The State of the Vikings

[IrishViking]

I've already said the problem is the lack of point production so I agree about that but I'm not saying they should force the ball to Patterson. I'm simply saying they need to devise ways to get him more involved because one of the ways a team can solve scoring problems on offense is by getting the ball into the hands of their most talented playmakers. I don't understand the resistance to this idea of getting Patterson more involved. They don't need to build their entire scheme around him or force the ball to him 20 times a game but he's averaging a mere 3.8 touches. It doesn't seem unreasonable to suggest that getting it to him, say, 8 times a game might help the offense be more productive in both the short and long term.

If I may. How I interpret the OP is like this; imagine we are on the 20, just entering the redzone. Rather than line up three or four wide and have Bridgwater throw Nov ops to use a sweep run with Patterson. It leads to a touchdown. Nice outcome. However IMO the OP is suggesting that, that outcome isn't as long term useful for the Vikings. It's one less chance for Bridgewater to challenge a red zone Defense, to get on the same page with a receiver, to help the Oline mesh better, etc. Whether or not that is true is up for debate. Personally I sorta agree to an extent.

[mansquatch]

On Defense I do not think the talent is the issue. We have guys who have the athletic ability to do what Zimmer wants them to do. The DL more so than any other part of the unit. The secondary has looked great in coverage this year. What has been preventing the defense from being from being elite hasn’t been talent, it has been mental errors. Zimmer has voiced this concern. He stated after one of the wins that they were not yet a great defense due to mistakes and poor discipline. I do not think this has changed.

I just do not buy that Green Bay’s OL (which is dismal) was so much more physical and talented than our DL such that our guys would get blown off the ball every down. That might be what happened, but that is not the result of a talent difference. It is poor play. The Nelson TD was a great example of this, Blanton completely blew his assignment and bit on the play action.

The bottom line is QBs in this era of the NFL are way too good at identifying mistakes and making a defense pay for them, especially guys like Aaron Rogers. This defense doesn’t need more first round talent. It needs a healthy dose of professionalism. Guys need to start taking it seriously and doing their job.

I do not think putting Teddy in will fix everything, but I do think having a QB play like Ponder did is highly demoralizing. The QB is the leader of the team due to the importance of the position, especially in the NFL. So if the QB is laying an egg on the field, it is not a positive. More importantly, if your QB is a 3 and out factory, then your D is going to get gassed as well as not have time to make adjustments on the sideline since they are constantly on the field. Does that make it all Ponder’s fault? No. But just as that absolute is stupid, so is the idea that the play of the offense didn’t have an impact on the defense both mentally and physically.

I think this game will prove to be a bit of watershed moment for Zimmer. If his demeanor is any indication, he is going to be quite aggressive with his players. How will they respond?

[Leafman]

I don't think we can draw that conclusion just by looking at the total yards per attempt stat alone. A few big runs have inflated it somewhat. Those runs occurred so everyone involved, including the o-line, deserves their share of credit for them but if we're talking about how well the line blocks on the majority of plays, the stats are less supportive. If you remove Patterson's 4 carries from the team total of 142, the yards per attempt average drops all the way from 4.6 to 3.9. Take McKinnon's 55 yard run out and it drops to 3.6. Again, I understand that those plays happened and the blocking on most of them (one of Patterson's runs was for a loss) was very good, but I don't think a 3.6 yards per attempt average on the vast majority of the running plays particularly speaks to effective, sustained blocking. YMMV.

Actually any YPA of 3.5 or higher, exclusive of big play runs, is excellent. It means you can sustain drives by running the ball over and over again, cuz 3 runs will get you at least 10.5 yards, on average.

Almost every team in the top third of YPA has a few big runs that "inflate" those numbers. The only team in the top 11 that hasn't had a long run is Miami (longest is 24 yards ... I think the Dolphins are the best running team in the league so far), otherwise all of them have a run or two or three between 40-80 yards long ... and only 3 teams in the top 11 have more attempts than the Vikings, so it's not like Seattle who is 2nd in YPA but with only 87 attempts versus the Vikings 142. If you take all the big runs out of the stats of every team, the overall YPA get much closer top to bottom, but the rankings don't change all that much ... the Vikings are still in the top third.

