Lesson learned for Childress

**singersp** · 10-10-2006, 06:08 AM

[size=13pt]Lesson learned for Childress[/size]

By Eric Krupka on October 10, 2006 12:56 AM
RealFootball365.com

After falling 17-12 to the Buffalo Bills in Week 4, yours truly questioned the play calling of Minnesota Vikings head coach Brad Childress. And no, I didn't question the overall play calling. I was just wondering where the running plays were.

In the second half of the dreadful performance in western New York, the Vikings ran the ball less than a handful of times. For the game, starting running back Chester Taylor only received 10 carries. After falling behind 14-6 in the third quarter, Childress abandoned the run. Although a late surge in the fourth quarter by the offense -- keyed by imperative defensive stops -- left the team with an opportunity to escape with a victory, the outcome was in favor of the home Bills.

Countless times, starting at the conclusion of the game and throughout the week leading up to Sunday's battle with the Detroit Lions , many of the Minnesota faithful hoped and pleaded Childress learned from his blunder, and would stay committed to the running game.

Some would argue that quarterback Brad Johnson is the offensive MVP or even the most important player to the entire team for this season based on the depth chart behind him. Contrarily, Chester Taylor is equally as important, if not more.

In the three victories Taylor is averaging 31 touches (27 carries) per game. And the Vikings are averaging 34:09 in time of possession in the wins. The common theme is to give Taylor the ball, control the clock, control the game, and win.

So this Sunday, with the Vikings trailing 17-3 in the third quarter, I asked myself: Did Childress learn from last week, and will he continue pounding the rock with Taylor?

And the prevailing answer was a resounding "yes." In the second half Taylor carried the ball 17 times, more than four times the amount of carries he received in the second half of the loss to Buffalo.

Thirty-one touches for 154 yards, and 36:39 of possession later -- Taylor and the Vikings were winners for the first time since Sept. 17.

Give the ball to Taylor.

Lesson learned.

-Eric Krupka is a senior writer for RealFootball365.com He responds to readers email daily and can be reached at [email protected]

Get more Minnesota Vikings insights at RealFootball365.com

[size=12pt]Post a comment[/size]

**Benet** · 10-10-2006, 06:38 AM

Can only agree with this to some extent. You're not going to bust open the kind of gains you need running the ball when you're down by 2 scores, and as Buffalo had showed they were good enough to shut down the run, we had no option to go to the air. Detroit, on the other hand, had had trouble stopping the run all afternoon, so it made sense to keep with it in the fourth quarter.

**digital420** · 10-10-2006, 09:16 AM

i'm not sure i can argue against this..

but you can't say that if C.t had gotten 25-30 touches we woulda still lost..
Buffalo never had to prove they could stop the run.. we didn't do to them what we did to detroit.. if we had maybe they woulda been as beat up and tired as the kitten's D line.

DiGiTaL

**snowinapril** · 10-10-2006, 10:02 AM

A few less touches in the first half and a few more in the second half.
Keep the legs and body a bit more fresh for the second half.

31 touches a game, is huge.

**Freakout** · 10-10-2006, 10:41 AM

Eh, I like the fact that they didn't abandon the run but lets be honest.
As good as Taylor was it would have done zilch had our defense not stepped up.

**V-Unit** · 10-10-2006, 05:23 PM

"singersp" wrote:

"V-Unit" wrote:

Hurry up offense is not the answer.

We lost the Chicago game on a fluke fumble.
We lost the Buffalo game because we didn't stick with the run.

The only thing that is lacking is the playcalling.

We ran the ball less because we were getting nowhere with it. I also don't remember to many series where we threw the ball everytime, so to say we didn't stick with the run isn't quite accurate.

Then you go and post an article saying:

After falling behind 14-6 in the third quarter, Childress abandoned the run.

It's ok, we all have our bad days. Even Childress.

**V-Unit** · 10-10-2006, 05:27 PM

"Freakout" wrote:

Eh, I like the fact that they didn't abandon the run but lets be honest.
As good as Taylor was it would have done zilch had our defense not stepped up.

More run plays = Offense on the field for longer
Offense on the field for longer = Rested Defense
Rested Defense = Stifling, Opportunistic Defene

It is all related. I don't think the D would have surrended that last TD to Buffalo if they hadn't been on the field so much. Why do I love the offense's first drive in these games? Not only because they score points, but because they eat up a ton of time. The time of game we play makes TOP very important.

**Mr Anderson** · 10-10-2006, 05:31 PM

"V-Unit" wrote:

"Freakout" wrote:

Eh, I like the fact that they didn't abandon the run but lets be honest.
As good as Taylor was it would have done zilch had our defense not stepped up.

More run plays = Offense on the field for longer
Offense on the field for longer = Rested Defense
Rested Defense = Stifling, Opportunistic Defene

It is all related. I don't think the D would have surrended that last TD to Buffalo if they hadn't been on the field so much. Why do I love the offense's first drive in these games? Not only because they score points, but because they eat up a ton of time. The time of game we play makes TOP very important.

Agreed 100%