Glad you finally poked back in here. The post count gets pretty slow without you posting preposterous takes to keep things interesting.
Originally Posted by Marrdro
Compared to what? It was a talented team compared to the rest of the league that year because many teams were in transition. It was not that talented compared to the rest of the league this year.
Was the 2009 team talented? I think it was.
Quick question- The Vikings beat the Packers twice that year if i remember correctly. Do you think the 2009 Vikings would have swept the 2011 Packers?
You also have to look at the rotational players and the depth of the squad from top to bottom and this team was built to peak in 1999 and then it was obvious then as it is in retrospect that there would be a decline in the years that followed. I tried like heck to get you to understand that point but you just rebutted that the roster was so deep that we were drafting for depth and that we couldn't even draft players and expect them to see the field because the team was so deep from bottom to top. Then you turned to the old " We are drafting players to fit the scheme and we will be competitive for years to come"
Having said that, I did a thread a few months back that broke down the players that are now gone from that 2009 team vs this team. If memory serves it was 8 starters. 8 starters sure isn't much of a turn around compared to how some teams jettison players.
That worked out well.
To say that this team is talented is certainly going to be good for the post count on PP.O because we can shoot holes in that all day long. Fortunately it has been slow around here so I welcome any theory you can come up with to support your statement.
I read someplace what the average was, for the life of me I can't remember it so I will go look, but to say that this team isn't talented is a bit out there.
With good reason.
A couple of thoughts....
OL is what most people look at, with DB's being next.
Oh man, THIS is going to be good.......
I say the both groups are good enough to win in the league but only if the coaching staff use them in the way that they were intended to be used.
Actually the problem is that we do not have players that compliment each other. We have a LT that should be a guard. We have a LG that has been battling age and injury and also trying to do to much to cover up for the inadequacies of the players to the left and right of him. We have a Center that is undersized for the position and although he has bulked up a bit, he is still too small to mesh well with Loadholt at RT. The RG Herrera has been battling injuries and has been largely problematic and then Loadholt on the outside is too big to finesses block, which would mesh better with Sully and Herrera but too slow to be an effective pass blocker against the speed rushing LB's and LDE's.
OL, for instance, is a group of rather big behomouths designed to Zone Block first, pass protect second, but only off of a play action fake. That is 2 basic blocking schemes. ZB run, Hat on Hat for pass protection. Right now our O-coord and O-line coaches say we run 4 variants of blocking schemes.
What they need is to get the line to physically compliment each other to a better degree and then get them working together in a cohesive way.
No, but it has been declining over the past few years. He can still probably do the job if we would get a better LT and if Sully improves more so that Hutch doesn't have to think about covering for him.
Result, our best Olmen (Hutch) looks absolutely lost out there. Did the talent light just go off for Hutch?
Nope, they are being used wrong. Case in point, a team that is close to us in OL talent and scheme is the Steelers. What did their coaching staff do last night with a backup Center in and a QB that couldn't get out of his own way? Max protect? Banish the thought....They spread the defense out with multiple WR's forcing the defense to take their LB'rs (biggest strenght) off the field in favor of DB's.
Put down the crack pipe.
There is nothing in the C2 that says they ALLOW a catch to be made in front of them. They do say they want to prevent plays from getting behind them but to say they willingly let them make completions in front of them without challenging them is absolutely incorrect.
Other group.....DB's......We run a C2 scheme. It is predicated on two things.....1. Don't give up the big play. Allow the catch to be made in front, force the team to move down the field slowing and 2. Force the QB to make bad decisions by getting pressure with your front 4.
Quick question- When was the last time a C2 team in the NFL went 9 games without an INT? And how many sacks did the DL have?
I tracked Brees a bit in the first quarter. He was making 2, 3, and 4 progressions in he reads, heck at one point the announcer pointed out that he went through his first, second, third and fourth read and started back winding up at his first read (7 progressions) on one play and wasn't touched.
Guess what, I tracked many games this year where the DL had great instant pressure but the WR was so unchallenged that the pass was completed before it was physically possible to get pressure on him. So I am not sure what a few plays at one part of a blowout game mean for anything other than the team sucks.
Well, whoever it was the Vikings should sign them because it certainly wasn't a member of our secondary.
Guess what, someone was covering someone during all the progressions and someone wasn't getting to the QB.
Well, if that doesn't get the post count up then they might just as well pull the plug on PP.O
Anyway, long story short, I believe our OL, although not a group of HOF'rs, just like our DB's, are good enough to win with especially if we had a little coaching going on. Fix a couple of positions in the offseason and we will be right back in the mix.