Playcalling????

[Mothman]

Good point on the 64-yarder. My point, the team was down way too many points for your argument to have any credibility. A team cannot come back from 30-10, 30-17, 36-17 with AD. And they certainly did not ignore him.

I'm not saying they ignored him or that they could just ride him to a comeback win on 35 carries. I'm saying they under-utilized him early and I think that contributed to stalled drives and a deficit and they got away from him too much in the second half when they didn't need to do so. A team can come back from a 30-10 deficit and still stick with their running game. They need to pass too, of course, but falling into the mentality that a 20 point deficit has to be erased with the pass is a trap. Peterson's 64 yard run is a perfect illustration of why it's a trap. Big plays and scoring plays can come out of the running game when you have an explosive runner. On the other hand, becoming one-dimensional when already struggling to protect a shaky QB is a recipe for failure. Time is the biggest factor when dealing with a substantial deficit and the Vikings had time in the first 3 quarters to make more of a commitment to their running game, which was working very well and might have at least enabled them to sustain drives, rest their defense a little more and perhaps put TB in bad field position more often. It might also have reduced the heat on Ponder.

Without a consistent mid- and decent long passing game, more losses will become the norm. I am glad they tried to go beyond AD and throw long to Simpson. Relying more on AD would still have meant a loss. No matter how good AD is, he can not make up Ponder and WR shortcomings. Good defenses of which the Bucs are not one will crush the AD strategy.

I'm not sure what you mean by the "AD strategy". Again, I'm not saying they could have just put the entire game on his back but the guy had well over 100 yards rushing on just 15 carries. Giving him another 10 might have led to 50+more and another score. When he was killing it early in the game, would it have been so bad to give him the ball on back-toback carries a little more? It might have steered the game in a very different direction.

[Mothman]

You are right when it got to be the 2nd half and they were down by 17. However, Moth's point is about the 1st half. In the first half they ran far too sparingly, and as Moth points out, when they did run they were wildly successful. The question you have to ask is if they had run AD more, how would the game have changed. My guess is at the very least, the time of possession would have been far more balanced and we would have had more than 7 points at halftime. That changes the rest of the game.

This is an indictment on play calling. You ahve AP and your team relies on either taking a lead or being within reach in the 4th quarter. Above all, that means controlling the ball, which they didn't do. Way too much passing (and bad passing) in the 1st half IMO.

Exactly. Thank you for clarifying my point better than I did.

[Cliff]

Good point on the 64-yarder. My point, the team was down way too many points for your argument to have any credibility. A team cannot come back from 30-10, 30-17, 36-17 with AD. And they certainly did not ignore him. Without a consistent mid- and decent long passing game, more losses will become the norm. I am glad they tried to go beyond AD and throw long to Simpson. Relying more on AD would still have meant a loss. No matter how good AD is, he can not make up Ponder and WR shortcomings. Good defenses of which the Bucs are not one will crush the AD strategy.

No, Peterson is a great weapon but he's not a "come from behind" type weapon. The Vikings simply aren't built for that.

This game was decided more on the turnovers and penalties in my opinion.

The Vikings need to win the turnover battle to stay in games. The team doesn't have the tools to overcome that at the moment. Most teams don't though.

[losperros]

No, Peterson is a great weapon but he's not a "come from behind" type weapon. The Vikings simply aren't built for that.

This game was decided more on the turnovers and penalties in my opinion.

The Vikings need to win the turnover battle to stay in games. The team doesn't have the tools to overcome that at the moment. Most teams don't though.

I agree with you except for the part about Peterson not being a "come from behind" weapon. I think he's explosive enough that he should be utilized at all times, regardless whether the Vikings have a lead or are playing catch up. AD isn't just a short gain power back or a change of pace back. He's a formidable weapon that can humble any defense at any time, but he needs the opportunities to do that.

[mansquatch]

I agree with you except for the part about Peterson not being a "come from behind" weapon. I think he's explosive enough that he should be utilized at all times, regardless whether the Vikings have a lead or are playing catch up. AD isn't just a short gain power back or a change of pace back. He's a formidable weapon that can humble any defense at any time, but he needs the opportunities to do that.

Case in point: The big run in the 3rd Quater. However, I think the bigger concern is how they ended up 17 points down, not what they did afterwards. That first half is chock full of issues and it wasn't just Ponder. It seemed like the coaches approach to the game was "we are going to beat them with Ponder, hell or high water." That is what I have an issue with.

[CalVike]

You are right when it got to be the 2nd half and they were down by 17. However, Moth's point is about the 1st half. In the first half they ran far too sparingly, and as Moth points out, when they did run they were wildly successful. The question you have to ask is if they had run AD more, how would the game have changed. My guess is at the very least, the time of possession would have been far more balanced and we would have had more than 7 points at halftime. That changes the rest of the game.

This is an indictment on play calling. You ahve AP and your team relies on either taking a lead or being within reach in the 4th quarter. Above all, that means controlling the ball, which they didn't do. Way too much passing (and bad passing) in the 1st half IMO.

I finally watched the first half. I think the 2 fumbles did them in with respect to their momentum. They did have some predictable play calling at times but they also picked up a couple first downs in the 2nd quarter after problem plays. I am still not seeing an issue with Musgrave. Most of the time they targeted AD or Harvin. And Ponder failed to execute simple, open pass plays that a more competent QB would have executed with ease. I don't think too little AD was the problem in the first half.

[MrPurplenGold]

Those low percentage passes don't seem so great when they aren't connecting, do they?

If they're going to keep running those sideline fades to Simpson then, as Mike Mayock said on the broadcast, he needs to maintain more space between himself on the sidelines so the QB has enough room to work.

The offense was really discombobulated last night (I love that word— discombobulated, not night). You could almost hear the thought process leading up to the game:

"We need to run AD and impose our will."

"But Tampa Bay excels against the run and they're weak against the pass. This is our opportunity to get Ponder going and get Simpson more involved!"

... and so they forced it when they should have been riding AD's early success the way TB continued to ride Martin once he got going.

Sigh. It's going to be a long 10 days until the next game.

I think they are forcing a deep passing game that really just isn't there. Everyone expects Simpson to be the deep threat because he has the speed, but he has been forced to make difficult catches because he hasn't really been getting separation from the DB's he's faced. He's pretty much running a go route and CBs are dropping back and running with him. Percy Harvin has been open more on deep routes than Simpson has. I think they need to re-evaluate how they plan on using Simpson. Instead of Go-Routes, put him on crossing patterns, come-backs, and even bubble screens and allow him to make plays in space. The Vikings have essentially changed their game-plan, which has been successful, for a guy that just isn't providing the deep threat they hoped he would be. I find it interesting Ponder's worst games have been with Simpson in the line up. I don't think that's a coincidence. Musgrave is calling more 7-Step drops, which don't work to Ponder's strengths. He needs to be given 3-5 step drops, make quick reads and not give him too much time to overthink what's going on in the field. Even his best deep balls have been 5-step drops where he's just dropped back and let it go.