Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 63
  1. #21
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Schemes could hurt Vikings

    "jargomcfargo" wrote:
    The article is pretty good.
    The biggest concern, for me, is the lack of adjustments and inflexibility of the schemes.
    That will all change when the coaching staff changes.
    I'm not advocating that change, yet. But until that time, I think the team will improve within it's current schemes.
    The zone blocking doesn't have much to do with our pass blocking woes; and is quite successful in the running game.
    That has been a huge concern and is possibly the one thing that could dispel my contention that the line is a problem.

    How many times in the past 2 years did the team drive down the field on the opening possession with ease and score, only to go stagnant for the rest of the game.

  2. #22
    Caine's Avatar
    Caine is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    5,139

    Re: Schemes could hurt Vikings

    The Offensive woes aren't a primary product of the line's blocking scheme in my opinion.
    I believe that the largest single contributor is the stale, hyper-conservative plays called by Childress.
    The short passing game keeps the secondary in close and allows the front 7 to cluster - which as we saw in the latter portion of last season leads to fewer rushing yards.

    Another contributing element was the miserable QB play - by all 3 QB's - and the lack of any confidence in our Receiver corps.

    Let's face it, we had two ways to win last season - either AP/CT broke opponents backs by breaking big runs, or the Defense got hot and ate their lunch.
    The passing game played a very small role last season.

    This season, we've added Berrian.
    That should improve our ability to throw the deep ball and have a reasonable expectation of it being caught - something Williamson couldn't seem to do.
    The biggest questions with regard to that happening involve 3 elements.

    1:
    Will the line give Jackson time?
    McKinnie blows versus speed guys - always has struggled there.
    And when teams overload the right side, it folds quickly.
    See #3 for the solution.

    2:
    Will Jackson make the plays?
    Jackson had a tough time doing that last season.
    His accuracy was less than desireable, and when he was on target, Williamson missed.
    Wade did a nice job with stop routes and the short game, and Rice has the potential to be something special, but Jackson appeared to have difficulty reading situations and finding ways to make things happen.
    He needs to step up HUGE to alter that this year.

    3:
    Will Childress stop calling hyper-conservative plays and expecting different results?
    I doubt it.
    Childress called a few "trick" plays last season, and they worked.
    But the vast majority of his play calling is uninspired and predictable.
    He appears to call plays counter-intuitively in that he never appears to focus on our strengths.
    The worst part is that the Vikings were a 1-trick-pony last season, and when the run wasn't working, the Vikings fell short.
    Childress never appeared to do anything to alter that.

    So, while Jackson's play and the O-line are concerns, MY biggest concern is Childress.
    I don't like his play calling, and I don't like the fact that he appears so married to his ideas that he refuses to adjust to reality.
    In my opinion, the success or failure of the Viking offense will hinge directly on Childress' ability to change HIS thinking.

    Caine

  3. #23
    Vikes_King's Avatar
    Vikes_King is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    7,104

    Re: Schemes could hurt Vikings

    very depressing article, because it all strikes true


    http://vikesking.blogspot.com/

    "We’ll win our own Super Bowl, with our own players. Real Vikings. Something Brett Favre can never be."

    - Dan Calabrese

  4. #24
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,601
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Schemes could hurt Vikings

    "Caine" wrote:
    The Offensive woes aren't a primary product of the line's blocking scheme in my opinion.
    I believe that the largest single contributor is the stale, hyper-conservative plays called by Childress.
    You see, I actually stopped reading right there.
    If you buy into that myth, then you are already lost.

    Yes, the playcalling was conservative last year.
    But how much of that was a product of the coaching staff being conservative, and how much was a product of not having the talent level to execute other plays?
    Oh and BTW, Childress didn't call plays last year (but of course that doesn't matter, because it makes your argument weaker...)
    Zeus wrote:
    When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?

    =Z=

  5. #25
    V-Unit's Avatar
    V-Unit is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,317

    Re: Schemes could hurt Vikings

    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "Caine" wrote:
    The Offensive woes aren't a primary product of the line's blocking scheme in my opinion.
    I believe that the largest single contributor is the stale, hyper-conservative plays called by Childress.
    You see, I actually stopped reading right there.
    If you buy into that myth, then you are already lost.

