New RB Coach?

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: 37384
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: New RB Coach?

Post by Mothman » Sun Jan 29, 2017 8:58 am

Hartman: Vikings must find a way to fix awful running game

I posted a link to the article above in the Adrian peterson thread as well, because the article contains a quote about Peterson from Mike Zimmer.

Anyway, Hartman writes:
With the hiring of Barone and Polamalu, Zimmer is clearly trying to improve the run game, which struggled mightily in 2016, with or without star Adrian Peterson available.

“We’ve been looking at all of the running game from this past season and we’re going to have to make some changes in the offensive line, obviously,” Zimmer said. “We’re going to have to try to get some more space to run the football. We had way too many runs that ended up being hit at the line of scrimmage or within 1 yard of the line of scrimmage. We’re going to look at that first.”
When asked if he expects the Vikings to target offensive players in the draft, Zimmer weighed two options.

“I do believe this will be an offensive draft,” he said. “Defensively, we’re in pretty good position for most situations, but as it comes down closer to the draft — and I go to the Senior Bowl [it was held Saturday in Mobile, Ala.], so we’ll find out a little bit more this week on where the strengths of the draft are and where we can go from there.

But saying that, I’m still a believer and I know Rick [Spielman] is, too, at taking the best available player. So if some defensive guys jump up in there, you know when we’re picking, I think we’ll pull the trigger on them. We do have free agency to try to fill some of our holes, and we’re hoping we get a couple players there, as well.”

User avatar
J. Kapp 11
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6918
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pm

Re: New RB Coach?

Post by J. Kapp 11 » Sun Jan 29, 2017 7:40 pm

Pondering Her Percy wrote: First of all, Dan Quinn didnt "build this offense". Dan Quinn was handed this offense. Mike Zimmer was handed very little. No QB, no WR, no OL.

And look at the teams they played those last 6 games. SF, LA, Carolina, even Arizona. All offenses that were in the tank all year. Bottom line is, the proof is in the pudding. They have the 25th ranked defense this year. Are we really going to try and defend that? If we had the 25th ranked defense in the league this year, I can't imagine anyone is sitting on here defending that.

As for the special teams, part of that is wrong . Devin Hester is NOT there. He plays for Seattle. He was in Atlanta last year and played 5 games. Since, he's been in Baltimore and Seattle. Not knocking you but lets research before we disagree with something. Yeah they have a good kicker and we did for half a season. Our punter blows. But if you read what I said above, I said outside of Locke, our ST is pretty good. I say we have the best overall return game in the league with CP and Sherels. I don't care who Devin Hester plays for. I take CP over him any day at this point of their career. So I guess if you, 100,000% disagree, I 1,000,000% disagree. Especially since part of this post was false.
Oops on Hester. My bad. I made a mistake. Sue me. But it doesn't change the prime argument, that Atlanta's overall team is way better than you're giving it credit for.

As for the defense, you can go with the "weak opponent" argument if you want. But that conveniently overlooks the fact that Atlanta's defense just pummeled Seattle and Green Bay in the playoffs. And I do mean PUMMELED. Atlanta's defense has been excellent their past 8 games, and the statistics prove it. Of course, you have to research deeper than the final overall stats to know that, but what do I know? I don't do research.

I mean, good god man. Atlanta is in the Super Bowl. The Vikings, for the 40th consecutive year, are not. Comparing the Vikings to Atlanta in any way, except to say, "Maybe we ought to copy what they're doing well," is ridiculous. THAT is the point.

And yeah, if we had the 25th-ranked defense and were playing in the damn Super Bowl, my guess is that I definitely would be "defending that."
Image
Go ahead. I dare you.
Underestimate this man.

Demi
Commissioner
Posts: 23761
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 4:24 pm

Re: New RB Coach?

Post by Demi » Sun Jan 29, 2017 10:01 pm

Mike Zimmer was handed very little. No QB, no WR, no OL.
Wow, I'd hate to be the General Manager of that team! :gone:

User avatar
Pondering Her Percy
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5318
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Location: Watertown, NY

Re: New RB Coach?

