Time to go to Heineke

A forum for the hard core Minnesota Vikings fan. Discuss upcoming games, opponents, trades, draft or what ever is on the minds of Viking fans!

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 37388
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Time to go to Heineke

Post by Mothman » Wed Dec 21, 2016 6:15 pm

Pondering Her Percy wrote:Agree 100%. I truly believe they will. They had to modify their damn offense because the OL was so weak for gods sake. They're going to address it big time. I'm not worried
Of course, that's what everybody thought after last year...
0 x

User avatar
losperros
Commissioner
Posts: 10041
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2003 9:47 am
Location: Burbank, California

Re: Time to go to Heineke

Post by losperros » Wed Dec 21, 2016 7:07 pm

Mothman wrote: Of course, that's what everybody thought after last year...
If the Vikings go another year without adequately addressing the offensive line, then I won't know what to think anymore. It shouldn't have happened in the first place and it sure better not happen again. That's why I'm hoping they'll go after OL help in a big way.
0 x

User avatar
Purple Martin
Starter
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2014 6:08 pm
Location: The Trees

Re: Time to go to Heineke

Post by Purple Martin » Wed Dec 21, 2016 7:48 pm

Most people bashing Bradford are just butt hurt over Bridgewater's pending demotion.

Bradford has flaws. He checks down too often and he doesn't move in the pocket as well as he can. He has no blind side awareness, leaving him vulnerable to strip sacks. All of these should be curable. The cure to checkdownitis is to throw the ball away if nobody is open 5+ yards downfield. The cure to not moving in the pocket is to remember that legs are movable appendages, and use them. The cure to no blind side awareness is to practice counting to 3. If 3 seconds have passed and you haven't thrown yet with this OL, you need to run like hell or throw it away FAST.
0 x
Mothman wrote:... a good completion percentage in a performance like that is like putting lipstick on a pig.

PurpleKoolaid
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8369
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 9:52 pm

Re: Time to go to Heineke

Post by PurpleKoolaid » Wed Dec 21, 2016 8:54 pm

I think keeping Heineke and Bradford as long as possible no. The one starting though is going to be Sam out of the three.
AlssoTrade Rick for just something good. Because he isnt playing any better then good.
0 x

User avatar
J. Kapp 11
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6949
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pm

Re: Time to go to Heineke

Post by J. Kapp 11 » Wed Dec 21, 2016 9:25 pm

Purple Martin wrote:Most people bashing Bradford are just butt hurt over Bridgewater's pending demotion.

Bradford has flaws. He checks down too often and he doesn't move in the pocket as well as he can. He has no blind side awareness, leaving him vulnerable to strip sacks. All of these should be curable. The cure to checkdownitis is to throw the ball away if nobody is open 5+ yards downfield. The cure to not moving in the pocket is to remember that legs are movable appendages, and use them. The cure to no blind side awareness is to practice counting to 3. If 3 seconds have passed and you haven't thrown yet with this OL, you need to run like hell or throw it away FAST.
So you'd rather have an incompletion and no gain over a check-down completion for a 3-yard gain?

That's ... interesting.
0 x
Image
Go ahead. I dare you.
Underestimate this man.

User avatar
Purple Martin
Starter
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2014 6:08 pm
Location: The Trees

Re: Time to go to Heineke

Post by Purple Martin » Wed Dec 21, 2016 9:31 pm

J. Kapp 11 wrote: So you'd rather have an incompletion and no gain over a check-down completion for a 3-yard gain?

That's ... interesting.
Depends on what down it is...I'd rather we not waste time on 3 yard passes on 3rd and long. But I was only using the specific number 3 as a euphemism for "worthlessly shorter than we need".
0 x
Mothman wrote:... a good completion percentage in a performance like that is like putting lipstick on a pig.

User avatar
J. Kapp 11
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6949
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pm

Re: Time to go to Heineke

Post by J. Kapp 11 » Wed Dec 21, 2016 9:41 pm

Purple Martin wrote: Depends on what down it is...I'd rather we not waste time on 3 yard passes on 3rd and long. But I was only using the specific number 3 as a euphemism for "worthlessly shorter than we need".
And again ... you'd rather guarantee a punt than give someone a chance to break a tackle for a first down?

I guarantee you, Sam Bradford would rather throw past the sticks on third down than check down. Sometimes you have to take what the defense gives you. And since he's 6th in the league in efficiency on throws of 15+ yards, it's not like he CAN'T throw downfield.
0 x
Image
Go ahead. I dare you.
Underestimate this man.

