Vikings Message Board.Com

Pondering Her Percy wrote: Philly dominated our offense which isn't hard to do. I would say our defense held its own that game. It's just we couldn't stop turning the ball over. I'm talking about games where both O and D play bad. Philly wasn't one of those games

Okay, so call it 6 in the past 2 years if you'd prefer. It's clearly more than one game per season.

chicagopurple wrote:dinking and dunking is the way to success today....The Pats, Seattle, even GB buy into the "death by a thousand papercuts" offense, and it works (well, not for us, naturally). I guess the big question is how do we do better at defending it, esp vs the run. One BIG step is to have a competent offense that can actually accomplish some ball control time and allow the D to rest and force the opponent to take more risks under pressure. Anyone able to look at how our D performed on Third downs this year? I feel like we gave up alot of 1st down plays on 3rd down, but I am no Stat Master.

They were ranked 15th and allowed a 3rd down conversion percentage of 38.83% for the season:

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/o ... ersion-pct

Mothman wrote: They were ranked 15th and allowed a 3rd down conversion percentage of 38.83% for the season:

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/o ... ersion-pct

Until that improves, this defense cannot be considered great or elite. That, and improving the run defense. The defense is good, but it still has a ways to go before it can be considered among the elite defenses in the NFL.

HardcoreVikesFan wrote: Until that improves, this defense cannot be considered great or elite. That, and improving the run defense. The defense is good, but it still has a ways to go before it can be considered among the elite defenses in the NFL.

IMO, the most important stat is scoring. They were #5 for the past 2 years. Not sure if I would call them elite but they're in the ballpark.

HardcoreVikesFan wrote:Until that improves, this defense cannot be considered great or elite. That, and improving the run defense. The defense is good, but it still has a ways to go before it can be considered among the elite defenses in the NFL.

I agree. Elite means the best and the Vikes defense doesn't fit that description. They're good. They've been one of the better defenses in the league over the past few years but they're simply not elite, at least I don't think they meet that definition.

To me, in addition to what you mentioned above, what would help make them truly elite would be to play more consistently and to come through more often when needed most. They need to close out games like the two losses to Detroit last year. They need to show up and stifle opponents when the postseason is on the line, rather than allowing 70+ points in 2 weeks like they did to the Colts and Packers in that situation last year. I'm not saying they should be perfect. Even the best defenses have a bad game once in a while but they have a few more steps to take before they're truly elite.

Mothman wrote:... and once again had a losing record as a starter on an offense that struggled to score points. As I've already said, that's not all his fault but the point is there are, and should be, questions about whether Bradford is the kind of QB who can lead a team to a Super Bowl and there's also a question about his future with the Vikings beyond 2017. Chicagopurple wasn't wrong to say QB is still a bit of a question mark. We know the Vikings have a legitimate starter but how far they can go with that starter and how long he'll remain the starter are both open questions.

Sam Bradford just put together the best season for a Vikings quarterback not named Brett Favre since Daunte Culpepper in 2004.

As for the winning record thing, a lot of that has to do with who's around you. For example, in 2012, when Christian Ponder recorded 10 of his 14 career wins, he had this MVP guy playing behind him who ran for almost 2,100 yards. So that prolly helped. And if Christian Ponder had ever completed 71.6% of his passes and 3,800 yards in a season, he'd still be here.

So sure, I guess quarterback a question mark ... probably the lowest priority question mark on the entire offense, but a question mark.

Personally, I think we need to concentrate on the offensive line.

HardcoreVikesFan wrote: Until that improves, this defense cannot be considered great or elite. That, and improving the run defense. The defense is good, but it still has a ways to go before it can be considered among the elite defenses in the NFL.

When you say "among the elite defenses" I'm just curious as to who you are referring to? Not necessarily saying we are elite but we were 3rd in total defense this year. And if you're going to say Denver and Seattle, they were both behind us in that category as well. The only ones in front of us were Houston and Arizona. Denver had an elite pass defense but their run defense was lightyears worse than ours was. Houstons run D was middle of the pack after a horrible start. And Arizona's was #9. To be honest, I don't know if you could classify any defense in the NFL right now elite. Denver's was last year but was much worse this year from a run standpoint. I don't see Houstons D as elite. I would put us in the category of "very good" right up there with Arizona, Houston, Denver and Seattle. We definitely have a top 5 defense in the NFL. I would even say right in the top 3 range.

J. Kapp 11 wrote: Sam Bradford just put together the best season for a Vikings quarterback not named Brett Favre since Daunte Culpepper in 2004.

As for the winning record thing, a lot of that has to do with who's around you. For example, in 2012, when Christian Ponder recorded 10 of his 14 career wins, he had this MVP guy playing behind him who ran for almost 2,100 yards. So that prolly helped. And if Christian Ponder had ever completed 71.6% of his passes and 3,800 yards in a season, he'd still be here.

So sure, I guess quarterback a question mark ... probably the lowest priority question mark on the entire offense, but a question mark.

Personally, I think we need to concentrate on the offensive line.

That's obviously their first priority, just not the only thing on their plate.

