Breaking down the film from the Vikings' loss to the Lions

[mondry]

It's like they have more talent than they know what to do with.

Unfortunately, it hinges on the line protecting the QB and the QB having the temperment to facilitate the use of all that talent. Both of which are lacking at present, so Musgrave's task is that more difficult.

As Jim mentioned somewhere, this offense has displayed a serious capacity to move te ball.....gotta get it consistent. It's frustratingly tantylizing(sp)....and down right maddening at times.

Yeah... I don't really get it. We blow half our draft for a 3rd string WR with gaping holes at starting LB and O-line. I think ultimately we started off as a "run first" team because we had Adrian and well, little else. But now we have more weapons and a scheme that can't utilize them. Imagine with Favre in 2009 if we didn't use Harvin because Rice was the 1 WR in our condensed formation? You can't take advantage of the best thing Peterson does for the passing game because you have ONE wr on the field.

I think we all went along with the "run first" mentality because like I said, we didn't have any other option really. But now that we do, I had expected them to adapt and at least put a tiny bit more emphasis on the passing game but wow...

[The Breeze]

Yeah... I don't really get it. We blow half our draft for a 3rd string WR with gaping holes at starting LB and O-line. I think ultimately we started off as a "run first" team because we had Adrian and well, little else. But now we have more weapons and a scheme that can't utilize them. Imagine with Favre in 2009 if we didn't use Harvin because Rice was the 1 WR in our condensed formation? You can't take advantage of the best thing Peterson does for the passing game because you have ONE wr on the field.

I think we all went along with the "run first" mentality because like I said, we didn't have any other option really. But now that we do, I had expected them to adapt and at least put a tiny bit more emphasis on the passing game but wow...

Still, it's only the second week now. I agree that Musgrave has shown that his style is more of a slow evolution than a sudden revolution.
My angst in all of it is wondering how much time this staff really has. Are Fraizer and his staff in the same boat as Ponder? Is it reasonable to assume anything either way?

I can't fully condem anything about the offense this early...other than the oversimplistic approach to ADs use. That seems to be a trend set before Musgrave got here.
I think it's obvious that the receiving corp is vastly improved and Ponder has complete understandng of what he's being asked to do. It all remains to be seen what they can pull together.

Personally, I feel more urgency around all of it for them. I can't imagine Spielman being too pumped up about how they've started on offense.

[Mothman]

Yeah... I don't really get it. We blow half our draft for a 3rd string WR with gaping holes at starting LB and O-line.

It's not complicated. He was touted as a serious talent that would need to be developed. They needed WR help and teams (at least smart teams) don't just draft for immediate need, they draft talent to build for the future. Patterson's a 3rd string WR right now, after one game, but does anybody believe they intend to keep him as a 3rd string WR indefinitely? When they traded up to get him, I seriously doubt they were thinking: "We have to get this guy! he can be a 3rd string WR for us for years!".

I think ultimately we started off as a "run first" team because we had Adrian and well, little else. But now we have more weapons and a scheme that can't utilize them.

After one game they have "a scheme that can't utilize them"? They threw for 236 yards and scored 24 points and they certainly utilized Simpson effectively. Simpson, Jennings, Rudolph and Patterson all caught passes in that game, as did Peterson, and that's despite a serious disadvantage in time of possession, drives cut short by turnovers and two scoring drives that took a combined total of 5 plays. It was obviously a very flawed performance by the offense and the team as a whole but if I didn't know better, after reading posts about Musgrave and the offensive playcalling this week I'd think they Vikes only managed about 3 points and 100 yards of offense.

Imagine with Favre in 2009 if we didn't use Harvin because Rice was the 1 WR in our condensed formation? You can't take advantage of the best thing Peterson does for the passing game because you have ONE wr on the field.

VikingLord made a similar comment but the Vikes simply don't run that many plays with 3 TE or 2 TE/FB formations. There are usually 2 WRs on the field and even when there aren't, the last time I checked TEs are eligible receivers.

I think we all went along with the "run first" mentality because like I said, we didn't have any other option really. But now that we do, I had expected them to adapt and at least put a tiny bit more emphasis on the passing game but wow...

