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

[Mothman]

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.

I agree and I also think one of the adjustments the coaches should make this week is to take Line out of that role. He just doesn't look ready for it yet and Ellison is a much, much better lead blocker in Felton's absence.

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.

They definitely missed him but I think a lot of Bush's success was also due to the strategy the Vikes used much of the time. They kept playing their safeties back in an effort to contain Johnson and that left 9 defenders underneath to deal with Bush. He's talented enough that if he gets past the line (either on a run or because he's already past it and he catches a pass) he's a matchup nightmare for LBs. He can make people miss.

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.

I think it was probably at the top of their list last season but the way the draft fell steered them away from it.

[mansquatch]

Moth, Bush's succes had to do with our players making mistakes. The screen game is defended by the DL and the LB. On the big screen TD EH was blocked for like 5 seconds. The ball flew about 1' from Sharrif Floyd. Greenway also made mistakes. We had opportunities at the first 2 levels. Sanford took a bad angle and Smith slipped, TD. Point here is that the Safeties are what their name implies, the last line of defense. Even if they had tackeld him, it would have been a 10+ yd gain. The first two levels need to make that play.

Floyd really struggled on Sunday. I think a lot of it was rookie jitters. Ben Leber had a solid analysis, saying he was pass rushing most of the game and the Lions exploited it. Leber said this was Floyd being a rookie more than anything else and he will go through a learning curve where a guy like KWill is comfortable in what he does and is able to make it happen more consistently.

As far as the LB in coverage, are there any LB in the NFL right now that are really that great in coverage? IMO, this is a flaw of the Cover 2. The idea that a MLB is going to cover a guy like Johnny Graham or Kyle Rudolph, much less a #2 or #3 WR is rather ridiculous. Also, if you take a guy like Bush or Ray Rice or Darren Sproles who are shifty and can make great catches out of the backfield you have the LB playing side ot side instead of downhill. I think the modern NFL RB is making this part of the scheme a weakness unless you have a LB with enough talent to play with these guys. I'd rather see them use the position to create pressure. Seems like a more likely means to succeed. Will also help when the DL is struggling.

[Mothman]

Please forgive the "excuses" comment.

I'll forgive it if you'll forgive my "give me a break" response.

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.

But he has to throw it to a spot and Simpson needs to be in that spot, in proper position to receive it. In terms of responsibility for the result of the play, I don't think it matters that his job was more difficult. It's a timing route so the play's success depends on that timing. Ponder has to drop, throw and count on Simpson being where he's supposed to be. When the timing is off at all, it messes up the play. Consequently, stumbling and coming in low, as Simpson did, messed up the play and the high throw just made it worse. I don't think it really matters who was more culpable but if we're going to assign blame for the interception, I'd assign the larger portion to Simpson because he threw the timing off. If that hadn't happened, the worst case scenario for that pass was probably an incompletion.

As I said earlier, players stumble. They're human so I don't hold the INT against Simpson and I don't hold it against Ponder either. I just see it as one of those unfortunate plays that sometimes occur in sports. We see players slip, stumble, trip, etc, all the time. Unfortunately this time it led to a pick.

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.

I agree about the second INT but wasn't the third just an overthrown pass? I can't remember all the circumstances involved in that one. Anyway, QBs all misfire at times so my main concern with a play like that is it's symptomatic of a larger problem: accuracy. No QB throws every pass perfectly but Ponder needs to throw a higher percentage of accurate passes than he has thus far.

By the way, I don't know if it's always apparent from my demeanor here but I'm very frustrated with Ponder too, all the more so because I've really tried to be patient as they develop him. For every step forward, he takes a step back and that has to stop. A certain percentage of mistakes is forgivable but he has to become a more consistently good player.

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.

I agree. At some point, a decision will be made. I'm guessing it will happen during this season or shortly after it. Meanwhile, all we can do is watch and see what happens.

[Mothman]

Moth, Bush's succes had to do with our players making mistakes.

