Sort of the same start as last year defensively but...

[NextQuestion]

different results.

Game 1: Blaine Gabbert throws a 40 yard bomb to unknown WR, Cecil Shorts, with about 40 seconds left to play to dagger the Vikings. Thankfully we had all 3 timeouts and came back to tie and then win in OT.

Game 2: After tying the game up with less than a minute to go, Andrew Luck torches our cover-nobody defensive scheme and Vinateiri, in vintage form, daggers us.

Game 3: Vikings keep turning the ball over...err...Gerhart keeps turning the ball over. Alex Smith and Crabtree aren't on same page and Robinson gets INT. Smith has one more chance but is strip sacked by Jared Allen.

We easily could have been 0-3 to start last year too. Hopefully Frazier can turn this unit around and Cassel can play it safe with easy throws.

[yezzir]

different results.

Game 1: Blaine Gabbert throws a 40 yard bomb to unknown WR, Cecil Shorts, with about 40 seconds left to play to dagger the Vikings. Thankfully we had all 3 timeouts and came back to tie and then win in OT.

Game 2: After tying the game up with less than a minute to go, Andrew Luck torches our cover-nobody defensive scheme and Vinateiri, in vintage form, daggers us.

Game 3: Vikings keep turning the ball over...err...Gerhart keeps turning the ball over. Alex Smith and Crabtree aren't on same page and Robinson gets INT. Smith has one more chance but is strip sacked by Jared Allen.

We easily could have been 0-3 to start last year too. Hopefully Frazier can turn this unit around and Cassel can play it safe with easy throws.

It really is pretty amazing to think about. We could just as easily be 3-0/2-1 by now instead of 0-3. Couple plays here and there.

[mondry]

I think it has a lot to do with our conservative play not to lose mentality. We're always going to be in close games, we've seen time and time again how conservative musgrave can be only for us to get down by a TD and open things up to an offense that looks like it belongs in the NFL. We've seen the same cover 0 defense get torched, even by Hoyer last week, turn the pressure up and get aggressive to completely shut Hoyer down for 2 quarters only to play like little girls on the final drive and he lights us up again.

I forget the exact stat but last year we were like 8-3 in games decided by a TD or less, of course this year we're 0-2 so far. It's not that I think we should be blowing anyone out but I think this team basically just tries to keep pace with the competition. Whether it's the Browns or the Packers, it doesn't matter, we RARELY set the pace, we just try to keep up regardless of how bad the other team is and then try to turn it on at the last second to squeak out a win. That's because on both sides of the ball, the game plan is constantly adapting to use the least amount of risk possible.

We won't come out with a game plan to beat Hoyer or anyone else, we'll just play our safe cover 0 and see how they do against it first. Then when we're FORCED to do something we'll bring more pressure, or open up the offense, if we get the lead again (which we did) they'll turn it down again. These coaches are fine just "having a chance" in the 4th quarter to be in the game.

[losperros]

I think it has a lot to do with our conservative play not to lose mentality. We're always going to be in close games, we've seen time and time again how conservative musgrave can be only for us to get down by a TD and open things up to an offense that looks like it belongs in the NFL. We've seen the same cover 0 defense get torched, even by Hoyer last week, turn the pressure up and get aggressive to completely shut Hoyer down for 2 quarters only to play like little girls on the final drive and he lights us up again.

I forget the exact stat but last year we were like 8-3 in games decided by a TD or less, of course this year we're 0-2 so far. It's not that I think we should be blowing anyone out but I think this team basically just tries to keep pace with the competition. Whether it's the Browns or the Packers, it doesn't matter, we RARELY set the pace, we just try to keep up regardless of how bad the other team is and then try to turn it on at the last second to squeak out a win. That's because on both sides of the ball, the game plan is constantly adapting to use the least amount of risk possible.

We won't come out with a game plan to beat Hoyer or anyone else, we'll just play our safe cover 0 and see how they do against it first. Then when we're FORCED to do something we'll bring more pressure, or open up the offense, if we get the lead again (which we did) they'll turn it down again. These coaches are fine just "having a chance" in the 4th quarter to be in the game.

Well said and I agree. This current Vikings team doesn't know how to put other teams away, mainly because the coaching philosophy seems to be that games must be won in the closing minutes of the fourth quarter. Trouble is this team can't win those late game battles either. Would it kill the Vikings to play to win right from the get-go in every game?

[Mothman]

I think it has a lot to do with our conservative play not to lose mentality. We're always going to be in close games, we've seen time and time again how conservative musgrave can be only for us to get down by a TD and open things up to an offense that looks like it belongs in the NFL. We've seen the same cover 0 defense get torched, even by Hoyer last week, turn the pressure up and get aggressive to completely shut Hoyer down for 2 quarters only to play like little girls on the final drive and he lights us up again.

I forget the exact stat but last year we were like 8-3 in games decided by a TD or less, of course this year we're 0-2 so far. It's not that I think we should be blowing anyone out but I think this team basically just tries to keep pace with the competition. Whether it's the Browns or the Packers, it doesn't matter, we RARELY set the pace, we just try to keep up regardless of how bad the other team is and then try to turn it on at the last second to squeak out a win. That's because on both sides of the ball, the game plan is constantly adapting to use the least amount of risk possible.

We won't come out with a game plan to beat Hoyer or anyone else, we'll just play our safe cover 0 and see how they do against it first. Then when we're FORCED to do something we'll bring more pressure, or open up the offense, if we get the lead again (which we did) they'll turn it down again. These coaches are fine just "having a chance" in the 4th quarter to be in the game.

