Thread: Anyone else tired of the TJ project?

"pack93z" wrote:

"Marrdro" wrote:

Thats why I find it hard that some people believe this staff (not the Chiller) is truely committed to winning this year.

I've been preaching all week that mandates have been given.
Execute with what you have.
Lets see what they can do and fix it next year.

You just can't have a team comprised of the rooks from the last two drafts, a few hold over (damn good ones) from the last regime and a smattering of FA's and believe that there isn't something going on that we aren't privy to.

It just doesn't add up to me and I smell something eeeeekkking out of the front office.

;D

Those are the same questions that we were asking in 05 and 06, something was amiss, but be patient and allow the talent to blossom a bit.

I will use Aaron Rodgers as an example..

Rodgers looked horrible the first two year, he would look the part in practice and get into a game situation and it would just seem to unravel. Sloppy footwork, unpatient and just locked over matched. "Bust" is what you heard when speaking of him, then this offseason a light came on and it looks different. His reads are quick and decisive, he looks comfortable in the pocket and has the confident feel to him. Granted preseason, but you could see the difference on the field. To me, he is well on his way to becoming an NFL quarterback in year 3.

Give any staff at least 3 years to come together, the "tell" time is approaching, IMO.

You make a great point here.
Rodgers has had 3 years to sit and watch one of the games best (sorry to all the Favre haters here but I calls it as I see it).
TJ had 7/8 of a year to watch a good veteran play.
One more reason why I agree that the Vikes should have looked for a veteran during the off-season.
I've really kept my fingers from typing this until now because I had really high hopes.
I did plan to see growing pains but I think the growing pains TJs experiencing is more than it should be at this point.
I'm not going by stats other than his completion rate.
He may end up being a great QB.
He does have the tools necessary.
It's just at this point he's not getting it and he is not ready.

"ejmat" wrote:

"pack93z" wrote:

"Marrdro" wrote:

Thats why I find it hard that some people believe this staff (not the Chiller) is truely committed to winning this year.

I've been preaching all week that mandates have been given.
Execute with what you have.
Lets see what they can do and fix it next year.

You just can't have a team comprised of the rooks from the last two drafts, a few hold over (gol 'darnit good ones) from the last regime and a smattering of FA's and believe that there isn't something going on that we aren't privy to.

It just doesn't add up to me and I smell something eeeeekkking out of the front office.
;D

Those are the same questions that we were asking in 05 and 06, something was amiss, but be patient and allow the talent to blossom a bit.

I will use Aaron Rodgers as an example..

Rodgers looked horrible the first two year, he would look the part in practice and get into a game situation and it would just seem to unravel. Sloppy footwork, unpatient and just locked over matched. "Bust" is what you heard when speaking of him, then this offseason a light came on and it looks different. His reads are quick and decisive, he looks comfortable in the pocket and has the confident feel to him. Granted preseason, but you could see the difference on the field. To me, he is well on his way to becoming an NFL quarterback in year 3.

Give any staff at least 3 years to come together, the "tell" time is approaching, IMO.

You make a great point here.
Rodgers has had 3 years to sit and watch one of the games best (sorry to all the Favre haters here but I calls it as I see it).
TJ had 7/8 of a year to watch a good veteran play.
One more reason why I agree that the Vikes should have looked for a veteran during the off-season.
I've really kept my fingers from typing this until now because I had really high hopes.
I did plan to see growing pains but I think the growing pains TJs experiencing is more than it should be at this point.
I'm not going by stats other than his completion rate.
He may end up being a great QB.
He does have the tools necessary.
It's just at this point he's not getting it and he is not ready.

that last game was overly discouraging, but he did look good against chicago so maybe we are jumping the gun a little bit.
i would like to see him being given more of an oppurtunity in game.
what's he gonna learn if we hogtie him and run what looks like a watered down, conservative offense?
if he's gonna play let him play.
all that athleticism and we have him taking 3 step drops and throwing 5 yard slants and curls most of the time.

"Vikefanman2000" wrote:

Without going through 50 pages of opinions and responses, my answer would be.....

I am more tired of the Childress project.

The offense is plain and boring.
It certainly isn’t the kick a$$ offense that Childress has claimed it to be. The gadget plays/reverses stink of desperation.
The offense is VERY predictable.


Clock management has been poor at times.
His decisions on CHALLENGES have been horrendous!

It sure seemed like some key FA's that could have helped this team did not even get a sniff.
For example, would the Vikes be 2-4 right now with Jeff Garcia at QB?
TJ would have been able to learn from one of the best at running a WC offense for a year or two. (Of course, just my opinion)

I felt from the beginning of the year that this was going to be a sub par team, but that the growth they would experience would put them on the right path for subsequent years.
While the personnel might indeed be the future of the franchise, I have my doubts about this coach.
He appears to me to be over his head.
I see very little growth in Childress from year one to year two.


