PDA

View Full Version : Childress' playcalling



vikes09
10-09-2006, 10:21 AM
When i was watching the over-hyped eagles vs. cowboys game, i noticed the play calls that reid was making. it was, unfortunatly, EXACTLY like childress descisions. reid refused to run it on 3rd n 1, and would slowly dink and dunk when it was 3rd and long. it showed in the offense, which played horribly. the numbers of the game look good for mcnabb, but they had so many 3rd downs they didnt convert. the only difference was childress didnt take hardly as many shots downfield, which is where the iggles got their points. their longest drive was just over 2 minutes. and the gameplan was obvious, but it was amazingly effective. ( they just attacked ellis at linebacker. he was slow and pathetic, just look how many times they ran to the right )

im sure childress is trying to duplicate the same ball club reid has constructed, but we hired Brad Childress, not andy reid. there are smart decisions, and then keeping the defense on their toes, but to run it on 3rd and forever or a check-down to mewelde doesnt seem like a logical choice. same goes for those short 3rd downs that chestor couldve easily made considering he had over a 120 yards on the day.

Prophet
10-09-2006, 11:06 AM
"vikes09" wrote:


When i was watching the over-hyped eagles vs. cowboys game, i noticed the play calls that reid was making. it was, unfortunatly, EXACTLY like childress descisions. reid refused to run it on 3rd n 1, and would slowly dink and dunk when it was 3rd and long. it showed in the offense, which played horribly. the numbers of the game look good for mcnabb, but they had so many 3rd downs they didnt convert. the only difference was childress didnt take hardly as many shots downfield, which is where the iggles got their points. their longest drive was just over 2 minutes. and the gameplan was obvious, but it was amazingly effective. ( they just attacked ellis at linebacker. he was slow and pathetic, just look how many times they ran to the right )

This supports the lack of a deep threat theory.
McNabb was 18/33 for 354 yds and 2 TDs while spreading the ball around to seven receivers.


McNabb's passes (YAC not differentiated):

1. 24 yds
2. 11 yds
3. 7 yds
4. 3 yds
5. Inc.
6. 7 yds
7. Inc.
8. 5 yds
9. 18 yds
10. 16 yds
11. 60 yds
12. Inc
13.
-1 yd
14. Inc.
15. 13 yds
16. Inc.
17. Inc.
18. Inc.
19. Inc.
20. 1 yd
21. Inc.
22. 4 yds
23. Inc.
24.
15 yds
25. Inc.
26. Inc.
27. Inc.
28. Inc.
29. 24 yds
30. 8 yds
31. 40 yds
32. 17 yds
33. Inc.

Brad Johnson's passes (YAC not differentiated):

BJ was 26/34 for 201 yds 1 TD/ 1 INT while spreading the ball around to eight different receivers.

1. 9 yds
2. 12 yds
3. 7 yds
4. Inc.
5. 9 yds
6. 13 yds
7. 4 yds
8. 7 yds
9. 6 yds
10. Inc.
11. Inc.
12. -1 yd
13. Inc.
14. 6 yds
15. Inc.
16. Inc.
17. 8 yds
18. 2 yds
19. 8 yds
20. 7 yds
21. 8 yds
22. Inc.
23. 7 yds (fumbled)
24. 6 yds
25. 20 yds
26. 3 yds
27. 7 yds
28. -2 yds
29. 3 yds (TD)
30. 9 yds
31. 4 yds
32. Inc.
33. 21 yds
34. 18 yds

It appears to me that Johnson was doing a decent job picking up reasonable yardage and the lack of the long ball was already obvious before breaking it down.
The WR corps has not lived up to their end of the bargain and the conservative play calling is definitely a part of the equation.


im sure childress is trying to duplicate the same ball club reid has constructed, but we hired Brad Childress, not andy reid. there are smart decisions, and then keeping the defense on their toes, but to run it on 3rd and forever or a check-down to mewelde doesnt seem like a logical choice. same goes for those short 3rd downs that chestor couldve easily made considering he had over a 120 yards on the day.




People appear to be similar to their mentors until they begin to define their own personality.
That is normal.

Third and short should be a running play most of the time, but in the WCO it is just as effective to do a quick slant.
As an offshoot, I decided to post Chester's #'s by carry.
He had 26 rushes for 123 yds.
Nice day.