Post by Pondering Her Percy » Sun Jan 29, 2017 10:24 pm

J. Kapp 11 wrote: Oops on Hester. My bad. I made a mistake. Sue me. But it doesn't change the prime argument, that Atlanta's overall team is way better than you're giving it credit for.

As for the defense, you can go with the "weak opponent" argument if you want. But that conveniently overlooks the fact that Atlanta's defense just pummeled Seattle and Green Bay in the playoffs. And I do mean PUMMELED. Atlanta's defense has been excellent their past 8 games, and the statistics prove it. Of course, you have to research deeper than the final overall stats to know that, but what do I know? I don't do research.

I mean, good god man. Atlanta is in the Super Bowl. The Vikings, for the 40th consecutive year, are not. Comparing the Vikings to Atlanta in any way, except to say, "Maybe we ought to copy what they're doing well," is ridiculous. THAT is the point.

And yeah, if we had the 25th-ranked defense and were playing in the damn Super Bowl, my guess is that I definitely would be "defending that."
First of all, Seattle doesn't have some prolific offense. They had a QB that had like 5 or 6 games this year without a TD pass. And their running game was towards the back end of the league. So big deal. They whooped Seattle. The one team in the league that might have a worse OL than we do. So I'm not sure why that should impress anyone. As for GB, yeah that was an impressive win.

Either way, they are the NUMBER ONE offense in the NFL. They are averaging 34 points a game which is ridiculous. At that rate, your defense can give up well into the 20's and early 30's and they are still winning the game. Let's be honest, with this offense, their defense doesnt have to do a whole lot and clearly, being ranked 25th in the league shows they haven't done much. Have they played better as of late, sure. But bottom line is, this is 1/3 of a team. Good special teams so 2/3 but this isn't a COMPLETE team.

I said IF our offense could get into the 20's even overall next year, they could be in a similar spot. When did I ever once compare them to the current Vikings?? We have a legit defense. They have a legit offense. But when you compare their defense to our offense, there D is much better. But by no means is it a legit defense. Our offense is just that bad.

And did you argue the Bears offense when they made the SB in 07?? Did you argue the Ravens offense in 2000?? I mean they were in the SB right?? One of them winning it. So yes, please defend.
Last edited by Pondering Her Percy on Mon Jan 30, 2017 8:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image

User avatar
Pondering Her Percy
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5318
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Location: Watertown, NY

Re: New RB Coach?

Post by Pondering Her Percy » Sun Jan 29, 2017 10:25 pm

Demi wrote: Wow, I'd hate to be the General Manager of that team! :gone:
:roll: I'll sit this one out
Image

User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 37384
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: New RB Coach?

Post by Mothman » Mon Jan 30, 2017 8:14 am

Demi wrote: Wow, I'd hate to be the General Manager of that team! :gone:
:lol:

User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 37384
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: New RB Coach?

Post by Mothman » Mon Jan 30, 2017 8:22 am

Pondering Her Percy wrote:And did you argue the Bears offense when they made the SB in 07?? Did you argue the Ravens offense in 2000?? I mean they were in the SB right?? One of them winning it. So yes, please defend.
That Ravens offense had the league's #1 running game and was ranked 16th overall. That team also had excellent special teams and, of course, a great defense.

Defended.

User avatar
J. Kapp 11
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6918
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pm

Re: New RB Coach?

Post by J. Kapp 11 » Mon Jan 30, 2017 9:31 am

Pondering Her Percy wrote:So yes, please defend.
Look man, YOU started this argument by saying Atlanta has 1/3 of a team.

You're the one who needs to defend his position, not me. But because I can't help myself, I'll do it anyway.

Here is just one of many articles on the topic.
NFL.com wrote:Hardly anybody was talking about what the Falcons might do when this postseason ensued.