    Yes, the playcalling was conservative last year.
    But how much of that was a product of the coaching staff being conservative, and how much was a product of not having the talent level to execute other plays?
    Oh and BTW, Childress didn't call plays last year (but of course that doesn't matter, because it makes your argument weaker...)
    If you read the rest of his post, he goes on to say that when we tried trick plays, they often worked. The same goes for screens and swing passes. The players on the field have shown the ability to succeed on more complex plays even though they are given extremely few chances to do so.

    Heck, if we try a flea flicker and it doesn't work, of course you blame that on the players. Point is, I don't ever recall trying a flea flicker.
    "I hate when threads are destroyed by facts and logic."
    - Prophet


    Thanks Josdin!

  6. #26
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,601
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Schemes could hurt Vikings

    "V" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "Caine" wrote:
    The Offensive woes aren't a primary product of the line's blocking scheme in my opinion.
    I believe that the largest single contributor is the stale, hyper-conservative plays called by Childress.
    You see, I actually stopped reading right there.
    If you buy into that myth, then you are already lost.

    Yes, the playcalling was conservative last year.
    But how much of that was a product of the coaching staff being conservative, and how much was a product of not having the talent level to execute other plays?
    Oh and BTW, Childress didn't call plays last year (but of course that doesn't matter, because it makes your argument weaker...)
    If you read the rest of his post, he goes on to say that when we tried trick plays, they often worked. The same goes for screens and swing passes. The players on the field have shown the ability to succeed on more complex plays even though they are given extremely few chances to do so.

    Heck, if we try a flea flicker and it doesn't work, of course you blame that on the players. Point is, I don't ever recall trying a flea flicker.
    I actually did go back and read the rest of his post.
    I know that when we called the occasional trick play, it worked about half of the time.
    I also know that there were times in which it did NOT work for various reasons (Shank's TD...).
    I also know that the occasional screen pass worked, but I also saw it blown up or the ball tipped just as many times.
    In there were a couple of screen attempts that should have been pick 6's, but we were lucky.

    We tend to remember the trick plays that work because they are fun to talk about.
    We remember the screens that work because we don't run very many screens.
    We tend to forget the trick plays and screens that don't work, because they don't fit into the predetermined schema that many of us have for Childress's play calling.

    I realize that this is hard to recognize, especially when we don't have the games in front of.
    It is hard to go back and look at the play by plays because they are not given in context. This year, I think I will attempt to keep track of the play calling and post the results here after the game. Hell, maybe I am wrong, and the playcalling is as bad as some people think it is...
    Zeus wrote:
    When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?

    =Z=

  7. #27
    Mr Anderson's Avatar
    Mr Anderson is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    7,692

    Re: Schemes could hurt Vikings

    From my super huge off season post following the 2006 season, January 13th 2007:
    Offensive line:

    I am not going to individually discuss the line, but I will speak of them as a unit.

    My main concern is Zone Blocking.

    The average height and weight of our offensive line. Is 6'6 320 pounds. With the behemoths we have up front it makes no sense for us to run a zone blocking offense. Typically zone blocking schemes are intended for teams with smaller, more athletic offensive linemen.
    He are some examples:
    Denver Broncos average size. 6'5 291 pounds.
    Indianapolis Colts: 6'4 306.
    Atlanta Falcons: 6'3 303 pounds.
    Tennessee Titans: 6'5 309 pounds.

    All of these teams have very small linemen all around, but all have huge left tackles for pass blocking purposes. These big guys at LT kind of skew my data, but the rest of the line is far smaller. Where on the Vikings our whole line is huge.
    Some of you may be thinking "Hey, Chester Taylor was great this year, so zone blocking must be pretty good." If you're thinking that... you're wrong.
    Comparing our rushing numbers to that of the other zone blocking teams I have mentioned shows that very clearly.

    Team Rushing Stats:
    Denver Broncos:
    2152 yards. 4.4 yards per carry. #8 in the NFL.
    Indianapolis Colts: 1762 yards. 4.0 yards per carry. #18 in the NFL.
    Atlanta Falcons: 2939 yards. 5.5 yards per carry. #1 in the NFL.
    Tennessee Titans: 2214 yards. 4.7 yards per carry. #5 in the NFL.
    Minnesota Vikings: 1820 yards. 4.1 yards per carry. #16 in the NFL.