Take the New Orleans Saints, the team you've cited a few times recently for having a very effective ground attack, and in fact they are the #1 team in the league in yards per attempt. Taking their top 5 runs out of the equation just as you did for the Vikings, their YPA falls a full yard per attempt from 5.2 to 4.2, the exact same drop the Vikings saw.

Or look at Dallas, who many now consider to have an elite Offensive Line and excellent rushing attack. They average 4.9 YPA, and their longest run is 44 yards. But take out their top 9 "big play" runs over 15 yards (which includes 4 rushes of 17, 17, 17 and 18 yards), and their YPA falls the exact same amount of 1 yard to 3.9 YPA.

I think because we are so focused on just the Vikings, we tend to call things "problems" and "struggles" where the team may actually be more effective than most other teams in the NFL ... such is definitely the case with run blocking, IMO. The Vikings aren't elite by any means, but they are certainly in the upper half of the league.

LEAFMAN THE PURPLE FAN

[DK Sweets]

Actually any YPA of 3.5 or higher, exclusive of big play runs, is excellent. It means you can sustain drives by running the ball over and over again, cuz 3 runs will get you at least 10.5 yards, on average.

Almost every team in the top third of YPA has a few big runs that "inflate" those numbers. The only team in the top 11 that hasn't had a long run is Miami (longest is 24 yards ... I think the Dolphins are the best running team in the league so far), otherwise all of them have a run or two or three between 40-80 yards long ... and only 3 teams in the top 11 have more attempts than the Vikings, so it's not like Seattle who is 2nd in YPA but with only 87 attempts versus the Vikings 142. If you take all the big runs out of the stats of every team, the overall YPA get much closer top to bottom, but the rankings don't change all that much ... the Vikings are still in the top third.

Take the New Orleans Saints, the team you've cited a few times recently for having a very effective ground attack, and in fact they are the #1 team in the league in yards per attempt. Taking their top 5 runs out of the equation just as you did for the Vikings, their YPA falls a full yard per attempt from 5.2 to 4.2, the exact same drop the Vikings saw.

Or look at Dallas, who many now consider to have an elite Offensive Line and excellent rushing attack. They average 4.9 YPA, and their longest run is 44 yards. But take out their top 9 "big play" runs over 15 yards (which includes 4 rushes of 17, 17, 17 and 18 yards), and their YPA falls the exact same amount of 1 yard to 3.9 YPA.

I think because we are so focused on just the Vikings, we tend to call things "problems" and "struggles" where the team may actually be more effective than most other teams in the NFL ... such is definitely the case with run blocking, IMO. The Vikings aren't elite by any means, but they are certainly in the upper half of the league.

LEAFMAN THE PURPLE FAN

A+ post. I also strongly agree with the bottom line, and I feel like it's been even worse this year due to the strength of opponents that we've faced.

[Mothman]

Actually any YPA of 3.5 or higher, exclusive of big play runs, is excellent. It means you can sustain drives by running the ball over and over again, cuz 3 runs will get you at least 10.5 yards, on average.

I understand the math but a YPA of 3.5 is not excellent, at least not in the sense that I understand that word. All but 5 teams in the NFL are averaging 3.5 YPA or higher. If a 3.5 YPA is the standard of excellence, than 27 teams in the league have an outstanding YPA.

Personally, I think anything less than 4.0 is below average. Of course, the Vikings are well above that level because of a couple long runs and I understand that most teams have long runs that inflate their YPA.

Take the New Orleans Saints, the team you've cited a few times recently for having a very effective ground attack, and in fact they are the #1 team in the league in yards per attempt. Taking their top 5 runs out of the equation just as you did for the Vikings, their YPA falls a full yard per attempt from 5.2 to 4.2, the exact same drop the Vikings saw.

Yes, but it's a drop to a YPA that is considerably higher than the Vikings and much more indicative of consistently good blocking.

Or look at Dallas, who many now consider to have an elite Offensive Line and excellent rushing attack. They average 4.9 YPA, and their longest run is 44 yards. But take out their top 9 "big play" runs over 15 yards (which includes 4 rushes of 17, 17, 17 and 18 yards), and their YPA falls the exact same amount of 1 yard to 3.9 YPA.

Again, much better than the Vikes and you had to take out 9 plays, which is quite a few long runs in just 5 games. The Vikes YPA can be dropped almost a full yard, from 4.6 to 3.7, by just taking out 2 plays.

