Refocused Vikes-Colts

[Mothman]

You'll get no argument from me that we need better pieces in the secondary. Wouldn't you also agree that passing in general has been increasing since 2007? Probably exploded around then with Brady/Moss, but many people comment on how much of a passing league it is now.

That's an interesting point I hadn't considered. It might be worth looking to see how much, it at all, total passing yardage allowed and total TDs allowed has changed in the league since 2007.

We just keep giving up TD's. Last year was obviously the worst, but giving up 25 TD's in 2010 isn't great either. Three straight years now of giving up 25+ TD's.

That's pretty brutal and so often it just seems to involve a breakdown in coverage or a simple mental mistake, which just increases the frustration.

I'm no scheme or current talent expert, so I couldn't tell you based on the specific talent we have if some guys would be more suited for something else. Sharper was good for us, but he seemed even better elsewhere. Are we getting all we can out of the guys we have? Or are they just so terrible it doesn't matter what we run? I'd say it may be easier to change scheme then get an entirely new secondary. Even if it's not a full change, but a modified version of the existing one.

Well, other than Winfield, they almost have a new secondary now. Cook's been around a few seasons but hasn't played much. Raymond is in his second year. Smith and Robinson are in their first and Jefferson just joined the team. Maybe this crew can do something more once they've had a chance to play together a little while.

I wish I knew the answers to your questions but I'm no scheme or talent expert either. I do know there two basic coverage options, man and zone, with plenty of room for variation within each. I wouldn't trust most of these DBs in man coverage for 4 quarters so I understand why the Vikes stick with zone. Maybe they need to tighten those zones.

The LBs are part of all this too and none of them seem great in coverage either. Greenway's not bad but he's not coming up with INTs either.

I think just adding one or two serious talents in the back 7 might make everybody better. For example, a stud CB they could trust in man-to man coverage against most receivers would allow them to use the rest of the secondary in different ways. That kind of trustworthy "anchor" allows flexibility.

I just hope they get better.

[mondry]

So you agree that the quality of the players makes a big difference when they're on the defensive line?

Of course, you know very well that it'd be silly to try and argue otherwise. The problem I have though is to me it sounds like Fraziers defense will only work or be "good" if he has 3 probowl defense lineman and a bunch of probowlers in the secondary. You even metnion a corner as good as REVIS! Unfortunately that's a luxury only a couple teams ever get. I'm just skeptical that we can ever acquire said talented players needed, especially when the guys who have a big say in the draft LOVE targeting players like Greenway who's fundamentally sound and a good tackler but brings very little else to the table.

Again, what we're really talking about here is interceptions, not takeaways, because Frazier's defenses have tended to be among the best in the league at forcing and recovering fumbles.

Turnovers come out of playcalling and scheme to some extent but I still believe they have more to do with players and performance.

Let's take a look at that. We were tied for 4th in the league in 2011 with 20 forced fumbles. But we were dead last in interceptions with 8. a total of 28 turnovers. The Green Bay Packers had 31 interceptions and forced 14 fumbles for 45 turnovers. Since I know you'll say the GB defense has a lot more talent than ours let's look at a team with a "crappy" defense, the Patriots. They had 10 forced fumbles, half as many as us, but still managed 23 interceptions, about 3x more than us and they don't have a revis or woodson, or a polamalu. So how does belechik get so many more interceptions out of his back 7 compared to frazier? Admittedly the pats D gave up a lot of big plays but so did we, I'd rather have the INTS at least. But is it possible he allows them to play aggressive, tight coverage over sitting 5 yards off and emphasizing "sure tackling?" I guess overall then, the question is, do you believe if we get better players, frazier's priority will go from "let's play it safe and tackle well" to "let's play tight coverage and break up passes and get interceptions"?

It's not the kind of thing you can do every week without teams beginning to expect and stop it. The element of surprise is one of the things that makes it effective. However, I'm with you and I'd like to see them do it more. Winfield missed most of last season and we're only two games into this season so hopefully, we'll see that blitz again soon. We might even see a bunch of INTs if the young secondary starts to gel and improve as a unit.

Agreed, but surely you can do it more than 4 times in 3 years I would think. I'm not even sure it HAS to be winfield doing it, though he probably gives it the best chance of success. Perhaps the young Robinson speedster could be of use here, he's raw but surely "go get the QB as fast as you can" seems manageable.

