Vikings vs. Packers Postgame

[J. Kapp 11]

I love how the Vikings give the Packers a pretty sound beatdown, yet as the week goes on, the narrative turns to how conservative the game plan was, and how it's somehow no different than last year.

Stats are one thing. The eyes are another. The Vikings used 11 personnel 49% of the time last year. Sunday they used 11 personnel 75% of the snaps. They ran a lot more motion and jet sweep action, precisely to not allow Green Bay to sit in whatever coverage they wanted and dictate what the offense would do. In the first half, the Vikings' offense dictated what the defense would do, and for the most part, the Packers were discombobulated.

As for conservatism, it was a tale of two halves. The Vikings did a lot of stuff in the first half that they've never done. On the first drive, the Vikings passed on 8 of the 10 offensive plays. On 4th and 1, instead of lining up with two tight ends and a fullback, as Zimmer would have done, they lined up in 11 personnel, spread everybody out, motioned Thielen, then motioned JJ. The Packers tried to pass off JJ but miscommunicated. Touchdown. It's all a part of O'Connell's "illusion of complexity," where they run simple things but give the illusion of them being exotic. O'Connell said later that he thought about challenging the Thielen spot, but KNEW the play they had called for JJ would work. Zimmer would have lost his mind and challenged out of emotion.

Later, with the Vikings getting the ball late in the half, they could have just played it close to the vest and went for the field goal. But they took their shots, and JJ got loose for the 36-yard score. Mike Zimmer's teams NEVER would have done that. As it was, the Vikings took a 3-score lead into the locker room, which allowed them to play more conservative in the second half.

So yeah, the second half was different. In my mind, a bit too conservative. But they could do that with a 20-0 lead. And when they went to the running game, it actually did what Zimmer's running game never seemed to be able to do ... it gained first downs. THAT is what eats clock, not just running the ball. The Vikings shortened the game, and the Packers couldn't come back.

Would I have liked to see the Vikings put their foot on the Packers' throat and run it up to a 30-point lead? Yes, I would have. But it was still a dominant win, and O'Connell said that he has some things to get better at, so he recognizes he needs to improve.

Argue stats all you want, but you're never going to change my mind ... this coaching staff and philosophy is better in every way than the previous. Call it an overreaction after one game if you want, but I trust my eyes. It's clear to me, and it's refreshing as hell to see a modern football team out there.

[VikingLord]

So yeah, the second half was different. In my mind, a bit too conservative. But they could do that with a 20-0 lead. And when they went to the running game, it actually did what Zimmer's running game never seemed to be able to do ... it gained first downs. THAT is what eats clock, not just running the ball. The Vikings shortened the game, and the Packers couldn't come back.

Do you think the running game was so effective in the 2nd half because the offensive line blocked better, the RBs got more yards after contact and broke more tackles, or a combination of the two?

I was honestly surprised at the final game rushing totals for the Vikings. I thought the Packers did a pretty good job of containing the Vikings on the ground, but the final stats say otherwise. Accepting that the running game was more effective, what is that attributable to?

I really thought Mattison and Cook nearly split the carries, but when I looked at the box score I saw Cook was the clear #1 back in terms of both attempts and plays. I'm not sure I trust my eyes or instincts with assessing how the Vikings managed to run the ball so effectively, but it certainly was effective.

[Pondering Her Percy]

I love how the Vikings give the Packers a pretty sound beatdown, yet as the week goes on, the narrative turns to how conservative the game plan was, and how it's somehow no different than last year.

Stats are one thing. The eyes are another. The Vikings used 11 personnel 49% of the time last year. Sunday they used 11 personnel 75% of the snaps. They ran a lot more motion and jet sweep action, precisely to not allow Green Bay to sit in whatever coverage they wanted and dictate what the offense would do. In the first half, the Vikings' offense dictated what the defense would do, and for the most part, the Packers were discombobulated.

