Thread: Surprised? Well, Vikes weren't all that bad to begin with

http://www.startribune.com/local/12448021.html

You thought the Vikings were done.

You wanted them to lose the rest of their games, so Zygi could fire Childress and a top-seven-or-so draft pick could fetch a choice college quarterback like Colt Brennan or Brian Brohm. You were so fed up that you stopped watching in the second quarter and spitefully wished out loud from time to time that the Wilfs would move the team to L.A.

The passing game was so atrocious, and the defense against the pass was so unreliable, that it was hard to begrudge anyone these alternating feelings of anger, frustration and apathy.

Good column. Read the whole thing...

He pointed out the problem with media saturation and some fans are not capable of waiting for things to play out.
Personally, I'm not surprised by the turnaround.
The running game and rush defense has been strong and the passing defense has never been as bad as the media hacks like to make it sound (using yds given up rather than pts allowed).
The majority of the losses since Chilly took over have been by a score or less, just like Bud Grant's first year as HC.
A team that is within striking distance in most games that can shut down the run and run the ball is a team to be reckoned with.
I see no surprise in this.

It is a good read and would have to say it is one of the better defences that we have had in recent years. I'm still a little concerned about the pass defence, especially with the depth at DE at present which impacts the pass rush ability. However it is still an improvement on what we had last season for sure, just hope we don't lose Frazier after this season when things are starting to settle down.

Good article, it reinforced the thoughts I had all season, I knew that once we got to the proverial "Mid-Season Form" that we'd be alright. With Tarvaris finally performing like we (some of us) thought he could, and Frazier getting the most out of our guys on D, improving that pass rush. Add that to the fact we are a strong rushing team, and can stop the rush, I had a feeling we could make a run, and by golly here we go.

It hinged (and still does) on Tarvaris being somewhat effective, and for us to be able to have some semblance of a passing game.

"ItalianStallion" wrote:

It hinged (and still does) on Tarvaris being somewhat effective, and for us to be able to have some semblance of a passing game.

well.. success from any teams needs their quarterback to at least be somewhat effective
:P

I will admit to being one of the Tarvaris "haters" early on. I admit I was wrong. Tarvaris didn't look like an NFL QB, particularly with a 45 % completion rate in a "west coast" offense. It looked bad. He panicked too much. Our receivers were too raw and inexperienced and didn't "help out" at all (i.e. block downfield and help the QB by cutting routes off, etc.). Peterson was not yet up to speed, fully. The Cover 2 had holes in it.

That was then. This is NOW:

- Cover 2 abandoned for man coverage: results in corners being less confused. Pass D is better.
- Tarvaris has massively improved. His completion % is now 75 %, and he has matured incredibly.
- Receivers are better. Rice is developing nicely.

I did post, after week 1, that the Vikings "inside-out" philosophy (develop the lines and the rest will follow) was working. So I think I was partly right.

Back in July, I wrote something like, "If I am wrong about Tarvaris, I will admit it".

Here it is, Purple Pride Nation: I WAS WRONG ABOUT TARVARIS.

And I am glad I had to write that too.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

"StillPurple" wrote:

I will admit to being one of the Tarvaris "haters" early on. I admit I was wrong. Tarvaris didn't look like an NFL QB, particularly with a 45 % completion rate in a "west coast" offense. It looked bad. He panicked too much. Our receivers were too raw and inexperienced and didn't "help out" at all (i.e. block downfield and help the QB by cutting routes off, etc.). Peterson was not yet up to speed, fully. The Cover 2 had holes in it.

That was then. This is NOW:

- Cover 2 abandoned for man coverage: results in corners being less confused. Pass D is better.
- Tarvaris has massively improved. His completion % is now 75 %, and he has matured incredibly.
- Receivers are better. Rice is developing nicely.

I did post, after week 1, that the Vikings "inside-out" philosophy (develop the lines and the rest will follow) was working. So I think I was partly right.

Back in July, I wrote something like, "If I am wrong about Tarvaris, I will admit it".

Here it is, Purple Pride Nation: I WAS WRONG ABOUT TARVARIS.

And I am glad I had to write that too.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Very nice post my friend.
Just one question.

When did we give up on the cover 2?
I know I missed the game last week but up until then it was still a pretty dominant part of the scheme.
:

"Marrdro" wrote:

"StillPurple" wrote:

I will admit to being one of the Tarvaris "haters" early on. I admit I was wrong. Tarvaris didn't look like an NFL QB, particularly with a 45 % completion rate in a "west coast" offense. It looked bad. He panicked too much. Our receivers were too raw and inexperienced and didn't "help out" at all (i.e. block downfield and help the QB by cutting routes off, etc.). Peterson was not yet up to speed, fully. The Cover 2 had holes in it.

That was then. This is NOW:

- Cover 2 abandoned for man coverage: results in corners being less confused. Pass D is better.
- Tarvaris has massively improved. His completion % is now 75 %, and he has matured incredibly.
- Receivers are better. Rice is developing nicely.

I did post, after week 1, that the Vikings "inside-out" philosophy (develop the lines and the rest will follow) was working. So I think I was partly right.

Back in July, I wrote something like, "If I am wrong about Tarvaris, I will admit it".

Here it is, Purple Pride Nation: I WAS WRONG ABOUT TARVARIS.

And I am glad I had to write that too.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Very nice post my friend.
Just one question.

When did we give up on the cover 2?
I know I missed the game last week but up until then it was still a pretty dominant part of the scheme.

:

You missed some great articles while you were gone .

They didn't abandon the cover 2, but have went away from it in certain plays.

"singersp" wrote:

"Marrdro" wrote:

"StillPurple" wrote:

I will admit to being one of the Tarvaris "haters" early on. I admit I was wrong. Tarvaris didn't look like an NFL QB, particularly with a 45 % completion rate in a "west coast" offense. It looked bad. He panicked too much. Our receivers were too raw and inexperienced and didn't "help out" at all (i.e. block downfield and help the QB by cutting routes off, etc.). Peterson was not yet up to speed, fully. The Cover 2 had holes in it.

That was then. This is NOW:

- Cover 2 abandoned for man coverage: results in corners being less confused. Pass D is better.
- Tarvaris has massively improved. His completion % is now 75 %, and he has matured incredibly.
- Receivers are better. Rice is developing nicely.

I did post, after week 1, that the Vikings "inside-out" philosophy (develop the lines and the rest will follow) was working. So I think I was partly right.

Back in July, I wrote something like, "If I am wrong about Tarvaris, I will admit it".

Here it is, Purple Pride Nation: I WAS WRONG ABOUT TARVARIS.

And I am glad I had to write that too.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Very nice post my friend.
Just one question.

When did we give up on the cover 2?
I know I missed the game last week but up until then it was still a pretty dominant part of the scheme.

:

You missed some great articles while you were gone .

They didn't abandon the cover 2, but have went away from it in certain plays.

I am trying to get through all of them this weekend.
Some very interesting topics that I will have to read.

As to "Went Away" from it, didn't we have this discussion several times over the last 4 weeks? Its called opening the playbook.
;D