Week 14: Vikings @ Lions predictions

[J. Kapp 11]

It's too cute play design and unnecessary. Just play action the run with Cook and let Kirk throw the ball. Not that that guarantees the play would be successful either, but handing it to Cook, having him stutter step things only to then have to throw it is like building one of those complex traps to catch a mouse when a simpler trap would do the same job.

The biggest criticism I have of KOC's gameplan yesterday were the run plays, especially on first downs. Every single one he had everyone in tight, allowing the Lions to bring all of their DBs up tight to attack the gaps, which they did with relative ease all game. That is how one of the worst run defenses in the NFL all season ends up allowing only 35 yards rushing for a game.

And KOC, for the first time I can remember, seemed to imply it was the player's inability to execute that caused that and not how obvious the running formations were or the formations themselves. I was flabbergasted by what I was seeing and how consistently the Vikings kept at it. Literally all game was like that.

Not sure what KOC had in mind yesterday. He can blame having two starting OL out if he wants or blame Cook or whoever, but that was just inflexible, piss poor play calling and design. The Vikings were saved only by warrior performances from guys like Cousins and his receivers.

I get it, but that seems reactive to me. If it worked, it's not a conversation, right? I mean whatever game it was where they ran a little jet sweep with Reagor on the one yard line was cute, but it worked, and they've actually come back to that formation in several goal line situations and run something completely different on it, like the fullback dive against the Bills, I think?

Anyway, it's only a flop if it's a flop, so I just am looking at it from a design perspective, and I don't think there was anything wrong with it.

Reasonable analysis.

Here's my counter. You can have a great play design, but if you use it at the wrong time, you might as well have never designed it. Don't have a problem with the play design. I have a problem with the timing.

Now of course, a play like that is only going to work near the goal line. So it's easy to say that was the time to use it. But in yesterday's case, I don't think so. Here's why.

The Vikings were behind in the game.
A play like that adds an element of risk. You CAN'T mess up. So there's that aspect. Maybe if you're ahead in the game, you take the chance.

It's first and goal from the 3.
You should be able to score in 3 plays using more conventional means. If not, maybe you pull out the trick play on 3rd down.

The Vikings had an opportunity for a 2-for-1.
Score there near the end of the half, then get the ball back for the third quarter. But to do that, you NEED to get that score.

The Lions were 30th in the NFL in red zone defense.
You had just run it in with Dalvin earlier in the game on your last trip to the red zone. Did you really need to use that play against the 30th ranked red zone defense?

By screwing this up and giving the ball away on a turnover, you've just surrendered momentum.
Giving up sudden change is the most dangerous time for a team. Because of that turnover, the Lions were fired up. Their fans were fired up. They drove the field after that and should've had a 10-point lead. We were lucky their kicker missed the FG. Even if the Lions had stuffed the Vikings 3 straight times and forced them to settle for a field goal, we'd have been better off.

So again, I don't have a problem with the play itself. I have a problem with the timing. That's a play you use maybe once a season. It's a trick play. Do it once, and it's on film, so you're not likely to get away with it a second time. You should only pull it out when it makes the most sense. I don't happen to think that situation yesterday was the right time.

[TheCoolerOne]

I get it, but that seems reactive to me. If it worked, it's not a conversation, right? I mean whatever game it was where they ran a little jet sweep with Reagor on the one yard line was cute, but it worked, and they've actually come back to that formation in several goal line situations and run something completely different on it, like the fullback dive against the Bills, I think?

Anyway, it's only a flop if it's a flop, so I just am looking at it from a design perspective, and I don't think there was anything wrong with it.

Reasonable analysis.

Here's my counter. You can have a great play design, but if you use it at the wrong time, you might as well have never designed it. Don't have a problem with the play design. I have a problem with the timing.

Now of course, a play like that is only going to work near the goal line. So it's easy to say that was the time to use it. But in yesterday's case, I don't think so. Here's why.

The Vikings were behind in the game.
A play like that adds an element of risk. You CAN'T mess up. So there's that aspect. Maybe if you're ahead in the game, you take the chance.

It's first and goal from the 3.
You should be able to score in 3 plays using more conventional means. If not, maybe you pull out the trick play on 3rd down.

The Vikings had an opportunity for a 2-for-1.
Score there near the end of the half, then get the ball back for the third quarter. But to do that, you NEED to get that score.

The Lions were 30th in the NFL in red zone defense.
You had just run it in with Dalvin earlier in the game on your last trip to the red zone. Did you really need to use that play against the 30th ranked red zone defense?

By screwing this up and giving the ball away on a turnover, you've just surrendered momentum.
Giving up sudden change is the most dangerous time for a team. Because of that turnover, the Lions were fired up. Their fans were fired up. They drove the field after that and should've had a 10-point lead. We were lucky their kicker missed the FG. Even if the Lions had stuffed the Vikings 3 straight times and forced them to settle for a field goal, we'd have been better off.

