Vikings-Cardinals final play thoughts

[808vikingsfan]

Don't mean to go off topic but here's another article breaking down the Vikings-Cards final play.

A strip-sack seems like a simple, isolated play, but when you peel away the layers, the tape shows a pretty stunning breakdown between quarterback and coaching staff. The Vikings had four receivers streaking downfield, and none of them were near either sideline.

The All-22: Vikings’ fatal play-calling blunder echoes other NFC contenders

[losperros]

Don't mean to go off topic but here's another article breaking down the Vikings-Cards final play.

The All-22: Vikings’ fatal play-calling blunder echoes other NFC contenders

Interesting article by Doug Farrar. I think his point is well taken. The play should never have been called.

I'm surprised the Vikings didn't have Wright cross over to the sideline, which was clearly open on the previous play.

[Mothman]

Don't mean to go off topic but here's another article breaking down the Vikings-Cards final play.

The All-22: Vikings’ fatal play-calling blunder echoes other NFC contenders

Here's what nobody is talking about, and what Farrar oddly neglects to mention, when it comes to this play: Adrian Peterson was wide open.. Farrar writes as if Peterson wasn't even on the field as an eligible receiver. He even says:

So here, you can see that the Cardinals are essentially conceding the sideline routes with their coverage concepts—a quick comeback to the edge would have most likely worked—but there’s nobody there.

There was somebody there, somebody wide open, with the strength and rushing ability to make a catch, get out of bounds and get the Vikings closer for a FG attempt. Farrar wrote, "The Vikings had four receivers streaking downfield, and none of them were near either sideline" and while that's true of wide receivers, it's not true of eligible receivers. Farrar, and many others, want to blame Turner's play design for the outcome of this play. Well, look at the play design. Mike Zimmer said the play was designed to get to the sideline. Who is the only open Vikings receiver near the sideline? The article acknowledges that the Cardinals coverage concept was essentially conceding the sidelines here. They were giving the Vikes that pass to Peterson.

Everybody seems baffled by the vertical WR routes and at first, I was too but look at the way they clear things out. Swing that ball out to AD and he has room to run and could likely get OOB with ease after a nice gain. Based on the look of the play, and the situation, I have to wonder if that's where Turner thought the ball would go. I'm sure that concept will meet with resistance but if the idea was to go to Peterson here, the play was well-designed, not poorly designed.

So, why has almost nobody been talking about how open Peterson was on the play? Why is it ignored in the article?



A moment later:

[Mothman]

Interesting article by Doug Farrar. I think his point is well taken. The play should never have been called.

I don't know about that, Craig. Please take a look at what i just posted and see if you feel the same way.

[dead_poet]

So, why has almost nobody been talking about how open Peterson was on the play?

I think the play was designed to try and get more yards than a five-yard check-down. I can't imagine if Teddy was supposed to deliver it to AD that he'd spend so long looking downfield at the receivers. AD was probably the third or fourth option on a slow-developing play that was designed to attempt to get 10 from a receiver.

But I agree that throw away OR AD dump-off should've probably happened .5 seconds before Teddy attempted to throw it away/getting crushed.

[HardcoreVikesFan]

So, why has almost nobody been talking about how open Peterson was on the play? Why is it ignored in the article?



A moment later:

There is no way, in my mind at least, that Teddy wouldn't have checked it down if he had the range to do so. It appears that he was following orders from the coaching staff. I mean, there is simply no way that Teddy doesn't make the check down in that situation 9/10.

While it is possible Teddy just missed that checkdown, I think was trying to follow the wishes of the coaching staff. Overall, it was a poor play that was poorly executed. A combination of coaching, offensive line play, and situational awareness from Teddy all contributed to that play being the pen-ultimate penis punch to Vikings fans across the nation last Thursday.

[Mothman]

I think the play was designed to try and get more yards than a five-yard check-down.

I'm guessing Peterson could have picked up more than 5 yards on this play. He had one man to beat and that defender is giving him plenty of room. It's not like he's easy to tackle on-on-one.

I can't imagine if Teddy was supposed to deliver it to AD that he'd spend so long looking downfield at the receivers.

AD was probably the third or fourth option on a slow-developing play that was designed to attempt to get 10 from a receiver.

