View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Oct 22, 2017 7:30 pm



Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 Shurmur takes different view of offense than Norv Turner 
Author Message
Hall of Famer

Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 12:53 pm
Posts: 8438
Post Re: Shurmur takes different view of offense than Norv Turner
J. Kapp 11 wrote:
So ... how about the offense today in the first game post-Norv?

I think there were some promising signs -- quicker plays, better offensive line play (at least on passing plays -- only two sacks for this line is a MAJOR win), getting more players involved (even Laquon Treadwell!), more imagination on first down.

I also liked some of the creativity in the Vikings' plays today, particularly the use of Linval Joseph in the backfield, which resulted in two touchdowns. I also liked Shurmur's willingness to get Cordarrelle Patterson involved in a major way. I look for good things out of CP going forward.

But then, the old issues cropped up again. Inability to establish a running game, problems in the red zone, untimely penalties.

What's the consensus? What are you guys thinking? I know it's only one game, but are we seeing anything?


I came away fairly impressed today. For once I didn't think the OC was holding us back, every time they failed it was squarely on the players making mistakes or just getting beat.

Loved the runs to the outside, they were quite a bit more effective than our standard 1st down run off either guard up the middle strategy.

Bradford was 31/40 for 273 and a TD with pretty much nothing but short / quick passes. A massive improvement from the long developing plays that were destroying drive after drive and exposed Sam to unnecessary hits.

The creativity was much improved, putting in that Linval Jumbo package and then running play action pass to a wide open Rudolph was brilliant. Getting Patterson and Diggs the ball in their hands in as simple of a way as possible was great to see as well. They didn't break any big YAC plays but I think it's only a matter of time with as much opportunity as they got.

The overall results won't show too much improvement but I like what I saw today. If they can build on this further it'll go a long way to getting some W's.


Sun Nov 06, 2016 5:37 pm
Profile
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pm
Posts: 6343
Post Re: Shurmur takes different view of offense than Norv Turner
S197 wrote:
J. Kapp 11 wrote:
So ... how about the offense today in the first game post-Norv?

I think there were some promising signs -- quicker plays, better offensive line play (at least on passing plays -- only two sacks for this line is a MAJOR win), getting more players involved (even Laquon Treadwell!), more imagination on first down.

I also liked some of the creativity in the Vikings' plays today, particularly the use of Linval Joseph in the backfield, which resulted in two touchdowns. I also liked Shurmur's willingness to get Cordarrelle Patterson involved in a major way. I look for good things out of CP going forward.

But then, the old issues cropped up again. Inability to establish a running game, problems in the red zone, untimely penalties.

What's the consensus? What are you guys thinking? I know it's only one game, but are we seeing anything?


I liked that they were able to move the ball and get in the endzone. Can't fix everything overnight but the offense looked better than it did the past two weeks. Both plays with Linval (who was basically a decoy) were both nicely drawn up and executed. I would like to see Bradford hit on some of those longer throws, he lead the receiver too much on a few of them.

Yeah, that was too bad. I also lost some hair when CP dropped that sure TD in the end zone. But the good thing is that he got open deep a couple of times. When's the last time we've seen Patterson targeted down the field?

I really think there's something to the idea that Norv was stubborn in his offensive tendencies.

Here's a really good article about it.

This particular example caught my attention:
Quote:
This is a first down play where Minnesota was looking down field and again. There was nowhere to check down when pressure came.

On this first down play, Bradford takes a sack because all of his receivers are tightly covered. Notice that only one of the routes went less than 10 yards.

I know it's easy to just dump on Norv in hindsight, but there seems to be some proof that he was pretty fixated on getting the ball downfield, in spite of the fact that the Vikings weren't well-equipped to do so. And while I'm certainly no offensive expert, it doesn't seem smart to design a play with no check down.

Bradford's throws today came out much quicker. And the defense really didn't take away much -- he hit 78% of his throws. I definitely wish we could have more explosive plays, but you gotta walk before you can run. We weren't even crawling against the Bears.

_________________
Image


Sun Nov 06, 2016 5:59 pm
Profile
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pm
Posts: 6343
Post Re: Shurmur takes different view of offense than Norv Turner
Mothman wrote:
Find some evidence and you might have a case but at this point, it sounds like nothing more than confirmation bias. If it went badly, it must have been Norv. If it went well, it must have been someone else...

