Week 9 Predictions: Rams @ Vikings

[Eliot]

We hold Todd Gurley under 100 yards and the Vikings win this game. I believe that the Vikings will do that, and Harrison Smith gets an interception to end the game.
Vikings 14
Rams 10

[Mothman]

These two teams are SO similar...

http://www.startribune.com/our-early-lo ... 339843452/

[fiestavike]

These two teams are SO similar...

http://www.startribune.com/our-early-lo ... 339843452/

Jim, any ideas on how you think the Vikings will/should gameplan offensively for this one?
I'm scratching my head on how best to approach this STL defense.

[Mothman]

Jim, any ideas on how you think the Vikings will/should gameplan offensively for this one?
I'm scratching my head on how best to approach this STL defense.

It's going to be tough. I think they should do whatever they can to keep the Rams off balance and take some of the aggression out of their defense. For example, use play action or quick-hitting passing routes a little more often on first down (to be less predictable), run a few screens, etc. I'd like to see them switch up the tempo too. Run some no-huddle offense, get to the line quickly, try to wear the defense out. I'd use some heavy formations too, not all the time but to protect Bridgewater and hopefully provide good blocking for Peterson. They have the TEs to peel off such formations and be effective, plus enough speed on the outside to (hopefully) win against single coverage. If they do some of that and show dedication to the run, they might be able to set up a big strike down the field and give Bridgewater time to actually throw a slower-developing deep route. Plus, mixing some power running with an up-tempo approach might wear down the defense.

I think sticking with the run is going to be a key. If they become one-dimensional, I doubt they'll hold up well at all against the Rams pass rush. I really don't want to see Bridgewater sacked 7 times like he was in Denver.

[Crax]

Jim, any ideas on how you think the Vikings will/should gameplan offensively for this one?
I'm scratching my head on how best to approach this STL defense.

I'm not Jim, but I'd like to see them try something different. Give the Rams something they haven't seen this year. Patterson had a great run against the Rams last year. I'd like to see Patterson or Diggs be involved early.

From this article today talking about the Vikings red zone problems: http://www.startribune.com/five-vikings ... witterfeed

Vikings have ran on 1st down EVERY SINGLE TIME inside the 10 and 22 of 25 total inside the red zone. I think you need to mix things up a bit more than that

[Mothman]

I'm not Jim, but I'd like to see them try something different. Give the Rams something they haven't seen this year. Patterson had a great run against the Rams last year. I'd like to see Patterson or Diggs be involved early.

From this article today talking about the Vikings red zone problems: http://www.startribune.com/five-vikings ... witterfeed

Vikings have ran on 1st down EVERY SINGLE TIME inside the 10 and 22 of 25 total inside the red zone. I think you need to mix things up a bit more than that

Thanks for that link. I hadn't seen that article yet. They've been too predictable on first down, especially in the red zone.

Getting Patterson involved is a great idea since he burned the Rams last year and his ability to improvise in the open field is the sort of thing that helps breaks down a good defense. I doubt they'll get him involved though.

I'd look to Wright early in this one on slants or crossing routes. He has impressive running ability after the catch too. Hopefully, Diggs is healthy.

RAC yardage could be very important in this one.

[fiestavike]

It's going to be tough. I think they should do whatever they can to keep the Rams off balance and take some of the aggression out of their defense. For example, use play action or quick-hitting passing routes a little more often on first down (to be less predictable), run a few screens, etc. I'd like to see them switch up the tempo too. Run some no-huddle offense, get to the line quickly, try to wear the defense out. I'd use some heavy formations too, not all the time but to protect Bridgewater and hopefully provide good blocking for Peterson. They have the TEs to peel off such formations and be effective, plus enough speed on the outside to (hopefully) win against single coverage. If they do some of that and show dedication to the run, they might be able to set up a big strike down the field and give Bridgewater time to actually throw a slower-developing deep route. Plus, mixing some power running with an up-tempo approach might wear down the defense.

I think sticking with the run is going to be a key. If they become one-dimensional, I doubt they'll hold up well at all against the Rams pass rush. I really don't want to see Bridgewater sacked 7 times like he was in Denver.