Maybe... if so that receiver had to be Wright but why would Turner call a slow-developing play in that situation? Hasn't that been the question all along? here's a potential answer, staring us in the face. I can't imagine that Bridgewater would spend so much time looking downfield if he was supposed to swing the ball out to AD either but I find it equally hard to imagine Turner calling a play with those WR routes for that situation. I think he's a smarter OC than that so I'm wondering if a huge miscommunication took place on this play, with Turner calling a play designed to go to the back near the sidelines and Bridgewater thinking he was supposed to go to one of the WRs.

Either way, I'd sure like to know why virtually everybody has ignored Peterson on this play. He not only provided Bridgewater with a logical outlet for the ball but he was in a position that would have made throwing the ball away easy too. Just chuck it over AD's head, out of bounds, and there would be no chance of an intentional grounding call.

[Mothman]

There is no way, in my mind at least, that Teddy wouldn't have checked it down if he had the range to do so. It appears that he was following orders from the coaching staff.

Are you suggesting he was told he couldn't throw the pass to Peterson in that situation? I'm not sure what you mean by "range".

[dead_poet]

I'm guessing Peterson could have picked up more than 5 yards on this play. He had one man to beat and that defender is giving him plenty of room. It's not like he's easy to tackle on-on-one.

Normally AD would absolutely try and run around, on top of, through that defender. But I have to think (hope?) he wouldn't risk getting tackled in bounds and letting the game end like that. If AD was targeted the SMART thing would've been to secure the ball and rush diagonally to the sidelines (matching the pursuit angle of the defender), which would've netted approximately 5 yards.

Maybe... if so that receiver had to be Wright but why would Turner call a slow-developing play in that situation? Hasn't that been the question all along? here's a potential answer, staring us in the face. I can't imagine that Bridgewater would spend so much time looking downfield if he was supposed to swing the ball out to AD either but I find it equally hard to imagine Turner calling a play with those WR routes for that situation. I think he's a smarter OC than that so I'm wondering if a huge miscommunication took place on this play, with Turner calling a play designed to go to the back near the sidelines and Bridgewater thinking he was supposed to go to one of the WRs.

I find that incredibly doubtful. Nothing has been said to imply that. I don't know what to tell you. It's pretty obvious to me that the play was designed to go to a receiver with Peterson as a last resort option (if at all). Teddy might not be a complete quarterback but he doesn't strike me as someone that doesn't understand play design. We've also questioned Turner many times on this board for his play calling (handling of Patterson, Charles Johnson, etc.). Is it really easier to believe Teddy miscommunicating/misunderstanding a play than it is Turner calling a poor one?

Said Teddy following the game:

"The play call was designed to get out of bounds," Bridgewater explained. "We had all our receivers coming from the left side of the field so I tried to do my best to wait for those guys to at least get on the right side of the hash so they don't get tackled in bounds since we didn't have any timeouts."

To me the talk about receivers implies the primary reads of the play were receivers.

Either way, I'd sure like to know why virtually everybody has ignored Peterson on this play. He not only provided Bridgewater with a logical outlet for the ball but he was in a position that would have made throwing the ball away easy too. Just chuck it over AD's head, out of bounds, and there would be no chance of an intentional grounding call.

He was certainly an option. However I doubt five yards would've been that much more advantageous than simply throwing it away. And throwing it away (which Teddy said he was in the process of doing when he was hit) would've ensured that AD wouldn't have tried to be a hero (which wouldn't have been out of character) and get tackled in bounds. Really the net benefit of tossing to AD for five yards vs. throwing out of bounds is pretty negligible if not likely a few percentage points positive in terms of average field goals made from that distance.

[Mothman]

Normally AD would absolutely try and run around, on top of, through that defender. But I have to think (hope?) he wouldn't risk getting tackled in bounds and letting the game end like that. If AD was targeted the SMART thing would've been to secure the ball and rush diagonally to the sidelines (matching the pursuit angle of the defender), which would've netted approximately 5 yards.

That would turn a 48 yard attempt into a 43 yard attempt. If AD had been able to secure the ball and lower his shoulder, he might have picked up an extra 3 yards (depending on the angle at which the defender is coming). That would make it a 40 yard attempt. That's not insignificant.

I find that incredibly doubtful. Nothing has been said to imply that.

Other than Zimmer saying "I didn't feel there was any way we could throw the ball in bounds and still get a play off. So we were trying to get a little closer, play designed to get to the sideline."

