What's your initial feeling on the Vikings signing Freeman?

[The Breeze]

They(FO) need to know if Freeman can light it up cause it will really effect how they draft in the early rounds.


If the King piece is true, it pushes me to believe the Spielman is planning to pull the rug out from under this coaching staff.



I've been wondering about Spielman's take on this teams schemes and players and it has even looked like he has drafted against the grain of those schemes...at least on defense. Whether he has done that by plan or not is his knowledge. But CP84, for example, is not the ideal guy for the ball control running game offense when you trade 3 picks to get him.

The big corners we have seem wasted in this defense, and it's not exactly easy finding LBs who can make this thing go in the first place.....at least that's how it's panning out.

This team is just a couple of solid D pieces away from being really good IMO. I would like to see them try and fulfill that agenda before making wholesale changes next season.....but I am starting to wonder.

[dead_poet]

I've been wondering about Spielman's take on this teams schemes and players and it has even looked like he has drafted against the grain of those schemes...at least on defense. Whether he has done that by plan or not is his knowledge. But CP84, for example, is not the ideal guy for the ball control running game offense when you trade 3 picks to get him.

The team had a couple of guys they deemed "blue chip", and Patterson was one of them. So they deemed him worthy of the price paid. I wouldn't look into it any more than that. When you looked at where the Vikings were last year and the importance of the split-end position (presently occupied by Simpson), a case could be made that Patterson was selected based on his impact in this scheme on that position.

The big corners we have seem wasted in this defense

I don't know about that. I'd like to see a stat at how much man/press we're playing this season compared to season's past. I'm sure if you asked any coach playing any defensive scheme if he'd prefer taller or shorter corners (all else remaining equal), he'd probably pick the taller guys.

and it's not exactly easy finding LBs who can make this thing go in the first place.....at least that's how it's panning out.

Can't fix everything all at once. Signing Mauti, Hodges and Bishop are attempts. Jury is out on their impact, but it seems like they're doing their best to sign some guys that could work out with an eye on the future.

This team is just a couple of solid D pieces away from being really good IMO. I would like to see them try and fulfill that agenda before making wholesale changes next season.....but I am starting to wonder.

I dunno about that. By my eyes they're severely lacking at: NT, slot CB, outside CB (possibly), SS, MLB and OLB.

[The Breeze]

The team had a couple of guys they deemed "blue chip", and Patterson was one of them. So they deemed him worthy of the price paid. I wouldn't look into it any more than that. When you looked at where the Vikings were last year and the importance of the split-end position (presently occupied by Simpson), a case could be made that Patterson was selected based on his impact in this scheme on that position.

Considering what they needed and still need on defense paying what he did for CP84 (who I love) just seems to go against the plan a bit. I understand wanting him and Simpson was an unknown coming into it all...so it can look much different in retrospect, as usual. I mean they did draft two defenders in rd1 also.

The big corners we have seem wasted in this defense

I don't know about that. I'd like to see a stat at how much man/press we're playing this season compared to season's past. I'm sure if you asked any coach playing any defensive scheme if he'd prefer taller or shorter corners (all else remaining equal), he'd probably pick the taller guys.

I overstated/oversimplified when I said wasted. Considering that Rhodes isn't even starting is more to my emphasis. The mantra coming from this regime has been adapting scheme to fit players strengths ....but I'm not convinced I've seen that at all to be honest on defense. They may indeed be playing more press coverage but Rhodes is having to learn to change his game because of the system he is in not because he can't cover people...therefore he's not on the field enough IMO.

Can't fix everything all at once. Signing Mauti, Hodges and Bishop are attempts. Jury is out on their impact, but it seems like they're doing their best to sign some guys that could work out with an eye on the future.
I dunno about that. By my eyes they're severely lacking at: NT, slot CB, outside CB (possibly), SS, MLB and OLB.

It is more than a couple of positions of need....but a couple of studs at LB and any one of those other positions would dramatically upgrade the unit, especially at MLB.

