Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 51
  1. #41
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,266
    Quote Originally Posted by tastywaves View Post
    I'm just saying don't expect to see the Vikings feature the passing game anytime soon or you will continue to get overly frustrated.
    If we can't feature a passing game, it;s because we don't have a very good QB. Period. We have all our eggs in one basket & that's AD. If AD goes down & we try & feature a running game with Gerhart, we are done & will be mediocre at it at best

    Why would any team settle for a mediocre QB because they feature AD or a running game? One would expect a team to want & strive to have a team with a strong passing game & a strong running game so you can hit you're opponents with either of them or both & be successful.

    Apparently many fans have forgotten when we had both Robert Smith & Randy Moss & become complacent with just having one or the other.

    "If at first you don't succeed, parachuting is not for you"

  2. #42
    Randy Moss's Avatar
    Randy Moss is offline Pro-Bowler
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    453
    Quote Originally Posted by singersp View Post
    I don't think Rhodes even played, did he? I thought he was hurt.

    If he did play, he didn't record a single tackle or assist.
    He played. They showed him blanketing his receiver once on the broadcast. Also, on Kaepernick's TD, you'll see him first look to the guy Rhodes is covering before being like "oh wait, Robinson is still on the field". So my sample size is not large, but it looked when he was on the field, he was solid in coverage.

  3. #43
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1

    Live game chat / thread

    I think it's safe to day the film will give them plenty of things to work on over the next two weeks

  4. #44
    tastywaves's Avatar
    tastywaves is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,869
    Quote Originally Posted by singersp View Post
    If we can't feature a passing game, it;s because we don't have a very good QB. Period. We have all our eggs in one basket & that's AD. If AD goes down & we try & feature a running game with Gerhart, we are done & will be mediocre at it at best

    Why would any team settle for a mediocre QB because they feature AD or a running game? One would expect a team to want & strive to have a team with a strong passing game & a strong running game so you can hit you're opponents with either of them or both & be successful.

    Apparently many fans have forgotten when we had both Robert Smith & Randy Moss & become complacent with just having one or the other.
    Just like GB has all their eggs in Rodgers' basket and the Patriots are storing their eggs up in Brady's nest. I don't even know who backs up Drew Brees.

    If the Vikings could find a way to get a great QB they would, any team would. The bigger question is, how much are you willing to invest to get that great QB, and if you do get one, will you move away from being a run dominant team like we did with Favre. AD was still productive, but he clearly had his worst rushing years in 2009-10 when we featured the pass. In 2009 we were 8th in passing and 13th in rushing even though we had AD. Favre was not AD's best friend, Sidney Rice was. Favre probably appreciated AD, but made it quite clear that the offense runs through BF not AD.

    I'm not arguing what is the best philosophy to win games...pass first, rush first, or balanced. Just saying if you are a team that focuses heavily on the pass or rush that you tend to get good at that while losing out on the other. Being a great rushing team doesn't imply that you should be great at passing even with average QB play as many our touting. That is what I hear repeated time and time again, but I don't think it's that simple. If we had an elite QB we would start developing our offense more along the pass and our rushing game would no doubt go backwards. We may still be better, but one usually gives for the other.

    Furthermore, I'm sure most NFL coaches would say that they are striving to have a balanced offense that is elite at passing and rushing, although in practice it's quite clear what the true focus is really one vs. the other. Looking through the 2012 stats, there was only one team that featured a top 10 passing and rushing offense (the patriots, using total yards for each), however their rushing ypc was in the bottom half. Outside of NE, all the top rushing teams, were at the bottom in passing yards. In today's NFL, passing games are very complex. The effective passing teams (GB, NE, NO..) have to spend most of their time developing those offenses to get where they are at. The running game tags along with it, they will still give plenty of carries, but it is not the focal point of those teams nor the team defending them. For run heavy offenses, the clock runs faster, fewer plays are executed and overall offensive production (yards) is lower.

    Am I convincing anyone yet?

  5. #45
    C Mac D's Avatar
    C Mac D is offline Posting to P'own
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    13,496
    Quote Originally Posted by tastywaves View Post
    Just like GB has all their eggs in Rodgers' basket and the Patriots are storing their eggs up in Brady's nest. I don't even know who backs up Drew Brees.
    Well... except their "eggs" average about 4,400 yards and 30 TDs per season.
    Disclaimer: I'm an idiot.