As for conservatism, it was a tale of two halves. The Vikings did a lot of stuff in the first half that they've never done. On the first drive, the Vikings passed on 8 of the 10 offensive plays. On 4th and 1, instead of lining up with two tight ends and a fullback, as Zimmer would have done, they lined up in 11 personnel, spread everybody out, motioned Thielen, then motioned JJ. The Packers tried to pass off JJ but miscommunicated. Touchdown. It's all a part of O'Connell's "illusion of complexity," where they run simple things but give the illusion of them being exotic. O'Connell said later that he thought about challenging the Thielen spot, but KNEW the play they had called for JJ would work. Zimmer would have lost his mind and challenged out of emotion.

Later, with the Vikings getting the ball late in the half, they could have just played it close to the vest and went for the field goal. But they took their shots, and JJ got loose for the 36-yard score. Mike Zimmer's teams NEVER would have done that. As it was, the Vikings took a 3-score lead into the locker room, which allowed them to play more conservative in the second half.

So yeah, the second half was different. In my mind, a bit too conservative. But they could do that with a 20-0 lead. And when they went to the running game, it actually did what Zimmer's running game never seemed to be able to do ... it gained first downs. THAT is what eats clock, not just running the ball. The Vikings shortened the game, and the Packers couldn't come back.

Would I have liked to see the Vikings put their foot on the Packers' throat and run it up to a 30-point lead? Yes, I would have. But it was still a dominant win, and O'Connell said that he has some things to get better at, so he recognizes he needs to improve.

Argue stats all you want, but you're never going to change my mind ... this coaching staff and philosophy is better in every way than the previous. Call it an overreaction after one game if you want, but I trust my eyes. It's clear to me, and it's refreshing as hell to see a modern football team out there.

Excellent post Kapp. And this is exactly what should matter. Nitpicked stats in this situation just isn’t necessary. I trust my own eyes too, this offense literally is nothing compared to what we previous had. Not only scheme but game management as well. Literally night and day. And it’s not even close.

[StumpHunter]

I love how the Vikings give the Packers a pretty sound beatdown, yet as the week goes on, the narrative turns to how conservative the game plan was, and how it's somehow no different than last year.

Stats are one thing. The eyes are another. The Vikings used 11 personnel 49% of the time last year. Sunday they used 11 personnel 75% of the snaps. They ran a lot more motion and jet sweep action, precisely to not allow Green Bay to sit in whatever coverage they wanted and dictate what the offense would do. In the first half, the Vikings' offense dictated what the defense would do, and for the most part, the Packers were discombobulated.

As for conservatism, it was a tale of two halves. The Vikings did a lot of stuff in the first half that they've never done. On the first drive, the Vikings passed on 8 of the 10 offensive plays. On 4th and 1, instead of lining up with two tight ends and a fullback, as Zimmer would have done, they lined up in 11 personnel, spread everybody out, motioned Thielen, then motioned JJ. The Packers tried to pass off JJ but miscommunicated. Touchdown. It's all a part of O'Connell's "illusion of complexity," where they run simple things but give the illusion of them being exotic. O'Connell said later that he thought about challenging the Thielen spot, but KNEW the play they had called for JJ would work. Zimmer would have lost his mind and challenged out of emotion.

Later, with the Vikings getting the ball late in the half, they could have just played it close to the vest and went for the field goal. But they took their shots, and JJ got loose for the 36-yard score. Mike Zimmer's teams NEVER would have done that. As it was, the Vikings took a 3-score lead into the locker room, which allowed them to play more conservative in the second half.

So yeah, the second half was different. In my mind, a bit too conservative. But they could do that with a 20-0 lead. And when they went to the running game, it actually did what Zimmer's running game never seemed to be able to do ... it gained first downs. THAT is what eats clock, not just running the ball. The Vikings shortened the game, and the Packers couldn't come back.

Would I have liked to see the Vikings put their foot on the Packers' throat and run it up to a 30-point lead? Yes, I would have. But it was still a dominant win, and O'Connell said that he has some things to get better at, so he recognizes he needs to improve.

Argue stats all you want, but you're never going to change my mind ... this coaching staff and philosophy is better in every way than the previous. Call it an overreaction after one game if you want, but I trust my eyes. It's clear to me, and it's refreshing as hell to see a modern football team out there.

Excellent post Kapp. And this is exactly what should matter. Nitpicked stats in this situation just isn’t necessary. I trust my own eyes too, this offense literally is nothing compared to what we previous had. Not only scheme but game management as well. Literally night and day. And it’s not even close.