This may or may not qualify as evidence, but it's where I got the idea (I'm smart enough to have ideas like this on my own!) ...

Jud Zulgad wrote:
As our Vikings analyst Matthew Coller has pointed out on this website, the offense was using more deep drops with Bradford in the past two games. These are things Turner likes to do but, in this case, there had to be real concern that the line’s inability to protect Bradford was going to get the immobile quarterback injured.

It was almost as if Turner had watched the Vikings’ success using what looked like a Shurmur system in the first four starts by Bradford and then said, “Hey, let’s reincorporate some of what I like to do since Sam has been here a while.”

Here's the entire article.

(By "the past two games," Zulgad is referring to the Philly and Chicago games.)

It's not concrete proof, but since it does come from a journalist who covers the Vikings every day, it seems at least more plausible than any speculation WE might have.

Here's something else that I know from my years as a reporter. RARELY does the whole story come out during the first few days on something like this. Nobody wants to trample on the reputation of a respected coach, especially one who will likely be looking for another job. In the early days, Zimmer is going to say the politically correct things, as he should, and the players aren't going to say much of anything (not smart to trash an outgoing coach right away).

But at some point, when the dust has settled, a player or coach or somebody close to the situation will give us the story. It'll likely be a player with an axe to grind, like a Cordarrelle Patterson or perhaps a Laquon Treadwell, so their views would be biased, of course. But that's usually how we get the story on things like this ... or at least how we get closer to the truth.

_________________
Image


Sun Nov 06, 2016 6:17 pm
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Shurmur takes different view of offense than Norv Turner
J. Kapp 11 wrote:
Mothman wrote:
Find some evidence and you might have a case but at this point, it sounds like nothing more than confirmation bias. If it went badly, it must have been Norv. If it went well, it must have been someone else...

This may or may not qualify as evidence, but it's where I got the idea (I'm smart enough to have ideas like this on my own!) ...

Jud Zulgad wrote:
As our Vikings analyst Matthew Coller has pointed out on this website, the offense was using more deep drops with Bradford in the past two games. These are things Turner likes to do but, in this case, there had to be real concern that the line’s inability to protect Bradford was going to get the immobile quarterback injured.

It was almost as if Turner had watched the Vikings’ success using what looked like a Shurmur system in the first four starts by Bradford and then said, “Hey, let’s reincorporate some of what I like to do since Sam has been here a while.”

Here's the entire article.

(By "the past two games," Zulgad is referring to the Philly and Chicago games.)

It's not concrete proof, but since it does come from a journalist who covers the Vikings every day, it seems at least more plausible than any speculation WE might have.


Perhaps but it still seems highly speculative and unless I misread it, Zulgad's not positing that Shurmur actually called the plays prior to the bye and that Turner returned to playcalling duties after the bye. It was reported from the start that Shurmur's opinion played a significant role in the choice to trade for Bradford and Turner was using Shurmur's knowledge of Bradford as an asset in formulating game plans. I don't doubt any of that. I just find it hard to believe Zimmer yanked his OC's playcalling duties after Bradford was acquired and then returned them to him after the bye and after the team had played two of their better offensive games of the season.
It's certainly possible that Turner was using Shurmur's input more before the bye than after. It's also possible that he continued using it and some of the differences in the playcalling were a reaction to what the Eagles and Bears were doing.

I just don't see anything very definitive in the more conspiratorial thinking about this subject but I do agree with you that we don't always get the full story in the early wake of a coach's departure.


Sun Nov 06, 2016 6:44 pm
Profile
All Pro Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 11:38 pm
Posts: 1544
Post Re: Shurmur takes different view of offense than Norv Turner
From what I understand Shurmur had a lot of imput with the game planning and scripting of plays, until they felt Bradford was comfortable with the offense.
Norv was still up in the booth calling plays. But after the bye the game planning went back to Norv.


Sun Nov 06, 2016 7:10 pm
Profile
Commissioner

Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 4:24 pm
Posts: 23761
Post Re: Shurmur takes different view of offense than Norv Turner
Quote:
When's the last time we've seen Patterson targeted down the field?


When he was benched for running the wrong route and Teddy's ball hitting the turf instead of the open receiver that it should have. The question has always been mental. Getting open is great. Be where the QB expects you to be, and make the catch....


Sun Nov 06, 2016 9:34 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4404
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: Shurmur takes different view of offense than Norv Turner
Demi wrote:
Quote:
When's the last time we've seen Patterson targeted down the field?


