My thoughts on the offense as a whole

[Mothman]

Within the season I agree with you, and I would say its a demonstrable fact that this is the course they've chosen this year. In the offseason, when making decisions about FAs, draft picks, how to allocate salary cap dollars, things can go in another direction. I think this franchise knows that long term its Teddy or back to the drawing board, and they'll need to build an offense that suits his skill set heading into next season. Unless Teddy improves a lot from under Center, its hard to see that future involving Peterson.

People are talking like Bridgewater has just lit teams up from the shotgun and that's not the case.

What offense suits his skill set? A west coast offense? If that's the case, the choice might be between Bridgewater and Turner and Zimmer seems pretty committed to both.

Personally, I think Bridgewater needs to demonstrate more clearly that he's a player worth building around before the Vikes start making major decisions based on the idea that he's the key component to their long term success.

[fiestavike]

It's not like he can't operate under center. He's actually improving in that area. And under center also takes longer to get into drops vs. shotgun, so he's at a disadvantage again with the pass protection. If that's shored up during the offseason (which it'd had better be) there's no reason why AD can't continue to be the focal point while also having a functional passing offense. And it's not as if the Vikings aren't doing anything to help Teddy recently, either. Trading for Wallace, signing Pruitt & Diggs, resigning Wright & Rudolph and heck, even deciding to KEEP AD are all things that could be said are a benefit to Teddy. Now they just need to get some better protection around him and potentially another effective/dangerous wideout.

"Building an offense to suit his skill set" probably also means tweaking Norv's system (as Norv has somewhat done) to be less vertical, especially given the limitations of the O-line.

I agree with those points. I'm not trying to make excuses for Teddy or say they aren't doing enough to support him. I just share Cliffs assessment that they set out this season planning to continue Teddy's development from the shotgun, where he was look really good, and then discovered their bell cow RB was not able to adjust to running out of that formation. They had to change, and I think they felt Teddy was more capable of adapting that Peterson so they built the offense around AD. I'm just not sure they'll choose to do the same next year.

[fiestavike]

People are talking like Bridgewater has just lit teams up from the shotgun and that's not the case.

What offense suits his skill set? A west coast offense? If that's the case, the choice might be between Bridgewater and Turner and Zimmer seems pretty committed to both.

Personally, I think Bridgewater needs to demonstrate more clearly that he's a player worth building around before the Vikes start making major decisions based on the idea that he's the key component to their long term success.

I think he had a solid rookie showing and progressed well out of the shotgun, which both Asiata and McKinnon were very effective running out of. I'm not saying he "lit teams up".

I think the way Norv adapted his offense to Teddy last year suits him best.

Whether its Teddy or someone else, they obviously need to build around a QB. If they don't believe he is that guy, they need to spend another early pick on a QB. If they do believe he's that guy, they need to build around him.

The biggest mistake they made was to be so naive as to think Peterson could adapt his game to suit Bridgewater. Peterson is great at what he does. He isn't versatile.

[Mothman]

I think he had a solid rookie showing and progressed well out of the shotgun, which both Asiata and McKinnon were very effective running out of. I'm not saying he "lit teams up".

I think the way Norv adapted his offense to Teddy last year suits him best.

Whether its Teddy or someone else, they obviously need to build around a QB. If they don't believe he is that guy, they need to spend another early pick on a QB. If they do believe he's that guy, they need to build around him.

The biggest mistake they made was to be so naive as to think Peterson could adapt his game to suit Bridgewater. Peterson is great at what he does. He isn't versatile.

There are certainly more versatile backs out there but i don't think his versatility is the problem.

As I've said many times now, it's not simply a question of Peterson adapting his game. Running him out of the shotgun isn't the same as running Asiata and McKinnon out of it. He attracts much more attention from a defense than they do and it's a passing formation from which the primary run is a draw play. A draw play is intended to deceive the defense by convincing them the offense is about to pass. It's more difficult to deceive a defense into thinking the offense will pass when Peterson is in the backfield and the Vikings haven't established their passing game as a force opponents should fear. Quite the contrary, the book on them is the same as it's been for years: stop Peterson and force them to pass. Consequently, even in the shotgun, he's going to draw extra attention.

In other words, the big mistake the Vikings made was thinking opponents would respect their passing game enough for them to run Peterson effectively out of the shotgun on a frequent basis.

