Vikings Message Board.Com

Mothman wrote: It was six yards and he made the choice after being met by defenders in the backfield... again. This is what he was facing after getting the handoff:



He tried to make something out of nothing and ended up losing more yardage.

It was -12 yards on 4 carries. -6, -5, -1, 0. Worst case he could have gone down there. Instead he took a "sack", leading to a goal to go from the 16. that decision played a part in taking points off the board.

You can't expect a running back to be productive if the blocking in front of him is ineffective.
Of course not.

True, but you also can't expect them to be productive if they themselves are ineffective, which Peterson is when running out of the shotgun. Again, he has said so himself. Watching him confirms this. The numbers confirm this.

Somehow Matt Asiata and Jerrick McKinnon have managed to average just shy of 6 yards on their runs from the shotgun, and merely 3 on their runs under center.

Meanwhile, last season with a rookie QB in Bridgewater the two of them carried the ball out of the shotgun 80 times for 320 yards at a solid 4 YPC avg, along with 5 TDs and a mere two carries for negative yards. It was an important ingredient in managing down and distance and minimizing pressure on Bridgewater. Keep in mind this was all with a substantially similar Line, a Rookie QB, and a WR corps with significantly less talent.

There are plenty of problems on this team. Its not all Peterson's fault. The line needs to protect better so they can pass more from under center, they need to block better so they can run more out of the shotgun. None of that changes the fact that Peterson stinks at running out of the shotgun formation.


Just relatedly, this might interest you.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8 ... -formation

'Gun control: Teams need balance out of popular formation

Rest assured, defensive coordinators are going to feast on that imbalance unless offensive coaches start balancing up the run-pass ratios. I'm not suggesting they strive for a 50-50 split in their calls, but I do think they have to start taking advantage of what the defense is giving them.

When the Bills went to four Super Bowls in the early 1990s, part of their success was tied to their tremendous run game out of the gun. Thurman Thomas would tear up defenses (especially our Jets) when they built zone-running and counter-trap schemes from shotgun.

The question today is what teams are really building a quality run game from shotgun? Seattle had a major breakthrough this past weekend when they flew across the country and beat the Giants. Eleven of the Seahawks' 35 snaps out of shotgun were run calls, or 31.4 percent, which is more than double the league average. Seattle's game plan looked like a page torn from the Bills' old 'K-gun' playbook. The Seahawks ran for 73 yards on those 11 carries. A 6.6 rushing average is something other teams should envy.

The Patriots always seem to be ahead of the curve when it comes to innovative strategies, and against the Jets they ran the ball eight times from shotgun for 44 yards and two touchdowns. The Vikings employed the shotgun 16 times Sunday, but five of those calls were runs that averaged 7.4 yards a carry

fiestavike wrote:True, but you also can't expect them to be productive if they themselves are ineffective, which Peterson is when running out of the shotgun. Again, he has said so himself. Watching him confirms this. The numbers confirm this.

Somehow Matt Asiata and Jerrick McKinnon have managed to average just shy of 6 yards on their runs from the shotgun, and merely 3 on their runs under center.

It's not a mystery. The opposing defenses key on Peterson because he's the most dangerous weapon in the Vikings offense, especially as it's been run thus far. They're not making the other 2 backs their primary focus.

There are plenty of problems on this team. Its not all Peterson's fault. The line needs to protect better so they can pass more from under center, they need to block better so they can run more out of the shotgun. None of that changes the fact that Peterson stinks at running out of the shotgun formation.

He's been ineffective running out of it this year but nobody is arguing otherwise. Let's not overlook the point here, which is that Peterson isn't a poor fit in this offense, he's been ineffective running out of the shotgun this season. That's not the same thing and I think that ineffectiveness is because, as the Vikes are using it, the shotgun de-emphasizes his strengths and plays into the hands of the defense. The defensive strategy to beat the Vikes is clear when they line up in the shotgun with Peterson: blitz to crash the running lanes. If it's a run, there's a good chance the blockers won't handle be able to handle the blitzers and Peterson will have nowhere to go. If it's a pass, proceed to attack the QB. It's a strategy that limits Peterson's effectiveness. In the shotgun, he loses both the lead blocker he'd have in a two back set and the momentum he'd have running from a deeper set. Pressure Bridgewater and he'll make some plays but he also tends to sail the ball, throw off his back foot, etc. His mechanics slip. Turner appears to do little to try to turn the tables and take advantage of this sort of aggression. He just keeps going back to a strategy that's been failing since week 1.

