And then, there was one...

[IrishViking]

But as a measure of o-line performance, the ypc is highly relevant.
Then what's the point of a comment like "Bradford will easily survive a season taking 30 sacks" when hits can be just as damaging?

Whats the point in talking about "hits" when getting shoved and taking a step back counts the same as being Pile driven after the play is over and becoming paralyzed via the measurement tool

which is where the hurries come in, last two games, hurried on roughly 1/5 drop backs. Hurries lead to Hits. so he is potentially only getting hit on 1/5 attempts, but actually far less because not every hurry leads to hit.


The rest of my post is trying to make the point that 1 hit can end a career and 500 might not. Norv's game plan has him getting hit and sack at an "acceptable" rate if you accept that fact that the best teams in the history of the league will give up sacks and hits. We are 18th in QB hits and tied for 6th in sacks given up. And if you take away one hit per game we are in the top 12 teams in the league. My main point is that improvement is desired, needed, and would be great. But our Oline is playing right at or even slightly above league average in defending our QB.

2.6 is better than 1.6 and 96 is better than 36. The trend is up and if it keeps going at that rate we are a couple of weeks away from having a decent rushing attack to go with our passing attack. The Oline is not regressing on a macro level they are improving which, with the injuries they have had, is rather shocking imo.

[Mothman]

Whats the point in talking about "hits" when getting shoved and taking a step back counts the same as being Pile driven after the play is over and becoming paralyzed via the measurement tool

The point of talking about hits is a QB can be hurt on a hit, not just a sack, so when discussing protection, hits are relevant. Isn't that obvious within the context of the discussion? I brought them up in response to your comment that "Bradford will easily survive a season taking 30 sacks (current pace)".

The rest of my post is trying to make the point that 1 hit can end a career and 500 might not. Norv's game plan has him getting hit and sack at an "acceptable" rate if you accept that fact that the best teams in the history of the league will give up sacks and hits.

I accept that hits and sacks are inevitable but I don't accept that the number of times Bradford's getting hit is simply acceptable. The nature of some of those hits matters, not just the number of times they occur. I'm taking about actual hits, not stats, so I'm not referring to plays where the QB gets shoved and takes a step back. Mercilus alone hit Bradford at least 5 times Sunday and some of those hits were pretty brutal. On one, he came up the middle unblocked and absolutely leveled Bradford. Bradford completed a pass on the play but the Vikes need to clean that stuff up because that kind of hit can put a QB on the sidelines.

[808vikingsfan]

Krauser‏@Krauserrific

Vikings defense:
points/game against: 12.6 (1st)
yds/play: 4.4 (1st)
opponent passer rating: 65.3 (1st)
sacks: 19 (1st)
takeaways: 12 (1st)

[Raptorman]

But as a measure of o-line performance, the ypc is highly relevant.
Then what's the point of a comment like "Bradford will easily survive a season taking 30 sacks" when hits can be just as damaging?

Someone once posted a stat about running games in the NFL. It basically said that how much yardage you get really does not matter. It the number of attempts that do. They had some interesting numbers to back it up. It went that as long as a team attempted at least 20 runs a game that it would open up the play action pass. The team they used to support the theory, the Patriots. But they also took several other teams stats that showed it was the number of attempts and not he yardage that made a difference. I will try and find it when I have the time.

[IrishViking]

I accept that hits and sacks are inevitable but I don't accept that the number of times Bradford's getting hit is simply acceptable. The nature of some of those hits matters, not just the number of times they occur. I'm taking about actual hits, not stats, so I'm not referring to plays where the QB gets shoved and takes a step back. Mercilus alone hit Bradford at least 5 times Sunday and some of those hits were pretty brutal. On one, he came up the middle unblocked and absolutely leveled Bradford. Bradford completed a pass on the play but the Vikes need to clean that stuff up because that kind of hit can put a QB on the sidelines.

Bradford has been hit 23 times and sacked 8 times this season. The Raiders -Of all teams- have the best protection scheme in the league with only 5 sacks given up and just 12 hits. My point is that, that is the best you can measure against. you cant hold ANY Offense protection scheme to the goal of zero sacks and zero Hits. It just doesn't happen in a season.

8-5 is 3
23-12 is 11

so over the course of 4 games Bradford has gotten sacked .75/pg more and hit 2.75/pg more than what could reasonably be argued to be the best possible outcome in the real world. I get your point that you want to avoid hits because anything can happen. My point is that you cannot avoid them though, they will happen. Yes there are some hits that are quite abusive, that's true. But a lot of those 23 hits have also been of the "Helmet tap "Ill get you next time" variety" But that aside,
W agree you need to limit them, and given what we are working with, they havent done a poor job. There is room for improvement. My only argument is that Bradford is not at some sort of "beyond the pale risk" or we are doing him a disservice by trotting him out with a protection scheme that causes him to sacked less than once a game more and hit slightly less than 3 times per game more over 60 minutes when compared to literally the best playing Protection scheme in the league.

Improvements are expect and if we want to win the Superbowl they must get better. But even given what has happened to the Oline our protection scheme is far from bottom feeding.