When he was benched for running the wrong route and Teddy's ball hitting the turf instead of the open receiver that it should have. The question has always been mental. Getting open is great. Be where the QB expects you to be, and make the catch....


I remember that vs Washington. Even though that's a bad drop today, I'm not concerned about his hands. And I've been impressed with what he's done this year

_________________
Image


Sun Nov 06, 2016 10:02 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4404
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: Shurmur takes different view of offense than Norv Turner
As for Shurmur, he has the right idea of what to do with this offense unlike Norv. A lot of quick hitters. 2 plays I didn't agree with today was that we should've done a sneak with Bradford on the 4th and inches and I'm not sure why we tried running the ball on a 2nd and 19. I don't understand why Treadwell didn't play much after that catch. Charles Johnson brings nothing to the table. And Ronnie Hillman needs to get more carries. I'm beyond sick of watching Asiata.

_________________
Image


Sun Nov 06, 2016 10:05 pm
Profile
Transition Player

Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2012 3:39 pm
Posts: 348
Post Re: Shurmur takes different view of offense than Norv Turner
Why is Ronnie hillman on this team if we aren't going to use him more than several times a game?


Sun Nov 06, 2016 10:17 pm
Profile
Starting Wide Receiver
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:48 pm
Posts: 17477
Location: Crystal, MN
Post Re: Shurmur takes different view of offense than Norv Turner
tmscr wrote:
Why is Ronnie hillman on this team if we aren't going to use him more than several times a game?


He seemed to be shaken up a bit after one of his runs.

_________________
The Devil whispered in the Viking's ear, "There's a storm coming." The Viking replied, "I am the storm." ‪#‎SKOL2016‬


Sun Nov 06, 2016 10:38 pm
Profile YIM WWW
All Pro Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:45 am
Posts: 1269
Post Re: Shurmur takes different view of offense than Norv Turner
Its all just a sad stew of mediocrity at best. There is no standard of excellence, especially on offense. Bradford's a middling QB who cant perform reliably downfield. Teddy was pretty much the same only less successful but "a nice guy", the OL is a bunch of cut rate cast offs, and its never going to lead to a title, ever........We just got beat 2 weeks in a row by crappy teams even at home. Now Zim is playing scared on defense, going into the 1990's Viking Prevent defense at crunch time......soon he will regress to the Denny Green school of freezing up and running up the middle endlessly when inside the 10 yard line.


Mon Nov 07, 2016 1:00 am
Profile
Starting Wide Receiver
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:48 pm
Posts: 17477
Location: Crystal, MN
Post Re: Shurmur takes different view of offense than Norv Turner
Running Asiata up the middle doesn't work. Letting Walsh kick anything other than his own groin doesn't work. It is mind boggling that they keep trying.

_________________
The Devil whispered in the Viking's ear, "There's a storm coming." The Viking replied, "I am the storm." ‪#‎SKOL2016‬


Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:35 am
Profile YIM WWW
Hall of Fame Candidate

Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:44 pm
Posts: 3213
Location: Coon Rapids, MN
Post Re: Shurmur takes different view of offense than Norv Turner
There are still a lot of issues. The defense we jsut played against is terrible and we couldn't get a first down (again) on 4th and inches. It felt like at least in the passing game they were doing more with the assets we have. The rushing attack continues to be a complete disaster.

The last three games have shown me what TB brings to the team. His mobility and ability to makes something out of a busted protection is huge asset to this team. Bradford's lack of mobility makes it very hard for us to take advantage of his skillset given the horrible state of the protection. Similarly, we miss AP. AP was good enough to make his OL look better. Asiata and Mckinnon are not.


As much as the offense is a crap show, the bigger concern is defensive inconsistency. 2 weeks in a row they've let a divisional offense get the better of them at key moments.

_________________
Winning is not a sometime thing it is an all of the time thing - Vince Lombardi


Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:57 am
Profile
All Pro Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:45 am
Posts: 1269
Post Re: Shurmur takes different view of offense than Norv Turner
lol...if you think TB is the savior who will turn this ship around, more power to you....he has no arm to throw deep routes and he hasn't shown any maturation. He is just a big "maybe" and after his injury his mobility may no longer be what it once was......

This team needs a major review from the top down. No One from the GM down to the kicker is doing a job that could rated as excellent and excellence is ALL that should be tolerated.


