Breaking down the film from the Vikings' loss to the Lions

[allday1991]

Place the ball where it should have been and its a catch. Its simple.

The real question is why is Simpson the quick slant WR? Why not Wright, Patterson or best of all Jennings?

Good point, he definitely has the best hands and is the best route runner so it only makes sense.

[Mothman]

I doubt there is "a quick slant WR". There are probably several receivers they're willing to throw that route to (hopefully, they'll be throwing a few slants to Patterson soon) but I imagine Simpson's speed makes him an appealing target for a quick slant.

[PurpleKoolaid]

I just went back and watched the first INT here: http://www.nfl.com/videos/minnesota-vik ... efense-INT
Looks like Simpson slipped a bit but still should have caught it.
Ponder also could throw a better ball - but it's not thrown so poorly that it's an "INT throw" (like his other two picks).

What's more alarming is that Simpson is the ONLY option for that play! Watch the clip - our WRs and TEs look like they go into run block mode as soon as the ball is snapped. So, even if that route isn't open - where does Ponder go with that ball? I stopped playing football after 10th grade so maybe there's a reason for this, but it seems like a bad idea from the beginning.

That's why I wish Jennings was the WR getting that call. Im not sure that play even worked with PH. It seems like it fails a lot for us. Which it shouldn't ofc, if the running game is clicking.

[losperros]

I doubt there is "a quick slant WR". There are probably several receivers they're willing to throw that route to (hopefully, they'll be throwing a few slants to Patterson soon) but I imagine Simpson's speed makes him an appealing target for a quick slant.

Simpson was also frequently working against Darius Slay, who is a rookie CB. I imagine that may have had something to do with it as well.

On another note, I'm amazed that Patterson and Wright were both used so infrequently. I'm hoping to see the Vikings spread the ball around more often and utilize each receiver's talents.

[CalVike]

Simpson was also frequently working against Darius Slay, who is a rookie CB. I imagine that may have had something to do with it as well.

On another note, I'm amazed that Patterson and Wright were both used so infrequently. I'm hoping to see the Vikings spread the ball around more often and utilize each receiver's talents.

It would seem to me that an offense with Jennings, Simpson, Wright, Patterson, Rudolph and Carlson could come up with a winning scheme when a defense shuts down AD thoroughly like the Lions. Maybe this is an oversimplification, but the strategy seems to be with AD we win or lose, we shall not counter with an alternative that changes that tempo when it fails. Only one week I know, perhaps they learn their lesson for the Bears game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

[Funkytown]

It would seem to me that an offense with Jennings, Simpson, Wright, Patterson, Rudolph and Carlson could come up with a winning scheme when a defense shuts down AD...

Yeah. You'd think! As far as that goes, it would be nice to see a productive passing game regardless of what Peterson is doing!

[Demi]

Simpson was also frequently working against Darius Slay, who is a rookie CB. I imagine that may have had something to do with it as well.

On another note, I'm amazed that Patterson and Wright were both used so infrequently. I'm hoping to see the Vikings spread the ball around more often and utilize each receiver's talents.

Yeah it's easy to say this or that, but the defense has some say. There were other plays when Jennings was getting doubled. Or a linebacker involved. They were focused on AD. You have Simpson out there one on one with whoever, he made hay. Great job, Maybe the OC saw something going into the game?

There were always questions about Simpson mentally, route running...we ate it there.

All these other options at WR/TE...you still need the Qb to get them the ball...

[mansquatch]

You also have ot have them on the field. If they have AP and the FB on the filed, that means you 5 linemen and 1 QB, which leaves room for 3 WR/TE on the field. If they are using formations to run, chances are there will be at least 1 TE. The means 2WR. My guess is the reason some of these guys were not used is that they were not on the field.

I didn't watch the specific plays where some of these guys were out there, so maybe it was on Ponder, but my guess is it also has something to do with the playcalling.

[Mothman]

You also have ot have them on the field. If they have AP and the FB on the filed, that means you 5 linemen and 1 QB, which leaves room for 3 WR/TE on the field. If they are using formations to run, chances are there will be at least 1 TE. The means 2WR. My guess is the reason some of these guys were not used is that they were not on the field.

I didn't watch the specific plays where some of these guys were out there, so maybe it was on Ponder, but my guess is it also has something to do with the playcalling.

