Shurmur takes different view of offense than Norv Turner

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

Boon
Pro Bowl Elite Player
Posts: 671
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2014 6:28 pm
x 32

Re: Shurmur takes different view of offense than Norv Turner

Post by Boon »

A lot of people need to realize too, that we get short fields a lot. Top 10 offense would be nice but realistically we should be seeing middle of the packish, 15th or so, that would be right about where would probably put us in good position to clean house the rest of the year and into the post season. That's just in yardage, scoring should follow suit
Purple Martin
Starter
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2014 6:08 pm
Location: The Trees
x 4

Re: Shurmur takes different view of offense than Norv Turner

Post by Purple Martin »

Boon wrote:A lot of people need to realize too, that we get short fields a lot. Top 10 offense would be nice but realistically we should be seeing middle of the packish, 15th or so, that would be right about where would probably put us in good position to clean house the rest of the year and into the post season. That's just in yardage, scoring should follow suit
Good point. We need touchdowns, not necessarily big yardage. And 15th-14th-13th is right where we were when Norv got here, but we haven't seen it since.
Mothman wrote:... a good completion percentage in a performance like that is like putting lipstick on a pig.
losperros
Commissioner
Posts: 10041
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2003 9:47 am
Location: Burbank, California

Re: Shurmur takes different view of offense than Norv Turner

Post by losperros »

J. Kapp 11 wrote: Here's the link.

How many times have we criticized Norv for trying to shoehorn players into his system? Shurmur seems to have a much different attitude. Hopefully it manifests itself into actual improvement.
I absolutely agree!

Shurmur is talking about the exact thing the Vikings need most from their offensive coordinator right now. They've gone too long trying to be force-fed into a system that was incongruous with the talent at hand, including both the skill players and problem plagued OL. I believe the last two games were particularly proof of that.
J. Kapp 11
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9772
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pm
x 1857

Re: Shurmur takes different view of offense than Norv Turner

Post by J. Kapp 11 »

Purple Martin wrote: Good point. We need touchdowns, not necessarily big yardage. And 15th-14th-13th is right where we were when Norv got here, but we haven't seen it since.
No matter how you measure it -- yards or points -- Turner's production over the past five years has not lived up to his reputation. With the field position our defense routinely gives the offense, we should be scoring 25+ per game.

At some point, what a coach did with three Hall of Famers 20 years ago has to stop mattering.

Here's something else. I forget where I read it, but apparently the reason Norv wouldn't play Patterson was because he hadn't "mastered the entire offense." Rather than utilize CP for the things he COULD do, he benched him. There is speculation that's also the reason we have yet to see Laquon Treadwell in any meaningful way. In Norv's world, the story goes, if you can't run the entire playbook, you don't see the field. Shurmur supposedly is willing to use guys in whatever ways they can contribute.
Image
Go ahead. I dare you.
Underestimate this man.
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: Shurmur takes different view of offense than Norv Turner

Post by Mothman »

J. Kapp 11 wrote:At some point, what a coach did with three Hall of Famers 20 years ago has to stop mattering.
So people keep saying but that's not quite fair to Turner, since he coached the league's #1-ranked offense as recently as 2010. He had the #6 offense in 2011. The wheels came off for the Chargers offense in 2013 and I don't recall exactly what happened when a shift is that dramatic, there's a good chance major injuries or personnel changes were involved. My point is Turner wasn't just living off a reputation he earned with the Cowboys back in the early 90s. He's had offensive success much more recently than that.
Here's something else. I forget where I read it, but apparently the reason Norv wouldn't play Patterson was because he hadn't "mastered the entire offense." Rather than utilize CP for the things he COULD do, he benched him. There is speculation that's also the reason we have yet to see Laquon Treadwell in any meaningful way. In Norv's world, the story goes, if you can't run the entire playbook, you don't see the field
.

