Printable View
[size=12pt]Too loose with tight ends[/size]
Vikings content to give up short pass, and that suits Bears' Olsen just fine
By Rick Alonzo
[email protected]
Updated: 11/29/2008 12:56:36 AM CST
The Vikings have given up some big plays and big numbers to tight ends this season.....
I just posted a similar article.
Yeah, I thing Olsen (and Clark) can be a big threath the next game.
So appraantly as a team, we are content with the bend but don't break philosophy. Maybe if our offense was more consistent I would be fine with that, but we usually don't score enough points to keep up with teams like that. The good ones anyways.
it is pretty tough to cover athletic tight ends like olsen when you also have to watch out for the rushing attack.
but we do need to do a better job on that. it seems like the tight ends do find a way to break our defence. expecually Clark from what i noticed.
We have rarely matched our safeties up with the offenses TEs. Maybe it is time to start doing that?
That would be especially true against a team like Chicago that uses their TEs a lot and has average WRs.
At the same time, doing that leaves us more susceptible to a deep threat.
We got eaten alive by Chicago's tight ends last game.
Hopefully Chilly will make some sort of adjustment...
oh wait...
"V" wrote:
I am not impressed with our LBs in coverage. I think we should give it a shot.Quote:
We have rarely matched our safeties up with the offenses TEs. Maybe it is time to start doing that?
That would be especially true against a team like Chicago that uses their TEs a lot and has average WRs.
At the same time, doing that leaves us more susceptible to a deep threat.
"V" wrote:
I have nightmares about TE's and our S's.......... Can't remember the last time one of them got over and helped the LB out with a guy who releases into the seam especially on a certain side of our D..... :oQuote:
We have rarely matched our safeties up with the offenses TEs. Maybe it is time to start doing that?
That would be especially true against a team like Chicago that uses their TEs a lot and has average WRs.
At the same time, doing that leaves us more susceptible to a deep threat.
"Marrdro" wrote:
I honestly think this is a strategy problem and not an execution one. If the offense sends two options into a S's zone, it seems that our Safeties have been instructed to guard against the deep threat and help out the DB instead of the LB.Quote:
"V" wrote:
I have nightmares about TE's and our S's.......... Can't remember the last time one of them got over and helped the LB out with a guy who releases into the seam especially on a certain side of our D..... :oQuote:
We have rarely matched our safeties up with the offenses TEs. Maybe it is time to start doing that?
That would be especially true against a team like Chicago that uses their TEs a lot and has average WRs.
At the same time, doing that leaves us more susceptible to a deep threat.
I think the only way to shutdown the TE would be to iso Winny on his man and let the safety man up against the TE with the LBs guarding the hook-to-curl zones. It works if Winny can handle man coverage.
The second we try this though, we might get burned deep, and you'll be complaining that our Safeties didn't help out our DBs well enough.
IF we can do what we did in the Houston game, shutting down Johnson at the expense of giving up yards to Daniels, I'm ok with that.
"V" wrote:
You know I will always find something to be critical about with respect to our defensive play my friend.Quote:
"Marrdro" wrote:
I honestly think this is a strategy problem and not an execution one. If the offense sends two options into a S's zone, it seems that our Safeties have been instructed to guard against the deep threat and help out the DB instead of the LB.Quote:
"V" wrote:
I have nightmares about TE's and our S's.......... Can't remember the last time one of them got over and helped the LB out with a guy who releases into the seam especially on a certain side of our D..... :oQuote:
We have rarely matched our safeties up with the offenses TEs. Maybe it is time to start doing that?
That would be especially true against a team like Chicago that uses their TEs a lot and has average WRs.
At the same time, doing that leaves us more susceptible to a deep threat.
I think the only way to shutdown the TE would be to iso Winny on his man and let the safety man up against the TE with the LBs guarding the hook-to-curl zones. It works if Winny can handle man coverage.
The second we try this though, we might get burned deep, and you'll be complaining that our Safeties didn't help out our DBs well enough.
IF we can do what we did in the Houston game, shutting down Johnson at the expense of giving up yards to Daniels, I'm ok with that.
;D
With that said, you might be correct in that it is a "Scheme dictated issue" related to how our D-coord wants to play, however, I think it is more along the lines of a issue with our S's ability to cover thier respective zones.
First, STJ in there on one side.
Probably not a talent issue but rather a inexperience issue.
Second, Sharp on the other side, IMHO, is a speed issue.
All kidding aside, he is gambling more and more because of a lost step or two.
That my friend will get you hung out to dry every time.
Again, not sure what I saw, but I believe I saw them run out Sapp in replace of Sharp one time last game and went with 3 LB'rs, 3 CB's and 1 Saftey.
If in fact I did see that, I give props to ole Leslie for trying something unique, at least for this team.