PDA

View Full Version : Should the Vikings use more screen passes?



HEY
12-13-2008, 02:08 PM
The New Orleans Saints are one of the many teams around the league that has great success by executing quite a few screen passes every game. Reggie Bush is not as good at running between the tackles as many people predicted he would be coming out of the draft. On the other hand, he seems to be in the right element when he gets out in more open fields. That is probably one of the reasons to why the Saints like to design screen passes to Bush, but it's also a good weapon against man-to-man coverage and blitzes.

Is it just me or do the Vikings execute less screen passes than most other teams?

Another reason is that it's a very easy throw for the QB to make which is good considering we have a young Tarvaris Jackson under the center. Most of the responsibility is on the blockers and the receiver, which in Minnesota's case would be Adrian or Chester who we all know can work plenty of magic when they get into space.

I can only remember a couple of screen passes last week against the Lions (one to Adrian and one to Chester) and they all went for a first down, so why not try to execute more screens in the next games?

Here's a video on NFL.com where Saint's Head Coach Sean Payton explains how the Saints utilize the screen pass as a weapon against man-to-man coverage: http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80d3b378


Also... screen passes to wide receivers can be a nice way to move the chains for a change.
Bobby Wade, Bernard Berrian, and in particular Aundrae Allison, seems to me as good players to run after the catch.

marstc09
12-13-2008, 02:09 PM
I vote yes only because it seems TJ can throw a better screen than Gus.

Tad7
12-13-2008, 02:18 PM
If T-Jack can have that nice touch like he had against Detroit it would be very effective

kevoncox
12-13-2008, 02:39 PM
The old screen question. Wow, this is a tricky subject on these boards( Marr, you know you want to post).
Many of us believe that the screen can be effective for us. While many believe that it will not be an effective play for us. I see both stances and I am torn as well. The major problems I see with the screen pass as I have seen it stem from
major issues.

1) Who is the defense keying on when our QB drops back. Some posters beleive that screens aren't effective because the defense is expecting peterson to get the ball and that ruins the deception

2) Where are we running this screen to. It seems at the start of the season we were running what my team called a RB bubble. The Vikings blocked for a bit but let everyone thru and snuck a rb to the middle of the field. This essential left Peterson with 3-4 O line blockers in front of him and the entire defensive line out of positions







C


LG

RG
LT

AD


RT





DE



DE


DT
DT





TJ

The above diagram representas how this play is ideal suppose to work. The Qb would simply have to loft the ball over the DL to AD. This play did not work when ever we tried it. I beleive a more traditional screen to the rb is more likely to work.




LB





















DT

DE
TE
LT
LG














C RG RT




















DE DT
AD






















TJ

If it is worth the trouble to practice it, put it in the playbook. I trust Childress to know better than I do.

pepper 0n moss
12-13-2008, 04:17 PM
"kevoncox" wrote:


The old screen question. Wow, this is a tricky subject on these boards( Marr, you know you want to post).
Many of us believe that the screen can be effective for us. While many believe that it will not be an effective play for us. I see both stances and I am torn as well. The major problems I see with the screen pass as I have seen it stem from
major issues.

1) Who is the defense keying on when our QB drops back. Some posters beleive that screens aren't effective because the defense is expecting peterson to get the ball and that ruins the deception

2) Where are we running this screen to. It seems at the start of the season we were running what my team called a RB bubble. The Vikings blocked for a bit but let everyone thru and snuck a rb to the middle of the field. This essential left Peterson with 3-4 O line blockers in front of him and the entire defensive line out of positions








C


LG


RG
LT


AD


RT






DE




DE



DT
DT





TJ

The above diagram representas how this play is ideal suppose to work. The Qb would simply have to loft the ball over the DL to AD. This play did not work when ever we tried it. I beleive a more traditional screen to the rb is more likely to work.





LB























DT

DE
TE
LT
LG















C RG RT





















DE DT
AD






















TJ

If it is worth the trouble to practice it, put it in the playbook. I trust Childress to know better than I do.


your first one would result in an ineligible man downfield penalty.

V4L
12-13-2008, 04:18 PM
I think for that to be effective we need to execute regular passes more often.. Take away some pressure up front..