The stats I posted showed this too. Previous years the offense was much more aggressive than the one we saw Sunday.

[J. Kapp 11]

So yeah, the second half was different. In my mind, a bit too conservative. But they could do that with a 20-0 lead. And when they went to the running game, it actually did what Zimmer's running game never seemed to be able to do ... it gained first downs. THAT is what eats clock, not just running the ball. The Vikings shortened the game, and the Packers couldn't come back.

Do you think the running game was so effective in the 2nd half because the offensive line blocked better, the RBs got more yards after contact and broke more tackles, or a combination of the two?

I was honestly surprised at the final game rushing totals for the Vikings. I thought the Packers did a pretty good job of containing the Vikings on the ground, but the final stats say otherwise. Accepting that the running game was more effective, what is that attributable to?

I really thought Mattison and Cook nearly split the carries, but when I looked at the box score I saw Cook was the clear #1 back in terms of both attempts and plays. I'm not sure I trust my eyes or instincts with assessing how the Vikings managed to run the ball so effectively, but it certainly was effective.

Both backs are good, so some credit has to go to them. But the O-line was excellent in run blocking. An example is Ed Ingram. He surrendered 5 pressures, including Green Bay’s only sack, in the passing game, yet still ended up with an overall PFF grade of 79.3 — an amazing 87.4 in run blocking. He was mauling people in the running game. Bradbury graded out at something like 15 in pass pro, but 57.2 overall. O’Neill checked in at 80.6 overall, Cleveland at 72.0, and Darrisaw 62.4 (this one baffles me … I saw Darrisaw put Rashan Gary on his backside in pass pro and generally held up very well, I thought). One thing this line can do is move people in the running game.

We didn’t really have any explosive plays in the running game, but Cook especially was gaining some nice chunks in the 7-10 yard range in the fourth quarter, which we really needed.

[Cliff]

This just in; NFL head coach switches to a more conservative game plan when up by 20 points in the second half.

Anyway, who cares if it was a conservative game plan? The Vikings controlled the entire game so that's apparently what this particular opponent called for.

[Pondering Her Percy]

This just in; NFL head coach switches to a more conservative game plan when up by 20 points in the second half.

Anyway, who cares if it was a conservative game plan? The Vikings controlled the entire game so that's apparently what this particular opponent called for.

Exactly. I dont care what the stats show for Zims offense the last few years. Anyone with a brain knows it was conservative, there was a massive lack of innovation, and the game management was downright horrendous. Our offense now is the complete opposite of that. That's what matters

[VikingsVictorious]

I'm not saying that going conservative was necessarily wrong, but KOC in the 2nd half was totally following the Zimmer game management manual. Where is all the talk of stepping on their throats, going for the jugular and never letting up? We got a lead and went into a shell.

[VikingLord]

We didn’t really have any explosive plays in the running game, but Cook especially was gaining some nice chunks in the 7-10 yard range in the fourth quarter, which we really needed.

Yeah, it was "slow-and-steady-wins-the-race". I can't believe I'm writing this, but I guess I was expecting bigger runs and when I didn't see any I figured that the running game wasn't as successful. That says more about the respect I have for Dalvin Cook's abilities than anything else.

The last Vikings offensive drive was the most impressive because everyone knew they were going to run and they still managed to pick up a few first downs. When a team can run when it needs to run like that, good things are ahead. I wish they'd been able to close it out running it down the Packers' throat at the end, but what they managed to do was very impressive.

The Eagles don't look like a great run defense this year, so I'm hoping we'll see more of the same from the Vikings running game against them.

[Cliff]

I'm not saying that going conservative was necessarily wrong, but KOC in the 2nd half was totally following the Zimmer game management manual. Where is all the talk of stepping on their throats, going for the jugular and never letting up? We got a lead and went into a shell.

Shifting focus in the 2nd half from scoring to running clock with a significant lead is not something Mike Zimmer invented and it's an excellent strategy. The problem is most Mike Zimmer led teams had big trouble actually making first downs and running the clock in those situations. If your offense can actually keep drives alive, like the Vikings did last week, there's no problem at all with the philosophy.

