Vikings Message Board.Com

Something I also took as a bad sign was Harrison Smith missed a tackle, but it wasn't the missed tackle that was upsetting. It was the effort. He watched hoping someone else would make the tackle.

Just uninspiring all around. Looked like I was watching 'The Walking Dead' hours ahead of time.

Mothman wrote:

I'm not sure why... you'll have to elaborate a little. Do you mean because I always talk about the importance of players executing?

I may have misinterpreted your past comments regarding the role of coaching/adjustments/etc. - especially as it related to the Vikings of 2013. To be clear, I agree with the view I surmised (perhaps incorrectly) that you hold regarding this. In my opinion, coaching receives far too much blame/praise, depending on the outcome of a particular football game. I would be willing to bet that many adjustments were made, it just seems that yesterday, they did not yield a positive outcome.

I apologize if I have misinterpreted your feelings on this dynamic - I didn't mean to assume that my interpretation of your view on the subject was correct.

Mothman wrote:

Keep in mind, I was watching from the stands so I didn't see the broadcast or hear what Gannon said. I haven't had a chance to watch the game on NFL.com yet.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying the coaches made no adjustments at all or that Robinson has no responsibility for plays made against him. He certainly could have played that Jeffrey TD better. Against Marshall, he had little chance without help. Marshall is too good at using his body to "block out" defenders. Anyway, my point is that the coaches didn't adjust sufficiently and I'm not just talking about the TDs. Third down conversions against Robinson were part of the Bears "bread and butter yesterday. They were just too easy.

When I watch the game online, I'll keep an eye on Blanton on the long TD to Marshall. If he blew his coverage responsibility, that's on him, not the coaches.Thanks for pointing out that aspect of the play.

Fair enough.

Mothman wrote: It was a huge problem. Honestly, I don't even see one aspect of the defense I can point to as the biggest issue yesterday. They're tackling was bad. their run defense was weak. They couldn't figure out how to deal with the Bears outside receivers. It wasn't a very good performance.

Agreed - I'm just of the opinion that this was more due to the lack of execution by the defensive players than coaching. I thought the scheme was good, and was putting our guys in position to win 1-on-1 battles, they just weren't doing that. But it's also the job of the coaching staff to make sure these guys know what steps to take to execute when they are put in the correct position, so blame of course falls at their feet as well as at the player's feet.

Yeah, lets defend Robinson, and the coaches who kept him on the field, and couldn't manage to get a safety to help. My lord. Just admit he did a horrible job. The coaches and defensive scheme did a horrible job. They had 2 freaking weeks to prepare for a game against a PATHETIC Bears team, and they couldn't get it done. Do you think the height and skill of Jefferies and Marshall never entered their planning? They couldn't even run the ball against one of the worst run D's in the NFL. We will have 3 more years of this up and down crap, like we have had from the previous HCs, and people will still be wondering what that problem is. Theres a lack of talent on every level. I used to hope a good coach could get past that, but now, I don't know. But lets give them another 2 years! Like we have any say in the matter.

frosted wrote:I may have misinterpreted your past comments regarding the role of coaching/adjustments/etc. - especially as it related to the Vikings of 2013. To be clear, I agree with the view I surmised (perhaps incorrectly) that you hold regarding this. In my opinion, coaching receives far too much blame/praise, depending on the outcome of a particular football game. I would be willing to bet that many adjustments were made, it just seems that yesterday, they did not yield a positive outcome.

I apologize if I have misinterpreted your feelings on this dynamic - I didn't mean to assume that my interpretation of your view on the subject was correct.

No need to apologize. I do think coaches receive far too much blame/praise for the outcomes of games but I think they have something to do with those outcomes as well. I have no doubt the Vikings made some adjustments in that game. They always do. I was just unhappy with the way the left Robinson on an island so often on the outside and it happened throughout the game. It got so bad that on Brandon Marshall's short TD reception, he was literally signaling to Cutler that he was open before the snap. He knew he was facing man coverage from Robinson and he scored easily. That's just not acceptable at that point in the game, when the Vikes had already seen the Bears exploit their size advantage. they needed to take that away.