1. 3 yds
2. 5 yds
3. 28 yds
4. 1 yd
5. 8 yds
6. 0 yds
7. 2 yds
8. 9 yds
9. 4 yds
10. 6 yds
11. 4 yds
12. 2 yds
13. 0 yds
14. 3 yds
15. 4 yds
16. 8 yds
17. 2 yds
18. 2 yds
19. 5 yds
20. 5 yds
21. 5 yds
22. 6 yds
23. 6 yds
24. 4 yds
25. 2 yds
26. -1 yd

Nice day for Chester.
The WRs and playcalling need to step up.
BJ needs to put some muscle in his passes and the play callers do need to get a few more long balls in the mix.

IFletcher
10-09-2006, 11:42 AM
I think it'll come along somewhat.
Johnson doesn't look comfortable for whatever reason, and as we all know, he has always liked to check down quickly and take the 4-5 yard completion when not comfortable.

Nice to see Chester look good again.
He's never going to blow the doors off the opponent, but does look like he can be a competent back when given the necessary carries.

Hopefully as the offensive line continues to improve BOTH Childress and Brad Johnson will gain some confidence and start looking down the field a little more.

Mr Anderson
10-09-2006, 11:54 AM
If we are not going to use the deep ball AT ALL, we should atleast run some routes that might put our receivers in position for some YAC, we run the these out and back, and sideline routes, and they either go out of bounds or get tackled immediately, which is why I think Troy drops passes, he's afraid to get crushed. Do something, set a pick with the other receiver on crossing routes, or if there's a cushion run the kind of slants the Rams do to Torry Holt 40 times a game.

Don't run on 2nd and 1 if you're going to run on 3rd and 8, you might as well go deep if you have 2 and nothing, and you run on 3rd and long, why not run on 3rd and short if you don't complete the deep pass?

We're ridiculously conservative, and it makes the quarterback, receivers, and coach look stupid.

davike
10-09-2006, 12:03 PM
"Mr" wrote:


If we are not going to use the deep ball AT ALL, we should atleast run some routes that might put our receivers in position for some YAC, we run the these out and back, and sideline routes, and they either go out of bounds or get tackled immediately, which is why I think Troy drops passes, he's afraid to get crushed. Do something, set a pick with the other receiver on crossing routes, or if there's a cushion run the kind of slants the Rams do to Torry Holt 40 times a game.

Don't run on 2nd and 1 if you're going to run on 3rd and 8, you might as well go deep if you have 2 and nothing, and you run on 3rd and long, why not run on 3rd and short if you don't complete the deep pass?

We're ridiculously conservative, and it makes the quarterback, receivers, and coach look stupid.




because typically all the teams would be kind of expecting you to go long on 2 and 1, so they would play a defense that would try to stop that....just an opinion, i could be completely wrong :)

NodakPaul
10-09-2006, 12:09 PM
One thing we shouldn't over look with a conservative offense is the time of possession.


Lions: 23:21 Vikings:36:39.


The conservative offense is keeping our defense off the field and the opponents' defense on.
It wears them opp's D, and we tend to break more plays and runs out in the later part of the game.

Our defense has been amazing this year, and I think part of the reason for that is the fact that they aren't spending 3/4 of the time on the field like Vikings defenses under Tice and Green.

That being said, I would like to see a little less conservative play calling on offense.
But I would still rather be a consertive 3-2 than a playmaking
1-4 like last year...

Zeus
10-09-2006, 12:30 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


One thing we shouldn't over look with a conservative offense is the time of possession.


Lions: 23:21 Vikings:36:39.


The conservative offense is keeping our defense off the field and the opponents' defense on.
It wears them opp's D, and we tend to break more plays and runs out in the later part of the game.

Our defense has been amazing this year, and I think part of the reason for that is the fact that they aren't spending 3/4 of the time on the field like Vikings defenses under Tice and Green.

That being said, I would like to see a little less conservative play calling on offense.
But I would still rather be a consertive 3-2 than a playmaking
1-4 like last year...


The Time-of-possession was almost a direct opposite of last week, which I pointed to as the #1 reason we lost to the Bills.
Control the ball, control the opponent.


=Z=

Mr Anderson
10-09-2006, 12:33 PM
"davike" wrote:


"Mr" wrote:


If we are not going to use the deep ball AT ALL, we should atleast run some routes that might put our receivers in position for some YAC, we run the these out and back, and sideline routes, and they either go out of bounds or get tackled immediately, which is why I think Troy drops passes, he's afraid to get crushed. Do something, set a pick with the other receiver on crossing routes, or if there's a cushion run the kind of slants the Rams do to Torry Holt 40 times a game.

