Thread: Breaking Down the NFC North: 2007

"COJOMAY" wrote:

Marrdro:
You forgot the 2000 Eagles. Another team that rebuilt and did well -- with Chilly as the asst. coach, I might add.

Thanks COJO.
I didn't forget them.
I left them out for a reason.
Mostly because of the haters...... ;D

Additionally, I knew one of our more knowlegdable posters would stick them in for me.

Seriously it's a broken record at this point.
People are rating us poorly based on one UNPROVEN (not necessarily BAD) facet of our offense, ignoring our superiority in running the ball and stopping the run (which we were/will be at the top of the league.
It's almost as if people have ignored the fact that games can be won without a stellar quarterback (ie. Chicago last year...).
Nobody talks about how the Lions running game is below average and pass rushers will come at Kitna all day long.
Nobody talks about how Grossman has yet to show consistency.
Nobody talks about how if our offence could have scored more than 9 point in two games last year (GB and SF) we would be 8-8.
Green Bay has as bad a running game on paper this year as we do passing game, and IMO having a good running game is more important to winning games.

People are juding Tarvaris on 2 games he played last year when the season was already lost.
Give him a chance to prove himself.

"mountainviking" wrote:

I mean, really, aren't the Vikings one of the hardest teams in pro sports to be a fan of...?
Time and Time again its looked like we've got a legit shot at winning it all, and every time, its ended somewhat ugly...D'oh!!
???

Ya see, that's all the more reason we will do well this year. No one expects much and season ticket holders are not renewing. That's reason for being optomistic!
;D

"Marrdro" wrote:

The team is riding their entire season on quarterback Tarvaris Jackson, a player that has not shown any offensive spark whatsoever.

This organization is putting much more than one season on this kids shoulders.


I for one think he is the future and althought it will be a bit rocky this year, the rewards for the experience he gets, right along with the rest of the young guys (everyone are so easily discounting as nobody), will be huge as the season and the future progress.

The future is bright and will continue to get brighter as these guys mature together.

Reminds me of a couple of other teams that started over........

1989 1 15
1990 7 9
1991 11 5 Won Wild Card Playoffs (Bears) 17-13 - Lost Divisional Playoffs (Lions) 38-6
1992 13 3 Won Divisional Playoffs (Eagles) 34-10 - Won Conference Championship (49ers) 30-20
Won Super Bowl XXVII (Bills) 52-17

1978 2 14

1979 2 14

1980 6 10

1981 13 3
Won Divisional Playoffs (Giants) 38-24 - Won Conference Championship (Cowboys) 28-27 -
Won Super Bowl XVI (Bengals) 26-21

Bet those teams fans aren't bitching the way they were when thier owners took over and cleaned house by firing coaches, hiring no name coaches and starting over through the draft instead of going out and getting "Proven" aging "Big Name" free agents to turn thing around.
;D

I call total BS on this analogy.Jimmy Johnson was not a no-name coach. He was the most highly sought coach in college and had taken a Miami program and brought it to be the premiere program in college football at the time. He also had the fortune of getting multiple draft picks from us-Aw hell, I don't have to explain that part to any Vikings fan. He also had an owner that went out and spent the money to get the top free agent talent the needed to get to the next level and stay there.

As to the second-
Are you really going to start comparing him to Walsh? :

"COJOMAY" wrote:

Marrdro:
You forgot the 2000 Eagles. Another team that rebuilt and did well -- with Chilly as the asst. coach, I might add.

They rebuilt and got one game closer than we were in 1998 and 2000 but still lost the Super Bowl. I am hoping that if we are going to make the changes we are, that we get to the super bowl and win it. ;D

"Marrdro" wrote:

The team is riding their entire season on quarterback Tarvaris Jackson, a player that has not shown any offensive spark whatsoever.

This organization is putting much more than one season on this kids shoulders.


I for one think he is the future and althought it will be a bit rocky this year, the rewards for the experience he gets, right along with the rest of the young guys (everyone are so easily discounting as nobody), will be huge as the season and the future progress.

The future is bright and will continue to get brighter as these guys mature together.

Reminds me of a couple of other teams that started over........

