Vikings-Cardinals final play thoughts

[dead_poet]

Yes, but most of them weren't actually near the sideline or easily open to to get to the sidelines after the catch.

This is the problem with the play call (why do I get the impression we're talking in circles?). They were all headed that direction but it's a slow developing play to actually get them over there from their starting position on the complete other side of the field.

Look, I was just tossing the possibility out there. My main gripe is that Turner's being blasted for a play design that left a man wide open who could fulfill Zimmer's stated goal for the play. I have no idea if Bridgewater misunderstood where he was supposed to go with the ball or not. I don't think it matters anyway since he clearly botched the play no matter how you slice it by holding onto the ball too long.

It's a slim possibility. But I will concede that Teddy held onto the ball for .5 seconds longer than he should've (waiting for the routes to develop long enough to consider one of them viable at a position where the ball could be caught and the receiver could immediately get out of bounds). It was a botched play by more than Teddy. If Kalil wasn't destroyed on his pass block "attempt" the ball would've been thrown safely away OR if Teddy would've thrown the ball away earlier the net result would've been an incomplete pass.

Again, I was just floating a possibility out there. My assumption is the play was designed to get the ball out of Bridgewater's hands quickly or be thrown away.

I don't know about "quickly" but in the normal amount of time (approximately 2.5 seconds?) since the receivers couldn't get to where they were supposed to be (and perceived to be open or not at their position close to the sideline) all that quickly from their starting position.

You asked me if it's really easier to believe Teddy misunderstood the play than that Turner called a poor one for that situation so I answered. I think the former is easier to believe but I'm not saying that's necessarily what happened.My main point was that Peterson has been inexplicably ignored in most analysis of this play and he was open. He provided an outlet for a quick pass or a means to safely throw the ball away from the pocket without drawing a penalty. If the play left a wide open receiver in position to pick up yardage and get them a little closer for the FG, was it really poorly designed?

IF the play had been designed to go to Peterson from the set, Teddy would've gotten the ball out to him before being sacked. It's pretty clear to me that the play was expected (and practiced) to go to a receiver deeper to try and pick up statistically significant yards in relation to field goal percentage (33 yard fg attempt vs. 43 or 48). Just because the RB check-down option was there doesn't mean the play itself -- in that situation -- was well designed or well-timed or designed to actually go to the RB. There are probably hundreds of plays that have a RB check-down option, does that mean they are always good play calls in all situations? I'm just glad you agree with the easier to believe situation! Hooray!

I think 5-8 yards could actually have been quite beneficial.

Me too. Which is why I wish the play call would've had that option as more of a primary read instead of the last option on a play call that required a long time to develop to even see if an attempt should be made to the primary reads with an offensive line that struggles in pass protection more than any other team in the league.

Anyway, I'm going to let this go. We're on to Chicago.

[dead_poet]

Okay, after THIS I'm done. I hope. Bolded part added for emphasis even though the live ball part I didn't consider and is questionable since he was positioned ahead of Teddy. Regardless, I think it puts to rest the idea that the play was designed to go to Peterson.

Bridgewater revisits slow-developing final play against Arizona

Bridgewater held the ball too long and was stripped of it on a blindside sack by Dwight Freeney. It was a slow-developing play in which receivers Jarius Wright and Stefon Diggs were crossing from the left side of the formation to the right sideline. Receiver Mike Wallace ran deep from the right side. Running back Adrian Peterson curled out of the backfield to the right flat and was open, but was behind the line of scrimmage, risking a loss of yardage or a potential live ball on a incomplete lateral.

Said Bridgewater earlier today:

“The play call, all the receivers are coming from the left side of the field. So I tried to wait. I couldn’t complete the ball in the middle of the field because we didn’t have any timeouts. I had to wait until the guys got closer to the sideline to try to throw the ball. I could have thrown it over Diggs’ head or I could have thrown it over Adrian’s head a little faster. That’s one thing I could have done. I couldn’t complete the ball in the middle of the field because the guy could have been tackled and we wouldn’t have had time to get the field goal team on the field. I could have gotten the ball over Adrian’s head a little bit faster, but it was a bang-bang play.”

Bridgewater was asked if he could have checked out of the play given the defense the Cardinals were playing.

“We practice those situations,” Bridgewater said. “It’s not a play I could have checked out of. It’s a play we’re comfortable with. I probably could have gotten the ball over Adrian’s head a little quicker. I think Arizona did a good job of covering the play. It’s a play we hit last year against the New York Jets in a similar situation. So I think those guys were prepared for that situation. They covered the play well. All I could have done was throw the ball over Adrian’s head.

“Hopefully, you can catch a guy open or run away from the man coverage or something like that. Or get a lane to get out of bounds. But the play had to develop. Arizona came out in man coverage and that kind of slowed down the timing, slowed down the release of the receivers.”

http://www.startribune.com/bridgewater- ... 362659861/

[Mothman]

This is the problem with the play call (why do I get the impression we're talking in circles?)

I think it's because we were talking in circles. That's why I deleted the post to which you responded (but you obviously got to it before I deleted it,).

There are probably hundreds of plays that have a RB check-down option, does that mean they are always good play calls in all situations? I'm just glad you agree with the easier to believe situation! Hooray!

I'm quizzical but hopefully not dense.

I also worked a 17 hour day yesterday and didn't get much sleep so I apologize if my communication skills are a little sub-par today. I probably could have phrased a lot of my comments more clearly.

Anyway, I'm going to let this go. We're on to Chicago.