    Indianapolis is the only team behind us on that list; however, they do not have a running back like Chester Taylor.

    We need to move away from zone blocking and return to a traditional power blocking scheme.
    Offensive line is another position we will address in Free Agency, and maybe late in the draft.

    Hopefully this offense can turn itself around next season, and get our defense off the field for more than 3 plays at a time.
    I wrote that griping about the zoneblocking scheme.

    However, now I believe we have mastered it... well half of it.

    The running game is obviously awesome, I still believe that if we had kept our original power/man blocking scheme we'd be just as successful, but there's no good reason to switch back now.

    And as far as pass blocking goes, in any blocking scheme pass blocking is essentially zone. The defenders come to you when you pass block, there's almost never a real "Assignment" of who you're going to block. You take the biggest threat to the QB at the time, so usually whoever is closest to your outside shoulder, the trade-offs from linemen to linebackers are no different as a "normal" blocking scheme.

    I think it comes down to TJack honestly.

    We have the talent to protect him,
    he just needs to make his reads and get rid of the ball faster.

  8. #28
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Schemes could hurt Vikings

    "Mr" wrote:
    From my super huge off season post following the 2006 season, January 13th 2007:
    Offensive line:

    I am not going to individually discuss the line, but I will speak of them as a unit.

    My main concern is Zone Blocking.

    The average height and weight of our offensive line. Is 6'6 320 pounds. With the behemoths we have up front it makes no sense for us to run a zone blocking offense. Typically zone blocking schemes are intended for teams with smaller, more athletic offensive linemen.
    He are some examples:
    Denver Broncos average size. 6'5 291 pounds.
    Indianapolis Colts: 6'4 306.
    Atlanta Falcons: 6'3 303 pounds.
    Tennessee Titans: 6'5 309 pounds.

    All of these teams have very small linemen all around, but all have huge left tackles for pass blocking purposes. These big guys at LT kind of skew my data, but the rest of the line is far smaller. Where on the Vikings our whole line is huge.
    Some of you may be thinking "Hey, Chester Taylor was great this year, so zone blocking must be pretty good." If you're thinking that... you're wrong.
    Comparing our rushing numbers to that of the other zone blocking teams I have mentioned shows that very clearly.

    Team Rushing Stats:
    Denver Broncos:
    2152 yards. 4.4 yards per carry. #8 in the NFL.
    Indianapolis Colts: 1762 yards. 4.0 yards per carry. #18 in the NFL.
    Atlanta Falcons: 2939 yards. 5.5 yards per carry. #1 in the NFL.
    Tennessee Titans: 2214 yards. 4.7 yards per carry. #5 in the NFL.
    Minnesota Vikings: 1820 yards. 4.1 yards per carry. #16 in the NFL.

    Indianapolis is the only team behind us on that list; however, they do not have a running back like Chester Taylor.

    We need to move away from zone blocking and return to a traditional power blocking scheme.
    Offensive line is another position we will address in Free Agency, and maybe late in the draft.

    Hopefully this offense can turn itself around next season, and get our defense off the field for more than 3 plays at a time.
    I wrote that griping about the zoneblocking scheme.

    However, now I believe we have mastered it... well half of it.

    The running game is obviously awesome, I still believe that if we had kept our original power/man blocking scheme we'd be just as successful, but there's no good reason to switch back now.

    And as far as pass blocking goes, in any blocking scheme pass blocking is essentially zone. The defenders come to you when you pass block, there's almost never a real "Assignment" of who you're going to block. You take the biggest threat to the QB at the time, so usually whoever is closest to your outside shoulder, the trade-offs from linemen to linebackers are no different as a "normal" blocking scheme.

    I think it comes down to TJack honestly.

    We have the talent to protect him,
    he just needs to make his reads and get rid of the ball faster.
    Interesting stuff.

    One thing that I noticed though is that you didn't give much of an opinion on what can be done with the talent we have to improve the protection in the passing game without keeping in extra skill players to help out. I get the part about taking the biggest threat as your responsibility, but are you then saying that the guys on the line are not able to figure that out and take the right guy?

