05-09-2013, 09:44 AM #111
05-09-2013, 11:19 AM #112"It always goes back to this, and it blows my mind people won't talk about it more: When you are tailback-driven, you practice more run plays and more run-oriented schemes. When you are quarterback-driven, you practice more nuances of the passing game. You only get so many practice reps. As long as Adrian Peterson is the bell cow back and they are tailback-driven, the passing game will never have the nuance that the great passing games have. Now that's not a bad thing, but the expectations need to be shaped that way. You can't have both in today's football. There's not enough practice time.
05-09-2013, 11:23 AM #113Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.
05-09-2013, 06:24 PM #114
05-09-2013, 07:25 PM #115
I hate that everyone points to the 98 offense like it's a bad thing. It was a great offense and not the reason we didn't win a chip. We didn't win a chip because our defense was average and even less than average when the injuries piled up. Even that wasn't enough to stop us... it took a guy missing a FG he makes in his sleep and a run of bad luck to stop us......
SO WHY IN HELL DO PEOPLE POINT TO THE OFFENSE LIKE IT WAS A PROBLEM
IS SCORING TOO MUCH A PROBLEM? IS SCORING TOO SOON A PROBLEM?
Also... improving the passign game does not mean we are asking for a RECORD BREAKING PASSING GAME... How about just average? How about just dam good. You don't have to limit yourself to bad QBs and average WRs just to prove you are a running team. Balance! Balance! Balance! The reason the Colts were as good as they were for so long was Balance ( James and Peyton) The reason the Pats won those chips.... Balance ( Dillon and Brady) Almost every team has to have both. That is what we need. We finally have fixed the WR portion... now we need to ffind a godd QB... stat.
We almost went to the SB with Wade Wilson at QB too if you are old enough to go back that far. If not for Darrin Nelson we would have won that SB that year.
But to the 1998 offense. Yes, the offense was not the cause but in order for Denny Green to get that offense it took him dismantling the best defense in the league that he inherited when he was hired as a coach. He sacrificed the defense in order to build the offense and then when the offense stalled in the NFCCG they were dead in the water. Had the defense been able to get a turnover in the second half or put the offense in better field position we could have won that game too.
I really feel that Spielman is building the team with balance. We drafted several offensive players in the first round and now we have several players on defense drafted in the first round and the core of the team is young, very young and they are using these players as the building block. Ponder may not be the answer but if we have to make a change at that position we are sitting pretty good overall with the rest of the team so we can bring one in and have some very good talent around them. And if Ponder does become the QB the GM says he will then we are really set.
05-09-2013, 08:33 PM #117Rookie
- Join Date
- Feb 2013
Effin good post. The team has had fewer and few weaknesses both off-seasons after 3-13. We're at the point with our roster where if Ponder poops the bed we can replace him with someone else next year and we will still be a very formidable team. It makes sense to give him this whole season to prove he can be the guy the team rallies around. I'm not sold on Pinder but I'm not going to count him out when he only stands to get better with another year of experience on the field and in the same offense with an extra weapon.
05-09-2013, 10:05 PM #118
Sure it's better to eat some clock when your defense isn't great, but the primary goal is to score points, and when an offense scores 35 points per game, no one has any right to complain about it, not even the defensive players who are sucking wind in the 4th quarter.
05-09-2013, 11:21 PM #119
College football in the 90's and 2000's had a lot of field stretching, air it out programs that put up some ridiculous stats offensively in the passing game. Now the trend is the hybrid QB/RB and I don't think that is a good recipe for NFL success in the long run because you can't have the guy running the offense taking those kind of shots as frequently as they do. RG3 is a good example of that.