Vikings Message Board.Com

BGM wrote:Does Greenway need to improve his coverage skills? Sure.

Chad Greenway is not going to improve his coverage skills at the age of 30. They are what they are at this point.

Eli wrote: Chad Greenway is not going to improve his coverage skills at the age of 30. They are what they are at this point.

I don't necessarily agree, but I guess the old dog-new tricks allegory trumps that hope. So, barring that his coverage skills improve, does that weakness in his game preclude him being a Pro Bowl or All Pro LB? Apparently not.

Could it be that he needs to be used in a different manner? Would having a MLB with coverage skills help take some of the burden and keep opposing teams from exploiting Greenway's one obvious drawback? The guy obviously has a nose for the ball and gets the tackles.

BGM wrote:I don't necessarily agree, but I guess the old dog-new tricks allegory trumps that hope.

Bah, don't buy it. An old dog can learn new tricks if he's interested and a 30 year old player can still improve an aspect of his game. Charles Tillman did it.

Mothman wrote: Bah, don't buy it. An old dog can learn new tricks if he's interested and a 30 year old player can still improve an aspect of his game. Charles Tillman did it.

He's played 6 years with 6 interceptions (averages 1 per year.) Now that's not "shut down corner" numbers, but he's a linebacker. If had those kind of shut down cover skills he'd be a Safety or CB. Ware (who ostensibly is "better" since he got the first nod before Greenway stepped in) has a grand total of 1 interception over his 7 year career. I submit pass coverage is not high on the list of qualifications for a pro-bowl LB. It's nice (and Greenway being counted on to get 1 pick a year on average is a plus), but obviously not factored in all that much.

Ware is a sack machine, so they play the position differently, but to say Greenway has no coverage skills is a gross overstatement IMHO. He is a solid tackler (even if I concede he is 'unspectacular' - which I do not) that is sorely needed. I'm glad we have him and I think his selection is well deserved...

I really like Chad (he is a fellow South Dakotan and Iowa Hawkeye) but his coverage skills frustrate me every time I watch him. He is definitely athletic enough to be a coverage linebacker, so I don't why a disconnect exists. If Chad could cover as well as he could tackle and fill the gap, he would be an all pro every year.

Just Me wrote:but to say Greenway has no coverage skills is a gross overstatement IMHO.

I'm a big Greenway supporter, but he's not a playmaker in coverage, evidenced by this sobering stat:

Greenway allowed 742 receiving yards, which is more than any other linebacker in a single season over the past five years. This is the third time in five years Greenway has led the category.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2 ... s-week-17/

dead_poet wrote: I'm a big Greenway supporter, but he's not a playmaker in coverage, evidenced by this sobering stat:
https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2 ... s-week-17/

I wonder if they can truly determine coverage responsibilities in the Vikings zone defense well enough to make that assessment. How are they deciding that Greenway alone is responsible for giving up that yardage? Is it based on his proximity to the receiver? Throws into his zone? Is his responsibility to prevent some of those passes or keep them in front of him?

Other variables are likely at work as well. I know I sound like the proverbial (and out-dated) broken record and I think Greenway needs to be better in coverage but stats like this and PFF's ongoing man-crush on Erin Henderson really make me question the validity of their analysis.

dead_poet wrote: I'm a big Greenway supporter, but he's not a playmaker in coverage, evidenced by this sobering stat:
https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2 ... s-week-17/

I'm not asserting he's a "playmaker" by any means. I think all of us (including his supporters like you and I) agree his coverage skills could be better. But to say he has no coverage skills is an overstatement. If he has none, he be like...well Ware. The difference is: If Greenway was turning in a sack laden season on a regular basis like Ware, no one would care about his lack of pass coverage plays either... I can think of several linebackers I'd like to have in coverage over Greenway, but... I can also think of several that I wouldn't. That's my point...

No one covers or rushes in the Pro Bowl anyway.

I wonder if they can truly determine coverage responsibilities in the Vikings zone defense well enough to make that assessment. How are they deciding that Greenway alone is responsible for giving up that yardage? Is it based on his proximity to the receiver? Throws into his zone? Is his responsibility to prevent some of those passes or keep them in front of him?

They're breaking down all these other linebackers as well. Are they somehow better able to do those same things for all of them and not Greenway?...

Demi wrote: They're breaking down all these other linebackers as well. Are they somehow better able to do those same things for all of them and not Greenway?...

No, but that's not really the point and it's not necessarily something that would just even out. Schemes, strategies and responsibilities vary and the fanalysts at PFF may not be correctly understanding and interpreting the coverage responsibilities of all these LBs, especially if they're playing zone defense.

The Vikings allowed 3,908 passing yards this season. PFF is claiming Greenway alone is responsible for almost 20% of those yards. I find that pretty hard to believe.

The implication is that he just gets shredded in one-on-one coverage but LB coverage in a zone defense is pretty different than, say, CB coverage. If an LB's job is to cover a zone, keep the play in front of him and make the tackle, a lot of those "yards allowed" aren't necessarily harmful and may even be allowed by design. Force the checkdown, make the tackle, get off the field. There's a big difference between plays like that and an LB assigned to cover a TE down the seam or an RB running a route 15 yards downfield. They're giving us a stat almost entirely without context. If Greenway is allowing a lot of 3-5 yard gains on on first and second down and making tackles, that's not necessarily bad coverage. It's arguably good defense.

Maybe he's as awful in coverage as they make him sound but it doesn't look that way to me and I can't help being suspicious of a site that thinks Erin Henderson is not only better than Greenway but is one of the top 3 LBs in the NFC North.

#Bears CB Charles Tillman and #Vikings LB Chad Greenway are 2 of 5 finalists for NFLPA's Byron "Whizzer" White award for community service.

Tom Seifert on Twitter

I'd like to see missed tackles as a stat. I think it would demonstrate that Greenway excels at what he is SUPPOSED to do. Jim is right, the Tampa cover two that is employed in Minnesota is a safe, conservative, "keep everything in front of you" defense that drives most of us crazy. It relies on disciplined deeper zones and allow other offenses to make mistakes and for the defensive front to limit the opposing QB's time in the pocket. With this defense, you don't need ooutstanding cover guys but you do need good to great pass rushers. It's a percentages approach.
Greenway doesn't need to have tons of interceptions, just lots of tackles. Which he does.

I have less of a beef with the players as I do with the scheme.