Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 81 to 85 of 85
  1. #81
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,899

    Re:Thin, thin, thin

    snowinapril wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    marstc09 wrote:
    Snow is right. We need playmakers in the secondary. Too bad we don't know how to use Sharper like when we first got him. That first year was nice. Didn't way have the cover 2 then?
    How can Sno be right based on Sharp as an example? Sharp did great when he was allowed to roam in a cloud/cover 3 type of environment. You don't run that unless you have shutdown CB's. In case you haven't noticed, Whinny or Griff aren't so much a critter of that ilk.

    As to Ted, I think the question has almost been answered, however, Ted ran a bastard version of the 3-4 when he first got here were he actually ran a some 4-3 in there as well. Remember K-wills comments on how he hated it?

    Long story short, its the scheme thats the issue, not the players.

    You want to have alot of INT's/Big Plays, shit can the scheme and bring in CB's and S's that play that scheme.
    To clarify... my original post that mars replied to I was making the point that we don't have a true play maker in the secondary. mars was saying that Sharper was a play maker. If Sharper is given the ability to do what he does best, he is a play maker. This opens up a whole new can of worms back at the scheme and blah blah blah we might have play makers, they just aren't used right...?

    I didn't mean in my original post that later round picks can't be quality additions to the team, we have proof they are. I just meant that we have gone for the play makers on offense mostly = instant contributors:

    1st and 2nd Round picks!
    Offense Defense
    Harvin (1st 09) Jared Allen (gave KC first rnd pick 08)
    Loadholt (2nd 09) Tyrell Johnson (2nd 08)
    AD (1st 07) Greenway (1st 06)
    Rice (2nd 07) Griffin (2nd 06)
    Cook (2nd 06)
    T.Jack (2nd 06)

    Griffin and Greenway have been our only instant contributors on defense. I think their are plenty of PPoers out there that think that Tyrell could easily be replaced and maybe shouldn't be out there, the book is still out on this one, but he isn't an instant stud if he does stick at his position, it will be coached into it.

    3rd Round and later contributors still with the team!
    Offense Defense
    Sullivan (6th 08) Asher Allen (3rd 09)
    Brinkley (5th 09)
    Sanford (7th 09)
    Guion (5th 08)
    Robison (4th 07)
    Edwards (4th 06)

    Guys gone by the wayside!
    Offense Defense
    Booty McCauley
    Allison Alexander
    Thigpen Chandler Williams
    Greg Blue

    Total draftees on each side of the ball (not including J.A.)!
    Offense Defense
    12 12

    From all of this, I think that we believe that D can be coached and offense has to be instant talent, hence the drafting of instant contributors that are talented locks, minus TJ and Cook that didn't pan out. The Jared Allen trade was the only way we could get an instant contributor at DL because of out 15th overall position.

    Instant contributors, we need one in the secondary.

    This thread started when Webby posted the quandary that was why do we have to rely on rookies which I think stemmed from injuries of veterans and starting young guys that aren't ready to be contributors. Right now, we are asking our 3rd round, 5th round, and 7th round picks from the last draft to play significant roles this weekend.
    I gotcha now. I was in the wrong worm can.

    From all of this, I think that we believe that D can be coached and offense has to be instant talent,
    I find that a very interesting comment.

    For me I always that that the defensive guys were more talented.

    My rationale is that typically a defensive player had to read and then react to what the offensive player did. Because the offensive player already knew where he was gonna go (make his cut/block to the off shoulder/execute a play action facke), he was always a fraction of a second ahead of the defensive guy.

    The way you just put it makes me kindof think I've been thinking ass basswards a bit.
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  2. #82
    marstc09's Avatar
    marstc09 is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    23,179

    Re:Thin, thin, thin

    Marrdro wrote:
    midgensa wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    midgensa wrote:
    This thread has gone way off topic ... and I am definitely not the one to bring it back around :cheer:

    First lets address all of the sudden talk about the Packers defense being so great and ours not.

    We are the No. 8 defense in the league ... the Packers are No. 1. I think to even discuss our defense as if it is poor is laughable. Do we have holes? Absolutely ... but so does the rest of the top 10 in the league or maybe they would be winning some fucking games.

    The top 10 defense include the Packers, Jets, Broncos, Bengals, Steelers, Giants, Eagles, Vikings, Redskins, Ravens ... no Colts, no Chargers, no Saints, no Cardinals. In fact ... an combined record 71-49 ... hardly setting the world on fire.

    While it is nice to have a great defense ... we should be pretty THRILLED with ours at No. 8 when the rest of the "contenders" are not in the top ten (depending on how you look at the Packers and Bengals at this point I guess).

