Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 31
  1. #21
    Zeus's Avatar
    Zeus is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Minnesota.
    Posts
    23,937

    Re: Vikings Front Office Studying Talent

    "Del" wrote:
    As valid as it is switching from a 3-4 to a 4-3 is not rocket science. We ourselves switched to a 3-4 sparingly at the end of the season. Most schemes have that capability. If you are a steadfast 3-4 team chances are your scheme has a 4-3 built in. It's an easy change to make a no brainer, and we made the change as well.

    What I am talking about is changing your entire scheme for personel reasons. Adjustments as you mentioned are common and not absent from this years Minnesota Vikings team.
    It seemed to me that when Tomlin ran the 3-4 this year, it was mainly so that Leber could set up as a rushing LB off the edge and cause havoc in the backfield.
    It was very situational in use.

    =Z=

    Thanks to Josdin for the awesome sig!

  2. #22
    Del Rio Guest

    Re: Vikings Front Office Studying Talent

    Also regarding the 49ers and their season this is in regards to the second to last game of the season.

    Question: Matt, You keep mentioning a weak pass rush because the DL are all DT's. Wrong. The 3-man line is not supposed to get sacks. The basic point about a 3-4 is that the offense doesn't know who the 4th pass rusher will be or where he'll come from. A 3-4 is designed to use run-stuffing linemen, which are relatively easy to find, and make stars out of the defensive skill positions. Remember that LT was an OLB in a 3-4, and so was Charles Haley when he was here. Porter and Merriman are, too.
    -- Rich, San Ramon

    Answer: I agree with you about the basic concepts of a 3-4 defense. [size=10pt]The problem is that the 49ers aren't running a 3-4 all the time. They began Sunday's game with four down linemen -- Melvin Oliver, Bryant Young, Anthony Adams and Marques Douglas.

    Oliver and Douglas are both stout guys who hold up nicely against the run, but they are not particularly adept at getting after the quarterback. In other words, they're built more like defensive tackles. It would seem to me that if you play half the game in a 4-3 defense (which the 49ers did Sunday) you would want traditional defensive ends that can rush the passer.
    [/size]-- Matt

    According to this article from a local newspaper, the 49ers were running half and half.

  3. #23
    Del Rio Guest

    Re: Vikings Front Office Studying Talent

    "Zeus" wrote:
    "Del" wrote:
    As valid as it is switching from a 3-4 to a 4-3 is not rocket science. We ourselves switched to a 3-4 sparingly at the end of the season. Most schemes have that capability. If you are a steadfast 3-4 team chances are your scheme has a 4-3 built in. It's an easy change to make a no brainer, and we made the change as well.

    What I am talking about is changing your entire scheme for personel reasons. Adjustments as you mentioned are common and not absent from this years Minnesota Vikings team.
    It seemed to me that when Tomlin ran the 3-4 this year, it was mainly so that Leber could set up as a rushing LB off the edge and cause havoc in the backfield.
    It was very situational in use.

    =Z=
    Of course it was situational. It was also used to help put more men in the gaping zone and try to stop the bleeding that was caused by our lack of pass defense.

    But it was used all season long in different situations because it is common, it is built in, it is easy to do. Not the same as changing your entire scheme to fit your players abilities.

    If Tomlin was concerned about matching his system to the players he had, then why was it we saw Napo Harris time and time again running 20 yards down the field behind a WR? It was painfully obvious he could not handle the assignment, but nothing changed. I imagine if anything does change it will be Napo himself and not the assignment.

  4. #24
    cogitans is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    6,403

    Re: Vikings Front Office Studying Talent

    "Del" wrote:
    "cogitans" wrote:
    "Del" wrote:
    "cogitans" wrote:
    "Del" wrote:
    It is a fallacy to think coaches change a scheme to fit a player. It would be insane to do and is not a practical request especially with the turn around rate of players and the free agency market.

    You can take one of the bets examples of this, Jim Mora Jr. in Atlanta dealing with Vick, he allowed him to play, but he was still trying to get him to be more of a passer all the way up until the end.

    Having Randy Moss and drawing plays just for Randy Moss is not neccissarily changing your Scheme.
    However that is true, and will be so in the long run when you get to mold your own roster, a good coach can still adjust his scheme somewhat from year to year I believe, to get the best out of his current roster.

    A good example is what Mike Nolan did this year in SF. Nolan is from Baltimore, and wants to run the 3-4 like they do. Still this year he switched it to a 4-3 scheme not long in to the season, and they actually started playing some pretty ok D. Still he'll probably get players in that fit, so he can go back to his prefered 3-4 later on.
    Yes I believe when you have a solid base, and a solid understanding of what you have you can make adjustments. Most teams experiment with the 3-4 and I imagine even the 49ers were running it off and on depending on the situation all the way until the end of the season.

