Thread: Interesting piece on Kluwe and kick coverage

http://min.scout.com/2/828748.html

[size=12pt]Commentary: Copy the Falcons’ philosophy[/size]
The Falcons and Vikings had very different results with their punting and punt-coverage units in 2008. If the Vikings are going to keep Paul Ferraro as their special teams coordinator, a change in philosophy could really help cure the glaring weakness of special teams...

It's hardly rocket science that the big problem was out kicking the coverage, unless Kluwe can learn how to kick with some direction to the sidelines or take some distance off the ball, the exact same thing will happen next year, assuming Kluwe stays. Kicking is only half the story on special teams and that's why I'm surprised Ferraro stays, when you look at returns (net average) we ranked 20th in kick off returns and 24th in punt returns combine that with 29th when we punt the ball away, hardly impressive reading. It kind of asks the question how bad does it have to get before the coach gets the boot?

Heath is our savior

Part of it is Kluwe not puting enough loft on the ball, but there is so much more to it.

"scottishvike" wrote:

It's hardly rocket science that the big problem was out kicking the coverage, unless Kluwe can learn how to kick with some direction to the sidelines or take some distance off the ball, the exact same thing will happen next year, assuming Kluwe stays. Kicking is only half the story on special teams and that's why I'm surprised Ferraro stays, when you look at returns (net average) we ranked 20th in kick off returns and 24th in punt returns combine that with 29th when we punt the ball away, hardly impressive reading. It kind of asks the question how bad does it have to get before the coach gets the boot?

I don't think it was Kluwe. I most of our long returns simply had terrible coverage and tackling. Many times we were in position to tackle but found a away to screw it up.

yah i read this a couple of days ago.
it tells me that we are not very smart or good problem solvers.
to think that after a whole season of terrible punt coverage, that in a playoff game we get burnt twice by it yet again, someone should be responsible.
i mean the philosphy is so simple and makes so much sense with the problems we were having, its annoying to think all we had to do was look at the team with the best stats in that area to figure out a strategy that would at least help not get burned week in and week out.
then factor in the fact that we are switching kick and punt returners every week and in game and it does make you wonder if these guys actually know what they are doing?

Only the simplest of minds would contend that this is because of the loss of one tackler (Heath) especially when you look at how many of our defensive starters played on ST's throughout the year.

Long story short the following things caused this to happen (and not just the loss of one tackler):

a.
Kluwe's inability to kick to a spot outside the hash.
Doesn't pin the runner to one side and opens up ALL the lanes across the field thereby spreading our tacklers out across the whole field.

b.
Kluwe continually outkicking the coverage.
Gives the wedge guys as well as the returner more time to pick a lane.

c. Coverage.
There was some serious sloppy tackling out there at times.

d. Touchbacks.
A few of those are on the coverage unit.
Why the hell do we keep doing that?

e. Coaching.
For the life of me I can't understand why Ferrarafarie is coming back, unless the staff is gonna go a different direction with respect to Punter and all the blame is gonna be put on Kluwe.

"Marrdro" wrote:

Only the simplest of minds would contend that this is because of the loss of one tackler (Heath) especially when you look at how many of our defensive starters played on ST's throughout the year.

Long story short the following things caused this to happen (and not just the loss of one tackler):

a.
Kluwe's inability to kick to a spot outside the hash.
Doesn't pin the runner to one side and opens up ALL the lanes across the field thereby spreading our tacklers out across the whole field.
b.
Kluwe continually outkicking the coverage.
Gives the wedge guys as well as the returner more time to pick a lane.

c. Coverage.
There was some serious sloppy tackling out there at times.

d. Touchbacks.
A few of those are on the coverage unit.
Why the hell do we keep doing that?

e. Coaching.
For the life of me I can't understand why Ferrarafarie is coming back, unless the staff is gonna go a different direction with respect to Punter and all the blame is gonna be put on Kluwe.

i agree with all of that except maybe the bolded.
i remember several of the big returns being specifically kicked to one side of the field, bucuz the returner actually makes one move and then came totally across the field.
i believe one of the returns this week was like that.
and i remember 2 in the new orleans game was like that.
so i'm sure it has happened on occasion, but it was less of a problem than all the other stupidity.

