Bill Musgrave
Moderator: Moderators
-
PurpleKoolaid
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 8641
- Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 9:52 pm
- x 28
Re: Bill Musgrave
Musgrave thinks he is being smart by putting people like Jennings in the backfield. That's his idea of a complex formation. He has to realize that he cant always use bunched up formations. When he does, there are always going to be 8 in the box. Spread it out occasionally (esp. when the Line isn't making holes for AD), 3-4 WR, and AD in the backfield. He doesn't have to have a FB every play. And for the love of god, whats with the rollouts to the left side?
Re: Bill Musgrave
Watched a lot of football yesterday and the one big difference is really just the formations and pass protection. Every other QB had what almost felt like AGES to throw the ball compared to what I've routinely seen from the Vikes. For sure part of that is the O-line and QB himself but I think the majority of that problem actually stems from the play calling, formations we run, and the offensive scheme.
Everyone will argue that Ponder has AD in the back field so he should do better then he is but the problem I see is we'll do two Peterson runs, get 3rd and 12, then we have to pass. Having Peterson back there on 3rd and 12 means NOTHING when it comes to helping Ponder or giving him an advantage but this is so often the scenario that plays out.
Our bunched formations (everything stacked close to LoS) is designed entirely so if Peterson gets to the second level, there won't be much left there to stop him. That was evident on the first play for his 78 yard TD. However, the downside to that was also readily on display as almost all of his next runs went for negative yardage. That would be all fine and good if the negatives stopped there but the most significant issue is that it's really hard to pass out of of this formation and imo I think it's been some what solved. Teams have realized now that you can simply run blitz two extra guys and because everything is so condensed in with our formation, it's really hard to tell which defenders plan to run blitz. When most other teams spread the field out more with say 3 or 4 WR's, it's very easy to see where the pressure is coming from because "hey you're not covering that guy, you're creeping up towards the line pre-snap." Instead with our formation, everyone's already up close to the line anyway! There is no major "tell" from the defense to understand who is blitzing.
On top of that, run blitzing can very easily turn into Ponder blitzing. If we do play action (which everyone SCREAMS for so often) it takes a little more time for the QB to find his targets because for the first 1.5 seconds of the play he has his back turned selling the fake. Well, those run blitzers are hitting the back field for Peterson except Peterson didn't get the ball, might as well go hit Ponder instead since you're half way there anyway! Essentially, the same thing a defense wants to do to stop Peterson, translates into also being a good strategy to put pressure on Ponder, especially during play action passes.
I'll say it again, the thing teams want to do to stop Peterson, also stops our passing game. It's a win/win situation for the defense and that is why Musgrave for a lack of a better word, sucked yesterday. I absolutely do not buy that he had to call plays that way because our QB is not capable of anything beyond the basic 5 plays we run over and over. Let me make clear I'm not trying to defend Ponder, his play was inexcusably bad but my point here is unless we get a Favre this stuff isn't going to work. Cassell will share the same fate behind this line in this scheme.
Now, I am not there when it comes to practice, but I am willing to bet it goes something like this. In practice, against our own defense, we do our typical rush the front 4, drop everyone back. Our O-line can block that up and Ponder get's the proper amount of time to go through his reads and find a target, just like Stafford did against us. I have no doubt that in this scenario Musgrave's offense works great and Ponder looks the part. The problem is, no one is going to play us like that in a real game anymore. I promise you every team in our division studied our film and came up with a plan for the stacked formations we run. It appears as if Musgrave came up with no plan B which sadly was completely on display. Our first few drives were just Peterson going backwards and not converting a 3rd and long. Then his solution was to roll our right handed QB to his left to avoid the pressure which was ultimately a disaster. Finally, he stumbled across a more open offense, the kid gloves came off in the 3rd quarter, Ponder completed some nice balls (with spectacular help from his WR's on a couple of them, but hey, that's why you want good WR's!) and we scored fairly easily.
I agree with the others that a lot of it is "when" to call the right plays, he's certainly done it, it just happens to be at the wrong time. A play action pass on 3rd and 12 isn't such a great idea. But we did it on first down a couple times and each time it was completed. If we're going to run this though we need a lot more misdirection and quick plays that aren't slants to Simpson. The lions actually ran one I REALLY like and I hope we steal it. They faked a reverse to Reggie Bush and sent Bell the other way on a short screen pass and it was very successful. I hope we send Patterson on a fake reverse and then pass to Peterson. We also need more screen passes for sure. Invite the aggressive run / pass blitz up the field and dump it off behind them, it's so simple but it's the tried and true method of dealing with that kind of aggression.