    I do not feel Childress has a solid base here in Minny.
    I like the solid base theory. That's at least an explanation.

    Also I know that there are diference between offense and defense in this matter. Fact remains though that the switch to 4-3 in SF were permanent for this season.

    However I still think my point remains, that if your a good coach you can find a way to squak your system to your current player base. Even if you plan of changing in the roster for the future.
    As valid as it is switching from a 3-4 to a 4-3 is not rocket science. We ourselves switched to a 3-4 sparingly at the end of the season. Most schemes have that capability. If you are a steadfast 3-4 team chances are your scheme has a 4-3 built in. It's an easy change to make a no brainer, and we made the change as well.

    What I am talking about is changing your entire scheme for personel reasons. Adjustments as you mentioned are common and not absent from this years Minnesota Vikings team.
    I know that, and I said so. The D is not the same as an offense.

    The point I'm trying to make here is that I think the 'These players don't fit the scheme' comments are used a little loosly.

    Even if I believe that many of the offensive players will be changed out over the next couple of season, I'm still surprised that Childress - as the offensive genius he is - didn't find a way to mold his scheme just a little to better encompas the players skills.

    I'm not talking about changing the scheme altogether. But still it should be posible to find a way to send Wiggins in a drag route more often, or make more of those comeback routes to Travis Taylor that are usually effective, just to make a few examples.

    Thanks to PPE for the sig.

  5. #25
    Del Rio Guest

    Re: Vikings Front Office Studying Talent

    "cogitans" wrote:
    "Del" wrote:
    "cogitans" wrote:
    "Del" wrote:
    "cogitans" wrote:
    [quote author=Del Rio link=topic=30693.msg525158#msg525158 date=1169124353]
    It is a fallacy to think coaches change a scheme to fit a player. It would be insane to do and is not a practical request especially with the turn around rate of players and the free agency market.

    You can take one of the bets examples of this, Jim Mora Jr. in Atlanta dealing with Vick, he allowed him to play, but he was still trying to get him to be more of a passer all the way up until the end.

    Having Randy Moss and drawing plays just for Randy Moss is not neccissarily changing your Scheme.
    However that is true, and will be so in the long run when you get to mold your own roster, a good coach can still adjust his scheme somewhat from year to year I believe, to get the best out of his current roster.

    A good example is what Mike Nolan did this year in SF. Nolan is from Baltimore, and wants to run the 3-4 like they do. Still this year he switched it to a 4-3 scheme not long in to the season, and they actually started playing some pretty ok D. Still he'll probably get players in that fit, so he can go back to his prefered 3-4 later on.
    Yes I believe when you have a solid base, and a solid understanding of what you have you can make adjustments. Most teams experiment with the 3-4 and I imagine even the 49ers were running it off and on depending on the situation all the way until the end of the season.

    I do not feel Childress has a solid base here in Minny.
    I like the solid base theory. That's at least an explanation.

    Also I know that there are diference between offense and defense in this matter. Fact remains though that the switch to 4-3 in SF were permanent for this season.

    However I still think my point remains, that if your a good coach you can find a way to squak your system to your current player base. Even if you plan of changing in the roster for the future.
    As valid as it is switching from a 3-4 to a 4-3 is not rocket science. We ourselves switched to a 3-4 sparingly at the end of the season. Most schemes have that capability. If you are a steadfast 3-4 team chances are your scheme has a 4-3 built in. It's an easy change to make a no brainer, and we made the change as well.

    What I am talking about is changing your entire scheme for personel reasons. Adjustments as you mentioned are common and not absent from this years Minnesota Vikings team.
    I know that, and I said so. The D is not the same as an offense.

    The point I'm trying to make here is that I think the 'These players don't fit the scheme' comments are used a little loosly.

    Even if I believe that many of the offensive players will be changed out over the next couple of season, I'm still surprised that Childress - as the offensive genius he is - didn't find a way to mold his scheme just a little to better encompas the players skills.

    I'm not talking about changing the scheme altogether. But still it should be posible to find a way to send Wiggins in a drag route more often, or make more of those comeback routes to Travis Taylor that are usually effective, just to make a few examples.
    [/quote]


    This is where I am going with this. Childress takes over a team, he has watched film I am sure, but he really doesnt know who will adept well or not to fit his plays. He wants to introduce a scheme that is new to almost everyone on the team. He brings in some scrubs from his old team that are familiar with the system not to be all-stars but to help with the transition.