I don't think there was the right MLB available regardless.....but my whole speculation is based on how the offense has seemed to shift to a potent big play, quick scoring unit. Between Jennings, Wright, 84, and AD plus what Simpson is doing, it seems to me the scheme is becoming more of a run to set up the big play as well as the potential for big plays from the running game. This team looks built to score not control the clock and that is the way it's playing out so far.

I'm only wondering if Spielman was planning that or if it just worked out that way and now, considering the potential, he might be looking to makes some changes on the staff.

I just don't think our defensive philosophy fits with the way the offense is staffed or playing, they don't compliment one another, and I guess my real question is: If there is a conflict in regard to philosophy how does it resolve? And was Spielman really ever sold on the philosophy in the first place?

I was wondering this weeks ago and now this King rumor has me suspicious.....

[Mothman]

I don't think there was the right MLB available regardless.....but my whole speculation is based on how the offense has seemed to shift to a potent big play, quick scoring unit. Between Jennings, Wright, 84, and AD plus what Simpson is doing, it seems to me the scheme is becoming more of a run to set up the big play as well as the potential for big plays from the running game. This team looks built to score not control the clock and that is the way it's playing out so far.

I'm only wondering if Spielman was planning that or if it just worked out that way and now, considering the potential, he might be looking to makes some changes on the staff.

I think it was the plan all along and it just didn't work last year because Simpson was hurt and they were never able to develop the big play, downfield passing game they wanted with the receivers they had.

I just don't think our defensive philosophy fits with the way the offense is staffed or playing, they don't compliment one another, and I guess my real question is: If there is a conflict in regard to philosophy how does it resolve? And was Spielman really ever sold on the philosophy in the first place?

Can you elaborate a little on why you feel the philosophies don't compliment one another?

[The Breeze]

Can you elaborate a little on why you feel the philosophies don't compliment one another?

The way it's appearing to me is that the offense is moving toward being more high scoring and less about ball control and clock hogging. Assuming they can hook up with a QB who can pull the trigger and make full use of the weapons they have, it should only get better at scoring and functioning consistently. Despite Ponder's pitfalls the offense has done quite well, considering the lack of actual experience between he and the current receivers. The latest move suggests that they are expecting much more out of the offense, because the weapons are there.

I haven't had the time to read the whole thread about our defense so maybe this has been covered....but my take is that it really looks like teams (especially in our division) have figured out how to move the ball against our defense.

I know there are talent deficiencies and youth issues but the scheme itself, or at least the way it is being implemented, fools no one in particular. So, while it may bend and not break when it is manned and played according to plan, it still leaves them on the field all too often, or at least too long a lot of times, in terms of getting the offense back onto the field and keeping it's momentum.

The mind frame of not giving up big plays is one thing and what defines a big play is another. When you have an offense that has trouble moving the ball and scoring, big scoring plays by the opponent are big problems. But when your offense is more formidable big plays are easier to overcome. Much like when a team has a stifling defense the QB is less worried about playing conservative because he trusts his defense to mitigate any mistakes he might make.
Basically, I think the tone of the defense should be more aggressive and they should take more risks toward selling out to get off the field on 3rd down. The 3rd down and 7 play is a big play IMO. I would gladly trade a big scoring play here and there for 3-4 more 3 and outs per game due more innovative use of talent. More risk/reward and attempts to be confusing to opposing offenses so that we don't rely on just one aspect of the defense or one or two dynamic players to make it work. Which is what I see them correcting in their approach on offense by making it less about AD as a whole, thereby making him and the whole unit more effective.

I think we are just as predictable on defense as we've been in the run run pass department...which works to keep our offense on the sideline.

I don't feel that was a very good elaboration...I really should refrain from making to many comments when I have little time to actually converse, but hopefully you get the gist of what I'm saying. I'm thinking we need a more dynamic attitude or style of play on defense to keep pace with what seems to be developing on offense.

[Just Me]

I haven't had the time to read the whole thread about our defense so maybe this has been covered....but my take is that it really looks like teams (especially in our division) have figured out how to move the ball against our defense.

The opposing center snaps the ball... (J/K - I'm probably being too tough on the defense).