Don't run on 2nd and 1 if you're going to run on 3rd and 8, you might as well go deep if you have 2 and nothing, and you run on 3rd and long, why not run on 3rd and short if you don't complete the deep pass?

We're ridiculously conservative, and it makes the quarterback, receivers, and coach look stupid.




because typically all the teams would be kind of expecting you to go long on 2 and 1, so they would play a defense that would try to stop that....just an opinion, i could be completely wrong :)


Well, if you have second and short several times during the game, and do the same exact thing everyime, the defense might try to stop that too, maybe they should throw a deep ball in there and catch the defense on their heels.

Most teams dont have the speed to stop a guy like Williamson, but we still don't do it, if you know you have a guy who will run by a defender, and you don't get the ball to him, it's stupid. It's like the Raiders not going to Moss, who had his 100th TD yesterday, caught the ball with his knees, Congratulations Randy Moss.

Prophet
10-09-2006, 12:40 PM
"Mr" wrote:


...Most teams dont have the speed to stop a guy like Williamson, but we still don't do it, if you know you have a guy who will run by a defender, and you don't get the ball to him, it's stupid...

Confucius say, "Man that run fast but no catch does not a good receiver make".

Zeus
10-09-2006, 12:47 PM
"Prophet" wrote:


"Mr" wrote:


...Most teams dont have the speed to stop a guy like Williamson, but we still don't do it, if you know you have a guy who will run by a defender, and you don't get the ball to him, it's stupid...

Confucius say, "Man that run fast but no catch does not a good receiver make".


Shannon Sharpe says:
"Defensive backs are wide receivers who can't catch."

=Z=

JDogg926
10-09-2006, 12:53 PM
"AWZeus" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"Mr" wrote:


...Most teams dont have the speed to stop a guy like Williamson, but we still don't do it, if you know you have a guy who will run by a defender, and you don't get the ball to him, it's stupid...

Confucius say, "Man that run fast but no catch does not a good receiver make".


Shannon Sharpe says:
"Defensive backs are wide receivers who can't catch."

=Z=


Confucius??? Or Yoda???

Prophet
10-09-2006, 12:56 PM
"JDogg926" wrote:


"AWZeus" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"Mr" wrote:


...Most teams dont have the speed to stop a guy like Williamson, but we still don't do it, if you know you have a guy who will run by a defender, and you don't get the ball to him, it's stupid...

Confucius say, "Man that run fast but no catch does not a good receiver make".


Shannon Sharpe says:
"Defensive backs are wide receivers who can't catch."

=Z=


Confucius??? Or Yoda???


Confucius.
Yoda says, "Do or do not, there is no try"

JDogg926
10-09-2006, 01:01 PM
I'm still hearing it in Yoda's voice.


What's up with all of these 2 and 3 yard pass plays on 3rd and long.
I understand that if you're either in FG range, it's early in the game, you're playing a field position battle, or you've got the lead.
But, when you're trailing, you have to get first downs.

Prophet
10-09-2006, 01:03 PM
"JDogg926" wrote:


I'm still hearing it in Yoda's voice.


What's up with all of these 2 and 3 yard pass plays on 3rd and long.
I understand that if you're either in FG range, it's early in the game, you're playing a field position battle, or you've got the lead.
But, when you're trailing, you have to get first downs.



Ok, I'm sick of this question so I'll finally give the answer.
Webby paid off Zygi so the Vikings would make a bunch of questionable plays during the game.
He was concerned that traffic was slowing down on PP.O.
It's that simple.
The truth is out there now.

JDogg926
10-09-2006, 01:10 PM
"Prophet" wrote:


"JDogg926" wrote:


I'm still hearing it in Yoda's voice.


What's up with all of these 2 and 3 yard pass plays on 3rd and long.
I understand that if you're either in FG range, it's early in the game, you're playing a field position battle, or you've got the lead.
But, when you're trailing, you have to get first downs.



Ok, I'm sick of this question so I'll finally give the answer.
Webby paid off Zygi so the Vikings would make a bunch of questionable plays during the game.
He was concerned that traffic was slowing down on PP.O.
It's that simple.
The truth is out there now.


I'm not trying to be negative.
It's just frustrating to watch what appears to be poor effort, when your confident that your team's offense is far better than the defense against which it is playing.

Prophet
10-09-2006, 01:11 PM
"JDogg926" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"JDogg926" wrote:


I'm still hearing it in Yoda's voice.