User avatar
Purple Martin
Starter
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2014 6:08 pm
Location: The Trees

Re: Time to go to Heineke

Post by Purple Martin » Wed Dec 21, 2016 9:59 pm

J. Kapp 11 wrote:
And again ... you'd rather guarantee a punt than give someone a chance to break a tackle for a first down?

I guarantee you, Sam Bradford would rather throw past the sticks on third down than check down. Sometimes you have to take what the defense gives you. And since he's 6th in the league in efficiency on throws of 15+ yards, it's not like he CAN'T throw downfield.
You'd rather we have better punting position than a first down? I'd rather we make more aggressive efforts for the first down, like having Rudolph run 11 yard routes on 3rd and 10 instead of 7 yard routes.

We are Vikings. We don't break tackles for first downs on 3rd and long, silly man. Only other teams can do that. I've seen Bradford (and Bridgewater, and Ponder...) throw an awful lot of worthlessly short passes on 3rd down, that don't get us the first down and do little for us in the field position game. It doesn't mean I don't like Bradford, because I do. He's the best QB we've had in 7 years. I just think its an area he could improve. I put forth my opinions on his shortcomings along with my praise of him as evidence I'm not blind to his weaknesses. You're welcome to disagree with my assessemnt of some of his checkdowns.
0 x
Mothman wrote:... a good completion percentage in a performance like that is like putting lipstick on a pig.

User avatar
J. Kapp 11
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6949
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pm

Re: Time to go to Heineke

Post by J. Kapp 11 » Wed Dec 21, 2016 10:49 pm

Purple Martin wrote: You'd rather we have better punting position than a first down? I'd rather we make more aggressive efforts for the first down, like having Rudolph run 11 yard routes on 3rd and 10 instead of 7 yard routes.
Who said that? Look, you said if nobody is open 5+ yards down the field, especially on third down, Bradford should throw it away. You called it the cure for checkdownitis. That's just not smart football. That's saying you'd rather guarantee a punt than give your guy a chance.
Purple Martin wrote:We are Vikings. We don't break tackles for first downs on 3rd and long, silly man. Only other teams can do that.
Now you're generalizing. That comment simply doesn't hold water. We've gotten plenty of first downs this year on the individual effort of guys breaking tackles. How many times have we marveled at how hard Cordarrelle Patterson runs, or how elusive Stefan Diggs is.
Purple Martin wrote:I've seen Bradford (and Bridgewater, and Ponder...) throw an awful lot of worthlessly short passes on 3rd down, that don't get us the first down and do little for us in the field position game. It doesn't mean I don't like Bradford, because I do. He's the best QB we've had in 7 years. I just think its an area he could improve. I put forth my opinions on his shortcomings along with my praise of him as evidence I'm not blind to his weaknesses. You're welcome to disagree with my assessemnt of some of his checkdowns.
Again, I'm not saying the checkdown is always the right play. But it's certainly not always the wrong play.

I get that we fans get upset when we throw short of the sticks on third down. It's frustrating, especially when we're behind. But it's not like everybody is open and Sam's just scared to throw it. He's throwing to who's open, and he's throwing it before the pocket collapses, which with this line is typically about a half second after the top of his drop. I'd rather have him do that than throw into coverage and get picked. Nobody said Bradford is perfect. But blaming Bradford for every checkdown and calling it a "weakness" is like blaming the sun for the weather being hot. There's a lot more that goes into it than Bradford's role.
0 x
Image
Go ahead. I dare you.
Underestimate this man.

User avatar
Pondering Her Percy
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5325
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Location: Watertown, NY

Re: Time to go to Heineke

Post by Pondering Her Percy » Wed Dec 21, 2016 11:07 pm

Mothman wrote: Of course, that's what everybody thought after last year...
Guess I got a different outlook than you then. It's the most obvious need on this team this year with no depth or veterans like Sullivan and Loadholt going in. it will happen
0 x
Image

User avatar
fiestavike
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3494
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am

Re: Time to go to Heineke

Post by fiestavike » Mon Dec 26, 2016 11:52 am

Pondering Her Percy wrote: Guess I got a different outlook than you then. It's the most obvious need on this team this year with no depth or veterans like Sullivan and Loadholt going in. it will happen
Boy, you really thought Sullivan and Loadholt were going to return and be a big help. Hard to believe, but alright.
0 x

User avatar
Pondering Her Percy
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5325
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Location: Watertown, NY

Re: Time to go to Heineke

Post by Pondering Her Percy » Mon Dec 26, 2016 11:59 am

fiestavike wrote:
Boy, you really thought Sullivan and Loadholt were going to return and be a big help. Hard to believe, but alright.
Nope never said that. There was a change neither of them started but if they stuck around they'd be a lot better than what we have. Especially Loadholt.
0 x
Image

Post Reply