[mondry]

The way it's appearing to me is that the offense is moving toward being more high scoring and less about ball control and clock hogging. Assuming they can hook up with a QB who can pull the trigger and make full use of the weapons they have, it should only get better at scoring and functioning consistently. Despite Ponder's pitfalls the offense has done quite well, considering the lack of actual experience between he and the current receivers. The latest move suggests that they are expecting much more out of the offense, because the weapons are there.

I haven't had the time to read the whole thread about our defense so maybe this has been covered....but my take is that it really looks like teams (especially in our division) have figured out how to move the ball against our defense.

I know there are talent deficiencies and youth issues but the scheme itself, or at least the way it is being implemented, fools no one in particular. So, while it may bend and not break when it is manned and played according to plan, it still leaves them on the field all too often, or at least too long a lot of times, in terms of getting the offense back onto the field and keeping it's momentum.

The mind frame of not giving up big plays is one thing and what defines a big play is another. When you have an offense that has trouble moving the ball and scoring, big scoring plays by the opponent are big problems. But when your offense is more formidable big plays are easier to overcome. Much like when a team has a stifling defense the QB is less worried about playing conservative because he trusts his defense to mitigate any mistakes he might make.
Basically, I think the tone of the defense should be more aggressive and they should take more risks toward selling out to get off the field on 3rd down. The 3rd down and 7 play is a big play IMO. I would gladly trade a big scoring play here and there for 3-4 more 3 and outs per game due more innovative use of talent. More risk/reward and attempts to be confusing to opposing offenses so that we don't rely on just one aspect of the defense or one or two dynamic players to make it work. Which is what I see them correcting in their approach on offense by making it less about AD as a whole, thereby making him and the whole unit more effective.

I think we are just as predictable on defense as we've been in the run run pass department...which works to keep our offense on the sideline.

I don't feel that was a very good elaboration...I really should refrain from making to many comments when I have little time to actually converse, but hopefully you get the gist of what I'm saying. I'm thinking we need a more dynamic attitude or style of play on defense to keep pace with what seems to be developing on offense.

I completely get what you're saying. I've said this and have always thought, if we want to tire teams out with AD so he goes crazy late in the game, we need a defense that isn't a bend but don't break that "eventually" gets off the field. It would be much better to have a defense that one way or the other gets off the field. Whether that's because we force a 3 and out, a turnover or they give up a 70 yard TD isn't too big of a concern as long as it wasn't the latter very often. In that sense, I actually think we have a defense that's closer to that than it has been before, forcing turnovers but also being bad.

As for the offense, I really think that's where you kind of see most of the out of sync mentality. The original idea was to have two tight ends play a major factor in moving the ball similar to New England. New England lately hasn't really had that "quick strike" sort of feel to them, but they could move the ball that way almost in an unstoppable manner. You could expect 10-20 yard passes regularly, even though the 30+ was fairly rare. That way you eat up more clock, move the ball incredibly well, and you can pound the run game.

Now some where between Carlson being a bust and picking up small / quick WR's like Simpson, Jennings, and Wright, it seems we've shifted away from TE's all together. Even Rudolph is almost non-existent now averaging just 20 yards per game. I'm not sure that's so much Spielman wanting to go in a different direction as it's "working with what we've got" sort of thing.

[DanAS]

I can. What a freaking dysfunctional mess.

I can't wait until we have a damn GM who has the authority to hire and fire coaches and get this thing running right. Instead of a shyster new jersey know nothing almost-gangster business man who has final say on the head coach....

I voted for "Other." My view is that I like the signing because it signals that we have lost faith in Ponder.

I would have been happy had we spent $3 million of Ziggy's money signing my high school team's quarterback, for it would have sent the same message. As for whether Freeman will pan out, I haven't the foggiest idea, but that's a secondary issue. Pot luck is WAY better than Christian Ponder, and if Freeman or Cassel doesn't fit that "pot luck" bill, someone else will.

[VikingLord]

Yeah... from former Bucs QB Shaun King. We all know he's a real Vikings insider, right? After all, think of all the other great scoops he's given us about the inner workings of the Vikings organization.

Moth, it took until today for all that sarcasm to wash off...

