Why Kevin Stefanski Might Be the NFL's Next Great Offensive Coach

[Pondering Her Percy]

After the Bear game all would have said he needs to go. His genius scheme couldn't even move the ball. His play calling blew ect...We have some good players on O and even Flip had games were he put up points. But smoking the Giants and Lions doesn't hold much weight. If we continue to beat the stiffs we will make the playoffs. That's when his scheme and play calling needs to put plenty of points on the board. Otherwise we won't win.

I wasn't ready to throw out the scheme or the OC after the Bears game. I blamed execution and, yes, Cousins. He was really bad that game. Inaccurate and indecisive. Maybe that's the coaches fault, but I don't think so. The offense was actually very good the 3 games prior to that disaster, and the 4 games after. Even vs GB they moved the ball well until the stupidity at the end.

Yes, I still need to see this continue, but I'm not moving the goal posts like some. A lot of people said "I need to see this vs Det"... Then, "I need to see this vs Philly" Then "I need to see this in Prime time." Now, suddenly those are not good enough. I get that to a degree, but at some point we just need to believe it's different. In 7 out of 8 games this year, this offense has been really good. Some weeks better than others of course.

The difference is, maybe the offense was "good" the 3 games prior to Chicago but what was good was the run offense. The pass offense wasnt there and I think that had to due with game planning. We had 10 passes week 1, week 2 we were all over the place, week 3 we were fine and week 4 was a disaster. WRs call out the coaches and everything changes. I can 100% guarantee that if we were playing Chicago this week, our game plan would be drastically different. But like someone said on here, the worst thing that could have happened to us was crushing Atlanta and only having to pass 10 times. They made us become over reliant on the run and put little time into the passing offense following that. Kubiak and Stefanski have now figured out how to balance this offense and adjust to players strengths.

[CharVike]

After the Bear game all would have said he needs to go. His genius scheme couldn't even move the ball. His play calling blew ect...We have some good players on O and even Flip had games were he put up points. But smoking the Giants and Lions doesn't hold much weight. If we continue to beat the stiffs we will make the playoffs. That's when his scheme and play calling needs to put plenty of points on the board. Otherwise we won't win.

I wasn't ready to throw out the scheme or the OC after the Bears game. I blamed execution and, yes, Cousins. He was really bad that game. Inaccurate and indecisive. Maybe that's the coaches fault, but I don't think so. The offense was actually very good the 3 games prior to that disaster, and the 4 games after. Even vs GB they moved the ball well until the stupidity at the end.

Yes, I still need to see this continue, but I'm not moving the goal posts like some. A lot of people said "I need to see this vs Det"... Then, "I need to see this vs Philly" Then "I need to see this in Prime time." Now, suddenly those are not good enough. I get that to a degree, but at some point we just need to believe it's different. In 7 out of 8 games this year, this offense has been really good. Some weeks better than others of course.

You were one of the few. After that Bear display most were down in the dumps. Some kept calmer heads that's for sure. Our offense is dam good. The stats show it. We have some excellent players across the board on O. Even Cousins is a good QB. Is he Rodgers? Nope. But I've posted this before IMO he's the best since Fran. We beat the teams that we should have which is hard to do. To get in the Super Bowl we will need to beat some good teams in a row. Can we do that? That will take more than just O also.

[StumpHunter]

I wasn't ready to throw out the scheme or the OC after the Bears game. I blamed execution and, yes, Cousins. He was really bad that game. Inaccurate and indecisive. Maybe that's the coaches fault, but I don't think so. The offense was actually very good the 3 games prior to that disaster, and the 4 games after. Even vs GB they moved the ball well until the stupidity at the end.

Yes, I still need to see this continue, but I'm not moving the goal posts like some. A lot of people said "I need to see this vs Det"... Then, "I need to see this vs Philly" Then "I need to see this in Prime time." Now, suddenly those are not good enough. I get that to a degree, but at some point we just need to believe it's different. In 7 out of 8 games this year, this offense has been really good. Some weeks better than others of course.