Don't you think he and his teammates deserve a little credit?

The screen game is defended by the DL and the LB. On the big screen TD EH was blocked for like 5 seconds. The ball flew about 1' from Sharrif Floyd. Greenway also made mistakes. We had opportunities at the first 2 levels. Sanford took a bad angle and Smith slipped, TD. Point here is that the Safeties are what their name implies, the last line of defense. Even if they had tackeld him, it would have been a 10+ yd gain. The first two levels need to make that play.

I agree that the first two levels are supposed to make that play. My point wasn't that the safeties were deep and it's their responsibility to stop screens (not that Bush only burned the Vikes on screens). It's that playing them that deep opens up the zones and puts more pressure on the LBs. It makes it easier to complete passes underneath the coverage. Against an RB with Bush's talent, who is already a very difficult matchup for most LBs (and the Vikings don't have the best), that made the defense more vulnerable. There's no easy answer because moving them up more makes the defense more vulnerable to Calvin Johnson.

Floyd really struggled on Sunday. I think a lot of it was rookie jitters. Ben Leber had a solid analysis, saying he was pass rushing most of the game and the Lions exploited it. Leber said this was Floyd being a rookie more than anything else and he will go through a learning curve where a guy like KWill is comfortable in what he does and is able to make it happen more consistently.

They exploited Robison a few times too. He appeared to be thinking "pass rush" and not much else.

As far as the LB in coverage, are there any LB in the NFL right now that are really that great in coverage? IMO, this is a flaw of the Cover 2. The idea that a MLB is going to cover a guy like Johnny Graham or Kyle Rudolph, much less a #2 or #3 WR is rather ridiculous. Also, if you take a guy like Bush or Ray Rice or Darren Sproles who are shifty and can make great catches out of the backfield you have the LB playing side ot side instead of downhill. I think the modern NFL RB is making this part of the scheme a weakness unless you have a LB with enough talent to play with these guys. I'd rather see them use the position to create pressure. Seems like a more likely means to succeed. Will also help when the DL is struggling.

I don't think modern NFL RBs are any more dangerous than they were when Tampa Bay was dominating teams with their cover 2 defense or when the Steelers were using a similar strategy in the '70s. Bush, Rice and Sproles have nothing on Barry Sanders or Walter Payton. The TEs might be a different story but no matter what scheme you run, they create matchup problems. Cover them with an LB and many of them are faster. Cover them with a corner or safety and there's a size disadvantage.

[MrPurplenGold]

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.

I'm speaking about variety and adaptability. Clearly Musgrave's rushing offense has been successful. I'm not saying they need to line up in 4 WR sets every down and run the ball, what I am saying is that I have not seen Musgrave be able to present solutions when those particular types of formations are not working. The O-Line and TE's clearly had problems all day long in the rushing game, so why are you continuing to pound a square peg in a round hole. That's what I speak of when I'm talking about a lack of creativity in the rushing attack. When what you have planned isn't working, do you fold or innovate; I think the answer is Musgrave folds. It's the same thing as last years playoff loss to Green Bay. The read-option attack was working and suddenly he went away from it back to his "normal" offense, which failed miserably. He is clearly not a "dynamic" coordinator. Just like last year, when teams figured out how to guard Percy Harvin, the offense clearly struggled.

My second portion to that is if you want to use the rushing attack to open up the passing game, don't you think having more WRs is clearly beneficial? How does it develop a good working relationship when at most you have is 3 WR's on the field? Also, why spend the money on Greg Jennings and a 1st round Pick on Patterson if you aren't going to be more diverse in the passing game. Not really looking at Ponder from this perspective, whether he can get them the ball is a different argument for a different day.

