :razz:

MensaTice
09-16-2005, 06:52 AM
"VKG4LFE" wrote:

That's cuz in the second half we held them to virtually nothing with our D. I believe after the first half they were up almost 2 to 1 in TOP.

Bingo. The first half was pretty ugly but we came around in the second half. We did move the ball in the second half despite not getting in the endzone. I didn't know the final TOP was this close. That is amazing considering how bad the offense played.

so-cal vike
09-16-2005, 07:02 AM
"Mr Anderson" wrote:

Caddilac averaged 2.9 ypc, and only rushed for 77 yards until he broke that 71 yard TD run. So he really got shut down.

Every sports reporter fails to mention that. All they talk about are the total yards. That final 71 yard break was just that, a final break. Now I know that no defense wants to allow a big gain at any point in the game but, the game was all but over. His run would have been more impressive had it come say...in the first 3 quarters.

As mnjamie put it "But if you listen to all the "Experts" on the tube, he's the next Emmit Smith"

We'll see.

prefernfl
09-16-2005, 03:38 PM
"ultravikingfan" wrote:

"prefernfl" wrote:

Always remember, there are 53 men across the field from the Vike bench that are trying to win also.

I wouldn't call Griese a man.

More like a sissy! :razz:

"sissy" like your run game?

prefernfl
09-16-2005, 03:42 PM
So-Cal Vike-

Why would Caddy's run have been bigger during the first 3 qtrs??

I have read on here that up until Caddy's TD run that the Vikes were still in the game....and they were. I don't see how his 71 yarder was any less important when he did it in the 4th qtr.

And I have seen teams hold Barry Sanders down throughout the game, only for him to bust a big one at the end just like Caddy did.

The rationale used here just isn't making sense. If Michael Bennett does what Caddy did and it seals a Vike win, you'd be talking totally different--guaranteed.

Prophet
09-16-2005, 03:44 PM
I agree. The point is that if you have an RB that has the potential for a big gain you have to keep feeding them the ball and they will eventually break loose with one. Many of the big games that RBs have are due to wearing down the defense by pounding the ball at them for the whole game.

prefernfl
09-16-2005, 04:17 PM
"Prophet" wrote:

I agree. The point is that if you have an RB that has the potential for a big gain you have to keep feeding them the ball and they will eventually break loose with one. Many of the big games that RBs have are due to wearing down the defense by pounding the ball at them for the whole game.

Prophet...

BINGO!! You hit the nail square on the head. That is precisely what I meant. Glad you understood what I was saying.

Del Rio
09-16-2005, 04:33 PM
Part of the running game is breaking the big run lol. The ability to break a big run makes a good running back even better. LMAO.

He tore us a new ass. I don't care if you don't put stock into a guy breaking a 70+ yarder but at the end of the day that's 70 yards you gave up and that's 70 yards he ran for. You can try to justify anything, but to me this sounds like trying to put a bandaid on a gushing wound.

There are 11 guys on the field more then one messed up when he broke free.

smootpepper
09-16-2005, 05:15 PM
To me there is a difference. Look at last year with the vikes and our running backs.

Bennet pretty consistantly was stuffed for a loss, his knack is breaking the big one to get all his yards. Doesnt really help us pound out 1st downs, he is just a home run hitter.

Moore averaged 5.9 ypc last year and I dont remember him ever breaking huge 70 yard gains to help average that. He always got between 3 and 9 yards a carry with the occasional stuff for a loss and the occasional run for 15..

Moe always gains 4 yards, might get stuffed for minus yards, comes back with 9 if your lucky.

I have heard it on these boards many times about bennet, he is not a running back, he doesnt gain yards consistantly. Sure he bust the occasional 70 yarder to pad his stats but he doesnt pick up the little yards. If all it takes to be a great running back is busting the big one bennet must be the best in the league.

Im not knocking caddy, he had a good game. There were times I thought he would lose yards but still managed a couple yard gain. Im just saying if all it takes to be a good back is the huge run then we must have the best back in the league.

Del Rio
09-16-2005, 05:30 PM
I guess that depends on what you want and what kind of team you are.

If you are a passing team who doesn't preach run then you want an explosive back that can catch. That way you can swing him a screen pass or a check down.

If you pass a lot then your going to get blitzed a lot and that is the time you want a rb who has the speed and capability to bust out a 60+ yarder and bennett has that. So you are passing passing passing, and then you know they are going to bring the house you give the ball to bennett he runs it for a score. The defensive cord. now knows that he will have to be more careful.

That's why I say if people want MM they need to bitch about it to Tice because he doesn't care if we can run 4-6 yards a carry. He wants to pass pass pass, he wants a guy who has the potential to make the D pay for blitzing, and he wants a guy who can become a reciever.