What's up with all of these 2 and 3 yard pass plays on 3rd and long.
I understand that if you're either in FG range, it's early in the game, you're playing a field position battle, or you've got the lead.
But, when you're trailing, you have to get first downs.



Ok, I'm sick of this question so I'll finally give the answer.
Webby paid off Zygi so the Vikings would make a bunch of questionable plays during the game.
He was concerned that traffic was slowing down on PP.O.
It's that simple.
The truth is out there now.


I'm not trying to be negative.
It's just frustrating to watch what appears to be poor effort, when your confident that your team's offense is far better than the defense against which it is playing.



Even though I quoted you, I wasn't calling you out.
Most of us, probably all of us, are frustrated with the O.
I just gave the real reason as to why this is happening.

JDogg926
10-09-2006, 01:17 PM
"Prophet" wrote:


"JDogg926" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"JDogg926" wrote:


I'm still hearing it in Yoda's voice.


What's up with all of these 2 and 3 yard pass plays on 3rd and long.
I understand that if you're either in FG range, it's early in the game, you're playing a field position battle, or you've got the lead.
But, when you're trailing, you have to get first downs.



Ok, I'm sick of this question so I'll finally give the answer.
Webby paid off Zygi so the Vikings would make a bunch of questionable plays during the game.
He was concerned that traffic was slowing down on PP.O.
It's that simple.
The truth is out there now.


I'm not trying to be negative.
It's just frustrating to watch what appears to be poor effort, when your confident that your team's offense is far better than the defense against which it is playing.



Even though I quoted you, I wasn't calling you out.
Most of us, probably all of us, are frustrated with the O.
I just gave the real reason as to why this is happening.


Ohhhhh....OK....Got ya.....
That makes sense...

Zeus
10-09-2006, 01:19 PM
"Prophet" wrote:


Even though I quoted you, I wasn't calling you out.
Most of us, probably all of us, are frustrated with the O.
I just gave the real reason as to why this is happening.


I'm calling YOU out!

Yeah, YOU, Mr. Prophet-man!


=Z=

Prophet
10-09-2006, 01:21 PM
"AWZeus" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


Even though I quoted you, I wasn't calling you out.
Most of us, probably all of us, are frustrated with the O.
I just gave the real reason as to why this is happening.


I'm calling YOU out!

Yeah, YOU, Mr. Prophet-man!


=Z=


I am omnipresent, so you're wasting your efforts.

Zeus
10-09-2006, 01:22 PM
"Prophet" wrote:


"AWZeus" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


Even though I quoted you, I wasn't calling you out.
Most of us, probably all of us, are frustrated with the O.
I just gave the real reason as to why this is happening.


I'm calling YOU out!

Yeah, YOU, Mr. Prophet-man!


=Z=


I am omnipresent, so you're wasting your efforts.


We geniuses waste no effort.
You can be sure there is a nefarious plan behind anything I do.

Or a deal to get a free snack cake.

=Z=

Prophet
10-09-2006, 01:23 PM
"AWZeus" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"AWZeus" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


Even though I quoted you, I wasn't calling you out.
Most of us, probably all of us, are frustrated with the O.
I just gave the real reason as to why this is happening.


I'm calling YOU out!

Yeah, YOU, Mr. Prophet-man!


=Z=


I am omnipresent, so you're wasting your efforts.


We geniuses waste no effort.
You can be sure there is a nefarious plan behind anything I do.

Or a deal to get a free snack cake.

=Z=


If you talk to 6 he may send you some excess tater milk so you can wash down the snack cake.

vikes09
10-09-2006, 01:54 PM
Prophet, my point was the fact that it may be considered a "good move" to run on 3rd and 8 to catch the defense off gaurd, but when it is a down that SHOULD be made (i.e. a 3rd n 1 with chestor having a great day) than that should be the obvious chioce regardless of what the defense is suggesting or how many men are stacked in the box. its not the genious of fakeing the other team out, its smash-mouth football that the vikes are made for IMO.

my example could be the steelers when the bus was in his prime. granted we dont have jerome, but the piont being, you knew they were going to run the ball. right down the opposing teams throats. and there was nothing those teams could do about it. just how demoralizing that was to the defense was evident.

and if i remember right, not many inside slants or TE drags or w/e were used, but little checkdowns to mewelde that got the vikings nowhere. was it good coverage by the lions, maybe, but thats the OC and HC job to make stuff happen. unlike alot of people think on the boards, i doubt its brad thats being hesitant to put it in there.