If I remember correctly, I read that Webb and Patterson were on each on the field for about 5 or 6 plays. I don't know about how often Wright played but I know he played. As you said, a lot of it has to do with formations.

If the offense executes and sustains drives, that will allow them to run more plays and that will create more opportunities.

[MrPurplenGold]

You also have ot have them on the field. If they have AP and the FB on the filed, that means you 5 linemen and 1 QB, which leaves room for 3 WR/TE on the field. If they are using formations to run, chances are there will be at least 1 TE. The means 2WR. My guess is the reason some of these guys were not used is that they were not on the field.

I didn't watch the specific plays where some of these guys were out there, so maybe it was on Ponder, but my guess is it also has something to do with the playcalling.

This is my biggest problem I have with Musgrave. I understand AP is the best player on the team and I understand they are going to be a run first team, but there seems to be absolutely no creativity in the way we run the football. They rely on the "man on man" theory of running the football expecting each player to win individual battles instead of creating match up problems. Nothing against Rudolph and Carlson, but they aren't exactly blocking tight ends. Why not go 4 WR formations and force them into Nickel and Dime situations and run the ball. Fake the WR bubble screen and run a draw. Put Patterson and Peterson in the backfield have both of them run wheel routes; what LB or slot corner can hang with Patterson on a wheel route. This thought process that we're going to line up and smash you in the mouth is great when it works, but when it doesn't you need to have other options and it doesn't seem like Musgrave makes good adjustments or has a back up plan in case "smash mouth" football doesn't work.

[Mothman]

This is my biggest problem I have with Musgrave. I understand AP is the best player on the team and I understand they are going to be a run first team, but there seems to be absolutely no creativity in the way we run the football. They rely on the "man on man" theory of running the football expecting each player to win individual battles instead of creating match up problems.

I disagree. Here's a link to an article I linked to a couple of times last year that explains and illustrates how the Vikings are, in fact, creating matchup problems for opposing defenses on running plays:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap100000 ... ool-attack

To succeed in the NFL, offensive coordinators must be able to create favorable matchups through the clever deployment of personnel. While most offensive play callers utilize various shifts, motions, formations and personnel groupings to generate big plays in the passing game, the Vikings have been able to generate explosive plays on the ground through their brilliant usage of multiple run-heavy formations from various personnel packages.

As I studied the All-22 Coaches Film of the Vikings' past few games, I noticed that their offense often jumps into quasi-unbalanced formations and goal line-type sets to create numerical advantages at the point of attack. In theory, these formations and packages are designed to force opponents to play in a phone booth. Most defenses feature sleeker defensive linemen and linebackers, selected for their ability to get after the passer. The use of tight formations allows the Vikings' big, physical offensive line to overpower opponents over the course of the game. As a result, by the time the fourth quarter rolls around, Peterson routinely finds huge running lanes, often with the game hanging in the balance.

Nothing against Rudolph and Carlson, but they aren't exactly blocking tight ends. Why not go 4 WR formations and force them into Nickel and Dime situations and run the ball.

Perhaps because that plays more to the pursuit speed of modern defenses, takes a lead blocker off the field and puts more pressure on the o-line (who, let's face it, may not exactly be at their best in those situations). To me, the bigger question is why so many fans seem to think that's going to yield better results than an approach that allowed Peterson to gain 2000+ yards last year and that was most effective when he had a lead blocker. I think they could mix it up more but it's simply not accurate to say the Vikings show absolutely no creativity in the way they run the football. What is inherently more creative about running out of a 4 WR formation anyway?

Are you talking about creativity or just greater variety? I think the former is present. A little more of the latter might help but I also understand why a coordinator doesn't want to abandon things too quickly.I can especially understand why, in a game where Peterson broke his first carry for a 78 yard TD, Musgrave might not want to bail on his plan for the running game. Offensive coordinators never look good when players don't execute. When they did... 78 yard TD.

I'll add that I realize there's a balance to be struck between stubbornly sticking with something and adapting to circumstances. Demanding players execute has it's limits when a strategy isn't working and sometimes more variety or creativity can really open things up. On the other hand, if players aren't winning their battles with the other team, almost nothing is going to look good.

Hopefully, everyone from Musgrave to Ponder to Kalil and even AD will look much better this week against the Bears.