The difference is, maybe the offense was "good" the 3 games prior to Chicago but what was good was the run offense. The pass offense wasnt there and I think that had to due with game planning. We had 10 passes week 1, week 2 we were all over the place, week 3 we were fine and week 4 was a disaster. WRs call out the coaches and everything changes. I can 100% guarantee that if we were playing Chicago this week, our game plan would be drastically different. But like someone said on here, the worst thing that could have happened to us was crushing Atlanta and only having to pass 10 times. They made us become over reliant on the run and put little time into the passing offense following that. Kubiak and Stefanski have now figured out how to balance this offense and adjust to players strengths.

WRs called out the QB. That is why he felt the need to apologize.

Against Atlanta and Oakland we didn't pass because we didn't need to, but the balance was fine in GB and Chicago. We just didn't execute.

[VikingLord]

The difference is, maybe the offense was "good" the 3 games prior to Chicago but what was good was the run offense. The pass offense wasnt there and I think that had to due with game planning. We had 10 passes week 1, week 2 we were all over the place, week 3 we were fine and week 4 was a disaster. WRs call out the coaches and everything changes. I can 100% guarantee that if we were playing Chicago this week, our game plan would be drastically different. But like someone said on here, the worst thing that could have happened to us was crushing Atlanta and only having to pass 10 times. They made us become over reliant on the run and put little time into the passing offense following that. Kubiak and Stefanski have now figured out how to balance this offense and adjust to players strengths.

Actually, you bring up a good point - that being, the pass offense was almost dead last in the NFL for like the first two weeks of the season. Was that because they didn't have to pass based on how those games evolved, or was that because they couldn't pass? Did the defenses they faced dictate that?

These factors are reasons I'm not yet sold on Stefanski. If you're going to look at him as a potential offensive genius, you have to look at the entire body of his work, not just the last 4 games. Sure, in those 4 games the offense has looked balanced and efficient, and one could argue that Stefanski has dialed things in and fine-tuned them and now has them running like a well-oiled machine.

One could just as reasonably argue that the last 4 games have been against weak pass defenses and weaker overall defenses (and teams, for that matter), which has helped the offense look better than it actually is, and certainly look better than it has against better defenses to this point.

Consistency is the key. Good offenses are good regardless of the quality of the opposing defense. Good offensive coordinators, much less "geniuses", can find and exploit weaknesses in any defense.

I think Stefanski has done a good job. I think Kubiak has done a good job helping Stefanski do a good job, too, and I was worried about how that partnership would evolve. I also understand Dames' point about "needing to see the next game to be convinced". But for me, if Stefanski lives up to hype like this, it's going to be because his offense and gameplans keep clicking against all comers, at home and on the road. Because he demonstrates an innate understanding of how to attack a given defense, both with a pre-game plan and in-game adjustments, and he shows he can do that over and over, both when the stakes are relatively low and when they are high. I'd hate to go so far as to say he has to win a Superbowl for me to acknowledge him as the next great offensive coach in the league, but that is almost what he would have to do for me to agree with that, at least at this point in the season.

[VikingLord]

Denver actually looks like the best defense we face until the final game. That may be our best test coming up. They are solid overall, although not elite vs the run.

Dallas is a bit above average statistically, but definitely not elite. They are top 5 scoring D, so that could be an issue.

KC and Seattle are lousy vs the run, and middling vs pass.

Chargers are lousy vs the pass.

Det is lousy at both.

GB is not statistically a good D. They give up 4.8 yd per carry rushing for example. Our issue in that game was our D took a nap in the first quarter.

Chicago has been vulnerable in the past 2 games, but they are still very good. No telling where they will be a the end of the year. Especially if they are out of the playoff picture already.

KC and Dallas will both be good tests because both are road games against teams that can put up points on offense. While neither has a great defense per se, the tenor of either, or both, games could easily end up resembling the last game against Green Bay where the other team gets an early lead and the Vikings end up having to play catch up on offense.