[mondry]

I'm speaking about variety and adaptability. Clearly Musgrave's rushing offense has been successful. I'm not saying they need to line up in 4 WR sets every down and run the ball, what I am saying is that I have not seen Musgrave be able to present solutions when those particular types of formations are not working. The O-Line and TE's clearly had problems all day long in the rushing game, so why are you continuing to pound a square peg in a round hole. That's what I speak of when I'm talking about a lack of creativity in the rushing attack. When what you have planned isn't working, do you fold or innovate; I think the answer is Musgrave folds. It's the same thing as last years playoff loss to Green Bay. The read-option attack was working and suddenly he went away from it back to his "normal" offense, which failed miserably. He is clearly not a "dynamic" coordinator. Just like last year, when teams figured out how to guard Percy Harvin, the offense clearly struggled.

My second portion to that is if you want to use the rushing attack to open up the passing game, don't you think having more WRs is clearly beneficial? How does it develop a good working relationship when at most you have is 3 WR's on the field? Also, why spend the money on Greg Jennings and a 1st round Pick on Patterson if you aren't going to be more diverse in the passing game. Not really looking at Ponder from this perspective, whether he can get them the ball is a different argument for a different day.

Yeah... we shall see going forward but one of my concerns this offseason was if teams would be able to study our condensed formations and really kind of figure them out. I don't really consider detroit a very strong run defense but they were easily able to shut it down. Peterson with his incredible ability was able to make them pay one time but ANY OTHER back in the league rushes for like 15 yards if they're lucky, and actually subtract the big run and that's exactly what Peterson ran for.

[dead_poet]

The O-Line and TE's clearly had problems all day long in the rushing game, so why are you continuing to pound a square peg in a round hole.

It's hard to deviate when you you have proven history of something being incredibly successful (see Adrian Peterson's 2012). And you have to ask if it's scheme or players not executing/winning. From the outside, I think it's very difficult to judge.

That's what I speak of when I'm talking about a lack of creativity in the rushing attack. When what you have planned isn't working, do you fold or innovate;

Or do you believe in your proven, successful approach? I don't know how much a different formation would've helped if the players were individually routinely getting beat. Given their "performance" on Sunday, I have every reason to believe a different alignment would have produced similar (negative) results. Of course, it's impossible to know.

It's the same thing as last years playoff loss to Green Bay. The read-option attack was working and suddenly he went away from it back to his "normal" offense, which failed miserably.

For the life of me I have no idea why he did this. Why deviate from a successful approach? Unfortunately I don't see Sunday's performance related to this. It wasn't as if Musgrave went away from something that was clearly working.

He is clearly not a "dynamic" coordinator. Just like last year, when teams figured out how to guard Percy Harvin, the offense clearly struggled.

62 receptions, 677 yards and 3 TDs in 9 games is "figuring out how to guard Percy Harvin"? Not sure about that.

My second portion to that is if you want to use the rushing attack to open up the passing game, don't you think having more WRs is clearly beneficial?

Not at the expense of better interior blockers (TEs/FBs), especially if you're running inside.

Also, why spend the money on Greg Jennings and a 1st round Pick on Patterson if you aren't going to be more diverse in the passing game.

I'm sure the team has plans to be more dynamic/effective in the passing game, which prompted the necessity for more talent. Of course, planning and executing are two different things.

[The Breeze]

The issue at LB is going to plague us all season I'm afraid. We just don't have a guy for the middle that fits this scheme. The best Cover 2 defenses had a primo safety and MLB. We are halfway there with Smith. Mauti looks the part from what I've seen.....I want to see him on the field this season to see if he's for real.

Reggie Bush is one of the best open field runners of his generation. I still can't understand why he is so under appreciated. He is the perfect weapon for that offense and Linehan knows exactly how to contrast him with CJ and Burelson. Bush can also catch passes well down field ala Faulk, Tominlison and Thurman Thomas. These kinds of guys are always nightmares to cover. Especially when your run D is compromised by injury or lack of discipline up front. And yeah, I just put Bush in the Faulk\Tomlinson category.
Musgrave could use AD in a similar fashion, especially when the straight run is being shut down. It's just weird they don't variate the way they get the ball to him by design, rather than last resort checkdown stuff.