Prophet
10-09-2006, 02:03 PM
Great example, the Bus demoralizing teams when they knew what was happening.
Most of us have watched all the games at least once and we have all kind of speculation as to why didn't they call this play or that play.
I don't know.
A summary of the opinions as to why we have the offensive woes usually comes down to one of these topics:

1. QB
2. O-line
3. WRs can't catch/run routes
4. Play calling (HC vs OC)
5. Newness of coaching staff/schemes

There are some more potential explanations but the more I think about it it appears that we are overanalyzing some of these points to no avail.
If I had to rank a hierarchichal ranking of offensive problems I would go with this ranking biggest problem to smallest:

4, 5, 3, 2, 1.
Probably a combination of these.
I'm going with time alone will solve many of the problems.
Why?
I'm confident in the determination and abilities of the coaching staff.
They are watching game film and breaking everything down and coming up with a plan.
Our coaching staff has a hunger for the game that is deeper than ours.
They will get the job done.
I am confident in that.
Many of our problems are perceived due to young fans wanting instant gratification and success.
That is how I see it.

Vikefanman2000
10-09-2006, 02:06 PM
Just my 2 cents that I wrote on another thread....
but probably belongs here instead...

Note to Coach Childress - The experiment should be over....maybe there was a reason that Coach Reid called the plays in Philly....
It is time to hand over the play calling to the O-Coordinator that you brought in and trust him to do the job!
You have enough on your plate in making sure everyone else is prepared for Sundays....
it is NOT a slap in the face to admit that your play calling leaves something to be desired....
Man up and trust your coaches!

Two weeks to prepare for the next game....maybe the success we have enjoyed on our first series each week can extend to the first half...not just one series!
Also, time to practice the jump ball in the corner to M. Robinson....
I still havent seen the 5'8" DB that is going to outjump him in the corner.....

Big C
10-09-2006, 02:18 PM
I am fine with the playcalling EXCEPT on 3rd down. We have this stupid philosohy of going long on 3rd and short and going short on 3rd and long. I also don't understand why we don't put Troy on a few more crossing patterns. If we can get him the ball in stride he will pick up some yards.

I live in Chicago. I hate to say it but our offense looks like the pathetic Bears offense from a few years ago. Strong running game, inconsistent WRs and short play calls on third and long.

Things are just not clicking in the passing game. BJ doesn't look as sharp as he did beginning of the season. Troy has trouble making some difficult catches. He has to make SOME of them. Not all. Taylor kicks ass but fumbles the ball. Robinson is not being used enough for some reason. mcmullen sure doesn't get a lot of plays for a guy who "Knows the system".

vikingbill50
10-09-2006, 02:20 PM
it was really nice to see hank baskett, the wide reciver we traded for mullenhead have another great game, seems like it was a good trade but not for us, still dont know why carter isnt playin, even tho he is a rookie, so is baskett and couldnt do any worse

vikes09
10-09-2006, 02:28 PM
i agree prophet, im so glad we have the seahawks after a bye. it seems our scripted offense is amazing.
;D

to review your pionts, or over analyze them to no avail
:)

1) QB- brad johnson is definately not our problems, unlike that joke thread seems to think. he might be hesitant, but i seriously doubt it like i previously stated. if anything he has saved us where culpepper wouldve killed us.

2)Oline- our oline played very well it seemed against the lions, but the unit needs to keep steping it up, but i dont see them as our problem. how they could be affecting our plays could be by not giving brad enough time, yet another possibilty.

3) WRs cant catch- that seems to be troys downside, but our receivers arent anything special. not saying they shouldnt be expected to exceed in the WCO, but our product is only equal to what our reactants are. chemistry, blah.

4) Play calling- one of my main points, but if a team runs a play correctly and to its full potential then you're good. its how efficiently you run plays, which could fall to our OC. then i go to point #5.

5) new coaches- i realize we have a BUNCH of new coaches, and that will eventually get better with time as they have gotten their feet wet for their first 5 games of the season. however, unlike the tice era, we have...good coaches. :o i agree that they can get the job done. except for you, ST coach. im still skeptical about you.

