Playcalling vs. Detroit

[Mothman]

Guys, there are only two places to run the football: inside the tackles and outsides the tackles. The Vikings tried both against the Lions with mixed results and not every run between the tackles or run to the outside is the same play or comes out of the same formation. Is Musgrave supposed to invent a third area in which to run the ball or something?

When it comes to the shotgun... of course it's an indication that a team is likely to pass. It's a passing formation, intended to help the QB by eliminating the dropback. It's possible to run out of it but that's less than optimal. Defenses have known that a shotgun likely = a passing play since the formation was introduced.

The running plays people have been complaining about all week are the same plays on which Peterson gained 2000+ yards last season. Musgrave can vary the playcalling more but believe me, abandoning Peterson and the running game after a few ineffective carries is not what we want from an offensive coordinator. I don't disagree that there's some room for improvement in the playcalling and use of personnel but the bottom line in last Sunday's game is: for the better part of 4 quarters, the Lions defense whipped the Vikings offensive line. No offense is going to look consistent or efficient when that happens. Blocking is the engine that drives offense. Any play can work if it's executed well but screens and reverses probably aren't great calls against a defense that's stacking the box. The best way to deal with that is to go over the top of it and they did that successfully a few times.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying Musgrave doesn't deserve some criticism but it seems like a little perspective is in order. The Vikings offense outscored more than half of the league last Sunday! They can be better and they should be better but that starts at the line of scrimmage. There's not much Musgrave can call that will work if the blocking stinks.

[mansquatch]

OL was a major factor in the lack of rusing production, there is no doubt. My big issue is that as it was becoming increasingly obvious that our OL wasn't up to the task why didn't they try somethign else?

[dead_poet]

OL was a major factor in the lack of rusing production, there is no doubt. My big issue is that as it was becoming increasingly obvious that our OL wasn't up to the task why didn't they try somethign else?

Try something that doesn't involve the offensive line?

[mondry]

The running plays people have been complaining about all week are the same plays on which Peterson gained 2000+ yards last season.

Key words, last year! I'm beginning to see why there has never been a back to back 2k+ rusher... Maybe detroit is more equipped to stop our 9 man blocking scheme than most and that was just an anomaly, we shall see. The problem is though, because of the QB who's essentially useless on the play, and the RB who has to run the ball, you're short two men. Once the defense realizes (like I think they have) to stop the run in that formation, you're always going to come up short when it comes to the necessary blocks needed.

They can be better and they should be better but that starts at the line of scrimmage. There's not much Musgrave can call that will work if the blocking stinks.

And there's not much the blocking can do if what Musgrave calls expects them to execute 7-9 sound blocks for the play to not go for negative yards. Maybe we CAN rely on Peterson to make up for the numbers disadvantage and break one for 80 or so every game but I wouldn't bank on that strategy.

I just don't think teams after seeing what detroit did to us will not sell out to stop Peterson in that formation. So Simpson goes for 140 on a hard to complete deep pass (that they didn't look convincingly capable of completing routinely either btw!) so what, better than Peterson going for 200+ on an easy hand off. Unless we can routinely throw for deep completions / touchdowns out of that formation, let's just say I'm concerned. I don't think they can just "execute" the run blocking better and suddenly holes will be there against 10 in the box, not this year.

[Mothman]

Try something that doesn't involve the offensive line?

LOL! Well said.

I'm wonder what the nature of the commentary would be this week if Musgrave had been quick to give up on running Peterson. AD had 18 carries. If he'd had just 12 or 13, would the theme of the week be that they need to give him the ball more?

As I said, the Vikings outscored more than half of the league in week 1. Add in that the offensive players clearly didn't play their best football and I find it hard to understand why Musgrave has been the focus of so much ire. His scheme and playcalling led to 4 scores even with his players making mistakes or getting outperformed on a significant number of plays. With better play on the field, that easily could have been a 30+ point game for the offense.

[S197]

For me it's not the pattern that bothered me, but the formations and designs of the plays.