Mon Nov 07, 2016 12:59 pm
Profile
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 9:13 am
Posts: 7197
Location: Ft Walton Beach, Florida
Post Re: Shurmur takes different view of offense than Norv Turner
looked exactly the same to me. Run strait up the middle all the time. Quick passes to the Wide out. No slants, No Misdirection runs, no trap runs, No Screen passess. Looks like the Norms OFFense to me


Mon Nov 07, 2016 1:34 pm
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Shurmur takes different view of offense than Norv Turner
Laserman wrote:
looked exactly the same to me. Run strait up the middle all the time. Quick passes to the Wide out. No slants, No Misdirection runs, no trap runs, No Screen passess. Looks like the Norms OFFense to me



They actually ran several slants yesterday but it is still the same scheme. It's just Shurmur calling plays in Turner's system.

I thought the offense looked a little different but not dramatically so. It wasn't significantly different than what we saw before the bye and overall, it wasn't terribly effective, though it was better than what we've seen in the previous 2 games. Some of that could just be due to the opponent. Hopefully, it will get better.


Mon Nov 07, 2016 1:45 pm
Profile
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pm
Posts: 6343
Post Re: Shurmur takes different view of offense than Norv Turner
Mothman wrote:
Laserman wrote:
looked exactly the same to me. Run strait up the middle all the time. Quick passes to the Wide out. No slants, No Misdirection runs, no trap runs, No Screen passess. Looks like the Norms OFFense to me



They actually ran several slants yesterday but it is still the same scheme. It's just Shurmur calling plays in Turner's system.

I thought the offense looked a little different but not dramatically so. It wasn't significantly different than what we saw before the bye and overall, it wasn't terribly effective, though it was better than what we've seen in the previous 2 games. Some of that could just be due to the opponent. Hopefully, it will get better.

The difference, to me, was that not every route was 15 yards or farther down the field. Bradford at least had check-downs available yesterday, which he did not have on several occasions against the Bears, even though the Vikings couldn't stop the pass rush.

We also saw a couple of nice swing passes to the backs, and more screens to take advantage of CP and Diggs. In addition, the tempo was faster.

Other than 3 toss sweeps, only one of which actually worked, the running game looked no different. Well, except for the jet sweep by Rhett Ellison for the TD. That was a creative play.

_________________
Image


Mon Nov 07, 2016 1:52 pm
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Shurmur takes different view of offense than Norv Turner
J. Kapp 11 wrote:
The difference, to me, was that not every route was 15 yards or farther down the field.


I know what you mean and there was a greater emphasis on short routes than we've seen in the previous two games but they've been running most of the routes we saw yesterday all season. I didn't think it was very effective but It did keep Bradford from getting hit as much as he was against the Bears and Eagles and that helps. He took a few nasty shots again yesterday though. After one, I was concerned he was going to have to leave the game.

Quote:
Bradford at least had check-downs available yesterday, which he did not have on several occasions against the Bears, even though the Vikings couldn't stop the pass rush.

We also saw a couple of nice swing passes to the backs, and more screens to take advantage of CP and Diggs. In addition, the tempo was faster.

Other than 3 toss sweeps, only one of which actually worked, the running game looked no different. Well, except for the jet sweep by Rhett Ellison for the TD. That was a creative play.


Yes, that was the best offensive call of the game for the Vikes, a very clever use of personnel to deceive the defense. :thumbsup:

They definitely got the ball to Patterson and Diggs more frequently and there was a clear effort to put them in position to run after the catch. If they keep that up, I think it will pay dividends. There were obviously tweaks in their approach and hopefully, they will become more effective as Shurmur has more time to work on the offense. He didn't even have a full week as OC before this game.


Mon Nov 07, 2016 2:11 pm
Profile
All Pro Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:45 am
Posts: 1269
Post Re: Shurmur takes different view of offense than Norv Turner
they definitely ran more screens this week. Bradford definitely was given downfield opportunities.....which he wither overlooked or over threw......the OL actually provided a glimmer of a pocket for him to allow for a deep threat, he just couldn't put the ball on the receiver .


Mon Nov 07, 2016 2:28 pm
Profile
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pm
Posts: 6343
Post Re: Shurmur takes different view of offense than Norv Turner
chicagopurple wrote:
they definitely ran more screens this week. Bradford definitely was given downfield opportunities.....which he wither overlooked or over threw......the OL actually provided a glimmer of a pocket for him to allow for a deep threat, he just couldn't put the ball on the receiver .