So again, I don't have a problem with the play itself. I have a problem with the timing. That's a play you use maybe once a season. It's a trick play. Do it once, and it's on film, so you're not likely to get away with it a second time. You should only pull it out when it makes the most sense. I don't happen to think that situation yesterday was the right time.

All valid stuff. I think the earlier you try it the better, though, because if it does go wrong (barring what happened, of course) you can get back to the conventional stuff. Say he doesn't fumble, he's still "sacked" and you've got two or three more tries from now the 9 to get the score.

Can't get on board with your final point, however, because that's reactive. I'm just looking at this in the play design vacuum, and like I've said, for me, no real issue with it.

Everything you said to counter is completely legit, and the timing is curious. I still firmly believe if that's blocked like it's supposed to be, and it wasn't exotic, it is an easy touchdown and a moot point.

What we have instead is what happened, and that's a totally different thing.

[Texas Vike]

Re: considering the jump pass in a "play design vacuum." (which I understand to mean, not considering the context in which it occurred, i.e. the score, the point in the game, etc.)

1) KOC has proven to be unconventional, creative, and smart within the opponent's 10 yard line. His stats on converting TDs within this crucial area are a MAJOR reason why we have 10 wins. This fact has been important enough to make up for some of our defensive failings.

2) This play call was creative but not smart. Previous plays that were creative AND smart were high percentage, low risk plays that manipulated your opponent's expectations. You put something on tape and then the next week you add a wrinkle but use their homework and anticipation against them. Thus, moving your (by far) most important and dynamic playmaker around, letting him use his exceptional talents of getting clean releases and super precise route running. Jet sweeps, pre-snap motion, a route that crosses the entire goal line. Another play incorporated Reagor on a sweep, a guy who has incredible burst and is very evasive in short yardage situations. Yet another had all the blocking making it appear that Dalvin would run, but your very competent FB gets the ham sandwich instead. Like I said, all of these were creative, low risk, and smart.

THIS play was: hand the ball off to Dalvin Cook (who does not have a precedent of successfully throwing the ball) at the THREE yard line and ask him to dance around while your back up center and league worst guard try to pass block long enough for your BLOCKING TE to break free in the EZ for a TD.

That isn't high percentage, low risk, or intelligent for no less than three separate reasons: 1) Cousins has proven to be smart with the ball and very accurate; why ask Dalvin to pass instead? 2) The interior of your line is in shambles and it would be unwise to expose them, 3) Mundt is one of your worst pass catchers who has even dropped a sure thing TD at the one this year.

The play call for the 2 point conversion was similar. KOC had his worst day of play calling this past Sunday. I look for him to bounce back against the Colts.

*** I hope this doesn't feel like I'm beating a dead horse and I have appreciated Coolerone's style of interaction in this thread. There were just some thoughts I had as I walked my dog this morning.

[TheCoolerOne]

Re: considering the jump pass in a "play design vacuum." (which I understand to mean, not considering the context in which it occurred, i.e. the score, the point in the game, etc.)

1) KOC has proven to be unconventional, creative, and smart within the opponent's 10 yard line. His stats on converting TDs within this crucial area are a MAJOR reason why we have 10 wins. This fact has been important enough to make up for some of our defensive failings.

2) This play call was creative but not smart. Previous plays that were creative AND smart were high percentage, low risk plays that manipulated your opponent's expectations. You put something on tape and then the next week you add a wrinkle but use their homework and anticipation against them. Thus, moving your (by far) most important and dynamic playmaker around, letting him use his exceptional talents of getting clean releases and super precise route running. Jet sweeps, pre-snap motion, a route that crosses the entire goal line. Another play incorporated Reagor on a sweep, a guy who has incredible burst and is very evasive in short yardage situations. Yet another had all the blocking making it appear that Dalvin would run, but your very competent FB gets the ham sandwich instead. Like I said, all of these were creative, low risk, and smart.

THIS play was: hand the ball off to Dalvin Cook (who does not have a precedent of successfully throwing the ball) at the THREE yard line and ask him to dance around while your back up center and league worst guard try to pass block long enough for your BLOCKING TE to break free in the EZ for a TD.

That isn't high percentage, low risk, or intelligent for no less than three separate reasons: 1) Cousins has proven to be smart with the ball and very accurate; why ask Dalvin to pass instead? 2) The interior of your line is in shambles and it would be unwise to expose them, 3) Mundt is one of your worst pass catchers who has even dropped a sure thing TD at the one this year.

The play call for the 2 point conversion was similar. KOC had his worst day of play calling this past Sunday. I look for him to bounce back against the Colts.

*** I hope this doesn't feel like I'm beating a dead horse and I have appreciated Coolerone's style of interaction in this thread. There were just some thoughts I had as I walked my dog this morning.

No way, this is fun. I enjoy talking about this stuff in the way that we are, not focused on the result.

You and Kapp have both made enough valid points to make me not want to die the hill of defending that play call.

To your point about Mundt though, that’s probably a lot of the appeal of that design. “Here comes the blocking TE, looks like they’re going heavy run block, get ready.”

Maybe they ran that play all week in shorts, or with Bradbury, or any other reason that led them to believe they had something.

