Moderator: Moderators
The Vikings did not have a "very good" short passing game in 2012. The short passing game was essentially all they could muster when they could muster anything at all in the air. Many of those short completions were to outlet receivers, so even if you add up the yardage, you have to realize that much of it wasn't so much from a designed attack as it was desperation.thatguy wrote:Agreed. Some people don't seem to understand that just because we can't stretch the field doesn't mean we didn't have a very good short route passing game.
Not to mention that MANY of those short passing yards were gained in 3rd and loooooong situations. Its a deceptive stat that does not fairly evaluate the overall passing game which by NFL standards was pathetic.Eli wrote: The Vikings did not have a "very good" short passing game in 2012. The short passing game was essentially all they could muster when they could muster anything at all in the air. Many of those short completions were to outlet receivers, so even if you add up the yardage, you have to realize that much of it wasn't so much from a designed attack as it was desperation.
How many of those were intercepted I wonder?CalVike wrote:Hard to believe we can go much farther with this albatross, but we have won 3 in a row after losing to Bears & Packers on road. RT @ESPNStatsInfo: #Vikings QB Christian Ponder is 1-for-23 on throws of 15+ yards downfield in his last 6 games
Them there stats be hyperbole!CalVike wrote:Hard to believe we can go much farther with this albatross, but we have won 3 in a row after losing to Bears & Packers on road. RT @ESPNStatsInfo: #Vikings QB Christian Ponder is 1-for-23 on throws of 15+ yards downfield in his last 6 games
Most of it has been by design. Harvin was at or near the top of the league in receiving yardage while he was healthy and the majority of his receptions were short passes. Heck, they're still "manufacturing" (as Pelissero would put it) completions to Wright, Rudolph and Jenkins using designed short passing plays. Whether the short passing game was "all they could muster" is irrelevant in terms of it's effectiveness and overall, it has been effective. With Harvin it was very effective.Eli wrote: The Vikings did not have a "very good" short passing game in 2012. The short passing game was essentially all they could muster when they could muster anything at all in the air. Many of those short completions were to outlet receivers, so even if you add up the yardage, you have to realize that much of it wasn't so much from a designed attack as it was desperation.
Minnesota is dead last in the league for net passing yards. It's a bit of a stretch to call that effective.Mothman wrote: it has been effective. With Harvin it was very effective.
That would be a stretch but I didn't call the passing game as a whole effective. I called the short passing game effective and I emphasized that it was much more effective when Harvin was playing. If you look at Harvin's production, I think that's all-but-impossible to deny.Crax wrote: Minnesota is dead last in the league for net passing yards. It's a bit of a stretch to call that effective.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/ ... ssingYards
Well said. I think in the era of Brady, Manning, Brees, Rodgers, etc. there's this idea that a team has to be able to throw the ball like the Pats, Colts, Saints, and Packers to win and that's not true. I don't think anyone would argue that the Vikings don't need a better passing game or a more versatile passing game but that doesn't mean everything about their passing game is ineffective. In football, it's moving the ball and scoring that's important, not how a team moves the ball and scores.mansquatch wrote:Not trying to be snarky, but why would you say it isn't effective?
It seems that some are saying it isn't effective because we have so few completions over 15 yards. OK. But, do they need such completions to be a winning team in the NFL? Not to be a jerk, but if everyone is right about how critical the downfield passing game is, then why are we 9-6?
Ponder isn't going to win any games on his own. I get that. But we just beat a Houston team by winning the time of possession game and the turnover differential. This on top of only 85 yards from AP. So we didn't have 300 yards of passing? Does anyone think we did not just dominate the Texans with our crap passing attack playing a more major roll?
Point being: More ways to win football games than the deep ball. I think we are way too focused on the lack of a deep passing game and losing sight of all the other, non-sexy stuff this team does to win games. They are 9-6 for a reason.
If you're dead last at something, doesn't that make it not effective? If you are the very worst, I'd say you are the least effective in the league. That doesn't mean it never works, but that it works less.mansquatch wrote:Not trying to be snarky, but why would you say it isn't effective?
The Texans game was just one game. Our defense was incredible that game. If our defense is always that good, then our passing game won't matter that much, but I don't know if you can count on that. That was the lowest points in a game all season for the texans. I'd hope we win every game that we hold the other team to just 6 points.Ponder isn't going to win any games on his own. I get that. But we just beat a Houston team by winning the time of possession game and the turnover differential. This on top of only 85 yards from AP. So we didn't have 300 yards of passing? Does anyone think we did not just dominate the Texans with our crap passing attack playing a more major roll?
True. We have far and away the best running back in the NFL and our defense has been better.Point being: More ways to win football games than the deep ball. I think we are way too focused on the lack of a deep passing game and losing sight of all the other, non-sexy stuff this team does to win games. They are 9-6 for a reason.
The funny thing is you DO need a QB like those you mentioned to WIN a superbowl. Any team can win a game here and there with a mediocre QB. But you ain't gonna win the big one. Those days are gone. Our front office has failed miserably over the years in recruiting a real QB for the future.Mothman wrote: Well said. I think in the era of Brady, Manning, Brees, Rodgers, etc. there's this idea that a team has to be able to throw the ball like the Pats, Colts, Saints, and Packers to win and that's not true. I don't think anyone would argue that the Vikings don't need a better passing game or a more versatile passing game but that doesn't mean everything about their passing game is ineffective. In football, it's moving the ball and scoring that's important, not how a team moves the ball and scores.