Denver is a very good defense, but that game is at home and the Bronco offense sucks. I expect that game to resemble this last one against the Redksins.

Seattle is a road game against a team that can score. Will be very similar to the KC and Dallas contests. Not a great defense, but good enough with the home crowd making life more difficult for the offense. Who scores first, and how much they score, will be a significant factor.

I won't look farther down the road than those 4 games, but it's entirely possible that the Vikings limp out of this stretch with a 1-3 record with all talk of Stefanski as the next offensive genius in the NFL burning in a ditch somewhere. All of these games will pose the types of puzzles that a offensive genius should be able to solve.

As Stumphunter alluded, the execution has to be there. Stefanski can't run the actual plays, catch the ball, avoid mistakes, overcome bad calls, etc., and if the offense bogs down or blows otherwise well-designed and well-called plays, that's on them.

[Dames]

If we make the playoffs we will eventually have to meet SF along the way. They can play D. Saints also play some D. We are doing what need's to be done against these teams. That's much better than laying an egg. IMO can our D match up to those teams. Even against GB can our D contain Rodgers to allow us to put up 24 and win. I don't know if we can hold Rodgers to under 24. That is the bigger question.

Most likely yep. SF looks legit. They haven't faced great competition either, but they are obviously very good regardless. Saints are better than most we've faced, but not great.

I do worry about our D vs Rodgers. He is playing better now than when we faced them the first time around. Their O in general is better because of it. They will only get better when Adams returns too.

[Dames]

You were one of the few. After that Bear display most were down in the dumps. Some kept calmer heads that's for sure.

I was pretty upset after that game. I'll admit I was almost ready to throw out Cousins after pissing down his leg in 2 division games. I just didn't blame the coaches I guess. They probably could/should have been more aggressive, but there were plays to be had in CHI. They just didn't execute them.

Our offense is dam good. The stats show it. We have some excellent players across the board on O. Even Cousins is a good QB. Is he Rodgers? Nope. But I've posted this before IMO he's the best since Fran. We beat the teams that we should have which is hard to do. To get in the Super Bowl we will need to beat some good teams in a row. Can we do that? That will take more than just O also.

That's the question we all want to know. I have my fingers crossed.

[Dames]

The difference is, maybe the offense was "good" the 3 games prior to Chicago but what was good was the run offense. The pass offense wasnt there and I think that had to due with game planning. We had 10 passes week 1, week 2 we were all over the place, week 3 we were fine and week 4 was a disaster. WRs call out the coaches and everything changes. I can 100% guarantee that if we were playing Chicago this week, our game plan would be drastically different. But like someone said on here, the worst thing that could have happened to us was crushing Atlanta and only having to pass 10 times. They made us become over reliant on the run and put little time into the passing offense following that. Kubiak and Stefanski have now figured out how to balance this offense and adjust to players strengths.

I guess I don't see the problem with only being mainly good at running in the first few games. They were very successful with it. it's not like they didn't score a lot of points doing it. 28, 21, 34 for games 1-3. The Chicago game just sucked completely. but looks more like an aberration at this point. (Well, maybe I'm more hopeful that was at least.)

It potentially ended up hurting our passing game when we really needed it in Chicago, because the timing was terrible, so that could have been a factor. Clearly something wasn't right beyond just that game though, because our WRs sounded off that week, and that seems unusual if it was a just a singular bad game.

The balance of the last 4 is much better, and also more entertaining to watch.

I tend to agree that if we faced Chicago right now with this same team, we would have a much better result, but on the other hand, maybe that loss is just what the doctor ordered.

[Dames]

KC and Dallas will both be good tests because both are road games against teams that can put up points on offense. While neither has a great defense per se, the tenor of either, or both, games could easily end up resembling the last game against Green Bay where the other team gets an early lead and the Vikings end up having to play catch up on offense.

That could happen in either game, and we have yet to see if we have a team that can overcome 2nd half deficit. I think we've had the lead early in all our wins. We were down by 14 vs Detroit in the 2nd Qtr I think, but other than that we have not had to make any comebacks, have we? We fell short in the comeback vs GB, even though were were in position, and we even had chances vs Chi that we couldn't pull off.