I guess we’re lucky to be breaking down our feelings about any of this 14 weeks into the season on the heels of only our 3rd loss, and that’s probably one of the biggest reasons I shrug at it.

I’m looking forward to seeing how the coaches adjust the offense after this game, and to use the vernacular of Leach, I hope we go full Air Raid.

[Texas Vike]

Re: considering the jump pass in a "play design vacuum." (which I understand to mean, not considering the context in which it occurred, i.e. the score, the point in the game, etc.)

1) KOC has proven to be unconventional, creative, and smart within the opponent's 10 yard line. His stats on converting TDs within this crucial area are a MAJOR reason why we have 10 wins. This fact has been important enough to make up for some of our defensive failings.

2) This play call was creative but not smart. Previous plays that were creative AND smart were high percentage, low risk plays that manipulated your opponent's expectations. You put something on tape and then the next week you add a wrinkle but use their homework and anticipation against them. Thus, moving your (by far) most important and dynamic playmaker around, letting him use his exceptional talents of getting clean releases and super precise route running. Jet sweeps, pre-snap motion, a route that crosses the entire goal line. Another play incorporated Reagor on a sweep, a guy who has incredible burst and is very evasive in short yardage situations. Yet another had all the blocking making it appear that Dalvin would run, but your very competent FB gets the ham sandwich instead. Like I said, all of these were creative, low risk, and smart.

THIS play was: hand the ball off to Dalvin Cook (who does not have a precedent of successfully throwing the ball) at the THREE yard line and ask him to dance around while your back up center and league worst guard try to pass block long enough for your BLOCKING TE to break free in the EZ for a TD.

That isn't high percentage, low risk, or intelligent for no less than three separate reasons: 1) Cousins has proven to be smart with the ball and very accurate; why ask Dalvin to pass instead? 2) The interior of your line is in shambles and it would be unwise to expose them, 3) Mundt is one of your worst pass catchers who has even dropped a sure thing TD at the one this year.

The play call for the 2 point conversion was similar. KOC had his worst day of play calling this past Sunday. I look for him to bounce back against the Colts.

*** I hope this doesn't feel like I'm beating a dead horse and I have appreciated Coolerone's style of interaction in this thread. There were just some thoughts I had as I walked my dog this morning.

No way, this is fun. I enjoy talking about this stuff in the way that we are, not focused on the result.

You and Kapp have both made enough valid points to make me not want to die the hill of defending that play call.

To your point about Mundt though, that’s probably a lot of the appeal of that design. “Here comes the blocking TE, looks like they’re going heavy run block, get ready.”

Maybe they ran that play all week in shorts, or with Bradbury, or any other reason that led them to believe they had something.

I guess we’re lucky to be breaking down our feelings about any of this 14 weeks into the season on the heels of only our 3rd loss, and that’s probably one of the biggest reasons I shrug at it.

I’m looking forward to seeing how the coaches adjust the offense after this game, and to use the vernacular of Leach, I hope we go full Air Raid.

Great response, man, and love the shout out to Leach, RIP.

I agree with you on the Mundt point. Part of the intelligence that KOC has employed in the red zone is based on being clever with your personnel. No one was expecting Reagor to get the ball when he did, he's our 4th WR. No one was expecting Ham to get a carry, clearly he's in to block for Dalvin... so it was a surprise too. I applaud KOC for using Mundt in a similar way, it just took too long to develop for our poor OL and for a guy not used to throwing the football.

[J. Kapp 11]

No way, this is fun. I enjoy talking about this stuff in the way that we are, not focused on the result.

You and Kapp have both made enough valid points to make me not want to die the hill of defending that play call.

To your point about Mundt though, that’s probably a lot of the appeal of that design. “Here comes the blocking TE, looks like they’re going heavy run block, get ready.”

Maybe they ran that play all week in shorts, or with Bradbury, or any other reason that led them to believe they had something.

I guess we’re lucky to be breaking down our feelings about any of this 14 weeks into the season on the heels of only our 3rd loss, and that’s probably one of the biggest reasons I shrug at it.

I’m looking forward to seeing how the coaches adjust the offense after this game, and to use the vernacular of Leach, I hope we go full Air Raid.

Great response, man, and love the shout out to Leach, RIP.

I agree with you on the Mundt point. Part of the intelligence that KOC has employed in the red zone is based on being clever with your personnel. No one was expecting Reagor to get the ball when he did, he's our 4th WR. No one was expecting Ham to get a carry, clearly he's in to block for Dalvin... so it was a surprise too. I applaud KOC for using Mundt in a similar way, it just took too long to develop for our poor OL and for a guy not used to throwing the football.

I guess I'm just old school.

There was 1:06 left in the half. The Vikings had two timeouts left. Run the ball. If you don't get in, then so what? You still have three downs and full control of the clock. You can bleed clock so that Detroit doesn't have time to move down the field.

Again, it wasn't the play that bothered me. It was the timing. Heck, run on first down, maybe even second down. If it doesn't work, then go for the jump pass.

I'll quit beating the horse now.