I still believe in this day and age, you must spread a defense out and make them show you what they plan to do. I don't think Peyton could read a defense under these circumstances. That helps your O-line in pass protection, it helps your QB reading the defense, and if there are 3 WR's out there that's a minimum of 3 less guys in there and that's if they play man coverage with no safety help on anyone. The biggest reason though is because Ponder isn't good at all under pressure. He's not great with a perfect pocket either but we've seen he can keep from turning the ball over and make enough plays to help the team when he's given the time. This scheme / formation doesn't do anything for Ponder, it's meant to help AD but outside of the one long run it didn't even really do that.
I bought the NFL rewind / coaches film thing this year so I plan to check that out and see how it actually looks as I'm just really curious now.
Last year I get it, we didn't have any WR's at all once Harvin went out but now I feel like we're wasting talent with Patterson and Wright on the bench because these formations mean we run 1 or MAYBE 2 wide receviers on most plays. Everyone talks about benching simpson for someone but that's not neccessary either. We just have to run 3 and 4 WR sets and we have the talent at WR to do it now.
If Musgrave can adapt and figure that out and realize that in today's game, you have to PASS to set up the run, and not the other way around, even if you have Adrian Peterson. I think we can turn things around. Ponder has to get in a rhythm though, none of this 2 passes in the first quarter nonsense and we should come out with play action passes and reverses and everything but the kitchen sink on first and second down to show we aren't one dimensional and we can take advantage of your anti Peterson tactics.
Everyone will argue that Ponder has AD in the back field so he should do better then he is but the problem I see is we'll do two Peterson runs, get 3rd and 12, then we have to pass. Having Peterson back there on 3rd and 12 means NOTHING when it comes to helping Ponder or giving him an advantage but this is so often the scenario that plays out.
Our bunched formations (everything stacked close to LoS) is designed entirely so if Peterson gets to the second level, there won't be much left there to stop him. That was evident on the first play for his 78 yard TD. However, the downside to that was also readily on display as almost all of his next runs went for negative yardage. That would be all fine and good if the negatives stopped there but the most significant issue is that it's really hard to pass out of of this formation and imo I think it's been some what solved. Teams have realized now that you can simply run blitz two extra guys and because everything is so condensed in with our formation, it's really hard to tell which defenders plan to run blitz. When most other teams spread the field out more with say 3 or 4 WR's, it's very easy to see where the pressure is coming from because "hey you're not covering that guy, you're creeping up towards the line pre-snap." Instead with our formation, everyone's already up close to the line anyway! There is no major "tell" from the defense to understand who is blitzing.
On top of that, run blitzing can very easily turn into Ponder blitzing. If we do play action (which everyone SCREAMS for so often) it takes a little more time for the QB to find his targets because for the first 1.5 seconds of the play he has his back turned selling the fake. Well, those run blitzers are hitting the back field for Peterson except Peterson didn't get the ball, might as well go hit Ponder instead since you're half way there anyway! Essentially, the same thing a defense wants to do to stop Peterson, translates into also being a good strategy to put pressure on Ponder, especially during play action passes.
I'll say it again, the thing teams want to do to stop Peterson, also stops our passing game. It's a win/win situation for the defense and that is why Musgrave for a lack of a better word, sucked yesterday. I absolutely do not buy that he had to call plays that way because our QB is not capable of anything beyond the basic 5 plays we run over and over. Let me make clear I'm not trying to defend Ponder, his play was inexcusably bad but my point here is unless we get a Favre this stuff isn't going to work. Cassell will share the same fate behind this line in this scheme.
Now, I am not there when it comes to practice, but I am willing to bet it goes something like this. In practice, against our own defense, we do our typical rush the front 4, drop everyone back. Our O-line can block that up and Ponder get's the proper amount of time to go through his reads and find a target, just like Stafford did against us. I have no doubt that in this scenario Musgrave's offense works great and Ponder looks the part. The problem is, no one is going to play us like that in a real game anymore. I promise you every team in our division studied our film and came up with a plan for the stacked formations we run. It appears as if Musgrave came up with no plan B which sadly was completely on display. Our first few drives were just Peterson going backwards and not converting a 3rd and long. Then his solution was to roll our right handed QB to his left to avoid the pressure which was ultimately a disaster. Finally, he stumbled across a more open offense, the kid gloves came off in the 3rd quarter, Ponder completed some nice balls (with spectacular help from his WR's on a couple of them, but hey, that's why you want good WR's!) and we scored fairly easily.
I agree with the others that a lot of it is "when" to call the right plays, he's certainly done it, it just happens to be at the wrong time. A play action pass on 3rd and 12 isn't such a great idea. But we did it on first down a couple times and each time it was completed. If we're going to run this though we need a lot more misdirection and quick plays that aren't slants to Simpson. The lions actually ran one I REALLY like and I hope we steal it. They faked a reverse to Reggie Bush and sent Bell the other way on a short screen pass and it was very successful. I hope we send Patterson on a fake reverse and then pass to Peterson. We also need more screen passes for sure. Invite the aggressive run / pass blitz up the field and dump it off behind them, it's so simple but it's the tried and true method of dealing with that kind of aggression.
