Vikings Message Board.Com

808vikingsfan wrote:And Jim, if you take away his big run, that would be TWO touchdowns (not 3), both of which were setup by Ponder. (how ironic is that? I'm the one praising ponder).

TWO touchdowns is still a pretty helpful contribution, regardless of how they got in position to score them. We can take away his long TD in order to analyze what his game was like without it but the fact remains, it happened.

The Vikes had serious blocking issues in this game and it affected everything they tried to do on offense. It wasn't the sole reason they lost but it was the main reason Peterson never got going after that long run. Playcalling and failure to adapt had a lot to do with it too.

I said it before my statement was taken out of context, Ponder's 4 turnovers is what killed the Vikings. But even with those turnovers and shoddy D, the Vikings still had a chance to win this game in the 4th. Nobody stepped up, not even Adrian.

You're right about that.

Although I was thinking what would happen if we switched Musgrave to QB coach (which he has a good history at)

He's been working with Ponder already this entire time, and he's as bad as he was the day he was drafted. Childress was supposedly a QB genius and look how TJoke worked out. Some players just don't have the tools in the toolbox regardless of who coaches them. (Probably doesn't help our QB coach was the guy that worked with Vince Young for a few years...before he was moved to RB coach in Tennessee his last year. What is with the NFL?...)

808vikingsfan wrote:Back to Ponder.

1st play of the 3rd qtr. 1st and 10 on the 20. Ponder scrambles out of the pocket and rolls... right. 6 yds before the line of scrimmage, he commits to run. He's not looking downfield to try and make a play. Jenning is 10yds in front. Runs for 0 yds. It would've been a difficult throw and maybe ill-advised. But the disturbing part is he's not even looking up field.

You have a better shot were we can see his eyes? Because for the life of me I can't see his eyes on that shot and have no idea exactly what he is looking at. Tell me, how do you know what he is looking at?

S197 wrote:The defense was playing on a short field the vast majority of the game due to the Vikings starting 0/5 on 3rd down, turnovers, and Locke punting 39 yard shanks. The run defense in particular was very poor but I think they had the odds stacked against them.

I'd argue that they did that to themselves. They allowed a long drive to open the game and then, admittedly, were put right back on the field after AD's long run. However, they shouldn't have been tired that early in the game and if they were, it's only because they couldn't get off the field. They allowed another long drive on the Lions second possession. Detroit's first two possessions consumed about 10 minutes of clock. It's pretty hard to blame that on the Vikes offense.

The Vikes offense went three and out on possession #2 which certainly didn't help. Detroit spent another 3 minutes or so scoring a FG on their third possession. If I remember correctly, on their third possession, the Vikings offense ran a few plays and then Ponder's pass went off Simpson's hands and was picked. Henderson picked off Stafford on the next play so the defense wasn't on the field long that time and the next Vikings possession was a quick, efficient 65 yard drive by the offense for the their second TD.

When a defense allows the opposition to hold the ball for about 13 minutes over their first 3 possessions, I don't think they have anyone but themselves to blame for being tired. That's simply not getting the job done.

The defense also allowed a 50 yard drive and an 80 yard drive on the Lions first 2 possessions after halftime, when they should have had at least a little rest. Turnovers and quick scores hurt them a bit but I just don't see enough to provide any real excuses for a poor defensive performance. I'd feel differently if they had started strong and then gradually worn down but they were gashed by the Lions right out of the gate.

... and none of this is a defense for Ponder. I'm just saying, it's no more excusable to allow 34 points, 469 yards and to let Reggie Bush gain 190 of those yards than it is to throw 3 INTs. The latter isn't winning football and neither is the former. I can't let the defense off the hook just because the offense failed to sustain enough drives. They have a job to do too.

Raptorman wrote:You have a better shot were we can see his eyes? Because for the life of me I can't see his eyes on that shot and have no idea exactly what he is looking at. Tell me, how do you know what he is looking at?

Here's a sequence of 5 images that show the way the play developed. In the first image, Ponder has just completed his drop back and has begun rolling to his right. It looks to me like he was looking downfield most of the play until committing to run at about the 15 yard line (the play started at the 20). To me, Jennings looked covered but you can't see him throughout the entire play. He gets chipped by an LB and is handed off to a corner who appears to stick pretty close to him (you can see this occurring in the first shot).

One thing that I don't think I've seen mentioned is that the Vikings really missed Jerome Felton. Zach Line was no help in pass protection. Ellison was better as a run blocker when they lined him up in the backfield, but he too had issues in pass protection.