Agreed - I'm just of the opinion that this was more due to the lack of execution by the defensive players than coaching. I thought the scheme was good, and was putting our guys in position to win 1-on-1 battles, they just weren't doing that. But it's also the job of the coaching staff to make sure these guys know what steps to take to execute when they are put in the correct position, so blame of course falls at their feet as well as at the player's feet.

I'm guessing this is where we differ: it's not enough to put players in position to win one-on-one battles if they're overmatched. The scheme can be sound on paper. The players can understand their assignments and they should be expected to execute to the best of their ability but a coach still has to consider matchups. They have a huge impact in the NFL. Sometimes, you just have to accept that your guy isn't going to win enough one-on-one battles against their guy and do something to compensate. For example, when the Vikes had Moss in his prime, a good defensive coordinator would have been foolish to repeatedly ask even a good corner to stick with him in man-tto-man too often because Moss was going to win too many of those battles. he was too fast, too tall, too athletic. The Vikes leaned too heavily on man coverage yesterday against a team that ate it up. If they make the same mistake against Green Bay next week we're likely to see the same result. I think they're going to have to disguise what they're doing better or mix in more zone.

I'm not blaming the coaches for the loss but they played a bigger role in it than they should.

Pondering Her Percy wrote: I mean everyone and there mother are pretty much saying he will be back this season so....

Well based on context I thought you had some info/insight for next year. There is still speculation that the Vikes could cut ties with AD this offseason.

What I don't get, as far as adjustments go, is after seeing again how little time the QB has to get the ball down field why there isn't more effort put into the short passing game via slants and screens rather than by default via dumpoffs behind the line of scrimmage. It worked great for the bears in protecting Cutler, setting up there run game, moving the chains anmd even the downfiield passing game.

Why aren't jennings, CP, and johnson capable of that? Jennings is great at it.

I saw one screen pass attempted, and is was set up well, Mckinnon dropped the pass. I don't remember seeing another....maybe one to Asiata in the 2nd half.

I consider it basic football that when a defense is consistently breaking through the line you work with misdirection and quick release routes to slow it down, or even roll the QB out. I don't recall seeing any of that.

I do like Johnson showing that he can get open in areas of TBs sweet spots.

The Breeze wrote:What I don't get, as far as adjustments go, is after seeing again how little time the QB has to get the ball down field why there isn't more effort put into the short passing game via slants and screens rather than by default via dumpoffs behind the line of scrimmage. It worked great for the bears in protecting Cutler, setting up there run game, moving the chains anmd even the downfiield passing game.

Why aren't jennings, CP, and johnson capable of that? Jennings is great at it.

I saw one screen pass attempted, and is was set up well, Mckinnon dropped the pass. I don't remember seeing another....maybe one to Asiata in the 2nd half.

I consider it basic football that when a defense is consistently breaking through the line you work with misdirection and quick release routes to slow it down, or even roll the QB out. I don't recall seeing any of that.

I do like Johnson showing that he can get open in areas of TBs sweet spots.

I don't think Norv adjusts well. I think people are going to use AD's not playing this year as the scape goat, but this offense needs more then that. Asiata has worked well with the screen passes before, use him again. And do more to Mckinnon. Heck, throw a few to Felton. Try some well designed screen plays to CP. But Norv doesn't exactly have a stellar Oline to work with. Or a WR corp.

Charles Johnson and Harrison Smith were basically the only bright spots. Even then, they were like candles in the night.

If Teddy looked bad (he did) the O-Line looked worse. Losing Jarius hurt. Rudolph was invisible in his first game back.

I'm pretty certain Cordarrelle is hurting worse than the team is letting on. He's had a couple opportunities to bust one, but he doesn't juke the way he did last year and his top end speed even looks suspect.

The defense looked alright, but there were way too many runs going for big yardage and Robinson had no help on the outside.

This game almost wasn't even painful - it was just boring. I was emotionally checked out for most of the game, basically just waiting to see the final score.

Once again, it was a story of missed opportunities. Harrison made a big play, but the offense pissed their pants and and Walsh missed an easy 3 point opportunity. The non-fumble recovery was an issue of players not playing to the whistle. If those two drives had gone differently, the game would have looked a lot different and we might not even be talking about how bad the team looked.