"ragz" wrote:

"Marrdro" wrote:

Only the simplest of minds would contend that this is because of the loss of one tackler (Heath) especially when you look at how many of our defensive starters played on ST's throughout the year.

Long story short the following things caused this to happen (and not just the loss of one tackler):

a.
Kluwe's inability to kick to a spot outside the hash.
Doesn't pin the runner to one side and opens up ALL the lanes across the field thereby spreading our tacklers out across the whole field.
b.
Kluwe continually outkicking the coverage.
Gives the wedge guys as well as the returner more time to pick a lane.

c. Coverage.
There was some serious sloppy tackling out there at times.

d. Touchbacks.
A few of those are on the coverage unit.
Why the hell do we keep doing that?

e. Coaching.
For the life of me I can't understand why Ferrarafarie is coming back, unless the staff is gonna go a different direction with respect to Punter and all the blame is gonna be put on Kluwe.

i agree with all of that except maybe the bolded.
i remember several of the big returns being specifically kicked to one side of the field, bucuz the returner actually makes one move and then came totally across the field.
i believe one of the returns this week was like that.
and i remember 2 in the new orleans game was like that.
so i'm sure it has happened on occasion, but it was less of a problem than all the other stupidity.

Again, coverage sucked at times.
I freely admitted that.
But it wasn't the only reason we sucked on ST's.

By the way, our coach taught us, if you are gonna return it, make sure you catch it and make sure you get one guy to miss you, let the blockers do the rest.

Sometimes the returner does his job my friend regardless of how well you cover them.
;D

"Marrdro" wrote:

"ragz" wrote:

"Marrdro" wrote:

Only the simplest of minds would contend that this is because of the loss of one tackler (Heath) especially when you look at how many of our defensive starters played on ST's throughout the year.

Long story short the following things caused this to happen (and not just the loss of one tackler):

a.
Kluwe's inability to kick to a spot outside the hash.
Doesn't pin the runner to one side and opens up ALL the lanes across the field thereby spreading our tacklers out across the whole field.
b.
Kluwe continually outkicking the coverage.
Gives the wedge guys as well as the returner more time to pick a lane.

c. Coverage.
There was some serious sloppy tackling out there at times.

d. Touchbacks.
A few of those are on the coverage unit.
Why the hell do we keep doing that?

e. Coaching.
For the life of me I can't understand why Ferrarafarie is coming back, unless the staff is gonna go a different direction with respect to Punter and all the blame is gonna be put on Kluwe.

i agree with all of that except maybe the bolded.
i remember several of the big returns being specifically kicked to one side of the field, bucuz the returner actually makes one move and then came totally across the field.
i believe one of the returns this week was like that.
and i remember 2 in the new orleans game was like that.
so i'm sure it has happened on occasion, but it was less of a problem than all the other stupidity.

Again, coverage sucked at times.
I freely admitted that.
But it wasn't the only reason we sucked on ST's.

By the way, our coach taught us, if you are gonna return it, make sure you catch it and make sure you get one guy to miss you, let the blockers do the rest.

Sometimes the returner does his job My Sexy Little Pixie regardless of how well you cover them.

;D

of course, and we faced some good ones, but never at the consistent basis it happened to us.
especially on punts, the coverage should always have tha advantage over the blocking.
and it seemed more specific on punt coverage, cuz the kick coverage was pretty solid at the end of the year.
earlier on that was a different story.
so with it being specific to punt coverage mostly, all those things were definitely a factor.
i'm just saying, kluwe is pretty solid in directional kicks.
and you are dead on with the lack of the coverage downing the balls that had chances inside the 20.
there was just something wrong with the coverage as a whole all season which was the biggest of the problems.
so like the article said, the vikes brass should have come up with a better way to help that instead of just doing the same things over and over and expecting a different result.