J. Kapp 11 wrote:I was referring more to the lack of check-down options that Bradford had previously against the Bears.
Don't know if you got a chance to read
this article following the Bears game. Take a look if you have a minute. It's the kind of in-depth analysis I think you'd really like.
Throughout the Bears game, I kept wondering why Bradford didn't just check it down, why he kept looking downfield and taking sacks. It was really starting to make me angry. He was being rushed mercilessly, and he never checked down to a back. So frustrating. I kept wondering if Bradford was dumb or stubborn or something. By the examples given in this article, there WERE NO check down options for him on many dropbacks. Norv either sent everybody downfield, or kept them in to block. If nobody gets separation, and the blocking breaks down, Bradford's a sitting duck.
I appreciate the link but there actually were check down throws in that game and there were check down options or short options available on the majority of the Vikes offensive plays. Look at the phrasing on some of the examples in the article:
Here on third and long, the Bears play deep zone and Bradford only has one underneath option and the running back starting to sneak out of the backfield after initially staying in to block
It's third and
long and he just listed one underneath option and the running back as potential targets. How many targets should the OC provide short of the marker in that situation?
Another example:
On this first down play, Bradford takes a sack because all of his receivers are tightly covered. Notice that only one of the routes went less than 10 yards
Again, how many of the routes should have gone less than 10 yards and is the fault really with the play design or the fact that the receivers were all tightly covered? Get open!
As I said, there were check down options or short options available on most of the plays. Sometimes it would be a back slipping out of the backfield, sometimes a receiver running a shallow cross but plays without them were the exception, not the rule. Bradford made a ton of short throws in that game (that's why he averaged just 6.2 yards) and for the most part, Norv didn't either send everybody downfield on slow-developing routes or keep them in to block. It may have seemed that way while watching the game but that might have been a perception borne out of frustration because they really did run a lot of short, quick-developing routes, especially to the outside.
That's the difference I saw yesterday. When Bradford didn't have options down the field, he had somebody to check it to underneath, which he did several times. I know a 4-yard pass doesn't seem like a successful play, but if it avoids an 8-yard sack, it's a win.
That is a win but I don't know what to say other than he was checking it down a week earlier too. I'm not trying to be contrary just for the sake it. It's just what I saw on film.
Part of the reason they've been so ineffective in recent weeks (and really most of the season) is because their running game and protection issues force them to lean heavily on the short passing game and it's obvious to opposing defenses. That makes them pretty easy to defend and allows defenses to play a "bend but don't break' style of football against them pretty effectively. I don't know how they can get out of that without running the ball better or at least improving quite a bit in pass protection.