  9. #29
    jargomcfargo's Avatar
    jargomcfargo is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    4,776

    Re: Schemes could hurt Vikings

    Calling a trick play isn't always the same thing as creative offensive play calling.
    A trick play, by definition, is a play called at a time when a different play is expected. If called at the right time the probability for success increases.

    Creative play calling involves utilizing strengths and exploiting weakness; not just throwing in an occasional trick play.

    When we were sold the west coast philosophy it was felt it would better take advantage of mismatches to utilize strengths and exploit weakness.

    I ask you. Is that what you are seeing from Bevel/Childress in their play calling?

    Jerry Burns was creative.

    The jury is still out on Bevel/Childress.

    And I guess that brings us back to the debate.

    Does the problem lie with the players or the coaching?
    What takes a quarterback to the next level is not arm strength or mobility or any of that stuff. Its the ability to play on critical downs. Manage third downs, or red zones or four-minute or two-minute situations"
    Dilfer

  10. #30
    V-Unit's Avatar
    V-Unit is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,317

    Re: Schemes could hurt Vikings

    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "V" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "Caine" wrote:
    The Offensive woes aren't a primary product of the line's blocking scheme in my opinion.
    I believe that the largest single contributor is the stale, hyper-conservative plays called by Childress.
    You see, I actually stopped reading right there.
    If you buy into that myth, then you are already lost.

    Yes, the playcalling was conservative last year.
    But how much of that was a product of the coaching staff being conservative, and how much was a product of not having the talent level to execute other plays?
    Oh and BTW, Childress didn't call plays last year (but of course that doesn't matter, because it makes your argument weaker...)
    If you read the rest of his post, he goes on to say that when we tried trick plays, they often worked. The same goes for screens and swing passes. The players on the field have shown the ability to succeed on more complex plays even though they are given extremely few chances to do so.

    Heck, if we try a flea flicker and it doesn't work, of course you blame that on the players. Point is, I don't ever recall trying a flea flicker.

    I actually did go back and read the rest of his post.
    I know that when we called the occasional trick play, it worked about half of the time.
    I also know that there were times in which it did NOT work for various reasons (Shank's TD...).
    I also know that the occasional screen pass worked, but I also saw it blown up or the ball tipped just as many times.
    In there were a couple of screen attempts that should have been pick 6's, but we were lucky.

    We tend to remember the trick plays that work because they are fun to talk about.
    We remember the screens that work because we don't run very many screens.
    We tend to forget the trick plays and screens that don't work, because they don't fit into the predetermined schema that many of us have for Childress's play calling.

    I realize that this is hard to recognize, especially when we don't have the games in front of.
    It is hard to go back and look at the play by plays because they are not given in context. This year, I think I will attempt to keep track of the play calling and post the results here after the game. Hell, maybe I am wrong, and the playcalling is as bad as some people think it is...
    Liar!

    Anyways, I'm going to have to give you the W on that one, but there is still little proof that the talent on the field has stunted the playcalling.

    We could guess, or we could look at 2006 vs. 2007. I would say that talent definitely improved during the 2007 offseason, but the formations, strategies, and playcalling we used was still very vanilla. It was however, more effective because of the increased talent (mostly AD, but also Rice, Wade, Herrera, Cook, Richardson, and TJ) on the field.

    We still saw playaction, and dink-and-dunk, and quick slants, and games where we stuck to the run no matter what. They were simply much more effective in 2007.
    "I hate when threads are destroyed by facts and logic."
    - Prophet


    Thanks Josdin!

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Davidson: Four Blocking Schemes Will Be Used
    By Marrdro in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 07-30-2011, 03:37 AM
  2. Defensive Schemes (3-4, 4-3, 4-6)
    By Prophet in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-13-2009, 09:09 AM
  3. Unconventional Defensive Schemes
    By mountainviking in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 04-17-2008, 09:35 AM
  4. Chiefs won't get to see all the Vikings schemes
    By singersp in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-02-2007, 07:15 PM
  5. Coaches and Schemes
    By VikesfaninWis in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-16-2006, 04:42 PM

Tags for this Thread

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
  •