... and apparently, in Mike Zimmer's world that's just fine. It was fine with the majority of fans here last year too. I was repeatedly told the coaches knew best, Zimmer could practically do no wrong. If Patterson was on the bench, it was for a good reason. It had to be for a good reason because Zimmer was backing the decision.

Overall, Turner ran an ineffective offense in Minnesota. He showed some resourcefulness and flexibility but not nearly enough. At times, he tried to shoehorn players into his system but who stood by and watched it? Heck, who enabled it? Mike Zimmer, who can seemingly do no wrong in the eyes of most Vikes fans.

If the team didn't want Norv Turner's system, they shouldn't have hired Norv Turner. When an OC is botching his handling of player personnel and/or mismanaging the offense in other ways, the head coach isn't supposed to stand by and watch for 2.5 years while busying himself with the defense. He's supposed to step in and help get things moving in the right direction. It's also somewhat important for the team to get players that fit their chosen system. That tends to minimize how many square pegs get forced into round holes. If they wanted Turner to run his scheme effectively, they needed to get him the players to do that. As far as I'm concerned, they blew it from the start by drafting Bridgewater (and Norv encouraged them to do it, which might be his biggest failing of all in Minnesota—not even recognizing that the QB he wanted was a poor fit!). They compounded their mistake with their handling of the OL and Norv himself did his part to make things worse. He doesn't get a pass but ultimately, I think this falls at the feet of Mike Zimmer and Rick Spielman, who hired Turner, gave him autonomy and allowed things to get to this point.

Things might get better under Shurmur. I hope so, but I'm not expecting miracles or a midseason change in systems. It will be interesting to see what the coming weeks bring and it will also be interesting to see if Zimmer continues to give his OC almost complete autonomy.
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: Shurmur takes different view of offense than Norv Turner

Post by Mothman »

After typing up that last post, I started wondering if anyone in the media was a saying much about Zimmer's role in this. A quick search turned up this recent piece by Kevin Siefert:

http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/post ... gs-offense
Zimmer has always said he's had a hand in the team's offensive approach, but the truth came out Wednesday in the raw emotion of Turner's decision.

"I would say that since Norv has been here, I've given him almost 100 percent, total free will in everything that they've done offensively," Zimmer said. "Obviously I'd come in and make suggestions, but there really has never been a time when I have demanded anything from there."

I'm sure Zimmer takes some professional pride in that approach, especially as a longtime assistant himself. Who wouldn't want a boss who stays out of the way? But it rendered him powerless to execute one of the basic jobs of a head coach: to "coach" the assistants.

Turner is one of the most accomplished coordinators of this generation, and in this case, he was hired to be the head coach of the Vikings' offense. This is never an ideal approach, regardless of the mutual admiration and achievements of the respective parties.

When something goes wrong and a schematic adjustment needs to be made, it's the job of the head coach to step in and make sure it gets done. It's not always pleasant. It could encounter resistance and might be inferred as disrespect, but it's an important part of the checks and balance of leadership, and it was something Zimmer has largely avoided addressing in a direct way through the ups and downs of the Vikings' offense during his tenure.
Norv Turner has been coaching his way for a long time. And for the most part, it has worked. Zimmer hired him to do his thing in Minnesota, and Zimmer essentially recused himself from having a substantive role in the direction of the offense.

With Zimmer unable or unwilling to insert himself directly in times of crisis, to guide Turner effectively through adjustments that could be made, this arrangement was doomed from the start.
The whole column is right on target as far as I'm concerned. I'm glad to see someone in the media pointing this stuff out.
Boon
Pro Bowl Elite Player
Posts: 671
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2014 6:28 pm
x 32

Re: Shurmur takes different view of offense than Norv Turner

Post by Boon »

Mothman wrote:
Find some evidence and you might have a case but at this point, it sounds like nothing more than confirmation bias. If it went badly, it must have been Norv. If it went well, it must have been someone else...
So you don't find it at all odd that a qb who had been there a week and a half played a really good game against a very stout defense in the packers? And continued to play extremely efficient football up til the bye, to come out of it horrendous after having a damn good grasp of the offense? You have damn near the same blocking as earlier in the season. It wasn't that great either. But the whole basis of your argument is turner, not someone else, was calling the plays and dumbed it down for sammy. I'm not buying that. I don't see how what you're saying is not speculation, but what im saying is based off of a "common sense" standpoint and this huge rumor going around that shurmur was running with sammy for a few weeks teaching him the playbook. Having a hand in it is calling the plays as far as i'm concerned.

