A tale to two halves

[dead_poet]

Frazier said he will send the Bears' formation on last play to the league. Didn't seem to know it was in question

@ProFootballTalk: League says Bears didn't commit illegal formation violation on game-winning play http://wp.me/p14QSB-9h2Q "

[S197]

It wasn't pretty. Several of the Bears' red zone plays and the long TD to Marshall it was particularly noticeable. There hasn't seemed to be a steady flow of pressure this season, which is frustrating when that's been our defensive strength. Also, our linebackers continue to be non-factors. There are a lot of holes on this defense. It seems like when one gets filled, two others open up. I know this is getting too far ahead of ourselves, but aside from possibly guard and QB, LB, DE and DT are going to be priorities in the next draft.

I mentioned this in the other thread but the defense needs to start blitzing. Actual blitzing, not just feigning a blitz with Greenway and Henderson running up to the line then dropping into coverage. You can't sit in a cover-2 shell as much as the Vikings do and hope your front four get the job done every time, it's far too predictable. If you remember a few years back when the Vikings were struggling, Pagac called an absolutely brilliant game against the Eagles with a ton of aggressiveness and complex blitzing. Some of that needs to come back. I'm not saying all the time, but things need to be switched up more.

[dead_poet]

I mentioned this in the other thread but the defense needs to start blitzing. Actual blitzing, not just feigning a blitz with Greenway and Henderson running up to the line then dropping into coverage. You can't sit in a cover-2 shell as much as the Vikings do and hope your front four get the job done every time, it's far too predictable. If you remember a few years back when the Vikings were struggling, Pagac called an absolutely brilliant game against the Eagles with a ton of aggressiveness and complex blitzing. Some of that needs to come back. I'm not saying all the time, but things need to be switched up more.

Problem is, our blitzing rarely gets home, leading to big plays by the offense. Frazier hates giving away the big plays. There should be ample pressure created by the front four (emphasis on "should"). Plus, depending on the quarterback, they can absolutely feast on blitzing. IMO, we don't have the horses to make aggressively blitzing a smart approach. YMMV.

[S197]

Problem is, our blitzing rarely gets home, leading to big plays by the offense. Frazier hates giving away the big plays. There should be ample pressure created by the front four (emphasis on "should"). Plus, depending on the quarterback, they can absolutely feast on blitzing. IMO, we don't have the horses to make aggressively blitzing a smart approach. YMMV.

Well I think that cuts both ways as it doesn't look like we have the horses to sit in coverage either. Going all the way back to when Tomlin was DC, this defense has always had issues against the pass but at least back then it was a solid defense against the run. Now, it's just kind've soft all around. At least now we have two big corners to press off the line if we do blitz. Something needs to change, when you bring four all the times, it's too easy for the offense to scheme against. Arizona made Bush look human again, so I think Bush and Forte (while good players) are making themselves look a lot better by our defense.

[Mothman]

I do think we need to get ponder involved from the get go though, whether that's with passes, some boot leg designed runs, or whatever. He just seems to respond more when we get him into the action and just playing FOOTBALL rather than the calculated "I can't make a mistake" mode that ironically leads to tons of mistakes...

Good post, Mondry. Regarding that last part: I keep hearing from pundits, fans, etc. how much having AD in the backfield should help Ponder by giving him single coverage on the outside but as someone pointed out after last week's game, the offensive strategy often leaves Ponder in 3rd and long situations where AD isn't necessarily on the field. I believe committing to the running game is important and I understand that there's a tricky balancing act involved in getting Peterson enough touches per game without being predictable but I wonder if it would help Ponder to let him sink or swim by turning the game over to him from the start. In other words, I wonder if it would help him if they came out passing, threw at least 60% of the time on first down and tried to use a game plan that relied as much on Peterson's value as a decoy as on his value as a runner. As I said, it's tricky balancing act and perhaps it would be a disaster but it does seem like Ponder fares better when he's able to get into the action and just play football, as you put it.

[NextQuestion]

Allen is our best pass rusher and if he can't get there it's not Greenway will

[dead_poet]

Well I think that cuts both ways as it doesn't look like we have the horses to sit in coverage either. Going all the way back to when Tomlin was DC, this defense has always had issues against the pass but at least back then it was a solid defense against the run. Now, it's just kind've soft all around. At least now we have two big corners to press off the line if we do blitz. Something needs to change, when you bring four all the times, it's too easy for the offense to scheme against. Arizona made Bush look human again, so I think Bush and Forte (while good players) are making themselves look a lot better by our defense.

IF our corners can be disruptive playing press coverage (they should be), it's possible they could disrupt the route/timing enough for the blitz to get home. It'd be an interesting experiment. But, like I said, there are QBs (like Rodgers/Manning/Kaepernick, etc.) that just eat the blitz alive.