They passed 28 times and called runs to Peterson 18 times. Ponder had 4 runs and I don't recall any of them being designed runs. Even if they had all been designed runs, they clearly threw more than they ran. Plus, after one week, Ponder currently ranks 8th in the league in yards per attempt. One game isn't much of a sample size but that suggests an increased emphasis on downfield passing.

Remember, it was just one game. That's not even enough to be a trend!

[Mothman]

Personally, I feel more urgency around all of it for them. I can't imagine Spielman being too pumped up about how they've started on offense.

I can't either and despite all the talk about Ponder, Musgrave and playcalling in the wake of the loss, what concerns me most about the offense is the o-line and the blocking as a whole. If the blocking doesn't improve the offense will have no chance to be consistent and will struggle all season.

[The Breeze]

I can't either and despite all the talk about Ponder, Musgrave and playcalling in the wake of the loss, what concerns me most about the offense is the o-line and the blocking as a whole. If the blocking doesn't improve the offense will have no chance to be consistent and will struggle all season.

That's the crux of it for me. Part of my concern going into the offseason was how the 10-6 finish would affect the way they drafted and continued to build the team.
There's always so much pressure to succeed quickly or be shown the door.
The issues on the line are something that can slow everything down long term.

Still, just one game...and against a team very familiar with our system. It's definitely a wake up call for the coaching staff to get things tightened up.

Thankfully it's only a trip to Soldier Field next week. Have you been there? I hear it's nice. ; )

[dead_poet]

I found this an interesting piece on Bush. Provided he stays healthy, he's going to flourish in Detroit.

Analysis Notebook: Week 1
https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2 ... ok-week-1/

[The Breeze]

Every time I watch videos of the Vikings and then compare it to almost any other team... it seems like other WRs have way more space between them than our WRs.
Now, I'm not talking about getting open because that's an individual WR thing...
but in terms of the play call or scheme, it seems like our WRs are close to each other a lot and getting in each other's space a lot.
I wish I had videos to show what I'm talking about - but it's something I've noticed over the past few years.
I don't remember seeing this back with Culpepper and even Cunningham, so...

Is this a product of a west coast offense?
Is it a product of bunch formations?
Is it a product of not having amazing WRs (Moss, Carter, Reed)?
Are WRs running the wrong routes?
Or is this what happens when defenses stack the box (it appears like there's less space down the field)?

I'm not trying to make excuses for Ponder (or even going back to TJack), but whenever there's a camera behind the line facing the endzone, his view of the WRs looks way more muddy and complicated than a lot of other teams where the WRs are spaced well/differently.

I haven't noticed the WR space issue that way...but I have noticed that the upper tier QBs have significantly longer time to throw the ball, and also are able to use play action with greater success with lesser RBs. The combo of blockng vs knowing how to move in the pocket really affects the effectivenss of routes.

I watched both the Jets and Pats run plays that required pump fakes and a double move twice in the first half.

I have yet to see Ponder get that kind of time or show how to sidestep and move calmly in the pocket.
He did slow down his happy feet against the Lions,IMO, which is considerable against that front 4.

not exactly to your point....but more grist fo the mill~

[Eli]

I haven't noticed the WR space issue that way...but I have noticed that the upper tier QBs have significantly longer time to throw the ball, and also are able to use play action with greater success with lesser RBs.

It just seems that those QBs have more time, because they're less likely to bail out of the pocket or make a panicked throw than the rookies and the journeymen QBs. The best QBs in this league have played with much worse offensive lines than the Vikings are now fielding.

The problem of having ineffective play action may have to do with teams stacking the box against the Vikings and playing a lot of man-to-man against what has been a weak receiving corps the last few years. A defense that has 8 or 9 men in the box can't afford to have their man-to-man coverage guys bite on play action, and they know it.

[The Breeze]

It just seems that those QBs have more time, because they're less likely to bail out of the pocket or make a panicked throw than the rookies and the journeymen QBs. The best QBs in this league have played with much worse offensive lines than the Vikings are now fielding.

The problem of having ineffective play action may have to do with teams stacking the box against the Vikings and playing a lot of man-to-man against what has been a weak receiving corps the last few years. A defense that has 8 or 9 men in the box can't afford to have their man-to-man coverage guys bite on play action, and they know it.

Well, I can't validate how good or bad our line is compared to others.....but it's no illusion that the elite QBs get more time in the pocket. Based on their ability to burn blitzes, move within the pocket and the defenses they face. It's a much riskier proposition to blitz a Manning or Brady, so it happens less and they get better protection as a result.