6) All new schemes- a point i think you combined with another, but a point that could very well be the answer to our offensive woes. we also have many new starters that do need to gel. alot of people think the gelling is over, but chemistry takes alot longer than just a few games. thats 11 guys that have to figure each other out.

a few optimistic points toward a new, exciting vikings season!

whackthepack
10-09-2006, 05:36 PM
"vikingbill50" wrote:


it was really nice to see hank baskett, the wide reciver we traded for mullenhead have another great game, seems like it was a good trade but not for us, still dont know why carter isnt playin, even tho he is a rookie, so is baskett and couldnt do any worse



He has had 1 great game other than that his stats are about identical to McMullen's and in the thread comparing the 2 I didn't bother to mention the 3 passes that Baskett dropped yesterday, and if you take away the 87 yarder for a TD he had 2 receptions for 25 yards.

Lets Be more realistic!

By the way McMullen has caught every ball thrown his way and he has done everything the Vikes have asked!

Prophet
10-09-2006, 05:46 PM
"whackthepack" wrote:


"vikingbill50" wrote:


it was really nice to see hank baskett, the wide reciver we traded for mullenhead have another great game, seems like it was a good trade but not for us, still dont know why carter isnt playin, even tho he is a rookie, so is baskett and couldnt do any worse



He has had 1 great game other than that his stats are about identical to McMullen's and in the thread comparing the 2 I didn't bother to mention the 3 passes that Baskett dropped yesterday, and if you take away the 87 yarder for a TD he had 2 receptions for 25 yards.

Lets Be more realistic!

By the way McMullen has caught every ball thrown his way and he has done everything the Vikes have asked!





The McMuffin/Baskett debate barely constitutes having it's own thread....now it's bleeding over into other threads....besides, Baskett wins, he has a better name and that is just as valid as comparing their stats over the course of a season in two completely different scenarios.

NordicNed
10-09-2006, 06:25 PM
"Prophet" wrote:


"Mr" wrote:


...Most teams dont have the speed to stop a guy like Williamson, but we still don't do it, if you know you have a guy who will run by a defender, and you don't get the ball to him, it's stupid...

Confucius say, "Man that run fast but no catch does not a good receiver make".





I thought, Confucius say,







He with dirty jock, have stinky fingers, not sticky fingers....Which our recievers need right now..

;D

vikes09
10-09-2006, 06:42 PM
i thought Confucius say, "if our offensive doesnt get into shape the seahawks defense could have a field day gol' darnit!!!"

or something along those lines.

Zeus
10-09-2006, 10:35 PM
"CStephanRun13" wrote:


Play calling is bad...I wonder why Brad the vet doesn't take charge when he sees yet another bogus call...?


He isn't given the option to flat-out call his own play - that much has been documented elsewhere.
At best, he's given two running plays or passing plays from the same formation of which he can chose one.

I saw him audible twice yesterday - I may have missed a couple.

=Z=

UTVikfan
10-10-2006, 01:21 AM
Its fun that Brian Billick was an "offensive genius". Its even more fun that Tony Dungy is a defensive guru. The NFL is crazy. Childress imo, will get the O going, but, man is it painful while we wait.


I think # 5 on the list is the biggest problem. Its just gonna take some time. The Vikes are doing MUCH better than I thought they were going to with new scheme's and coaches. Tomlin should be a head coach.


Play calling? To me, that is a difficult one to say. You have someone on the other side calling things too, that affects the calls. But, there again, Childress is new at that too.


For now, I think they should punt the ball everytime we get it in the first three quarters (except the first drive). Then the defense can score us some points and keep us in the game. If the Offense only plays the first drive and the fourth quarter, the stats will look about the same for them, including time of possesion. =P.

poult
10-10-2006, 02:05 AM
"UTVikfan" wrote:




Its fun that Brian Billick was an "offensive genius". Its even more fun that Tony Dungy is a defensive guru. The NFL is crazy. Childress imo, will get the O going, but, man is it painful while we wait.


I think # 5 on the list is the biggest problem. Its just gonna take some time. The Vikes are doing MUCH better than I thought they were going to with new scheme's and coaches. Tomlin should be a head coach.



Play calling? To me, that is a difficult one to say. You have someone on the other side calling things too, that affects the calls. But, there again, Childress is new at that too.


For now, I think they should punt the ball everytime we get it in the first three quarters (except the first drive). Then the defense can score us some points and keep us in the game. If the Offense only plays the first drive and the fourth quarter, the stats will look about the same for them, including time of possesion. =P.


that last part is hillarious.....
i laughed until i realized it was true, then i slit my wrists.
but really, who has scored more points this year, the O or the D?
if it has already been said i didnt back track in this thread......