Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 40
  1. #21
    jargomcfargo's Avatar
    jargomcfargo is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    4,776

    Re: Sharper explains 'playmakers' issue

    "MNgriff" wrote:
    "jargomcfargo" wrote:
    "MNgriff" wrote:
    I agree with sharp and I would say that players need to play and coaches need to coach. Players are not executing on opportunities to make the big play and coaching schemes are limiting the number of opportunities. The guy has been around the league for longer then I've been alive(well not that long) and I do respect his assessment. Sometimes I see a play and I'm like "WOW OMFG!" then our team looks like an absolute mess.
    We have talented player it just seems like they're not able to sustain it for an entire game and that's partially players and partially coaching. I think that's all he's trying to say.
    Agreed. It's a combination of execution, scheme, and coaching. But there is also a lack of playmakers on this team. And my take of Sharpers comments is the scheme is inhibiting some on the team who would be playmakers. Primarily hisself. No player likes to lose when they think they are capable of winning.

    If Childress and company gert a third year to obtain a few more playmakers who fit their scheme, they could be pretty good.
    But the part that I saw as problematic is.......
    Tick, tick, tick
    I agree partially but again you're only taking the part you want to hear. For one in our system on nickel we rotate winfield to the slot and marcus on the #1 WR and this look is happening a lot on third downs. Now do I want a rookie covering a #1 guy? Not at all but that's what the scheme calls for, but why have the guy playing in a system that better fits his current skill level then forsaking all of the other playmakers on D the opportunity to adjust to the system that the coaches believe is the best for our future? We've had an incredible rate of turnover and you have to start somewhere.
    You missed my point so I will make it obvious.

    I am more concerned about the fact that a verteran is begining to complain than the reason for it.
    You may not see it as a complaint. I do.

    I'm actually satisfied with the defense for the most part. The scheme works as it is supposed to.
    I'm more worried about the players not buying into it.

    “What takes a quarterback to the next level is not arm strength or mobility or any of that stuff. It’s the ability to play on critical downs. Manage third downs, or red zones or four-minute or two-minute situations"
    Dilfer

  2. #22
    MNgriff's Avatar
    MNgriff is offline Rookie
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    148

    Re: Sharper explains 'playmakers' issue

    "jargomcfargo" wrote:
    "MNgriff" wrote:
    "jargomcfargo" wrote:
    "MNgriff" wrote:
    I agree with sharp and I would say that players need to play and coaches need to coach. Players are not executing on opportunities to make the big play and coaching schemes are limiting the number of opportunities. The guy has been around the league for longer then I've been alive(well not that long) and I do respect his assessment. Sometimes I see a play and I'm like "WOW OMFG!" then our team looks like an absolute mess.
    We have talented player it just seems like they're not able to sustain it for an entire game and that's partially players and partially coaching. I think that's all he's trying to say.
    Agreed. It's a combination of execution, scheme, and coaching. But there is also a lack of playmakers on this team. And my take of Sharpers comments is the scheme is inhibiting some on the team who would be playmakers. Primarily hisself. No player likes to lose when they think they are capable of winning.

    If Childress and company gert a third year to obtain a few more playmakers who fit their scheme, they could be pretty good.
    But the part that I saw as problematic is.......
    Tick, tick, tick
    I agree partially but again you're only taking the part you want to hear. For one in our system on nickel we rotate winfield to the slot and marcus on the #1 WR and this look is happening a lot on third downs. Now do I want a rookie covering a #1 guy? Not at all but that's what the scheme calls for, but why have the guy playing in a system that better fits his current skill level then forsaking all of the other playmakers on D the opportunity to adjust to the system that the coaches believe is the best for our future? We've had an incredible rate of turnover and you have to start somewhere.
    You missed my point so I will make it obvious.

    I am more concerned about the fact that a verteran is begining to complain than the reason for it.
    You may not see it as a complaint. I do.

    I'm actually satisfied with the defense for the most part. The scheme works as it is supposed to.
    I'm more worried about the players not buying into it.

    I get your point. I just don't agree with it in this situation. I don't think sharper was going that far and was in fact saying players need to step up. Not that his hands are 100% tied and chili is the man to blame.
    Skol

  3. #23
    jargomcfargo's Avatar
    jargomcfargo is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    4,776

    Re: Sharper explains 'playmakers' issue

    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "jargomcfargo" wrote:
    "MNgriff" wrote:
    I agree with sharp and I would say that players need to play and coaches need to coach. Players are not executing on opportunities to make the big play and coaching schemes are limiting the number of opportunities. The guy has been around the league for longer then I've been alive(well not that long) and I do respect his assessment. Sometimes I see a play and I'm like "WOW OMFG!" then our team looks like an absolute mess.
    We have talented player it just seems like they're not able to sustain it for an entire game and that's partially players and partially coaching. I think that's all he's trying to say.
    Agreed. It's a combination of execution, scheme, and coaching. But there is also a lack of playmakers on this team. And my take of Sharpers comments is the scheme is inhibiting some on the team who would be playmakers. Primarily hisself. No player likes to lose when they think they are capable of winning.