Denver is a very good defense, but that game is at home and the Bronco offense sucks. I expect that game to resemble this last one against the Redksins.

I agree, that is most likely how this goes. Fairly low-scoring,and we play the time-of-possession game.

Seattle is a road game against a team that can score. Will be very similar to the KC and Dallas contests. Not a great defense, but good enough with the home crowd making life more difficult for the offense. Who scores first, and how much they score, will be a significant factor.

This game I can see us losing. Seattle at home is so difficult. Their D is bad, but Wilson gives us fits with extending plays often, and I think that becomes the biggest factor. I hope I'm wrong.

I won't look farther down the road than those 4 games, but it's entirely possible that the Vikings limp out of this stretch with a 1-3 record with all talk of Stefanski as the next offensive genius in the NFL burning in a ditch somewhere. All of these games will pose the types of puzzles that a offensive genius should be able to solve.

I think we'll beat KC, because I don't think they will stop Cook. Dallas is a coin flip, and it depends which Dallas team shows up. However, they are overrated IMO. They've beaten 4 bad teams, and lost to 2 good teams and one awful team (Jets), so honestly I like our chances quite a bit. But, it's a night game, in Dallas, so that factors in.

I think we go 3-1. 2-2 at worst. We could easily have an off game vs Dal or KC, but I doubt both.

[StumpHunter]

If we make the playoffs we will eventually have to meet SF along the way. They can play D. Saints also play some D. We are doing what need's to be done against these teams. That's much better than laying an egg. IMO can our D match up to those teams. Even against GB can our D contain Rodgers to allow us to put up 24 and win. I don't know if we can hold Rodgers to under 24. That is the bigger question.

Our D already did hold Rodgers to under 24...

[Pondering Her Percy]

WRs called out the QB. That is why he felt the need to apologize.

You say that because that's what you want it to be. I have been saying this since week 4. Diggs and Thielen were after Zim and the OCs, not Cousins. David Carr said the same thing on NFL live. He said the design of these pass plays were like something you see in high school. He also said, why would Diggs and Thielen be mad at Cousins?? Kirk Cousins gave them BOTH the BEST season of their careers last year. They are well aware of what Kirk can do when it comes to throwing the ball. Whats new is this offense and how it is ran. And early on, this offense was not utilizing either of those WRs like it should have. This team had an average to below average year last year and did you hear Thielen or Diggs complain? Or lets say, call out their QB? No not once. This year, we were losing PLUS they were hardly touching the ball. Then they decide to speak out. If I'm a star WR and my QB just gave me the best season of my career one year prior, I'm not calling out my QB. I know what he can do. But come the following year, if I'm not touching the ball, I'm ticked at the coaches. Not my QB.

The media blew this out of proportion saying it was all directed at Cousins. They said that because they know that's what makes a good story. Not one of them dropped Cousins name and David Carr made a great point. Especially given the fact that he went back and watched the film and the lack of effort and creativity in the passing game was quite obvious. Nobody else looks at it that way, they just point to what makes a good story. And you just look at it that way because that's one more bullet in your gun that you can fire off when Cousins doesnt play well. You refuse to see it any other way.

Against Atlanta and Oakland we didn't pass because we didn't need to, but the balance was fine in GB and Chicago. We just didn't execute.

How is 21 passes vs 28 rushes vs Oakland not balanced but 36 passes to 16 rushes was balanced vs. Chicago??

It's not that simple. Against Chicago, the run game wasnt working so we were forced to become one dimensional. We werent finding ways to keep the defense on their toes. We werent utilizing roll outs like we are now and thats a big reason why the sack number was so inflated that game. Chicago knew when we were going to run and knew when we were going to pass. In the last 4 games, for the most part, I couldnt have told you what play was going to be a run or a pass. Early on, I could have called a solid 80%+ of pass plays vs run plays.

