Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 42
  1. #21
    BadlandsVikings's Avatar
    BadlandsVikings is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    26,569

    Re: Week 2 Vikings vs. Colts

    did we win on the replay?

  2. #22
    i_bleed_purple's Avatar
    i_bleed_purple is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Canadialand
    Posts
    16,777
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Week 2 Vikings vs. Colts

    "BadlandsViking" wrote:
    did we win on the replay?
    yes

  3. #23
    Garland Greene's Avatar
    Garland Greene is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    A, A
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: Week 2 Vikings vs. Colts

    It actualy ended in a Tie because TJack thought we played a second OT like in college.

  4. #24
    VikingsMB's Avatar
    VikingsMB is offline Pro-Bowler
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    361

    Re: Week 2 Vikings vs. Colts

    "i_bleed_purple" wrote:
    "BadlandsViking" wrote:
    did we win on the replay?
    yes
    At the end of the game did Chilly state, "We're only 2 games out of first place!"

  5. #25
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,266

    Re: Week 2 Vikings vs. Colts

    "V" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "V" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "V" wrote:
    [quote author=Tad7 link=topic=51004.msg922738#msg922738 date=1237173700]
    And Shiancoe's dropped TD on a good throw that would've made the Colts comeback much harder.
    See it's this mentality that pisses me off. Sure Shank had that drop, but we blew tons of other chances that game.
    - Longwell's missed FG
    - A complete stall after getting the ball at the 50.
    - 2-13 on 3rd downs, 12 of which were passing plays
    - Average starting position of our own 43 in the first quarter, which only yielded 6 points due to TJ's cold start.
    - We only got into the Indy redzone once and went 3 and out both times.

    We lost that game because of a lack of ability to throw the ball throughout the entire game, not one play.
    How about the one were the line blocked perfectly, TJ rolled out, had no one in his face, and there was no reciever there as a candidate?
    I put that one on the coaches. I don't think it was a bootleg pass. I think it was a designed run for TJ, but he couldn't beat the DB to the edge. It was a playcall that didn't work.
    I guess I could buy that.
    Problem for me is if it was a designed run, were were our WR's out there blocking?


    Lets not forget, our WRs are heralded for thier blocking abilities.
    When you and I were watching it, I think I was asking you were are the recievers as he was rolling out wasn't I?
    Having played WR in a run-heavy offense in high school, this one is easy. On run plays, we were instructed to mimick our pass play routes before blocking downfield. The only difference between our runnning and passing plays was who got the ball. Design-wise, and pre/post-snap backfield motion-wisem they look the same. That is the key to the Wing-T offense.

    Again, it was a misdirection play. Given that, I would think the WRs either:
    A. Ran Slants away from TJ to pull DBs with them.
    B. Ran Streaks to pull DBs with them.
    C. Ran downfield to block the safeties.
    D. Were lined up on the other side of the field to pull defensive personnel away from the point of attack.

    If you are suggesting a WR should have been blocking the CB who made the tackle, I disagree because the play was designed to leave that guy free and catch him biting on the play-fake. That CB did a great job of recovering and making the tackle.

    You are right, this is the play you were asking me about. Given our WRs strength in blocking, you again would have to put that on our coaches, who tried to use them as decoys rather than blockers.
    [/quote]

    What was the down & yards to go for a first?

    I have a hard time believing that the coaches called a designed QB run play, 2 games into the season after Jackson was injured in preseason after running the ball, not sliding & was out fortwo games. Not to mention that AD, not C-Tay was in there, so that brought 8 men into the box.

    If you're trying to sell a pass, rather than a run, one would think you'd have put C-Tay in there instead of AD.

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

  6. #26
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,916

    Re: Week 2 Vikings vs. Colts

    "V" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "V" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "V" wrote:
    [quote author=Marrdro link=topic=51004.msg922812#msg922812 date=1237213860]
    [quote author=V link=topic=51004.msg922792#msg922792 date=1237210556]
    [quote author=Tad7 link=topic=51004.msg922738#msg922738 date=1237173700]
    And Shiancoe's dropped TD on a good throw that would've made the Colts comeback much harder.
    See it's this mentality that pisses me off. Sure Shank had that drop, but we blew tons of other chances that game.
    - Longwell's missed FG
    - A complete stall after getting the ball at the 50.
    - 2-13 on 3rd downs, 12 of which were passing plays
    - Average starting position of our own 43 in the first quarter, which only yielded 6 points due to TJ's cold start.
    - We only got into the Indy redzone once and went 3 and out both times.

