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

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 »

Laserman wrote:looked exactly the same to me. Run strait up the middle all the time. Quick passes to the Wide out. No slants, No Misdirection runs, no trap runs, No Screen passess. Looks like the Norms OFFense to me

They actually ran several slants yesterday but it is still the same scheme. It's just Shurmur calling plays in Turner's system.

I thought the offense looked a little different but not dramatically so. It wasn't significantly different than what we saw before the bye and overall, it wasn't terribly effective, though it was better than what we've seen in the previous 2 games. Some of that could just be due to the opponent. Hopefully, it will get better.
J. Kapp 11
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9771
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 »

Mothman wrote:
They actually ran several slants yesterday but it is still the same scheme. It's just Shurmur calling plays in Turner's system.

I thought the offense looked a little different but not dramatically so. It wasn't significantly different than what we saw before the bye and overall, it wasn't terribly effective, though it was better than what we've seen in the previous 2 games. Some of that could just be due to the opponent. Hopefully, it will get better.
The difference, to me, was that not every route was 15 yards or farther down the field. Bradford at least had check-downs available yesterday, which he did not have on several occasions against the Bears, even though the Vikings couldn't stop the pass rush.

We also saw a couple of nice swing passes to the backs, and more screens to take advantage of CP and Diggs. In addition, the tempo was faster.

Other than 3 toss sweeps, only one of which actually worked, the running game looked no different. Well, except for the jet sweep by Rhett Ellison for the TD. That was a creative play.
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:The difference, to me, was that not every route was 15 yards or farther down the field.
I know what you mean and there was a greater emphasis on short routes than we've seen in the previous two games but they've been running most of the routes we saw yesterday all season. I didn't think it was very effective but It did keep Bradford from getting hit as much as he was against the Bears and Eagles and that helps. He took a few nasty shots again yesterday though. After one, I was concerned he was going to have to leave the game.
Bradford at least had check-downs available yesterday, which he did not have on several occasions against the Bears, even though the Vikings couldn't stop the pass rush.

We also saw a couple of nice swing passes to the backs, and more screens to take advantage of CP and Diggs. In addition, the tempo was faster.

Other than 3 toss sweeps, only one of which actually worked, the running game looked no different. Well, except for the jet sweep by Rhett Ellison for the TD. That was a creative play.
Yes, that was the best offensive call of the game for the Vikes, a very clever use of personnel to deceive the defense. :thumbsup:

They definitely got the ball to Patterson and Diggs more frequently and there was a clear effort to put them in position to run after the catch. If they keep that up, I think it will pay dividends. There were obviously tweaks in their approach and hopefully, they will become more effective as Shurmur has more time to work on the offense. He didn't even have a full week as OC before this game.
User avatar
chicagopurple
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1498
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:45 am
x 88

Re: Shurmur takes different view of offense than Norv Turner

Post by chicagopurple »

they definitely ran more screens this week. Bradford definitely was given downfield opportunities.....which he wither overlooked or over threw......the OL actually provided a glimmer of a pocket for him to allow for a deep threat, he just couldn't put the ball on the receiver .
J. Kapp 11
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9771
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 »

chicagopurple wrote:they definitely ran more screens this week. Bradford definitely was given downfield opportunities.....which he wither overlooked or over threw......the OL actually provided a glimmer of a pocket for him to allow for a deep threat, he just couldn't put the ball on the receiver .
He put one right in CP's hands in the end zone, and Patterson biffed it.

Other times, though, it seemed the long pass was for show. He tried to hit Charles Johnson a couple of times, but Johnson had no separation.
Image
Go ahead. I dare you.
Underestimate this man.
J. Kapp 11
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9771
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 »

Mothman wrote:I know what you mean and there was a greater emphasis on short routes than we've seen in the previous two games but they've been running most of the routes we saw yesterday all season. I didn't think it was very effective but It did keep Bradford from getting hit as much as he was against the Bears and Eagles and that helps. He took a few nasty shots again yesterday though. After one, I was concerned he was going to have to leave the game.
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.

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.
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: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.
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 »

I watched the game again today. Here's my take on some of the things being discussed here...

Shurmur didn't get long to work with the team and he said the changes would be subtle. They were very subtle, though I can kind of see where he might be going with the offense. The putrid offensive line is going to make improvements difficult.

I was upset Patterson dropped the end zone pass but the team needs more of him on offense. For the most part, he's playing well and his acceleration on one of the short passes was lights out amazing. His punt gunning is great and he's a top returner.