    Our defense is FINE. Does it need to fix some exploits? Sure, and it will. Has safety play struggled at times ... sure, but for the most part it has been pretty good.

    It is simple ... we get pressure from Shock and A.W.W.E. and we dominate ... we don't and we get picked apart. They hit the QB and the safeties are able to do what THEY ARE ASKED and the corners are able to do what THEY ARE ASKED.

    Nobody every wants to point the finger at our defensive line, but it is clearly where this whole defense works or doesn't.

    Oh ... and I have a feeling Jasper will be fine ... just a gut feeling though.
    Again, another post that is spreadsheet promotion worthy.

    Thanks for pointing out how well our D has played for the most part this year.

    Quick question for ya......

    Who would you shitcan if you were tasked to get rid of the Cover 2, 4-3 to a more traditional 4-3, press coverage at the corners and complex blitz packages using your S's and LB'rs?
    That is a good question for sure. I really don't know because I don't know how they would fit in those schemes.

    I would think we would probably need to change a couple of spots for sure though.
    Alright, you finally let me down......

    Gave you props in my reply to Mars and you didn't come throught......

    Take a look at my reply to Midg.....He is on top of this stuff. I think you will be suprised with who will have to go. Remembering of course that the cover 2 is designed to compensate for lack of speed, mostly in the secondary but it does come into play at the LB and DL positions.
    JK my friend.

    I would get rid of the following:

    a. Whinny - Gonna get alot of heat here I believe but I just don't think he is a shutdown Corner. Started a thread last year about moving him to S. That wasn't well recieved but I bet he would be good back there.
    b. STJ - Maybe I wouldn't cut him but I would look for a better vet that fit the scheme and let him learn.
    c. Phat Pat - I know he is a good run stuffer, but he is slow. You need speed to play the scheme. I think Kennedy fits the scheme better.
    d. EJ and Leber - Love Ben and EJ but I think they are a bit to slow as well.

    That would be a start. I would have to look at our Backups, especially our LB'rs and get rid of the slow ones in there.
    I agree. Moving him to safety would be a good idea if we change to that scheme. I also agree with the rest of the guys.

  3. #83
    marstc09's Avatar
    marstc09 is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    23,179

    Re:Thin, thin, thin

    Marrdro wrote:
    Breaking down the schemes that make the teams
    Marrdro's comment follows:

    A bit dated, however, it does give some good gouge on schemes (Strenghts/Weakness) which kindof help with some of the GREAT discussions we've been having in this thread.
    Good article. Thanks. Here lies the problem.

    and the safeties need to cover effectively

  4. #84
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,899

    Re:Thin, thin, thin

    marstc09 wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    Breaking down the schemes that make the teams
    Marrdro's comment follows:

    A bit dated, however, it does give some good gouge on schemes (Strenghts/Weakness) which kindof help with some of the GREAT discussions we've been having in this thread.
    Good article. Thanks. Here lies the problem.

    and the safeties need to cover effectively
    Kindof gets back to what Midg and I were saying....

    When everyone in this scheme does thier job, out S's have done thiers and have been quite effective.

    Its when we start really heating up the pass rush with our LB'rs that they've (for the most part) gotten bit.

    Can they improve? Sure, everyone on our D can this year, but for the most part the D has been good enough to get us were we are at this year.
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  5. #85
    marstc09's Avatar
    marstc09 is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    23,179

    Re:Thin, thin, thin

    Marrdro wrote:
    marstc09 wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    Breaking down the schemes that make the teams
    Marrdro's comment follows:

    A bit dated, however, it does give some good gouge on schemes (Strenghts/Weakness) which kindof help with some of the GREAT discussions we've been having in this thread.
    Good article. Thanks. Here lies the problem.

    and the safeties need to cover effectively
    Kindof gets back to what Midg and I were saying....

    When everyone in this scheme does thier job, out S's have done thiers and have been quite effective.

    Its when we start really heating up the pass rush with our LB'rs that they've (for the most part) gotten bit.

    Can they improve? Sure, everyone on our D can this year, but for the most part the D has been good enough to get us were we are at this year.
    It shouldn't be that way. There is still a pass rush even though the sacks are not there. They are getting beat bad. They are not even close. At least they could be in the area. Plus it is more than just coverage. It is the missed tackles.

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 82
    Last Post: 11-21-2006, 05:03 PM
  2. Thin secondary, short memories
    By ultravikingfan in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-29-2006, 04:05 AM
  3. WR Thin
    By mackd10 in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 03-09-2006, 02:46 AM

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
  •