I'm sorry, I understand that you're frustrated and venting and I don't like being the guy who always has to point out the difference between perception and reality but some of what you're saying just doesn't hold up under scrutiny. I won't dispute that this is a somewhat conservative coaching staff but the idea that the game plan is constantly adapted to use the least amount of risk possible simply isn't true, nor are the notions that the Vikings just slipped into some sort of conservative, cover 2 package "like little girls" on Cleveland's last scoring drive or didn't try to come out with a plan to beat Hoyer. You say they just play "safe cover 0 and see how they do against it first" but the defense blitzed Hoyer from their first play on the field and throughout the game, including on the final drive. Bringing extra pressure doesn't automatically equate to trying to win and extra risk comes with that extra pressure when the defense dials it up.

The offense completed two 20+ yard pass plays on their opening scoring drive and tried a third downfield pass on the same drive. The first play of their second possession was a deep attempt to Patterson. Those aren't indications of a team that just came out trying to play it safe with no interest in setting the pace.

I think the Vikes struggle to close teams out and play in a lot of close games mainly because they aren't good enough to do otherwise. However, there's a distinction to be made between what they try to do and what they actually accomplish. After years of reading fan discussions of the team online, I'm convinced we all have a tendency to remember the blitzes that work, the deep throws that work, etc. but not so many of the ones that don't result in a memorable finish. It's especially true when it comes to blitzing. I have watched the Vikes run blitzes in game only to see complaints here immediately afterward that they didn't blitz at all.

I'm not suggesting this team couldn't use more killer instinct because I think they could but they don't just bring pressure when forced to do it and the most likely reason they fail to set the pace against most opponents is that they aren't good enough to do so. They certainly tried to do it against Cleveland. They just failed to maintain it and when the time came to close out the game, they weren't capable of executing well enough to get the job done.

[mondry]

Well said and I agree. This current Vikings team doesn't know how to put other teams away, mainly because the coaching philosophy seems to be that games must be won in the closing minutes of the fourth quarter. Trouble is this team can't win those late game battles either. Would it kill the Vikings to play to win right from the get-go in every game?

I don't think it would kill them, no. It might lead to an extra turnover which could end up hurting them but I think it'd probably make up for it in the long run.

[Eli]

Never underestimate the powers of chance and pure dumb luck. In a seasons where a team is winning and losing games by just a couple of points, their win total could easily go up or down by two or three games based on nothing other than chance.

Without the superhuman efforts of Peterson late last season and some lucky bounces early in the year, the 2012 Vikings might have been a six or seven win team.

[Mothman]

Never underestimate the powers of chance and pure dumb luck. In a seasons where a team is winning and losing games by just a couple of points, their win total could easily go up or down by two or three games based on nothing other than chance.

LOL! That's a great point.

[Reignman]

Upon further review

Brian Hoyer vs Vikings defense

Code: Select all

1st half 14-23 174 YDS 2 TD 1 INT 113.3 rating

no blitz  8-13 147 YDS 2 TD 0 INT 140.1 rating
blitz     6-10  27 YDS 0 TD 1 INT  25.0 rating

blitz 1   4-5   17 YDS 0 TD 1 INT  41.3 rating
blitz 2   2-5   10 YDS 0 TD 0 INT  47.9 rating

----------------------------------------------

2nd half 16-31 147 YDS 1 TD 2 INT  48.7 rating

no blitz  9-19  84 YDS 0 TD 1 INT  38.0 rating
blitz     7-12  63 YDS 1 TD 1 INT  65.6 rating

blitz 1   2-5   16 YDS 0 TD 0 INT  48.8 rating
blitz 2   5-7   47 YDS 1 TD 1 INT  89.6 rating

----------------------------------------------

game     30-54 321 YDS 3 TD 3 INT  68.5 rating

no blitz 17-32 231 YDS 2 TD 1 INT  84.2 rating
blitz    13-22  90 YDS 1 TD 2 INT  45.6 rating

blitz 1   6-10  33 YDS 0 TD 1 INT  26.3 rating
blitz 2   7-12  57 YDS 1 TD 1 INT  63.5 rating

Final Cleveland drive (all passes)

Code: Select all

PLY# DWN-DIST blitz # - play result
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.    1-10   blitz 2 - hurried throw inc
 2.    2-10   blitz 1 - hurried throw inc
 3.    3-10   blitz 1 - hurried throw quick slant complete
 4.    1-10   blitz 1 - hurried throw 2 yard gain
 5.    2-7    blitz 2 - quick dump off, Sendejo misses huge tackle, 12 yard gain
 6.    1-10           - incomplete deep
 7.    2-10           - 13 yard gain
 8.    1-10           - 10 yard gain
 9.    1g-7   fake blitz - thrown away
10.    2g-7           - all day but thrown away
11.    3g-7   blitz 2 - missed jam, Harrison beat, TD pass

The defense was clearly more effective when it got aggressive. And I take it back, the Vikings aren't the worst blitzing defense in NFL history, Greenway is the worst/slowest blitzer in NFL history, and we had him in on 19 of our 22 blitzes. By comparison, Henderson looks like a stud blitzing.

[allday1991]

Bit of a difference from last year, our defence had a total of 8 int , this year in three games we already have 6.

[NextQuestion]

Bump. So close again