Mothman wrote:
"Little chance for success", my heinie.
Okay, so tell me how many times have those deep side line "go routes" been completed? I'll wait, it shouldn't take long because there aren't many! They are low percentage plays in this offense, they leave little chance for success because they're essentially a waste of a play.
He called a run to Peterson on the first play of the game, as usual. Then, after peterson picked up a first down on the next play, Turner called a deep shot to McKinnon on first down that was WIDE open and Bridgewater just missed it. After that, the drive stalled, was revived by a fake punt, Turner called another passing play on first down that resulted in a scramble for no gain. He called another on second down and Bridgewater overthrew Pruitt who was open heading into the end zone. Then, on third down, Wright ran his route too close to the sidelines so that when TB finally hit a receiver downfield, the pass was completed out of bounds. Turner went against tendencies on that first drive and the execution wasn't there.
Sounds to me like all deep side line type throws which I've already gone over have a very low % chance of being successful. Look when I say that I'm not talking about like "hey it was open so it should have worked" what I'm saying is it doesn't matter if the guys wide open or not, Teddy can't make that throw, it's so freaking obvious at this point that I wouldn't even waste a play trying to do it!!!!!!!!!!
If his shortcoming is that he can rarely complete a pass 20+ yards downfield than maybe he's not NFL starting material. Come on, you can't reasonably ask an NFL coordinator to run an offense where his starting QB, (heck, let's call Bridgewater what the Vikes clearly consider him, a franchise QB) isn't expected to hit a reasonable number of those throws, especially on well-designed plays that leave players open.
Bridgewater can't just throw short all the time. Good defenses aren't going to allow him to do that week after week, play after play.
He can complete 20+ yard throws on the regular, we've seen that, but the sample size is large enough now that the timing routes to the side line 20+ yards down the field and the side line go routes aren't very likely to yield results. 1. Bridgewater SUCKS at them, we KNOW that already, as a teddy supporter I'm even willing to admit that at this point!!! 2. The WR's can make mistakes like Wright not leaving enough field to work with to come down with it in bounds. 3. Sometimes the O-line gets destroyed and the pocket breaks down forcing Teddy to scramble which essentially kills the timing and the routes. It's those 3 things that make those low %'s plays and when they make up a lot of the play calls we're doomed.
Could you pray and hope and sacrifice a goat that Teddy and the guys will actually complete them, sure! But to me it seems ridiculously dumb to center the game plan around that kind of stuff.
Mean while the area of the field Teddy is capable of lighting up often gets ignored for long stretches time. Go back to the bears game and you'll see a beautiful 34 yard throw to mike wallace near the middle of the field.
http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/201512200 ... &tab=recap Watch Rudolphs TD on the seam route
http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/201512270 ... &tab=recap or a vast majority of Wright's catches
It's not a "Leslie Frazier" mentality, it's a coaching mentality. Don't you think Mike Zimmer expects his players to execute his schemes? That's how football works. Coaches design plays, call them and players have to perform. When Kalil misses a block or Sendejo misses a tackle, is suggesting they be able to execute the fundamentals of their respective positions unreasonable, the sign of a "Leslie Frazier mentality"? Did they miss because they weren't put in position to succeed?
Obviously but you have to be able to look deeper than that otherwise no coach should be fired under any circumstance because after all they came up with a plan and the players just didn't execute it. Clearly using your players properly and putting them in the best spot to succeed is the difference between a bill belichik and eric mangini, a mike zimmer and leslie frazier.
When Kalil misses a block and allows the QB to be strip sacked to end the game not once but twice, don't you think it might have made some sense to have Peterson stay in and chip block the DE on that side?
Look, here is my gripe, at some point as OC you have to understand what you're working with, that if you let Kalil go 1 on 1 on those types of plays with a ware or freeney there's a none negligible chance something HORRIBLE will happen so yes it's Kalil's fault for screwing up but at the end of the day it's up to the OC to give him help on such a crucial play, in not doing so Norv's essentially gambling. That's where I draw the line and what I'm not okay with, if you're happy just pinning that on kalil and giving Norv a pass then fine, that's your opinion, that's okay.
Players have to execute. You seem to want Bridgewater coddled.
Nope, if that was the case I'd be praising Norv for a magnificent job of only allowing Teddy to throw the ball 19 times which clearly isn't the case. I just want more routes and play designs that have a bit higher % chance of actually being completed and for Teddy to be allowed to heat up / get into a rhythm.
Clearly the power running and deep shots down the sideline offense hasn't worked particularly well this season and that's what I'm against. The couple games we've had success offensively (ARI, CHI) have had vastly different tactics for which parts of the field we attacked and at what depth it was done.
