Minnesota Vikings’ production underscores need for WR

[Mothman]

John Holler of Viking Update makes the case that the Vikings need a game-changing wide receiver:

http://www.scout.com/nfl/vikings/story/ ... eed-for-wr

It's an interesting read. Holler writes:

There can be arguments made that the Vikings offense would operate better if it can improve the consistency of the play of its offensive line. The fact that the Vikings were able to make the playoffs with an offense that got drastically diminished returns from the wide receivers they were touting as the players who would be instrumental in leading them makes the defense look even better. Things got worse for the receivers when the wins meant more.

I think it's a virtual given that the Vikings offense would operate better with improved, more consistent play from the o-line. I suspect most here agree.

About Bridgewater, Holler writes:

Teddy Bridgewater’s numbers improved in the second half of the season. In his first eight games, Bridgewater completed 149 of 232 passes for 1,670 yards (64.2 percent) with six touchdowns and six interceptions. In his final eight games, he completed 143 of 215 passes (66.5 percent) for 1,561 yards with eight touchdowns and three interceptions.

The number of his passes went down, but he completed a higher percentage and had a far more impressive touchdown-to-interception ratio.

But, no matter how you look at Bridgewater’s numbers, they are pedestrian.

Indeed, and keep in mind, 4 of the 8 TD passes thrown in the second half of the year came in one game so there were just 3 in the other 7 (and 0 in the playoff game too).

He adds that there were signs of improvement from Bridgewater later in the year and includes some league rankings for the QB.

That's basically all that's said about the QB and OL. The majority of the article focuses on the receivers. He points out that Wright had more catches in the second half of the season than the first. He observes that after Diggs' initial 5 game burst of production (28 passes for 461 yards and 2 touchdowns) he slowed down and caught 24 passes for 259 yards and 2 TDs over the final 8 games.

That's a bit reminiscent of Charles Johnson's burst and drop-off in 2014.

In the second half of the season, Wallace caught 12 passes for 177 yards and 1 TD. Johnson and Patterson. Patterson was targeted twice all season and not once after the Denver game. Thielen wasn't mentioned but he didn't so much either.

It's certainly easy to understand why the Vikings might want to add a game-changing receiver. However, I wonder of that game-changer would be able to do much to change games?

I find the passing game so dysfunctional that it's hard to pinpoint problems because they seem to be everywhere. I think there's some potentially game-changing talent in the WR corps already (Wallace may not be elite but he's proven he can be a LOT more productive than he was able to be last year). I'm inclined to believe the QB and coordinator have at least as much to do with this problem as the OL or the receivers themselves, perhaps quite a bit more. I know others see it quite differently.

I don't think adding a game-changing WR is a bad idea but if they do it, they have to give him the opportunity to actually change games or he'll be another wasted investment.

[losperros]

I'm tired of reading how adding WRs would make the abysmal Vikings passing game work. The Vikings could cut Wallace and keep the WRs they have, and they would get better results in the passing game by improving the areas that really do need help.

By now everyone should know the offensive line's spotty performance adversely affected Bridgewater and the passing game. It also damaged the running game, though not quite as bad (due mostly to super-human work by AD). The offensive line absolutely has to be the #1 concern for the Vikings this offseason or they'll have more problems on offense next season. This is a no-brainer. If the Vikings improve nothing else, then they'll still fare better as long as they have some freakin' blocking for a change.

What about Bridgewater? Seriously, is there any doubt that his sophomore year wasn't all that good? Teddy needs to improve his game in a big way. Heck, even Bridgewater says that. That's what gets to me. There are some that maintain Bridgewater is already a good quarterback, yet Bridgewater himself doesn't agree. Until Teddy can hit a receiver with a deep ball, make better decisions under heat, and throw TDs in the red zone, there will be shortcomings in the passing game regardless who the receivers are.

Last but certainly not least was the stubbornness by Turner and Zimmer. Yeah, I know I'm going to get roasted by some for saying this but Wallace and Bridgewater's nonexistent chemistry was water and oil all season long. It didn't work. It was beyond obvious that it didn't work. Was it all Wallace's fault? Not in my view. Were the WRs as good as the coaches wanted them to be? How the #### would they know? They wouldn't even play Johnson or Patterson. And some of the playcalling was downright lame, let alone fielding sets that were immediate "tells" to defensive coordinators and their D players. And keep in mind, opposing D players even acknowledged that in interviews.

Holler thinks a "game-changing wide receiver" would help? Sure, add another receiver. Pay a fortune for him or draft one early instead of getting the OL help that's needed. And the offense will be right back where it started.

[fiestavike]

I don't think adding a game-changing WR is a bad idea but if they do it, they have to give him the opportunity to actually change games or he'll be another wasted investment.

That's more or less the way I see it as of right now. The two types of WRs who could be assets immediately would be of the Welker mould or in the Mike Evans mould. one can use quickness to get immediate separation underneath, the other can win one on one match ups via jump balls. In either case the QB is presented the opportunity to make an immediate read and release. I would still view choosing either type of player as more of a quick fix or papering over of the team's deficiencies if its done in lieu of addressing the offensive line. I want an offense that can play consistent and efficient football. For the time being, passing plays that take longer to develop aren't going to be consistently effective without first improving the line.