    If Childress and company gert a third year to obtain a few more playmakers who fit their scheme, they could be pretty good.
    But the part that I saw as problematic is.......
    Tick, tick, tick
    Very nice.

    One question.
    Do you see any future playmakers on the team right now?
    My opinion is we do have the playmakers, however, they haven't evolved into them yet.

    Do we need more?
    Yes I think so, however, When Rice figures out how to get off the line and our OT figure out how to protect and our CB's get a bit better at covering etc etc etc.

    Face it, our problem is that we are relying on a bunch of young kids to come in and execute at the level of a 4-9 year vet at alot of key positions (and I'm not just talking about starters but they guys that rotate in as well).

    Hopefully the staff will make another solid draft, get us a QB, WR and DE to compliment what is already out there and you will have a very exciting team, again IMHO.
    ;D
    That's a good post I agree with it. I'm hoping for a higher quality free agent QB for next year as well.
    “What takes a quarterback to the next level is not arm strength or mobility or any of that stuff. It’s the ability to play on critical downs. Manage third downs, or red zones or four-minute or two-minute situations"
    Dilfer

  4. #24
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,271

    Re: Sharper explains 'playmakers' issue

    All I believe he is saying is he's being hand-cuffed by the scheme & it's not allowing him & other talented players to make some of the plays.

    We saw this same thing in 2005 in Cotrell's defense. Once Tice got involved & tore some of the plays out of Cottrell's complicated defensive playbook, the defense got better.

    I'm not saying throw the Tampa 2 out the door, but relax it a bit to give Sharper & Winfield a little more freedom & I'd bet we start seeing more interceptions.

    Both Winfield & Sharper have been around enough to be able to read defenses, make the adjustments & be more productive as players. With our pass defense being what it is now & Winfield & Sharper being who they are, let the playmakers make plays. What's it going to hurt at this point? These two players aren't the type to get burned, so cut them some slack.

    It wasn't broke in the latter half of 2005, so why try & fix it?

    These types of adjustments are the types we need to see at more than at the DB & safety positions,

    but I don't see it happening under Childress. Other teams adjust & we seem to continue with the same game plan without adjustments throughout the entire game.

    Pretty easy for another team to figure out after a quarter or two, isn't it?

    Predictable is what I call it & IMO it's costing us ball games.

    Perhaps even insanity: Doing the same thing over & over again & expecting different results.

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

  5. #25
    kevoncox's Avatar
    kevoncox is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,916

    Re: Sharper explains 'playmakers' issue

    Lets see.
    We are almost last in pass defense for 2 seasons...
    I think it's safe to say e'se right. The scheme sucks.
    We have enought talent to be middle of the pac in run and pass.
    I don't like being everyone's b**ch.

  6. #26
    marstc09's Avatar
    marstc09 is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    23,180

    Re: Sharper explains 'playmakers' issue

    "singersp" wrote:
    All I believe he is saying is he's being hand-cuffed by the scheme & it's not allowing him & other talented players to make some of the plays.

    We saw this same thing in 2005 in Cotrell's defense. Once Tice got involved & tore some of the plays out of Cottrell's complicated defensive playbook, the defense got better.

    I'm not saying throw the Tampa 2 out the door, but relax it a bit to give Sharper & Winfield a little more freedom & I'd bet we start seeing more interceptions.

    Both Winfield & Sharper have been around enough to be able to read defenses, make the adjustments & be more productive as players. With our pass defense being what it is now & Winfield & Sharper being who they are, let the playmakers make plays. What's it going to hurt at this point? These two players aren't the type to get burned, so cut them some slack.

    It wasn't broke in the latter half of 2005, so why try & fix it?

    These types of adjustments are the types we need to see at more than at the DB & safety positions,

    but I don't see it happening under Childress. Other teams adjust & we seem to continue with the same game plan without adjustments throughout the entire game.

    Pretty easy for another team to figure out after a quarter or two, isn't it?

    Predictable is what I call it & IMO it's costing us ball games.

    Perhaps even insanity: Doing the same thing over & over again & expecting different results.
    It is costing us ballgames. Childress needs to let the safties roam. If he does not adapt the tampa 2 to our players the same crap is going to happen for the rest of the season. PASS PASS PASS and then the outcome LOSS!

  7. #27
    MaxVike's Avatar
    MaxVike is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    2,563

    Re: Sharper explains 'playmakers' issue

    I'm not quite sure Sharper's points can be disagreed with.
    He, more than we, knows what he's talking about.
    He has every right to be frustrated, that doesn't concern me, heck, most of us are.
    He is a playmaker, a leader, a pro-bowler, and, a winner.
    He is saying alot of things in this article; yes, the writer may have spun some...maybe even overstepped his bounds - we may never know.
    That said, I'm not sure if he's criticizing the players, the coaches, the scheme, or all...but, as I've said before, leaders do what's right, managers do the right thing - there is a difference.
    Don't like it when this finds its way to the paper, however, with this record and nobody manning the QB position, there are many more losses in sight...that, clearly is not a future that thrills someone like Sharper.
    I'm glad he said it, hopefully the Team and the coaches buck up and show us something.
    2-5; he should be disgusted.


    Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent
    ----------------------------------------------
    As a matter of fact, I do know

  8. #28
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,271

    Re: Sharper explains 'playmakers' issue

    "marstc09" wrote:
    "singersp" wrote:
    All I believe he is saying is he's being hand-cuffed by the scheme & it's not allowing him & other talented players to make some of the plays.

    We saw this same thing in 2005 in Cotrell's defense. Once Tice got involved & tore some of the plays out of Cottrell's complicated defensive playbook, the defense got better.

    I'm not saying throw the Tampa 2 out the door, but relax it a bit to give Sharper & Winfield a little more freedom & I'd bet we start seeing more interceptions.

    Both Winfield & Sharper have been around enough to be able to read defenses, make the adjustments & be more productive as players. With our pass defense being what it is now & Winfield & Sharper being who they are, let the playmakers make plays. What's it going to hurt at this point? These two players aren't the type to get burned, so cut them some slack.

    It wasn't broke in the latter half of 2005, so why try & fix it?

    These types of adjustments are the types we need to see at more than at the DB & safety positions,

    but I don't see it happening under Childress. Other teams adjust & we seem to continue with the same game plan without adjustments throughout the entire game.

    Pretty easy for another team to figure out after a quarter or two, isn't it?

    Predictable is what I call it & IMO it's costing us ball games.

    Perhaps even insanity: Doing the same thing over & over again & expecting different results.
    It is costing us ballgames. Childress needs to let the safties roam. If he does not adapt the tampa 2 to our players the same crap is going to happen for the rest of the season. PASS PASS PASS and then the outcome LOSS!
    I think this adjustment needs to be made. I'm growing tired of being at the bottom of the pass defense list week after week without adjustments. They replaced McCauley, but that alone isn't enough. I did not notice that big of an improvement, if any with Gordon in there.

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

  9. #29
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,271

    Re: Sharper explains 'playmakers' issue

    [size=13pt]Sharper wants more freedom for big plays in Vikings defense [/size]

    By DAVE CAMPBELL
    The Associated Press
    - Friday, November 02, 2007


    wctrib.com

    ....Sharper's success has been based on a strong eye for the ball and an athletic ability to make a break on it. He argued this week for more freedom in the Tampa Two zone scheme that Minnesota uses as its primary defense, typically requiring the safeties to play a "deep half" technique and provide help for the others.....

    .....Fellow safety Dwight Smith recognized Sharper's frustration. He also said, however, that Sharper has acknowledged some of the defenses he's played on in the past with more room to roam have been weaker overall than Minnesota's is this year.....


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

  10. #30
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,935

    Re: Sharper explains 'playmakers' issue

    "singersp" wrote:
    All I believe he is saying is he's being hand-cuffed by the scheme & it's not allowing him & other talented players to make some of the plays.

    We saw this same thing in 2005 in Cotrell's defense. Once Tice got involved & tore some of the plays out of Cottrell's complicated defensive playbook, the defense got better.

    I'm not saying throw the Tampa 2 out the door, but relax it a bit to give Sharper & Winfield a little more freedom & I'd bet we start seeing more interceptions.

    Both Winfield & Sharper have been around enough to be able to read defenses, make the adjustments & be more productive as players. With our pass defense being what it is now & Winfield & Sharper being who they are, let the playmakers make plays. What's it going to hurt at this point? These two players aren't the type to get burned, so cut them some slack.

    It wasn't broke in the latter half of 2005, so why try & fix it?

    These types of adjustments are the types we need to see at more than at the DB & safety positions,

    but I don't see it happening under Childress. Other teams adjust & we seem to continue with the same game plan without adjustments throughout the entire game.

    Pretty easy for another team to figure out after a quarter or two, isn't it?

    Predictable is what I call it & IMO it's costing us ball games.

    Perhaps even insanity: Doing the same thing over & over again & expecting different results.
    I don't read it that way.

    I read it, when presented with times to step up and make plays, players need to do it.

    If the staff is holding players back, how do you explain:

    a.
    Udeze 4 sacks, last year none?
    b.
    Rookie Robison 4 sacks.
    c.
    A pretty good job at scoring on D?
    d. Johnson in for Phat Pat on passing situations.
    e. EJ's seamless (actually think he is playing better than Nap) to MLB

    etc etc etc.

    I laid this out a couple of different ways earlier already.
    No one is holding anybody back.
    Players are put into positions to make plays, some just want more opportunities (i.e. Sharper).

    Wonder what he will say after this weekend and McCauley or Gordon have to play more because of Winfields injury.
    Seems like he will have a hell of alot of opportunities to step up.
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Vikings need to score some playmakers
    By singersp in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-22-2008, 09:20 AM
  2. Vikings need playmakers & lots of 'em
    By singersp in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-26-2007, 06:41 AM
  3. jamie sharper and darren sharper brothers?
    By magicci in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 04-03-2005, 08:25 AM
  4. Who are the playmakers on Defense this year so far?
    By VikingsTw in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-22-2004, 11:36 PM
  5. Playmakers - TV series
    By AngloVike in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-21-2004, 02:00 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
  •