Vikings Message Board.Com

We has a respectable 230 yards passing yesterday. In the Ponder years we saw 100 yard passing games. Where we are struggling is red zone offense. If Hill has the same stat line with 2TD the line would probably be even on Sunday. To me THAT is the difference. The Frasier era teams would have killed for a passing game like what Hill produced on Sunday. (Not that it was great, just that they were so bad.)

Also, unlike all of the Frasier teams except perhaps the 2012 squad, this team has a legitimate defense. Thus the amount of points needed to secure victory is lower that it might otherwise be.

Offensive production is what it will be all about. Once they put some scores on the board the 9 man boxes are going to be less frequent.

mansquatch wrote:We has a respectable 230 yards passing yesterday. In the Ponder years we saw 100 yard passing games. Where we are struggling is red zone offense. If Hill has the same stat line with 2TD the line would probably be even on Sunday. To me THAT is the difference. The Frasier era teams would have killed for a passing game like what Hill produced on Sunday. (Not that it was great, just that they were so bad.)

Also, unlike all of the Frasier teams except perhaps the 2012 squad, this team has a legitimate defense. Thus the amount of points needed to secure victory is lower that it might otherwise be.

Passing totals of about 230 yards weren't exactly rare from 2011-2013 (maybe performances like that without INTs would qualify as rare though!) and we've continued to see a fair number of passing performances in the low to mid-100s since then so I'm not quite seeing the point of the sudden comparison. Is it a response to the WP article? I think the point there was how teams defend Peterson, not to compare the offenses under the 2 coaching staffs. They could have picked film from the last two years and made the same points because there still hasn't been much respect for the Vikings passing game from opposing defenses.

Offensive production is what it will be all about. Once they put some scores on the board the 9 man boxes are going to be less frequent.

I agree. They need to get in the end zone and Turner's Vikings offenses have struggled to do that.

dead_poet wrote:Look what happened to Gurley when the 49ers sold out to stop him daring Keenum to beat them. Is he "done"? Let's just pump the breaks on AD.

Exactly!! People on here are freaking out saying his age is catching up to him and everything else. And I said it once and I'll say it again, does anyone remember the SF game last year when he had a very similar game? Yet he went on to lead the league in rushing. Relax people

The lack of INT and the fact that we had some semblance of a medium range passing game was the difference i was trying to cite. Teams cannot stack the box with recklessness against Shaun Hill and this group of WR like they could against the QB/WR in 2013/2014.

The numbers are far from ideal, but I think there is enough of a difference to feel like the comparison to rosters isn't entirely apples to apples. Shaun Hill can connect with Diggs and Rudolph enough that if you sell out to the run he can punish you.

Even Hill though he had more snaps with the starters than Bradford, he had backup QB reps, not full time starter reps. Also, it is safe to assume that Bradford is likely getting a fair amount of snaps in practice to get him ready to take over the job.

To me this leads to three conclusions against the WAPO article:

1.) Shaun Hill's production is not as bad as Ponder/Freeman/Rookie TB (but not much better either)
2.) The current roster is much more talented at WR and DEF than the 2013/2014 squads
3.) The current offensive output is likely handicapped (to what extent is uncertain) due to splitting snaps between QBs in practice.

I think we will not likely see a true glimpse into our offensive potential until after the Bye. I doubt we are going to start putting up 30 points a game, but it might be the difference in PF of 3-4 PPG.

Mothman wrote:
Other than the potential cut to the outside Peterson didn't see early in the game (Chris Spielman pointed it out on the broadcast), when he had a hole to run through, he seemed to get through it just fine. Unfortunately, most of the time, the Titans were dictating the line of scrimmage and getting into the backfield, Running games simply aren't productive under those circumstances, no matter who's carrying the ball.

The run blocking was bad, but Peterson was also TERRIBLE. You've spent the last two years saying "excuses" to anyone who defends Teddy Bridgewater (which I agree is an absurd charge) but why not apply it to your own argument here?

Don't feel obliged to respond, I'm just hoping you might rethink the dogmatic nature of your position.

mansquatch wrote:The lack of INT and the fact that we had some semblance of a medium range passing game was the difference i was trying to cite. Teams cannot stack the box with recklessness against Shaun Hill and this group of WR like they could against the QB/WR in 2013/2014.

A team just did and the Vikes offense was only able to score 12 points, all on FGs, one of which was set up by Patterson's kick return. The offense followed that return up with a mighty 2 yard drive and then Zimmer had to trot Walsh out again.

From the standpoint of the Titans, that was a highly successful defensive strategy. They gave up 12 points, only 9 of which were really "earned" by the offense.

To me this leads to three conclusions against the WAPO article:

1.) Shaun Hill's production is not as bad as Ponder/Freeman/Rookie TB (but not much better either)

You're talking about one game with Hill starting so that conclusion depends entirely upon which games you compare. Freeman's not even worth mentioning. He never played more than one game with the Vikings and that game was atypical. Ponder, Cassel and Bridgewater have all had better games as Vikings QBs and they've all had worse.