[StumpHunter]

I'm not saying that going conservative was necessarily wrong, but KOC in the 2nd half was totally following the Zimmer game management manual. Where is all the talk of stepping on their throats, going for the jugular and never letting up? We got a lead and went into a shell.

Shifting focus in the 2nd half from scoring to running clock with a significant lead is not something Mike Zimmer invented and it's an excellent strategy. The problem is most Mike Zimmer led teams had big trouble actually making first downs and running the clock in those situations. If your offense can actually keep drives alive, like the Vikings did last week, there's no problem at all with the philosophy.

In the 2nd half, up by 13+, from 2014 to 2021 the Vikings averaged 4.2 yards per play.

In the 2nd half, up by 13+ in Sunday's game the Vikings averaged 3.9 yards per play.

[Foreman44]

This just in; NFL head coach switches to a more conservative game plan when up by 20 points in the second half.

Anyway, who cares if it was a conservative game plan? The Vikings controlled the entire game so that's apparently what this particular opponent called for.

I agree Cliff
We won. Rodgers was screaming and upset most of the game. It wasn’t like last years being close nail biter losses. I was somewhat calm second half this game. Felt kind of nice for a change...

if we won 35-7. Some would find reasons to complain.

Offensively maybe GB is going to miss Adams more than they hoped"
I understand defensively they have talent. Getting stronger.But we moved better against there defense.than they did ours.

I am happy with my Vikings. I will be satisfied with a duplicate of last game against the Eagles

[StumpHunter]

This just in; NFL head coach switches to a more conservative game plan when up by 20 points in the second half.

Anyway, who cares if it was a conservative game plan? The Vikings controlled the entire game so that's apparently what this particular opponent called for.

I agree Cliff
We won. Rodgers was screaming and upset most of the game. It wasn’t like last years being close nail biter losses. I was somewhat calm second half this game. Felt kind of nice for a change...

if we won 35-7. Some would find reasons to complain.

Offensively maybe GB is going to miss Adams more than they hoped"
I understand defensively they have talent. Getting stronger.But we moved better against there defense.than they did ours.

I am happy with my Vikings. I will be satisfied with a duplicate of last game against the Eagles

Most people aren't complaining, since winning by 16 points against the former #1 seed is a good thing. I was just pointing out that we haven't seen the aggressive or explosive offense many were expecting yet. I am even okay if we never see that, since this team might not be built to where an aggressive and explosive offense works as well as just a very efficient one.

[VikingsVictorious]

I'm not saying that going conservative was necessarily wrong, but KOC in the 2nd half was totally following the Zimmer game management manual. Where is all the talk of stepping on their throats, going for the jugular and never letting up? We got a lead and went into a shell.

Shifting focus in the 2nd half from scoring to running clock with a significant lead is not something Mike Zimmer invented and it's an excellent strategy. The problem is most Mike Zimmer led teams had big trouble actually making first downs and running the clock in those situations. If your offense can actually keep drives alive, like the Vikings did last week, there's no problem at all with the philosophy.

That's not what people have been endorsing, on this and other forums I have read, for the last several years. We as a whole have been saying if the lead is 20 go for 30, if the lead is 30 go for 40, step on their throats, go for the jugular, kick them while they're down etc.. etc... etc....

The result this time was a very boring 2nd half, but a nice win. I'm happy. It made me money

[VikingsVictorious]

This just in; NFL head coach switches to a more conservative game plan when up by 20 points in the second half.

Anyway, who cares if it was a conservative game plan? The Vikings controlled the entire game so that's apparently what this particular opponent called for.

I agree Cliff
We won. Rodgers was screaming and upset most of the game. It wasn’t like last years being close nail biter losses. I was somewhat calm second half this game. Felt kind of nice for a change...

if we won 35-7. Some would find reasons to complain.

Offensively maybe GB is going to miss Adams more than they hoped"
I understand defensively they have talent. Getting stronger.But we moved better against there defense.than they did ours.

I am happy with my Vikings. I will be satisfied with a duplicate of last game against the Eagles

I'd have been happier with 41-0. I'll settle for the 23-7. I'll be very happy with a 23-7 win over the Iggles.