Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14
  1. #11
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,271

    Re: 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.

    "If at first you don't succeed, parachuting is not for you"

  2. #12
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,935

    Re: Vikings too loose with TE's

    "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
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  3. #13
    V4L's Avatar
    V4L
    V4L is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    20,612

    Re: Vikings too loose with TE's

    "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

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,194

    Re: Vikings too loose with TE's

    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! =)

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Top 10 All-Time TE's
    By singersp in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-25-2008, 12:27 PM
  2. To LOOSE or not to LOOSE, that is the question.
    By Prophet in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 01-23-2008, 07:01 PM
  3. Rapist on the loose
    By cogitans in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-26-2006, 08:06 PM
  4. Wigs #11 out of 15 TE's: link
    By PAvikesfan in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-25-2005, 08:50 PM
  5. What do we have to loose?
    By Deleted_User_2360 in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 12-20-2003, 11:43 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
  •