And when you watch Brady work with young wideouts and get disrupted by the Bills and Jets front four......his stats basically suck when contrasted against the norm.

Not comparing Ponder to Brady, or god forbid making an excuse for Ponder....just suggesting that having time to throw the ball is huge, and that having that time is not dependant upon one individual solely.

[PacificNorseWest]

When the offense gives a two back, two receiver look, it's easier on a defense that will play 8 in the box against AP. Man on the outside coupled with short drop read throws means there isn't much time for a receiver to gain separation. It also means that with so many defenders so close to the LOS, on anything longer than those presnap read throws, Ponder's pocket has a higher probabability of collapsing.

The thing that you see with the elite offensive teams is how they spread their formation out and add complexity to their plays. Four receiver sets, motion plays, zone read looks that induce indecision on the defense and all sorts of variety that keeps the defense on its toes. But also, when the offense is so spread out, it makes the defense line up in kind. Of course, it's taken much more serious if those 4 receivers can provide a viable thread consistently.

[The Breeze]

When the offense gives a two back, two receiver look, it's easier on a defense that will play 8 in the box against AP. Man on the outside coupled with short drop read throws means there isn't much time for a receiver to gain separation. It also means that with so many defenders so close to the LOS, on anything longer than those presnap read throws, Ponder's pocket has a higher probabability of collapsing.

The thing that you see with the elite offensive teams is how they spread their formation out and add complexity to their plays. Four receiver sets, motion plays, zone read looks that induce indecision on the defense and all sorts of variety that keeps the defense on its toes. But also, when the offense is so spread out, it makes the defense line up in kind. Of course, it's taken much more serious if those 4 receivers can provide a viable thread consistently.

And I think that is exactly what an OC can do to help his line and QB out. Make your offense less predictable....it won't make AD any less effective IMO.

[Eli]

Well, I can't validate how good or bad our line is compared to others.....but it's no illusion that the elite QBs get more time in the pocket. Based on their ability to burn blitzes, move within the pocket and the defenses they face. It's a much riskier proposition to blitz a Manning or Brady, so it happens less and they get better protection as a result.

Riskier than giving them too much time to pass? Far from it. I'm sure every DC weighs the risks of one vs the other.

If the Vikings are blitzed more than other teams (citation?) it's not only because of their poor QB, but also because their receivers could easily be covered one-on-one.

[The Breeze]

Riskier than giving them too much time to pass? Far from it. I'm sure every DC weighs the risks of one vs the other.

If the Vikings are blitzed more than other teams (citation?) it's not only because of their poor QB, but also because their receivers could easily be covered one-on-one.

There is an article at bleacher report that that illustrates my point. Sorry I can't paste links from my mobile. Just google 'which nfl qbs faced the most blitzes 2012'

Best effectiveness against the blitz was Eli, Payton then Brady.

Brady threw 18 tds against blitzes with 0 ints. The Giants went so far as to develop a special coverage package against Brady because they don't want to blitz him.Last night Mayock stated that Rex Ryan said the Jets do not want to blitz Brady. Therfore Brady gets more time in the pocket because his front line of protection doesn't get blitzed the way Ponder's or Gabbert's does. Same for both the Mannings. The teams that do well against those QBs generate lots of pressure up the middle with their down linemen.

As Mondry and PNW have pointed out the simplistic approach to our offense fomation-wise and predictability-wise plays just a much a role as does Ponder's inability to pocket awarenss , for how easy it is to blitz our QB. Throw in the fact that his longest relationship with any of his wideouts is 17 games, 16 of which the guy was significantly useless due to a nerve injury, the next longest about 6, all the rest just 1 game.....last weeks game!

It's no illusion the Vikings get less time to throw the ball...but it's much more than just being Ponder's fault IMO, but he definitely has plenty of blame too.

[Demi]

just a much a role as does Ponder's inability to pocket awarenss

Just as much? really? yeah just like Bevell's biggest problem was his inability to do his job and not the QB he was saddled with.

[The Breeze]

Just as much? really? yeah just like Bevell's biggest problem was his inability to do his job and not the QB he was saddled with.

Wow...it's almost like you just took a portion of my expressed thought and crammed it into your own context to further your stealthy agenda....good job demi!