So you think Shaun King just comes out in public and makes stuff up then?

Insider or not, it's disturbing and, not strangely inconsistent with what we're seeing from Frazier, no?

[VikingLord]

You're right that you can't prove freeman will bust just like no one can prove he'll succeed but you're also projecting what you think will happen as the basis for a lot of your argument as if it's already happened. I appreciate the concept of you "backing off" but at the same time I know where you're coming from as like I said I agree with some of what you're saying.

Ideally I would hope coach and GM would both be considered, according to the plan. As in, if the plan is to forget about trying to salvage the season via stop gap cassel and to evaluate freeman as a possible long term answer, that they would take that into account when evaluating Frazier should the Freeman experiment go awry. Perhaps that is how they're doing it and Frazier will be extended anyway? He seems like the type of coach Freeman would need to succeed with. On the other hand, maybe they already know they want to go in a different coaching direction and the rest of this year isn't all that important for evaluating Frazier.

While you may be right, for now we just have to wait and see how it plays out.

I really do hope I'm wrong. I would love for Freeman to become the QB equivalent of Cris Carter who is another very talented player picked up for free that ended up having a great career. Most of my criticism of Freeman revolves not around his talent or potential, but around the fact that I feel he has no passion for football anymore and does not want to work. Carter, for all his problems, was willing to put in the effort necessary to realize his great talent. Freeman, it seems, has phoned it in. But if I'm wrong about that, Freeman has the tools to be a difference-maker, especially with a guy like AD behind him.

We will see. I think Frazier is going to be pressured to get Freeman in there regardless of what happens with Cassel, and probably sooner than later.

[Texas Vike]

Moth, it took until today for all that sarcasm to wash off...

So you think Shaun King just comes out in public and makes stuff up then?

Insider or not, it's disturbing and, not strangely inconsistent with what we're seeing from Frazier, no?

Sorry to interject (your question was directed to Moth), but It doesn't disturb me in the least because I don't trust Shaun King as a valid source on the inner-workings of the Vikings' operations. In today's media, all kinds of uninformed people are given a platform and treated as "experts" when they really do not deserve it. They fabricate stuff all the time; often just because they feel the need to live up to the role of "expert".

[Mothman]

Moth, it took until today for all that sarcasm to wash off...

LOL! Sorry about that.

So you think Shaun King just comes out in public and makes stuff up then?

No, but that's not the only option other than just accepting his word. I question whether he has a reliable source close to the Vikings that would have that kind of exclusive inside information when, as far as I can tell, nobody else who covers the Vikings or the NFL has independently reported that Frazier wasn't in favor of signing Freeman and was overruled. There's been no confirmation, only people repeating King's statement.

Insider or not, it's disturbing and, not strangely inconsistent with what we're seeing from Frazier, no?

I don't know what you mean about it not being inconsistent with what we've seen from Frazier but I don't find it disturbing. I don't expect a head coach and GM to be in absolute lockstep when it comes to every decision. They're individuals with their own minds and opinions. King said Frazier wasn't in favor of the move but if true, what does that mean? Did he have some minor reservations about it, strenuously object to it or something in-between? If he had an issue was it with Freeman or with bringing a well-known QB into the mix 4 games into the season? All King gave us was vague information from an unconfirmed source. As far as I can tell, he has no history of providing quality inside info about the Vikes so while I believe he talked to somebody and didn't just make this story up, I have no idea whether I should believe it.

[Mothman]

Sorry to interject (your question was directed to Moth), but It doesn't disturb me in the least because I don't trust Shaun King as a valid source on the inner-workings of the Vikings' operations. In today's media, all kinds of uninformed people are given a platform and treated as "experts" when they really do not deserve it. They fabricate stuff all the time; often just because they feel the need to live up to the role of "expert".

Exactly and even if he didn't fabricate it, that doesn't make it reliable. King's a former Buccaneers player who still lives in the Tampa area and contributes to rumor site ProFootballTalk. He's not a reporter and doesn't typically cover the Vikings. If this report came from someone like Peter King, Jay Glazer, Chris Mortensen or a Vikes beat reporter, I'd find it a lot more believable.