Your entire post here was nothing other than looking at the surface of things....weird

[Pondering Her Percy]

The difference is, maybe the offense was "good" the 3 games prior to Chicago but what was good was the run offense. The pass offense wasnt there and I think that had to due with game planning. We had 10 passes week 1, week 2 we were all over the place, week 3 we were fine and week 4 was a disaster. WRs call out the coaches and everything changes. I can 100% guarantee that if we were playing Chicago this week, our game plan would be drastically different. But like someone said on here, the worst thing that could have happened to us was crushing Atlanta and only having to pass 10 times. They made us become over reliant on the run and put little time into the passing offense following that. Kubiak and Stefanski have now figured out how to balance this offense and adjust to players strengths.

I guess I don't see the problem with only being mainly good at running in the first few games. They were very successful with it. it's not like they didn't score a lot of points doing it. 28, 21, 34 for games 1-3. The Chicago game just sucked completely. but looks more like an aberration at this point. (Well, maybe I'm more hopeful that was at least.)

It potentially ended up hurting our passing game when we really needed it in Chicago, because the timing was terrible, so that could have been a factor. Clearly something wasn't right beyond just that game though, because our WRs sounded off that week, and that seems unusual if it was a just a singular bad game.

The balance of the last 4 is much better, and also more entertaining to watch.

I tend to agree that if we faced Chicago right now with this same team, we would have a much better result, but on the other hand, maybe that loss is just what the doctor ordered.

I mean maybe that loss needed to happen. I'd rather it happen in week 4 than in week 17 battling for a playoff spot.

However, the problem with "only being good at running the ball" early on was that when we needed to pass, we couldnt because we werent prepared. We thought we could win games by primarily running the ball. Come Chicago, we quickly realized running the ball wasnt going to win us the game so we were forced to be one dimensional and throw, something we did not prepare for whatsoever because we were running high school plays according to David Carr. We scored a lot of points on 2 below average defenses. We scored 16 vs. GB not 21. Granted we could have had more points but too many mistakes. But again, they arent a good defense either.

Bottom line is, we werent prepared for our run game hitting a wall. And it showed in that Chicago game that there needed to be more emphasis on this passing game, more balance to keep defenses on their toes and more designed roll outs to get away from a porous pass blocking OL.

[J. Kapp 11]

Perhaps speculating Stefanski's future is a bit premature and would qualify as hype. But did you find anything wrong with the analysis of his playcalling?

No, I thought the analysis was really good. If anything bothered me about it though, it was the focus on the games (and defenses) during the winning streak. I wondered what the analysis would look like if it included the two losses? How much does the overall quality of the defense affect the analysis?

This article lauds a streak of games against pretty subpar defenses and opponents. Much tougher tests are coming up, including rematches with the Packers and Bears. If Stefanski's offense continues to produce the yards and points against better defenses (and if they do, I'd have to assume that success in the playoffs would be inevitable), I'll be on board with the hype.

I suppose a better analysis would have been to compare some of the lowlights of the first four games to these past four. It actually might have bolstered the point that the the Vikings (and Stefanski's playcalling) have improved dramatically as the season has progressed.

At the same time, we need to remember that these are NFL defenses the Vikings are playing. Philly, while not a defensive juggernaut, has victories over the 7-1 Packers and the 5-2 Bills ... both on the road. The Lions held the Chargers to 10 points and should have beaten Green Bay at Lambeau. The worst defense of the bunch is the Giants. So while I realize this hasn't been accomplished against a New England-level defense, it's still the NFL, and you still have to win the games on your schedule.

And as others have pointed out, our offense has actually only been "bad" against one team, the Bears.

Finally, Kevin Stefanski has called exactly 11 games as an offensive coordinator. For such a newbie, he's doing a great job. Kubiak has been invaluable in bringing the fundamentals of the zone offense, but Stefanski is the one who has added the modern wrinkles.

Bottom line: I really like our offense. It's the best we've seen since 2009 Favre, IMO.