[Just Me]

Hopefully, everyone from Musgrave to Ponder to Kalil and even AD will look much better this week against the Bears.

You're going to do your part and not go right? If you do go, you'll wear some sort of disguise to give us a fighting chance, right?

[Mothman]

You're going to do your part and not go right? If you do go, you'll wear some sort of disguise to give us a fighting chance, right?

My presence will be a complete mystery!

[BGM]

The thing that catches my eye is how the absence (or poor play) of a couple key positions can really make a difference, and I am not talking about QB, RB and WR (the glamour positions).

Matt Kalil seems to be struggling mightily at LT right now, and he was considered a long-term answer there. I still think he will be once his technique is cleaned up, but when he is ineffective, it gets ugly... and fast.

Jerome Felton is out and the running game grinds to a virtual halt. Zach Line is a runner, but he's a matador when it comes to blocking. I think Felton's role at lead blocker makes him one of the most important players on the team.

Kevin Williams is out and the Detroit run game goes off the charts. Reggie bush is amazing, but is he THAT amazing? Without K-Will's talent and experience, the DL looks like a ship without a rudder. A very big ship, running aground.

There is a vital and obvious need for a top notch MLB to patrol the center of the Cover-2. Erin Henderson is not that guy. He made tackles and got an INT, but he also was out of position often. The entire LB corps seems to bite all too often on misdirection plays. That is a big problem.

So, having Felton back after his suspension will do nothing but help. Having K-Will back should help the DL step up. Hopefully, Kalil's technique can be tweaked.

As for the LBs... well, Desmond Bishop might be an improvement, but I have to believe that a starting MLB has to be right near the top of the need list after this season.

[J. Kapp 11]

Give me a break. I'm not making excuses for Ponder. I said the pass was too high. I also said it was catchable.

Watch the play again. Simpson stumbles and comes out of his break low and slow and that's one of the reasons he has to reach up and outward for the pass. Again, the pass was higher than it should have been. It wasn't perfect and that's on Ponder but if Simpson had the run route correctly, it wouldn't have been a difficult catch. Ponder threw an imperfect pass that shouldn't have been intercepted. Simpson's poor route was the reason it turned into an interception.

The other two INTs were all Ponder. He threw WAY too high to Rudolph on the third one and he showed poor judgment on the second one. He had the right idea (throwing it away) but he wasn't in a good spot to do it. The wise course of action would have been to secure the ball and take the loss of yardage.

Please forgive the "excuses" comment. I didn't frame my response very well. Let me take another stab at it.

The flavor of your post makes it sound like it was basically Simpson's fault, with some culpability on the part of Ponder. I see it exactly the opposite. Simpson has the much more difficult job here. He has to get position, make his break, ward off the defender, and make the catch -- all within about 2 seconds or less. Ponder simply has to take one step and throw the ball about 15 feet.

Obviously I am very frustrated (as are others) with Ponder at this point. I want him to succeed. I really do. I've tried hard to be patient. But at the same time, I'm watching quarterbacks with less experience do extremely well, and I have to admit that I'm growing impatient, especially when he makes poor decisions. I can actually excuse the pass to Simpson -- a physical mistake -- but the other two were based on very poor decisions that a 3rd year quarterback just shouldn't be making. He also got very lucky to have an easy pick-six dropped.

Let's be real about Sunday. Poor pass blocking or a suspect route here or there notwithstanding, Christian Ponder played poorly. I know his performance is based on a lot of things, including his line, his receivers, and his OC, but basically we're not getting the kind of play we need to be successful. Whether that's Ponder's fault completely ... I don't know. But I do know that he's making fundamental mistakes -- failing to keep his eyes downfield while eluding the rush, the unwillingness to throw the ball away when nothing is there, the inability to step up in the pocket, the inability to find his 2nd, 3rd, or 4th receivers in the progression, locking on receivers (at times) -- that a third-year quarterback just shouldn't be making. Those things have nothing to do with receivers, his line, or the plays that are called. Very few plays in the NFL go exactly as designed. When they don't, Ponder struggles. Meanwhile, other young QBs are growing and succeeding.

At some point, a decision has to be made as to whether this guy can do it ... because we just can't have continue to have these kinds of performances in the passing game, especially on the road.