To wrap this up: I'll gladly concede that a zone defense is a more conservative choice and it's never been my favorite choice. I'd love to see something different too but I still think players make the biggest difference in any scheme. They've added some fresh faces to the secondary. Let's see what they do over the course of this season and if they improve and begin making more plays.

It seems only time will tell. I just have my doubts, I think that when we finally get "good players" it'll be the same old zone coverage, play 8 yards off "keep everything in front of you" and wrap up / tackle well mentality we've seen his entire tenure.

In conclusion, I just want to say that I think it is a 3 part problem, the players, the scheme, the coaching. But I think the guys in charge, particularly Frazier are the reason all 3 are lacking as well. They go after the players that can't cover, or aren't ball hawks. The scheme CALLS for playing it safe and conservative with an emphasis on tackling well, and the coach COACHES the players to run THAT scheme.

[mansquatch]

Mondry I think that you have the essense of the issue. I've often wondered if part of the reason Frasier was brougth into the organization under Childress was the fact that he had the same ultra-conservative style that Childress brought to the team.

The 4-3 and even the Tampa 2 can produce turnovers. That topic has been beaten to death on her over the past year. Jim Johnson defenses of the early 2000s were out of a 4-3 set. The Monte Kiffen defenses in Tampa also produced takeaways.

I'm to a point where this a trend despite tons of turnover outside of winfield at all positions in the secondary. That seems to point to the coach's interpretation of the scheme.

[dead_poet]

Let's take a look at that. We were tied for 4th in the league in 2011 with 20 forced fumbles. But we were dead last in interceptions with 8. a total of 28 turnovers. The Green Bay Packers had 31 interceptions and forced 14 fumbles for 45 turnovers. Since I know you'll say the GB defense has a lot more talent than ours let's look at a team with a "crappy" defense, the Patriots. They had 10 forced fumbles, half as many as us, but still managed 23 interceptions, about 3x more than us and they don't have a revis or woodson, or a polamalu. So how does belechik get so much more production out of his back 7 compared to frazier? Admittedly the pats D gave up a lot of big plays but so did we, I'd rather have the INTS at least. But is it possible he allows them to play aggressive, tight coverage over sitting 5 yards off and emphasizing "sure tackling?" I guess overall then, the question is, do you believe if we get better players, frazier's priority will go from "let's play it safe and tackle well" to "let's play tight coverage and break up passes and get interceptions"?

I think a big part of that is the Patriots' (and Green Bay, New Orleans) offense's ability to jump out to big and early leads, forcing teams to throw to attempt to recover and stay with them. That leads to a one-dimensional offense that plays right into a defense's hands (especially one with an agressive and talented defensive line). I don't think it's a coincidence that, as a team, our best recent turnover differential of +6 occurred in 2009.

It was also reported that last year's defense was going to look a bit different and be much more agressive but with all the injuries piling up they were forced to scrap that idea. This season we've already seen a shift from the traditional "Cover 2" to more of a hybrid (at times). There have been a few articles documenting the changes.

[mondry]

I think a big part of that is the Patriots' (and Green Bay, New Orleans) offense's ability to jump out to big and early leads, forcing teams to throw to attempt to recover and stay with them. That leads to a one-dimensional offense that plays right into a defense's hands (especially one with an agressive and talented defensive line). I don't think it's a coincidence that, as a team, our best recent turnover differential of +6 occurred in 2009.

Very true, it's a great point.

It was also reported that last year's defense was going to look a bit different and be much more agressive but with all the injuries piling up they were forced to scrap that idea. This season we've already seen a shift from the traditional "Cover 2" to more of a hybrid (at times). There have been a few articles documenting the changes.

Yeah, Well that's what's strange about it in some sense. Pagac looked like he really wanted to be more aggressive, and I like the "idea" of the way he wanted them to play. I think the problem there is that (Jim will get a laugh here!) we needed better players before fully implementing that variation of the 4-3 / cover2. However, they didn't just go back to being conservative, they demoted his #### and so now I'm worried we may never get another chance to change up Fraziers soft zone scheme.

[Mothman]

Of course, you know very well that it'd be silly to try and argue otherwise.