Anyway, I agree that they need to build around a QB but based on the way Bridgewater has performed thus far, I think he's putting them in what I hope they will view as a difficult position. I fear they won't but I think allowing a commitment to him to heavily influence their personnel moves going forward could prove to be a mistake. He looks less and less like franchise QB material the more I watch him play (from any formation).

[fiestavike]

There are certainly more versatile backs out there but i don't think his versatility is the problem.

There isn't just one problem, so he's certainly not the problem. I'm not really interested in assigning blame, but seeing the pieces with their various strengths and weaknesses come together in a harmonious way.

As I've said many times now, it's not simply a question of Peterson adapting his game. Running him out of the shotgun isn't the same as running Asiata and McKinnon out of it. He attracts much more attention from a defense than they do and it's a passing formation from which the primary run is a draw play. A draw play is intended to deceive the defense by convincing them the offense is about to pass. It's more difficult to deceive a defense into thinking the offense will pass when Peterson is in the backfield and the Vikings haven't established their passing game as a force opponents should fear. Quite the contrary, the book on them is the same as it's been for years: stop Peterson and force them to pass. Consequently, even in the shotgun, he's going to draw extra attention.

In other words, the big mistake the Vikings made was thinking opponents would respect their passing game enough for them to run Peterson effectively out of the shotgun on a frequent basis.

Its a theory, but its not one I subscribe to. they both passed and ran out of it more effectively without him. Peterson is a liability in the shotgun because he's terribly uncomfortable running out of it and has no sense of the space and angles. He's also not great as a pass protector and not a tremendous weapon in the passing game. He's just a guy who's pretty much in the way in that formation. He can't be good at everything.

Anyway, I agree that they need to build around a QB but based on the way Bridgewater has performed thus far, I think he's putting them in what I hope they will view as a difficult position. I fear they won't but I think allowing a commitment to him to heavily influence their personnel moves going forward could prove to be a mistake. He looks less and less like franchise QB material the more I watch him play (from any formation).

I disagree with you, but that's fair. Are you hoping to see them make a move for a new franchise QB in this draft?

[Mothman]

Its a theory, but its not one I subscribe to. they both passed and ran out of it more effectively without him. Peterson is a liability in the shotgun because he's terribly uncomfortable running out of it and has no sense of the space and angles. He's also not great as a pass protector and not a tremendous weapon in the passing game. He's just a guy who's pretty much in the way in that formation. He can't be good at everything.

No, he can't and I agree that it's not the best formation for him but he's had his useful moments in it in the past (including this year). I definitely think it's a poor base formation with him in the offense.

I wasn't nearly as impressed with how they passed or ran out of the shotgun last year as a lot of Vikings fans apparently were (and I don't just mean you). I didn't think they were a very effective offensive team last year.

I disagree with you, but that's fair. Are you hoping to see them make a move for a new franchise QB in this draft?

I'm certainly open to it. I don't think they should should just give up on Bridgewater but as I think we've discussed before, my views on how to handle the QB position have changed in the wake of the rookie salary cap. I think it's always good to have a "Plan B" with long term starter potential in development and since QB is the most important position in football, I think it's a good idea to create good young depth and options at that position. The rookie cap makes it possible in a way it wasn't in the past. I think Bridgewater might benefit from a little more competition too. If he further solidifies his hold on the job over time, I don't see that as a problem. I realize others have a very hard time with this philosophy though. It's unorthodox.

I have to say, at this point, if I were drafting for the Vikings and a player like Michigan State's Connor Cook was available, I'd find it hard to pass him up. Maybe I'll feel differently by next April...

[J. Kapp 11]

Anyway, I agree that they need to build around a QB but based on the way Bridgewater has performed thus far, I think he's putting them in what I hope they will view as a difficult position. I fear they won't but I think allowing a commitment to him to heavily influence their personnel moves going forward could prove to be a mistake. He looks less and less like franchise QB material the more I watch him play (from any formation).

I totally agree with you, Jim.

Here's the problem ... they already HAVE committed to Teddy.

So while we can stew about it all we want on VMB, it's not going to change the fact that Zimmer and Tuner have hitched their wagon to Bridgewater, as has Spielman. There are no other options right now, or in the near future. All you have to do is listen to them talk about TB. They love him.

If Teddy ends up a bust, which I think/hope/pray is doubtful, then Spielman probably ought to dust off the "for sale" sign and stick it in front of his house. That would be the second franchise quarterback to which he's hitched his wagon. If both wagons go over the cliff, he might as well go with them cuz he'll get fired.