They both have a place in the NFL, being one or the other doesn't make you a better or worse running back. It may make you a bit one dimensional but if that dimension is what the team you play for is looking for then so be it.

Yards are yards.

Prophet
09-16-2005, 05:32 PM
First, this is not in defense of Bennett. This is just an observation supporting the fact that we need to run the ball more. Since Bennett has been on the Vikings his average carries/game/year that he has played in were:

2001: 13 carries/game
2002: 16 c/g
2003: 11 c/g
2004: 6 c/g

If you compare those stats to someone like Priest Holmes his average carries/game/yr for the past few years were:

2001: 20 c/g
2002: 22 c/g
2003: 20 c/g
2004: 25 c/g

Obviously, the Vikings have been an air team with the running game benefiting from this because we have not had a predominately running game oriented offense since when? the Chuck Foreman days?

The point is that whoever the running back is for the Vikings, they need to feed him the ball more if they expect to go places. The air attack followed by an improved running game only works when you have superstar receivers, and even then it is a facade. The majority of time teams that make it to the playoffs with a pass dominated offense do not make it deep into the playoffs. (Disclaimer: thes comments are assuming the D is at least in the middle of the pack)

UTVikfan
09-16-2005, 05:45 PM
Prophet, are those stats skewed or is it just me. Do the Chiefs put in Moe Williams at the goal line and on 3rd down? Oh, they don't? Holmes is a HUGE red zone threat. Take out his red zone carries then post the numbers. And take away third downs too. If you add in his injuries and the the times his backup is running, you have just posted garbage. You can find a stat to prove anything. Stats that actually have some type of relavance are really hard to find.

arialassault84
09-16-2005, 05:46 PM
Yeah! Yeah! we shut them down...... Uh? except you guys forgot the most and only important stat! WE LOST! Thats whats wrong with this team they try to find something to be happy with upon a lost instead of admitting there mistakes and fixing them! Uh i thought we played good special teams the coverage was nice. Uh our coaches did a very good job of preparing for this week..... I'm tired of hearing how good things were in a loss! Get into somebody's ass and implement some discipline. We got our A$$es kicked by a bad football team! If M. Clayton had not had so many drops our D wouldn' thave looked so good! Let's get it going!

P.S. I thought M. Clayton wasn't that fast! Because it sure look likt to me he was stride for stride with Cadillac on that long TD! And he was blocking Winfield!

smootpepper
09-16-2005, 05:50 PM
Yeah, I see what you're saying del. Im more of a 3 to 9 YPC guy. Keep running the ball picking up 1st downs, run the time off the clock, give the defense a rest, and keep the other teams offense off the field. Make the defense bring up an 8th man to stop the run then have daunte make them pay with the big pass.

Good stats prophet, we need to hand the ball off more, 12 runs a game doesnt cut it for me.

arialassault84
09-16-2005, 05:53 PM
We should rotate all of our backs, who cares if thats not proper football etiquette! What if Bill Walsh was scared to try out his westcoast offense, because it was something that coaches "just didn't do"!

Del Rio
09-16-2005, 06:02 PM
"arialassault84" wrote:

Yeah! Yeah! we shut them down...... Uh? except you guys forgot the most and only important stat! WE LOST! Thats whats wrong with this team they try to find something to be happy with upon a lost instead of admitting there mistakes and fixing them! Uh i thought we played good special teams the coverage was nice. Uh our coaches did a very good job of preparing for this week..... I'm tired of hearing how good things were in a loss! Get into somebody's jiggly butt and implement some discipline. We got our A$$es kicked by a bad football team! If M. Clayton had not had so many drops our D wouldn' thave looked so good! Let's get it going!

P.S. I thought M. Clayton wasn't that fast! Because it sure look likt to me he was stride for stride with Cadillac on that long TD! And he was blocking Winfield!


I can guarantee there was some ass chewing going on. That being said even after an ugly loss, dwelling on negative things is pointless. You figure out what went wrong fix them. As a fan I don't have a lot of say in what we do, so focusing on what we did right is less stressful.

I would really like to see some I formation with memo, I think hoping for the big run is unrealistic at this point, maybe rotate him (bennett) in later. Right now I would like to see some dominance. Get those young lineman out there knocking people on their butts, it will improve the pass blocking too as it builds confidence.

Prophet
09-16-2005, 07:03 PM
"UTVikfan" wrote:

Prophet, are those stats skewed or is it just me. Do the Chiefs put in Moe Williams at the goal line and on 3rd down? Oh, they don't? Holmes is a HUGE red zone threat. Take out his red zone carries then post the numbers. And take away third downs too. If you add in his injuries and the the times his backup is running, you have just posted garbage. You can find a stat to prove anything. Stats that actually have some type of relavance are really hard to find.

