Third-down defense

[DK Sweets]

Purple Reign, I get what you're saying. You understood the context of the quote but the way it was portrayed sounded funny to you.

[808vikingsfan]

The 3rd down play that mattered:

Barr stands out for Vikings with fourth-quarter defense

[Purple Reign]

I can tell you've been thinking a lot about this. But, I don't think those two things are as similar as you think. Let's look at it logically - winning and losing is an end result - an outcome. Third down defense is but a small part of the overall end result, a means to an end, if you will. Even then, it is somewhat broad, considering the complexities of football, but certainly more narrow than simply looking at the score. You have to look at the various reasons for the final outcome, in order to improve that outcome. As it were, on drives that ended in a poor outcome, defensively, the last two weeks, third down conversions played a large part in those poor outcomes. You can narrow the scope even further, by looking at all those third down plays, and attempting to find a common thread (or common threadS), that may have been contributing to the more broad outcome of failure on third down, and that in turn, will hopefully work its way allllll the way up the ladder to the end result of the game. Clearly, the coaching staff is going to go deeper than just saying "we need to score more points than the other team"! As you alluded to, it's much more complex than one single 'third down strategy'.

I don't think anyone implied it would be easy to fix that one specific problem (that being, third down defense). However, I think it's reasonable (week to week) to continue to look at that small piece of winning/losing, and determine what improvements have been been made in those situations, and whether it affected the overall goal of playing better on third down. Rome wasn't built in a day, so I doubt they will "fix" it this week, or probably next week, or the week after. That said, I don't believe it's unreasonable to ask for some improvement, considering it's a problem that has clearly been identified, and presumably being worked on.

The article was written in such a way, that it points out, that the above steps should be in the works, considering one of the Vikings defensive players alluded to third down defense as a problem, last week. Essentially what I take from it, is despite that process, the third down defense has not yet improved (fixed?, that may be a bite over zealous) after one week. Clearly, it is something that will be monitored, week-to-week. As with in any industry, one would hope incremental improvement will be made in the time after a problem has been identified.

Looks like you have also put a lot thought into this.

Let me put another spin on this. Identifying the overall problem is quite easy (ie. we give up too many 3rd down conversions). What really matters is identifying WHY we give up so many. Now if the coaches can figure out the reason(s) why and the problem persists, then it usually boils down to the players ability (or should is say inability) to execute. It reminds me of the past couple of years during post game interviews after a loss when Frazier would repeatedly acknowledge that Ponder had issues but not to worry, that they would review the film and fix the issues. Obviously that didn't happen - just hope that this problem turns out differently.

[Purple Reign]

Purple Reign, I get what you're saying. You understood the context of the quote but the way it was portrayed sounded funny to you.

Thank you sir - I will now shut up about it.

[Demi]

The 3rd down play that mattered:

Barr stands out for Vikings with fourth-quarter defense

“I’m supposed to drop and cover the tight end there,” said Barr, the ninth overall draft pick. “But he stayed in and blocked. So I saw a lane and I went and got the sack.”

If they had sent the guy on a route and just stopped the four man pressure, they would have converted.

[Cliff]

If they had sent the guy on a route and just stopped the four man pressure, they would have converted.

It's a good thing they teach the players to shoot open gaps like that, huh?

[Mothman]

I didn't feel this needed it's own thread and this thread seemed like a good place for it, since a better pass rush might help on some of those third downs:

No ‘I’ in pass rush

After recording five sacks in the season opener, the Vikings have only three in their past three games and have dropped to 13th in the league in that category. Right end Everson Griffen was shut out the past three games and left end Brian Robison has yet to get a sack.

Zimmer said the reason for the lack of sacks is that certain Vikings defenders are freelancing and leaving their rush lanes, giving quarterbacks easier escape routes.