[jackal]

a game changing WR would be great or two but or real need is an OL that can protect and block better.

[Mothman]

I'm tired of reading how adding WRs would make the abysmal Vikings passing game work. The Vikings could cut Wallace and keep the WRs they have, and they would get better results in the passing game by improving the areas that really do need help.

By now everyone should know the offensive line's spotty performance adversely affected Bridgewater and the passing game. It also damaged the running game, though not quite as bad (due mostly to super-human work by AD). The offensive line absolutely has to be the #1 concern for the Vikings this offseason or they'll have more problems on offense next season. This is a no-brainer. If the Vikings improve nothing else, then they'll still fare better as long as they have some freakin' blocking for a change.

What about Bridgewater? Seriously, is there any doubt that his sophomore year wasn't all that good? Teddy needs to improve his game in a big way. Heck, even Bridgewater says that. That's what gets to me. There are some that maintain Bridgewater is already a good quarterback, yet Bridgewater himself doesn't agree. Until Teddy can hit a receiver with a deep ball, make better decisions under heat, and throw TDs in the red zone, there will be shortcomings in the passing game regardless who the receivers are.

Last but certainly not least was the stubbornness by Turner and Zimmer. Yeah, I know I'm going to get roasted by some for saying this but Wallace and Bridgewater's nonexistent chemistry was water and oil all season long. It didn't work. It was beyond obvious that it didn't work. Was it all Wallace's fault? Not in my view. Were the WRs as good as the coaches wanted them to be? How the #### would they know? They wouldn't even play Johnson or Patterson. And some of the playcalling was downright lame, let alone fielding sets that were immediate "tells" to defensive coordinators and their D players. And keep in mind, opposing D players even acknowledged that in interviews.

Holler thinks a "game-changing wide receiver" would help? Sure, add another receiver. Pay a fortune for him or draft one early instead of getting the OL help that's needed. And the offense will be right back where it started.

Good post. I can't really think of much to add other than i continue to be astonished that people (Holler in this case) can acknowledge the pedestrian nature of Bridgewater's performance while basically whitewashing it's impact on the WRs. I think viability as a long term starter remains very questionable.

[mondry]

Another "get a flashy WR" article lol. Sometimes I wonder if these guys even watch the team they write about!

[slapnut19]

That's more or less the way I see it as of right now. The two types of WRs who could be assets immediately would be of the Welker mould or in the Mike Evans mould. one can use quickness to get immediate separation underneath, the other can win one on one match ups via jump balls. In either case the QB is presented the opportunity to make an immediate read and release. I would still view choosing either type of player as more of a quick fix or papering over of the team's deficiencies if its done in lieu of addressing the offensive line. I want an offense that can play consistent and efficient football. For the time being, passing plays that take longer to develop aren't going to be consistently effective without first improving the line.

i think a smaller slot guy would be more effective. wright has been designated as the "slot" guy because of his size, but to me he's better down the field.

[mansquatch]

I heard a radio commentator a week or so ago make the point that as bad as the VIkings OL was last year, it was actually somewhat average in terms of hte NFL as a whole. His argument was that OL were bad everywhere in the NFL last year. I'm not sure if that is true or not, but I know the unit I watched for the purple this year put up some of the worst pass protection I've ever seen.

For me it is the eye test. How many plays did we see where TB had time to hold the ball and no one was open? I don't recall that happening very often. There were some times where there was a miscommunication where Teddy threw out and the guy went in, but again, not very often. There were bad throws to bad places, but TB had few INTs, although some of that was luck, but again, not a lot of it. There were a lot of times where TB dumped the ball do to protection breaking down.

For me I think the list of issues in order is something like this:

1.) OL Play
2.) TB / Norv Turner
3.) WR


#2 is the most interesting for me. I think there is a strong possibility that at least part of the passing game's performance was by design. The Vikings had an elite defense last year and the NFL's leading rusher. I can see a very likely scenario where Zimmer took Turner into his office and said "I don't care if the stats suck, don't commit TOs and we'll win." I know that isn't an exciting way to win games, but lets face it, the Broncos road a similar horse to the SB win this season.

It wouldn't surprise me if we see more conservatism on offense so long as the defense continues to improve. I know it isn't what most on here want, but if it gets Ws...

[fiestavike]

I heard a radio commentator a week or so ago make the point that as bad as the VIkings OL was last year, it was actually somewhat average in terms of hte NFL as a whole. His argument was that OL were bad everywhere in the NFL last year. I'm not sure if that is true or not, but I know the unit I watched for the purple this year put up some of the worst pass protection I've ever seen.

For me it is the eye test. How many plays did we see where TB had time to hold the ball and no one was open? I don't recall that happening very often. There were some times where there was a miscommunication where Teddy threw out and the guy went in, but again, not very often. There were bad throws to bad places, but TB had few INTs, although some of that was luck, but again, not a lot of it. There were a lot of times where TB dumped the ball do to protection breaking down.