On the dink and dunk thing: GB is not a dink and dunk team. Rogers is the best deep passer the league has ever seen. He doesn't hold the ball for 10 seconds every other play because he is throwing quick slants and flat passes to the RB.

Our defense has shown it CAN shut down just about anyone. I would argue that the only argument for it not being elite is the fact that it has had issues with consistency over the course of a 16 game season. However, I would also argue that the biggest source of that inconsistency is offensive ineptitude. Last season the other side of the ball had no ability to bail them out if they made mistakes, thus every mistake was magnified.

In that respect, fixing the OL would probably do more for the defense that adding bodies, IMO.

mansquatch wrote:On the dink and dunk thing: GB is not a dink and dunk team. Rogers is the best deep passer the league has ever seen. He doesn't hold the ball for 10 seconds every other play because he is throwing quick slants and flat passes to the RB.

Our defense has shown it CAN shut down just about anyone. I would argue that the only argument for it not being elite is the fact that it has had issues with consistency over the course of a 16 game season. However, I would also argue that the biggest source of that inconsistency is offensive ineptitude. Last season the other side of the ball had no ability to bail them out if they made mistakes, thus every mistake was magnified.

In that respect, fixing the OL would probably do more for the defense that adding bodies, IMO.

That's a pretty solid take on the situation....me thinks

mansquatch wrote:On the dink and dunk thing: GB is not a dink and dunk team. Rogers is the best deep passer the league has ever seen. He doesn't hold the ball for 10 seconds every other play because he is throwing quick slants and flat passes to the RB.

Our defense has shown it CAN shut down just about anyone. I would argue that the only argument for it not being elite is the fact that it has had issues with consistency over the course of a 16 game season. However, I would also argue that the biggest source of that inconsistency is offensive ineptitude. Last season the other side of the ball had no ability to bail them out if they made mistakes, thus every mistake was magnified.

In that respect, fixing the OL would probably do more for the defense that adding bodies, IMO.

Maybe, but laying the defense's shortcomings at the feet of the offense only goes so far. The offense didn't allow the Colts to score 27 points in the first half, allow the Bears to pound the ball for 150+ yards in the game at Soldier Field, blow late leads against Detroit twice, etc. It has been a contributing factor but the biggest source of inconsistency on defense seems to lie in the defense itself. They have areas of vulnerability that can be very effectively exploited by a team equipped to do so. Their stats for the season are even a bit deceptive as their performance early lifts their overall rankings.

Simply put: they're very good but they still have some work to do.

Mothman wrote: Maybe, but laying the defense's shortcomings at the feet of the offense only goes so far. The offense didn't allow the Colts to score 27 points in the first half, allow the Bears to pound the ball for 150+ yards in the game at Soldier Field, blow late leads against Detroit twice, etc. It has been a contributing factor but the biggest source of inconsistency on defense seems to lie in the defense itself. They have areas of vulnerability that can be very effectively exploited by a team equipped to do so. Their stats for the season are even a bit deceptive as their performance early lifts their overall rankings.

Simply put: they're very good but they still have some work to do.

What they did to Carolina was very impressive. They made the reigning MVP look like a fool. They also made Eli Manning look like a rookie. It seemed they got either lazy or too predictable and teams figured them out. I think they have the talent to be elite, but the question is can they learn to be elite? Strong defenses are nkt made over night. The strong Ravens defenses in the early 2000s took a long time to get to where they were. Ray Lewis was drafted in 1998 if i remember right, and they weren't a fierce defense until the 2000 season.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

PurpleMustReign wrote: What they did to Carolina was very impressive. They made the reigning MVP look like a fool. They also made Eli Manning look like a rookie. It seemed they got either lazy or too predictable and teams figured them out. I think they have the talent to be elite, but the question is can they learn to be elite? Strong defenses are nkt made over night. The strong Ravens defenses in the early 2000s took a long time to get to where they were. Ray Lewis was drafted in 1998 if i remember right, and they weren't a fierce defense until the 2000 season.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

Our D looked solid early on this season before Norv-Gate and Zim's vision issue and then the OL unravelling. It seemed to me that all of those issues pulled his attention away from his pet project, the D. Just my hunch.

Mothman wrote: Maybe, but laying the defense's shortcomings at the feet of the offense only goes so far. The offense didn't allow the Colts to score 27 points in the first half, allow the Bears to pound the ball for 150+ yards in the game at Soldier Field, blow late leads against Detroit twice, etc. It has been a contributing factor but the biggest source of inconsistency on defense seems to lie in the defense itself. They have areas of vulnerability that can be very effectively exploited by a team equipped to do so. Their stats for the season are even a bit deceptive as their performance early lifts their overall rankings.

Simply put: they're very good but they still have some work to do.

I didn't say the offense was the sole cause of defensive issues. I said I felt that fixing the offense would do more for the defense than just about any personnel moves they might make on the defensive side of the ball.

mansquatch wrote:
I didn't say the offense was the sole cause of defensive issues. I said I felt that fixing the offense would do more for the defense than just about any personnel moves they might make on the defensive side of the ball.

Agreed