Thoughts Week 6

[J. Kapp 11]

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

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

Don't suck too much.

[Mothman]

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..."

[Mothman]

Don't suck too much.

Man, you have HIGH standards!

[808vikingsfan]

Analysis of every Bridgewater dropback VS Chiefs from another forum.

Go here for analysis with gifs

A-22 and EZ of every Bridgewater dropback in week 6

After looking through each pass play, the common theme is that he's a tad late in his throws, especially the timing throws to the sidelines. The good thing is he's making the right reads for the most part. Yeah there are a few where he locks on his receiver but the majority of his throws are the correct ones (IMO) but .5 sec too late. Seems to have a good feel and command for the game. I think the passing game is going to improve in the next few games and become very effective in the 2nd half of the season.

[fiestavike]

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?

My standard is that they play well, which everyone not on the offensive line is doing pretty well. I don't care about stats, rankings, results. That's being the kind of fan who just watches the ball and declares "what a bad play call" or says "they shouldn't have gone for it" after the play is resolved. Or the kind of basketball fan who looks to see if the shot goes in and says "good shot" even if it was a lousy shot selection, of being the kind of poker player who thinks he's better than the other guy because the cards turn his way, instead of getting his money in with the best hand, etc.

I'm interested in the team fixing the underlying issues to sustainably score more points.

The team is in a bit of a bind. Their star running back has no sense of the rhythm and angles of running out of the shotgun. the offensive line can't protect well enough to allow the qb time from under center, and the young qb can't consistently make teams pay for blitzing him.

Blah blah blah blah Turner. Blah blah blah blah Norv! Its all just BS pissing and moaning unless someone has some realistic solutions, which I haven't heard even the hint of one from anyone on this board.

Obviously nobody is satisfied with the offensive production to date, but if scoring less than 20 points in about half their games is "not acceptable", you must have a concept of what the team is capable of, otherwise the criticisms of Turner are bogus. A cheeky line about "not last" certainly plays well in response, but its not constructive. When you've put a number on it, I think you've been realistic. If this team can be the 20-25th ranked offense, and avg over 20 points a game, they are probably just about fulfilling their potential. Maybe when Sullivan returns, or if Clemmings rounds the corner, or Sirles, Easton, Shepherd, _________etc steps in effectively, those expectations will be too low.

[Mothman]

My standard is that they play well, which everyone not on the offensive line is doing pretty well. I don't care about stats, rankings, results. That's being the kind of fan who just watches the ball and declares "what a bad play call" or says "they shouldn't have gone for it" after the play is resolved. Or the kind of basketball fan who looks to see if the shot goes in and says "good shot" even if it was a lousy shot selection, of being the kind of poker player who thinks he's better than the other guy because the cards turn his way, instead of getting his money in with the best hand, etc.

I'm interested in the team fixing the underlying issues to sustainably score more points.

You're describing results so you obviously care about them. Playing well, scoring more points... those are results and rankings and stats just reflect results, which is why they have some significance. The stats aren't what's important, the positive results are, but the former will reflect the latter.

The team is in a bit of a bind. Their star running back has no sense of the rhythm and angles of running out of the shotgun. the offensive line can't protect well enough to allow the qb time from under center, and the young qb can't consistently make teams pay for blitzing him.

Blah blah blah blah Turner. Blah blah blah blah Norv! Its all just BS pissing and moaning unless someone has some realistic solutions, which I haven't heard even the hint of one from anyone on this board.

Realistic solutions: put Bridgewater under center more often. It isn't necessarily going to lead to more hits on him or to more sacks. They run successful plays with him under center so it's not as if it's unrealistic to operate that way. Playing him under center will make him less of a target for speedy edge rushers because they won't have such a clear lane to him. The Vikes can use more quick-hitting plays if necessary. They can keep extra blockers in to protect or even go max protect. They should be able to run the ball more effectively, which should open up play action. They can also run more plays designed to take advantage of aggressive defenses, like screens, slants into zones abandoned by blitzers, misdirection plays, etc. Modify routes so they develop more quickly. There are plenty of realistic solutions.

Obviously nobody is satisfied with the offensive production to date, but if scoring less than 20 points in about half their games is "not acceptable", you must have a concept of what the team is capable of, otherwise the criticisms of Turner are bogus. A cheeky line about "not last" certainly plays well in response, but its not constructive. When you've put a number on it, I think you've been realistic.

Specifying a better ranking is no more realistic in terms of expectations than saying they should have a better ranking. It's just a more specific way of saying they need to improve and it's not necessary to have a specific numerical target in mind for someone to believe the offense is playing beneath their potential. "Not last" wasn't just cheeky. From last place, there's nowhere to go but up. Anything above last would represent an actual step in the right direction.

