Moderator: Moderators
More at the link.OC BILL MUSGRAVE heard some reaction on the 'FAN last week regarding our lack of deep game and/or attempts to get it deep. He went to teasing me saying stuff like "Obviously we are so lucky to even win a game given we never go down the field." He was serious, too, and not super happy Rubes were not seeing the big picture.
FailedtoOpen wrote: Then someone stole your post and put it on another message board. http://www.ign.com/boards/threads/what- ... -466481823 That's the link if you is interested.
I'm flattered. Apparently I have fans. 
Thanks for bringing this to my attention.S197 wrote: I agree, he has done a lot right this season but as you mention he does need to improve in a few key areas. To me, he's about average right now if I had to give him some sort of score. If he improves in the redzone and starts to stretch the field a little more, I'm sure the articles will follow.
We saw a few ways they responded: Simpson was targeted at least 6 times (his 4 catches plus the 2 PI calls) and Peterson caught 4 passes in addition to his 21 carries.mansquatch wrote:On a more serious/sober note: The Lions were able to take away our Harvin and Rudolph game in the passing attack. The NFL is a meat grinder, so the question is how will Musgrave and Co. respond or have they been exposed?
I know of no study or in-depth analysis that has been done to differentiate the value of having superb talent versus having fundamentally sound play. But I can tell you that this is the grand experiment being conducted at Winter Park under Leslie Frazier and Rick Spielman.
That is not to say that the Vikings are averse to having very talented football players on their team. Look at the current roster and all the talent – from Peterson to Jared Allen to Harvin to Greenway to Kevin Williams to Winfield to Matt Kalil … I could go on and on. That’s a ton of premier talent.
But here’s the deal going forward: Frazier and Spielman are really, really trying to find intelligent and disciplined football players who are not only fundamentally sound but also are incredibly dedicated to getting better. Again, it sounds obvious. But sometimes it’s those guys who put forth more time and investment into mastering their roles that spark the big NFL run faster than the guys with all the talent and athleticism but without the super savvy and work ethic.
So this is the Frazier-Spielman vision – to catalyze their rebuilding effort with good players who won’t make costly mental mistakes and who are dedicated enough to study more and dial in every week. They believe and I agree that that kind of thing becomes contagious. And it’s at least one small reason they’re off to this 3-1 start.
It sounds like a great vision to me. They talked about that this offseason too and it's one of the reasons I've been more than willing to buy into what they're trying to do, keep an open mind and give them a chance. Put simply, their approach makes sense. They obviously need players with enough talent but they'll be a better team if they can fin talented players who also buy into their philosophy and work hard within the team concept.dead_poet wrote:I thought this was pertinent to the discussion. From Wiederer's Chat OT column.
Question 7: Has anyone ever done an analysis of fundamentally sound football versus having better skills players? Can a case be made that intelligent, fundamentally sound play is more important than having better skill players?
That's a good point and even the Vikings last two performances show the value of that defensive approach when it's executed properly. However, that Bears defense showed on Monday (and has been showing most of this season) just how good a defense can look using this philosophy. personnel and execution count for a lot.mansquatch wrote:An interest subtext to this: The Bears performance on Monday Night defensively shows that the Tampa 2 can work if you have guys who are capable of running it.
The play i was referring to in the Detroit game was the direct snap to Harvin, which followed an excellent use of Harvin out of the backfield where he gained great yardage to move the Vikes from outside the 20 to approximately the 10 yard line.Is that the play you'e thinking about? I like the previous play wrinkle but going right back to Harvin in the backfield on the next play, in the red zone, was a terrible call. The defense had just been alerted to the danger he represents in the backfield and lining him up to take the snap on what amounts to a gimmick play didn't fool anybody. The Lions easily snuffed it out.I think they use Harvin out of the backfield as a wrinkle to keep the defense on their toes, however if you are referring to the play I think you are, then you are totally correct.
I don't mind them trying new wrinkles either. That's a good thing. I just thought it was a bad situational call and I think, in general, that running Harvin inside the 10 gives the Vikes considerably less chance to score than running Peterson inside the 10.I thought it was a terrible call and poor play design. I just chalked it up to "trying stuff" and was happy to see them do that even though it didn't work. It is good to see them tossing new wrinkles in, so I figure take it with a grain of salt. So far it hasn't been like the "Blazer" fiasco last year where we would keep seeing and keep seeing it fail.
Ponder was lined up in the backfield too so they could have snapped the ball to him and then thrown it (or, as you're saying, it's possible that Harvin could throw it) but defensively, I imagine the Lions took one look at that formation and thought "it's a run to Harvin".mansquatch wrote:That was the one. The way it was designed there was basically nothing they could do except run Harvin which, In my arm chair coordinator opinion, makes it way too easy to defend. Maybe Harvin has a gun for an arm that nobody knows about yet, otherwise, seems silly.
Yeah, something like that probably won't be successful if you just go with the obvious tactic. Had they done it once before and Harvin or Ponder threw it for a big gain it might make the defense a little more honest on the back end.Mothman wrote: Ponder was lined up in the backfield too so they could have snapped the ball to him and then thrown it (or, as you're saying, it's possible that Harvin could throw it) but defensively, I imagine the Lions took one look at that formation and thought "it's a run to Harvin".
I'd be curious to know what other skill players were in on that play. I think it was Gerhart at wideout, I'm not sure if Rudolph or Simpson were in, I would assume at least one of them were. But as you mention and as I stated in the game thread, I doubt the defense had any trouble dissecting that play.Mothman wrote: Ponder was lined up in the backfield too so they could have snapped the ball to him and then thrown it (or, as you're saying, it's possible that Harvin could throw it) but defensively, I imagine the Lions took one look at that formation and thought "it's a run to Harvin".
i predict ponder is going to have a reception this season. it might not be amazing...but it will happen.Mothman wrote: Ponder was lined up in the backfield too so they could have snapped the ball to him and then thrown it (or, as you're saying, it's possible that Harvin could throw it) but defensively, I imagine the Lions took one look at that formation and thought "it's a run to Harvin".