I agree, and I think this has been a problem for far too long. This is a ball control offense designed to wear down defenses and burn clock. And with AD in the backfield, it's hard for me to argue against the strategy. We've seen many games where AD gets better as the game progresses, and while a big part is him I think it's also because the defense gets tired. The problem as I see it, is we don't have the personnel to run these tight formations as much as we do. There has to be some sort of threat of passing out of these formations. If you're using a two TE set and a FB, that means 1 receiver on the field. That means Patterson, Wright, and one of Simpson/Jennings is sitting on the sidelines. John Carlson has done nothing to date to show he deserves to be on the field. If the Vikings call a play action, you're likely to have Rudolph and Jennings as your primary with AD/Toby as secondary. Add to this AD's poor pass blocking skills and it's just not a good recipe. Musgrave and Frazier need to realize the talent they have out there, our strength isn't in our TE's (plural). One of the big gripes against Chili was trying to fit a round peg into a square hole, are we really seeing all that much different now?

Sometimes these formations work. It was pretty clear from very early in the game that it was not working against Detroit. That's when you need to see some sort of adaptation.

[Mothman]

Sometimes these formations work. It was pretty clear from very early in the game that it was not working against Detroit. That's when you need to see some sort of adaptation.

This is where I can't agree. I don't think it was clear very early in the game. Early in the game, Peterson ran for 78 yards and a score. A few carries/possessions later, he ran for a 4 yard TD. It was only as they got deeper into the second quarter that it became more apparent the Lions were dominating the line of scrimmage on running plays and even then, I don't think that was clear until there were less than 6 minutes remaining in the half.

[mondry]

This is where I can't agree. I don't think it was clear very early in the game. Early in the game, Peterson ran for 78 yards and a score. A few carries/possessions later, he ran for a 4 yard TD. It was only as they got deeper into the second quarter that it became more apparent the Lions were dominating the line of scrimmage on running plays and even then, I don't think that was clear until there were less than 6 minutes remaining in the half.

Yeah, I think in the redzone and what not it's a different story to use that formation, heck it's essentially a goal line formation anyway. It seemed to not work as well between the 20's outside of that one 78 yarder though so that may be where S197 is coming from.

[Mothman]

Yeah, I think in the redzone and what not it's a different story to use that formation, heck it's essentially a goal line formation anyway. It seemed to not work as well between the 20's outside of that one 78 yarder though so that may be where S197 is coming from.

Maybe. My point was that it was not apparent early in the game that the strategy wasn't working. Red zone plays still involve the blocking defenders and creating running room so I don't see why it's a different story there. If anything, there are more defenders near the line of scrimmage.

[S197]

Yeah, I think in the redzone and what not it's a different story to use that formation, heck it's essentially a goal line formation anyway. It seemed to not work as well between the 20's outside of that one 78 yarder though so that may be where S197 is coming from.

That's basically it. He had the big run but then he had a slew of negative carries. While it's typical for AD to have a few short gains and then a big one, it's very uncharacteristic for him to lose yards on that many plays. I believe the announcers mentioned it as well. It was around this time that changes should have been made IMO. His first half after the TD run:

Code: Select all

1-10-MIN 20 (4:55) (Shotgun) 28-A.Peterson right tackle to MIN 22 for 2 yards (98-N.Fairley; 79-W.Young).
2-8-MIN 22 (4:22) 28-A.Peterson right end to MIN 19 for -3 yards (50-Tr.Lewis).
1-10-DET 44 (13:24) 28-A.Peterson right tackle to DET 48 for -4 yards (27-G.Quin).
1-4-DET 4 (12:22) 28-A.Peterson up the middle for 4 yards, TOUCHDOWN. 
1-10-MIN 39 (10:44) 28-A.Peterson left end to MIN 36 for -3 yards (54-D.Levy).
1-10-MIN 18 (6:17) 28-A.Peterson left end pushed ob at MIN 14 for -4 yards (23-C.Houston).
2-14-MIN 14 (5:41) 28-A.Peterson up the middle to MIN 14 for no gain (94-E.Ansah).

[The Breeze]

I totally appreciate that they scored 24.
What bothers me is the combination of them going 2-10 on 3rd down and having a defense that relies heavily on the offense's ability to control the clock.

