Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 74 of 74
  1. #71
    Caine's Avatar
    Caine is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    5,139

    Re: Willie Anderson Cut

    "Mr" wrote:
    Game Planning against the Minnesota Vikings for Dummies:
    1) Stop Adrian Peterson.
    2) Bring body bags for your offensive players.
    3) Stop Adrian Peterson.
    That's everything that needs to be said.
    Everything else is fluff.

    Caine

  2. #72
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,928

    Re: Willie Anderson Cut

    "UffDaVikes" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "UffDaVikes" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "UffDaVikes" wrote:
    Don't misunderstand my disappointment with his play as being focused on him but on the staff. If he was, as you say he was, a raw product unready to assume the responsibilities of the position at a high level, then he should not have been placed there. RT is not the most complicated position on the line and not the hardest to fill.

    Did I expect him to play at a pro-bowl level? No. But should we settle for the necessity to devote 2 players to blocking one man in passing situations? That automatically puts us in an unfavorable situation. Couple that with needing to help McKinney too often and you can see why we have every receiver double covered and have a bad passing game.


    As far as him getting better, That is where I have a problem seeing it. His feet and reaction time are so slow that fast DE's blow right by him. That is not something that you can just change. Unless you have something you would like to share.
    I do love our little discussions my friend.
    ;D

    As I said in another post, the TE typically helps out (or atleast starts out) lined up behind the RT in a base package.
    I see this as a issue with respect to the loss of McKinnie, as that will now drive the TE to that side for help and will leave Cook alone most of the time.

    That my friend, limits us.

    By the way, let them double our WR's in this package.
    That means the S's are back helping the CB's who are focused on the WR's (4 secondary defending 2 WR') allowing for the FB, RB and TE to get involved in the passing play or better yet, the running game.
    I like our odds of chewing up chunks of yards if your WR's are doubled.



    It would leave us with 7 blockers (LT, LG, C, RG, RT, TE, FB) against 7 defenders.
    ;D







    S




































    S


















    LB








    MLB







    LB
    CB













    RDE



    NT




    NT




    LDE






    CB

    WR













    LT



    LG


    C


    Rg


    RT









    WR



























    QB







    TE





























    FB




























    RB

    [img width=450 height=327]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v695/denjahn/formation.jpg[/img]

    So we have a S and a C on each WR and we have the TE stuck blocking the LDE with our RT and the FB has to block the RDE with the LT. The LG takes a DT, the C takes a DT, the RG takes the MLB and the RB has a LB.

    So now they have all of our WR's doubled, we only have single blockers on the interior and one of their Lb's are free to cover the QB. That is what we faced all last year.

    Any other formations?
    I can't see your photobucket.
    You will have to wait for my snappy retort until I get home and take a look.

    My guess is that they would make some sort of line adjustment to identify what the D is doing and overload one side in thier ZB'ing scheme allowing for more blockers on one side.

    If they elect to use a man to man scheme then your picture (or whatever it is) might apply.
    Bet it doesn't though.

    Why would you overload one side and underman the other in a passing play? I can see doing it if you were going to rush but don't you think that would leave somebody a free shot at the QB?

    I guess you will have to draw it up with the individual assignments and give me an edjumacation.
    Do I really need to draw up a play with the G pulling from one side with the T sealing?
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  3. #73
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Willie Anderson Cut

    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "UffDaVikes" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "UffDaVikes" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    [quote author=UffDaVikes link=topic=47448.msg828380#msg828380 date=1220362901]
    Don't misunderstand my disappointment with his play as being focused on him but on the staff. If he was, as you say he was, a raw product unready to assume the responsibilities of the position at a high level, then he should not have been placed there. RT is not the most complicated position on the line and not the hardest to fill.

    Did I expect him to play at a pro-bowl level? No. But should we settle for the necessity to devote 2 players to blocking one man in passing situations? That automatically puts us in an unfavorable situation. Couple that with needing to help McKinney too often and you can see why we have every receiver double covered and have a bad passing game.


    As far as him getting better, That is where I have a problem seeing it. His feet and reaction time are so slow that fast DE's blow right by him. That is not something that you can just change. Unless you have something you would like to share.
    I do love our little discussions my friend.
    ;D

    As I said in another post, the TE typically helps out (or atleast starts out) lined up behind the RT in a base package.
    I see this as a issue with respect to the loss of McKinnie, as that will now drive the TE to that side for help and will leave Cook alone most of the time.

    That my friend, limits us.

    By the way, let them double our WR's in this package.
    That means the S's are back helping the CB's who are focused on the WR's (4 secondary defending 2 WR') allowing for the FB, RB and TE to get involved in the passing play or better yet, the running game.
    I like our odds of chewing up chunks of yards if your WR's are doubled.



    It would leave us with 7 blockers (LT, LG, C, RG, RT, TE, FB) against 7 defenders.
    ;D







    S




































    S


















    LB








    MLB







    LB
    CB













    RDE



    NT




    NT




    LDE






    CB

    WR













    LT



    LG


    C


    Rg


    RT









    WR



























    QB







    TE





























    FB




























    RB

    [img width=450 height=327]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v695/denjahn/formation.jpg[/img]

    So we have a S and a C on each WR and we have the TE stuck blocking the LDE with our RT and the FB has to block the RDE with the LT. The LG takes a DT, the C takes a DT, the RG takes the MLB and the RB has a LB.

    So now they have all of our WR's doubled, we only have single blockers on the interior and one of their Lb's are free to cover the QB. That is what we faced all last year.

    Any other formations?
    I can't see your photobucket.
    You will have to wait for my snappy retort until I get home and take a look.

    My guess is that they would make some sort of line adjustment to identify what the D is doing and overload one side in thier ZB'ing scheme allowing for more blockers on one side.

    If they elect to use a man to man scheme then your picture (or whatever it is) might apply.
    Bet it doesn't though.

    Why would you overload one side and underman the other in a passing play? I can see doing it if you were going to rush but don't you think that would leave somebody a free shot at the QB?

    I guess you will have to draw it up with the individual assignments and give me an edjumacation.
    Do I really need to draw up a play with the G pulling from one side with the T sealing?
    [/quote]

    On a pass play?

  4. #74
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Willie Anderson Cut

    "Mr" wrote:

    No one would ever pull both safeties out of the box, or put them that far toward the sideline against us.

    Game Planning against the Minnesota Vikings for Dummies:
    1) Stop Adrian Peterson.
    2) Bring body bags for your offensive players.
    3) Stop Adrian Peterson.
    I don't see it that way.

    i believe that they are going to come out right out of the gate and pass the ball as much as they can to establish that they are not one dimensional to take the pressure off of the running game. If the team has been properly coached, they certainly have enough talent to be able to do it.

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678

Similar Threads

  1. Rack Em Willie
    By oaklandzoo24 in forum Two Beer Minimum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-11-2010, 01:01 PM
  2. M. Anderson w/in 7 pts of unseating G. Anderson
    By Prophet in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-11-2006, 04:29 AM
  3. Willie Offord at OLB?
    By damien927 in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-26-2006, 02:25 AM
  4. Big WIllie thinks
    By willieofford in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 06-05-2005, 12:42 AM
  5. Willie Offord
    By willieofford in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 06-01-2005, 10:24 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •