Vikings Message Board.Com

Nevermind, Norv is a genius. He's running the perfect offense. Nothing to see here move along.

Demi wrote:Nevermind, Norv is a genius. He's running the perfect offense. Nothing to see here move along.

Yeah because I said that??

Demi wrote:Nevermind, Norv is a genius. He's running the perfect offense. Nothing to see here move along.

Nobody is saying Norv is above criticism, but if you have no idea what he could have done better, its hard to take your criticism seriously, especially given the track record of negativity you have created. It doesn't help that when pressed to add something substantive to your critique you abandon the discussion with a sarcastic remark and run to the nearest rock for cover.

Look, I am more than willing to hear a valid critique of any and every member of the Vikings team and staff. I'm certain they have all made mistakes, and some of them are undoubtedly "busts" in their respective positions. I wouldn't be in a rush to put Norv Turner in that category. I think the game plan against Atlanta was the right call, in fact I predicted a very similar game plan, but thinking how we would match up against Detroit and Buffalo, its pretty tough to figure what would have worked terribly well. I was pleased to see the successful commitment to the run against the Bills, the line played a little better in that game and the result was closer to a victory than the week before against Detroit.

Obviously, we are dealing with limitations on the line, the skill positions, and with a rookie QB. The poor results have been frustrating but things can't be accurately judged based solely on results. Be a little patient.

In the meantime, if you come up with some specific ideas about what could have worked better/could work better in the future I'd love to discuss them.

fiestavike wrote:

Nobody is saying Norv is above criticism, but if you have no idea what he could have done better, its hard to take your criticism seriously, especially given the track record of negativity you have created. It doesn't help that when pressed to add something substantive to your critique you abandon the discussion with a sarcastic remark and run to the nearest rock for cover.

Look, I am more than willing to hear a valid critique of any and every member of the Vikings team and staff. I'm certain they have all made mistakes, and some of them are undoubtedly "busts" in their respective positions. I wouldn't be in a rush to put Norv Turner in that category. I think the game plan against Atlanta was the right call, in fact I predicted a very similar game plan, but thinking how we would match up against Detroit and Buffalo, its pretty tough to figure what would have worked terribly well. I was pleased to see the successful commitment to the run against the Bills, the line played a little better in that game and the result was closer to a victory than the week before against Detroit.

Obviously, we are dealing with limitations on the line, the skill positions, and with a rookie QB. The poor results have been frustrating but things can't be accurately judged based solely on results. Be a little patient.

In the meantime, if you come up with some specific ideas about what could have worked better/could work better in the future I'd love to discuss them.

valid points!!!

Obviously, we are dealing with limitations on the line, the skill positions, and with a rookie QB.

Which is why I expect a good coordinator to try and make use of what he does have. Forget the one FB play, people wanted Patterson more involved. But there have been fewer and fewer sweeps, screens, designed runs etc. You have a option qb/wr/rb thing in McKinnon, a mobile guy in Teddy, a multi-threat athlete type in Patterson. Why not run more routes out of the backfield? Or use more of the read-option and shotgun stuff to give Teddy a better chance? Instead we're seeing the same offense and play calling we were seeing with Cassell, Ponder, Asiata and the personnel on offense. And it's not as though he can't adjust, he did in the Atlanta game. Considering the lack of success on offense outside of that game, I just wonder why we aren't seeing more of it.

Demi wrote: Which is why I expect a good coordinator to try and make use of what he does have. Forget the one FB play, people wanted Patterson more involved. But there have been fewer and fewer sweeps, screens, designed runs etc. You have a option qb/wr/rb thing in McKinnon, a mobile guy in Teddy, a multi-threat athlete type in Patterson. Why not run more routes out of the backfield? Or use more of the read-option and shotgun stuff to give Teddy a better chance? Instead we're seeing the same offense and play calling we were seeing with Cassell, Ponder, Asiata and the personnel on offense. And it's not as though he can't adjust, he did in the Atlanta game. Considering the lack of success on offense outside of that game, I just wonder why we aren't seeing more of it.

I think there is a chance we will see more of the shotgun/spread/read option against the Buccs, unless the Vikings are able to line up and run effectively out of a power formation, which I think is what they ultimately want to do. I suspect the reason we didn't see as much of that spread vs the Lions and Bills is that they have the tackles to blow up those plays before they start on a consistent basis.

I thought the game plan against the Bills was actually not bad, but Teddy was pretty bad for the first half and pass protection wasn't stellar either. There's no doubt we were able to run the ball well in that game against a very good run defense, which bodes well going into Tampa.

Against Detroit, our line was so terrible and outmatched nothing would have worked at all.

I also think its worth pointing out something that perhaps can best be illustrated with a soccer analogy. The US national team doesn't have the talent and quality of players you find on European teams. For years, they had Bob Bradley running a cautious, conservative, defensive approach to help keep them in games, and given the talent level it was a sensible and fairly effective strategy. But, it could be argued it was a shortsighted strategy. It didn't put players in a position where they had to develop the ability to execute a more competitive game plan that could lift the team to new heights. Klinsman has come in and put in a more forward looking, aggressive, demanding, longterm approach, and not without growing pains.

To me this is kind of the situation we are discussing when fans demand coaches put in game plans that give us the best chance to win "this week". It can be short sighted and foolish in my opinion, and its the product of fans wanting immediate results. But if we want GREAT results, I think we have to recognize that its better for the team to take its lumps and continue trying execute a game plan that will ultimately make a us a more competitive and consistent offense. I'll admit that part of the reason I make this argument is that I have great faith in Norv Turner. if we were talking about bevell or musgrave, I wouldn't probably feel as confident that the guy in charge is working to build what will eventually be an excellent offense.

Demi wrote: Which is why I expect a good coordinator to try and make use of what he does have. Forget the one FB play, people wanted Patterson more involved. But there have been fewer and fewer sweeps, screens, designed runs etc. You have a option qb/wr/rb thing in McKinnon, a mobile guy in Teddy, a multi-threat athlete type in Patterson. Why not run more routes out of the backfield? Or use more of the read-option and shotgun stuff to give Teddy a better chance? Instead we're seeing the same offense and play calling we were seeing with Cassell, Ponder, Asiata and the personnel on offense. And it's not as though he can't adjust, he did in the Atlanta game. Considering the lack of success on offense outside of that game, I just wonder why we aren't seeing more of it.

It may be because you're talking about a specific set of adjustments that yielded great results against a specific opponent (Atlanta). However, defenses adjust too. The Packers saw what the Vikes did against Atlanta and I thought it was apparent from the start of that Thursday night game that their defensive game plan involved taking away the short, quick throws near the line of scrimmage that worked so well for the Vikes against the Falcons. They challenged the Vikes to run the ball and throw it downfield and subsequent opponents have followed suit. The Vikes ran it well against Buffalo but their downfield passing game is struggling. Their pass protection is inefficient, to say the least and Bridgewater is playing like a rookie. I don't think the lack of good, consistent results indicates a lack of effort to adjust. I suspect Norv is just trying to find what works. They've run routes out of the backfield and utilized the shotgun all year. Maybe they need to start moving the pocket but in the end, no matter what adjustments Turner makes, the offense is going nowhere unless the players start performing more consistently and winning more battles, both individually and as a unit. When a defense adjusts to something, the offense needs to find something else that works, something to open up what the defense is taking away. The Vikes might be finding their running game. Maybe they can build on that.

Maybe they need to start moving the pocket but in the end, no matter what adjustments Turner makes, the offense is going nowhere unless the players start performing more consistently and winning more battles, both individually and as a unit. When a defense adjusts to something, the offense needs to find something else that works, something to open up what the defense is taking away.

I guess that's what I'm trying to say. With this personnel they aren't going to win match ups on their own. So why isn't Norv trying to do more on offense to take advantage of what they do have. The defense adjusted and he went right back to what he was doing since world war 2. And the offense failed to adjust when that wasn't working. It's the same thing we've seen with Childress, Musgrave, and now with Norv. We may have had the talent to do it if the offense stayed healthy, and AD didn't get suspended, but now it doesn't matter what the defense does if the offense isn't adjusting. Drive to drive, much less week to week.

Demi wrote:I guess that's what I'm trying to say. With this personnel they aren't going to win match ups on their own. So why isn't Norv trying to do more on offense to take advantage of what they do have. The defense adjusted and he went right back to what he was doing since world war 2.

I don't think that's entirely true but he might need to go deeper in his playbook. To some extent, I think it just seems like he's doing the same old thing because we're seeing too much of the same old result (ie: disappointing offense).

Maybe they'll have more success on offense today. If they don't, against the Bucs bottom-ranked defense, the criticism is going to start getting loud.