[mondry]

Good post, Mondry. Regarding that last part: I keep hearing from pundits, fans, etc. how much having AD in the backfield should help Ponder by giving him single coverage on the outside but as someone pointed out after last week's game, the offensive strategy often leaves Ponder in 3rd and long situations where AD isn't necessarily on the field. I believe committing to the running game is important and I understand that there's a tricky balancing act involved in getting Peterson enough touches per game without being predictable but I wonder if it would help Ponder to let him sink or swim by turning the game over to him from the start. In other words, I wonder if it would help him if they came out passing, threw at least 60% of the time on first down and tried to use a game plan that relied as much on Peterson's value as a decoy as on his value as a runner. As I said, it's tricky balancing act and perhaps it would be a disaster but it does seem like Ponder fares better when he's able to get into the action and just play football, as you put it.

Yeah, well you're right that it's a balancing act but the key word there is balance. Forget the run / pass ratio, I feel we put way too much emphasis on trying to get Peterson GOING with almost zero of the same emphasis on getting PONDER going. The reason that is an issue is because Ponder and the passing game is really what gets first downs and allows you to run the ball more. In that sense, having a succesful passing game early on, takes care of the only downside of "well you're not running AD" because you'll get more first downs, more sustained drives, and more opportunities to hand off.

I think what we do is a mistake because in this version of the game, you really can't telegraph your intent. For a team like ours to come out there with like 8-9 blockers on first down and run the ball I think that's a fairly low percentage play. On the flip side, to bring out 8-9 blockers and pass the ball isn't much better either because I don't see a high success rate there (something to get Ponder fired up early) which is what we're looking for to keep the offense on the field.

We've seen how that plays out in the first quarter of both games now. AD runs for 78, okay nice, but aside from that? 3rd and long regularly. Open it up in the 3rd quarter? We move the ball. When Felton comes back okay let's see if it can work again but for now, we gotta get a 2nd and 3rd WR out there because line and carlson are NOT our best players to have on the field as much as they are.

If anyone watched seattle last night, you can tell they just let Wilson play. Sure they have Marshawn Lynch and he's pretty much #2 behind AD but he's a PART of the offense, not the entire emphasis.

In my opinion, the true Adrian Peterson factor when it comes to helping the passing game is play action passing on running downs, and he'll keep 3 LB's on the field as opposed to a team always being in the nickel. So if you run on first and second down, pass on 3rd, you lose both advantages. The sooner they can figure that out the more we'll see out of this offense.

[Mothman]

Yeah, well you're right that it's a balancing act but the key word there is balance. Forget the run / pass ratio, I feel we put way too much emphasis on trying to get Peterson GOING with almost zero of the same emphasis on getting PONDER going. The reason that is an issue is because Ponder and the passing game is really what gets first downs and allows you to run the ball more. In that sense, having a succesful passing game early on, takes care of the only downside of "well you're not running AD" because you'll get more first downs, more sustained drives, and more opportunities to hand off.

I think what we do is a mistake because in this version of the game, you really can't telegraph your intent. For a team like ours to come out there with like 8-9 blockers on first down and run the ball I think that's a fairly low percentage play. On the flip side, to bring out 8-9 blockers and pass the ball isn't much better either because I don't see a high success rate there (something to get Ponder fired up early) which is what we're looking for to keep the offense on the field.

They could come out in a 22 set (2 TEs, 2 RBs) and create all sorts of favorable matchups (single coverage outside, isolate a TE on an LB, etc.). It sucks that Carlson has been such a disappointment because a better receiving TE could do wonders for them in sets like that. Imagine if they'd signed Bennett in the offseason instead of Chicago. Pair him with Rudolph with Jennings and Simpson, Patterson or Wright outside and they could really give defensive coordinators some headaches.

That said, I don't think the Vikes telegraph their intent with heavy formations as much as they do with tendencies and even with Carlson or Ellison as the second TE in a tight or heavy set, they could still give Ponder good options in the passing game. When Felton returns I think a 22 set could be a particularly effective base for the offense.

I know it may seem like it but I really don't think they run that many 1 WR plays. I could be wrong about but it seems to me there are usually at least two WRs on the field. Sometimes they line one up tight but they're usually there.

In my opinion, the true Adrian Peterson factor when it comes to helping the passing game is play action passing on running downs, and he'll keep 3 LB's on the field as opposed to a team always being in the nickel. So if you run on first and second down, pass on 3rd, you lose both advantages. The sooner they can figure that out the more we'll see out of this offense.

Well said, although I also don't have a problem with running on first and second down. They need to be be less predictable, especially early in games.

[The Breeze]

Yeah, well you're right that it's a balancing act but the key word there is balance. Forget the run / pass ratio, I feel we put way too much emphasis on trying to get Peterson GOING with almost zero of the same emphasis on getting PONDER going. The reason that is an issue is because Ponder and the passing game is really what gets first downs and allows you to run the ball more. In that sense, having a succesful passing game early on, takes care of the only downside of "well you're not running AD" because you'll get more first downs, more sustained drives, and more opportunities to hand off.