I know turner is the oc but there isnt a chance in hell that you go vs tennesee week 1, dont score an offensive td even with hill at qb, to go against an even STRONGER defense the following week, in a division game at home in a new freaking stadium and have a quarterback that has been there for barely over a week play the way he did with a known brick wall calling the plays. This is too obvious to be speculation
PurpleMustReign
Starting Wide Receiver
Posts: 19150
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:48 pm
Location: Crystal, MN
x 114
Contact:

Re: Shurmur takes different view of offense than Norv Turner

Post by PurpleMustReign »

Good posts, Jim. It is Zimmers team, not Norv's or Shurmur's or Edwards... Zimmer is the head coach... If any part of the team is struggling, it is also on him. I remember when Tice was the coach, he routinely spent time with whichever part of the team was having trouble, and his teams were better because of it.
The Devil whispered in the Viking's ear, "There's a storm coming." The Viking replied, "I am the storm." ‪#‎SKOL2018
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: Shurmur takes different view of offense than Norv Turner

Post by Mothman »

Boon wrote:So you don't find it at all odd that a qb who had been there a week and a half played a really good game against a very stout defense in the packers? And continued to play extremely efficient football up til the bye, to come out of it horrendous after having a damn good grasp of the offense?
No, because Turner worked with Shurmur and Bradford to get a handle on what the latter was comfortable running on short notice, what his strengths were, etc. and then they put together a game plan for Green Bay based on that input. This was reported at the time, as was the approach Turner was taking with Bradford. It's a stretch to think the Vikings traded for Bradford and then Mike Zimmer immediately relieved Turner of playcalling duties for 4 weeks so Shurmur could call the plays for Bradford, only to return those duties to Turner after the bye week despite having success with the supposedly new playcaller. It makes no sense.
I don't see how what you're saying is not speculation, but what im saying is based off of a "common sense" standpoint and this huge rumor going around that shurmur was running with sammy for a few weeks teaching him the playbook.
Because my view is based on what was actually reported during the period leading up to Bradford starting at QB and in the wake of those early starts. It's also based on the fact that Turner was the offensive coordinator and on Zimmer's recent statement that he gave Turner "almost 100 percent, total free will" in everything the Vikings did on offense. I have yet to see a shred of convincing evidence that suggests Zimmer relieved Turner of playcalling duties for weeks and then returned them to him after the bye.

On top of all that, the Eagles and Bears took away some of the routes the Vikes were using successfully in the games before the bye and Bradford and his receivers didn't play as well after the bye. All of that is on film. There were multiple plays where Bradford missed open receivers because of an inaccurate throw or because the receiver didn't run his route correctly. We alls aw how much pressure the Bears and eagles were able to get against the Vikes incompetent o-line. There are perfectly reasonable explanations for what's occurred that don't necessitate buying into a theory that operates on the premise that everything bad was the fault of the guy who's leaving and his successor was responsible for everything good we've seen from the offense this season with Bradford at QB. That's a theory of convenience. Blame the outgoing coach, believe in the new coach. Rinse and repeat.
I know turner is the OC but there isn't a chance in hell that you go vs Tennessee week 1, don't score an offensive td even with hill at qb, to go against an even STRONGER defense the following week, in a division game at home in a new freaking stadium and have a quarterback that has been there for barely over a week play the way he did with a known brick wall calling the plays. This is too obvious to be speculation
It's a theory without firm evidence to support it so by definition, it's speculation.