1989 1 15
1990 7 9
1991 11 5 Won Wild Card Playoffs (Bears) 17-13 - Lost Divisional Playoffs (Lions) 38-6
1992 13 3 Won Divisional Playoffs (Eagles) 34-10 - Won Conference Championship (49ers) 30-20
Won Super Bowl XXVII (Bills) 52-17

That team was made by Mike Lynn.
They had many extra draft picks and players to start rebuilding that team.
Most
rebuilding teams don't find a Mike Lynn to take advantage of.
Someone tell me if I am wrong, but weren't Emmit Smith, Troy Aikman, and Michael Irvin all drafted with picks that we traded to them.

"UffDaVikes" wrote:

"Marrdro" wrote:

The team is riding their entire season on quarterback Tarvaris Jackson, a player that has not shown any offensive spark whatsoever.

This organization is putting much more than one season on this kids shoulders.


I for one think he is the future and althought it will be a bit rocky this year, the rewards for the experience he gets, right along with the rest of the young guys (everyone are so easily discounting as nobody), will be huge as the season and the future progress.

The future is bright and will continue to get brighter as these guys mature together.

Reminds me of a couple of other teams that started over........

1989 1 15
1990 7 9
1991 11 5 Won Wild Card Playoffs (Bears) 17-13 - Lost Divisional Playoffs (Lions) 38-6
1992 13 3 Won Divisional Playoffs (Eagles) 34-10 - Won Conference Championship (49ers) 30-20
Won Super Bowl XXVII (Bills) 52-17

1978 2 14


1979 2 14

1980 6 10

1981 13 3
Won Divisional Playoffs (Giants) 38-24 - Won Conference Championship (Cowboys) 28-27 -
Won Super Bowl XVI (Bengals) 26-21

Bet those teams fans aren't bitching the way they were when thier owners took over and cleaned house by firing coaches, hiring no name coaches and starting over through the draft instead of going out and getting "Proven" aging "Big Name" free agents to turn thing around.

;D

I call total BS on this analogy.Jimmy Johnson was not a no-name coach. He was the most highly sought coach in college and had taken a Miami program and brought it to be the premiere program in college football at the time. He also had the fortune of getting multiple draft picks from us-Aw hell, I don't have to explain that part to any Vikings fan. He also had an owner that went out and spent the money to get the top free agent talent the needed to get to the next level and stay there.

As to the second-
Are you really going to start comparing him to Walsh? :

Ahhhh Uffda, Its between you and V however, i can't tell which I like to get into threads with the most.

;D



You'd better check again, my friend.
In the rebuilding years for both teams they were pretty limited in the FA world.
Building mostly through the draft (initially).

As far as it goes with respect to JJ, he might also have been a highly sought after coach, but the Cowgirl fans were not happy to have him considering whohe replaced.

And I am definately not lumping the Chiller in the same catagory as Walsh.
I almost left them out just as I did the Eagles (as COJO mentioned) so my point wouldn't get lost in a meaningless arguement over comparing coaches.

Most know how high I rate that guy, however, if you want to do comparrisons, Walsh wasn't even supported by Brown when he was looking for HC jobs.
Brown basically said he would never be much more than a OC.
Then throw in all his hair brained schemes on how to get a team ready and the fans out there hated him.
Heck most of the press/news coverage laughed at him.

I will however, mention that there is, at this point in history, only other comparison I could make for the Chiller and Walsh and that is the Chiller employs a version of the WCO that is pretty close to the 49'rs that were lead by Walsh and not the Air Coriel version that was employed at San Diego as someone mentioned in a thread earlier.

"vikingivan" wrote:

That team was made by Mike Lynn.
They had many extra draft picks and players to start rebuilding that team.
Most
rebuilding teams don't find a Mike Lynn to take advantage of.
Someone tell me if I am wrong, but weren't Emmit Smith, Troy Aikman, and Michael Irvin all drafted with picks that we traded to them.

I could be wrong as well but I think that Emmitt Smith was the only one of those three actually drafted with our pick, the other two I believe were drafted with the Cowboy's own picks.

"Marrdro" wrote:

"UffDaVikes" wrote:

"Marrdro" wrote:

The team is riding their entire season on quarterback Tarvaris Jackson, a player that has not shown any offensive spark whatsoever.

This organization is putting much more than one season on this kids shoulders.


I for one think he is the future and althought it will be a bit rocky this year, the rewards for the experience he gets, right along with the rest of the young guys (everyone are so easily discounting as nobody), will be huge as the season and the future progress.

The future is bright and will continue to get brighter as these guys mature together.

Reminds me of a couple of other teams that started over........