    We lost that game because of a lack of ability to throw the ball throughout the entire game, not one play.
    How about the one were the line blocked perfectly, TJ rolled out, had no one in his face, and there was no reciever there as a candidate?
    I put that one on the coaches. I don't think it was a bootleg pass. I think it was a designed run for TJ, but he couldn't beat the DB to the edge. It was a playcall that didn't work.
    I guess I could buy that.
    Problem for me is if it was a designed run, were were our WR's out there blocking?


    Lets not forget, our WRs are heralded for thier blocking abilities.
    When you and I were watching it, I think I was asking you were are the recievers as he was rolling out wasn't I?
    Having played WR in a run-heavy offense in high school, this one is easy. On run plays, we were instructed to mimick our pass play routes before blocking downfield. The only difference between our runnning and passing plays was who got the ball. Design-wise, and pre/post-snap backfield motion-wisem they look the same. That is the key to the Wing-T offense.

    Again, it was a misdirection play. Given that, I would think the WRs either:
    A. Ran Slants away from TJ to pull DBs with them.
    B. Ran Streaks to pull DBs with them.
    C. Ran downfield to block the safeties.
    D. Were lined up on the other side of the field to pull defensive personnel away from the point of attack.

    If you are suggesting a WR should have been blocking the CB who made the tackle, I disagree because the play was designed to leave that guy free and catch him biting on the play-fake. That CB did a great job of recovering and making the tackle.

    You are right, this is the play you were asking me about. Given our WRs strength in blocking, you again would have to put that on our coaches, who tried to use them as decoys rather than blockers.
    [/quote]
    All good points and probably what happened, however, if memory serves there were still 3 guys out there for 1 guy (TJ).
    Someone didn't fake someone out is my guess.
    [/quote]

    I am looking at the play right now:
    D&D: 3rd and 4
    Formation: Two TE with Wade split out to the right. AD is the lone back 8 yards deep in the backfield. Tahi is lined up as an H-Back on the left side before motioning accross to the right.

    Looking back, we lost on the motion. We hoped for man coverage on Tahi, which would have made the D shift to the right when he went into motion. They didn't budge. We now have a Two TE set with an H-Back and WR both lined up to the right. The Colts have 8, including the weakside DB (#23) in the box.

    Play: TJ fakes the run to AD before peeling off to the left. Again, no WRs on that side. Colts #23 bites on the run but recovers quickly. TJ tries to cutback inside of him and gets stopped by the strong side DE, who beat Shank off of the right side and came all the way around to finish the play.

    Like I said before, the goal of the play is to catch #23 inside and have TJ beat him to the edge. The DE never gets TJ if the DB doesn't force him back inside. No LBs were in the picture. They committed to the run-fake and Wade. #23 simply did a great job on that play.

    Recap
    Wade: Lined up wide right. Ran to his man's outside shoulder.
    Shank: Lined up at right TE. Got beat around the edge of the play's weak side. (A fine job as his goal is to not let his man inside of him. If the DE wants the outside rush take him that way.
    Tahi: Left H-Back then motions right. Runs straight ahead.
    AD: Single Back. Fakes Dive.
    Sauce: Lines up at left TE. He fakes the run block, blocking the down lineman.

    Two more things:
    Someone, maybe Wade, ran a deep post because the Safety was reluctant to come up for run support.
    It may have been up to Sauce to block #23. He seemed pretty committed to the run fake though.

    I think we just got beat on the playcall.
    [/quote]
    Thanks.

    Still, does it sound like a bad play call, a poorly executed call or both?
    Sounds like the call was right for the situation but at least 1 possibly 2 people didn't do thier job correctly.
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  7. #27
    V-Unit's Avatar
    V-Unit is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,317

    Re: Week 2 Vikings vs. Colts

    "singersp" wrote:
    "V" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "V" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    [quote author=V link=topic=51004.msg922792#msg922792 date=1237210556]
    [quote author=Tad7 link=topic=51004.msg922738#msg922738 date=1237173700]
    And Shiancoe's dropped TD on a good throw that would've made the Colts comeback much harder.
    See it's this mentality that pisses me off. Sure Shank had that drop, but we blew tons of other chances that game.
    - Longwell's missed FG
    - A complete stall after getting the ball at the 50.
    - 2-13 on 3rd downs, 12 of which were passing plays
    - Average starting position of our own 43 in the first quarter, which only yielded 6 points due to TJ's cold start.
    - We only got into the Indy redzone once and went 3 and out both times.