If this team can be the 20-25th ranked offense, and avg over 20 points a game, they are probably just about fulfilling their potential. Maybe when Sullivan returns, or if Clemmings rounds the corner, or Sirles, Easton, Shepherd, _________etc steps in effectively, those expectations will be too low.

I think they're too low anyway.

You do realize they had the 13th-ranked offense and averaged 24.4 points per game as a team the year before Turner arrived, right? They've added talent and supposedly improved their QB position since then and yet their offensive productivity has rather steadily declined. I don't think OL injuries alone are enough to account for that.

[VikingLord]

Knowing player strengths matters. That affects the execution in many circumstances. If you run a red zone fade that was drawn up for Calvin Johnson, it's a good play. Try that with Desean Jackson and it doesn't make much sense.

So you're suggesting a corollary to lining up in the shotgun versus with the QB under center is throwing a fade to a large receiver versus a small receiver?

Along those lines then, are you suggesting there is some physical attribute possessed by either Bridgewater or AD that makes taking the snap under center more advantageous?

I get your analogy in terms of playcalling. I don't get it in terms of pre-snap formation.

Exactly! So why not run out of formations that better suit our strengths?

We're talking about the QB under center versus in the shotgun, right? How does Bridgewater lining up in the shotgun not suit the team's strengths?

I'm just not convinced that the pre-snap positioning of the QB makes *that* much of a difference to the eventual outcome of the play.

While this is true, I will repeat that knowing your players' strengths is important.

Preferences, or strengths?

And if preferences, whose preferences? Maybe AD doesn't like the shotgun but Bridgewater does? And why, if it was significant to the eventual outcome of the play, would Turner and Zimmer keep lining up the offense in a formation that they know disadvantages their players? Are you suggesting they don't know what the strengths and preferences of their own players are?

No doubt, there are many things to clean up. But can't you look at a sample size of 5 games and notice any formational trends?

Yeah, and I still say so what. I'm seeing way too much slop across the board on offense to be convinced this is primary or even significantly an issue of pre-snap formation. Like I said before, once they clean that up and start executing I'll be a lot more willing to look at playcalling and scheme if they continue to struggle.

[VikingLord]

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).

Maybe I'm being dense here (quite possible), but I think the better question is how did the shotgun formation hurt their chances?

Did the shotgun enable the Chiefs to focus an extra defender somewhere? Did it make defending either the run or pass easier for them? Did it create a situation where Vikings players were disadvantaged in some way? Did it force particular routes that were easier for the Chiefs to defend or harder for Bridgewater to hit?

Honestly, the *only* thing we have to go on in the "rocks-paper-shotgun" debate is that AD came out and said he's more comfortable running out of the I formation, and that he's had a few big runs out of that formation that have pumped his per-carry average up as compared to the gun formation. But that's it, isn't it?

And no matter how one looks at it, the pre-snap formation has zero to do with how well the offensive linemen end up blocking on the play, how well the receivers run their routes, whether Bridgewater gets them the ball and whether they catch it, doesn't it?

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.

I think its impossible for you to prove that, but hopefully Norv will hear the complaints and start calling more I formation plays. At least that way we can see if they will continue to suck as long as they don't execute the play, or if by some magic the pre-snap formation makes up for the lack of execution.

[Mothman]

Maybe I'm being dense here (quite possible), but I think the better question is how did the shotgun formation hurt their chances?

Did the shotgun enable the Chiefs to focus an extra defender somewhere? Did it make defending either the run or pass easier for them? Did it create a situation where Vikings players were disadvantaged in some way? Did it force particular routes that were easier for the Chiefs to defend or harder for Bridgewater to hit?

The last question isn't terribly relevant because I asked about two running plays but I do think the formation put Vikings players at a disadvantage and made defending the plays easier for the Chiefs.

Honestly, the *only* thing we have to go on in the "rocks-paper-shotgun" debate is that AD came out and said he's more comfortable running out of the I formation, and that he's had a few big runs out of that formation that have pumped his per-carry average up as compared to the gun formation. But that's it, isn't it?

I'm fairly certain he's been more effective running from more traditional run formations than out of the shotgun. It's not simply that a few big plays have pumped up his per-carry average. Regardless, the shotgun is not a running formation. Why choose to run out of it in that situation when there are better options? The shotgun makes it easy to key on the back and the run options from that formation are limited.

And no matter how one looks at it, the pre-snap formation has zero to do with how well the offensive linemen end up blocking on the play, how well the receivers run their routes, whether Bridgewater gets them the ball and whether they catch it, doesn't it?

Yes and no. It doesn't have to do with how well they execute their assignments but players can face varying degrees of difficulty in their assignments in different formations. Among other things, the shotgun can stress the tackles, particularly against speedy edge rushers.

I think its impossible for you to prove that, but hopefully Norv will hear the complaints and start calling more I formation plays. At least that way we can see if they will continue to suck as long as they don't execute the play, or if by some magic the pre-snap formation makes up for the lack of execution.