I think Musgrave shows lots of imagination and smarts....I find him lacking when it comes to keeping defenses guessing. The first play and series (3 n out) after AD's long TD run is a good example. 2 runs into the line for no gain followed by a WR bubbe screen that picked up round 7. IMO the bubble screen is the 1st down call, if not some sort of play action over the middle against a D that is selling out against the run. A high percentage play that gets your QB rolling. I understand the whole mismatch and unbalanced line stuff.....but sometimes it's much more advantageous to not telegraph what's coming and be a little more versatile.

The issue Ponder has with getting the ball downfield isn't helped much by continually asking him to get the ball downfield mostly on plays when everyone in the stadium knows he's got to throw. The run run pass dynamic.

Maybe I'm splitting hairs........just seems like there is room for more variance while still keeping the D honest with the power run formations and plays. Using those running plays so often is actually helping the D cheat and giving away a good deal of the advantage they have.

[dead_poet]

Musgrave said #Vikings had more in the game plan for Patterson than they used on Sun. Things in gameplan for him in 1, 2 and 3-WR sets.

[Purple bruise]

Let's hope that he gets involved in the offense, he is a threat to take it to the house every time he touches the ball.

[Mothman]

It's hard to deviate when you you have proven history of something being incredibly successful (see Adrian Peterson's 2012). And you have to ask if it's scheme or players not executing/winning. From the outside, I think it's very difficult to judge.

I agree and I would think an OC would be reluctant to get away from his game plan when at times, it's working. There were moments against Detroit where the Vikings offense was almost startlingly effective. They were glimpses into what the unit could be if they could just play more consistently. There were possessions where they were bumbling and ineffective or turned the ball over and then there were possessions like the 78 yard run or the second TD drive. On the latter, they came out and drove 65 yards for a TD in 4 plays, one of which was a run for -4 yards. The playcalling was obviously fine there and they managed to take advantage of Detroit's focus on stopping Peterson. So, what happened the rest of the way? I think it was probably on the players as much Musgrave but I do think it would serve him well to be more adaptable and less predictable.

[Mothman]

The issue at LB is going to plague us all season I'm afraid. We just don't have a guy for the middle that fits this scheme. The best Cover 2 defenses had a primo safety and MLB. We are halfway there with Smith. Mauti looks the part from what I've seen.....I want to see him on the field this season to see if he's for real.

Reggie Bush is one of the best open field runners of his generation. I still can't understand why he is so under appreciated. He is the perfect weapon for that offense and Linehan knows exactly how to contrast him with CJ and Burelson. Bush can also catch passes well down field ala Faulk, Tominlison and Thurman Thomas. These kinds of guys are always nightmares to cover. Especially when your run D is compromised by injury or lack of discipline up front. And yeah, I just put Bush in the Faulk\Tomlinson category.
Musgrave could use AD in a similar fashion, especially when the straight run is being shut down. It's just weird they don't variate the way they get the ball to him by design, rather than last resort checkdown stuff.

I think Musgrave shows lots of imagination and smarts....I find him lacking when it comes to keeping defenses guessing. The first play and series (3 n out) after AD's long TD run is a good example. 2 runs into the line for no gain followed by a WR bubbe screen that picked up round 7. IMO the bubble screen is the 1st down call, if not some sort of play action over the middle against a D that is selling out against the run. A high percentage play that gets your QB rolling. I understand the whole mismatch and unbalanced line stuff.....but sometimes it's much more advantageous to not telegraph what's coming and be a little more versatile.

The issue Ponder has with getting the ball downfield isn't helped much by continually asking him to get the ball downfield mostly on plays when everyone in the stadium knows he's got to throw. The run run pass dynamic.

Maybe I'm splitting hairs........just seems like there is room for more variance while still keeping the D honest with the power run formations and plays. Using those running plays so often is actually helping the D cheat and giving away a good deal of the advantage they have.

Excellent post and I agree with you 100% about Reggie Bush. He's seriously under-appreciated.

[VikingLord]

This is funny.