I think because we are so focused on just the Vikings, we tend to call things "problems" and "struggles" where the team may actually be more effective than most other teams in the NFL ... such is definitely the case with run blocking, IMO.

I just don't find the case you've made for it convincing. Drop out MckInnon's 55 yard run and Patterson's 67 yard run and the Vikes remaining 3.7 YPA, which is still derived from the vast majority of their carries, hardly looks like the result one would expect from a team that is maintaining blocks better than most other teams in the league.

[Mothman]

If I may. How I interpret the OP is like this; imagine we are on the 20, just entering the redzone. Rather than line up three or four wide and have Bridgwater throw Nov ops to use a sweep run with Patterson. It leads to a touchdown. Nice outcome. However IMO the OP is suggesting that, that outcome isn't as long term useful for the Vikings. It's one less chance for Bridgewater to challenge a red zone Defense, to get on the same page with a receiver, to help the Oline mesh better, etc. Whether or not that is true is up for debate. Personally I sorta agree to an extent.

I get what you're saying but logically, I don't think it holds up. For example, you could extend the same thinking to say that anything other than a Bridgewater pass for a TD is a missed opportunity to improve his ability to challenge a red zone Defense, to get on the same page with a receiver, etc. Consequently, running for a TD would never make sense. However, I think the more ways a team has to challenge a defense in the red zone and score, the better. It makes them more difficult to defend. If the Vikings had an offense that could only score by running a sweep with Patterson, that would be problematic but the idea that scoring that way would somehow be holding the team's development back makes no sense to me.

[fiestavike]

I apologize but I'm unclear on why you you think getting the ball to Patterson more will somehow inhibit the long term development of the offense or prevent it from finding a rhythm. The idea is that getting him the ball more could help it do those things. The only instant gratification I'm looking for is improvement.

I understand the confusion. Let me try to clarify. I am not against Patterson getting more touches, but in my opinion it is best for the team if he is able to develop the ability to get those touches within the offense, not "outside" the offense by use of "gimmick" plays. I'm not against having those wrinkles in the offense. Let's suppose that against Detroit we successfully run 3 sweeps to Patterson and a screen pass that goes for 6. Of course I will be thrilled with the outcome of those plays but I would be even more happy if Patterson managed the same production on 4 routes where he is one of several targets instead of plays "designed" just to get the ball in his hands. That's because I think that kind of success is more sustainable and more beneficial to the offense as a whole than relying on gimmick plays. Its also a lot harder to defend and I think does more to open up possibilities for other on the team to make plays. So sure, use those wrinkle plays, but don't rely on them.

I guess what I am trying to say is that it seems to me that some are saying "The problem with our offense is that we are not getting Patterson the ball enough". I think that's a false or at best misleading statement. Getting Patterson 8 touches is not going to solve our offensive problems. It may lead to a few big plays, but its not the same thing as creating an overwhelming and effective offense. And in fact those plays are likely to be even more effective when the rest of our offense is rolling. Patterson developing the ability to get off of jams and run good routes would be far more beneficial to our offense in the long run, as would shoring up our pass blocking, sustaining blocks in the run game, consistently getting the ball out quickly from the QB position, etc. I'm not trying to say that these are purely mutually exclusive choices (more touches for patterson vs. a generally more effective offense) just that one is the correct point of emphasis in building a consistent winner, and the other is not. We all had a front row seat for the Randy Ratio and saw how well that worked.

So, let me explain...no, there is too much, let me sum up:
I don't object at all to getting Patterson the ball more, I just think the contention that not doing so is what is wrong with our offense is overly simplistic. I suspect that we don't disagree all that much on this point.

Seeing 4 more touches a game for Patterson isn't going to make me as happy as seeing an offense that is firing on all cylanders and proves to be a consistent and real challenge for defenses to corral.

I've already said the problem is the lack of point production so I agree about that but I'm not saying they should force the ball to Patterson. I'm simply saying they need to devise ways to get him more involved because one of the ways a team can solve scoring problems on offense is by getting the ball into the hands of their most talented playmakers. I don't understand the resistance to this idea of getting Patterson more involved. They don't need to build their entire scheme around him or force the ball to him 20 times a game but he's averaging a mere 3.8 touches. It doesn't seem unreasonable to suggest that getting it to him, say, 8 times a game might help the offense be more productive in both the short and long term.

