Thread: Not to criticize play calling... but....

"BleedinPandG" wrote:

"Marrdro" wrote:

My opinion.........

We all know that the Chiller likes to play it close to the vest keeping his intention know only to the ones that need to know it.

We changed our blocking scheme a bit for a reason.
My guess is to simplify what our OLmen are supposed to do in the case of a misdirection play.

Are we seeing the misdirection plays?
No.
Will we see the misdirection plays?
Could we have used something like that in the Steelers game? Yes but to what end.
One extra win....

Again, my guess here, but yes, but not until we need to and this team shouldn't need to until much later in the season.

Interesting... I could have sworn you mocked me for saying we hadn't used the wildcat because we simply didn't need to, no reason to show our hand early... and now you're implying we're not doing things for exactly that reason?

I guess the reason I want to see these plays happens is NOT because I want to see us score on that 1 play... it's because I want to see AD start getting 3+ yards every carry vs 0, -1, 2, 0, -2, 40 which is about how his game went yesterday.
Sure, it'd be great to catch a D napping and take a reverse all the way for a score but our team would be better off showing a play like that, making the D game play for the possibility, and taking advantage of a DE/LB not over-pusuing and catching AD from the backside all game long.
Our coaches have shown the desire to do that (remember the punt formation in preseason?), to put things on tape, but for some reason they're keeping this in their pockets.

What running back gets 3+ yards every carry? Show me that guy and I will show you a team that will NEVER do anything other than run because those will be auto first downs.

Peterson had 25 carries for: 2, 1, 0, 4, 1, -2, 7, 1, 1, 1, 4, 33, 2, -1, 5, 3, 3, 2, -1, 7, 21, 0, 2, 1, 0 ...

Six of those carries were INSIDE the GB 10 and two of them inside the 1 ... kind of hard for those to be big gainers.

Running the ball is ABOUT getting a handful of short gains while waiting to spring the big one. That is how all running attacks are driven. Some weeks are better than others, some teams are better than others, but to act like our running attack is good only because of a few plays is ridiculous ... you NEED the short gains to set up the large ones.

Two runs for more than 20 yards in a game is a good day for any rushing attack. Period.

I do really like the screen pass to AP and I know blah blah blah about blocking on 3rd downs but if Childress want's to throw a screen on 3rd down it should be to the guy who can destroy on the edge.
I'm still not super impressed with some of the play calling, but hey the other stuff is working and the players are firing on all cylinders so it doesn't really matter.
I mean Childress doesn't get Denny Green conservative but it seems like sometimes the Vikes are kind of bi polar when it comes to what we're doing.

The last time I remember the Vikings running a counter play was against SF, and I remember it because someone didn't line up correctly (noted by Childress after the game) so that it got blown up on a short yardage situation.

I do think we've seen the coaching staff change things up a bit trying to create more space.
Seemed like the Vikes used quite a few early down draws to try to hold the defense a bit yesterday.
I think they also introduced a little tight-end trap play that they've used a few times, I think occasionally with counter action.

So I do think they're trying things.
But you usually want to practice things if you are going to use it on Sunday.
And when you're deciding what to practice you're drawing it up against the tape and what you think is going to happen, which isn't always what happens on Sunday.

Topic made me think though about things we don't see as much as we might want to.
People mentioned screens and I tend to agree.
The wildcat, or in general using Harvin as a runner was something that was talked about more a few weeks ago.
Play action passes, particularly on first down or other favorable down-and-distances is something that I wonder about.


But this is just off the top of my head rambling.
That means that if someone actually had a scouting report they would probably show me I'm an idiot.
And I'm not saying that the coaches are idiots or anything, the team is obviously being effective in putting the ball in the endzone.
Just seems we all don't see everything we expect.

"midgensa" wrote:

Running the ball is ABOUT getting a handful of short gains while waiting to spring the big one. That is how all running attacks are driven. Some weeks are better than others, some teams are better than others, but to act like our running attack is good only because of a few plays is ridiculous ... you NEED the short gains to set up the large ones.