For me I think the list of issues in order is something like this:

1.) OL Play
2.) TB / Norv Turner
3.) WR


#2 is the most interesting for me. I think there is a strong possibility that at least part of the passing game's performance was by design. The Vikings had an elite defense last year and the NFL's leading rusher. I can see a very likely scenario where Zimmer took Turner into his office and said "I don't care if the stats suck, don't commit TOs and we'll win." I know that isn't an exciting way to win games, but lets face it, the Broncos road a similar horse to the SB win this season.

It wouldn't surprise me if we see more conservatism on offense so long as the defense continues to improve. I know it isn't what most on here want, but if it gets Ws...

I think there were at least 3 post game pressers where Zimmer mentioned running x number of plays on offense as a key to victory. Clearly, there is an emphasis on complimentary football that sometimes comes at the expense of statistical production. I think its part of the reason they were ok with a lot of 2nd and 8s. You are still on schedule, you are burning the clock.

Add in that the offense was in no condition to be a big play unit, and that the defense was strong, and a drive with a couple conversions and a change in field position is a winning possession.

What was really problematic were the 2nd and 13s. Thats why they unfortunately had to abandon running out of the gun, and even from the i Peterson was just generally rusty early in the season, stopping behind the line and putting the team behind schedule instead of taking the 0-3 yards that were available to him.

The line really was dreadful. Peterson shouldn't be in a position of having to take 0-3 yard runs on a regular basis. Those plays should be blocked well enough that they are more consistently 2-5 yard gains, and occasionally long TD runs, but they just got zero push. They were an underpowered, underwhelming unit which was as terrible in pass protection as they were in run blocking. You've got to live with that reality and adjust, which is what the Vikings did.

This team would not have won 11 games going out there and trying to play more aggressively on the offensive side of the ball, and Shaun Hill and Taylor Heinecke both would have amassed significant regular season snaps.

Hopefully next year the Vikings will have the pieces to be much more aggressive and well rounded offensively. And I don't think adding a big play WR is going to significantly improve their ability to do that (unless it is in addition to retooling the offensive line).

[mansquatch]

Frankly, I think this team would be better off with Power AP vs. dancing AP. There are many times where I think if he focused on taking what is there they would be better off. 2nd and 13 was terrible for us (or anyone for that matter) That being said, I agree on the dreadful blocking, however, there is no reason for NFL teams to not stack the box against us. They fear #28 a lot more than our passing attack, so they are going to get their plays.

Regardless, I'm really not convinced that even if they added a blue chip WR talent there would be a huge swing in the numbers. Especially if the OL is not addressed. Just seems preposterous to me.

[chicagopurple]

Power running requires a better OL. Fancy foot runs breaking to the edges is feasible with a mediocre OL, plowing up the middle requires some OL talent and we dont have that anymore....we used to 3-4 yrs back, not now.

[CbusVikesFan]

Could we use a WR with the talent of say Fitz or Brown or even Bolden? Of course we could but who is consistently going to get the ball to those guys? Much improvement will need to done with TB to even warrant a WR like that on the roster. I don't think that hardly anyone thought Wallace was going to bring that. But I like most of the guys we had anyways.
The O-line definitely needs some upgrades and some better depth. We will see this year if we have enough there.
A lot of good could come from drafting a QB. I see no reason not to and whether you believe in TB or not, it would be nice if TB has to sit some games that we have someone capable and young.
This draft could set up nice for the Vikings and they could land some good players at all the positions of need on offense. Not just a capable WR. So much so it would not hurt my feelings one bit if we went defense with the first pick.

[AlldayPotter]

Obviously the stats do not look impressive for the Vikings. But does anyone have the Stats on how much Teddy spreads the ball out to each reciever? He never really makes a "star" reciever with all the balls thrown their way. It seems Teddy likes to spread the ball to everyone, I mean, how many games did he throw the ball to 8 or 9 different recievers..... that also takes into account for our WR stats....

[losperros]

Obviously the stats do not look impressive for the Vikings. But does anyone have the Stats on how much Teddy spreads the ball out to each reciever? He never really makes a "star" reciever with all the balls thrown their way. It seems Teddy likes to spread the ball to everyone, I mean, how many games did he throw the ball to 8 or 9 different recievers..... that also takes into account for our WR stats....

I don't have the stats but I agree Teddy spreads the ball around. I actually like it when he does because it means he's trying to read the field, plus it adds variety to the passing attack. It's also good when the Vikings call passing plays with different hot receivers. They need to do anything to add diversity to their offense.

[fiestavike]

I don't have the stats but I agree Teddy spreads the ball around. I actually like it when he does because it means he's trying to read the field, plus it adds variety to the passing attack. It's also good when the Vikings call passing plays with different hot receivers. They need to do anything to add diversity to their offense.

Adding diversity to their offensive attack would be great, but I'm more interested in establishing competency first.