McKinnon is another one I may be eating crow for. I think he has what it takes to carry 20+ a game. Gotta feed him, just like we did AD. Asiata isn't cutting it, and I question some of the plays he was on the field. And have yet to see consistent screen, short passes to him, like we did with PH.

Mothman wrote: You wouldn't want to imagine it if you were that DB!

Quoting Jim here but this is for everyone:

I just saw that Julius Peppers was the intended target on a slant route from Rodgers. He didn't catch it and I didn't see the play so I have no idea what it could've have gained...still pretty imaginative.

I think it would be a good thing to have a handful of plays for Barr on the offensive side of the ball for key situations. Of course that would mean some semblance of stability of that side of the ball to begin with... Barr is an amazing athlete and I would use him in situations in important games, assuming this team finds itself in some in the next coupla seasons.

The Breeze wrote:Quoting Jim here but this is for everyone:

I just saw that Julius Peppers was the intended target on a slant route from Rodgers. He didn't catch it and I didn't see the play so I have no idea what it could've have gained...still pretty imaginative.

I think it would be a good thing to have a handful of plays for Barr on the offensive side of the ball for key situations. Of course that would mean some semblance of stability of that side of the ball to begin with... Barr is an amazing athlete and I would use him in situations in important games, assuming this team finds itself in some in the next coupla seasons.

It would have been a TD, and he was open and should have caught it.

The Breeze wrote:Quoting Jim here but this is for everyone:

I just saw that Julius Peppers was the intended target on a slant route from Rodgers. He didn't catch it and I didn't see the play so I have no idea what it could've have gained...still pretty imaginative.

I think it would be a good thing to have a handful of plays for Barr on the offensive side of the ball for key situations. Of course that would mean some semblance of stability of that side of the ball to begin with... Barr is an amazing athlete and I would use him in situations in important games, assuming this team finds itself in some in the next coupla seasons.

I'm all for it IF he truly demonstrates an ability to handle it and shows a high level of reliability in practice. Imagination is great but that attempt to Peppers illustrates the downside of such trickery. Green Bay was in position to score a TD on that possession. Rodgers threw a perfect strike to Peppers, who ran a simple slant, and Peppers dropped it. A WR likely catches that pass so while I give McCarthy an "A" for imaginative use of a defensive end, I also question why the heck he's using a defensive end in that situation when he has players much more accustomed to catching passes who can run that same route and get open. In the end, all he probably accomplished was costing his team a TD.

Mothman wrote: I'm all for it IF he truly demonstrates an ability to handle it and shows a high level of reliability in practice. Imagination is great but that attempt to Peppers illustrates the downside of such trickery. Green Bay was in position to score a TD on that possession. Rodgers threw a perfect strike to Peppers, who ran a simple slant, and Peppers dropped it. A WR likely catches that pass so while I give McCarthy an "A" for imaginative use of a defensive end, I also question why the heck he's using a defensive end in that situation when he has players much more accustomed to catching passes who can run that same route and get open. In the end, all he probably accomplished was costing his team a TD.

Interesting....

I suppose one reason he was wide open was due to him being a DE. I don't know if Peppers has played much at all on that side of the ball and he if did it was a long time ago.

I'm not sure how well Barr catches the ball....but I know he's played more RB than LB. I'm just thinking of short yardage situations and maybe a short pass play or two...and yes only ever used should he prove competent at the task. Hard to imagine him not being so.
I'll call Norv later

The Breeze wrote:Interesting....

I suppose one reason he was wide open was due to him being a DE. I don't know if Peppers has played much at all on that side of the ball and he if did it was a long time ago

He was open but he wasn't wide open (although since you didn't see the play, i can understand why you might think that based on what PMR and I posted). The Saints covered him. He just got inside position on the slant and I imagine the idea was that if he could do that, his size would shield the defender from the ball. All of that worked. He just didn't make the catch.

I don't think Peppers has played much offense and they said on the broadcast he's never caught a pass as a pro. Of course, I don't know if he had ever been targeted with a pass as a pro prior to that either...

I'm not sure how well Barr catches the ball....but I know he's played more RB than LB. I'm just thinking of short yardage situations and maybe a short pass play or two...and yes only ever used should he prove competent at the task. Hard to imagine him not being so.
I'll call Norv later

Please do.

Since Barr has experience as an offensive player, hopefully that would make him well-suited to use as an option on some plays. I'm all for a little more imagination in the Vikes offense!