Patterson plays the same position in the Vikings offense as Simpson. Simpson is the starter, and he's going to get the "starter's level" of snaps. When Frazier made the comment in his post-game that the Vikes have to sustain more drives to get Patterson more snaps, what he meant was the Vikings have to run enough offensive plays to justify giving Simpson a breather now and then.

It's kind of frustrating that the offensive schematics take precedence over the talent. Patterson is a dynamic talent who should be getting more snaps, and IMHO, the Vikings should be designing plays to get their best players on the field more. But this is a run-oriented offense that goes with a lot of bunched formations where often a single WR is on the field, and when more WRs are on the field the "starters" at those spots are going to get the snaps.

With the game Simpson had I can hardly complain about this, although one does have to wonder if the Vikings offense as a whole might have performed better with both Simpson and Patterson on the field at the same time. At the very least Patterson should get more touches returning this weekend with the game being outdoors.

[The Breeze]

This is funny.

Patterson plays the same position in the Vikings offense as Simpson. Simpson is the starter, and he's going to get the "starter's level" of snaps. When Frazier made the comment in his post-game that the Vikes have to sustain more drives to get Patterson more snaps, what he meant was the Vikings have to run enough offensive plays to justify giving Simpson a breather now and then.

It's kind of frustrating that the offensive schematics take precedence over the talent. Patterson is a dynamic talent who should be getting more snaps, and IMHO, the Vikings should be designing plays to get their best players on the field more. But this is a run-oriented offense that goes with a lot of bunched formations where often a single WR is on the field, and when more WRs are on the field the "starters" at those spots are going to get the snaps.

With the game Simpson had I can hardly complain about this, although one does have to wonder if the Vikings offense as a whole might have performed better with both Simpson and Patterson on the field at the same time. At the very least Patterson should get more touches returning this weekend with the game being outdoors.

It's like they have more talent than they know what to do with.

Unfortunately, it hinges on the line protecting the QB and the QB having the temperment to facilitate the use of all that talent. Both of which are lacking at present, so Musgrave's task is that more difficult.

As Jim mentioned somewhere, this offense has displayed a serious capacity to move te ball.....gotta get it consistent. It's frustratingly tantylizing(sp)....and down right maddening at times.

[MrPurplenGold]

It's hard to deviate when you you have proven history of something being incredibly successful (see Adrian Peterson's 2012). And you have to ask if it's scheme or players not executing/winning. From the outside, I think it's very difficult to judge.

Previous success is not indicative of future success. Defensive Coordinators spend all offseason studying a team's tendencies. It's their responsibility to develop ways to attack things that have been successful in the previous season. It's the offensive coordinators responsibility to continue to develop ways to exploit defenses not just banking on what worked last year will work again this year.

Or do you believe in your proven, successful approach? I don't know how much a different formation would've helped if the players were individually routinely getting beat. Given their "performance" on Sunday, I have every reason to believe a different alignment would have produced similar (negative) results. Of course, it's impossible to know.

We don't know if changing formations would have changed anything, but what we do know is what he was doing was not working. Which to me is at least justification to try something different. How many screen passes were even thrown during that game, maybe 1 if any. I'm not saying you have to reinvent the wheel, but a flat wheel isn't going to roll just because you keep pushing it.

Not at the expense of better interior blockers (TEs/FBs), especially if you're running inside.

Why? In a spread formation you've got 4 DL, 1 LB and 6 DBs. Offensively you've got 5 OL. So you're putting AD against 6 DB's, even if you bring a safety in the box you've got AD vs a safety. I don't think those odds are much different than you bring 5 OL, 1 TE, 1 FB vs an 8 man front.


I'm not saying the Vikings need to move to a spread offense, that's not their style of play. But what I am saying is the Vikings Coordinators need to show some scheme flexibility, adjust to the way teams are attacking the Vikings IN GAME and try something different if what you're doing isn't working. There are more ways to run the ball than just lining up a bunch of bigger bodies and trying to overwhelm the opponent.