I disagree.
Running the ball can also be about getting consistent gains in order to: set up 'manageable' down and distances so that the opposing team has to play both the pass and run honestly; convert successfully in short yardage situations; and control the clock.
Or teams can just show that they are more talented and more physical, but this is common at lower levels and not in the NFL.

FootballOutsiders.com has a pretty interesting stat along these lines actually, called "success rate."
It has criteria based on down-and-distance.
Adrian Peterson has been middle of the pack or worse in that stat since he came into the league.

Personally I don't think this is any reflection on him, but it does suggest that our running attack is more of a boom or bust proposition than other teams.
The Vikings have a very good boom or bust running game, but that doesn't mean that other teams don't run the ball more consistently even if they don't get 3+ yards every play.

I think it's the O-line and I hope that it improves after the bye.
We'll probably think it did regardless because the Vikes play the Lions next.

"Marrdro" wrote:

"BleedinPandG" wrote:

"Marrdro" wrote:

My opinion.........

We all know that the Chiller likes to play it close to the vest keeping his intention know only to the ones that need to know it.

We changed our blocking scheme a bit for a reason.
My guess is to simplify what our OLmen are supposed to do in the case of a misdirection play.

Are we seeing the misdirection plays?
No.
Will we see the misdirection plays?
Could we have used something like that in the Steelers game? Yes but to what end.
One extra win....

Again, my guess here, but yes, but not until we need to and this team shouldn't need to until much later in the season.

Interesting... I could have sworn you mocked me for saying we hadn't used the wildcat because we simply didn't need to, no reason to show our hand early... and now you're implying we're not doing things for exactly that reason?

I guess the reason I want to see these plays happens is NOT because I want to see us score on that 1 play... it's because I want to see AD start getting 3+ yards every carry vs 0, -1, 2, 0, -2, 40 which is about how his game went yesterday.
Sure, it'd be great to catch a D napping and take a reverse all the way for a score but our team would be better off showing a play like that, making the D game play for the possibility, and taking advantage of a DE/LB not over-pusuing and catching AD from the backside all game long.
Our coaches have shown the desire to do that (remember the punt formation in preseason?), to put things on tape, but for some reason they're keeping this in their pockets.

I only mock chuckleheads and select yutz's.
You, My Farvish Friend are not a chucklehead nor are you a yutz.



Having said that, can't remember who I engaged on this whole blocking scheme change (actually its just a tweek)
with, thought it was you, could have been Uffda or EJmat, anyway, who ever it was with, I think I articulated that I am firmly convinced we changed the blocking scheme to limit penalties that could be incurred by our OLmen as they try to engage defensive players in thier respective zones when we do start running the Wildcat (Misdirection) plays.

So thinking about that, not sure why I would "mock" you over it.

:

Seems we have gone from a good run blocking team and marginal pass blocking team to just the opposite.
I attribute the change at center and right tackle for that.
Maybe it's the tweaks they made to the blocking scheme.
Or maybe I'm still a chuckleheaded yutz without a clue once again!

Which is it Marrdro?

"jargomcfargo" wrote:

"Marrdro" wrote:

"BleedinPandG" wrote:

"Marrdro" wrote:

My opinion.........

We all know that the Chiller likes to play it close to the vest keeping his intention know only to the ones that need to know it.

We changed our blocking scheme a bit for a reason.
My guess is to simplify what our OLmen are supposed to do in the case of a misdirection play.

Are we seeing the misdirection plays?
No.
Will we see the misdirection plays?
Could we have used something like that in the Steelers game? Yes but to what end.
One extra win....

Again, my guess here, but yes, but not until we need to and this team shouldn't need to until much later in the season.

Interesting... I could have sworn you mocked me for saying we hadn't used the wildcat because we simply didn't need to, no reason to show our hand early... and now you're implying we're not doing things for exactly that reason?