Why is Charles Johnson the designated deep WR? The Vikings need to go deep to Diggs, Thielen and Patterson as well. Of course, Bradford has to get time to do that.

What an asset Diggs is! He basically is a possession WR, given how well he gets open and catches the ball.

Ronnie Hillman should be the starting RB. His power and 4.4/40 speed really showed. Hillman can catch, too.

The kick return blocking has been a little loose lately. Where is the good wall blocking we saw last season?

Too many stupid penalties by the Vikings.

Walsh looked bad - again. The Lions were not missing their kicks. We saw again why missing a kick, extra point or FG, can impact the outcome of a game.
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 »

Following up on Craig's post above (and some of the other comments about Shurmur's OC debut in this thread):

http://vikingsterritory.com/2016/opinio ... s-football
Paul Allen @PAOnTheMic
#Vikings offense:
Treadwell catch.
Ellison sweep.
Linval up back in I.
2 sacks (1 on Sam imo)
Quick rhythm.
Things on which to build.#Faith https://twitter.com/Huckstar12/status/7 ... 4957246465
7:03 PM - 6 Nov 2016
9 9 Retweets 62 62 likes
Allen’s tweet highlights a few of the items that stuck out to me, most noticeably, the quick rhythm with which the offense operated. According to Pro Football Focus, Bradford released 76 percent of his passes on Sunday in less than 2.5 seconds, and increase on his season average of 62 percent. The design of the game plan, which included an abundance of receiver screens and quick-hitting backfield throws, allowed Bradford to operate in a relatively clean pocket. He was only pressured on 27 percent of his dropbacks, giving the offense life it hasn’t seen since Week 5.

Shurmur’s offense has its own warts, but there was a definitive difference between his philosophy and Turner’s Air Coryell tendencies. If anything, yesterday’s game gave hope that Minnesota’s offense can bounce back from what’s been a terrifying collapse.
J. Kapp 11
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9771
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 »

Mothman wrote: 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:
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:
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 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.
Wow man. I was just trying to have a conversation, not an argument. Never mind.
Image
Go ahead. I dare you.
Underestimate this man.
User avatar
chicagopurple
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1498
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:45 am
x 88

Re: Shurmur takes different view of offense than Norv Turner

Post by chicagopurple »

heh....Mothman is relentless......
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:Wow man. I was just trying to have a conversation, not an argument. Never mind.
I thought we were having a conversation. Is that just supposed to involve polite agreement, regardless of the facts? What I saw on film contradicted some of your statements about the Bears game and what I saw in the article seemed somewhat self-contradictory. I literally took the time to review every pass Bradford threw in that game again before responding to your post because I wanted to make sure my impressions, which differed from yours, weren't off base. I'm sorry if that difference somehow offended you but if we're here to discuss football, doesn't it make sense to try to discuss what occurred in the games accurately? If it's incorrect to say Bradford never threw a check down in the previous game or that Turner wasn't giving him options to get rid of the ball when receivers weren't open further downfield, wouldn't you want to know that? It certainly seems relevant to a discussion about the differences between how the two offensive coordinators called the last two games. :confused:

As I said in response to you yesterday, I guess I no longer understand what we're doing here. I mistakenly assumed you would care about what actually occurred on the field.
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 »

chicagopurple wrote:heh....Mothman is relentless......
I'm just interested in discussing what actually happens in the games. I know I prefer to come away with a clear idea of what happened when that's possible. I don't mind admitting I'm wrong either. For example, when discussing Walsh's blocked FG yesterday, I said it looked to me like he hit it accurately. Others thought he shanked it. I couldn't tell that on the replay I saw then but I was able to see a better view of the kick today and I think those who said it came off his foot on a bad trajectory were probably correct. In other words, I was wrong.
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 »

Mothman wrote: I'm just interested in discussing what actually happens in the games. I know I prefer to come away with a clear idea of what happened when that's possible. I don't mind admitting I'm wrong either. For example, when discussing Walsh's blocked FG yesterday, I said it looked to me like he hit it accurately. Others thought he shanked it. I couldn't tell that on the replay I saw then but I was able to see a better view of the kick today and I think those who said it came off his foot on a bad trajectory were probably correct. In other words, I was wrong.
It was a terrible kick. The f'ing DE could have blocked it. It probably actually helped Walsh that it was blocked. Can you imagine if he had missed it outright?
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 »

PurpleMustReign wrote:It was a terrible kick. The f'ing DE could have blocked it. It probably actually helped Walsh that it was blocked. Can you imagine if he had missed it outright?
People would have been even angrier (if that's possible!).
Post Reply