Just relatedly, this might interest you.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8 ... -formation

Thanks. I don't disagree that they need to achieve some balance if they're going to be in shotgun often but as Bill Belichick observed in the article, work must be put in on learning the blocking angles and run lanes to take advantage of opportunities to run the ball from the shotgun. I don't see the Vikings doing anything particularly interesting, innovative or effective when running from that formation. What are they doing to take advantage of those opportunities BB mentioned, regardless of who's running the ball?

Yeah, it's up to norv to be ahead of the curve on this.

There's actually a similar discussion going on right now in Philly about how Ryan Mathews is more effective in the shot gun / pistol running plays than Demarco Murray has been. Do you switch to Mathews? Do you change the scheme for Murray? Or do you run Murray anyway and hope to improve?

Seems similar for us, although we don't have a 2nd back capable of even making us think about those questions.

However for us it's probably worse to be bad at run blocking out of the shot gun, like Jim said Run blitzing to stop Peterson often just becomes a pass blitz and a sack. Norv refuses to run screen plays or get the RB's involved in the passing game so ultimately I think we're just kind of screwed until they figure out how to run block from the shotgun. Until then expect bad things from Teddy as instead of using the run game to get 3rd and 4, the run game will be setting us up for 3rd and 12.

This is more of a negative against teams like KC who are good at stopping the run, but either way it's such a let down that running isn't a bigger strength for this team and negatively effects the passing game as well.

mondry wrote:Yeah, it's up to norv to be ahead of the curve on this.

There's actually a similar discussion going on right now in Philly about how Ryan Mathews is more effective in the shot gun / pistol running plays than Demarco Murray has been. Do you switch to Mathews? Do you change the scheme for Murray? Or do you run Murray anyway and hope to improve?

Seems similar for us, although we don't have a 2nd back capable of even making us think about those questions.

However for us it's probably worse to be bad at run blocking out of the shot gun, like Jim said Run blitzing to stop Peterson often just becomes a pass blitz and a sack. Norv refuses to run screen plays or get the RB's involved in the passing game so ultimately I think we're just kind of screwed until they figure out how to run block from the shotgun. Until then expect bad things from Teddy as instead of using the run game to get 3rd and 4, the run game will be setting us up for 3rd and 12.

This is more of a negative against teams like KC who are good at stopping the run, but either way it's such a let down that running isn't a bigger strength for this team and negatively effects the passing game as well.

If I remember correctly, they ran primarily from more traditional sets against DET and SD and had their two most impressive wins and Peterson's two best games of the season. I'm just sayin'...

To me, it's a no-brainer: stop running so many plays from the shotgun.

Mothman wrote: If I remember correctly, they ran primarily from more traditional sets against DET and SD and had their two most impressive wins and Peterson's two best games of the season. I'm just sayin'...

To me, it's a no-brainer: stop running so many plays from the shotgun.

So basically in the shotgun its a pass, under center its a run. That's what happened in the second half against KC. It didn't work very well.

the solution is obvious, don't put Peterson in on shotgun/pistol plays. Asiata and McKinnon have shown the ability to consistently perform in those opportunities.

FYI, Peterson ran from the shotgun 8 times for 23 yards against Det, 0 against SD.

Mothman wrote: If I remember correctly, they ran primarily from more traditional sets against DET and SD and had their two most impressive wins and Peterson's two best games of the season. I'm just sayin'...

To me, it's a no-brainer: stop running so many plays from the shotgun.

Right, DET and SD have very poor rush defenses so it makes sense to simply use your best running stuff. At least they're willing to adapt that much (so far anyway....) but I agree, if we're going to give Peterson 26 carries like we did against the chiefs do it under center in our most favorable running formation.

mondry wrote: Right, DET and SD have very poor rush defenses so it makes sense to simply use your best running stuff. At least they're willing to adapt that much (so far anyway....) but I agree, if we're going to give Peterson 26 carries like we did against the chiefs do it under center in our most favorable running formation.

22 of them were under center for 72 yards for 3.3 YPC, which was fine.

so far he has carried 21 times from the shotgun for 30 yards.

4 against SF,
8 against Det,
0 against SD,
5 against Den
4 against KC

fiestavike wrote:So basically in the shotgun its a pass, under center its a run.

I certainly didn't recommend such a foolish strategy.

the solution is obvious, don't put Peterson in on shotgun/pistol plays. Asiata and McKinnon have shown the ability to consistently perform in those opportunities.

Why take their best offensive player off the field so they can run the majority of plays for the league's least effective passing attack from the QB's preferred formation? That doesn't make sense to me.