The thing that gives me hope with Teddy is that he possesses something that Christian Ponder never did ... poise. He's also smart and well-studied. He should improve with time, although the curve might not be as steep as we would like.

The thing that makes me worry is the physical pounding he takes as a result of a) holding the ball too long, and b) working behind a leaky O-line. I think that's more likely the cause of his demise, should it happen, than anything else.

[Cliff]

People are talking like Bridgewater has just lit teams up from the shotgun and that's not the case.

He's not lighting teams up but he plays better from it. If it's about maximizing his strengths (even if they're not superman strong) it's a good idea if possible.

I think the idea going into the season was that Peterson is great so handing off to him in nearly any situation should be ok. On the other hand, Teddy is a young player who seems to operate best out of the shotgun so they tried to do that. When it became clear you couldn't both have Peterson playing as well as he could *and* Teddy playing as well as he could they decided on Peterson which, of course, is the right decision.

You're absolutely correct about needing to respect the passing game to be able to run out of the shotgun.

I wonder if the pistol formation might be good for the offensive players we have. Get Teddy out from under center but also have Peterson farther back.

[Mothman]

I totally agree with you, Jim.

Here's the problem ... they already HAVE committed to Teddy.

So while we can stew about it all we want on VMB, it's not going to change the fact that Zimmer and Tuner have hitched their wagon to Bridgewater, as has Spielman. There are no other options right now, or in the near future. All you have to do is listen to them talk about TB. They love him.

If Teddy ends up a bust, which I think/hope/pray is doubtful, then Spielman probably ought to dust off the "for sale" sign and stick it in front of his house. That would be the second franchise quarterback to which he's hitched his wagon. If both wagons go over the cliff, he might as well go with them cuz he'll get fired.

The thing that gives me hope with Teddy is that he possesses something that Christian Ponder never did ... poise. He's also smart and well-studied. He should improve with time, although the curve might not be as steep as we would like.

The thing that makes me worry is the physical pounding he takes as a result of a) holding the ball too long, and b) working behind a leaky O-line. I think that's more likely the cause of his demise, should it happen, than anything else.

Great post, Kapp.

I agree, it's clear the Vikings have hitched their wagon to Bridgewater. I would be looking for that young "Plan B" QB to develop behind Bridgewater and provide some competition for him but I have very little hope the Vikings would do something like that. I'm pretty sure we're going to see how this "movie" plays out and if it doesn't end well, I suspect you're right about Spielman's house.

[losperros]

Anyway, I agree that they need to build around a QB but based on the way Bridgewater has performed thus far, I think he's putting them in what I hope they will view as a difficult position. I fear they won't but I think allowing a commitment to him to heavily influence their personnel moves going forward could prove to be a mistake. He looks less and less like franchise QB material the more I watch him play (from any formation).

Jim, I'm with Kapp on this. I also believe that Zimmer, Spielman, Turner and the Vikings staff already have committed to Bridgewater. Maybe we'll all be surprised and the Vikings will bring in QB competition through the draft or free agency next year, but honestly, I'd be surprised to see that happen.

You know, I keep thinking back to Denny Green's philosophical "quarterback friendly" offense, which consisted of ultra-talented WRs, super human strong OL players, good pass catching TEs, and big play RBs, not to mention a first rate offensive coordinator in Billick during the '98 season. Right now I think the Vikings may have to revert back to that dynamic, though I truly wonder if it's even possible. Green had to ignore parts of the defense to build up a near perfect offense and no way is Zimmer going to do that. Can't say that I blame him either.

Anyway, if there are ways to improve the team around Teddy, even a modest lift, then that's what needs to be done. Because I think in the eyes of Zimmer and his entire staff, Bridgewater is the present and future QB of this offense.

[Mothman]

He's not lighting teams up but he plays better from it. If it's about maximizing his strengths (even if they're not superman strong) it's a good idea if possible.

Sure as long as it also maximizes the strengths of the team as well.

I think the idea going into the season was that Peterson is great so handing off to him in nearly any situation should be ok. On the other hand, Teddy is a young player who seems to operate best out of the shotgun so they tried to do that. When it became clear you couldn't both have Peterson playing as well as he could *and* Teddy playing as well as he could they decided on Peterson which, of course, is the right decision.

You're absolutely correct about needing to respect the passing game to be able to run out of the shotgun.

I wonder if the pistol formation might be good for the offensive players we have. Get Teddy out from under center but also have Peterson farther back.

