Vikings Message Board.Com

Here's the bad news:

As Vikings lost one-on-one matchups, Eagles forced Sam Bradford's fumbles

The zone blitzes the Eagles had prepared for Bradford worked, but they weren't used in heavy doses. "I think we only ran two of those throughout the game," safety Malcolm Jenkins said. "One ended up being a sack and I think the other one, he threw it away." And while the Eagles knew how to fluster Bradford with coverage disguises, their biggest defensive plays in a 21-10 win came from something else.

On two of Bradford's four fumbles, the Eagles sent a four-man pressure. They sent five defenders after him the other two times, but the Vikings had more blockers than Philadelphia did pass-rushers. The Eagles' advantage on the game's biggest plays flowed from plain, simple execution -- and a lack of it from the Vikings.

"It's not the scheme," said ESPN analyst and former NFL defensive back Matt Bowen. "This is all about one-on-one blocking. ... They just got beat."

There's some very nice analysis of the game at the link above.

CbusVikesFan wrote:Jim,
you and I have seen a ton of Vikings football. We have seen many lineups trotted out there for us to behold. Some have been really good and some really bad.I am not sure how it has gotten to be this putrid, but one thing is for sure. The eagles have a pretty good defense in their own right. And they game planned accordingly. Knowing that, I am not sure how the Vikings came up with any counter punches. The whole team should take the blame, they were outcoached and outplayed.
If the team was built from the inside out, there wouldn't be so much conversation about the offensive line.

Somehow I missed this post! Sorry...

Yes, we've seen a ton of Vikings football (and a ton of football, period). I'm hard-pressed to think of a time in Vikes history when the OL has looked worse than this one does. I'm not sure how the team can effectively counterpunch when execution seems to be the main problem. Regardless of what they try to do on offense, players need to execute for it to work.

Mothman wrote:Here's the bad news:

As Vikings lost one-on-one matchups, Eagles forced Sam Bradford's fumbles
There's some very nice analysis of the game at the link above.

If it had been happening all year like it did last Sunday I'd be worried, but I'm just not. The OL hasn't been great but the Vikes have been moving the ball and scoring despite that. In my view, 1 out of 6 games they were soundly beaten both in terms of coaching and execution. In the other 5 they've held their own for the most part, or at least didn't look any worse than the teams they played against did against the Vikings defensive front 7.

Now if more games start to resemble what we saw against Philly it will be time to punch the panic button, but I just don't see that happening. I think a more likely explanation is that Philly got manhandled on defense by the Redskins the week before and their defensive players compensated for that against the Vikings who were just not mentally ready for that kind of response. They knew what they would face in terms of overall defense from the Eagles and their players, but were not prepared to match their intensity and it showed. And, I'd say it's a LOT more likely we'll see the Vikings offense respond similarly after their drubbing against the Bears than we will see the Bears embarrass the Vikings offense again.

But we'll see. It's just not enough data to say the OL sucks and the Vikings are doomed.

VikingLord wrote:If it had been happening all year like it did last Sunday I'd be worried, but I'm just not.

It has been happening all year!

The OL hasn't been great but the Vikes have been moving the ball and scoring despite that.

Yes, they've done it so well that they have the 31st-ranked offense in the league. They've scored 10 offensive TDs. Only Houston has scored fewer and the Vikes aren't exactly leading the league in made field goals either.

Now if more games start to resemble what we saw against Philly it will be time to punch the panic button, but I just don't see that happening. I think a more likely explanation is that Philly got manhandled on defense by the Redskins the week before and their defensive players compensated for that against the Vikings who were just not mentally ready for that kind of response. They knew what they would face in terms of overall defense from the Eagles and their players, but were not prepared to match their intensity and it showed. And, I'd say it's a LOT more likely we'll see the Vikings offense respond similarly after their drubbing against the Bears than we will see the Bears embarrass the Vikings offense again.

But we'll see. It's just not enough data to say the OL sucks and the Vikings are doomed.

I haven't said they're doomed. I haven't punched the "panic button" either but we have 6 games of data indicating that the 2016 line is a problem, not just one. That seems worthy of discussion.

Mothman wrote:
Somehow I missed this post! Sorry...

Yes, we've seen a ton of Vikings football (and a ton of football, period). I'm hard-pressed to think of a time in Vikes history when the OL has looked worse than this one does. I'm not sure how the team can effectively counterpunch when execution seems to be the main problem. Regardless of what they try to do on offense, players need to execute for it to work.

