Vikings Message Board.Com

After watching what Zimmer did with that patchwork defense yesterday it makes me have a lot less sympathy for Norv and how he's handled the offensive line situation and adapting to the offenses limitations.

Cliff wrote:After watching what Zimmer did with that patchwork defense yesterday it makes me have a lot less sympathy for Norv and how he's handled the offensive line situation and adapting to the offenses limitations.

That's a very good point. But keep running those 7-step drops Norv "Mike Martz" Zimmer!

Cliff wrote:After watching what Zimmer did with that patchwork defense yesterday it makes me have a lot less sympathy for Norv and how he's handled the offensive line situation and adapting to the offenses limitations.

To be fair, The Vikings looked good on their two touchdown drives and it was about the first time I have seen an easy completion chance in the endzone for Teddy to a WR.

the overall tone of this board is that we should have either thrown the ball away or just kicked it on third down. do you think the patriots (or other teams with a top notch qb) would have had that mentality? they would have went to the end zone twice to try and win the game. and yet all we can seem to discuss is that it "also brings an int" into play. well what about a td? why isn't that ever in play with us. and yes, bridgewater played well yesterday, but every once in awhile he puts together a solid game. the problem is usually its followed by 3 bad ones, so he didn't convince me of anything. if he plays well down the stretch then we'll see.

Mothman wrote: I don't know but once it was called, it was going to be run. At that point, the coaches had made their blunder. TB needed to preserve the opportunity to kick the field goal.

*annoyed grunt*

It's hard to argue with that. But weren't you advocating for Teddy to be more aggressive?

mosscarter wrote:the overall tone of this board is that we should have either thrown the ball away or just kicked it on third down. do you think the patriots (or other teams with a top notch qb) would have had that mentality? they would have went to the end zone twice to try and win the game. and yet all we can seem to discuss is that it "also brings an int" into play. well what about a td? why isn't that ever in play with us. and yes, bridgewater played well yesterday, but every once in awhile he puts together a solid game. the problem is usually its followed by 3 bad ones, so he didn't convince me of anything.

I think the answer to all of the above is our Oline play


The quality of Teddy's outings and the choices we make are limited by Oline play.

dead_poet wrote:*annoyed grunt*

It's hard to argue with that. But weren't you advocating for Teddy to be more aggressive?

I assume you're joking.

Mothman wrote: I assume you're joking.

Kind of.

mosscarter wrote:the overall tone of this board is that we should have either thrown the ball away or just kicked it on third down. do you think the patriots (or other teams with a top notch qb) would have had that mentality? they would have went to the end zone twice to try and win the game.

... and not even attempted a field goal? No way. I don't know if there was time to run an end zone route on that play but assuming there was, the philosophy would be the same: take the shot if it's there or throw the ball away. Don't risk the sack or turnover.

no mothman i mean try the field goal on 4th down i was referring to the plays before that.

I thought Freeney made a heck of a play. Turner had to know cards would be bringing heat...

dead_poet wrote: Kind of.

You're a twisted man.

I wouldn't call what he did there aggressive anyway...

IrishViking wrote: To be fair, The Vikings looked good on their two touchdown drives and it was about the first time I have seen an easy completion chance in the endzone for Teddy to a WR.

Yeah, I thought the offense looked good (you know, outside of 3 fumbles ... ). The passing game finally came alive when they started stuffing Peterson. My beef is more with the rest of the season. Norv has been struggling and not making adjustments to account for the weak offensive line.

On the other hand, it took Zimmer one bad game (in which two of the injured players actually started so he would have game planned for them to be in) with missing more important pieces than Turner to turn it around, on prime time (which they've struggled with) on the road against one of the most potent offenses in the league.

I guess my expectations for coaching just got higher ...

Cliff wrote: Yeah, I thought the offense looked good. The passing game finally came alive when they started stuffing Peterson. My beef is more with the rest of the season. Norv has been struggling and not making adjustments to account for the weak offensive line.

On the other hand, it took Zimmer one bad game (in which two of the injured players actually started so he would have game planned for them to be in) with missing more important pieces than Turner to turn it around, on prime time (which they've struggled with) on the road against one of the most potent offenses in the league.

I guess my expectations for coaching just got higher ...

I agree with you that I expected more but I think a glaring issue for Norv is he runs a vertical game but has no Oline that defend long enough for his plays to develop. How good would Zimmer be if he could rush his Linebackers? I think its important to adjust but Norv needs to balance between adjusting and implementing the offense he was presumably brought in to implement, not to mention his comfort and tendencies.

Mothman wrote:I wouldn't call what he did there aggressive anyway...

I'd never consider myself well-adjusted.

Trying to throw an intermediate route is more aggressive than throwing the ball away. #justsaying