Page 9 of 19 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 184
  1. #81
    tastywaves's Avatar
    tastywaves is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,815
    When reading up on Musgrave, he seems to favor the short passing style offenses. Ponder and lack of WR talent may be part of the reason as well, but I think Marrdro is right in that the staple of this offense will be predicated on more horizontal vs vertical stretching.

    These things have a tendency to change though based on talent.

  2. #82
    Reignman is offline Asst. Coach
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    629
    Quote Originally Posted by Marrdro View Post
    The dink/dunk will always be here, at least as long as we run the Walsh variant of the WCO and continue to look at the way the Pats have morphed the multi TE sets into that concept.

    A little something I did for another site.....

    How Important Is the Split End (X) Reciever in the WCO? Vikings Authority

    It breaks down every game for the Vikes, Pats and PUKERS by how many times each team completed a pass deep or short.
    I looked at your chart and 1 game jumped out at me, game 12 at Lambeau. You have 8 of Ponders 14 completions listed as deep. I knew that couldn't be right, and sure enough Ponder was 0 for 6 deep and only completed 12 total passes that game. Perhaps just a typo, but that would drop his season total deep completions down to 28, provided you didn't commit anymore typos xD (I only checked that 1 game because it stood out). So Brady finished with 46, Rodgers 45, and Ponder just 28.

    The deep threat is suddenly looking more important, but nobody is asking Ponder to be Brady or Rodgers because they don't have the best RB in the NFL to hand the ball to, but it would be nice if he could hit the deep ball when it's there, like when Peterson was streaking down the sideline at Lambeau with a 5 yard cushion on a defender and Ponders floater fell woefully short hitting the defender in the back. A TD there and the Vikings go up 21-20 late in the 3rd. Ponder threw an INT 4 plays later. If we won that game we would have won the division.

  3. #83
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,899
    Quote Originally Posted by Reignman View Post
    I looked at your chart and 1 game jumped out at me, game 12 at Lambeau. You have 8 of Ponders 14 completions listed as deep. I knew that couldn't be right, and sure enough Ponder was 0 for 6 deep and only completed 12 total passes that game. Perhaps just a typo, but that would drop his season total deep completions down to 28, provided you didn't commit anymore typos xD (I only checked that 1 game because it stood out). So Brady finished with 46, Rodgers 45, and Ponder just 28.

    The deep threat is suddenly looking more important, but nobody is asking Ponder to be Brady or Rodgers because they don't have the best RB in the NFL to hand the ball to, but it would be nice if he could hit the deep ball when it's there, like when Peterson was streaking down the sideline at Lambeau with a 5 yard cushion on a defender and Ponders floater fell woefully short hitting the defender in the back. A TD there and the Vikings go up 21-20 late in the 3rd. Ponder threw an INT 4 plays later. If we won that game we would have won the division.
    Wasn't week 12 at Chicago? Regardless, let me double check. I've been known to fat finger data at times.....Specially if I'm sudsing a few when I'm doing my research.
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  4. #84
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,899
    Quote Originally Posted by Reignman View Post
    I looked at your chart and 1 game jumped out at me, game 12 at Lambeau. You have 8 of Ponders 14 completions listed as deep. I knew that couldn't be right, and sure enough Ponder was 0 for 6 deep and only completed 12 total passes that game. Perhaps just a typo, but that would drop his season total deep completions down to 28, provided you didn't commit anymore typos xD (I only checked that 1 game because it stood out). So Brady finished with 46, Rodgers 45, and Ponder just 28.

    The deep threat is suddenly looking more important, but nobody is asking Ponder to be Brady or Rodgers because they don't have the best RB in the NFL to hand the ball to, but it would be nice if he could hit the deep ball when it's there, like when Peterson was streaking down the sideline at Lambeau with a 5 yard cushion on a defender and Ponders floater fell woefully short hitting the defender in the back. A TD there and the Vikings go up 21-20 late in the 3rd. Ponder threw an INT 4 plays later. If we won that game we would have won the division.
    You are correct, PUKERS should be 14 short, 0 deep. Thats what I get for doing math in public while I'm drinking.
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  5. #85
    Minniman's Avatar
    Minniman is offline Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,369
    Quote Originally Posted by NodakPaul View Post
    I completely disagree that Musgrave is making it hard on anyone. Musgrave deserves a helluva lot of credit for coming up with a passing gameplan that actually worked (somewhat) given the talent he had to work with at QB and WR.

    If we had a QB who was capable of getting the ball downfield fast enough to catch defenders out of position, or if we had a WR who was able to go up and get the ball in heavy traffic, we would have seen more downfield passes last season.
    I understand your premise, but I see the same triple 9 route plays that the Vikings ran under Childress. I see way too many throws behind the line of scrimmage. I see plays called where the primary is five yards deep on 3rd and 12. I do not see many clearing routes (or picks like the Packers use)? The skinny post and quick slant, which are WCO bread and butter, are not done well. Do not even bring up the drive ending tricky plays that Musgrave ran just like tricky Childress.

    This is the NFL, the players should know their routes or sit on the bench. If they have some physical problem, the coach needs to figure out how to use players to the offensive advantage. I am tired of excuses for poor play and poor coaching. I hope the Vikings do better with these players, but they should have done better with the players they had.