[StumpHunter]

You say that because that's what you want it to be. I have been saying this since week 4. Diggs and Thielen were after Zim and the OCs, not Cousins. David Carr said the same thing on NFL live. He said the design of these pass plays were like something you see in high school. He also said, why would Diggs and Thielen be mad at Cousins?? Kirk Cousins gave them BOTH the BEST season of their careers last year. They are well aware of what Kirk can do when it comes to throwing the ball. Whats new is this offense and how it is ran. And early on, this offense was not utilizing either of those WRs like it should have. This team had an average to below average year last year and did you hear Thielen or Diggs complain? Or lets say, call out their QB? No not once. This year, we were losing PLUS they were hardly touching the ball. Then they decide to speak out. If I'm a star WR and my QB just gave me the best season of my career one year prior, I'm not calling out my QB. I know what he can do. But come the following year, if I'm not touching the ball, I'm ticked at the coaches. Not my QB.

The media blew this out of proportion saying it was all directed at Cousins. They said that because they know that's what makes a good story. Not one of them dropped Cousins name and David Carr made a great point. Especially given the fact that he went back and watched the film and the lack of effort and creativity in the passing game was quite obvious. Nobody else looks at it that way, they just point to what makes a good story. And you just look at it that way because that's one more bullet in your gun that you can fire off when Cousins doesnt play well. You refuse to see it any other way.

Cousins apologized to Theilen because he was calling out the coaches? Interesting theory.

At some point, you're not going to be able to run the ball for 180 yards, even with the best running back in the NFL. That's when you have to be able to throw the ball. … You have to be able to hit the deep balls.

Wow, he really hammered Zimmer with that one.

I watched the film of that Bears game too, every drop back from the all 22. Posted the video on here so everyone else could as well.

I can't say if the play calls were simplistic or not, I am not qualified to make that kind of speculation. I will say others watched the film who WERE qualified and Carr was the only one calling it a High School offense. Possibly he was trying to come at it from a different angle to keep his entertainment show entertaining? I can also say that if the offense was simplistic, guys were still open and Cousins just missed them. That was clear even to my untrained eye.

How is 21 passes vs 28 rushes vs Oakland not balanced but 36 passes to 16 rushes was balanced vs. Chicago??

Rushing more than passing is not balanced in today’s NFL. I guess I don’t understand what you mean by balance. Passing more than running, running more than passing? The exact same number of rushes as passes? Help me out here.

The Vikings went into that Bears game intending to have a balanced attack. EXECUTION, made them have to throw a bunch late in the 3rd and the 4th. In the first half they had 11 passes to 10 rushes. Seems balanced to me.

It's not that simple. Against Chicago, the run game wasnt working so we were forced to become one dimensional. We weren’t finding ways to keep the defense on their toes. We werent utilizing roll outs like we are now and thats a big reason why the sack number was so inflated that game. Chicago knew when we were going to run and knew when we were going to pass. In the last 4 games, for the most part, I couldn’t have told you what play was going to be a run or a pass. Early on, I could have called a solid 80%+ of pass plays vs run plays.

Your entire post here was nothing other than looking at the surface of things....weird

I thought all the roll outs were the reason Cousins was holding the ball so long in that Bears and Packers game?

The Vikings did not go from a simple High School offense in that Bears game to a complicated one in weeks 5, 6, 7, and 8. It is the same offense with some minor tweaks and adjustments that every team makes from week to week. The biggest difference is the competition and the execution.

It is okay for players to have a bad game or two early in the season you know.

[VikingLord]

Bottom line: I really like our offense. It's the best we've seen since 2009 Favre, IMO.

Me too, and I agree on the overall talent level, completeness, and explosiveness comparing favorably to 2009.

If there is a weak spot on the offense, it's probably the consistency of the pass blocking. They do a good job generally run blocking. Otherwise, the offense is stacked and Stefanski has found ways to get the most out of that overall talent. As long as Cousins keeps playing with a chip on his shoulder, this offense has the potential to end up as one of the better overall Vikings offenses in history IMHO.