Why not emphasize a strength instead of sticking with a weakness? Why not stay out of the shotgun the majority of the time and see if they can generate a more effective passing attack from under center (or at least a more effective offense)? It's not as if operating from the shotgun so often has steadily paid big dividends.

FYI, Peterson ran from the shotgun 8 times for 23 yards against Det, 0 against SD.

Thanks for the info.

Mothman wrote: To me, it's a no-brainer: stop running so many plays from the shotgun.

We are seriously arguing that the formation at the snap is a significant statistical contributor to the success of the play? That the formation itself and not the execution of the play as designed has that great of an impact on the outcome of the play?

I mean, its not like the Vikings are dropping back and throwing all the time or even a majority of the time. And this notion that somehow AD can't be as efficient running out of the shotgun? Why would that be? It doesn't really affect him. He's still lining up several yards deep, and if anything the handoff is simpler for both the QB and the RB to execute since the QB doesn't have to turn his body and hand off the ball while he is moving backward and the RB is moving forward.

I really believe the core of the problem is not the formation before the snap, but rather the execution of the play as called. Teams can have success running the ball in bunched formations or spread formations, with the QB lined up under center at the snap or in the shotgun. The ultimate determinant of success in any formation and on any type of play is going to be whether the offensive players as a unit execute that play.

Whatever it is, I just don't think it's really relevant to the result we are seeing. We are seeing balls not coming out/being off target when guys are running open, inconsistent pass and run blocking, and a relatively high rate of fumbles from AD (albeit many happening after the whistle blows). They'll have to clean all of that other stuff up before I'd even consider the impact of the pre-snap formation on the outcome.

Mothman wrote:

I certainly didn't recommend such a foolish strategy.

Unless you are going to throw Teddy to the wolves, its the implication.

Why take their best offensive player off the field so they can run the majority of plays for the league's least effective passing attack from the QB's preferred formation? That doesn't make sense to me.

Why not emphasize a strength instead of sticking with a weakness? Why not stay out of the shotgun the majority of the time and see if they can generate a more effective passing attack from under center (or at least a more effective offense)? It's not as if operating from the shotgun so often has steadily paid big dividends.

Because he's NOT the best offensive player from that formation.

and

Because we don't have the offensive line to do that against some of these better fronts (thus, throwing Teddy to the wolves). I'm sure Turner would rather do that but he's having to adapt. He could just hammer round pegs in square holes, but I'm not sure it would work so well.

To say the QBs "preferred formation" really misses the point and makes it sound like some sort of trivial decision made in order to coddle Bridgewater. Its necessitated by personnel and matchups.

The good news is that against the Lions and Bears I think we'll get to see a lot more of TB under center.

VikingLord wrote: We are seriously arguing that the formation at the snap is a significant statistical contributor to the success of the play?

Yep.

That the formation itself and not the execution of the play as designed has that great of an impact on the outcome of the play?

Knowing player strengths matters. That affects the execution in many circumstances. If you run a red zone fade that was drawn up for Calvin Johnson, it's a good play. Try that with Desean Jackson and it doesn't make much sense.

I mean, its not like the Vikings are dropping back and throwing all the time or even a majority of the time.

Exactly! So why not run out of formations that better suit our strengths?

And this notion that somehow AD can't be as efficient running out of the shotgun? Why would that be? It doesn't really affect him. He's still lining up several yards deep, and if anything the handoff is simpler for both the QB and the RB to execute since the QB doesn't have to turn his body and hand off the ball while he is moving backward and the RB is moving forward.

The amount of blockers, the momentum he gains from behind center, the way he has been taught to read a defense his entire life (his "vision" or "instincts")...all of these things matter.

I really believe the core of the problem is not the formation before the snap, but rather the execution of the play as called.

Is that you, Brad Childress?

Honestly though, why not both?

Teams can have success running the ball in bunched formations or spread formations, with the QB lined up under center at the snap or in the shotgun. The ultimate determinant of success in any formation and on any type of play is going to be whether the offensive players as a unit execute that play.

While this is true, I will repeat that knowing your players' strengths is important.

Whatever it is, I just don't think it's really relevant to the result we are seeing. We are seeing balls not coming out/being off target when guys are running open, inconsistent pass and run blocking, and a relatively high rate of fumbles from AD (albeit many happening after the whistle blows). They'll have to clean all of that other stuff up before I'd even consider the impact of the pre-snap formation on the outcome.

No doubt, there are many things to clean up. But can't you look at a sample size of 5 games and notice any formational trends?

fiestavike wrote:Unless you are going to throw Teddy to the wolves, its the implication

I didn't recommend or imply anything as ridiculous as "in the shotgun its a pass, under center its a run".