It seems like it would be a logical compromise, doesn't it? I wonder why they haven't given that more of a go.

[Mothman]

Jim, I'm with Kapp on this. I also believe that Zimmer, Spielman, Turner and the Vikings staff already have committed to Bridgewater. Maybe we'll all be surprised and the Vikings will bring in QB competition through the draft or free agency next year, but honestly, I'd be surprised to see that happen.

Craig, I have no illusions about this, believe me. FiestaVike asked me what I was hoping to see so I responded with my personal viewpoint but I have no expectation that the Vikings will spend a draft pick on a QB next year or that Bridgewater will face any real competition for his job in the near future. It's very clear that the Vikings are fully committed to him. I just hope he justifies that commitment.

[mondry]

It's funny, Adrian Peterson didn't make it hard to have a good passing attack when Brett Favre was the Vikings QB.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I have very little confidence in PFF's stats and assessments so it's hard to comment on a lot of the other stuff you posted. However, I agree that Bridgewater is miscast in Norv's offense. I'm not sure why they thought that pairing made sense.

I also have to say that from what I've seen, Wallace isn't just being used as a "one trick pony". He's run everything from end arounds to crossing routes to go routes. I think Norv is trying to find different ways to get the ball to him. It's just not working out..

It would be nice if we could replicate that 2009 team, wouldn't it? haha. That O-line had guys like Hutchinson, Sullivan, and Mckinnie. That's probably the last time too you could legitimately say the O-line was "not bad" lol. I'd sacrifice my first born for a guy like Hutchinson these days...

But in all seriousness, I never said it was impossible to have a good passing attack with Peterson, just that he makes it more difficult than a guy like Leveon Bell who's not only a top 3 rusher but also top 5 in both pass blocking and receiving which basically means he's "plug and play".

If our O-line could run block more effectively, we'd be able to run peterson out of the shotgun more because he wouldn't be met in the backfield as much before he's had a chance to even do anything, I probably didn't put my thoughts together well enough there but that's why I was talking about the negative yardage runs. Or if Teddy was a top tier passer from under center then we also wouldn't have a problem, but most QB's prefer passing out of the pistol or shotgun formations. We just happen to have a problem because of how all the dynamics lay out as a whole.

This is one of the best post's i've seen regarding the offence. Everyone seems to have their opinion on why its struggling. This is a good balanced review, and you've put your point accross very well.

One final point, in '12 Peterson carried the team into the playoffs. "the team". A useless QB, an average O-line, average receivers and a below average defence.
Peterson is in the same form for me as he was then. Now he has a much better QB, decent set of receivers, and an excellent defence to help him. Only the O-line is a downgrade.

Why thanks! Glad you enjoyed it.

I agree with your final point, when we made the playoffs in 2012 Peterson basically carried the team, Ponder did just enough to be a factor, and the defense was "good enough" to keep us in those games. Fast forward a bit and the QB play is slightly better (stats wise), Peterson's still carrying the team, and now the defense is legit very good.

We never got to see how that 2012 run would have played out since Ponder got hurt and Musgrave tried to force Webb to be a pocket passer in the playoffs (when guys like kaepernick and the read option were just OBLITERATING the packers back then) but I have a feeling we'll get that chance this year.

I point to OL health (lack of) and Turner. I too am confused why the Viks thought TB was a better fit for Norv than Carr. I point to Turner for not creating ways to get the ball into the hands of Wallace and Patterson. Even Wright does not see the ball that much. And what about Johnson? It just seems like Turner does not know how to blend these players in since AP is back. We all know that our offense could use more TD's and it's so frustrating to see the lack of use of these players and lack of creativity from our OC. I lay most of the blame on Turner.

I think that's a fair take, I haven't watched enough of the coaches film but I have seen some very strange route concepts and what not. The one thing that does bug me is how a lot of teams run what they call "natural pick" plays where two wide receivers run routes in a way that sometimes the CB's get "rubbed out". It's like setting a screen in basketball where it gets a guy open for a split second until the defender recovers. I feel like our WR's just kind of run "individual routes" like "you go deep, you do a shallow cross, you do a button hook" okay done.

I've spent a lot of time wondering why they are not using more of a traditional "west coast" style O with short and medium crossing routes that leverage the speed we have at WR. This teams seems particularly well built for that sort of attack.

Simply put, Norv isn't a WCO kind of guy!