That's why I put the wink there. I was just kidding you.

The problem I have though is to me it sounds like Fraziers defense will only work or be "good" if he has 3 probowl defense lineman and a bunch of probowlers in the secondary. You even metnion a corner as good as REVIS! Unfortunately that's a luxury only a couple teams ever get. I'm just skeptical that we can ever acquire said talented players needed, especially when the guys who have a big say in the draft LOVE targeting players like Greenway who's fundamentally sound and a good tackler but brings very little else to the table.

I think it depends on when they're picking. Greenway was a mid-first round pick, not a high pick, and getting a top cover corner isn't out of the question. If the team is bad again this year, they'll end up picking in the top ten, where corners like that are available.

I'm not suggesting the defense has to be full of Pro Bowl players to work but having just one in the secondary might make a big difference. Right now, their best secondary player is a 35 year old cornerback. Don't you think that speaks volumes?

Let's take a look at that. We were tied for 4th in the league in 2011 with 20 forced fumbles. But we were dead last in interceptions with 8. a total of 28 turnovers. The Green Bay Packers had 31 interceptions and forced 14 fumbles for 45 turnovers. Since I know you'll say the GB defense has a lot more talent than ours let's look at a team with a "crappy" defense, the Patriots. They had 10 forced fumbles, half as many as us, but still managed 23 interceptions, about 3x more than us and they don't have a revis or woodson, or a polamalu.

No, but they do have a powerhouse offense that can make teams one-dimensional and put them in "must pass" situations, which helps lead to INTs. They averaged 32.1 ppg last season. GB averaged 35 ppg on offense and had 31 INTs. The Lions averaged 29.6 ppg and had 21 INTs. A high scoring output isn't always going to equate to a substantial number of INTs but as I said earlier, none of this stuff occurs in a bubble. A potent offense puts pressure on the opposing team to keep up. That can lead to INTs, which can lead to more potent offense.

I don't know enough about NE's secondary or defensive scheme to know why they're able to pull down so many INTs. Maybe they're drafting players who excel in that department. Maybe the offense's high output contributes, maybe Belichick and his defensive staff are just that good. It's probably all of the above.

I guess overall then, the question is, do you believe if we get better players, frazier's priority will go from "let's play it safe and tackle well" to "let's play tight coverage and break up passes and get interceptions"?

Honestly? Yes. Frazier's no fool. He's played for and worked with coaches who understood the value of all of the above and I have no doubt he does too.

Agreed, but surely you can do it more than 4 times in 3 years I would think. I'm not even sure it HAS to be winfield doing it, though he probably gives it the best chance of success.

I'm fairly certain they've run more than 4 corner blitzes in 3 years. We just tend to remember the ones that work and forget the ones that don't. I've seen people on this board complain about the Vikings reluctance to blitz in games where they blitzed on a substantial number of plays.

It seems only time will tell. I just have my doubts, I think that when we finally get "good players" it'll be the same old zone coverage, play 8 yards off "keep everything in front of you" and wrap up / tackle well mentality we've seen his entire tenure.

The 49ers are doing an awful lot of that right now... with great success.They might have superior defensive coaching but they definitely have superior defensive personnel.

[mondry]

They might have superior defensive coaching but they definitely have superior defensive personnel.

Yeah they do LOL.

[Mothman]

In conclusion, I just want to say that I think it is a 3 part problem, the players, the scheme, the coaching. But I think the guys in charge, particularly Frazier are the reason all 3 are lacking as well. They go after the players that can't cover, or aren't ball hawks. The scheme CALLS for playing it safe and conservative with an emphasis on tackling well, and the coach COACHES the players to run THAT scheme.

Every defensive scheme emphasizes good tackling. Frazier's scheme calls for players to keep receivers in front of them and make the tackle without giving up a lot of yards after the catch. That's pretty common too. Where we really differ is in the conclusion that the scheme also calls for players to play it safe. I don't believe that. I think Frazier, like any defensive coach, would love for his players to be aggressive, knock down passes, and make interceptions. I think the talent aspect of this debate rears it's head in this area. The Vikings DBs and LBs just don't get into position to make those plays very often and I think that's because they haven't been good enough to do it. Hopefully, Josh Robinson can help change that. He was a ballhawk and an aggressive cover corner in college.

