Thread: Vikings: A groundbreaking performance

"singersp" wrote:

[size=13pt]Vikings: A groundbreaking performance[/size]

Running the football isn't always glamorous, but the Vikings' backfield duo of Adrian Peterson and Chester Taylor is driving toward some record-setting numbers.

By Kevin Seifert, Star Tribune

Last update: November 19, 2007 – 11:46 PM


Ho-hum. The Vikings had a lot of rushing yards Sunday. Big deal. Another 200-yard game.....

Just imagine what we would do with a real QB and an elite WR on the roster.
We really have to address those issues because a RB tandem like this comes along once in a lifetime.

"BleedinPandG" wrote:

"ejmat" wrote:

Let's not forget about the 270 yards passing.
Granted they weren't all from TJ but it's 270 yards none-the-less.
Unfortunately, I wasn't able to watch the game but TJ seemed to be pretty efficient at 17 for 22.
How did he play?

He played okay... accurate on his throws... moved around well... didn't really do much deep, made a few bad decisions, and occasionally help the ball a bit too long in the pocket... Was a solid game for a guy in his 9th game but still lots of room for improvement.

Our true passing games seems to be in the need of the trick plays to keep the D honest.
We don't have a true passing game yet so we have to rely on tricks.
However I want to label it, we do have an awesome line right now for running the ball with two above average RBs.

A top shelf running game is good but..................

The NFL rules are very slanted to favor a passing game. The best teams have the best passing attack. As a prior poster said, this can be overcome with a stifling defense. I just wish we had one.
Therefore, we have to outscore the opposition. Hard to do with only a running attack.

"Suick" wrote:

A top shelf running game is good but..................

The NFL rules are very slanted to favor a passing game. The best teams have the best passing attack. As a prior poster said, this can be overcome with a stifling defense. I just wish we had one.
Therefore, we have to outscore the opposition. Hard to do with only a running attack.

I wish we did to my friend, however, are we that far off?

Sure we give the underneath stuff at will it seems and teams chock up a bunch of yards on us, howevever,
we are pretty stingy in giving up points and huge chunks of yards (i.e ranked 17th in points allowed per game, tied for 9th in passing TD's per game, we are tied for 6th with only 3 plays of over 40 yards or more etc etc).
Lots of good stuff when you look at all the different stats that are tracked and if you really look close you will see that there isn't much in yardage that seperates us from the teams that are ahead of us in a few catagories.

If one of two things happen, a) Erasmus starts producing a consistent pass rush from the RDE position or we get a Vet/Stud DE in to do that, our D will be significantly better, however, again, is it that far off from being very good to great?

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorysta...P&d-447263-p=1

"Marrdro" wrote:

"Suick" wrote:

A top shelf running game is good but..................

The NFL rules are very slanted to favor a passing game. The best teams have the best passing attack. As a prior poster said, this can be overcome with a stifling defense. I just wish we had one.
Therefore, we have to outscore the opposition. Hard to do with only a running attack.

I wish we did to my friend, however, are we that far off?

Sure we give the underneath stuff at will it seems and teams chock up a bunch of yards on us, howevever,
we are pretty stingy in giving up points and huge chunks of yards (i.e ranked 17th in points allowed per game, tied for 9th in passing TD's per game, we are tied for 6th with only 3 plays of over 40 yards or more etc etc).
Lots of good stuff when you look at all the different stats that are tracked and if you really look close you will see that there isn't much in yardage that seperates us from the teams that are ahead of us in a few catagories.

If one of two things happen, a) Erasmus starts producing a consistent pass rush from the RDE position or we get a Vet/Stud DE in to do that, our D will be significantly better, however, again, is it that far off from being very good to great?

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorysta...P&d-447263-p=1

If we can consistently apply pressure the way we did against both the Chargers and Raiders, our D will come back strong.
If our offense stays on the field a bit longer it will help.
It's funny, the O helps the D, the D helps the O.
If the D can force 3 and outs, the O gets more reps, more rhythm, starts playing better.
If the O can sustain drives, the D is rested and more able to force 3 and outs.
In the Raiders game, Culpepper's numbers were really inflated by the 2 big plays, one of which should have been picked.
I think the D is coming together.
It all is going to center around a consistent pass rush (preferably without blitzing) and the O sustaining a few more drives per game.

"Marrdro" wrote:

"Suick" wrote:

A top shelf running game is good but..................

The NFL rules are very slanted to favor a passing game. The best teams have the best passing attack. As a prior poster said, this can be overcome with a stifling defense. I just wish we had one.
Therefore, we have to outscore the opposition. Hard to do with only a running attack.

I wish we did to my friend, however, are we that far off?