Bradford's a better QB than Hill. That's the obvious explanation for the difference in TDs between weeks 1 and 2. It's why they traded a first round pick and more for him rather than just going with Hill. He has skills and abilities superior to those of his backup.
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: Shurmur takes different view of offense than Norv Turner

Post by Mothman »

PurpleMustReign wrote:Good posts, Jim.
Thank you.
It is Zimmers team, not Norv's or Shurmur's or Edwards... Zimmer is the head coach... If any part of the team is struggling, it is also on him. I remember when Tice was the coach, he routinely spent time with whichever part of the team was having trouble, and his teams were better because of it.
Exactly. I like Mike Zimmer but a head coach can't just be a glorified defensive coordinator.
losperros
Commissioner
Posts: 10041
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2003 9:47 am
Location: Burbank, California

Re: Shurmur takes different view of offense than Norv Turner

Post by losperros »

Mothman wrote:The whole column is right on target as far as I'm concerned. I'm glad to see someone in the media pointing this stuff out.
Not surprising, Jim. In my view, Kevin Seifert has been and still is one of the best sportswriters out there. His insights about the Vikings are always good.
User avatar
halfgiz
Career Elite Player
Posts: 2289
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 11:38 pm
x 111

Re: Shurmur takes different view of offense than Norv Turner

Post by halfgiz »

Long read...but a deep look at team stats.

http://www.1500espn.com/vikings-2/2016/ ... t-shurmur/
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: Shurmur takes different view of offense than Norv Turner

Post by Mothman »

losperros wrote: Not surprising, Jim. In my view, Kevin Seifert has been and still is one of the best sportswriters out there. His insights about the Vikings are always good.

I agree. I think he's one of the best and I miss the days when he was covering the Vikes on a daily basis.
J. Kapp 11
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9772
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pm
x 1857

Re: Shurmur takes different view of offense than Norv Turner

Post by J. Kapp 11 »

So ... how about the offense today in the first game post-Norv?

I think there were some promising signs -- quicker plays, better offensive line play (at least on passing plays -- only two sacks for this line is a MAJOR win), getting more players involved (even Laquon Treadwell!), more imagination on first down.

I also liked some of the creativity in the Vikings' plays today, particularly the use of Linval Joseph in the backfield, which resulted in two touchdowns. I also liked Shurmur's willingness to get Cordarrelle Patterson involved in a major way. I look for good things out of CP going forward.

But then, the old issues cropped up again. Inability to establish a running game, problems in the red zone, untimely penalties.

What's the consensus? What are you guys thinking? I know it's only one game, but are we seeing anything?
Image
Go ahead. I dare you.
Underestimate this man.
S197
Fenrir
Posts: 12790
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:28 pm
Location: Hawaii
x 662

Re: Shurmur takes different view of offense than Norv Turner

Post by S197 »

J. Kapp 11 wrote:So ... how about the offense today in the first game post-Norv?

I think there were some promising signs -- quicker plays, better offensive line play (at least on passing plays -- only two sacks for this line is a MAJOR win), getting more players involved (even Laquon Treadwell!), more imagination on first down.

I also liked some of the creativity in the Vikings' plays today, particularly the use of Linval Joseph in the backfield, which resulted in two touchdowns. I also liked Shurmur's willingness to get Cordarrelle Patterson involved in a major way. I look for good things out of CP going forward.

But then, the old issues cropped up again. Inability to establish a running game, problems in the red zone, untimely penalties.

What's the consensus? What are you guys thinking? I know it's only one game, but are we seeing anything?
I liked that they were able to move the ball and get in the endzone. Can't fix everything overnight but the offense looked better than it did the past two weeks. Both plays with Linval (who was basically a decoy) were both nicely drawn up and executed. I would like to see Bradford hit on some of those longer throws, he lead the receiver too much on a few of them.
Post Reply