Vikings Message Board.Com

Sorry this is long... hopefully it's worth reading:

As an example to illustrate why Norv's play calling is drawing complaints, consider the Vikings first two red zone possessions against the Chiefs. In both cases, they had first and goal around the 10 yard line.

In the first of the two situations, they lined up in shotgun on first down and ran Peterson, a play we all understand is not their best. The result was a one yard loss.

On second down, they attempted a QB draw from the shotgun which resulted in a 5 yard loss.

On third down, from the shotgun, they called a pass. As Mondry pointed out somewhere here today, the play design was a bit strange. All 3 WRs lined up on the left side of the formation. Wright and Diggs ran almost the same route,, which took them to the left side of the end zone, along with two defenders. Wallace ran a crossing route through zone coverage toward the right side of the end zone. He was basically boxed in by 4 Chiefs on the route. Rudolph chipped a defender then ran down to the two yard line and turned for the ball. Nobody was ever open and it's hard to see how this play was supposed to pressure or test the defense. Bridgewater ended up forcing a throw that was intercepted.

How did the shotgun formation benefit the Vikes on the first two plays? On the third, Bridgewater had time but the play never had much chance of success. Maybe the Chiefs were in the right defense at the right time. Their zone coverage certainly made sense under the circumstances ( a long 3rd and goal situation).

————————

On their second trip to the red zone, they once again lined up in shotgun on first and goal from the 10 and gave the ball to Peterson. In other words, they made the most predictable choice on first and goal and gave it to their star RB from the formation where he's least effective. Result: a 6 yard loss.

On second and goal from the 16 they actually had Bridgewater under center. They kept Peterson in to help protect and hit Wallace, who was split wide left, for a 10 yard gain down to the 6.

On third down, it was back to the shotgun. They bunched 3 receivers to the right. Peterson was set to Bridgewater's right, behind Clemmings. The TE was lined up left, next to Kalil. I won't go into detail but once again, the routes don't put much pressure on KC's defense. Nobody gets open, protection breaks down and this time, Teddy wisely throws the ball away.

————————

Opinions will probably vary but I don't think the shotgun formation, play design or choice of plays did much to help the offense in these two situations. I'd argue that it hurt them.

Mothman wrote: I'm not using perfection as a standard here. I'm simply suggesting there might be a better strategy, one in which Bridgewater isn't on pace to be sacked 48 times this season and where the passing game isn't at rock bottom in the league rankings. Surely measuring the Vikes against their 31 fellow teams isn't "comparing things against the perfect".

Jim, let me just ask you this. What ranking out of 32 would make you feel like the offense was performing up to whatever standard you are holding them to?

Mothman wrote:As an example to illustrate why Norv's play calling is drawing complaints, consider the Vikings first two red zone possessions against the Chiefs. In both cases, they had first and goal around the 10 yard line.

In the first of the two situations, they lined up in shotgun on first down and ran Peterson, a play we all understand is not their best. The result was a one yard loss.

Ironically, there was a HUGE lane on that play and Peterson probably should have scored a TD on it.

Mothman wrote:On second down, they attempted a QB draw from the shotgun which resulted in a 5 yard loss.

"resulted in a 5 yard loss" is a political phrasing. Peterson blew that play too.

fiestavike wrote:Ironically, there was a HUGE lane on that play and Peterson probably should have scored a TD on it.

Here's what he was looking at after the handoff. There is no huge lane through which he should have charged for a TD. A lane opened to our right after he went to our left but as soon as he went that way, the defense flowed toward him. At this point, when he needed to make a decision, there was no huge lane opening up.

"resulted in a 5 yard loss" is a political phrasing. Peterson blew that play too.

That's not political phrasing. How did AD blow that play? He went out on a route to the left. He had virtually nothing to do with the play's outcome. Harris' man pushed him into the backfield, shed his block and dropped Bridgewater for a loss before the draw could go anywhere.

It's clearly time to end this part of the discussion.

fiestavike wrote:Jim, let me just ask you this. What ranking out of 32 would make you feel like the offense was performing up to whatever standard you are holding them to?

I don't have a specific number in mind but they're all better than #32, no? How about somewhere between #25 and #20 with at least 6 TD passes? That seems reasonable. It's not an absurdly high expectation. It would represent improvement over where they finished last year.

#25 would put them where the Bears are now. Chicago has 7 passing TDs and is averaging 225.7 yards per game.

#20 would put them where the Packers are now yardage-wise but GB has 15 passing TDs, which I wouldn't consider a reasonable expectation for the Vikes after 5 games.

The standard I'm holding them to at the moment is "better than last" and "not on a pace to be one of the least productive passing attacks in franchise history". At this point, every team except Dallas has at least twice as many passing TDs as the Vikings.

What I don't understand is the implication that I'm holding them to an unreasonable standard. Is "worst in the league" really acceptable?

Mothman wrote: Here's what he was looking at after the handoff. There is no huge lane through which he should have charged for a TD. A lane opened to our right after he went to our left but as soon as he went that way, the defense flowed toward him. At this point, when he needed to make a decision, there was no huge lane opening up.


That's not political phrasing. How did AD blow that play? He went out on a route to the left. He had virtually nothing to do with the play's outcome. Harris' man pushed him into the backfield, shed his block and dropped Bridgewater for a loss before the draw could go anywhere.