Sure we give the underneath stuff at will it seems and teams chock up a bunch of yards on us, howevever,
we are pretty stingy in giving up points and huge chunks of yards (i.e ranked 17th in points allowed per game, tied for 9th in passing TD's per game, we are tied for 6th with only 3 plays of over 40 yards or more etc etc).
Lots of good stuff when you look at all the different stats that are tracked and if you really look close you will see that there isn't much in yardage that seperates us from the teams that are ahead of us in a few catagories.

If one of two things happen, a) Erasmus starts producing a consistent pass rush from the RDE position or we get a Vet/Stud DE in to do that, our D will be significantly better, however, again, is it that far off from being very good to great?

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorysta...P&d-447263-p=1

Edwards earned his starting spot. Robison is earning a starting spot if Edwards can't. EJ was drafted high and never really did anything. He did go unblocked for a sack on sunday, but I could get a sack in the NFL if no one touched me on my way to the QB too.

"snowinapril" wrote:

"BleedinPandG" wrote:

"ejmat" wrote:

Let's not forget about the 270 yards passing.
Granted they weren't all from TJ but it's 270 yards none-the-less.
Unfortunately, I wasn't able to watch the game but TJ seemed to be pretty efficient at 17 for 22.
How did he play?

He played okay... accurate on his throws... moved around well... didn't really do much deep, made a few bad decisions, and occasionally help the ball a bit too long in the pocket... Was a solid game for a guy in his 9th game but still lots of room for improvement.

Our true passing games seems to be in the need of the trick plays to keep the D honest.
We don't have a true passing game yet so we have to rely on tricks.
However I want to label it, we do have an awesome line right now for running the ball with two above average RBs.

Very true SIA therefore I have to give props to the coaching staff

Vikings had a very good day on the ground, but lets not forget that alot of the passing yards are from Sidney Rice. I think that we need a good...WR. I know alot of you knock TJack but who does he have to throw to? Hopefully this year we will address the need of a veteran Wideout to help out our passing game. I don't want another Bobby Wade coming to the team...because admit it...he isn't good enought to crack the number 2 spot at wideout. Great game for the Vikes...but remember we did play the Raiders and havng 3 or 4 turnovers and still coming out with a win is very rare.
Hope the Vikes take done the ailing Giants next week.
Vikings 27, Giants 20

"ballhog27" wrote:

Vikings had a very good day on the ground, but lets not forget that alot of the passing yards are from Sidney Rice. I think that we need a good...WR. I know alot of you knock TJack but who does he have to throw to? Hopefully this year we will address the need of a veteran Wideout to help out our passing game. I don't want another Bobby Wade coming to the team...because admit it...he isn't good enought to crack the number 2 spot at wideout. Great game for the Vikes...but remember we did play the Raiders and havng 3 or 4 turnovers and still coming out with a win is very rare.
Hope the Vikes take done the ailing Giants next week.
Vikings 27, Giants 20

Ballhog,

I normally like your stuff, however, I have one comment.....

Does it really matter were the passing yards come from at this point?
What this offense needs is the ability to make the opposing Defenses honor/defend the pass with thier normal cadre of defenders and not allow them the luxury of loading up the box.

Additionally, I kindof like a gadget play or two (we have seen at least one every week) so as to keep the opposing D-coords on thier toes/wasting valuable practice time on making sure thier guys are prepped to defend them.

Again, yards are yard.
Does it really matter how we get them at this point.

(I lied - two comments)
I like your score prediction.
;D

"ballhog27" wrote:

Vikings had a very good day on the ground, but lets not forget that alot of the passing yards are from Sidney Rice. I think that we need a good...WR. I know alot of you knock TJack but who does he have to throw to? Hopefully this year we will address the need of a veteran Wideout to help out our passing game. I don't want another Bobby Wade coming to the team...because admit it...he isn't good enought to crack the number 2 spot at wideout. Great game for the Vikes...but remember we did play the Raiders and havng 3 or 4 turnovers and still coming out with a win is very rare.
Hope the Vikes take done the ailing Giants next week.
Vikings 27, Giants 20

See when our WR can THROW the ball for deep completions and our QB can't, I wouldn't immeditly start blaming the WR core for T-Jacks longballs.
T-Jack looked Mediocre on Sunday, which is an improvment for him, and who knows maybe after a couple losing seasons T-Jack will figure out what it takes to be an every game QB, but i'd rather find a vet than him.

As for whoever said the steelers win playoffs without a QB, which steelers team are you talking about.
Because I know you're not talking about the Big Ben steelers, or the Terry Bradshaw Steelers.
And to that point, superbowl teams without a good QB are the exeptions to the rule, not the norm.
Look at every team, every DYNASTY, there is a great QB under center.
So although you can hang your hat on the run you more likely than not need a QB to manage the offense.