Peterson's the one Vikings player whose position on the play met all of those criteria. He was near the sideline and in position to get them a little closer.

I don't know what to tell you. It's pretty obvious to me that the play was designed to go to a receiver with Peterson as a last resort option (if at all). Teddy might not be a complete quarterback but he doesn't strike me as someone that doesn't understand play design. We've also questioned Turner many times on this board for his play calling (handling of Patterson, Charles Johnson, etc.). Is it really easier to believe Teddy miscommunicating/misunderstanding a play than it is Turner calling a poor one?

Well, one of them has been calling plays in the NFL for decades and the other is a second year pro...

Maybe they both screwed up. I don't know.

Said Teddy following the game:
To me the talk about receivers implies the primary reads of the play were receivers.

Yes, it does, but it came from the player who potentially misunderstood the play. I'm not trying to say, definitively, that the play was designed for Peterson but when you look at the routes, that's certainly a possibility worth considering since his position matches nicely with Zimmer's stated goals for the play and makes sense of the WR routes. They cleared the deck for that route to be open. The only really compelling evidence to suggest the play was intended to go to one of the WRs is Bridgewater's own behavior.

He was certainly an option. However I doubt five yards would've been that much more advantageous than simply throwing it away. And throwing it away (which Teddy said he was in the process of doing when he was hit) would've ensured that AD wouldn't have tried to be a hero (which wouldn't have been out of character) and get tackled in bounds.

... or he would have made a smart play, something he's also done many times in his career, and they would have been 5+ yards closer with an attempt to kick a game-tying field goal.

Regardless of who the play as designed to get the ball to, it's ridiculous that so many people (including Farrar) have basically ignored that there was an eligible receiver wide open, near the sidelines, on the play. Glossing over that the way Farrar did just makes his column read as disingenuous.

[mondry]

I wish I could remember what things would become relevant later on but I can't remember who wrote the article. Essentially the writer praised the play call as a brilliant play design and he talked about how Norv expected the Cardinals to play the play exactly how they did end up playing it and the trip WR's left crossing to the right side of the field was suppose to be what he called a "plus match up" for us to get a completion to Jarius Wright. I'm just trying to remember this off the top of my head but the idea was that ARI would simply drop back and play it safe so if we brought WR's left and then ran away from that drop coverage across the field it'd be in our favor.

If you look at the first still Jim posted, you can see we only leave 1 WR down there but they have 2 guys still in that area on the left side of the field while the deep safety is a non factor. That's 3 ARI defender who won't have a chance to stop the play. Also in the first still, Wright's open, but he was the slowest guy out of his stance and didn't get a good jump, he's suppose to be further along, like right behind the defender that's locking down the flat on AD. Because he's so far behind where he should be, a defender recovers and marks him in still #2.

Also in the 2nd still, Teddy decides wright isn't going to make it or is not a factor any longer worth waiting for and decides to throw it to the WR directly on the 20 as he's starting to break hard and will likely come open from his defender. This is the right read for Teddy, Wright's a non factor now so he's taking the option that not only will pick up the most yardage but also has an extremely high chance (baring the receiver falling down) to get out of bounds.

Of course we see where Freeney is and the rest is history.

So I have no doubt in my mind the play was SUPPOSE to go to wright, and not Peterson but when that failed Teddy tried to go to whoever that is on the 20, it's actually a "good" play design from and X's and O's stand point, but as we've seen all too often, many things can go wrong on a slow developing play.

Almost all of the blame has to go on Kalil, or if you like, Norv for calling a slow developing play and not giving Kalil help. Instead of releasing Peterson into that flat route that didn't have much chance of being useful, if he instead stayed in and doubled freeny with kalil I personally think the play would have worked. Since Teddy is forced to look to his right where all the WR's will be crossing the field making his left truly a blind side, it makes a ton of sense to have Peterson double Freeney.

I should add that's what the WRITER thought was suppose to happen on the play and I thought it made enough sense, YMMV.

[dead_poet]

That would turn a 48 yard attempt into a 43 yard attempt. If AD had been able to secure the ball and lower his shoulder, he might have picked up an extra 3 yards (depending on the angle at which the defender is coming). That would make it a 40 yard attempt. That's not insignificant.

