VikingLord wrote:And here I was thinking Frazier might have learned a few things from his run-first approach last year...
"What do you mean the peg is square? So what? That peg is going in that hole... Mind over matter guys!"
I'm not nearly as willing to cut Frazier slack on this point as Jim is. Run "first" means the run comes first. It's the point of emphasis. If he meant to say the Vikes will emphasize the run, then he should have said that. If he meant they want to remain an effective running team, or a balanced attack, he could have said that. But he didn't - he said run "first". All that tells me is he learned little from his experience last year and is bound to repeat much of it this year. I have no idea how that will play out in terms of final record, but I can tell how that is likely to play out with the fans of the team who will have to sit through another slogging season of run-heavy offensive football.
Somehow, I had a feeling this would bother you, Edward.
Craig wrote "I just heard Dan Wiederer from the Strib say in an interview that Coach Frazier vows this will be a "run first" team" but please keep in mind, that's a second hand quote from a sportswriter, not a direct quote from Leslie Frazier.
I've done some searching since reading Craig's post and I can't find anything recent in which Frazier vows the Vikings offense will be a "run first" unit. However, I did find this, from a few days ago:
http://www.vikings.com/news/article-1/V ... b149d421b7
Q: Do you have a sense of what the strengths of this offense might be?
A: We still want to really center around what we can do running the football and our offensive line seems to be coming together. These games that we’ll have in the preseason will give us a good indication of how we are going to be able to achieve our goals of being able to be a team that can really run the football and get people in the eight-man fronts. With the weapons that we think we are surrounding Christian (Ponder) with, be able to expose people because of that. We have a plan for what we want. Now we have to see it come to fruition by how we come together as an offensive line, that’s going to be a big deal for us. We think we have some capable backs, but we want to gel up front because that will determine if we will be able to do the things that we set out to do.
I think that quote makes it clear that they want to to use their running game to set up the pass for their young QB. That's a sound strategy as long as it doesn't become so predictable that it's rendered ineffective and we won't know if that's the case until we see them play some regular season games.
While some teams that made the playoffs could run, every one of them could pass, and the fact remains that two of the worst-running teams during the regular season met in the Superbowl for, what, like the 10th year-in-a-row?
NE and NY have QBs far more experienced and proven than Ponder, with better pass blocking lines and better weapons in the passing game. It's also worth noting that although the Giants weren't an effective running team during the season, they were committed to the run in the postseason, averaging 28 carries, 4.2 yards per carry and 116+ yards per game on their way to winning the Super Bowl.
That's probably hyperbole but still, the point has been made to anyone with a pair of eyes that running is just not that important in the greater scheme of things. The Packers couldn't run to save their lives last year and they finished with 15 wins and probably should have gone back to the Superbowl. And what did Ted Thompson do this offseason? Did he shore up that obvious weak spot? No, he allowed the one reliable veteran runner the Pack had to walk and they're going into the season relying on a guy who has yet to finish a season healthy with no proven option behind that guy.
Let's see how that works out for them as they attempt to get back to the Super Bowl.
Running the ball clearly isn't of paramount importance anymore but it's going too far to say "running is just not that important in the greater scheme of things". It was important to the Giants during their Super Bowl run last postseason. It was also important to two more of the 4 teams who advanced to the conference championships last year. It was significant to the 2009 Saints (6th in rushing), the 2007 Giants (4th in rushing) and the 2005 Steelers (5th in rushing) too and all 3 were SB winners. While it's obviously crucial to have a good QB and a strong passing game if you want to win the Super Bowl, the idea that the running game has been marginalized to the point where it's no longer important in the greater scheme of things just doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Sure, there are teams that have been so strong in other areas that they've been able to win the Super Bowl without much of a running game but those exceptions don't create a new rule. If a team doesn't have a QB like Brady or Rodgers (and the necessary personnel around them) is it realistic at all to believe employing the pass-happy approach their teams use will yield similar results? I sure don't think so. Passing juggernauts have to be built and meanwhile, coaches need to adapt and strategize based on the personnel at hand. I don't think we're so far down the pass-happy road that most NFL coaches would still consider a strong running game to be a young, developing QB's best friend.
Let's wait and see how the 2012 Vikings actually implement their offense in some regular season games before we judge them too harshly.
Despite the fact that nearly every source, including his teamates say that he looks a 100% improved over last year.
