PDA

View Full Version : THE west coast offense...



purplePEOPLEreader
11-12-2006, 06:08 PM
All you have to do to stop the vikes is to play tough d on first and second down.

We'll put in moore on 3rd and long and throw him the ball in the flat for 6 yards when we need 15.

SOMEBODY DO THE DAMN MATH ON THAT FOR ME PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!

For the last couple games i wasn't sure if we actually had WR's.
Today we actually threw some passes to guys running routes.
Yeah!
Moral victory there!
Are the vikings actually professional atheletes?

The quality of teams that we're losing to lately makes us look like saint mary magdalin's school for blind and retarted children.

There are division 3 teams that could kick our asses.

Please explain to me how the west coast offense is a good thing for this team.

Purple Floyd
11-12-2006, 06:12 PM
If we had an acceptable line and receivers that consistently ran the correct routes that allowed them to be open in the seams of the defense the WCO could be very effective.

Without those two things no offense is worth a crap.

purplePEOPLEreader
11-12-2006, 06:17 PM
you're asking for things that we've paid for and do not have!

If we could split up the guys on the left side of line, move one or two over to the right for some balance, and make them adjust a little, teams might stop blitzing all day on the right side of our line in passing situations and loading the left to stop the run.

this is getting ridiculous.

predictability combined with a complete lack of passion (on offense - the defense is for real) = the vikings settling for a 4-5 record.

We should be sitting at 7-2 breathing down the necks of the bears.

Purple Floyd
11-12-2006, 06:20 PM
"purplePEOPLEreader" wrote:


you're asking for things that we've paid for and do not have!

If we could split up the guys on the left side of line, move one or two over to the right for some balance, and make them adjust a little, teams might stop blitzing all day on the right side of our line in passing situations and loading the left to stop the run.

this is getting ridiculous.

predictability combined with a complete lack of passion (on offense - the defense is for real) = the vikings settling for a 4-5 record.

We should be sitting at 7-2 breathing down the necks of the bears.



I could not agree more.

cajunvike
11-12-2006, 06:38 PM
"purplePEOPLEreader" wrote:


you're asking for things that we've paid for and do not have!

If we could split up the guys on the left side of line, move one or two over to the right for some balance, and make them adjust a little, teams might stop blitzing all day on the right side of our line in passing situations and loading the left to stop the run.

this is getting ridiculous.

predictability combined with a complete lack of passion (on offense - the defense is for real) = the vikings settling for a 4-5 record.

We should be sitting at 7-2 breathing down the necks of the bears.



Correction:
We should be 8-1 and LEADING the BEARS!!!
;D

Toro
11-12-2006, 10:22 PM
Just to point out, the Vikings had one of the most prolific offenses of the past decade, and the current coaching staff thought it needed to be dramatically changed.

PurplePeopleEaters
11-12-2006, 11:24 PM
"Toro" wrote:


Just to point out, the Vikings had one of the most prolific offenses of the past decade, and the current coaching staff thought it needed to be dramatically changed.


Are you honestly saying that it's Childress' fault for trading Culpepper? And do you think we would be any better WITH Culpepper right now? Other than Burleson those are the only pieces we let go this offseason. Or are you arguing that Michael Bennett is a better alternative than Chester Taylor?

Or wait...are you suggesting that this team would be better with an offense centered around a passing attack like the days with moss... How would that fly with our pathetic receiving corps right now?

Ltrey33
11-12-2006, 11:55 PM
"PurplePeopleEaters" wrote:


"Toro" wrote:


Just to point out, the Vikings had one of the most prolific offenses of the past decade, and the current coaching staff thought it needed to be dramatically changed.


Are you honestly saying that it's Childress' fault for trading Culpepper? And do you think we would be any better WITH Culpepper right now? Other than Burleson those are the only pieces we let go this offseason. Or are you arguing that Michael Bennett is a better alternative than Chester Taylor?

Or wait...are you suggesting that this team would be better with an offense centered around a passing attack like the days with moss... How would that fly with our pathetic receiving corps right now?


Exactly, PPE. We HAD one of the most prolific offenses...that was from 1998-2004. That was Daunte and Moss, and prior to that Daunte, Carter and Moss and prior to that Cunningham, Carter and Moss. Carter and Moss were both long gone before this coaching staff came on the scene, along with virtually every other offensive and defensive player that was on those teams. Culpepper left because he wanted out if he couldn't get his money, and he wouldn't even be playing now anyway.

Childress and Zygi had nothing to do with this offense's decline.

ThorSPL
11-13-2006, 01:17 AM
Don't forget the Carter, Reed, Moss year(s)...........

Vikes
11-13-2006, 01:56 AM
The Vikings are fine. Childress is doing a great job his first year. We have so work but it will not happen overnite.

ultravikingfan
11-13-2006, 05:16 AM
"Toro" wrote:


Just to point out, the Vikings had one of the most prolific offenses of the past decade, and the current coaching staff thought it needed to be dramatically changed.


How's that?

Zeus
11-13-2006, 08:57 AM
"Toro" wrote:


Just to point out, the Vikings had one of the most prolific offenses of the past decade, and the current coaching staff thought it needed to be dramatically changed.


Maybe that's because a lot of the offensive talent from the past decade (Robert Smith, Cris Carter, Jake Reed, Randy Moss, Daunte Culpepper) is no longer on the team.

Perhaps it also has something to do with the fact that all of that prolific offense achieved exactly 0 Super Bowls and TWO NFC Championship losses.

Finally, maybe it has something to do with the NEW coaches knowing THEIR offense and believing that it's easier to install YOUR offense, rather than learn someone else's system.

Just a guess.

=Z=

Prophet
11-13-2006, 08:59 AM
"AWZeus" wrote:


"Toro" wrote:


Just to point out, the Vikings had one of the most prolific offenses of the past decade, and the current coaching staff thought it needed to be dramatically changed.


Maybe that's because a lot of the offensive talent from the past decade (Robert Smith, Cris Carter, Jake Reed, Randy Moss, Daunte Culpepper) is no longer on the team.

Perhaps it also has something to do with the fact that all of that prolific offense achieved exactly 0 Super Bowls and TWO NFC Championship losses.

Finally, maybe it has something to do with the NEW coaches knowing THEIR offense and believing that it's easier to install YOUR offense, rather than learn someone else's system.

Just a guess.

=Z=


No need to get crazy with speculation
8).