Captain wrote: Spot on. You couldn't have put my thoughts to words better. Although I was thinking what would happen if we switched Musgrave to QB coach (which he has a good history at) and any other Offensive coach that shows brains to OC what creative things we could do?...Its a pretty out there thought, but what the hell I'm not sold on Musgrave. I think he's as much a problem as OC as anything else on this team.

Thanks!

It's not really something they can do midseason I don't think. It would have to be something to evaluate and attempt in the offseason and that would only work if Musgrave would happily accept the demotion.

Because Frazier is such a defensive minded coach I do agree they really need a stud offensive mind to compensate and run the offense. However, I think Frazier and Musgrave are on the same page when it comes to running the type of offense Frazier wants so I'm not sure that will ever happen. We could very well end up with a new coach, QB, and offensive coordinator next year if this season doesn't go well.

Mothman wrote: Here's a sequence of 5 images that show the way the play developed. In the first image, Ponder has just completed his drop back and has begun rolling to his right. It looks to me like he was looking downfield most of the play until committing to run at about the 15 yard line (the play started at the 20). To me, Jennings looked covered but you can't see him throughout the entire play. He gets chipped by an LB and is handed off to a corner who appears to stick pretty close to him (you can see this occurring in the first shot).

You know what interests me. In the second photo, we have 6 O-lineman or TE's blocking and 4 Lions D players 5-6 yards deep. Now, was this planned? Or is it such that 6 Vikings can't handle 4 Lions?

Raptorman wrote:You know what interests me. In the second photo, we have 6 O-lineman or TE's blocking and 4 Lions D players 5-6 yards deep. Now, was this planned? Or is it such that 6 Vikings can't handle 4 Lions?

Good question!

You've been watching this west coast since Childress was hired. And you ask if having more blockers then rushers is designed or not?

They have dedicated blockers whether it's keeping a back, tight end, or combination, all the time regardless of what the defense is doing. The real question is, is that the philosophy (puke) or is it because of the troubles with protection? Considering how often they do it, seems like a philosophy thing....need a new OC either way!!!

Re: Adrian Peterson

Never underestimate the effect of Jerome Felton. Zach Line was fairly useless as a lead blocker. Felton opens up running lanes.

Demi wrote:You've been watching this west coast since Childress was hired. And you ask if having more blockers then rushers is designed or not?

They have dedicated blockers whether it's keeping a back, tight end, or combination, all the time regardless of what the defense is doing. The real question is, is that the philosophy (puke) or is it because of the troubles with protection? Considering how often they do it, seems like a philosophy thing....need a new OC either way!!!

My question was more of "are the Viking blockers that bad or was it planned?" Not that they were all there.

808vikingsfan wrote: They were in a run formation. PA to Ellison if you can believe that. Both Peterson and Ellison were left in the backfield to block. Including the TE, that would be 8 blockers for 5 pass rushers. That left 2 receivers against 6 defenders. I guess I don't blame Ponder for giving up on the play.

Good find. I wonder how many times the Vikings tried to run plays where we had too many blockers trying to guard only 4-5 defenders on a passing play during this game?

808vikingsfan wrote:
They were in a run formation. PA to Ellison if you can believe that. Both Peterson and Ellison were left in the backfield to block. Including the TE, that would be 8 blockers for 5 pass rushers. That left 2 receivers against 6 defenders. I guess I don't blame Ponder for giving up on the play.

Ugg... that is definitely the formation... Notice there are 10 lions within 5 yards of the LoS. Anyone of them could run / pass blitz and there is no "tell" of creeping up cause they're already there. With literally ONE WR "wide" (which is more like the slot for most teams) there is no danger at all. Especially since they roll Ponder to the right, away from that one WR. (unbelievable)

Because there is no "tell" for the blitz, we simply have to guess if they are or not and in this case we guessed that they were and they didn't.

I mean sure, Ponder's bad, but this play has like a 10% chance of anything positive happening on it in the passing game. Musgrave was hoping they would be aggressive and bait them into his max blocking trap but they didn't fall for it. Once they don't bite, the play is essentially over so I agree with 808 that it was wise to play for another down.

808vikingsfan wrote:That was my beef, 5 or 6 yds behind the line and it seems like he gives up on the play.

Jim, when does coaches film kick in for these games? It would be nice to see plays from an endzone view.

I think it becomes available today.

I can't complain about his commitment to run when he did without knowing what he saw down the field. Based on the pursuit and his position relative to the sidelines, it may have been time to commit if there wasn't anybody open ahead. It will be interesting see the play from a more complete angle!