    Now, the season starts and all your players are learning at different levels and speeds. Are you going to change your scheme to fit a TE that was OK under a different scheme just to try and squeeze some production out of him when you know that in the end, in the future, you do not want to run those plays at all? Meaning do you want to change the scheme that everyone is in the process of learning to fit one guy who will not be around next year because he can't get the job done? Or do you want to stick with your scheme and hope that through coaching he can improve by the end of the season and help you justify keeping him on the roster?

    While I think there are things you can do to make improvements, 3-4 4-3 moving a lineman to the opposite side, changing the way plays are delivered, etc... I think making adjustments to your system while in flux (which I mean as while everyone is still learning) can and often does do more harm to your team as a whole then it does benifit them. I have no problem with Childress plowing through season 1 hard headed on his scheme, see who picks it up see who does not, and cut off the fat at the end of the season and start building and manipulating. IMO of course.

  6. #26
    Freya's Avatar
    Freya is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Atlantis
    Posts
    2,456

    Re: Vikings Front Office Studying Talent

    Schemes are only as good as the players and players are only as good as the scheme.

    Both must be flexible and adaptable.

    Ideology is only as good as it's ability to be executed.


    **takes cover**


    Personally, I don't think there is intelligent life on other planets. Why should other planets be any different from this one?

  7. #27
    cogitans is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    6,403

    Re: Vikings Front Office Studying Talent

    "Del" wrote:
    "cogitans" wrote:
    "Del" wrote:
    "cogitans" wrote:
    "Del" wrote:
    [quote author=cogitans link=topic=30693.msg525164#msg525164 date=1169125755]
    [quote author=Del Rio link=topic=30693.msg525158#msg525158 date=1169124353]
    It is a fallacy to think coaches change a scheme to fit a player. It would be insane to do and is not a practical request especially with the turn around rate of players and the free agency market.

    You can take one of the bets examples of this, Jim Mora Jr. in Atlanta dealing with Vick, he allowed him to play, but he was still trying to get him to be more of a passer all the way up until the end.

    Having Randy Moss and drawing plays just for Randy Moss is not neccissarily changing your Scheme.
    However that is true, and will be so in the long run when you get to mold your own roster, a good coach can still adjust his scheme somewhat from year to year I believe, to get the best out of his current roster.

    A good example is what Mike Nolan did this year in SF. Nolan is from Baltimore, and wants to run the 3-4 like they do. Still this year he switched it to a 4-3 scheme not long in to the season, and they actually started playing some pretty ok D. Still he'll probably get players in that fit, so he can go back to his prefered 3-4 later on.
    Yes I believe when you have a solid base, and a solid understanding of what you have you can make adjustments. Most teams experiment with the 3-4 and I imagine even the 49ers were running it off and on depending on the situation all the way until the end of the season.

    I do not feel Childress has a solid base here in Minny.
    I like the solid base theory. That's at least an explanation.

    Also I know that there are diference between offense and defense in this matter. Fact remains though that the switch to 4-3 in SF were permanent for this season.

    However I still think my point remains, that if your a good coach you can find a way to squak your system to your current player base. Even if you plan of changing in the roster for the future.
    As valid as it is switching from a 3-4 to a 4-3 is not rocket science. We ourselves switched to a 3-4 sparingly at the end of the season. Most schemes have that capability. If you are a steadfast 3-4 team chances are your scheme has a 4-3 built in. It's an easy change to make a no brainer, and we made the change as well.

    What I am talking about is changing your entire scheme for personel reasons. Adjustments as you mentioned are common and not absent from this years Minnesota Vikings team.
    I know that, and I said so. The D is not the same as an offense.

    The point I'm trying to make here is that I think the 'These players don't fit the scheme' comments are used a little loosly.

    Even if I believe that many of the offensive players will be changed out over the next couple of season, I'm still surprised that Childress - as the offensive genius he is - didn't find a way to mold his scheme just a little to better encompas the players skills.

    I'm not talking about changing the scheme altogether. But still it should be posible to find a way to send Wiggins in a drag route more often, or make more of those comeback routes to Travis Taylor that are usually effective, just to make a few examples.
    [/quote]


    This is where I am going with this. Childress takes over a team, he has watched film I am sure, but he really doesnt know who will adept well or not to fit his plays. He wants to introduce a scheme that is new to almost everyone on the team. He brings in some scrubs from his old team that are familiar with the system not to be all-stars but to help with the transition.

    Now, the season starts and all your players are learning at different levels and speeds. Are you going to change your scheme to fit a TE that was OK under a different scheme just to try and squeeze some production out of him when you know that in the end, in the future, you do not want to run those plays at all? Meaning do you want to change the scheme that everyone is in the process of learning to fit one guy who will not be around next year because he can't get the job done? Or do you want to stick with your scheme and hope that through coaching he can improve by the end of the season and help you justify keeping him on the roster?