Throw in the TOs and our less than adequate rate of forcing our own and it brings up a big question: How can they move the ball and control the clock if AD is shut down?
Linehan controlled the clock with the short passing game mixed with a competent running attack. Execution aside...they were multidimentional from the getgo.

I fear our O-line is severely overrated. AD had 1000 yds after contact last season....that's unheard of unless you're talking about Jim Brown or Earl Campbell.

Execution in the blocking game is huge...but telegraphing every punch is like staring down that receiver, eventually you get burned for not developing the capacity to be creative when it comes to your best player.

Last night I watched a Patriot RB motion out of the backfield to the wideout spot and got 1 on 1 coverage with a LB. He beat the defender in less than 6 yds but the timing was off with he and Brady. A great play.

The Lion game was a perfect time, IMO, to use mis-direction and screen plays, that would temper their pass rush and make our original running game easier to execute and more effctive to shrinking the down and distance equation.

Still, with the way both lines were seemingly overmatched they had evey chance to win and easily could have without the TOs

[mondry]

Red zone plays still involve the blocking defenders and creating running room so I don't see why it's a different story there. If anything, there are more defenders near the line of scrimmage.

Because a little 4 yard dump off is a touchdown instead of 2nd and 6 in that same scenario and those are a bit easier for this offense to complete, some might even say our QB's specialty hehe.

[mansquatch]

I totally appreciate that they scored 24.
What bothers me is the combination of them going 2-10 on 3rd down and having a defense that relies heavily on the offense's ability to control the clock.

I completely agree with you on the Turnovers hurting, but I disagree that our defense relies on our offense to control the clock. In a sense all defenses rely on their offense to give them a break, however, I would argue that least year our offense relied on the defense a lot more than the other way around. This is why I think that while Ponder’s play certainly deserves criticism, the defense probably deserves an equal amount. If they play like they did in week 1 for the rest of the season then Ponder will have to play like a top 5 QB for us to even have a chance at a winning record. (This is what Rogers deals with week in and week out.) This is also why I think the point about their scoring 24 points is salient. If the defense gets it’s pooh together then 24 points is probably going to win more games than we lose this season.

[Mothman]

That's basically it. He had the big run but then he had a slew of negative carries. While it's typical for AD to have a few short gains and then a big one, it's very uncharacteristic for him to lose yards on that many plays. I believe the announcers mentioned it as well. It was around this time that changes should have been made IMO. His first half after the TD run:

Code: Select all

1-10-MIN 20 (4:55) (Shotgun) 28-A.Peterson right tackle to MIN 22 for 2 yards (98-N.Fairley; 79-W.Young).
2-8-MIN 22 (4:22) 28-A.Peterson right end to MIN 19 for -3 yards (50-Tr.Lewis).
1-10-DET 44 (13:24) 28-A.Peterson right tackle to DET 48 for -4 yards (27-G.Quin).
1-4-DET 4 (12:22) 28-A.Peterson up the middle for 4 yards, TOUCHDOWN. 
1-10-MIN 39 (10:44) 28-A.Peterson left end to MIN 36 for -3 yards (54-D.Levy).
1-10-MIN 18 (6:17) 28-A.Peterson left end pushed ob at MIN 14 for -4 yards (23-C.Houston).
2-14-MIN 14 (5:41) 28-A.Peterson up the middle to MIN 14 for no gain (94-E.Ansah).

I understand what you're saying and I don't disagree that at some point, a change in approach was necessary. I just disagree that the need for it was apparent very early in the game. After the first carry, he had 2 positive runs and 3 negative runs in his next 5 carries. From Musgrave's point of view, I don't think you change your strategy after 2 negative runs. After the third, maybe you consider it but by that point, we've reached the 6:17 mark of the 2nd quarter and are no longer "very early" in the game.

[Mothman]

Because a little 4 yard dump off is a touchdown instead of 2nd and 6 in that same scenario and those are a bit easier for this offense to complete, some might even say our QB's specialty hehe.

I'm not following you.

Sorry, I don't mean to be dense... it just comes naturally.