[Mothman]

The way it's appearing to me is that the offense is moving toward being more high scoring and less about ball control and clock hogging. Assuming they can hook up with a QB who can pull the trigger and make full use of the weapons they have, it should only get better at scoring and functioning consistently. Despite Ponder's pitfalls the offense has done quite well, considering the lack of actual experience between he and the current receivers. The latest move suggests that they are expecting much more out of the offense, because the weapons are there.

I haven't had the time to read the whole thread about our defense so maybe this has been covered....but my take is that it really looks like teams (especially in our division) have figured out how to move the ball against our defense.

I know there are talent deficiencies and youth issues but the scheme itself, or at least the way it is being implemented, fools no one in particular. So, while it may bend and not break when it is manned and played according to plan, it still leaves them on the field all too often, or at least too long a lot of times, in terms of getting the offense back onto the field and keeping it's momentum.

The mind frame of not giving up big plays is one thing and what defines a big play is another. When you have an offense that has trouble moving the ball and scoring, big scoring plays by the opponent are big problems. But when your offense is more formidable big plays are easier to overcome. Much like when a team has a stifling defense the QB is less worried about playing conservative because he trusts his defense to mitigate any mistakes he might make.
Basically, I think the tone of the defense should be more aggressive and they should take more risks toward selling out to get off the field on 3rd down. The 3rd down and 7 play is a big play IMO. I would gladly trade a big scoring play here and there for 3-4 more 3 and outs per game due more innovative use of talent. More risk/reward and attempts to be confusing to opposing offenses so that we don't rely on just one aspect of the defense or one or two dynamic players to make it work. Which is what I see them correcting in their approach on offense by making it less about AD as a whole, thereby making him and the whole unit more effective.

I think we are just as predictable on defense as we've been in the run run pass department...which works to keep our offense on the sideline.

I don't feel that was a very good elaboration...I really should refrain from making to many comments when I have little time to actually converse, but hopefully you get the gist of what I'm saying. I'm thinking we need a more dynamic attitude or style of play on defense to keep pace with what seems to be developing on offense.

I see what you mean now. Thanks for going into more detail. I'll have to give it some thought. I've noticed them dialing up the blitz more often lately but it's not always effective. I will say this: the scheme may not fool anyone but I honestly don't think many NFL schemes do. I think a few more exotic, surprising, attacking plays could be helpful but I'm not sure the trade-off for being aggressive would work out as well as a big scoring play here and there for 3-4 more 3-and-outs per game. More aggression could pay dividends or just further expose the defense. The defensive playcalling could probably be better but I think the biggest problem by far as been poor execution. No matter what the coaches call, if the players are losing too many individual battles, missing tackles, getting blocked out of plays, etc,. it just won't work. In that sense, I'm not sure if the offense and defensive philosophies are at odds or if we're just seeing an offensive unit that's simply more talented, and thus more effective, than it's counterpart.

It would be interesting to seem the play a lot more man-to-man for a game and really bring pressure on the opposing QB from all angles. Maybe it would be a disaster but it would be interesting...

[Delaqure]

I really do hope I'm wrong. I would love for Freeman to become the QB equivalent of Cris Carter who is another very talented player picked up for free that ended up having a great career. Most of my criticism of Freeman revolves not around his talent or potential, but around the fact that I feel he has no passion for football anymore and does not want to work. Carter, for all his problems, was willing to put in the effort necessary to realize his great talent. Freeman, it seems, has phoned it in. But if I'm wrong about that, Freeman has the tools to be a difference-maker, especially with a guy like AD behind him.

We will see. I think Frazier is going to be pressured to get Freeman in there regardless of what happens with Cassel, and probably sooner than later.

Yeah that is a definite concern. Maybe he phoned it in because of the team and the coaching staff. Maybe with new life on a new team with new coaches he will find his love for football again. At this point it's all a crap shoot. I haven't followed Freeman at all so my evaluation of him is solely based upon stats. And quite frankly they don't excite me at all. I look at him like I looked at Ponder. With hope but no excitement. Totally a wait and see.