The way to prepare an unprepared player/rookie for the next game is to "not" practice over and over with drills. Scrimmage, blitz, full-contact without killing him, and get him used to delivering/releasing within 1-3 seconds, 4 for over 40 yards. Confidence is the name of the game. He can do it, throw well, help win games by hitting receivers, but repetition will help, and yes, of course, better front linemen will help. Scrimmaging more will help the line as well. Injuries due to scrimmaging? Does it matter now? They don't have to actually full out tackle and kill, but the speed and game-style competition can help. Am I wrong? More scrimmaging will feel like games played, especially for TB.

...wisdom ? I don't know...I just want the Vikes to win.

DKSweets wrote:Charles Johnson and Harrison Smith were basically the only bright spots. Even then, they were like candles in the night.

I'd just like to add Floyd to that list.

I guess you could even say any CB not named Robinson considering he was the only one targeted Rhodes got his first INT too, so there's that

DKSweets wrote:Charles Johnson and Harrison Smith were basically the only bright spots. Even then, they were like candles in the night.

If Teddy looked bad (he did) the O-Line looked worse. Losing Jarius hurt. Rudolph was invisible in his first game back.

I'm pretty certain Cordarrelle is hurting worse than the team is letting on. He's had a couple opportunities to bust one, but he doesn't juke the way he did last year and his top end speed even looks suspect.

The defense looked alright, but there were way too many runs going for big yardage and Robinson had no help on the outside.

This game almost wasn't even painful - it was just boring. I was emotionally checked out for most of the game, basically just waiting to see the final score.

Once again, it was a story of missed opportunities. Harrison made a big play, but the offense pissed their pants and and Walsh missed an easy 3 point opportunity. The non-fumble recovery was an issue of players not playing to the whistle. If those two drives had gone differently, the game would have looked a lot different and we might not even be talking about how bad the team looked.

I guess you could say Rudolph was invisible but he also only played 14 snaps. He was on a snap count all game

For a young team with rookies playing in critical positions, I wonder if the bye week hurt more than helped. Over and over this season, Zimmer has stated that this team forgets what it has learned. The Vikings seemed to be on a little roll before the bye and I can't help but think maybe they would have had a better outing if not for the break. To me, it seemed like the Dline wasn't staying in their lanes. Cutler had a lot of space to scramble and extend plays and even scramble for big chunks of yardage. The oline was missing assignments. Kalil seemed like he wasn't sure who to block several times. Bridgewater looked like he was overthinking what he was seeing and ended up dumping to his relief valve. It really wasn't just one thing, everyone just looked like they weren't ready to play.



Deep down, I had had a feeling this team was going to struggle in this game. I'm not sure if they'll win, but I think this weeks game is going to be much closer than most predict.

808vikingsfan wrote:For a young team with rookies playing in critical positions, I wonder if the bye week hurt more than helped. Over and over this season, Zimmer has stated that this team forgets what it has learned. The Vikings seemed to be on a little roll before the bye and I can't help but think maybe they would have had a better outing if not for the break. To me, it seemed like the Dline wasn't staying in their lanes. Cutler had a lot of space to scramble and extend plays and even scramble for big chunks of yardage. The oline was missing assignments. Kalil seemed like he wasn't sure who to block several times. Bridgewater looked like he was overthinking what he was seeing and ended up dumping to his relief valve. It really wasn't just one thing, everyone just looked like they weren't ready to play.

Deep down, I had had a feeling this team was going to struggle in this game. I'm not sure if they'll win, but I think this weeks game is going to be much closer than most predict.

I hope you're right. I'm anticipating another blowout.

Pondering Her Percy wrote: I guess you could say Rudolph was invisible but he also only played 14 snaps. He was on a snap count all game

Still, 14 plays and not targeted even once, I would say that counts as invisible. Of course the game plan might have been just to use him as a decoy and only use him as a blocker but why would they do that, especially after Wright went out with an injury depleting the receiving corp even more.

808vikingsfan wrote: Deep down, I had had a feeling this team was going to struggle in this game. I'm not sure if they'll win, but I think this weeks game is going to be much closer than most predict.

Any reasoning other than a gut feeling? You had a feeling we would struggle against the Bears (who have looked horrible their past 2 games) but don't see us struggling against the Packers? I don't see any reason to believe this week's game will be anything but a blow out. GB is really in a groove right now both offensively and defensively and we can't score very many points against anybody, so I really don't see this being a close game unless Rodgers gets hurt.