    We lost that game because of a lack of ability to throw the ball throughout the entire game, not one play.
    How about the one were the line blocked perfectly, TJ rolled out, had no one in his face, and there was no reciever there as a candidate?
    I put that one on the coaches. I don't think it was a bootleg pass. I think it was a designed run for TJ, but he couldn't beat the DB to the edge. It was a playcall that didn't work.
    I guess I could buy that.
    Problem for me is if it was a designed run, were were our WR's out there blocking?


    Lets not forget, our WRs are heralded for thier blocking abilities.
    When you and I were watching it, I think I was asking you were are the recievers as he was rolling out wasn't I?
    Having played WR in a run-heavy offense in high school, this one is easy. On run plays, we were instructed to mimick our pass play routes before blocking downfield. The only difference between our runnning and passing plays was who got the ball. Design-wise, and pre/post-snap backfield motion-wisem they look the same. That is the key to the Wing-T offense.

    Again, it was a misdirection play. Given that, I would think the WRs either:
    A. Ran Slants away from TJ to pull DBs with them.
    B. Ran Streaks to pull DBs with them.
    C. Ran downfield to block the safeties.
    D. Were lined up on the other side of the field to pull defensive personnel away from the point of attack.

    If you are suggesting a WR should have been blocking the CB who made the tackle, I disagree because the play was designed to leave that guy free and catch him biting on the play-fake. That CB did a great job of recovering and making the tackle.

    You are right, this is the play you were asking me about. Given our WRs strength in blocking, you again would have to put that on our coaches, who tried to use them as decoys rather than blockers.
    [/quote]

    What was the down & yards to go for a first?

    I have a hard time believing that the coaches called a designed QB run play, 2 games into the season after Jackson was injured in preseason after running the ball, not sliding & was out fortwo games. Not to mention that AD, not C-Tay was in there, so that brought 8 men into the box.

    If you're trying to sell a pass, rather than a run, one would think you'd have put C-Tay in there instead of AD.
    [/quote]

    It was 3rd and 4.

    I don't know what to tell you man. I'm just writing what I saw. I'm 90% sure it was a designed QB run.

    You would want 8 men in the box for a QB bootleg. The idea is to bring all the defenders to the center of the field, have them follow AD on the run fake, and use TJ's speed to get to the edge. It was selling the run to set up another run.
    "I hate when threads are destroyed by facts and logic."
    - Prophet


    Thanks Josdin!

  8. #28
    V-Unit's Avatar
    V-Unit is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,317

    Re: Week 2 Vikings vs. Colts

    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "V" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "V" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    [quote author=V link=topic=51004.msg922949#msg922949 date=1237225780]
    [quote author=Marrdro link=topic=51004.msg922812#msg922812 date=1237213860]
    [quote author=V link=topic=51004.msg922792#msg922792 date=1237210556]
    [quote author=Tad7 link=topic=51004.msg922738#msg922738 date=1237173700]
    And Shiancoe's dropped TD on a good throw that would've made the Colts comeback much harder.
    See it's this mentality that pisses me off. Sure Shank had that drop, but we blew tons of other chances that game.
    - Longwell's missed FG
    - A complete stall after getting the ball at the 50.
    - 2-13 on 3rd downs, 12 of which were passing plays
    - Average starting position of our own 43 in the first quarter, which only yielded 6 points due to TJ's cold start.
    - We only got into the Indy redzone once and went 3 and out both times.

    We lost that game because of a lack of ability to throw the ball throughout the entire game, not one play.
    How about the one were the line blocked perfectly, TJ rolled out, had no one in his face, and there was no reciever there as a candidate?
    I put that one on the coaches. I don't think it was a bootleg pass. I think it was a designed run for TJ, but he couldn't beat the DB to the edge. It was a playcall that didn't work.
    I guess I could buy that.
    Problem for me is if it was a designed run, were were our WR's out there blocking?


    Lets not forget, our WRs are heralded for thier blocking abilities.
    When you and I were watching it, I think I was asking you were are the recievers as he was rolling out wasn't I?
    Having played WR in a run-heavy offense in high school, this one is easy. On run plays, we were instructed to mimick our pass play routes before blocking downfield. The only difference between our runnning and passing plays was who got the ball. Design-wise, and pre/post-snap backfield motion-wisem they look the same. That is the key to the Wing-T offense.

    Again, it was a misdirection play. Given that, I would think the WRs either:
    A. Ran Slants away from TJ to pull DBs with them.
    B. Ran Streaks to pull DBs with them.
    C. Ran downfield to block the safeties.
    D. Were lined up on the other side of the field to pull defensive personnel away from the point of attack.