It's one of the issues though with drafting Teddy, I don't want to say square hole, round peg but it'll be interesting to see what they do going forward to make this combo work.

It seems like he said the passing attack suffers because of Teddy's/Oline shortcomings mostly. Teddy's not as good behind center and we're having to be in that formation to make up for offensive line deficiencies. Peterson is only a factor insomuch as he didn't have enough success out of the shotgun to enable to play to Teddy's strength (playing out of shotgun). If the offensive line wasn't terrible we might have a decent passing attack as Teddy could play out of the shotgun if the oline could open up proper running lanes out of the shotgun. Peterson's pass blocking does make it a bit more difficult in the passing game though. He isn't great at that.

I don't necessarily consider Peterson's pass-catching ability as a negative. He's only got 1 dropped pass this season so far. With 28 targets he's caught 82% of passing going his way (23/28). His drop percentage is 3.6% which 28th fewest drops among RB's with at least 20 targets.

If you're interested Mike Wallace has the most on the team with 4 (out of 52 targets). That's only 30th in the league but if you look at targets/drops he drops 7.7% which is 8th in the league for WR's targeted 40 times or more. He's catching only 53.8% of his passes (28/52). Compare that to Cole Beasley (DAL) who has caught 75% of his passes (39/52) while being thrown to by QB's with worse QBR. (Romo - 79.4, Cassel - 78.8, Teddy - 85.4).

Of course conditions are different from team to team and player to player. For example, they use Wallace for a lot of long throws which Teddy isn't very strong at. Though Wallace's average yards per catch is 11.1 and Beasley's is 10.1. Overall I think Wallace is underperforming (especially for his salary). Some of that lies with Teddy, but a decent chunk lies with Wallace too.

Top droppers; Leonard Hankerson (ATL) drops 17.4%, Ted Ginn Jr. drops 10.6%. Some of the better numbers; Larry Fitzgerald has 1 drop out of 111 targets, DeAndre Hopkins has 3 drops out of 143 targets, Julio Jones has 4 drops out of 141 targets.

I think the plan from the beginning was to run the offense primarily out of the shotgun. When that didn't work out it made Teddy less effective than he might have been otherwise and less of a fit for the offense.

Nice post, we're 12th in most passes dropped overall but then we're 31st in pass attempts so yeah, a lot of drops all things considered. I meant to include this in the original post but it must have slipped my mind but I think we have it covered now!

I think it is worth noting that most of the league runs their QBs out of pistol and shotgun quite a bit. Brady, Rodger, Manning all seem throw out shotgun formations quite a bit. So it isn't like Teddy is a lonely. A lot has been made of this topic this season with what has been transpiring in Denver.

When you think about it, you are probably giving the QB double the time to survey the field given how fast an NFL rush is when throwing out of the gun vs. under center.

That being said, MN is in a situation where it has a special talent at RB and thus the under center snaps make a lot more sense.

I'm not sure what the answer is here aside from reps.

Yeah exactly, I mean a hall of fame guy like Peyton Manning sucked big time under center this year and they eventually had to settle on a compromise with that pistol formation.

I think the answer is if they can improve their o-line significantly to give added pass protection for Teddy and better run blocking for AD it may be possible to use the shotgun again and even run out of that formation or it may get easier for Teddy to pass from under center with more time. But yeah as far as this year goes it's probably just more reps for Teddy from under center and seeing if he can improve.

I don't know. They're going to continue to do what gives the team the best opportunity to win games week-in and week-out. When you have Adrian Peterson on your team (one of the best offensive players in the league) you probably continue to feed him until it's clear he's no longer your best option to win. That's not to say they're not going to upgrade the offense, but I'll be firmly in the camp that AD needs to be the focal point and do whatever you can to put him in the best position until proven the offense can be more productive by other means. Ideally Teddy and the receivers/O-line MATCH what AD can do (by raising their game play not AD being less productive) and legitimately have a "pick your poison" offense. Time will tell if they can get there next year or before AD is out of gas.

It's the million dollar question for me Fiestavike, but one thing is certain no matter which route they go, the O-line has to be improved, even if you don't want to do anything but give Peterson 80 carries a game, they could use better run blocking so I think in that sense that's the obvious place to look. Plan B looks pretty good, but no team would WANT things to be this way where they're scared to pass because of the bad things that can happen. Still, Plan B (which btw if anyone isn't following along, would just be a run first offense with the QB under center) could become Plan A with better pass blocking. I suppose it depends on how Teddy finishes out the year, we know he's effective in the shotgun passing offense they ran last year with AD suspended and we know Mckinnin is a capable RB in that role, if for no other reason than he just doesn't draw the same level of attention AD does so that's always something they could fall back on. If he improves under center then I think you just keep doing the same thing next year with an improved O-line and maybe another new toy for Teddy at WR.