:-[

Actually you missed some very good actual football discussions on these very topics that you are so missinformed on.
You should read this thread instead of the papers or TV channels you watch/read.


Much more informative.
;D

"pack93z" wrote:

"V" wrote:

I agree, but the problem is plays such as the draw, the swing pass, the slant, etc are almost never called, even though they are very effective when they are called.

The playcalling has improved the last two games. Now I just want to see us mix it up a bit more. The last screen pass we ran with Chester was in week one, as was the last swing pass to AD. Also, too many deep shots. We ain't good at them, so stop going deep.

Speaking of that, has Chilly took back the playcalling, I know in the preseason Bevell was calling some games.

But I agree and that is actually what I am trying to say, look more at the playcalling than bashing your QB. Put him in spots to allow him to be successful, gain some small wins under his belt, and then slowly open it up a bit.

My man, I have been questioning the playcalling for quite sometime now. It all goes back to adjusting your scheme to fit the talent that you have. That is one thing that Childress has only just started to do.

Play calling this year is 10x better than last year. Execution still sucks, but play calling is much improved.

"jessejames09" wrote:

Play calling this year is 10x better than last year. Execution still sucks, but play calling is much improved.

I have to agree with that.
I don't see myself complaining like I did last year about the play calling.

"ejmat" wrote:

"jessejames09" wrote:

Play calling this year is 10x better than last year. Execution still sucks, but play calling is much improved.

I have to agree with that.
I don't see myself complaining like I did last year about the play calling.

I also concur, but I still see room for improvement. Maybe it is the scheme that I have a problem with.

"V" wrote:

"ejmat" wrote:

"jessejames09" wrote:

Play calling this year is 10x better than last year. Execution still sucks, but play calling is much improved.

I have to agree with that.
I don't see myself complaining like I did last year about the play calling.

I also concur, but I still see room for improvement. Maybe it is the scheme that I have a problem with.

V, what kind of scheme do you think would fit our talent the best?....Just wondering

"DaVizzles" wrote:

"V" wrote:

"ejmat" wrote:

"jessejames09" wrote:

Play calling this year is 10x better than last year. Execution still sucks, but play calling is much improved.

I have to agree with that.
I don't see myself complaining like I did last year about the play calling.

I also concur, but I still see room for improvement. Maybe it is the scheme that I have a problem with.

V, what kind of scheme do you think would fit our talent the best?....Just wondering

Well I have a problem with the scheme so I'll partly answer this. My biggest problem is the O-line scheme. I have a problem with the zone blocking scheme when you have our offensive line. A zone blocking scheme works in Denver where they have small 250 pound lineman but when you have big bodys like Hutchinson and McKinnie you need to put mono on mono. You dont play mind games as oppose to fighting when your a brute is what they say. For those of you who have a problem with the O-line I can admit Cook looks like a civi out there but I dont like the scheme either.

"PurpleHornsOfDestruction" wrote:

"DaVizzles" wrote:

"V" wrote:

"ejmat" wrote:

"jessejames09" wrote:

Play calling this year is 10x better than last year. Execution still sucks, but play calling is much improved.

I have to agree with that.
I don't see myself complaining like I did last year about the play calling.

I also concur, but I still see room for improvement. Maybe it is the scheme that I have a problem with.

V, what kind of scheme do you think would fit our talent the best?....Just wondering

Well I have a problem with the scheme so I'll partly answer this. My biggest problem is the O-line scheme. I have a problem with the zone blocking scheme when you have our offensive line. A zone blocking scheme works in Denver where they have small 250 pound lineman but when you have big bodys like Hutchinson and McKinnie you need to put mono on mono. You dont play mind games as oppose to fighting when your a brute is what they say. For those of you who have a problem with the O-line I can admit Cook looks like a civi out there but I dont like the scheme either.

Two things....


1.
Del corrected us and said we do a mix of Zone Blocking and straight up man blocking from his studing of game tape.
Call me silly, but I believed him.

2.
Teams measure 40 yard dash, Three Cone drills and short shuttle drills to determine if a OL-men can be effective in a Zone Blocking scheme.
If you take a look (I did) at all 3 times for our OL players and matched them up agains teh Broncos (who are the best at this) you would see that our OL are faster in all catagories.

To say our bigger lineman can't execute in a ZB scheme because they are bigger and faster than the Broncos is kindof crazy.


Why our scheme isn't working is because it is very hard to teach/install and not because we don't have the athletes to do it.