He put one right in CP's hands in the end zone, and Patterson biffed it.

Other times, though, it seemed the long pass was for show. He tried to hit Charles Johnson a couple of times, but Johnson had no separation.

_________________
Image


Mon Nov 07, 2016 2:36 pm
Profile
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pm
Posts: 6343
Post Re: Shurmur takes different view of offense than Norv Turner
Mothman wrote:
I know what you mean and there was a greater emphasis on short routes than we've seen in the previous two games but they've been running most of the routes we saw yesterday all season. I didn't think it was very effective but It did keep Bradford from getting hit as much as he was against the Bears and Eagles and that helps. He took a few nasty shots again yesterday though. After one, I was concerned he was going to have to leave the game.

I was referring more to the lack of check-down options that Bradford had previously against the Bears.

Don't know if you got a chance to read this article following the Bears game. Take a look if you have a minute. It's the kind of in-depth analysis I think you'd really like.

Throughout the Bears game, I kept wondering why Bradford didn't just check it down, why he kept looking downfield and taking sacks. It was really starting to make me angry. He was being rushed mercilessly, and he never checked down to a back. So frustrating. I kept wondering if Bradford was dumb or stubborn or something. By the examples given in this article, there WERE NO check down options for him on many dropbacks. Norv either sent everybody downfield, or kept them in to block. If nobody gets separation, and the blocking breaks down, Bradford's a sitting duck.

That's the difference I saw yesterday. When Bradford didn't have options down the field, he had somebody to check it to underneath, which he did several times. I know a 4-yard pass doesn't seem like a successful play, but if it avoids an 8-yard sack, it's a win.

_________________
Image


Mon Nov 07, 2016 2:47 pm
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Shurmur takes different view of offense than Norv Turner
J. Kapp 11 wrote:
I was referring more to the lack of check-down options that Bradford had previously against the Bears.

Don't know if you got a chance to read this article following the Bears game. Take a look if you have a minute. It's the kind of in-depth analysis I think you'd really like.

Throughout the Bears game, I kept wondering why Bradford didn't just check it down, why he kept looking downfield and taking sacks. It was really starting to make me angry. He was being rushed mercilessly, and he never checked down to a back. So frustrating. I kept wondering if Bradford was dumb or stubborn or something. By the examples given in this article, there WERE NO check down options for him on many dropbacks. Norv either sent everybody downfield, or kept them in to block. If nobody gets separation, and the blocking breaks down, Bradford's a sitting duck.


I appreciate the link but there actually were check down throws in that game and there were check down options or short options available on the majority of the Vikes offensive plays. Look at the phrasing on some of the examples in the article:

Quote:
Here on third and long, the Bears play deep zone and Bradford only has one underneath option and the running back starting to sneak out of the backfield after initially staying in to block


It's third and long and he just listed one underneath option and the running back as potential targets. How many targets should the OC provide short of the marker in that situation?

Another example:

Quote:
On this first down play, Bradford takes a sack because all of his receivers are tightly covered. Notice that only one of the routes went less than 10 yards


Again, how many of the routes should have gone less than 10 yards and is the fault really with the play design or the fact that the receivers were all tightly covered? Get open! :)

As I said, there were check down options or short options available on most of the plays. Sometimes it would be a back slipping out of the backfield, sometimes a receiver running a shallow cross but plays without them were the exception, not the rule. Bradford made a ton of short throws in that game (that's why he averaged just 6.2 yards) and for the most part, Norv didn't either send everybody downfield on slow-developing routes or keep them in to block. It may have seemed that way while watching the game but that might have been a perception borne out of frustration because they really did run a lot of short, quick-developing routes, especially to the outside.

Quote:
That's the difference I saw yesterday. When Bradford didn't have options down the field, he had somebody to check it to underneath, which he did several times. I know a 4-yard pass doesn't seem like a successful play, but if it avoids an 8-yard sack, it's a win.


That is a win but I don't know what to say other than he was checking it down a week earlier too. I'm not trying to be contrary just for the sake it. It's just what I saw on film.

Part of the reason they've been so ineffective in recent weeks (and really most of the season) is because their running game and protection issues force them to lean heavily on the short passing game and it's obvious to opposing defenses. That makes them pretty easy to defend and allows defenses to play a "bend but don't break' style of football against them pretty effectively. I don't know how they can get out of that without running the ball better or at least improving quite a bit in pass protection.