I guess the reason I want to see these plays happens is NOT because I want to see us score on that 1 play... it's because I want to see AD start getting 3+ yards every carry vs 0, -1, 2, 0, -2, 40 which is about how his game went yesterday.
Sure, it'd be great to catch a D napping and take a reverse all the way for a score but our team would be better off showing a play like that, making the D game play for the possibility, and taking advantage of a DE/LB not over-pusuing and catching AD from the backside all game long.
Our coaches have shown the desire to do that (remember the punt formation in preseason?), to put things on tape, but for some reason they're keeping this in their pockets.

I only mock chuckleheads and select yutz's.
You, My Farvish Friend are not a chucklehead nor are you a yutz.



Having said that, can't remember who I engaged on this whole blocking scheme change (actually its just a tweek)
with, thought it was you, could have been Uffda or EJmat, anyway, who ever it was with, I think I articulated that I am firmly convinced we changed the blocking scheme to limit penalties that could be incurred by our OLmen as they try to engage defensive players in thier respective zones when we do start running the Wildcat (Misdirection) plays.

So thinking about that, not sure why I would "mock" you over it.

:

Seems we have gone from a good run blocking team and marginal pass blocking team to just the opposite.
I attribute the change at center and right tackle for that.
Maybe it's the tweaks they made to the blocking scheme.
Or maybe I'm still a chuckleheaded yutz without a clue once again!

Which is it Marrdro?

all of the above.

I was yelling at the TV at one point yesterday when we weren't running the ball (3 carries in the 3rd quarter for Peterson, although ToP probably caused most of that) and when we were, we always ran to the strongside of the formation. Frequently it was strong side to the right.

When you have Adrian Peterson running the ball, Hutch and McKinnie on the weakside blocking for him, and Kleinsasser leading the way run the kid to the left. He's got a better shot at making it to the second level that way. And I think it was Thom Brennaman that said it yesterday "When you see Adrian Peterson get to the second level, it's rare to not see him get to the third."

Don't get me wrong, I love that we're putting up 30 points per week, and really shouldn't knock the playcalling, but I don't think we're utilizing Adrian Peterson properly. With the guys we have around him, and the hall of famer we have at quarterback he should be running for yardage like no one has ever seen before. Now don't misinterpret what I mean by that, I don't care if he doesn't lead the league in rushing every year(although he should) I just think we could be doing more. We need to make it so when he's on the field the opposition doesn't know how we're going to get him the ball, or if we will at all.

We have six legitimate weapons on our offense and a QB who can get the ball to every single one of them. But we can't let that take away from what Peterson can do for us. We need to put the ball in our best players hands as much as possible. Vary how we give it to him. Wheels, screens, delayed screens, direct snaps, etc.
Put Adrian Peterson in a position to make plays and you know he will.

And despite everyone's complaints about the play calling, we are 7-1 and have the second highest scoring offense in the NFL.

I am fine with our play calling...

+1 P

"BleedinPandG" wrote:

When the heck are we going to run some sort of counter play?
I don't care if it's a full fledged reverse with AD handing it off to BB or pH going the other direction or simply an end around.
We have got to do SOMETHING to keep the weak side of the D honest... yesterday Clay Matthews was killing us by coming out of that outside LB position and pursuing from the backside... he never stayed home, never kept backside contain, and we never ran anything that attacked that over aggressiveness.
With all the attention and defenders AD draws when he has the ball, the stage is set perfectly for something going the other way, fast... and we know Favre loves to block!
Yeah we're winning... year we're scoring 30+ points a game... but man, if we could get the D to play AD a little more honestly with some counters and reverses, we might be able to go blow for blow with New Orleans!

I like your thinking. Percy can be deadly on reverses.

I actually thought this was the best called game this year.
Team contributed in all three phases.
And all the little individual efforts, that aren't mentioned much, such as that insanely great catch Rice made just off the ground to keep the drive alive, lead to a team win. Not just a Favre win.