I still believe in this day and age, you must spread a defense out and make them show you what they plan to do. I don't think Peyton could read a defense under these circumstances. That helps your O-line in pass protection, it helps your QB reading the defense, and if there are 3 WR's out there that's a minimum of 3 less guys in there and that's if they play man coverage with no safety help on anyone. The biggest reason though is because Ponder isn't good at all under pressure. He's not great with a perfect pocket either but we've seen he can keep from turning the ball over and make enough plays to help the team when he's given the time. This scheme / formation doesn't do anything for Ponder, it's meant to help AD but outside of the one long run it didn't even really do that.
I bought the NFL rewind / coaches film thing this year so I plan to check that out and see how it actually looks as I'm just really curious now.
Last year I get it, we didn't have any WR's at all once Harvin went out but now I feel like we're wasting talent with Patterson and Wright on the bench because these formations mean we run 1 or MAYBE 2 wide receviers on most plays. Everyone talks about benching simpson for someone but that's not neccessary either. We just have to run 3 and 4 WR sets and we have the talent at WR to do it now.
If Musgrave can adapt and figure that out and realize that in today's game, you have to PASS to set up the run, and not the other way around, even if you have Adrian Peterson. I think we can turn things around. Ponder has to get in a rhythm though, none of this 2 passes in the first quarter nonsense and we should come out with play action passes and reverses and everything but the kitchen sink on first and second down to show we aren't one dimensional and we can take advantage of your anti Peterson tactics.
Re: Bill Musgrave
I brought up the tight formations as a concern during the offseason and I know others have voiced similar opinion in the past. On one hand these formations can result in big plays for AD, as we saw when you stack the box and he gets to the second level, it's a huge gain or he's taking it to the house. It's also a good way to control the clock and wear down a defense when ran effectively. The 49ers are another team that run these tight sets effectively. The main problem as I see it is the inability to adapt when these formations cease to work.
This is where I'm critical of the coaching staff. We've seen it before, the Vikings come out strong in the first half, the other team makes adjustments at halftime, and the Vikings fail to adapt their scheme in the second half. It was rather evident that the Lions had figured out how to stop AD after that big run but Musgrave and Frazier went back to the same well over and over. They talk about lack of execution after the game and there's no question there was a lack of execution but if you can see it's not working mid-game, you need to change things up. It's the definition of insanity. Coaches will script plays, typically between the first 5-15 plays run. It almost seems as if the Vikings script the entire game and hold to the script no matter what. This was rather evident when the team was down double digits late in the 4th quarter and came out with the same offense that was unable to move the football.
Some will put this on certain players inability, however, I think Zulgad said it best, "Here's the biggest issue for Musgrave. He must adjust to what these guys can do, not what he wants to see. Work with what you have!"
There was a single series in the third quarter where I thought the play calling was imaginative and well executed that led to an AD touchdown. I'm not sure why it was utilized for one series then back to the same old scheme as it clearly worked. One particular formation I liked was on the TD run where they ran a stacked receiver set with Webb and Patterson lined up behind one another. It was a run play but in the future I can see them running a WR screen utilizing Patterson's agility and Webb's blocking ability or some sort of fade/jump route using either of their size and athleticism.
As I mentioned in the second post and others have also brought up, we had the same gripes with Bevell under Chili. At some point you have to wonder if maybe these OC's are just scapegoats. Frazier was brought in by Childress so it isn't far fetched to think that they have a similar philosophy on how the game should be played. At some point if the inability to adapt continues, I think Spielman would need to seriously consider doing a clean slate.
This is where I'm critical of the coaching staff. We've seen it before, the Vikings come out strong in the first half, the other team makes adjustments at halftime, and the Vikings fail to adapt their scheme in the second half. It was rather evident that the Lions had figured out how to stop AD after that big run but Musgrave and Frazier went back to the same well over and over. They talk about lack of execution after the game and there's no question there was a lack of execution but if you can see it's not working mid-game, you need to change things up. It's the definition of insanity. Coaches will script plays, typically between the first 5-15 plays run. It almost seems as if the Vikings script the entire game and hold to the script no matter what. This was rather evident when the team was down double digits late in the 4th quarter and came out with the same offense that was unable to move the football.
Some will put this on certain players inability, however, I think Zulgad said it best, "Here's the biggest issue for Musgrave. He must adjust to what these guys can do, not what he wants to see. Work with what you have!"