  6. #86
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1
    I hear what you are saying and agree to an extent but I am not sure at this point if it is Musgrave or if it is a systemic problem rooted in the QB. We saw this type of offense when Childress took over and Johnson was the QB, watched it through TJ,Bollinger,Holcolm,McNabb etc all while Bevell was the coordinator. The only time we saw something different was when Brett was playing and he made things click using the same cast of characters.

    Then Bevell leaves and get's TJ for a year and looks like the same old OC while we get McNabb/Ponder and it looks like Childress/Bevell never left. TJ then is replaced by Wilson and their whole team suddenly looks different and now Seattle is looked at as a contender for the SB with the Bevell offense.

    It seems like there is a built in mentality to protect these QB's and just try to get them to not make a mistake rather than taking the reigns off and seeing what they can do. This year with Jennings, Patterson, Rudolph etc we are going to have enough weapons for him to put up decent numbers. If we see 3 or so sub 100 yard games from him this year there will be only one person to look at for a change.

  7. #87
    tastywaves's Avatar
    tastywaves is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,815
    Quote Originally Posted by Purple Floyd View Post
    I hear what you are saying and agree to an extent but I am not sure at this point if it is Musgrave or if it is a systemic problem rooted in the QB. We saw this type of offense when Childress took over and Johnson was the QB, watched it through TJ,Bollinger,Holcolm,McNabb etc all while Bevell was the coordinator. The only time we saw something different was when Brett was playing and he made things click using the same cast of characters.

    Then Bevell leaves and get's TJ for a year and looks like the same old OC while we get McNabb/Ponder and it looks like Childress/Bevell never left. TJ then is replaced by Wilson and their whole team suddenly looks different and now Seattle is looked at as a contender for the SB with the Bevell offense.

    It seems like there is a built in mentality to protect these QB's and just try to get them to not make a mistake rather than taking the reigns off and seeing what they can do. This year with Jennings, Patterson, Rudolph etc we are going to have enough weapons for him to put up decent numbers. If we see 3 or so sub 100 yard games from him this year there will be only one person to look at for a change.
    What if we win those games?

  8. #88
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,899
    Quote Originally Posted by Purple Floyd View Post
    I hear what you are saying and agree to an extent but I am not sure at this point if it is Musgrave or if it is a systemic problem rooted in the QB. We saw this type of offense when Childress took over and Johnson was the QB, watched it through TJ,Bollinger,Holcolm,McNabb etc all while Bevell was the coordinator. The only time we saw something different was when Brett was playing and he made things click using the same cast of characters.

    Then Bevell leaves and get's TJ for a year and looks like the same old OC while we get McNabb/Ponder and it looks like Childress/Bevell never left. TJ then is replaced by Wilson and their whole team suddenly looks different and now Seattle is looked at as a contender for the SB with the Bevell offense.

    It seems like there is a built in mentality to protect these QB's and just try to get them to not make a mistake rather than taking the reigns off and seeing what they can do. This year with Jennings, Patterson, Rudolph etc we are going to have enough weapons for him to put up decent numbers. If we see 3 or so sub 100 yard games from him this year there will be only one person to look at for a change.
    Good stuff.

    I think another team to look at is the 49rs. With Smith you had your typical Walsh type dink/dunk QB without a cannon for an arm who does good enough to get them almost to the SB running the Walsh variant, but Harbrother really wants to run the Coryell variant. Enter Kaep and his "Percieved" cannon for an arm.

    LOS 78%
    1-10yds 67%
    11-20yds 50%
    21-30 yds 79%
    31-40 yds 25%
    41+ yds 0%


    Colin Kaepernick Stats, Splits - San Francisco 49ers - ESPN

    Not real great if you ask me.

    Then you take a look at the other side of that story with the other SB QB.

    Flacco, under another Harbrother who wants to run the Coryell variant struggles most of the year and almost misses the playoffs (and SB) until he is convinced to switch O-coords, change the OL and start throwing shorter stuff rather than deeper stuff (enter Anquan).

    Two questions come out of that for me........

    1. What will 49r Harbrother do this year with Boldan on his team. Is that an indicator he is going to try to stay with the Walsh variant now?

    2. What will Raven Harbrother do without the guy that made it all click for them late in the season.
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  9. #89
    kevoncox's Avatar
    kevoncox is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,853
    Quote Originally Posted by tastywaves View Post
    What if we win those games?
    Then Peterson got his 2500 yards.
    Winning doesn't fix everything. Look at the 49ers. They were winning with Smith (who I like) but still mad a change at QB. According to some people logic. Winning despite terrible play from your QB is ok. Keep him in there....throwing with the noodle arm.

  10. #90
    tastywaves's Avatar
    tastywaves is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,815
    Quote Originally Posted by kevoncox View Post
    Then Peterson got his 2500 yards.
    Winning doesn't fix everything. Look at the 49ers. They were winning with Smith (who I like) but still mad a change at QB. According to some people logic. Winning despite terrible play from your QB is ok. Keep him in there....throwing with the noodle arm.
    Maybe SF wins the SB if they stayed with Alex. You just don't know, you can only be impressed by Kaepernick's big plays and make assumptions.

    I think the objective of the game is to win, not to put up impressive stats to impress fantasy league players.

    If we lose a game because Ponder is unable to do his job, then I have a problem with him. Otherwise I don't care if the defense wins the game, special teams or the running game. Just win baby and take it as a team not an individual.

Page 9 of 19 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... 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
  •