http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/12/19/visanthe-shiancoe-when-vikings-fell-behind-some-guys-hung-it-up/
Hmmm...
Quote:
Shiancoe called that lack of hustle on the part of some of his teammates “very, very disappointing.” He did not name names, but he said he will address it with those players personally.
Isn't that traditionally the job of the coach and the FO?
I know you take it upon yourself to hack on our coach every chance you get, but do you honestly believe that players, no matter what team they're on, never call out their teammates when they give up in games? Team leaders tend to do that, whether it's a coach or player. You don't know if Frazier is talking to players or not, but don't say he isn't just because a player is stepping up too. Players on almost every team will step up like this. Taking it as an opportunity to hack on Frazier is dumb. We all know there are plenty of other things to hack on him for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Floyd
Hell, I hardly ever hack on Frazier. I am too busy hacking on Wilf and the rest of the FO. Don't let your feelings get hurt so easily, it is bad for your blood pressure.
It seems to be more of an indication of a rift between some players and coaches. That's no surprise on a bad team.
Nice to see the pros like Harvin, Peterson, Jared Allen, and the others that always give their best no matter what the record is.
Hard to see those that are probably giving their best but their best isn't very good, eg. defensive backfield.
BTW, the coaching staff isn't very good either. Frazier said this in the link the above article was taken from.
"(I'm) very, very happy that we have Adrian Peterson as our running back and that we can build our offense around Adrian. It's going to be good for our team. It's going to be good for our defense, our offense, our special teams, the fact that we have Adrian as our guy. And it should help our quarterback."
That's the same thing he said before this season started. He needs to start finding ways to make that work. It sure didn't work very well this year.
I wish Shank didn't talk so much. You would think he'd be keeping quiet with his 0 catch performance.
You wanna know why their quiting on the coaches? Read this.......
A Picture That You Need To See To Believe
A Picture That You Need To See To Believe - Daily Norseman
After your done reading it come back and tell you your happy with our O-coord.
Like I said in the post game thread, that was Musgrave's worst game of all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marrdro
I don't see anybody supporting Musgrave here at PP.O.
It's vastly oversimplified to view the 2-12 record as the coaches responsibility and be naive enough to absolve the players.
Despite your assertions to the contrary, this team is simply short on talent and that fact is magnified by poor coaching.
You've been around here long enough to know I love a good discussion and you've kindof opened the door so please don't get mad from my new approach.....Quote:
Originally Posted by smegmavike
Was the 2009 team talented? I think it was.
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.
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.
A couple of thoughts....
OL is what most people look at, with DB's being next.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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, someone was covering someone during all the progressions and someone wasn't getting to the QB.
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.
And if memory serves me correctly, I pointed out this is very much not true. Just because some of the same players are here does not mean we're just as talented. Most of them have either declined or got hurt, exceptions being Harvin and AP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marrdro
Hardly. Talented teams don't go 2-12, it's that simple. Regardless of who's calling the plays, talented teams find a way to win every now and then. We don't.Quote:
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.
Yes, different types of plays require different types of blocking. Nowhere did he say we run 4 schemes, you created that. He did say we have 4 different blocking types, for run, pass, PA and draw, and each one does have an entirely different technique to it. You can't block a lead from the I like you would a draw.Quote:
A couple of thoughts....
OL is what most people look at, with DB's being next.
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.
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.
No, he got old and hurt. Shockingly, that is what happens when you get older. How about you, is that back, knees and neck the same it was when you were 18? Same thing. And this guy plays professional sports.Quote:
Result, our best Olmen (Hutch) looks absolutely lost out there. Did the talent light just go off for Hutch?
That is possibly the most laughable thing yet. our OL talent is not nearly at the level the Steelers have. Steelers are solid at every position. Not sensational, but solid, even despite injuries, they are servicable. We saw yesterday they do struggle with the backups in, but every player starting on the Steelers OL is better than our equivalent. Every one. Heck, almost every player period with exception of RB, Allen and maybe WR (Harvin only)Quote:
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.
And time and time again, this is not exactly accurate. The goal of the C2 isn't to give up passes and limit YAC. That's one of the concepts of it, but if you can break it up or pick it, you absolutely strive for that. Look at some teams who run the cover 2 effectively ALL of them fare well in the turnover department.Quote:
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.
This whole quote is just hilarious imo. They are certainly not HOF'rs. (Hutch being the only possibility), but they are very much just like our DBs. Terrible.Quote:
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.
In 09, they weren't good. They looked better for one reason only. Favre. now, they're even worse.
Glad you finally poked back in here. The post count gets pretty slow without you posting preposterous takes to keep things interesting.Quote:
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.Quote:
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"Quote:
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.Quote:
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.Quote:
A couple of thoughts....
OL is what most people look at, with DB's being next.
Oh man, THIS is going to be good.......Quote:
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.Quote:
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.Quote:
Result, our best Olmen (Hutch) looks absolutely lost out there. Did the talent light just go off for Hutch?
Quote:
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.Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.Quote:
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.OQuote:
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.