Thread: Theory on Vikes Defensive Woes

Okay, tell me your thoughts, but here's what I have been thinking about regarding our defense in recent years. No matter who we have put on the field the last seven or eight years, our defense sucks. Whether we put guys that are quick, experienced, young, old, whatever, it hasn't made a difference. We typically don't see players living up to the expectations that we had, or that the coaches had for that matter.

Now my question is, do you guys think that our defensive schemes have always been designed to the liking of the defensive coordinators philosophy, as opposed to the individual strengths of each player? It doesn't seem like we often allow the players to do what they do best. For example, Antione Winfield was by far the best cover corner we had last year. He allows a number of catches because he stays behind his man and the endzone, but he never allows long plays (except for the bad call on the TO non-catch). But more often than not last year Winfield was, by design, giving receivers a 10 yard cushion at the line of scrimmage. Winfield was still great, but I think that's taking away a couple of his strengths, such as being physical and jamming receivers at the line, as well as being on the line of scrimmage for running plays, because we all know that he can tackle as consistently as anyone in the league.

This post is long and I'm sorry so I won't go on and on. But the point I am trying to portray is that I think the Vikes defensive coaches often come up with a defensive scheme that does not isolate players strengths and let them play the way they play best. For example, E.J., Raonoll, and DT all have great talents in certain areas of their games. I think on a different team under a different scheme, those could be hightlighted and they would be a solid group of linebackers. But with the Vikes, I don't think that side has a chance to come out. I love Ted Cottrell and think he's an incredible coach. I'm not bashing him, more so just trying to find a reason that our defense has been so poor for so long. Yes, we didn't have talented players, but it goes deeper than that. The Patriots could have taken our defense from last year and probaby made it a top 15. I don't think it's coaching as much as what schemes are used.

I don't think it's coaching as much as what schemes are used.[/quote]

???????????????

Anyways, the defense is all about the ineptitude of the players. Our LBs are always athletic and stupid (Duane Rudd) or somewhat smart and old and slow (Biekert). Safeties have consistantly sucked. A few years back, Robert Grifith was a hell of a tackler, but had no cover corners playing with him. Since him, nobody is worth a damn. We'll see what Cory C is made of now that he's surrounded by talent in the secondary. Corners aren't even worth getting into. D-Line is always adequate to bad. Bottom line, no coach can make a game plan for Denard Walker to be worth a crap. No coach is responsible Brian Russell missing tackles.

Whatever the scheme, the line needs to apply pressure, LBs need to tackle and cover, corners need to cover, and safeties need to at least appear in the play. Non of this has happened in the past no matter who the coordinator has been

You're right, and I do completely agree that it takes talent to have a good defense and coaches are not responsible for missed tackles or mental errors. I guess that I have just always felt that our players (not all of them, but some) have had distinct talents but weren't able to showcase them because they weren't utilized properly. But it is very true that each group (DL, LB's, and DB's) need to hold their own for a team to be successful defensively. But don't you ever watch a game and feel that certain players are not being used in the right ways? It would be nice to have solid LB's that can rush the QB, clog the whole, and cover TE's and RB's, but we don't have many, if any, 3 dimensional LB's, and while each does have a strength, I don't feel that they are able to play in a defensive that allows them to bring that out.

Now that we seem to have most pieces in place we'll see how the coaches use the corners. In the past, the corners have been bad but they have had no help. Now if the line can get some pressure and the safeties can help out, it would be sad to see our corners play with a cushion. In the past, I don't think the coaches have had any choice.

As far as the LBs, it starts up front with the line. If the line does what they are capable of, which we haven't really seen in the past, then we can say if the Lbs are being used correctly.

i also blame it on inexperience.

Good point Magicci. So I asusme you agree that there is no way to argue the scheme is to blame, unless we're talking about Fazzio, because the players have never been prepared to deliver no matter what the scheme.

I have all the faith in the world in Catrell now that we seem to have personel.

now your starting to sound more like coach cottrell: dont blame the cooridinater(sp) blame the players...lol

Don't forget Tice!

I do too have all the faith in Cotrell. Another big plus with him is that it's the first time we've had the same def. coorinator with the same scheme for two years in a row in a long time. It will make it much easier on the players.

I agree that alot of the problems we have had has been lack of talent. But once in awhile it would be nice to not see our corners ten to fifteen yards off the receiver. I mean look at the Patriots, they dont have what you would exactly call shut down corners(sans the Law) but 3/4 of the defensive plays I see them running they jam the receivers. Which in turn allows the rush a little more time to get to the QB, so it just seems like a bad idea to basically give your line like "A" second to apply pressure and even if they do, your corners are so far off they can just dump it off right away anyways. I guess I just dont see any kind of logic in this approach....

Does anyone else understand this?