When they have 7-9 people in the box it gets all jumbled up front

AP also needs to be able to block and catch better.. So we can use them on third downs with him

Mr-holland
12-13-2008, 04:28 PM
You don't want to be predictable, that's why you only use the screen when the timing fits the use of the play.

i_bleed_purple
12-13-2008, 05:10 PM
"Mr-holland" wrote:


You don't want to be predictable, that's why you only use the screen when the timing fits the use of the play.


yep, you want to use a screen pass when the defenseive line is comitted to pass rushing.
You need the line to rush past the O line in order to make it work properly.

gagarr
12-13-2008, 05:43 PM
I can't remember many well executed screen pass all season and definitely none that had over 15 yards.
I do remember many that have blown up.
I don't think the Vikes sell the screen pass well at all.

Screen passes are all about deception, timing, and touch.
If one fails the play is screwed, which is what I've seen more than not.

Maybe the Cards are dumb enough, maybe TJ and AD/CT can get on the same page, maybe TJ can put the touch to it.

Too many maybes for me.

SamOchoCinco
12-13-2008, 05:59 PM
naw. more deep passes to BB! ;)

kevoncox
12-13-2008, 08:01 PM
"pepper" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


The old screen question. Wow, this is a tricky subject on these boards( Marr, you know you want to post).
Many of us believe that the screen can be effective for us. While many believe that it will not be an effective play for us. I see both stances and I am torn as well. The major problems I see with the screen pass as I have seen it stem from
major issues.

1) Who is the defense keying on when our QB drops back. Some posters beleive that screens aren't effective because the defense is expecting peterson to get the ball and that ruins the deception

2) Where are we running this screen to. It seems at the start of the season we were running what my team called a RB bubble. The Vikings blocked for a bit but let everyone thru and snuck a rb to the middle of the field. This essential left Peterson with 3-4 O line blockers in front of him and the entire defensive line out of positions








C


LG


RG
LT


AD


RT






DE




DE



DT
DT





TJ

The above diagram representas how this play is ideal suppose to work. The Qb would simply have to loft the ball over the DL to AD. This play did not work when ever we tried it. I beleive a more traditional screen to the rb is more likely to work.





LB























DT

DE
TE
LT
LG















C RG RT





















DE DT
AD






















TJ

If it is worth the trouble to practice it, put it in the playbook. I trust Childress to know better than I do.


your first one would result in an ineligible man downfield penalty.




Not if they aren't pass the line of scrimmage. Hell I'm trying to draw it up in text here

thorshammer
12-13-2008, 09:00 PM
"Tad7" wrote:


If T-Jack can have that nice touch like he had against Detroit it would be very effective

Gotta agree with the above ... if the timing and touch are correct it can be a huge play ... suck the D line in ... just over them to AD and the timing is quick to AD or CT before the defence recovers it's off to the races boys.

DustinDupont
12-13-2008, 09:06 PM
wut we should do is the f-ing shovel pass... i dont know y w dont do it... i mean philly run's it at least 3 times a game and it always works. Childress should have at least keep this play in his kick ass offense

StillPurple
12-13-2008, 11:00 PM
Yes.

Minniman
12-14-2008, 12:51 AM
There are different types of screens.
Which ones are we talking about here? Full screens, quick screens, or what else?

If the Vikings screen to Peterson against an eight man box that has a shadow on Peterson, it may not do much good.

I'd like to see play-action pass, play-action pass, screen as a series.
That is, if the quarterback doesn't throw the ball to the open linebacker on the second play-action pass like Gus did last week.

On a side note, the Vikings play action fakes are pretty poor.
Good fakes are often critical to the success of play-action plays.

YogidAbEAR
12-14-2008, 12:56 AM
screens are kinda like trick plays IMO, they don't work when used often, you need to catch you're opponent off guard, especially if its the style where the o-line whiffs so the RB can get behind the D

Articnv
12-14-2008, 04:23 AM
I dont think a scren pass to our rb would do any good.
The defnese ketys in ons toping ad and make us beat them with
our wrs.
Play acrtion woudl be alot better and shovel pass or
2 would be nice.

But a screen to
AD would
more then likly blow up as
the defnse excpets ad to ghet teh bakll

Marrdro
12-15-2008, 10:27 AM
"Minniman" wrote:


There are different types of screens.
Which ones are we talking about here? Full screens, quick screens, or what else?