It's clearly time to end this part of the discussion.

We might as well... That was a gaping hole behind Ellison.

fiestavike wrote:We might as well... That was a gaping hole behind Ellison.

Mothman wrote: I don't have a specific number in mind but they're all better than #32, no? How about somewhere between #25 and #20 with at least 6 TD passes? That seems reasonable. It's not an absurdly high expectation. It would represent improvement over where they finished last year.

#25 would put them where the Bears are now. Chicago has 7 passing TDs and is averaging 225.7 yards per game.

#20 would put them where the Packers are now yardage-wise but GB has 15 passing TDs, which I wouldn't consider a reasonable expectation for the Vikes after 5 games.

The standard I'm holding them to at the moment is "better than last" and "not on a pace to be one of the least productive passing attacks in franchise history". At this point, every team except Dallas has at least twice as many passing TDs as the Vikings.

What I don't understand is the implication that I'm holding them to an unreasonable standard. Is "worst in the league" really acceptable?

At this point I'm just trying to get to a more specific expectation so we can bring this conversation back down to earth, not trying to accuse you of having an unreasonable standard. Somewhere in the 25 to 20 range sounds reasonable to me. The "not last" line is less constructive, because we both know as soon as we were "not last" you would want them to be ranked 30th!

So, just to clarify, given the current state of this team, should they become the 25th ranked offense by season's end, you would feel that Norv was doing a satisfactory job? Or will the goal post just continually shift? Do you see what I'm trying to ask?

Mothman wrote:

We are really having trouble this season.

I'm just saying...there's no way he shouldn't be able to read that situation. There is good push on the left side, there is a double team on the lineman, Johnson caught up in the wash, other linebacker already engaged at the second level, The only thing left to see is if Ellison can complete his block and create a seal. Its WIDE F'ING OPEN! And indeed it was, as the play unfolded he would have made it AT LEAST to the 2 or 3 yardline and more likely scored. Instead he runs directly into the defensive tackle on the other side of the line, where there is no push and nothing is developing

Are we really questioning APs ability to hit holes?

fiestavike wrote:At this point I'm just trying to get to a more specific expectation so we can bring this conversation back down to earth, not trying to accuse you of having an unreasonable standard. Somewhere in the 25 to 20 range sounds reasonable to me. The "not last" line is less constructive, because we both know as soon as we were "not last" you would want them to be ranked 30th!

So, just to clarify, given the current state of this team, should they become the 25th ranked offense by season's end, you would feel that Norv was doing a satisfactory job? Or will the goal post just continually shift? Do you see what I'm trying to ask?

I do but I can't answer your questions with a specific offensive ranking and I don't feel as if I'm shifting the goalposts. I won't be satisfied with an offensive ranking of #25 and i don't see why any Vikes fan would be satisfied with that.

For me, anything short of improvement over last year would be disappointing and even small, incremental improvement would be disappointing.

The standard I want them to aim for is excellence. I realize it's not reasonable to expect them to achieve that overnight (or even this season) but that's where they should be aiming. They're averaging under 20 points per game right now and they haven't exactly faced a succession of defensive powerhouses. They need to get that average up into the 22-24 range this year and more importantly, they need to actually be scoring 20+ points in most games. If I'm not mistaken, they've scored 20 or less in about half of their games under Turner. That's just not acceptable in a league where the rules favor offense. If they could at least start scoring 20+ most of the time, that would go a long way toward improving my confidence in Norv. The specific rankings matter less to me than scoring, winning, making the most of the team's personnel, etc. I want them to be effective. Finish drives. Score TDs. Pressure the opponent with routes and personnel.

I hope that makes sense? What's your standard?

For that matter, what's everybody else's standard for this Vikings offense?

fiestavike wrote: We are really having trouble this season.

Yeah, but I have this problem every time I post a game shot, i feel like I might as well just post Rorschach ink blots.

Suffice to say I disagree with your take on the play, especially as it looks in motion.

Mothman wrote: Yeah, but I have this problem every time I post a game shot, i feel like I might as well just post Rorschach ink blots.

Suffice to say I disagree with your take on the play, especially as it looks in motion.

fair enough. I can only tell you I was shouting as I saw the play in realtime. It was blatantly obvious to me in motion as well

fiestavike wrote: fair enough. I can only tell you I was shouting as I saw the play in realtime. It was blatantly obvious to me in motion as well

I can certainly relate to that sort of moment.

Anyway, let's assume your take on the play is correct and mine is wrong: why run that play from the shotgun and considering the outcome, when they had first and goal from essentially the same location on the next drive, why run Peterson from the shotgun again? After all, we agree that he hasn't been very good running out of that formation so what the heck was Turner doing?

Mothman wrote:why run that play from the shotgun and considering the outcome, when they had first and goal from essentially the same location on the next drive, why run Peterson from the shotgun again? After all, we agree that he hasn't been very good running out of that formation so what the heck was Turner doing?

He's clearly a mastermind that plays six steps ahead. I'm sure it went something like this:

Turner: "We've sucked rushing out of this formation all day. They can't possibly think we're going to run it AGAIN. Oh, we're running it again. It's the last thing they'll expect. It's so stupid it's brilliant. Hey Zim! Get Walsh ready for the extra point."

Result: no gain

Turner: "OK. They were ready for it that time. That's on me. But, OK, check this out, THIS time..."