Asking Bridgewater to play from under center is hardly throwing him to the wolves.

Because he's NOT the best offensive player from that formation.

and

Because we don't have the offensive line to do that against some of these better fronts (thus, throwing Teddy to the wolves).

I'm sure Turner would rather do that but he's having to adapt. He could just hammer round pegs in square holes, but I'm not sure it would work so well.

Hammering square pegs into round holes is what he's been doing since he arrived in Minnesota.

They haven't done an effective job of protecting Bridgewater in the shotgun. At this point, it's basically a signal to tee off and come after him.

To say the QBs "preferred formation" really misses the point and makes it sound like some sort of trivial decision made in order to coddle Bridgewater. Its necessitated by personnel and matchups.

If it's not a strategy intended to make Bridgewater comfortable why use it as often as they do? It certainly hasn't looked like an effective answer to personnel and matchup issues.

Mothman wrote: I didn't recommend or imply anything as ridiculous as "in the shotgun its a pass, under center its a run".

Asking Bridgewater to play from under center is hardly throwing him to the wolves.
Hammering square pegs into round holes is what he's been doing since he arrived in Minnesota.

They haven't done an effective job of protecting Bridgewater in the shotgun. At this point, it's basically a signal to tee off and come after him.
If it's not a strategy intended to make Bridgewater comfortable why use it as often as they do? It certainly hasn't looked like an effective answer to personnel and matchup issues.

You are comparing things against the perfect, not against the actual alternative when you say "it certainly hasn't looked like an effective answer to personnel and matchup issues". The team has legitimate protection issues. There is no answer that will be an "effective answer" by that standard. The shotgun is implemented to get the ball out quickly and to give the qb more time facing the play. This is exactly what drives me crazy about measuring things by the stats and results and wins etc. Its not based in reality.

fiestavike wrote:You are comparing things against the perfect, not against the actual alternative when you say "it certainly hasn't looked like an effective answer to personnel and matchup issues". The team has legitimate protection issues. There is no answer that will be an "effective answer" by that standard.

I'm not using perfection as a standard here. I'm simply suggesting there might be a better strategy, one in which Bridgewater isn't on pace to be sacked 48 times this season and where the passing game isn't at rock bottom in the league rankings. Surely measuring the Vikes against their 31 fellow teams isn't "comparing things against the perfect".

The shotgun is implemented to get the ball out quickly and to give the qb more time facing the play. This is exactly what drives me crazy about measuring things by the stats and results and wins etc. Its not based in reality.

Wins and results aren't based in reality?! What are we supposed to measure if not results?

I'm not ignoring the team's obvious pass protection issues or blindly drawing conclusions from statistics without paying attention to the personnel or the game play. I'm not suggesting foolish strategies as simplistic as "in shotgun its a pass, under center its a run." I'm simply saying there are approaches they can take that might be more effective.

I understand the purpose of the shotgun and while it does give the QB more time to scan the field, it also has disadvantages. It gives pass rushers more open lanes to the QB and while teams can run from it, sometimes quite effectively, it's primarily a passing formation. As I pointed out, there's a clear strategy for attacking the Vikings when they use it and it's been working. There are better formations from which to run and they don't preclude passing. Operating from under center, using formations that enable Peterson to be at his most effective, could help reduce pressure on Bridgewater. There are plenty of strategies to address pass protection problems from such formations too. It's not as if the shotgun is the only answer to such issues and it's not as if it's working all that well as a measure to protect Bridgewater and help the passing game.

Analysis of every Bridgewater dropback VS Chiefs from another forum.

BrownianNotion wrote:My immediate reaction after the game was that this was a serious step back for Teddy, and a fairly disappointing start. After watching the coach's film, my feelings are mildly dampened. Play #9 is still arguably the worst decision/play I've seen Teddy make in recent memory. There's no sugarcoating the fact that it was an abysmal decision. However, a few other throws that look awful on TV look less bad on coach's film (#39, and to a lesser extent #62, which is still a bad play). There are actually fewer plays this week where I feel Teddy's accuracy caused an incompletion; three plays to be exact (#5, #30, #53).
Outside of play #9, Teddy's decision making was on point. He also had a few impressive plays (#6, #20, #65) with plenty of solid plays. This game was more volatile in terms of performance than previous weeks, but the lower lows outweighed the slightly higher highs / improved accuracy. Hence still slightly disappointing, but not as bad as first thought.

Go here for analysis with gifs

A-22 and EZ of every Bridgewater dropback in week 6