Vikings Message Board.Com

Good article from Pelissero:

http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/Peli ... 092012?t=2

It's crazy how our defense just fails on us in the final drive of the game. This is something that the Vikings desperately need to fix if they even want a chance at anything. I noticed that so many losses last year were because of fourth quarter comebacks and final drive scores. If our offense can extend the leads better, that will help with this problem.

Namely, when they've needed to most, the Vikings' opponents have thrown the ball at will.

On those five late-game drives, quarterbacks have combined to complete 17 of 22 passes for 257 yards, two touchdowns and a 145.5 passer rating.

That's just disastrous and plain awful. How can nobody make a play in those situations? Inexcusable.

The challenge starts from within, though, and it might be one the Vikings simply aren't built to overcome it. The biggest pass plays they've allowed so far have been matters of execution, not missed assignments, and it's tough to teach players not to be physically overmatched.

I suppose that's true.

One concern is when #Vikings are in Cover-2, the corners are playing off. Alan Williams defended it, but that's tough for guys like Cook. The Cover-2 is predicated on corners getting reroutes at the line of scrimmage. Otherwise makes timing easy on offense and exploit voids. First play on each drive (Jax/Indy) was to Cook's side. No reroute. Settled into void (once up seam, once outside numbers) for 20-yard gain.

Vikings are drafting/acquiring press-zone corners. I don't understand not having them press in that defense. And I know I'm not alone.

Tom Pelissero on Twitter

---
Sounds like they need to stop scheming Cook off and let him jam and re-route like he does best (or struggles with the least)

dead_poet wrote: I suppose that's true.

I definitely believe it's true. I've said this in other threads about this team. I look at the current roster and I don't see a completed team.

That's why all I'm asking for this year is improvement over last season.

dead_poet wrote: Tom Pelissero on Twitter

---
Sounds like they need to stop scheming Cook off and let him jam and re-route like he does best (or struggles with the least)

It IS a problem with the Vikes defense and I'd like to hear the coaches explain why they don't have their corners in press coverage.

losperros wrote:I definitely believe it's true. I've said this in other threads about this team. I look at the current roster and I don't see a completed team.

That's why all I'm asking for this year is improvement over last season.

I feel the same way. We all knew going into this season that the Vikes were a flawed, incomplete team and that the description would almost certainly still fit them when the season is over.

Cover somebody. That'll help maybe...? Chad Greenway might lead the league in tackles but it's crap when they all take places once it happens 20 yards past the chains.

Well, continuing on from the other thread... It's statements like this that really do make me think it's a coaching thing with the defense. Again, I get it, the players aren't super stars, but I feel like we aren't getting much out of guys who should be serviceable like cook and winfield.

Think about this, you're playing two young QB's in gabbert and luck, the best way to screw them up would be a lot of pressure, but after that the 2nd best thing would be to play press coverage, knock the receivers off their routes and timing. Throw the rookie (in lucks case) out of sync, disrupt his receivers! Instead they play 6 yards off and let them run down the field UNTOUCHED directly to our exposed areas.

"The man has only one look for christs sake! The cover 2?, 4-3?, zone defense? They're the same thing! Doesn't anybody notice this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!" Mugatu

mondry wrote:Well, continuing on from the other thread... It's statements like this that really do make me think it's a coaching thing with the defense. Again, I get it, the players aren't super stars, but I feel like we aren't getting much out of guys who should be serviceable like cook and winfield.

I actually think they get quite a bit out of Winfield.

Think about this, you're playing two young QB's in gabbert and luck, the best way to screw them up would be a lot of pressure, but after that the 2nd best thing would be to play press coverage, knock the receivers off their routes and timing. Throw the rookie (in lucks case) out of sync, disrupt his receivers! Instead they play 6 yards off and let them run down the field UNTOUCHED directly to our exposed areas.

I don't quite understand it either and this is an area where I think we agree. I also think they sometimes play their zone defense too loose, dropping the safeties deeper than they need to and essentially taking them out of the play.

On the other hand, I'd like to know why the Vikings play off the receivers as often as they do. Is it because they're concerned about the safeties' ability to cover ground and be where they need to be on the back end of the play? When CBs play press coverage in the cover 2, they're essentially disrupting shorter routes, defending the flat and re-routing receivers to the inside. It's a good strategy IF the safeties can handle the coverage downfield once the receiver has been re-routed so my question is: is the way the corners are used indicative of the defensive philosophy or is it indicative of trust issues with the safeties? Maybe it's both?

I wish I knew.

Mothman wrote:On the other hand, I'd like to know why the Vikings play off the receivers as often as they do. Is it because they're concerned about the safeties' ability to cover ground and be where they need to be on the back end of the play? When CBs play press coverage in the cover 2, they're essentially disrupting shorter routes, defending the flat and re-routing receivers to the inside. It's a good strategy IF the safeties can handle the coverage downfield once the receiver has been re-routed so my question is: is the way the corners are used indicative of the defensive philosophy or is it indicative of trust issues with the safeties? Maybe it's both?

I wish I knew.

It's probably both. And you know what? I don't know either.

Could this also be the leftover Chilly philosophy of keeping the receivers in front of the Vikings DBs and when the catch is made, supposedly nail them with a big hit? Then again, was that solely Chili's philosophy or was that Frazier's work as well? Again...I don't know.