Thanks, certainly some good ideas. I could see trying to veer heavy and let the passing game be play action deep routes and screen passes or go the opposite way and spread them out with lots of quick hitting passes. Maybe we'll get a combination of both. As good as the Rams have been against the run, I do wonder if a "dink and dunk" spread passing game could be the best answer, but so far MN hasn't tried to get too cute in game planning. Honestly, I don't see a great option and I think this game will be a slog against a quality opponent.

I do like the idea you guys mentioned of using Patterson in this game. It could be a good game in which to break some tendencies. For example, 8 of his 9 snaps were runs last week, perhaps 6 of 9 could be plays where he either gets the ball, is used as a decoy, or is the primary option (deep?)

Lastly, they aren't going to be able to afford the dropped passes they've endured over the last couple weeks in this one. If the WRs get a chance to catch the ball for a first down or a solid gain, they need to hang onto the ball.

[Mothman]

Thanks, certainly some good ideas. I could see trying to veer heavy and let the passing game be play action deep routes and screen passes or go the opposite way and spread them out with lots of quick hitting passes. Maybe we'll get a combination of both. As good as the Rams have been against the run, I do wonder if a "dink and dunk" spread passing game could be the best answer, but so far MN hasn't tried to get too cute in game planning. Honestly, I don't see a great option and I think this game will be a slog against a quality opponent.

My worry with spreading them out would be that Bridgewater would still absorb too many hits, even if they were dinking and dunking. As you said, there's nota great option. My personal outlook when a team is going against an aggressive defensive front is to attack that front to get them to back off. Rather than having the OL back on their heels trying to block strong pass rushers, i'd rather see them driving into those pass rushers on power running plays. It's pretty much the strategy the 49ers used so successfully against the Vikings in week 1. It doesn't always work so well though...

The idea behind the up-tempo game is obviously the same: another aggressive tactic designed to wear out the defense and sap them of some aggression.

I

do like the idea you guys mentioned of using Patterson in this game. It could be a good game in which to break some tendencies. For example, 8 of his 9 snaps were runs last week, perhaps 6 of 9 could be plays where he either gets the ball, is used as a decoy, or is the primary option (deep?)

It's a good idea because it's another way to take a little aggressiveness away from the defense.

Lastly, they aren't going to be able to afford the dropped passes they've endured over the last couple weeks in this one. If the WRs get a chance to catch the ball for a first down or a solid gain, they need to hang onto the ball.

Definitely. A good defense is going to limit chances so they can't afford to squander opportunities.

[Just Me]

I see this game as a dead even affair with the Vikings fortunate to have the home field. Consequently, my prediction will reflect the 3 points given to the home team:

19-16 Vikings win a close one.

[akvikingsfan]

Everyone is being so level headed about this. What's up with that? So I'll break that trend. I say the Vikings win big, by at least two scores. I see the score being 27-13.

[Pondering Her Percy]

Everyone is being so level headed about this. What's up with that? So I'll break that trend. I say the Vikings win big, by at least two scores. I see the score being 27-13.

With the way this offense has been operating and as bad as our line is, I can't see us putting up 27 points. We couldn't put up 27 points against the worst defense in the NFL (Chicago)

[jackal]

My god, when I saw that injury list.. I was a little worried I hope a lot of those guys get healthy..

[84BreaksAnkles]

With the way this offense has been operating and as bad as our line is, I can't see us putting up 27 points. We couldn't put up 27 points against the worst defense in the NFL (Chicago)

But we did put up 20 against the best...

Just saying

[autobon7]

My god, when I saw that injury list.. I was a little worried I hope a lot of those guys get healthy..

My hunch is Zimmer is giving them a little extra recovery......I hope. Either way I think Cole will see some extra mins.

[John_Viveiros]

I figure it's going to be 24-21. Whoever has the last good long drive will win. Point of note. The Vikings are the only team that has not allowed more than 23 points in any game this year, so far.

Whoa! I wish you hadn't done that. You might have well have mentioned that Gary Anderson hasn't missed a kick all season.

I think the Vikings are a better team than the Rams, but the matchups are bad. Their strengths fit into our weaknesses in a way that's particularly unsettling. Now that the cap has been taken off the previously sealed "we haven't given up more than 23 points" box, I'm going to predict a 24-16 loss: 24-13 until we settle for our 3rd FG in the red zone late in the 4th quarter, and then we can't recover the onside kick and the Rams do kneel-downs while we are technically within one score.