“We would have a lot more sacks just with our four-man rush if we would learn to rush as a team and not rush as individuals,” Zimmer said.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikin ... 86011.html

[Cliff]

I didn't feel this needed it's own thread and this thread seemed like a good place for it, since a better pass rush might help on some of those third downs:
http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikin ... 86011.html

I wonder who the main culprit for this is. My gut tells me it's Robison because that tactic sounds similar to the way Jared Allen plays (not necessarily thinking about the defense as a whole and contain but rather going after the quarterback as hard as possible) and I got the feeling he learned a lot from Allen.

[Mothman]

I wonder who the main culprit for this is. My gut tells me it's Robison because that tactic sounds similar to the way Jared Allen plays (not necessarily thinking about the defense as a whole and contain but rather going after the quarterback as hard as possible) and I got the feeling he learned a lot from Allen.

Actually, it sounds like Robison might be the least culpable:

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_ ... rush-smart

Some of those plays might have turned into sacks, or additional pressure on Ryan, Vikings coach Mike Zimmer said, if the Vikings had done a better job of rushing the quarterback as a team.

"It’s part of us being a team rush; we’re not individual rushers," said Zimmer in response to a question about defensive end Brian Robison missing several sacks on Sunday. "He’s done a good job and we haven’t helped him enough with some of the other guys, not because they’re not trying or they can’t rush. It’s because, like I said before, we are rushing as individuals. It’s no different than any other part of defense. You play good as a team, you know where you’re supposed to be at and then good things happen for other people and consequently good things happen for you.

"Guys feel like they can beat guys one-on-one. The hard part is getting them to understand that we will all have a lot more success, including the individual, if we will do it the right way, and we haven’t done it the right way the last couple of weeks."

I have to add that I think Allen gets a bit of a bad rap as a supposedly selfish player. His primary job in the schemes he played in for the Vikings was to get off the line quickly and disrupt the play in the backfield.

[J. Kapp 11]

Need to blitz more on third down!
Maybe it just seems like we're not blitzing on third downs?

Not that simple, though.

If you blitz, you leave somebody in the secondary in man coverage. Against Atlanta, that can be a big problem. And there are few who are better against the blitz than Aaron Rodgers.

Our D-line needs to do what it did the first week against the Rams and get after it.

[808vikingsfan]

Actually, it sounds like Robison might be the least culpable:

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_ ... rush-smart
I have to add that I think Allen gets a bit of a bad rap as a supposedly selfish player. His primary job in the schemes he played in for the Vikings was to get off the line quickly and disrupt the play in the backfield.

Doesn't add to the discussion but Robison is near the top of the league in hurries (6).

[Mothman]

Doesn't add to the discussion but Robison is near the top of the league in hurries (6).

I think that added something to the discussion.


Here's another tidbit: I heard John Clayton on the radio a little while ago and he mentioned that an increased emphasis on short passing in the league this year has led to a significant reduction in sacks. The total is down 100 from this time last year. 100 fewer sacks after 4 weeks! The Vikes obviously aren't the only team having a hard time bringing QBs down.

[Leafman]

Here's another tidbit: I heard John Clayton on the radio a little while ago and he mentioned that an increased emphasis on short passing in the league this year has led to a significant reduction in sacks. The total is down 100 from this time last year. 100 fewer sacks after 4 weeks! The Vikes obviously aren't the only team having a hard time bringing QBs down.

Wow ... over 1.5 sacks per game. Or 12 sacks fewer per team per season. Which means 12-13 sacks for a single player will likely lead the league.

LEAFMAN THE PURPLE FAN

[Just Me]

If you blitz, you leave somebody in the secondary in man coverage. Against Atlanta, that can be a big problem. And there are few who are better against the blitz than Aaron Rodgers.

It did come back to "bite" us on one play that I remember (in the 2nd half IIRC). Harrison Smith came on a blitz and Ryan released the ball before Smith got there. Blanton made the tackle, but the receiver was wide open in the middle of the field. So, there are times when you "live by the blitz" you'll get burned...

[mansquatch]

I think some folks need to realize that there is no perfect defense against all plays. Blitzing is a gamble that can be mitigated by the quality of your cover guys and/or the lack of quality of the QB. Also, sometimes the offense is going to call the right play to beat the defense we call and vice versa. There are no absolutes here, so to think that way is short sighted.