PDA

View Full Version : Vikings "inside-out" stategy proves itself



StillPurple
09-12-2007, 09:58 AM
The Vikings strategy of building the team from the inside out (i.e. building the lines first, and then the "outside" (receivers, etc.) is proving itself. If you look at the teams that win in the NFL, they obviously have strong lines (Colts, Bears, Seahawks, Chargers, etc.). This, I think, is Childress's thinking. There are teams (Arizona, etc.) that have concentrated on the "outside-in", and it doesn't work too well. If you build the "skill positions" (receiver, running back, etc.) first and then hope that the line blocks for them, you end up with Arizona.

Specifically: teams that are the best on the line go to the Super Bowl (Steelers two years ago, Seahawks; Colts and Bears last year). Despite all the talk of "west coast offense" and all the attention paid to flashy receivers, the line of scrimmage is still where games are won and lost.

Minnesota has shown that spending big on the offensive line results in good protection and running lanes, and spending big on the defensive line results in a great Cover 2 defense.

NodakPaul
09-12-2007, 10:09 AM
While I agree that we are approaching building the team in the correct way... let's not get too ahead of ourselves.
Our Defense destroyed Atlanta on Sunday - but that may not be the best measure of greatness.
How we handle the Lions offense this week will be more telling.

StillPurple
09-12-2007, 10:46 AM
I agree. I did like the way our defense changed things up and blitzed. I think the first INT TD came off an all-out blitz (multiple guys thrown at the QB). I like that.

If you watched the Baltimore game on Monday night, supposedly, their defense is the best in the NFL. They looked static and listless compared to our defense. Of course, Carson Palmer and that offense is much better than Harrington. But still...

Purple Floyd
09-12-2007, 10:49 AM
You also have to look at the fact that the Vikings have had some of the best lines in the league often in the last 20 years and it has not led to superbowls.

The lines 1989 for example with Lowdermilk,Zimmerman,Kalis,McDaniel and Habib as well as the 1998 line with Christy,Steussie,Stringer,Dixon,Randall McDaniel were very solid and to a big degree during that time span they had a solid line most years with pro bowl talent. The line went down hill when our line coach,who excelled at that job,was promoted to head coach and didn't find an equal replacement.

I do think that the line is becoming more disciplined,though and that is one thing that was always an achilles heel with our line( Like Steussie)

NodakPaul
09-12-2007, 11:10 AM
"StillPurple" wrote:


I agree. I did like the way our defense changed things up and blitzed. I think the first INT TD came off an all-out blitz (multiple guys thrown at the QB). I like that.

If you watched the Baltimore game on Monday night, supposedly, their defense is the best in the NFL. They looked static and listless compared to our defense. Of course, Carson Palmer and that offense is much better than Harrington. But still...




There was a blitz on KWill's INT.
But even he admits that the reason he was in position to make the pick was because Harrington caught him off guard with a hurry up snap. ;D

tastywaves
09-12-2007, 11:41 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"StillPurple" wrote:


I agree. I did like the way our defense changed things up and blitzed. I think the first INT TD came off an all-out blitz (multiple guys thrown at the QB). I like that.

If you watched the Baltimore game on Monday night, supposedly, their defense is the best in the NFL. They looked static and listless compared to our defense. Of course, Carson Palmer and that offense is much better than Harrington. But still...




Better to be lucky than good I guess.
Taking advantage of the opportunity is what matters, right Mr. Smoot.

There was a blitz on KWill's INT.
But even he admits that the reason he was in position to make the pick was because Harrington caught him off guard with a hurry up snap. ;D