If the Vikings screen to Peterson against an eight man box that has a shadow on Peterson, it may not do much good.

I'd like to see play-action pass, play-action pass, screen as a series.
That is, if the quarterback doesn't throw the ball to the open linebacker on the second play-action pass like Gus did last week.

On a side note, the Vikings play action fakes are pretty poor.
Good fakes are often critical to the success of play-action plays.

Actually it is even simpler than that.

It appears that the Vikes like to run a screen pass that goes up the middle and one that goes on the outside and we got to see both examples yesterday and both worked.

Again, for me, it gets back to the major point that everyone has to be on the same page to run one of these things as timing is everything as well as you have to catch the defense in the right scheme to execute it correctly.

Previously, our OL, QB and RB's were never exactly in synch and as I have stated on here repeatedly, I do not believe that Birk/TJ read the defenses correctly to run them and we ran them when the D was ready for them.

V-Unit
12-15-2008, 10:45 AM
"kevoncox" wrote:


The old screen question. Wow, this is a tricky subject on these boards( Marr, you know you want to post).
Many of us believe that the screen can be effective for us. While many believe that it will not be an effective play for us. I see both stances and I am torn as well. The major problems I see with the screen pass as I have seen it stem from
major issues.

1) Who is the defense keying on when our QB drops back. Some posters beleive that screens aren't effective because the defense is expecting peterson to get the ball and that ruins the deception

2) Where are we running this screen to. It seems at the start of the season we were running what my team called a RB bubble. The Vikings blocked for a bit but let everyone thru and snuck a rb to the middle of the field. This essential left Peterson with 3-4 O line blockers in front of him and the entire defensive line out of positions








C


LG


RG
LT


AD


RT






DE




DE



DT
DT





TJ

The above diagram representas how this play is ideal suppose to work. The Qb would simply have to loft the ball over the DL to AD. This play did not work when ever we tried it. I beleive a more traditional screen to the rb is more likely to work.





LB























DT

DE
TE
LT
LG















C RG RT





















DE DT
AD






















TJ

If it is worth the trouble to practice it, put it in the playbook. I trust Childress to know better than I do.


You deserve pats on the back for this post man. Chester's TD was clearly an example of the first one.

Well done.

BleedinPandG
12-15-2008, 12:39 PM
The Vikings like to put AD out in the flat with CT in the backfield.
They bring AD back like an end around and then hand it to CT.
I'd like to see TJ do a play action out of that and hit AD over in the flat.
Make it a 4 headed monster... hand off to CT up the middle, hand off to AD on an end around, double play action deep, and toss out to the flat to AD.

V-Unit
12-15-2008, 12:53 PM
"BleedinPandG" wrote:


The Vikings like to put AD out in the flat with CT in the backfield.
They bring AD back like an end around and then hand it to CT.
I'd like to see TJ do a play action out of that and hit AD over in the flat.
Make it a 4 headed monster... hand off to CT up the middle, hand off to AD on an end around, double play action deep, and toss out to the flat to AD.


Or we could just run straight ahead and get 9 yards.

kevoncox
12-15-2008, 01:15 PM
"V" wrote:


"BleedinPandG" wrote:


The Vikings like to put AD out in the flat with CT in the backfield.
They bring AD back like an end around and then hand it to CT.
I'd like to see TJ do a play action out of that and hit AD over in the flat.
Make it a 4 headed monster... hand off to CT up the middle, hand off to AD on an end around, double play action deep, and toss out to the flat to AD.


Or we could just run straight ahead and get 9 yards.


;D ;D
Post of the day

kevoncox
12-15-2008, 01:16 PM
"V" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


The old screen question. Wow, this is a tricky subject on these boards( Marr, you know you want to post).
Many of us believe that the screen can be effective for us. While many believe that it will not be an effective play for us. I see both stances and I am torn as well. The major problems I see with the screen pass as I have seen it stem from
major issues.

1) Who is the defense keying on when our QB drops back. Some posters beleive that screens aren't effective because the defense is expecting peterson to get the ball and that ruins the deception

2) Where are we running this screen to. It seems at the start of the season we were running what my team called a RB bubble. The Vikings blocked for a bit but let everyone thru and snuck a rb to the middle of the field. This essential left Peterson with 3-4 O line blockers in front of him and the entire defensive line out of positions








C


LG


RG
LT


AD


RT






DE




DE



DT
DT





TJ

The above diagram representas how this play is ideal suppose to work. The Qb would simply have to loft the ball over the DL to AD. This play did not work when ever we tried it. I beleive a more traditional screen to the rb is more likely to work.