    While I think there are things you can do to make improvements, 3-4 4-3 moving a lineman to the opposite side, changing the way plays are delivered, etc... I think making adjustments to your system while in flux (which I mean as while everyone is still learning) can and often does do more harm to your team as a whole then it does benifit them. I have no problem with Childress plowing through season 1 hard headed on his scheme, see who picks it up see who does not, and cut off the fat at the end of the season and start building and manipulating. IMO of course.
    [/quote]

    Yes that must have been exactly the thought proces of Childress. And I think the good thing about that is that we'll most definately see improvement next year.

    The adjustments that he did make on offense - aside from the QB question - were the downfield passes. To start with we didn't throw the deep ball that much, and we all complained, then we startet taking a few shots, and we saw why, the balls were droped, or the QB over or underthrew his man.

    One other thing that I liked were the way the run game cleaned up. Remember we were talking about us only being able to run left. Later in the year we got better running right, even if the left is still - of course - our best. Now we just need the line to start passblocking too.

    Thanks to PPE for the sig.

  8. #28
    cogitans is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    6,403

    Re: Vikings Front Office Studying Talent

    "Freya" wrote:
    Schemes are only as good as the players and players are only as good as the scheme.

    Both must be flexible and adaptable.

    Ideology is only as good as it's ability to be executed.


    **takes cover**
    Let me start to smash down your parades.
    ;D

    Nah, I think your right. It's pretty obvious that if one doesn't work the other will look terible too.

    Thanks to PPE for the sig.

  9. #29
    Del Rio Guest

    Re: Vikings Front Office Studying Talent

    "Freya" wrote:
    Schemes are only as good as the players and players are only as good as the scheme.

    Both must be flexible and adaptable.

    Ideology is only as good as it's ability to be executed.


    **takes cover**
    Not many jobs adapt to it's employees shortcomings unless forced. I do not view the NFL any differently. Coaches are not immune to it either he has to make great improvements or else he is gone.

    Especially high profile jobs that there are literally thousands of people who would fit the mold.


  10. #30
    Caine's Avatar
    Caine is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    5,135

    Re: Vikings Front Office Studying Talent

    Jumping in again...

    Ted Cottrell was billed as a "Defensive Genius" by more than one media hack.
    His "schemes" were considered brilliant by some.
    The trouble was, no one but Ted understood them.
    It wasn't until Mike Tice ripped up and threw away 1/3 of the Defensive Playbook that the "D" started showing up last season (And we hit the soft spot in our schedule).

    Ted suffered from an inability to react and respond to situations outside of his "scheme".
    Remember Fred Smoot being torched by Steve Smith?
    Teddy never sent help, he just left Fred on an island.
    I remember watching Smoot and you could see the frustration there, play after play.
    No matter what he did, Smith torched him.
    If anything, that game - more than any other single factor - broke Fred Smoot.
    He has NEVER been the same since.
    Ted Cottrell ruined a DB....all for the sake of his "scheme".

    It is things like that that I think of when I talk about tayloring a scheme to a player and vice-versa.
    This season, there was no way to effectively taylor our passing game to anyone...because our receivers sucked.
    We got to see what happens to a team taht is predicably one dimensional.
    We got to see what happens to a QB who is "left on an island".


    The trouble is, there was no way to alter the scheme to aleviate that pressure.
    We had NO ONE to throw to all season long.
    Sure, some guys had a good game here and there, or a nice play or two once in awhile, but no one made it clear taht they wanted to be here next season.

    So, instead, we got a real good look at our running game.
    Personally, I think Chester is good, but we need better.
    Not picking Maroney may haunt us in years to come.
    But, that's not my point.

    My point is that there is a point in the season where the coach has to determine if the guys he has can run his scheme.
    If yes, then go.
    If no, then alter your scheme.
    Not altering a scheme to fit the talent you have on the field is just plain stupid.
    For example, we could not have run the '97 Offensive scheme with the players we have now...the talent isn't there.
    We could not run a pass happy "Greatest Show On Turf" scheme...no one could catch.
    Instead, we could only run a "throw short and pray" offense.


    Hopefully, that isn't what he hopes to run from here on out.
    Short passing game.....fine.
    But not "We need 8, let's throw for 2 and cross our fingers".

    Caine

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Vikings front office: Four on the floor
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 01-25-2008, 11:06 AM
  2. CC: Vikings Front Office
    By MindFreak in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 01-11-2008, 04:04 PM
  3. With Vikings front office in flux, Wilf remains focused
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-14-2006, 08:56 PM
  4. Vikings looking at front office candidates
    By Prophet in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-29-2005, 09:35 AM
  5. Front office moves!!!
    By Vikes in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 11-24-2004, 10:27 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
  •