2.) The current roster is much more talented at WR and DEF than the 2013/2014 squads

On that I agree but it didn't make much difference on Sunday. Your conclusions against the WP don't seem to actually work against it. Hill and the more WRs didn't get the ball in the end zone or hurt the TN defense enough to change their strategy. As for point #3, if the QBs are currently handicapped by splitting practice snaps, that works for a startegy that focuses on the run because... the QBs are "handicapped".

I think we'll see teams stack the box just as that WP article suggested, and as the Titans did, until the Vikings prove, on a consistent basis, they can make defenses pay for that strategy on the scoreboard. How this offense compares to those of 2011-2013 is immaterial. The goal remains the same: stop Peterson and chances are, you stop the Vikings offense.

fiestavike wrote:The run blocking was bad, but Peterson was also TERRIBLE. You've spent the last two years saying "excuses" to anyone who defends Teddy Bridgewater (which I agree is an absurd charge) but why not apply it to your own argument here?

Because I'm not making excuses. If the run blocking was bad, as you stated, what did you expect to happen?

Look, the film doesn't lie. I've watched the running plays more than once and as I've already stated, my view aligns with Zimmer's on this. There were breakdowns in several areas. The Vikes were losing too many one-on-one blocking assignments, allowing backside pursuit to get to the runner, etc. Peterson missed a hole or two but he wasn't terrible. The running game was terrible and frankly, that was pretty obvious. On most of the plays where he ran for little to no gain he literally had nowhere to go.

Don't feel obliged to respond, I'm just hoping you might rethink the dogmatic nature of your position.

I'll tell you what: I'll re-think my position when Zimmer re-thinks his... or is he being too dogmatic too? Seriously, if it seems like I'm being particularly insistent about this, it's only because I'm quite confident in my conclusions. That's not just because they align with Zimmer's but also because, when I watch the game film, it's very clear.

I also lack patience for a lot of the more over-the-top theorizing and conclusion-jumping about Peterson. We saw the same thing after week 1 last year and then he led the league in rushing anyway.

Mothman wrote:
A team just did and the Vikes offense was only able to score 12 points, all on FGs, one of which was set up by Patterson's kick return. The offense followed that return up with a mighty 2 yard drive and then Zimmer had to trot Walsh out again.

From the standpoint of the Titans, that was a highly successful defensive strategy. They gave up 12 points, only 9 of which were really "earned" by the offense.

I feel weird saying this but I completely agree! LOL

I'm actually really surprised how happy the board seems with Hill's performance. Sure on the stats page he did alright but we once again didn't score a touchdown when the opposing team made it their mission to stop AD.

They had 9 in the box a lot more than any game Teddy would have played in and for me I just expect a bit more I guess. Normally we can blame the O-line or Norv's game plan but the O-line didn't even give up a sack and for the most part Norv called an alright game.

It's like you said Jim, I can't feel good about Hill's performance when the Titans basically accomplished exactly what they set out to do. If the defense hadn't dominated the 2nd half, scored TD's themselves, and Patterson's great return doesn't happen this is probably a loss.

The board feels good about Hill's performance because the bar was so low. His arm stayed attached, he didn't throw a pick, and he made a few good throws.

That's an A+ considering what a lot of people thought he'd do.

Sent using tapatalk. Typos should be expected.

Cliff wrote:The board feels good about Hill's performance because the bar was so low. His arm stayed attached, he didn't throw a pick, and he made a few good throws.

That's an A+ considering what a lot of people thought he'd do.

Well said. Personally, even though he didn't have a great game by any means and the offense needs to produce much, much better, I did enjoy seeing him attack beyond 10 yards fairly often and I thought his decisiveness was one of the reasons the OL didn't give up a sack all game. Obviously, they did their jobs too but Hill played like he knew where he wanted to throw and he got the ball out of his hand quickly.

Mothman wrote: Well said. Personally, even though he didn't have a great game by any means and the offense needs to produce much, much better, I did enjoy seeing him attack beyond 10 yards fairly often and I thought his decisiveness was one of the reasons the OL didn't give up a sack all game. Obviously, they did their jobs too but Hill played like he knew where he wanted to throw and he got the ball out of his hand quickly.

I agree. I didn't mean to downplay what Hill did in game. I think he did really well overall ... I just think the level to which he did well is exaggerated a little bit by the low bar lol

Side Note, Jim. Even though I know what you sound like, for some reason, as I read your posts I do so in the voice of Dick Stockton. Especially in game day threads

Cliff wrote:I agree. I didn't mean to downplay what Hill did in game. I think he did really well overall ... I just think the level to which he did well is exaggerated a little bit by the low bar lol

Yes, even I could jump over that bar and I inspired the movie title "White Men Can't Jump".

Side Note, Jim. Even though I know what you sound like, for some reason, as I read your posts I do so in the voice of Dick Stockton. Especially in game day threads

He has a much better speaking voice than I do so that's probably a good thing.

For some reason, when I read your posts, I hear the voice of Daffy Duck.

Mothman wrote:For some reason, when I read your posts, I hear the voice of Daffy Duck.

I read everyone's post in the voice of Morgan Freeman.