[/quote]

I'm not resistant to the idea of getting the ball into his hands per se, even on designed plays, I'm just resistant to the idea that its going to "solve" anything. As I said, a lot of our biggest plays this year have been partially the result of just the threat the Patterson provides, and I'm equally as happy with a McKinnon run up the gut for 40 or an Asiata reception in the flat that goes for 40 as I am with a jet sweep to Patterson that goes for 40. I don't care how we get the 40 particularly, I just believe we can more consistently pick up 40 yard chunks, or 20 yard chunks, or whatever, by fixing pass protection, maintaining blocks, receivers getting off of jams, etc, than by using the Cordarelle Ratio.

[fiestavike]

I just don't find the case you've made for it convincing. Drop out MckInnon's 55 yard run and Patterson's 67 yard run and the Vikes remaining 3.7 YPA, which is still derived from the vast majority of their carries, hardly looks like the result one would expect from a team that is maintaining blocks better than most other teams in the league.

That's because they aren't. You can see it on tape. Even a lousy line like they have in GB did a WAY better job of maintaining blocks against us on Thursday night than our Oline has done all season. Every team we have played has done a better job of this than we have. Perhaps we just have the worst defense in the world, but I don't think so. I think our defense is as or nearly as athletic as most other teams. Clearly they do need to do a better job of getting off of blocks, but our Oline also needs to do a better job of maintaining them.

[IrishViking]

I get what you're saying but logically, I don't think it holds up. For example, you could extend the same thinking to say that anything other than a Bridgewater pass for a TD is a missed opportunity to improve his ability to challenge a red zone Defense, to get on the same page with a receiver, etc. Consequently, running for a TD would never make sense. However, I think the more ways a team has to challenge a defense in the red zone and score, the better. It makes them more difficult to defend. If the Vikings had an offense that could only score by running a sweep with Patterson, that would be problematic but the idea that scoring that way would somehow be holding the team's development back makes no sense to me.

Well to continue with the BW TDP example; in that case I feel that far more people are required to execute their jobs effectively in order for that TD to happen. Compared to when Patterson gets the ball and usually apart from the intial block schemes it's "get out of the way and watch me juke 11 guys one at a time." Boiling down to BW (again using him as an example) gets a lot of game experience in dropping back anD handing a ball then putting hands to hips.

[The Breeze]

I think there is a legit concern regarding a freak athlete making up for the shortcomings of other members of the unit and it's overall longterm effect on the whole, especially if that freak gets injured or suspended. See Harvin,AD,Moss....now CP84. Seems to be a definite pattern with this club for awhile. When your freak is the QB it changes the dynamic because he is a distributer. (Favre 09 and every current team that has one)
Not sure we'd be having this conversation if Rudolph and AD were playing.

[Leafman]

I just don't find the case you've made for it convincing. Drop out MckInnon's 55 yard run and Patterson's 67 yard run and the Vikes remaining 3.7 YPA, which is still derived from the vast majority of their carries, hardly looks like the result one would expect from a team that is maintaining blocks better than most other teams in the league.

I don't try to convince you of anything Jim ... I'm just stating facts for the benefit of the other readers on the message board. If you take out the top 5 runs of each team in the league, the Vikings are in the top half of the league in YPA.

The team in the bottom half of YPA with the fewest big runs is St. Louis, at #17, compared to the Vikings, at #11. Their longest run has been 18 yards. If you take out their top 5 runs, their YPA drops from 4.2 to ..... 3.7, i.e. the same number you get for the Vikings by removing the big Patterson and McKinnon runs ... and the Rams have 41 fewer rushing attempts exclusive of big runs, which is relevant because the more attempts you have, the more the effect of long runs gets muted in YPA. Most of the 21 teams ranked below the Vikings DO have several big runs which take their YPA down significantly when you remove them, and all but 6 have fewer attempts, most of them considerably fewer (in the 90-120 attempt range versus the Vikings at 142).

LEAFMAN THE PURPLE FAN

[Mothman]

I don't try to convince you of anything Jim ... I'm just stating facts for the benefit of the other readers on the message board. If you take out the top 5 runs of each team in the league, the Vikings are in the top half of the league in YPA.

How about the top 2 runs?

I didn't say their run blocking was problematic in the first place. I actually think it's been good the last two weeks and I think their pass blocking is the far greater concern. I just thought you overstated the Vikes effectiveness run blocking when you said they were maintaining blocks better than most other teams in the league solely on the basis of their 4.6 YPA . That stat is insufficient data from which to draw that particular conclusion.