I think everyone is aware of the ability to manipulate statistics, which was not my intent. I didn't want to spend an inordinate amount of time breaking them out so I simply took the # of carries divided by the number of games they played in that year. The TD production wasn't even referred to.

The point is that the so-called consistent premiere running backs, regardless of their name or the team they play on, average over 20 touches a game. That stat held true in the winning games from week 1 (http://www.purplepride.org/vikes/index.php?name=Blogs&mode=user&nick=prophet) this year too.

I agree statistics should always be taken lightly, but they do sometimes bring out trends that summarize, in general, what is happening. Statistics are the basis of everything we 'know' in science, but we should be cautious in their interpretations.

prefernfl
09-16-2005, 11:26 PM
I don't think the Vikes have been able to fully utilize any sort of run game, due to their below average defense in recent seasons. Pep has been forced to throw because of being behind in games, or simply to keep pace with Minnesota opponents. With this new defense, the Vikes may be better able to make better use of a run game.

tampaviking
09-16-2005, 11:54 PM
being from the home town of the bucs, i can say that it looked more like jon gruden was trying to justify picking up williams when they already had a decent back in pittman. the bucs seem to always get good running backs then try to pound them down opponents throats, while it is effective they always seem to lose there backs to other teams. i wouldn't want to get beat up behind that line for 16 weeks, anyway GO BILLS

Mr Anderson
09-16-2005, 11:59 PM
"mnjamie" wrote:

"Mr Anderson" wrote:

And if anyone gives you pooh about Caddilac Williams you say


"I'LL KICK YOU IN THE NUTS"
http://vcsel.micro.uiuc.edu/~leejc/images/cartman_ang.gif


And say, he averaged 2.9 ypc, and only rushed for 77 yards until he broke that 71 yard TD run. So he really got shut down.

Also tell them we picked off their terrible QB twice, and we beat ourselves on offense and there is no reason we should have lost that game.


SKOL Vikings!



Agreed. But if you listen to all the "Experts" on the tube, he's the next Emmit Smith I do believe I hear more that once ... lol .. the makes me laugh ........

:fart:


I seriously doubt hes the next Emmitt. If there is an Emmitt Smith in last years draft its Cedric Benson.

6-KINGS
09-17-2005, 12:31 AM
The next Emmitt hum..............
well that is what Emmitt did his whole time in Dallas.
2,3,4,1,-2,2,4,66,1,4,2,3,35,1,5,2,3,-4 =132 yards on 18 carries
stats look great, but as a consistant grind out the yards back, Emmitt was never that.
I know I had to watch him play every week here in DFW.

But it worked for the Cryboys.

so-cal vike
09-17-2005, 02:56 AM
"prefernfl" wrote:

So-Cal Vike-

Why would Caddy's run have been bigger during the first 3 qtrs??

Breaking a big run while an opponents D is fresh is always more impressive.

"prefernfl" wrote:

I have read on here that up until Caddy's TD run that the Vikes were still in the game....and they were. I don't see how his 71 yarder was any less important when he did it in the 4th qtr.

First, you never heard that from me, and second, his run wasn't less important, just less impressive...my opinion of course.


"prefernfl" wrote:

The rationale used here just isn't making sense. If Michael Bennett does what Caddy did and it seals a Vike win, you'd be talking totally different--guaranteed.

As far as I was concerned, the Bucs win was already sealed, and just to be clear, I'm never impressed by a late game drive that results in a score for the team that has all but won the game.

I give all the credit to Williams and the Bucs for tearing apart the Vikes O-Line and smacking them in the mouth. They played a better game and deserved the win. If Williams continues to show the flashes of greatness that he did during that game, the Bucs should go far.

prefernfl
09-17-2005, 05:20 AM
I dunno So-Cal...maybe you are right, but here is my rationale...

I do not think the game was over at that point (17-13 Bucs)...if Minny stops Caddy/The Bucs on that 3rd and 1, Tampa punts the ball from their own 29....and Minny is 1 score from winning the game.

Yes, Tampa harassed Pep the whole game and stuffed the run. But a Daunte deep pass to Burleson or Williamson in that scenario could have won it for the Vikes.

Caddy's TD indeed sealed it, but until then, the Vikes were one big play from victory.

so-cal vike
09-17-2005, 08:34 PM
I see your point and under most circumstances I'd agree with you. I just didn't see anything from the Vikes that would lead me to believe that they had one big play left.

It's all water under the bridge though and both teams have new opponents to worry about.