Some of that had to do with the 2-4 playoff record that Pro Bowl quarterback Matt Ryan had built over his career. More of it had to do with a defense that finished this season ranked 27th in scoring (25.4 points allowed per game) and 25th in total yards (371.2 yards per game). It was impossible to take the Falcons seriously with a defense producing numbers so abysmal. The reality is that Atlanta had been improving on that side for most of the second half of the season, without many people really buying into their overall progress.
"Many people" obviously includes you.
NFL.com wrote:This defense has a better chance of avoiding the big plays and long drives that caused them problems in the past. The Falcons won five of their last six regular-season games following their bye week on Nov. 20, all while allowing only 18.8 points per game in those victories. They also watched second-year defensive end Vic Beasley emerge into a dominant pass rusher who led the league with 15.5 sacks. While the Falcons' potent offense was making headlines, that defense -- which consists of seven starters with two years or less of professional experience -- was growing up.
Seven starters with two years or less. Think about it. That's like running 7 Trae Wayneses onto the field.

Bottom line: Atlanta is a 12-win team that's playing in the Super Bowl. Laugh them off if you want, but you can't deny the fact that the defense has improved enough to get them there. When you have a historically potent offense, you don't need a top-5 defense. Just as the Ravens didn't need a top-5 offense when they won the SB with a historically stubborn defense. But that also doesn't make either of them "1/3 of a team." The Vikings are 1/3 of a team, which is why they're 8-8 and watching from home for the 40th straight year.
Image
Go ahead. I dare you.
Underestimate this man.

User avatar
Pondering Her Percy
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5318
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Location: Watertown, NY

Re: New RB Coach?

Post by Pondering Her Percy » Mon Jan 30, 2017 11:38 am

Mothman wrote: That Ravens offense had the league's #1 running game and was ranked 16th overall. That team also had excellent special teams and, of course, a great defense.

Defended.
K. And had Trent Dilfer at QB. Or Grbac or whatever other pile of garbage. And the Bears?
Image

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

Re: New RB Coach?

Post by losperros » Mon Jan 30, 2017 11:43 am

Mothman wrote: That Ravens offense had the league's #1 running game and was ranked 16th overall. That team also had excellent special teams and, of course, a great defense.

Defended.
I believe a lot of mythology has been built up about the 2000 Ravens.

They weren't just a defensive team. They had all you mentioned above, Jim, plus they didn't have a winning record during the regular season until Billick made the bold move of switching to Trent Dilfer at QB. Dilfer was a smart but not great QB. But as soon as he became the starter, the offense began putting points on the board. And the Ravens started winning and kept on winning.

Running game, improved passing game, great special teams, and a solid defense (not to mention some astute coaching moves by Billick) made the 2000 Ravens one of the most complete teams to ever enter the Super Bowl.

User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 37384
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: New RB Coach?

Post by Mothman » Mon Jan 30, 2017 12:00 pm

Pondering Her Percy wrote:K. And had Trent Dilfer at QB. Or Grbac or whatever other pile of garbage.
So what? What difference does that make? They had a championship-caliber team.
And the Bears?
Their offense was lousy, their defense faltered and they lost the Super Bowl. What's your point?

User avatar
Pondering Her Percy
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5318
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Location: Watertown, NY

Re: New RB Coach?

Post by Pondering Her Percy » Mon Jan 30, 2017 12:03 pm

J. Kapp 11 wrote: Look man, YOU started this argument by saying Atlanta has 1/3 of a team.

You're the one who needs to defend his position, not me. But because I can't help myself, I'll do it anyway.
I just said give them special teams and that is 2/3. But at seasons end, they were 27th in points allowed, 25th in yards allowed, 28th in passing yards allowed and 17th in rushing yards allowed. And that is all AFTER these great games they played at the end of the year. They still had those numbers. Did they make progress, sure. They were downright horrendous before. Sorry, say whatever you want, but that is not a good defense. Were they "enough" to get to the SB? Obviously but I'm not going to sit here and say Atlanta is some complete team with the numbers that defense has put up all year. They got better I guess you could say, but they aren't a "good defense" and they are no way comparable to ours. Average at best. I just find it funny that we give up 2 30+ point games to Aaron Rodgers and Andrew Luck and so many on this board were saying this defense is overrated, nowhere near elite, yada yada yada. Yet now we have guys defending an Atlanta defense that ranked 27th in points allowed this year giving up 25.4. No less that was after they "improved". Hmmmm.....

