Vikings Message Board.Com

Mothman wrote:
Wait... what are you quoting? I think I missed something.

Inside losperros' quote. I remember in this thread or another you were curious as to what the philosophical difference between the two may have been.

PacificNorseWest wrote:Inside losperros' quote. I remember in this thread or another you were curious as to what the philosophical difference between the two may have been.

I am curious.

Thanks for the explanation. I'm sorry it was necessary. My focus is all over the place today... in other words, I'm unfocused.

I hate to be pessimistic, but in the short term, Norv's resignation and Shurmur's ascension is not going to many any difference. It is still the same OL, the same RB's, the same QB, etc. The playbook will not change dramatically mid-season and the realities of masking our porous OL with "safe" plays will keep the offense one-dimensional and easily neutralized. It's going to be a bumpy ride and we will struggle to get into the playoffs.

Hope I'm wrong.

I dont think we cant be both safe and dynamic enough on offense. The Eagles are a good blueprint to,follow. With an oline with that many injuries and suspensions and a rookie QB they have looked solid. They do a really good job of getting the ball to playmakers in space and we have the weapons to do the same. With guys like Mckinnon, Patterson, and Diggs we can throw lots of swing passes, slants, screens, etc to get them room to run. Obviously we are limites due to our line, but if we get creative we have plenty at the skill positions to have a decent offense.

Sent from my RS988 using Tapatalk

Mothman wrote: I am curious.

Thanks for the explanation. I'm sorry it was necessary. My focus is all over the place today... in other words, I'm unfocused.

I am as well. It was a lazy post, so don't feel bad.

Mothman wrote: They've started some rookies so it seems to be a choice they make on a case by case basis.

The point I tried to make is who is making the choices. Since the case by case basis is both on offense and defense, we know Norv couldn't have been making all the decisions about being conservative with any particular rookies.

losperros wrote: The point I tried to make is who is making the choices. Since the case by case basis is both on offense and defense, we know Norv couldn't have been making all the decisions about being conservative with any particular rookies.

Sorry, I did understand your point. My comment was meant more as a general statement in the midst of the discussion rather than a direct reply to your point. Unfortunately I didn't make that clear at all!

Mothman wrote: Sorry, I did understand your point. My comment was meant more as a general statement in the midst of the discussion rather than a direct reply to your point. Unfortunately I didn't make that clear at all!

No problemo, Jim. Had I articulated myself better there never would have been any confusion.

So we're both guilty.

Maybe Norv wanted to go with Shaun Hill or Taylor Heinecke and the organization (somewhat understandably) is comited and locked in to Bradford given what they mortgaged to get him.

Bradford has proven he isn't capable of performing in that offensive system, so maybe it was just destined to fail so long as Norv was onboard.

fiestavike wrote:Maybe Norv wanted to go with Shaun Hill or Taylor Heinecke and the organization (somewhat understandably) is comited and locked in to Bradford given what they mortgaged to get him.

That seems extraordinarily unlikely.

Mothman wrote: That seems extraordinarily unlikely.

I think this team would be at least 6-4 (if not better) with Shaun Hill under center.

Heinecke would be the most sensible play longterm. Can he play at least as good as Sam? probably, but let's find out. If the Vikings move on from Bradford, and Peterson, along with several other players who carry 0 or minimal cap hits, they can clear between 50-60 million to work on the offensive line.

fiestavike wrote: I think this team would be at least 6-4 (if not better) with Shaun Hill under center.

Heinecke would be the most sensible play longterm. Can he play at least as good as Sam? probably, but let's find out. If the Vikings move on from Bradford, and Peterson, along with several other players who carry 0 or minimal cap hits, they can clear between 50-60 million to work on the offensive line.

Seriously? Whoa. You really do not like Bradford, eh? I think he's played very well and if not for him we'd likely be 3-7 or so.

fiestavike wrote:I think this team would be at least 6-4 (if not better) with Shaun Hill under center.

I don't and if Norv felt strongly that Hill should be the QB (and could last the season), I doubt the Bradford trade would have happened in the first place. Hill's limitations would probably have made the offense even more one-dimensional than it's been with a terrible running game. They'd be easier to defend with Hill at QB, not harder.

Heinecke would be the most sensible play longterm. Can he play at least as good as Sam? probably, but let's find out.

"Probably"? Based on a handful of decent pre-season games?

Heinicke hasn't even been healthy enough to play for most of this season and there's no reason to believe that once he returned, Norv favored him over Bradford so much that he resigned because he couldn't play him.

what is with all this Bradford hate? The guy does the ONE thing that Teddy did well (not throw INTs), has a good quick release game (the ONLY reason he is still alive), and is a reasonable leader. Can he throw deep balls accurately? Not frequently but seemingly better then Teddy. Our other back ups havent shown any reason to believe that they are better then this. Its crazy to suggest that our team is being held back by a lack of QB talent. We are limited by having absolutely NO Ol and a few back up role players at RB who arent capable of posing a run threat when they get no blocking.

Hiencke wasn't much of an option at the time of the trade.
I think Norv liked Bradford based on what i remember from the comments. i think Norv is gone because his system/philosophy has requirements that are very difficult to achieve in todays game...how it played out is moot to me. it just wasn't working.
I can't guess what they mighta got outta hill/hiencke...but i don't think that woulda been a bad move for the long term either, to fiesta's point.
gotta see how it all plays out. i'm sure the new stadium had some effect on their reasoning to go after bradford. maybe they flinched and maybe the crushed it...we'll see.
-
i read this morn on another board that the offense this season under norv was getting 1.6something pts per drive, which put them near the bottom of the league.
Since shurmur has been at the helm they are @ 1.9...middle of the pack.
just posting a number, not making any clims about it~