1989 1 15
1990 7 9
1991 11 5 Won Wild Card Playoffs (Bears) 17-13 - Lost Divisional Playoffs (Lions) 38-6
1992 13 3 Won Divisional Playoffs (Eagles) 34-10 - Won Conference Championship (49ers) 30-20
Won Super Bowl XXVII (Bills) 52-17

1978 2 14

1979 2 14

1980 6 10

1981 13 3
Won Divisional Playoffs (Giants) 38-24 - Won Conference Championship (Cowboys) 28-27 -
Won Super Bowl XVI (Bengals) 26-21

Bet those teams fans aren't bitching the way they were when thier owners took over and cleaned house by firing coaches, hiring no name coaches and starting over through the draft instead of going out and getting "Proven" aging "Big Name" free agents to turn thing around.
;D

I call total BS on this analogy.Jimmy Johnson was not a no-name coach. He was the most highly sought coach in college and had taken a Miami program and brought it to be the premiere program in college football at the time. He also had the fortune of getting multiple draft picks from us-Aw hell, I don't have to explain that part to any Vikings fan. He also had an owner that went out and spent the money to get the top free agent talent the needed to get to the next level and stay there.

As to the second-
Are you really going to start comparing him to Walsh? :

Ahhhh Uffda, Its between you and V however, i can't tell which I like to get into threads with the most.
;D


You'd better check again, my friend.
In the rebuilding years for both teams they were pretty limited in the FA world.
Building mostly through the draft (initially).

As far as it goes with respect to JJ, he might also have been a highly sought after coach, but the Cowgirl fans were not happy to have him considering whohe replaced.

And I am definately not lumping the Chiller in the same catagory as Walsh.
I almost left them out just as I did the Eagles (as COJO mentioned) so my point wouldn't get lost in a meaningless arguement over comparing coaches.

Most know how high I rate that guy, however, if you want to do comparrisons, Walsh wasn't even supported by Brown when he was looking for HC jobs.
Brown basically said he would never be much more than a OC.
Then throw in all his hair brained schemes on how to get a team ready and the fans out there hated him.
Heck most of the press/news coverage laughed at him.

I will however, mention that there is, at this point in history, only other comparison I could make for the Chiller and Walsh and that is the Chiller employs a version of the WCO that is pretty close to the 49'rs that were lead by Walsh and not the Air Coriel version that was employed at San Diego as someone mentioned in a thread earlier.

Actually I was the one who mentioned that and I think we may be closer to Coryell than Walsh and much of the talent we are acquiring may work better in that system too.

-The Walsh offense deployed a split back set in which the RB's became primary receivers on first down along with the TE, whereas we use a single or I formation more often with AP and CT. Also in college AP was an I back, not a split back and if we try to use him that way, well, we tried the exact thing with Hershel Walker and see where that got us.

-Under Walsh, the 9ers would pass the majority of time on first and second down and used the pass to set up the rush and then would run more later in the game as the defense wore down. If you look at our stats last year we ran more to start the game and then because we went progressively higher with passing as the game went by. That is more indicative of the coryell offense.

-Walsh ran a man blocking scheme.We have zone blocking with man blocking only when situations dictate it.

- I haven't seen an abundance of short patterns by the backs, TE and WR's that stretch the field horizontally as the niners did. The used alot of short, precise crossing routes(basically picks) that would free up the WR's and get them YAC while we are running hooks, slants and outs.


If you look at our talent and the Coryell system, we probably should be running it if we aren't

QB- Strong arm capable of getting the ball deep down the field but mobile enough to evade the rush on a 5-7 step drop if protection breaks down
- TJack

TE- Has speed to stretch the field vertically and great blocking technique to give the QB protection when needed.- Shank

RB-I formation runner to punish the defense and soften them up for big plays later on.Runs are primarily between the tackles.- AP

O-line- Zone blocking to create gaps for the RB to exploit just like Dallas did for Emmitt.


If nothing else, you have to say that Walsh did what he had to do to make the system he ran fit his talent (Right V?) and that alone is exactly the opposite of what we are seeing and hearing from Childress where the players have to fit his system for the team to be successful.

I guess in the end I pray that everything he is doing works out because I hate losing and if he wins us the super bowl then we will all be very happy. I expect the Vikings to be contenders every year and if all else fails they at least have to beat the Packers.

As always, great stuff and I see your however if your gonna break it down to Coryell vs Walsh should also be including Gilliam in the discussion.
Anyway.......