Mansquatch mentioned tons of turnover in the secondary but I just don't think most of those players were particularly good. How many of them have made an impression elsewhere in the league since playing in Minnesota? That speaks to scouting and drafting more than coaching.

[Mothman]

Yeah, Well that's what's strange about it in some sense. Pagac looked like he really wanted to be more aggressive, and I like the "idea" of the way he wanted them to play. I think the problem there is that (Jim will get a laugh here!) we needed better players before fully implementing that variation of the 4-3 / cover2.

LOL!

I'll say this: if the source of the problem is coaching and the pass defense doesn't get better, it may lead to a coaching change anyway and then we'll get to see some sort of change!

[mansquatch]

In defense of the players: We've only really seen them play in this style of coverage. Maybe they are terrible in practice when Pagac dials up some Jim Johnson (RIP) blitz packages and that is why they are not running more of a pressure oriented style of play. It just seems to me like there is a complete dirth of risk taking on our defense. I understand the whole playing smart thing, but I also know that with risk also comes reward. IMO we are playing way too conservative. It seems like they have the attitude of "we are not a team that can recover from giving up a TD". Unfortunately, like most NFL defenses, we cannot shut down a QB for 4 quarters and our offense isn't good enough to build a big enough lead that when the other guys make plays we can survive. Someone has to get more aggressive whether it be Williams or Musgrave otherwise we are going to play it safe straight into another losing record.

[mondry]

Well all I have to say is hopefully it makes them good at the basics. And when they get more comfortable and add a few more pieces hopefully they expand on the offense / defense and it's an easy transition. Personally I feel like you should practice for the end result from the get go, if you want to be better at down field passing you should emphasis and practice down field passing. Of course if you get fired you never get to the end heh.

[Mothman]

It's been a great discussion, guys! It's nice when we can discuss a subject like this intelligently, whether we end up agreeing or not.

[S197]

Continually lost in all of this is the fact that the Vikings pass defense improved under Frazier, going from dead last in the league to 18th in 2008, 19th in 2009, and 10th in 2010. They dropped back to 26th last season but we all know it was a completely makeshift unit by the end of the season and that injuries played a role in that decline. If Frazier's coaching is so detrimental to the pass defense, how were they able to climb from the absolute bottom of the league to the middle and then the top 10?

Look, I'm not in complete denial about this. I realize the secondary hasn't been particularly good at intercepting the ball under Frazier and that may have something to do with his coaching. I certainly don't think he's perfect and I don't believe the Vikings secondary has always played up to it's full potential but a definitive statement like Mondry made above ("It's not a scheme problem or player problem, it's a coaching problem") requires strong evidence to be convincing.

Well we had a very odd defense statwise for a very long time. We were dead last against the pass but first against the rush. So I think you need to take all of that into context. The secondary improved in terms of stats but teams were able to run the football more effectively as the years progressed. There's a degree of give and take there, when you can run the football effectively, you're obviously passing less so the stats show improvement. Whether there was true improvement is debatable. It wasn't like defense was locking down receivers all of a sudden, if that were the case, we'd have some solidarity back there rather than a laundry list of players coming and going.

I could buy it a lot easier if he had said it's a scheme problem, a player problem and a coaching problem. Placing the blame in one area seems excessive.

I think this is a fair summation.

[mansquatch]

I believe the potency of our rushing defense had a lot more to do with Pat Williams than he was ever given credit for. That guy was an absolute monster at NT, he made the entire middle defense better. It is too bad it is such a low glamour position, the guy deserves a lot more credit than he recieved.

Sorry, rant off.

When I say scheme and coaching, I'm referring to how the coaches are telling the players to run the scheme. I think there is an over emphasis on conservative, play it safe, football. That is a much different issue than we had with Chilli-dog. To be honest, I wonder if there is some ownership issue at play, ie they are coaching to not make mistakes vs. coaching to win.

[PurpleKoolaid]

I think now would be a good time to switch to a 3-4. Dont know how much JA has left in the tank or if he wants to even play here much longer. And since we are going young, lets try the 3-4. So what if our coaches are tampa/cover 2 guys. Its NOT working. Im tired of it. If we are rebulding and expected to lose, lets try the 3-4.