Mon Nov 07, 2016 3:56 pm
Profile
Commissioner
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2003 9:47 am
Posts: 10040
Location: Burbank, California
Post Re: Shurmur takes different view of offense than Norv Turner
I watched the game again today. Here's my take on some of the things being discussed here...

Shurmur didn't get long to work with the team and he said the changes would be subtle. They were very subtle, though I can kind of see where he might be going with the offense. The putrid offensive line is going to make improvements difficult.

I was upset Patterson dropped the end zone pass but the team needs more of him on offense. For the most part, he's playing well and his acceleration on one of the short passes was lights out amazing. His punt gunning is great and he's a top returner.

Why is Charles Johnson the designated deep WR? The Vikings need to go deep to Diggs, Thielen and Patterson as well. Of course, Bradford has to get time to do that.

What an asset Diggs is! He basically is a possession WR, given how well he gets open and catches the ball.

Ronnie Hillman should be the starting RB. His power and 4.4/40 speed really showed. Hillman can catch, too.

The kick return blocking has been a little loose lately. Where is the good wall blocking we saw last season?

Too many stupid penalties by the Vikings.

Walsh looked bad - again. The Lions were not missing their kicks. We saw again why missing a kick, extra point or FG, can impact the outcome of a game.


Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:00 pm
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Shurmur takes different view of offense than Norv Turner
Following up on Craig's post above (and some of the other comments about Shurmur's OC debut in this thread):

http://vikingsterritory.com/2016/opinio ... s-football

Quote:
Paul Allen @PAOnTheMic
#Vikings offense:
Treadwell catch.
Ellison sweep.
Linval up back in I.
2 sacks (1 on Sam imo)
Quick rhythm.
Things on which to build.#Faith https://twitter.com/Huckstar12/status/7 ... 4957246465
7:03 PM - 6 Nov 2016
9 9 Retweets 62 62 likes


Quote:
Allen’s tweet highlights a few of the items that stuck out to me, most noticeably, the quick rhythm with which the offense operated. According to Pro Football Focus, Bradford released 76 percent of his passes on Sunday in less than 2.5 seconds, and increase on his season average of 62 percent. The design of the game plan, which included an abundance of receiver screens and quick-hitting backfield throws, allowed Bradford to operate in a relatively clean pocket. He was only pressured on 27 percent of his dropbacks, giving the offense life it hasn’t seen since Week 5.

Shurmur’s offense has its own warts, but there was a definitive difference between his philosophy and Turner’s Air Coryell tendencies. If anything, yesterday’s game gave hope that Minnesota’s offense can bounce back from what’s been a terrifying collapse.


Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:27 pm
Profile
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pm
Posts: 6343
Post Re: Shurmur takes different view of offense than Norv Turner
Mothman wrote:
J. Kapp 11 wrote:
I was referring more to the lack of check-down options that Bradford had previously against the Bears.

Don't know if you got a chance to read this article following the Bears game. Take a look if you have a minute. It's the kind of in-depth analysis I think you'd really like.

Throughout the Bears game, I kept wondering why Bradford didn't just check it down, why he kept looking downfield and taking sacks. It was really starting to make me angry. He was being rushed mercilessly, and he never checked down to a back. So frustrating. I kept wondering if Bradford was dumb or stubborn or something. By the examples given in this article, there WERE NO check down options for him on many dropbacks. Norv either sent everybody downfield, or kept them in to block. If nobody gets separation, and the blocking breaks down, Bradford's a sitting duck.


I appreciate the link but there actually were check down throws in that game and there were check down options or short options available on the majority of the Vikes offensive plays. Look at the phrasing on some of the examples in the article:

Quote:
Here on third and long, the Bears play deep zone and Bradford only has one underneath option and the running back starting to sneak out of the backfield after initially staying in to block


It's third and long and he just listed one underneath option and the running back as potential targets. How many targets should the OC provide short of the marker in that situation?

Another example:

Quote:
On this first down play, Bradford takes a sack because all of his receivers are tightly covered. Notice that only one of the routes went less than 10 yards


Again, how many of the routes should have gone less than 10 yards and is the fault really with the play design or the fact that the receivers were all tightly covered? Get open! :)

As I said, there were check down options or short options available on most of the plays. Sometimes it would be a back slipping out of the backfield, sometimes a receiver running a shallow cross but plays without them were the exception, not the rule. Bradford made a ton of short throws in that game (that's why he averaged just 6.2 yards) and for the most part, Norv didn't either send everybody downfield on slow-developing routes or keep them in to block. It may have seemed that way while watching the game but that might have been a perception borne out of frustration because they really did run a lot of short, quick-developing routes, especially to the outside.