[J. Kapp 11]

It takes two to tango.

The Vikings could have the best run-blocking line in football, but Matt Asiata, who gets the lion's share of the carries, is still never going to lead the league in rushing.

Adrian Peterson was/is as good as he is/was not only because he could take it to the house, but also because of all the 8-15 yard runs he made when there was just a crease. Those were typically runs that normal backs would have gained maybe 4-5 yards -- AP was just that good.

A great back can make his line look really good -- and vice versa. Matt Asiata runs hard, but nobody is going to mistake him for Adrian Peterson. We're an OK rushing team right now, but without AP, good defenses are likely to stop us.

[Mothman]

I understand the confusion. Let me try to clarify. I am not against Patterson getting more touches, but in my opinion it is best for the team if he is able to develop the ability to get those touches within the offense, not "outside" the offense by use of "gimmick" plays. I'm not against having those wrinkles in the offense. Let's suppose that against Detroit we successfully run 3 sweeps to Patterson and a screen pass that goes for 6. Of course I will be thrilled with the outcome of those plays but I would be even more happy if Patterson managed the same production on 4 routes where he is one of several targets instead of plays "designed" just to get the ball in his hands. That's because I think that kind of success is more sustainable and more beneficial to the offense as a whole than relying on gimmick plays. Its also a lot harder to defend and I think does more to open up possibilities for other on the team to make plays. So sure, use those wrinkle plays, but don't rely on them.

Thanks for clarifying and I understand what you're saying but do you really think of screen plays or sweeps as gimmick plays? I don't think of them that way. Anyway, I don't think they can form the basis of a pro offense but I do think they can be part of a y sustainable offensive attack over the long term. After all, they've been around for so long for good reason.

I guess what I am trying to say is that it seems to me that some are saying "The problem with our offense is that we are not getting Patterson the ball enough". I think that's a false or at best misleading statement. Getting Patterson 8 touches is not going to solve our offensive problems. It may lead to a few big plays, but its not the same thing as creating an overwhelming and effective offense. And in fact those plays are likely to be even more effective when the rest of our offense is rolling. Patterson developing the ability to get off of jams and run good routes would be far more beneficial to our offense in the long run, as would shoring up our pass blocking, sustaining blocks in the run game, consistently getting the ball out quickly from the QB position, etc. I'm not trying to say that these are purely mutually exclusive choices (more touches for patterson vs. a generally more effective offense) just that one is the correct point of emphasis in building a consistent winner, and the other is not. We all had a front row seat for the Randy Ratio and saw how well that worked.

So, let me explain...no, there is too much, let me sum up:
I don't object at all to getting Patterson the ball more, I just think the contention that not doing so is what is wrong with our offense is overly simplistic. I suspect that we don't disagree all that much on this point.

We don't disagree on that point at all. It's never been my contention that not getting the ball to Patterson more often is what's wrong with the offense, only that getting the ball to him more might help it be more productive.

I'm not resistant to the idea of getting the ball into his hands per se, even on designed plays, I'm just resistant to the idea that its going to "solve" anything. As I said, a lot of our biggest plays this year have been partially the result of just the threat the Patterson provides, and I'm equally as happy with a McKinnon run up the gut for 40 or an Asiata reception in the flat that goes for 40 as I am with a jet sweep to Patterson that goes for 40. I don't care how we get the 40 particularly, I just believe we can more consistently pick up 40 yard chunks, or 20 yard chunks, or whatever, by fixing pass protection, maintaining blocks, receivers getting off of jams, etc, than by using the Cordarelle Ratio.

I agree but I think the problem here is that you (and apparently some other board members) are viewing calls to get the ball to Patterson more as a call for a "Cordarelle Ratio". I want nothing of the sort and I may be wrong, but i don't get the impression anyone else is calling for that either. I just think when a team has a player with Patterson's size, speed and open field running ability, they have to find ways to give him opportunities to use that ability. It's that simple.

[808vikingsfan]

I'm starting this thread because 808vikingsfan explicitly asked that the "Positive " thread he started be kept positive and I find myself battling my urge to
respond in that thread because what I have to say about the team right now isn't very positive.

Thanks.

