Thread: Vikings too loose with TE's

"Marrdro" wrote:

"V" wrote:

"Marrdro" wrote:

"V" wrote:

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 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.....

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.

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.

You know I will always find something to be critical about with respect to our defensive play my friend.

;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.

Last time I checked, the safties zone is not 5-10 yards beyond the LOS. That is the LB's zone.


"Marrdro" wrote:

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.

Everytime? I certainly didn't see that Sunday night, did you?

I recall Sharper reading the QB perfectly, then make his move to run in front of the WR & get the pick.

"singersp" wrote:

"Marrdro" wrote:

"V" wrote:

"Marrdro" wrote:

"V" wrote:

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 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.....

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.

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.

You know I will always find something to be critical about with respect to our defensive play my friend.

;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.

Last time I checked, the safties zone is not 5-10 yards beyond the LOS. That is the LB's zone.


"Marrdro" wrote:

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.

Everytime? I certainly didn't see that Sunday night, did you?

I recall Sharper reading the QB perfectly, then make his move to run in front of the WR & get the pick.

What about the play when Hester scored?
Was he in position, or gambling that Hester was gonna go deep and burn Whinny?

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.

Re-read that real carefull.
You might want to change this......

Everytime? I certainly didn't see that Sunday night, did you?

Long story short, he got an INT because he stayed at home and played within the scheme and wasn't out "Freelancing" like some on here think he should be...... ;D

"Marrdro" wrote:

"singersp" wrote:

"Marrdro" wrote:

"V" wrote:

"Marrdro" wrote:

[quote author=V link=topic=49268.msg870621#msg870621 date=1227991855]
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 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.....

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.

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.

You know I will always find something to be critical about with respect to our defensive play my friend.

;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.

Last time I checked, the safties zone is not 5-10 yards beyond the LOS. That is the LB's zone.


"Marrdro" wrote:

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.

Everytime? I certainly didn't see that Sunday night, did you?

I recall Sharper reading the QB perfectly, then make his move to run in front of the WR & get the pick.

What about the play when Hester scored?
Was he in position, or gambling that Hester was gonna go deep and burn Whinny?

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.

Re-read that real carefull.
You might want to change this......

Everytime? I certainly didn't see that Sunday night, did you?

Long story short, he got an INT because he stayed at home and played within the scheme and wasn't out "Freelancing" like some on here think he should be...... ;D
[/quote]



Well he has 1 pick in 12 games

Back when he would freelance he would have 5 picks by this time

Just makes more sense then trying to keep him back there just to prevent the deep ball IMO

i believe we should let sharper do what he does best... go after picks.

and we did do a good job on the tight ends! =)