Lol, not like I said anything prophetic.

CbusVikesFan wrote: Lol, not like I said anything prophetic.

No, but you did provide a good perspective.

Ouch.

Vikings’ tackle rotation vs. Eagles ‘a horrible decision,’ analyst says

Mothman wrote:Ouch.

Vikings’ tackle rotation vs. Eagles ‘a horrible decision,’ analyst says

It was at least encouraging that he seems to think Long can still be an asset.

PsyDanny wrote: It was at least encouraging that he seems to think Long can still be an asset.

On the play where Long gave up the strip sack, he actually set up the edge pretty well, the DE had to make a very wide arc, which normally a QB can step up out of the way from. Unfortunately the interior also collapsed so there was nowhere to go. I tried to focus a bit on him and his first step still looks good, just unsure if the strength is still there.

PsyDanny wrote: It was at least encouraging that he seems to think Long can still be an asset.

I agree. I'm trying to make that my main takeaway from the article.

Wish we could get Staley or Thomas without totally suffocating our future. A line like this would look goods pretty good on paper:

LT: Thomas/Staley
LG: Boone
C: Berger
RG: Fusco
RT: Long/Clemmings

Mothman wrote: It has been happening all year!

So Bradford has been getting strip-sacked all year and pressured into turnovers like he was against the Eagles? They've struggled to be sure, but they haven't struggled to that degree.

Mothman wrote: I haven't said they're doomed. I haven't punched the "panic button" either but we have 6 games of data indicating that the 2016 line is a problem, not just one. That seems worthy of discussion.

In my view there is a clear difference between what we saw against the Eagles and what we've seen in the other games from both the offensive line, the offense overall, and the team overall (including the defense). I just don't agree that the Eagles game was typical in any respect from what we've seen in the other 5 games. I think that performance was an outlier across-the-board that will not be repeated again. If I'm wrong I'll admit it, but I think the Vikings will look markedly better in every phase going forward.

No, but you did provide a good perspective.

thank you sir! I am along with you finding it hard think when the O Line was this porous. But recent years it has only declined further into the abyss. Years of neglect have taken a toll on the whole team and has been a long ways back to this point.
I'm trying to forget last week and chalk it up to just being a crappy game.

VikingLord wrote:So Bradford has been getting strip-sacked all year and pressured into turnovers like he was against the Eagles?

No, that's not what I meant. I posted a quote from an article and highlighted the following in bold:

"The Eagles' advantage on the game's biggest plays flowed from plain, simple execution -- and a lack of it from the Vikings.

"It's not the scheme," said ESPN analyst and former NFL defensive back Matt Bowen. "This is all about one-on-one blocking. ... They just got beat."

Vikings linemen have been losing one-on-one battles and failing to execute all year. Just because those failures didn't specifically result in strip sacks or turnovers doesn't mean the problem isn't essentially the same. That lack of execution has resulted in numerous negative plays: sacks, big hits on the QB, running plays repeatedly stuffed for no gain or negative yardage.

In my view there is a clear difference between what we saw against the Eagles and what we've seen in the other games from both the offensive line, the offense overall, and the team overall (including the defense). I just don't agree that the Eagles game was typical in any respect from what we've seen in the other 5 games. I think that performance was an outlier across-the-board that will not be repeated again. If I'm wrong I'll admit it, but I think the Vikings will look markedly better in every phase going forward.

Maybe they will but in terms of the offensive line's performance, that game was not an outlier. It was typical. The end result of a play doesn't change how a lineman performed on that play. If a lineman fails to execute and loses a one-on-one battle, that's simply what happened. The play might result in anything from a strip sack to a sack to a hit to a 20 yard gain but it doesn't change the fact that the assignment was blown. Going all the way back to week 1, when the Titans were, on average, hitting Vikings RBs within less than a yard after they first touched the ball, we've seen poor execution from the line. Sometimes it's been worse in the passing game, sometimes in the running game but with the exception of the Giants game, where the line was okay, their performance has been bad.

CbusVikesFan wrote:thank you sir! I am along with you finding it hard think when the O Line was this porous. But recent years it has only declined further into the abyss. Years of neglect have taken a toll on the whole team and has been a long ways back to this point.
I'm trying to forget last week and chalk it up to just being a crappy game.

Well, the team as a whole certainly played worse than usual. Hopefully, even the o-line is probably capable of a better performance than that!