Yay!

[Mothman]

I forgot all about Peterson. In my view, tossing the ball to AD would have been a wise move. Peterson would have fought and probably won the battle to the sidelines.

That said, I still stand by my belief that this particular play should not have been called. But since it was, I see Peterson as a real possibility for making it work by catching the ball for a short gain and then getting out of bounds.

It's a shame the play didn't go that way.

[Mothman]

Okay, after THIS I'm done. I hope. Bolded part added for emphasis even though the live ball part I didn't consider and is questionable since he was positioned ahead of Teddy. Regardless, I think it puts to rest the idea that the play was designed to go to Peterson.

Bridgewater revisits slow-developing final play against Arizona
http://www.startribune.com/bridgewater- ... 362659861/

Bridgewater's comments underline one of the reasons I considered it important to mention Peterson and why it bugged me that he kept getting left out of the analysis.His position on the play provided an easy option to throw the ball away without fear of drawing a penalty.

[halfgiz]

Not a bad writeup on play call.

http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/12/15/teddy- ... orv-turner

[TSonn]

So, why has almost nobody been talking about how open Peterson was on the play? Why is it ignored in the article?

I think to assume that AD will gain any yards is being very generous. The only way he gains yards is if he breaks a tackle, which, then puts him at risk of being tackled in bounds. Granted, he usually breaks that tackle but that's an unnecessary risk in that situation.

I realize it's very subjective, but if he's not going to gain any yards, what's the benefit of throwing his way?

[Mothman]

Norv Turner defends the final play call in Arizona

We are now nearly seven full days removed from the Vikings’ 23-20 loss to the Cardinals, but today was the first day that offensive coordinator Norv Turner has spoken with the media since a last-second sack of quarterback Teddy Bridgewater put an end to the team’s comeback attempt.

Turner has had a week to think about the play call on that third-down play with 13 seconds left, and he still believes it was a good one.

“We’ve got a lot of sideline plays. This is one that’s worked for us last year, worked for us in the past,” Turner said. “We never have a sideline play where we don’t have a quick outlet. [Running back] Adrian [Peterson] was the quick outlet. The way they defended the play, if we had to do it again, we would have thrown the ball over Adrian’s head and kicked the field goal. They defended the play real well.”
Turner added, “I think everyone will learn from that play.”

[dead_poet]

Norv Turner defends the final play call in Arizona

Interesting that both Teddy and Norv have said that instead of throwing to Adrian they would've simply tossed it over his head. Either implies that AD's only role in that play (in that situation) is to act like a target as to not get called for intentional grounding or the way it was defended (there was a defender and the LB did have good position I suppose) made him a non-option.

[Mothman]

Interesting that both Teddy and Norv have said that instead of throwing to Adrian they would've simply tossed it over his head. Either implies that AD's only role in that play (in that situation) is to act like a target as to not get called for intentional grounding or the way it was defended (there was a defender and the LB did have good position I suppose) made him a non-option.

I think it's probably a matter of timing. Bridgewater basically needed to hit the top of his drop and make a decision to get the ball out of his hands. There was probably only time for one quick read. If he'd seen something pre-snap or during his dropback that led him to believe he needed to go to his outlet receiver, that would be different but as you said, in that situation, Peterson basically gave him a means to throw it away without consequences.

[dead_poet]

There was probably only time for one quick read.

That's the annoying part: how long it takes for the receivers to get in position to be somewhat open and close enough to the sidelines to get out of bounds when/if the pass was caught. But Turner said it's worked before so what do I know. I'm guessing the time(s) when it worked protection held up long enough to get the throw off.

[Mothman]

That's the annoying part: how long it takes for the receivers to get in position to be somewhat open and close enough to the sidelines to get out of bounds when/if the pass was caught. But Turner said it's worked before so what do I know. I'm guessing the time(s) when it worked protection held up long enough to get the throw off.

Maybe... I read that when the Cards came out in man coverage that threw the timing of the play off. I guess the Vikes expected zone. I don't remember the coverage being press man though so I'm not sure why that made a difference in the release of the receivers.

Bridgewater said it worked against the Jets last year. Maybe I'll go back and see if I can find that play, just to get a idea of what the Vikes expected.

[The Breeze]

The fact that TB didn't have the option to check out of the play is precisely why I hate Norv's scheme. IMO, every play should have an option for TB to change at the line based on what he sees. Waaay too many times this offense is getting to the line with little time left on the play clock.
What made this play so poor of a play was compounded by the fact that they gained exactly zero yards on the first 2 plays.
It was an awful series playing right in to the strength of that defense.

[mondry]

It wasn't press man, none of the WR's got jammed, the only thing I could see that made the play look off was Jarious Wright looked absolutely gassed. He had a long catch a couple plays before but watch Wright come off the snap and instead of tearing #### across the field he looks like he's in quick sand. I think Teddy saying the man coverage threw the play off might just be a way of not directly blaming anyone, I just don't see anything that the man coverage would have made any difference. Especially since ARI plays a LOT of man coverage with P.Peterson shadowing the top WR, I just don't get why they'd bank on them playing zone.

If you do find that play against the Jets it would be nice to know who they go to, I believe Wright was the main option on the play but couldn't execute it well enough. They probably should have put Patterson or CJ in there, someone fresh.

[TSonn]

Quick! Someone make a gif of when that play worked ("last year" OR "in the past") and let's see what's different.

Edit: I was joking but I see that Jim in on the hunt for the play! Awesome.