Nobody suggested a formation would magically make up for a lack of execution. I think we all know better than that.

I understand that any play will work if properly executed but play calls and formations aren't all equal in every circumstance and with any given set of players. Proper execution of plays is always important but formations aren't inconsequential.

[fiestavike]

You're describing results so you obviously care about them. Playing well, scoring more points... those are results and rankings and stats just reflect results, which is why they have some significance. The stats aren't what's important, the positive results are, but the former will reflect the latter.

You are missing my point completely.

Realistic solutions: put Bridgewater under center more often. It isn't necessarily going to lead to more hits on him or to more sacks. They run successful plays with him under center so it's not as if it's unrealistic to operate that way. Playing him under center will make him less of a target for speedy edge rushers because they won't have such a clear lane to him. The Vikes can use more quick-hitting plays if necessary. They can keep extra blockers in to protect or even go max protect. They should be able to run the ball more effectively, which should open up play action. They can also run more plays designed to take advantage of aggressive defenses, like screens, slants into zones abandoned by blitzers, misdirection plays, etc. Modify routes so they develop more quickly. There are plenty of realistic solutions.

Why do you think they aren't doing or trying to do all of this already? I've seen examples of everything you've suggested in 5 games this season. Are you suggesting a slight tweak, say 5 extra snaps under center or a complete overhaul, like, 90 percent of snaps under center? We're not dealing with Mike Martz here and his 5 WRS 20 yards down the field.

Specifying a better ranking is no more realistic in terms of expectations than saying they should have a better ranking. It's just a more specific way of saying they need to improve and it's not necessary to have a specific numerical target in mind for someone to believe the offense is playing beneath their potential. "Not last" wasn't just cheeky. From last place, there's nowhere to go but up. Anything above last would represent an actual step in the right direction.

LOL, so NORV! should just always do better than whatever he's doing.

I think they're too low anyway.

You do realize they had the 13th-ranked offense and averaged 24.4 points per game as a team the year before Turner arrived, right? They've added talent and supposedly improved their QB position since then and yet their offensive productivity has rather steadily declined. I don't think OL injuries alone are enough to account for that.

So now its 13th. Okay, can I hold you to that one? or are we just bound for #1 or bust?

[Mothman]

So now its 13th. Okay, can I hold you to that one? or are we just bound for #1 or bust?

I didn't say they should be ranked 13th.

As for "#1 or bust"... that better be their goal. I'm not saying they should reach it this year but if that's not where they're ultimately aiming, something's wrong.

I'm dropping this.

[chicagopurple]

1.) you cant run any offense without an OL. its just a simple unescapable fact of life.
2.) AP has been an epic RB who has frequently had a very mediocre OL, but not out of the shotgun. Making the OL worse AND asking him to run out of shotgun is a bit much.....Norv is well paid and supposed to innovate and address our problems.....
3.) Teddy has better receivers, a star RB, and another year of experience under his belt....yet seems to have made little progress. The optimist in my head ( who is very tiny and frequently ignored) says its all due to a piss-poor OL. The cynic in my head ( Much more influential after 40 yrs of Viking Football) says that truly promising NFL QBs learn to deal with this hardship ala Rodgers, Manning, Tark, Culpepper, etc etc.......

[losperros]

1.) you cant run any offense without an OL. its just a simple unescapable fact of life.

Agreed!

2.) AP has been an epic RB who has frequently had a very mediocre OL, but not out of the shotgun. Making the OL worse AND asking him to run out of shotgun is a bit much.....Norv is well paid and supposed to innovate and address our problems.....

Absolutely!

3.) Teddy has better receivers, a star RB, and another year of experience under his belt....yet seems to have made little progress. The optimist in my head ( who is very tiny and frequently ignored) says its all due to a piss-poor OL. The cynic in my head ( Much more influential after 40 yrs of Viking Football) says that truly promising NFL QBs learn to deal with this hardship ala Rodgers, Manning, Tark, Culpepper, etc etc.......

Your first two facts make this third one hard to judge right now. Okay, if a good QB just has a bad OL, he might work his way around it. But couple it with some questionable offensive coordinating and I think it would be difficult for any QB to be successful. Just sayin'...

[mondry]

Remember all those years we dominated aaron rodgers before they fixed their o-line and he got some experience? Rodgers couldn't do anything behind that line and now he's super good! Give Teddy some time and an O-line and I have high hopes. His passer rating is near the top of the league when he's not under pressure.

[Jordysghost]

Remember all those years we dominated aaron rodgers before they fixed their o-line and he got some experience? Rodgers couldn't do anything behind that line and now he's super good! Give Teddy some time and an O-line and I have high hopes. His passer rating is near the top of the league when he's not under pressure.

Rodgers was good from the start, but he still became Elite long before the O line was anywhere close to fixed.