I want to keep it positive, I really do, but I'm just not feeling it. I'm having a very hard time buying into the "glass half full" perspective right now. It's
easy to pin Thursday's debacle on Ponder and to point to Sunday's offensive explosion as evidence that Bridgewater is going to save this team. I sincerely hope he's the catalyst for an immense amount of future success for the Vikings. However, I have no illusions that 40 point, 500+ yard games are about to become typical for this Vikings offense as soon as Teddy gets back on the field. That was a glorious win but Atlanta is now 1-9 on the road going back to the start of last season. As we saw first-hand, they're a poor road team. That doesn't mean the Vikings performance against them wasn't encouraging, because it was and I hope, as Joe Kapp 11 wrote in the Positive thread, it was a glimpse of the Vikings future.

I don't think anyone has delusions that the Vikings will become some offensive powerhouse. What I do hope is that with BW at QB, the Vikings will take advantage of blitzes, extend plays more often, keep cool in pressure situations, and put some points on the board while keeping the opposing offense off the field more. Will he? No one knows but all I can say is the Vikings haven't had a QB perform that well since 2009. As for the win against the Falcons. For me, I can't dismiss Atlanta's road record. Being a Vikings fan, we should all know those types of stats have no bearing on this team. The Falcons are a legitimate team with a solid QB.

Joe also wrote in that thread that he's bullish on Zimmer and Turner. I'm bullish on the former, not so much on the latter. He had a marvelous game plan for a first-time starter against Atlanta and it worked like a charm. He also has an incredible resume as an offensive coach in the NFL and I understand that he's lost two weapons he thought he'd have in Peterson and Rudolph. The loss of Peterson, in particular, hurts big time. However, other than the Atlanta game, I'm unimpressed with what Norv is doing. The Vikes have scored 10 or fewer points in 3 of their 5 games now. Maybe it will click again once Bridgewater comes back but I get the feeling Norv isn't quite sure what to do with the pieces he has yet and I hope he can figure it out.

Pieces that keep changing week to week. You did mention it but I think losing Peterson forced Norv to reinvent his offensive attack. Add the fact the players are still learning the offense, and mix in the injuries to key offensive players and I think it's understandable there is no consistency yet. I think it's also understandable that the Vikings struggled to score in the Saints and Packers game due to the QB situation. Also, I'm not sure how much blame we can put on Turner for the 5 turnovers in the Patriots game. But you're right, even though I believe that all 3 losses were closer than the score, the offense struggled to put up points (struggled in general) in those losses. I certainly would like to see them score more.

My biggest concern at this point is that the Vikings not only have talent issues but also have deep-seated character issues, and I'm not just referring to the endless stream of off-the-field arrests and controversies. A lot of people seem willing to blame the latest debacle at Green Bay on Ponder. I won't do that,even though he played terribly. The whole team played sloppy, undisciplined football almost from the start of that game. We've been hearing for a while now that defenders are doing too much freelancing. Zimmer sounds frustrated and that's understandable because his message doesn't seem to be getting through and I blame that on the players, not the coach. Robison said the mood on the sideline was "almost like some people had checked out". The Vikes rolled over and played dead against their biggest rival—again— and that's just unacceptable. Three double-digit losses in 5 games is also unacceptable.

I want to be positive but I'm increasingly of the belief that some house-cleaning needs to be done. I'm not even sure which players need to go but I hope Zimmer and company can identify who is "right" for the successful team they want to build and at this point, regardless of their contracts or status, I'm okay with the Vikes jettisoning any player who doesn't fit that description. I'm getting the impression there's too much selfish play going on, too little leadership and perhaps even a lack of heart with this team.

Personally, I don't see the lack of heart. The Vikings are ranked 3rd in points allowed in the 4th (7th in 2nd half points allowed). They've held the Falcons and Packers(Flynn of course) scoreless in the 4th. They also held both the Patriots and Saints to just one score in the 2nd half. So I really don't see any 'quit' in this team at all. They may show flashes of being undisciplined but I see it as a young group that is still learning. I see a toughness in the defense that I haven't seen in a long time. They play hard, tackle well, and swarm the ball. The surprising thing is I think the secondary is the strength of this D right now followed by a good, young LB corp. When the DL catches up, this defense will be good.


This weeks game vs Detroit will be a good barometer of where this team is. More than a weeks rest, at home (if you can call it home), against a divison rival.