Poet, of course as long as we have Peterson he'll likely be the focal point, but there is something to be said about how you draft, who you sign in free agency, and what you want to do to improve the offense as WHOLE next year. AD only has a few years left and how many of those will he truly dominate? (enough to warrant being the focal point?) I don't think you can draft a lineman for example that fits the profile as a great run blocker but questionable pass blocker just because you have AD. We need to find players good at BOTH, that can help the run game AND the pass game.

There isn't just one problem, so he's certainly not the problem. I'm not really interested in assigning blame, but seeing the pieces with their various strengths and weaknesses come together in a harmonious way.

Its a theory, but its not one I subscribe to. they both passed and ran out of it more effectively without him. Peterson is a liability in the shotgun because he's terribly uncomfortable running out of it and has no sense of the space and angles. He's also not great as a pass protector and not a tremendous weapon in the passing game. He's just a guy who's pretty much in the way in that formation. He can't be good at everything.

Well said, and my original post here wasn't to assign blame (well, it's hard to be neutral on the O-line LOL) but more just kind of lay out what I've seen and present some interesting data on it.

People are talking like Bridgewater has just lit teams up from the shotgun and that's not the case.

What offense suits his skill set? A west coast offense? If that's the case, the choice might be between Bridgewater and Turner and Zimmer seems pretty committed to both.

Personally, I think Bridgewater needs to demonstrate more clearly that he's a player worth building around before the Vikes start making major decisions based on the idea that he's the key component to their long term success.

Teddy's QBR from the gun last season was 97.3. Carr's QBR from there THIS year (a guy I know you're high on from discussion in the carr / bridgewater thread) is 101.5, so despite having cooper / crabtree and the best pass blocking O-line in football Carr in his second year is only 4.2 points higher than Teddy was as a rookie.

Teddy was exceptionally good last year for a rookie.

[Mothman]

Thanks, Mondry, especially for clarifying your thoughts regarding Peterson and Bridgewater.

I appreciate the QBR info too, although it's not a stat on which I place a great deal of weight because of the degree of subjectivity involved.

It would be interesting to see how much difference there has been in Bridgewater's effectiveness in the shotgun this year vs. his snaps under center (again this year).

Since it's come up, I'm also wondering how much yardage Asiata and McKinnon gained last year running out of the shotgun vs. on plays where the QB was under center. Does anybody know where to find that info?

That post looked like a monumental undertaking. You had a lot of comments to reply to...

[mansquatch]

I still think folks are too down on Teddy. It isn't fair to analyze him and not look at the negative plays. Teddy makes very few negatives plays and that is huge in the NFL. Look at what happened to Detroit yesterday. That fumble on their end of the field was just dreadful. It let GB back in a game that it really had no business winning. Matt Ryan did it to his team against us a week ago. Teddy isn't doing that to the Vikings much at all.

I agree that the passing game is putrid right now in terms of production, there is no escaping that. However, in the final analysis we also have to ask if the QB is hurting his team and right now Teddy isn't giving us the kind of horrid QB plays that can lose games. That has value in the NFL even if it isn't exciting.

We all want a high flying offense, but we shouldn't under value a QB who plays a clean game. Our defense let's us play that way.

That actually segways into another question/issue I have on this topic: Given that the coaching staff knows it is had a strong defense, a QB that is not going to commit the big error, and AP, doesn't that in many ways add up to what we are seeing out of the squad? In this situation do you really want to take risk on offense? I think overall the bias is probably towards no.

I also think part of it is how the coaches percieve the relative risk. If you are NE, you know Brady is good for very few INT and thus are content to let him do his thing. Conversely we've seen Teddy put up the ball when he absolutely needs to. We've also seen him lay eggs when he has needed to pass a bunch. (GB/SF games) So is it inability or inconsistency?

Sorry the ramble, I just see a few open ended items on this topic that are worth discussion and are related to it. If I have reached any conclusions on this whole topic it is these:

1.) The passing game in it's current state is not good enough
2.) There are a lot of reasons why, but we are really to what level each issue is impacting the squad.
3.) Regardless of the above two issues we are 8-3.