I think what we do is a mistake because in this version of the game, you really can't telegraph your intent. For a team like ours to come out there with like 8-9 blockers on first down and run the ball I think that's a fairly low percentage play. On the flip side, to bring out 8-9 blockers and pass the ball isn't much better either because I don't see a high success rate there (something to get Ponder fired up early) which is what we're looking for to keep the offense on the field.

We've seen how that plays out in the first quarter of both games now. AD runs for 78, okay nice, but aside from that? 3rd and long regularly. Open it up in the 3rd quarter? We move the ball. When Felton comes back okay let's see if it can work again but for now, we gotta get a 2nd and 3rd WR out there because line and carlson are NOT our best players to have on the field as much as they are.

If anyone watched seattle last night, you can tell they just let Wilson play. Sure they have Marshawn Lynch and he's pretty much #2 behind AD but he's a PART of the offense, not the entire emphasis.

In my opinion, the true Adrian Peterson factor when it comes to helping the passing game is play action passing on running downs, and he'll keep 3 LB's on the field as opposed to a team always being in the nickel. So if you run on first and second down, pass on 3rd, you lose both advantages. The sooner they can figure that out the more we'll see out of this offense.

This is exactly what I mean when I say it's a travesty they way they use AD....and then Ponder gets the lions share of the blame.

I would argue that every RBs greatest value is to create the right tempo for play action and balancing out the offense. They have to be effective running the ball in order for that to work. AD just happens to be able to score from anywhere at any ime with just the smallest opening, and the organizations reliance on that, planned or not, is obsessive to the point that it can, and does, literally shut down the flow of the offense.

He's like crack for the coaches......running crack.

Childress did that exact same thing until Favre told him to shove it.

[mondry]

That said, I don't think the Vikes telegraph their intent with heavy formations as much as they do with tendencies and even with Carlson or Ellison as the second TE in a tight or heavy set, they could still give Ponder good options in the passing game. When Felton returns I think a 22 set could be a particularly effective base for the offense.

I know it may seem like it but I really don't think they run that many 1 WR plays. I could be wrong about but it seems to me there are usually at least two WRs on the field. Sometimes they line one up tight but they're usually there.

Oh no I agree, it's more about the actual tendencies to start a game out handing off to Peterson, regardless of formation. The 1 WR set is just a favorite target of mine. I don't actually know the percentages of how often we use what so I'm guessing here but I'd prefer to see even less of the 2 WR version to get a 3rd WR like Patterson out there if it means less of carlson, etc. That doesn't mean I want it to go away, if we need extra blocking from another TE then it has it's place of course and I'm willing to be content that that's probably why we've used it.

Well said, although I also don't have a problem with running on first and second down. They need to be be less predictable, especially early in games.

Exactly right with the second part of that sentence. Once we establish the pass you can run as much as you want really. We really just have to show our opponents that we're not simply just going to run and hope it works from the get go like we seemingly have tried to do early on.

[mondry]

This is exactly what I mean when I say it's a travesty they way they use AD....and then Ponder gets the lions share of the blame.

I would argue that every RBs greatest value is to create the right tempo for play action and balancing out the offense. They have to be effective running the ball in order for that to work. AD just happens to be able to score from anywhere at any ime with just the smallest opening, and the organizations reliance on that, planned or not, is obsessive to the point that it can, and does, literally shut down the flow of the offense.

He's like crack for the coaches......running crack.

Childress did that exact same thing until Favre told him to shove it.

You bring up a good point. I saw in another thread a poster talking about how we got rid of chili and bevell, Tjack, yet the offense still looks really similar. So maybe it's Frazier and Spielmans mentality? I disagree, I think you hit the nail on the head there. The other common denominator that's forgotten about is ADRIAN PETERSON.

He is like crack for the coaches lol.

[Mothman]

Oh no I agree, it's more about the actual tendencies to start a game out handing off to Peterson, regardless of formation. The 1 WR set is just a favorite target of mine.

Okay. You've brought it up enough that I was starting to wonder if you were just hallucinating one WR sets during your Vikes-related nightmares.

I don't actually know the percentages of how often we use what so I'm guessing here but I'd prefer to see even less of the 2 WR version to get a 3rd WR like Patterson out there if it means less of carlson, etc. That doesn't mean I want it to go away, if we need extra blocking from another TE then it has it's place of course and I'm willing to be content that that's probably why we've used it.

The great thing about having two TEs out there is it really helps the running game while still (in theory anyway) providing passing options. With a balanced line they put more pressure on the defense to guess where a run is going. Unfortunately, based on the miniscule contribution Carlson has made to the passing game, there's probably more benefit in having that 3rd WR. Either that or Musgrave needs to start making better use of the TEs as passing threats out of 2 TE formations. When Felton comes back, I think they should use him in the passing game too.

Exactly right with the second part of that sentence. Once we establish the pass you can run as much as you want really. We really just have to show our opponents that we're not simply just going to run and hope it works from the get go like we seemingly have tried to do early on.

In the end, it's really just about being less predictable. That's easier said than done but it shouldn't be as hard as the Vikes sometimes make it look.