I've speculated that Frasier was initially brought on because he mirrored Childress' ultra conservative style. We are certainly seing this zero risk approach to the defense, it almost seems like they are so scared to allow a big TD, they are willing to allow all the other stuff just to prevent the big play.

It should also be noted that it was said somewhere on here today that part of why Pagac was demoted was in part because he preferred more Cover 1/ man coverage vs. Frasier's preferred Cover 2. It is funny, I seem to recall our offense being unable to generate first downs which lead to our defense being forced to play an entire half with minimal rest as the culprit, not just our defense sucking under Pagac. Those same defenses were getting us short fields in the first halves of those games and providing some decent play...

mansquatch wrote:I've speculated that Frasier was initially brought on because he mirrored Childress' ultra conservative style.

That could be true but I think he was brought on in large part because he was a logical replacement for Tomlin. He had a good defensive resumé, a history with Dungy and he understood the Cover 2 defense Childress wanted.

It should also be noted that it was said somewhere on here today that part of why Pagac was demoted was in part because he preferred more Cover 1/ man coverage vs. Frasier's preferred Cover 2. It is funny, I seem to recall our offense being unable to generate first downs which lead to our defense being forced to play an entire half with minimal rest as the culprit, not just our defense sucking under Pagac. Those same defenses were getting us short fields in the first halves of those games and providing some decent play...

But they were also collapsing and often paying a big price for the risks they took. There was definitely more to it than a difference in coaching philosophy. Players weren't respecting the defensive coordinator. For example:

According to two sources, a group of defensive backs raised concerns about Pagac's play-calling -- specifically, the timing and frequency of blitzes and man-coverage calls -- within the first month of the season.

At times, some players simply refused to play the defenses called, yelling out their own coverages as they broke the huddle. Tension mounted among players who felt the issues weren't run up the flagpole and coaches who disagreed on how to proceed with an increasingly depleted group.

"There's so many different ways to do it to protect themselves, especially with a beat-up secondary," a source said. "(Players) don't want to play some of the calls, just because they don't have confidence in it."

A pattern that developed in the Vikings first' three games was another red flag. They led San Diego, Tampa Bay and Detroit by a combined 54-7, only to give up 64 points in the second halves and lose all three -- collapses some within the organization blamed on coaches' inability to counter-adjust once offenses figured out how to beat them.

I'm was referring to the Mcnabb games. After Winfield and Cook went down/out it was a different story. Also, how much of the "attitude" was Cedric Griffen who displayed that behavior all 16 games even after Frasier more or less took over?

I'm not saying Pagac is the answer, just pointing out that the Head Coach is pretty resolute in running his scheme. That stinks of forcing players into the scheme which is what the article implies when it talks about Chris Cook being forced to play several yards deep. They have a guy who they have said is the key to their pass defense and then they do not put him into position to do what he does best. It is early, but if that is what is going on, then we are in for a long year.

mansquatch wrote:I'm was referring to the Mcnabb games. After Winfield and Cook went down/out it was a different story. Also, how much of the "attitude" was Cedric Griffen who displayed that behavior all 16 games even after Frasier more or less took over?

I'm not saying Pagac is the answer, just pointing out that the Head Coach is pretty resolute in running his scheme.

I'm not sure that's true. If anything, I'd say the fact that Frazier promoted Pagac to DC and was willing to let him run a different scheme suggests an open-minded attitude. It sounds more like he took the reins back because he didn't like where things were going.

As you said, it's early.

Here are a few quotes from DC Alan Williams that might help shed at least a little light on the defensive philosophy:

http://www.vikings.com/news/article-1/V ... 670eaf66b8

Q: On the first play to Donnie Avery in the Indianapolis game, does Chris Cook have to get more of a re-route to make the defense more effective?
A: I’m not quite sure which play, but if it is Cover Two, we want our guys to get re-routes, but we also play some techniques where they do not, when it looks like another defense. I’d have to look at it to tell which one you’re talking about.

Q: With a guy like Chris Cook, anytime he could get his hands on a receiver, it would be ideal wouldn’t it?
A: Sometimes yes and sometimes no, depending on what the defense is, what the coverage is and how much we’re playing of a specific defense.

Q: On the second play on the Colts late drive on Josh Robinson’s side, is Josh expecting Antoine Winfield to drop off the inside receiver, or does he need to squeeze that up a little bit?
A: Nope. On those you want to – that was a play where they blocked up the pressure that we brought and when they block it up, there are going to be some holes in the defense and that was the case where there were some holes. He played it just about like we wanted him to and they blocked it up.

Q: Timing is huge anytime you’re in a zone isn’t it?
A: Zone pressure, if you don’t get home, there’s some holes in the defense.

The challenge starts from within, though, and it might be one the Vikings simply aren't built to overcome it. The biggest pass plays they've allowed so far have been matters of execution, not missed assignments, and it's tough to teach players not to be physically overmatched.

I'm sorry but this is a load of crap. Maybe if we were talking about Brandon Marshall or Calvin Johnson, or heck even Justin Blackmon. Our defense was beat in those critical situations by guys like Cecil Shorts and Donnie Avery, 5'11 - 6'0 200lb receivers. Lack of execution, okay I can see that. Physically overmatched? C'mon.

Edit: And so there's no confusion this is directed at the commentary of the author, not Jim or DP.