  6. #46
    C Mac D's Avatar
    C Mac D is offline Posting to P'own
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    13,496
    Quote Originally Posted by tastywaves View Post
    If the Vikings could find a way to get a great QB they would, any team would. The bigger question is, how much are you willing to invest to get that great QB, and if you do get one, will you move away from being a run dominant team like we did with Favre.
    1.) We need scouts that can identify and recognize talent at the QB position.
    2.) We need a coaching staff that can develop QB talent.
    3.) We obviously have neither of these, so we rely on a great QB to fall in our lap... hence why we haven't "found" one yet.
    Disclaimer: I'm an idiot.

  7. #47
    tastywaves's Avatar
    tastywaves is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,869
    Quote Originally Posted by C Mac D View Post
    1.) We need scouts that can identify and recognize talent at the QB position.
    2.) We need a coaching staff that can develop QB talent.
    3.) We obviously have neither of these, so we rely on a great QB to fall in our lap... hence why we haven't "found" one yet.
    No argument from me.

  8. #48
    Minniman's Avatar
    Minniman is offline Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,425
    Quote Originally Posted by HEY View Post
    What about Walter Payton?
    Payton had the benefit of the best defense of that era. He also had an offense with Jim McMahon and Willie Gault. McMahon was not great during the 1985 season, mostly because of injury, but he could throw deep, and Gault was a legitimate threat on every play.

    Peyton and the Bears had many crappy seasons before McMahon and Gault. Remember Vince Evans in Chicago? He was worse than Ponder, but the point is that a good running back needs a deep threat to add a second front to the attack.
    Last edited by Minniman; 08-27-2013 at 05:06 PM.

  9. #49
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,266
    Quote Originally Posted by tastywaves View Post
    Just like GB has all their eggs in Rodgers' basket and the Patriots are storing their eggs up in Brady's nest. I don't even know who backs up Drew Brees.

    If the Vikings could find a way to get a great QB they would, any team would. The bigger question is, how much are you willing to invest to get that great QB, and if you do get one, will you move away from being a run dominant team like we did with Favre. AD was still productive, but he clearly had his worst rushing years in 2009-10 when we featured the pass. In 2009 we were 8th in passing and 13th in rushing even though we had AD. Favre was not AD's best friend, Sidney Rice was. Favre probably appreciated AD, but made it quite clear that the offense runs through BF not AD.

    I'm not arguing what is the best philosophy to win games...pass first, rush first, or balanced. Just saying if you are a team that focuses heavily on the pass or rush that you tend to get good at that while losing out on the other. Being a great rushing team doesn't imply that you should be great at passing even with average QB play as many our touting. That is what I hear repeated time and time again, but I don't think it's that simple. If we had an elite QB we would start developing our offense more along the pass and our rushing game would no doubt go backwards. We may still be better, but one usually gives for the other.

    Furthermore, I'm sure most NFL coaches would say that they are striving to have a balanced offense that is elite at passing and rushing, although in practice it's quite clear what the true focus is really one vs. the other. Looking through the 2012 stats, there was only one team that featured a top 10 passing and rushing offense (the patriots, using total yards for each), however their rushing ypc was in the bottom half. Outside of NE, all the top rushing teams, were at the bottom in passing yards. In today's NFL, passing games are very complex. The effective passing teams (GB, NE, NO..) have to spend most of their time developing those offenses to get where they are at. The running game tags along with it, they will still give plenty of carries, but it is not the focal point of those teams nor the team defending them. For run heavy offenses, the clock runs faster, fewer plays are executed and overall offensive production (yards) is lower.

    Am I convincing anyone yet?
    I'm not saying we need to abandon the run game at all or become a pass happy offense. I'm saying we need a QB that can is capable of throw completions on a consistent basis beyond 10 yards when he has to. We don't have that.

    We have a QB that can throw consistently well less than 5 yards & beyond that there's a huge drop off. That doesn't work when you are behind in a game or are running out of time. When you are 3rd & 10 & handing the ball off or throwing a 1 yard pass hoping the receiver does the rest, what does that say about the QB?

    "If at first you don't succeed, parachuting is not for you"

  10. #50
    Ranger's Avatar
    Ranger is offline Coach
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,080
    I have a feeling that if we had a passing attack that opponents feared, or at least respected, Gerhart would be a 1,300 yard back.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

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
  •