[Mothman]

Bradford has been hit 23 times and sacked 8 times this season. The Raiders -Of all teams- have the best protection scheme in the league with only 5 sacks given up and just 12 hits. My point is that, that is the best you can measure against. you cant hold ANY Offense protection scheme to the goal of zero sacks and zero Hits. It just doesn't happen in a season.

8-5 is 3
23-12 is 11

so over the course of 4 games Bradford has gotten sacked .75/pg more and hit 2.75/pg more than what could reasonably be argued to be the best possible outcome in the real world. I get your point that you want to avoid hits because anything can happen. My point is that you cannot avoid them though, they will happen.

Of course they will happen. Nobody is suggesting they can be entirely avoided. Within the context of the discussion, I was responding to your assertion that "Bradford will easily survive a season taking 30 sacks". My aim was to point out that sack numbers don't fully indicate the degree of risk to the QB because injuries can also result from hits on the QB that don't occur during sacks. In other words, Bradford might not 'easily" survive a 30 sack season if he keeps getting hit like he's been getting hit so far.

That's it.

[Mothman]

Someone once posted a stat about running games in the NFL. It basically said that how much yardage you get really does not matter. It the number of attempts that do. They had some interesting numbers to back it up. It went that as long as a team attempted at least 20 runs a game that it would open up the play action pass. The team they used to support the theory, the Patriots. But they also took several other teams stats that showed it was the number of attempts and not he yardage that made a difference. I will try and find it when I have the time.

Please don't put yourself out if you don't have the time. I've read that before and I believe it has merit. That's what I was getting at above when I posted "Reps in the running game are important". I think yardage gained obviously matters but even if a team runs 35 times and only gains 98 yards, there's a benefit to running the ball 35 times in a game.

[IrishViking]

Of course they will happen. Nobody is suggesting they can be entirely avoided. Within the context of the discussion, I was responding to your assertion that "Bradford will easily survive a season taking 30 sacks". My aim was to point out that sack numbers don't fully indicate the degree of risk to the QB because injuries can also result from hits on the QB that don't occur during sacks. In other words, Bradford might not 'easily" survive a 30 sack season if he keeps getting hit like he's been getting hit so far.

That's it.

We are on the same page then. I don't try to mess with hits simply because of how wide a range they are. You absolutely will have hits that can be worse than sacks by far but you will also have your fair share of "shoulder bumps" that i believe Bradford has the fortitude to withstand. To me generally, if a team is preventing sacks its means decent protection. Rare are the games where a QB gets smashed but they manage to avoid the sacks regularly.

[mansquatch]

I would add this to rushing stats: I care more about getting first downs with rushing attempts in the 4th quarter than any other time. First downs in the 4th quarter via the ground game allow you to chew up the clock and close out an opponent. 40 seconds per play until they start using times outs Get them to 4 minutes and they have to use time outs. Get to the 2 minute warning and then 3 plays and the game is over. I'd love to see 200 yards of rushing, but if we are only going to have 65, better that 45 of them in the 4th quarter to close the game.

[mansquatch]

'85 Bears were 12.4 PPG. We are in elite company defensively not just on the season, but historically. Last year's DEN defense was 18.5 PPG. The Legion of Boom in 2013 were 14.4 PPG.

[Mothman]

'85 Bears were 12.4 PPG. We are in elite company defensively not just on the season, but historically. Last year's DEN defense was 18.5 PPG. The Legion of Boom in 2013 were 14.4 PPG.

They're in good company but it's early. It's going to be hard to sustain such a low number for 16 games. Many teams have done it over the years so it's possible but it's been pretty rare in the last few decades, when the rules have increasingly favored offense.

The only teams in this century to hold opponents to 12.6 ppg or less over a full season are:

2000 Ravens: 10.5
2000 Titans: 11.5
2002 Buccaneers: 12.2
2005 Bears: 12.6
2006 Ravens: 12.6

The 2001 Bears just missed the cut with 12.7

Historical perspective for our own team:

'69 Vikings: 9.5 ppg
'70 Vikings: 10.2 ppg
'71 Vikings: 9.9 ppg
'73 Vikings: 12 ppg
'76 Vikings: 12.6 ppg
'88 Vikings: 14.6 ppg

Maybe this year's defense will join the ranks of those Vikes teams and the other 21st century team mentioned above! They're playing like they could do it.

[808vikingsfan]

If anyone wants 11 minutes of entertainment...

[IrishViking]

If anyone wants 11 minutes of entertainment...

Stephen Smith is hard to watch now a days. Its literally all about the tone and entertainment value of his delivery. He could have been saying anything about anyone.

[PsyDanny]

Stephen Smith is hard to watch now a days. Its literally all about the tone and entertainment value of his delivery. He could have been saying anything about anyone.

His delivery, tho. Kind of like being in ch'ch.

[The-Purple-Reign]

Ladies and Gentlemen, your Minnesota Vikings are the only undefeated team left in the NFL, and it will be that way for at least two weeks since we have our bye next week.
There are other teams who are looking really good (Dallas, Philly, Atlanta, New England), but it is nice to be the only undefeated team in the league. Hopefully the vikings can get healthy during the bye, especially on the OL!!

SKOL!