"Many people" obviously includes you.
You're right. I'm not buying into them.
NFL.com wrote: .

Bottom line: Atlanta is a 12-win team that's playing in the Super Bowl. Laugh them off if you want, but you can't deny the fact that the defense has improved enough to get them there. When you have a historically potent offense, you don't need a top-5 defense. Just as the Ravens didn't need a top-5 offense when they won the SB with a historically stubborn defense. But that also doesn't make either of them "1/3 of a team." The Vikings are 1/3 of a team, which is why they're 8-8 and watching from home for the 40th straight year.
Like I said, I'm not going to call Atlanta a complete team. They have an average at best defense. The #1 offense and good special teams. That's 2/3 of a team. I said that before but now you're resorting back to me saying 1/3. I gave them the nod on special teams even though Devin Hester isnt on the team.

However at this point, I would give our ST the nod as well. With Walsh gone, the only weak link we really have is Locke. Sherels and Patterson are two elite returners. Forbath was solid. Atlanta has the edge on us with the kicking game but nowhere near the return game. So why arent you giving us the nod for special teams?? Without Walsh here, I would say it's pretty damn good.

My whole point behind everything was that Atlanta was 2/3 of a team and are contending for a SB. The Vikings have 2/3 of a team but are so horrifically bad on one side of the ball that we couldnt contend. Point being, if they could get their offense to improve like Atlanta got their defense to improve a little, then it's possible for us to contend. Our offense doesnt need to be "good". It needs to be average. Like Atlanta's defense. Some people act like that is impossible. Lets see how the draft and FA turn out and then we can judge.
Image

User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 37384
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: New RB Coach?

Post by Mothman » Mon Jan 30, 2017 12:05 pm

losperros wrote:I believe a lot of mythology has been built up about the 2000 Ravens.

They weren't just a defensive team. They had all you mentioned above, Jim, plus they didn't have a winning record during the regular season until Billick made the bold move of switching to Trent Dilfer at QB. Dilfer was a smart but not great QB. But as soon as he became the starter, the offense began putting points on the board. And the Ravens started winning and kept on winning.

Running game, improved passing game, great special teams, and a solid defense (not to mention some astute coaching moves by Billick) made the 2000 Ravens one of the most complete teams to ever enter the Super Bowl.
Well said. I agree, a lot of misleading mythology has built up around that team.

User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 37384
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: New RB Coach?

Post by Mothman » Mon Jan 30, 2017 12:16 pm

Pondering Her Percy wrote:My whole point behind everything was that Atlanta was 2/3 of a team and are contending for a SB. The Vikings have 2/3 of a team but are so horrifically bad on one side of the ball that we couldnt contend. Point being, if they could get their offense to improve like Atlanta got their defense to improve a little, then it's possible for us to contend. Our offense doesnt need to be "good". It needs to be average. Like Atlanta's defense. Some people act like that is impossible. Lets see how the draft and FA turn out and then we can judge.
There's a difference between what people consider possible and what they consider probable and you still seem to be missing that point.

User avatar
Pondering Her Percy
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5318
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Location: Watertown, NY

Re: New RB Coach?

Post by Pondering Her Percy » Mon Jan 30, 2017 12:26 pm

Mothman wrote: So what? What difference does that make? They had a championship-caliber team.
Their offense was lousy, their defense faltered and they lost the Super Bowl. What's your point?
Lol the same point I've been trying to make this whole time. They rode a legit defense to a SB. I dont care if they won it or not. They got there with a horrible offense. So who's to say it's not possible for us to do it. Even if our offense improves a little.

As for Baltimore, they were in the back end in passing but towards the top in rushing. Bottom line was, they were an average offense at best. And they won a SB. My question is, if the Vikings can turn into an average offense, with the defense and ST we have, why cant we contend?? That is my point. These other teams do it but you sit there and say you dont believe this team can do it for "years to come".
Image

Locked