I stand by my belief the gain would've been about five yards. Not entirely insignificant but not incredibly beneficial. We can talk about all the things Peterson "could've" done but the most likely outcome would've been to take the yardage provided by the depth of target and pursuit angle of the defender and get out of bounds right away to ensure the clock stops. The possibility of an extra 2-3 yards by lowering his shoulder wouldn't benefit the team as much as the possibility of getting tackled in bounds in such an attempt.

Other than Zimmer saying "I didn't feel there was any way we could throw the ball in bounds and still get a play off. So we were trying to get a little closer, play designed to get to the sideline."

Peterson's the one Vikings player whose position on the play met all of those criteria. He was near the sideline and in position to get them a little closer.

All of the receivers were running to the sideline.

Well, one of them has been calling plays in the NFL for decades and the other is a second year pro...

That's one way to look at it, I suppose. Turner has questionable playcalling all season and questionable use of personnel all season while we have yet to see any evidence of Teddy miscommunicating on a single play this season and yet it's still as much or more likely Teddy was wrong? oooook....

Yes, it does, but it came from the player who potentially misunderstood the play.

That's so interesting you keep coming back to that. Am I alone here in thinking there's about a 1% chance of that actually being the case and it much more likely the play called for Teddy to throw to a receiver or throw it away?

I'm not trying to say, definitively, that the play was designed for Peterson but when you look at the routes, that's certainly a possibility worth considering since his position matches nicely with Zimmer's stated goals for the play and makes sense of the WR routes. They cleared the deck for that route to be open. The only really compelling evidence to suggest the play was intended to go to one of the WRs is Bridgewater's own behavior.

All of the receivers were doing what Zimmer's stated goals for the play were. Don't most routes where the RB is an outlet/check-down receiver "clear the deck" for them?

... or he would have made a smart play, something he's also done many times in his career, and they would have been 5+ yards closer with an attempt to kick a game-tying field goal.

You really think AD would've risked a few more yards with the possibility of getting tackled in bounds? The smart play would've been to catch the ball and get out of bounds.

Regardless of who the play as designed to get the ball to, it's ridiculous that so many people (including Farrar) have basically ignored that there was an eligible receiver wide open, near the sidelines, on the play. Glossing over that the way Farrar did just makes his column read as disingenuous.

I think he's thinking what most people are thinking: that Peterson wasn't designed to get the ball and if he had it wouldn't have been much of a field position benefit from where they would've kicked the ball had Teddy just thrown the ball out of bounds.

[HardcoreVikesFan]

Are you suggesting he was told he couldn't throw the pass to Peterson in that situation? I'm not sure what you mean by "range".

Sorry, Jim.

What I meant was 'free-range.' By that, I am suggesting that Norv Turner told Teddy to target a wide receiver in the field of play. That is why I believe Teddy ignored the check down. Not so much that he was explicitly told NOT to check it down, but I believe the coaching staff wanted Teddy to throw the ball to one of the four wide receiving options.

[Mothman]

Sorry, Jim.

What I meant was 'free-range.' By that, I am suggesting that Norv Turner told Teddy to target a wide receiver in the field of play. That is why I believe Teddy ignored the check down. Not so much that he was explicitly told NOT to check it down, but I believe the coaching staff wanted Teddy to throw the ball to one of the four wide receiving options.

Thanks for the clarification.

Guys, I appreciate all of the feedback/commentary. The play was probably intended to go to Wright with Peterson as an outlet but if it had been designed for Peterson, the play design certainly made sense and whether he was the primary receiver or not, he was clearly a legitimate option on the play. We can quibble about the details forever but from my point of view, the play design yielded an open receiver near the sidelines and that's not something I think the press (particularly an SI writer like Farrar) should just gloss over.

[losperros]

Guys, I appreciate all of the feedback/commentary. The play was probably intended to go to Wright with Peterson as an outlet but if it had been designed for Peterson, the play design certainly made sense and whether he was the primary receiver or not, he was clearly a legitimate option on the play. We can quibble about the details forever but from my point of view, the play design yielded an open receiver near the sidelines and that's not something I think the press (particularly an SI writer like Farrar) should just gloss over.

I forgot all about Peterson. In my view, tossing the ball to AD would have been a wise move. Peterson would have fought and probably won the battle to the sidelines.

That said, I still stand by my belief that this particular play should not have been called. But since it was, I see Peterson as a real possibility for making it work by catching the ball for a short gain and then getting out of bounds.