LB























DT

DE
TE
LT
LG















C RG RT





















DE DT
AD






















TJ

If it is worth the trouble to practice it, put it in the playbook. I trust Childress to know better than I do.


You deserve pats on the back for this post man. Chester's TD was clearly an example of the first one.

Well done.


I saw that. I was like WTF, it worked. We have gotten better at it. We also ran it in the DET game.

HEY
10-05-2009, 03:13 AM
We should use Percy Harvin on more screen passes like they use Wes Welker in New England.

Zeus
10-05-2009, 08:59 AM
Why don't polls like this ever have an option that says "As a stiff in the stands, I cannot say whether or not it would be better because I've got no fucking clue."?

=Z=

ultravikingfan
10-05-2009, 09:20 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


Why don't polls like this ever have an option that says "As a stiff in the stands, I cannot say whether or not it would be better because I've got no fucking clue."?

=Z=


That option is there.
Minus the stiff part.

Dekay
10-05-2009, 09:36 AM
"HEY" wrote:


We should use Percy Harvin on more screen passes like they use Wes Welker in New England.


Doing forum archeology again ey;) How do you find these old forumthreads? Well it turns out they are quite uptodate, just swithc a few personell from the old posts and its uptodate.

oaklandzoo24
10-05-2009, 09:49 AM
Absolutely we should run more screens.
Not only is it an easy completion that gets the ball into the hands of a playmaker with space to make a play, but it also negates pass rush which we sure as hell could use at this point.
Favre gets a ton pressure on pass plays and screen plays would be a nice way to keep those defenders from being as aggressive.

HEY
10-05-2009, 10:20 AM
"Dekay" wrote:


"HEY" wrote:


We should use Percy Harvin on more screen passes like they use Wes Welker in New England.

Doing forum archeology again ey;) How do you find these old forumthreads? Well it turns out they are quite uptodate, just swithc a few personell from the old posts and its uptodate.

;D I have a habit of looking at my older post when I get bored at work and there's nothing to do. Sometimes I even find a thread or two that are still relevant today. Like this one, and the "Vikings' return man"-thread
:)

So you see, my fellow Scandinavian Vikings fan, I got real bored today
;)

chillys mayhem
10-05-2009, 10:36 AM
They should use more cow bell... possibly around AD's neck for the pure enjoyment of hearing that wonderful tone as Peterson breaks his old single game rushing record... SKOL!!!

gagarr
10-05-2009, 11:44 AM
Vikes should do what the D gives them.

I actually think Chilly/Bevel have held some of the playbook back thinking the first 3 games didn't need anything beyond vanilla stuff.
I think the Vikes will show some miss direction stuff, possibly the wildcat, or AD & CT in backfield spliting one out, HB pass, flee flicker, double reverse, etc..
Crazy plays are fun for the players and fans. As long as they don't result in TO's, a loss won't be bad, it will losen up the Vikes and tighten up the Pack, knowing Chilly/Bevel aren't playing it too tight.

kevoncox
10-05-2009, 11:55 AM
From what I have seen, we have been runing alot of there types of plays early in the first half of games. Our offense doesn't get clicking until we go back to our traditional play calling.

Dekay
10-06-2009, 02:04 AM
I think the offense today against the packers was mixing it up pretty good. I saw a few screens that went well for us... (and them unfortunately).

Its easy to just say that we will take whatever they give you, but I also believe we are no victims in just seeing what the opposing teams give you, we are directing that too. So, yes, Im in favor for a bit more screenpasses, and I would like to have Percy Harvin getting some balls too behind the scrimmageline.

tke0933
10-06-2009, 02:36 AM
I think a few more screens would help.
Not only the conventional ones, but also a few WR screens to Harvin.
With teams using the run blitz as well as stacking the line, crossing them up a bit will loosen things up.

Marrdro
10-06-2009, 05:26 AM
My vote.....

No, we should actually call LESS screen passes.

Only took one last night.
;)
;)
;)