Let me be up front with my response here when I tell you that any data you used from last year to reflect the kind of offense that we will employ this year is a bit skewed.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I don't think we saw the version of the WCO that the Chiller wants to run last year.
What we saw was what he thought would work based on the personnel at hand.

Additions like B-wade (quick off the line, runs precise routes, catches the ball, gets YAC) as well as a Shank (Good blocker, can catch the ball, stretches the field) and shift/change in QB to TJ (quick decisions, can make all the throws, is mobile and can roll out of pocket) are indicators to me of what version he wants to run and that is the Walsh vice Coryell (Gilliam) system

Some percieved errors on your part......

-The Walsh offense deployed a split back set in which the RB's became primary receivers on first down along with the TE, whereas we use a single or I formation more often with AP and CT. Also in college AP was an I back, not a split back and if we try to use him that way, well, we tried the exact thing with Hershel Walker and see where that got us.

Roger Craig - Tom Rathman.
If memory servers, those two were set up in the I formation not in a split back formation.

Walsh, in fact, went against the grain somewhat in using a fullback in the mid- to late 1980s, Rathman said.

“When I came into the league, people were getting away from the prototypical fullback,� he said. “They were going to two tight ends and one running back. Or they’d go one running back and (multiple) wide receivers. They were kind of eliminating the fullback position.

http://www.journalstar.com/articles/...3279688162.txt

Additionally, with respect to the use of our backs, I think we will see alot of FB/RB sets such as this vice CT and AD together.
I stuck something in a thread about this (can't remember which one) related to the version of WCO I think the Chiller wants/will run this year.
It is predicated on the use of a FB because of his size and ability to pick u the blitz/lead block for the RB much the way Tom did for the 49'rs.

-Under Walsh, the 9ers would pass the majority of time on first and second down and used the pass to set up the rush and then would run more later in the game as the defense wore down. If you look at our stats last year we ran more to start the game and then because we went progressively higher with passing as the game went by. That is more indicative of the coryell offense.

I agree with you on the reliance of Walsh's version of the WCO on use of the pass first, especially the short 3 step drop passing to set up the run.
As a matter of fact I think I am one of a very few on this site that believe the Chiller will pass more than run this year.

In fact I believe (take a look at the Rams plays used by our starters) we will see alot of the short, timed, precise patterns run by the backs, TE and WR's this year that are the staple of the WCO in order to stretch the field horizontally and keep the D off balance much as the niners did.
IMHO B-wade will be the key for that to work.
Again, back to the FB, RB and TE role in this and whether or not our RB's can catch the ball.



Just because we have a good running attack doesn't mean we will give up on the most important part of the WCO and that is to setup the run via the pass.
In fact, if you remember right, one of the concerns (other than his shoulder) was whether or not AD could catch a pass.
(By the way, again, more passes than runs against the Rams)

-Walsh ran a man blocking scheme.We have zone blocking with man blocking only when situations dictate it.

I won't argue the Zone vs Man blocking as I don't think the ZB scheme was invented or at least as prevelant as it is today.
As a matter of fact Del corrected me several times lately (along with others) that most teams, including us run a mix of ZB and MB'ing schemes.
Again, I won't argue that point but I don't think it leads one to differentiate between Walsh or Coryells scheme.

If you look at our talent and the Coryell system, we probably should be running it if we aren't

QB- Strong arm capable of getting the ball deep down the field but mobile enough to evade the rush on a 5-7 step drop if protection breaks down
- TJack

TE- Has speed to stretch the field vertically and great blocking technique to give the QB protection when needed.- Shank

RB-I formation runner to punish the defense and soften them up for big plays later on.Runs are primarily between the tackles.- AP

Again, I think you are looking at the wrong version of Walsh's offense.


QB - Joe Montanna/Steve Young - TJ/Thigpen
TE - Clark - Shank
RB - Craig - CT/AP
FB - Rathman - T-rich/Dugan.

If nothing else, you have to say that Walsh did what he had to do to make the system he ran fit his talent (Right V?) and that alone is exactly the opposite of what we are seeing and hearing from Childress where the players have to fit his system for the team to be successful.

As I alluded to earlier and alot of people will disagree with me on this, but, I honestly believe that the offense our team ran last year was not what the Chiller envisioned when he first looked at the roster. In fact I think he realized that he had grossly miss judged the talent and wound adjusting to and running what he thought he could with the talent he had on the field.


Unfortunately for us, that didn't work out to well.