Quote:
That's the difference I saw yesterday. When Bradford didn't have options down the field, he had somebody to check it to underneath, which he did several times. I know a 4-yard pass doesn't seem like a successful play, but if it avoids an 8-yard sack, it's a win.


That is a win but I don't know what to say other than he was checking it down a week earlier too. I'm not trying to be contrary just for the sake it. It's just what I saw on film.

Part of the reason they've been so ineffective in recent weeks (and really most of the season) is because their running game and protection issues force them to lean heavily on the short passing game and it's obvious to opposing defenses. That makes them pretty easy to defend and allows defenses to play a "bend but don't break' style of football against them pretty effectively. I don't know how they can get out of that without running the ball better or at least improving quite a bit in pass protection.

Wow man. I was just trying to have a conversation, not an argument. Never mind.

_________________
Image


Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:48 pm
Profile
All Pro Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:45 am
Posts: 1269
Post Re: Shurmur takes different view of offense than Norv Turner
heh....Mothman is relentless......


Mon Nov 07, 2016 7:17 pm
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Shurmur takes different view of offense than Norv Turner
J. Kapp 11 wrote:
Wow man. I was just trying to have a conversation, not an argument. Never mind.


I thought we were having a conversation. Is that just supposed to involve polite agreement, regardless of the facts? What I saw on film contradicted some of your statements about the Bears game and what I saw in the article seemed somewhat self-contradictory. I literally took the time to review every pass Bradford threw in that game again before responding to your post because I wanted to make sure my impressions, which differed from yours, weren't off base. I'm sorry if that difference somehow offended you but if we're here to discuss football, doesn't it make sense to try to discuss what occurred in the games accurately? If it's incorrect to say Bradford never threw a check down in the previous game or that Turner wasn't giving him options to get rid of the ball when receivers weren't open further downfield, wouldn't you want to know that? It certainly seems relevant to a discussion about the differences between how the two offensive coordinators called the last two games. :confused:

As I said in response to you yesterday, I guess I no longer understand what we're doing here. I mistakenly assumed you would care about what actually occurred on the field.


Mon Nov 07, 2016 7:25 pm
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Shurmur takes different view of offense than Norv Turner
chicagopurple wrote:
heh....Mothman is relentless......


I'm just interested in discussing what actually happens in the games. I know I prefer to come away with a clear idea of what happened when that's possible. I don't mind admitting I'm wrong either. For example, when discussing Walsh's blocked FG yesterday, I said it looked to me like he hit it accurately. Others thought he shanked it. I couldn't tell that on the replay I saw then but I was able to see a better view of the kick today and I think those who said it came off his foot on a bad trajectory were probably correct. In other words, I was wrong.


Mon Nov 07, 2016 7:31 pm
Profile
Starting Wide Receiver
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:48 pm
Posts: 17477
Location: Crystal, MN
Post Re: Shurmur takes different view of offense than Norv Turner
Mothman wrote:
chicagopurple wrote:
heh....Mothman is relentless......


I'm just interested in discussing what actually happens in the games. I know I prefer to come away with a clear idea of what happened when that's possible. I don't mind admitting I'm wrong either. For example, when discussing Walsh's blocked FG yesterday, I said it looked to me like he hit it accurately. Others thought he shanked it. I couldn't tell that on the replay I saw then but I was able to see a better view of the kick today and I think those who said it came off his foot on a bad trajectory were probably correct. In other words, I was wrong.


It was a terrible kick. The f'ing DE could have blocked it. It probably actually helped Walsh that it was blocked. Can you imagine if he had missed it outright?

_________________
The Devil whispered in the Viking's ear, "There's a storm coming." The Viking replied, "I am the storm." ‪#‎SKOL2016‬


Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:44 pm
Profile YIM WWW
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Shurmur takes different view of offense than Norv Turner
PurpleMustReign wrote:
It was a terrible kick. The f'ing DE could have blocked it. It probably actually helped Walsh that it was blocked. Can you imagine if he had missed it outright?


People would have been even angrier (if that's possible!).


Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:55 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 62 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.