There was a single series in the third quarter where I thought the play calling was imaginative and well executed that led to an AD touchdown. I'm not sure why it was utilized for one series then back to the same old scheme as it clearly worked. One particular formation I liked was on the TD run where they ran a stacked receiver set with Webb and Patterson lined up behind one another. It was a run play but in the future I can see them running a WR screen utilizing Patterson's agility and Webb's blocking ability or some sort of fade/jump route using either of their size and athleticism.
As I mentioned in the second post and others have also brought up, we had the same gripes with Bevell under Chili. At some point you have to wonder if maybe these OC's are just scapegoats. Frazier was brought in by Childress so it isn't far fetched to think that they have a similar philosophy on how the game should be played. At some point if the inability to adapt continues, I think Spielman would need to seriously consider doing a clean slate.
-
mansquatch
- Hall of Fame Candidate
- Posts: 3836
- Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:44 pm
- Location: Coon Rapids, MN
- x 117
Re: Bill Musgrave
To echo these points, it also begs the question of why not run screen passes or the plays to 84? If they are going to stack up inside the tackles let your athletes get the ball in space with fewer defenders to beat. There were way too many series where it was Run, Run, 3rd and 12+, now we have to pass. That just isn't setting up the QB for success.
What really gets me is they have had games in recent history (last year against SF) where AP just isn't getting it done an they've used other weapons (PH) to get it done. Why didn't they adjust this time? Just mind boggling.
I really think (hope) that this game was fluke and they get their act together, it is just hard to believe that the talent on this roster took this big a step back from last season.
What really gets me is they have had games in recent history (last year against SF) where AP just isn't getting it done an they've used other weapons (PH) to get it done. Why didn't they adjust this time? Just mind boggling.
I really think (hope) that this game was fluke and they get their act together, it is just hard to believe that the talent on this roster took this big a step back from last season.
Winning is not a sometime thing it is an all of the time thing - Vince Lombardi
-
vikeinmontana
- Hall of Fame Candidate
- Posts: 3174
- Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 12:23 pm
- x 141
Re: Bill Musgrave
funny thread. 
it's like 98.9% accepted that ponder is a bad qb. he has done nothing to show improvement. if you watched kaepernick like me yesterday you were probably a little sick to your stomach. despite all this....we're going to talk about what a bum Musgrave is?!
as I've mentioned before guys...this isn't madden 25. you can't just plug any guy in any system on any team and expect to be world champs. coaches can only do so much and you need the players. our linebackers were bad. our offensive line was worse. and ponder set the bar. it was just plain ugly.
disclaimer: i'm not saying Musgrave is amazing. hell...he might not even be very good. but if everything we all say about the players is true...can't imagine what our coordinator can do about it. if we were all raving about the weapons we had and were just ecstatic about our qb and we saw the same performance as we did yesterday this thread might have some merit. although after the first game always seems a little premature to me.
it's like 98.9% accepted that ponder is a bad qb. he has done nothing to show improvement. if you watched kaepernick like me yesterday you were probably a little sick to your stomach. despite all this....we're going to talk about what a bum Musgrave is?!
as I've mentioned before guys...this isn't madden 25. you can't just plug any guy in any system on any team and expect to be world champs. coaches can only do so much and you need the players. our linebackers were bad. our offensive line was worse. and ponder set the bar. it was just plain ugly.
disclaimer: i'm not saying Musgrave is amazing. hell...he might not even be very good. but if everything we all say about the players is true...can't imagine what our coordinator can do about it. if we were all raving about the weapons we had and were just ecstatic about our qb and we saw the same performance as we did yesterday this thread might have some merit. although after the first game always seems a little premature to me.
i'm ready for a beer.
-
The Breeze
- Hall of Fame Inductee
- Posts: 4016
- Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 8:14 pm
- Location: So. Utah
Re: Bill Musgrave
I never comsidered Linehan unimaginative, he was actually quite good at being an OC. His unit looked pretty good yesterday too.
Re: Bill Musgrave
Exactly! Spread it out, then even Ponder can see where the pressure is coming from.Purplemania wrote:
I do agree with everyone too that Musgrave needs to spread the offense out. I bet if you lined up with 4 WR and ran with Peterson it would be effective as hell. Another thing with spread offense is that there is always a threat at every position, and then there's the threat of Peterson running. With 2 TE sents, if our 2 WR don't get open it's game over.
Also, I remember that one drive where we went into an alternate universe. A long completed pass, a screen to CP84, then a pass to Peterson - 3 THINGS I CANNOT STRESS ENOUGH THAT WE MUST DO MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's funny but sad we have to describe it as an alternate universe when musgrave calls some better plays.
Re: Bill Musgrave
And yet when they do...he just drops back, stares down a guy for a while, then checks it down.Exactly! Spread it out, then even Ponder can see where the pressure is coming from.
-
PurpleKoolaid
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 8641
- Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 9:52 pm
- x 28
Re: Bill Musgrave
Maybe someday the Vikings can back away from the KAO a little, and still use AD.