    If you are suggesting a WR should have been blocking the CB who made the tackle, I disagree because the play was designed to leave that guy free and catch him biting on the play-fake. That CB did a great job of recovering and making the tackle.

    You are right, this is the play you were asking me about. Given our WRs strength in blocking, you again would have to put that on our coaches, who tried to use them as decoys rather than blockers.
    [/quote]
    All good points and probably what happened, however, if memory serves there were still 3 guys out there for 1 guy (TJ).
    Someone didn't fake someone out is my guess.
    [/quote]

    I am looking at the play right now:
    D&D: 3rd and 4
    Formation: Two TE with Wade split out to the right. AD is the lone back 8 yards deep in the backfield. Tahi is lined up as an H-Back on the left side before motioning accross to the right.

    Looking back, we lost on the motion. We hoped for man coverage on Tahi, which would have made the D shift to the right when he went into motion. They didn't budge. We now have a Two TE set with an H-Back and WR both lined up to the right. The Colts have 8, including the weakside DB (#23) in the box.

    Play: TJ fakes the run to AD before peeling off to the left. Again, no WRs on that side. Colts #23 bites on the run but recovers quickly. TJ tries to cutback inside of him and gets stopped by the strong side DE, who beat Shank off of the right side and came all the way around to finish the play.

    Like I said before, the goal of the play is to catch #23 inside and have TJ beat him to the edge. The DE never gets TJ if the DB doesn't force him back inside. No LBs were in the picture. They committed to the run-fake and Wade. #23 simply did a great job on that play.

    Recap
    Wade: Lined up wide right. Ran to his man's outside shoulder.
    Shank: Lined up at right TE. Got beat around the edge of the play's weak side. (A fine job as his goal is to not let his man inside of him. If the DE wants the outside rush take him that way.
    Tahi: Left H-Back then motions right. Runs straight ahead.
    AD: Single Back. Fakes Dive.
    Sauce: Lines up at left TE. He fakes the run block, blocking the down lineman.

    Two more things:
    Someone, maybe Wade, ran a deep post because the Safety was reluctant to come up for run support.
    It may have been up to Sauce to block #23. He seemed pretty committed to the run fake though.

    I think we just got beat on the playcall.
    [/quote]
    Thanks.

    Still, does it sound like a bad play call, a poorly executed call or both?
    Sounds like the call was right for the situation but at least 1 possibly 2 people didn't do thier job correctly.
    [/quote]

    It doesn't sound like a bad playcall, but it was a playcall that didn't work. The players executed it well but as I said before the key is to catch the corner inside, but the corner did a phenomenal job in recovery. I don't think any Viking did thier job incorrectly...

    I wish you guys could just watch the play and be convinced, but my word should be good enough for ya'll anways.
    "I hate when threads are destroyed by facts and logic."
    - Prophet


    Thanks Josdin!

  9. #29
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,916

    Re: Week 2 Vikings vs. Colts

    "V" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "V" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "V" wrote:
    [quote author=Marrdro link=topic=51004.msg922964#msg922964 date=1237227281]
    [quote author=V link=topic=51004.msg922949#msg922949 date=1237225780]
    [quote author=Marrdro link=topic=51004.msg922812#msg922812 date=1237213860]
    [quote author=V link=topic=51004.msg922792#msg922792 date=1237210556]
    [quote author=Tad7 link=topic=51004.msg922738#msg922738 date=1237173700]
    And Shiancoe's dropped TD on a good throw that would've made the Colts comeback much harder.
    See it's this mentality that pisses me off. Sure Shank had that drop, but we blew tons of other chances that game.
    - Longwell's missed FG
    - A complete stall after getting the ball at the 50.
    - 2-13 on 3rd downs, 12 of which were passing plays
    - Average starting position of our own 43 in the first quarter, which only yielded 6 points due to TJ's cold start.
    - We only got into the Indy redzone once and went 3 and out both times.

    We lost that game because of a lack of ability to throw the ball throughout the entire game, not one play.
    How about the one were the line blocked perfectly, TJ rolled out, had no one in his face, and there was no reciever there as a candidate?
    I put that one on the coaches. I don't think it was a bootleg pass. I think it was a designed run for TJ, but he couldn't beat the DB to the edge. It was a playcall that didn't work.
    I guess I could buy that.
    Problem for me is if it was a designed run, were were our WR's out there blocking?


    Lets not forget, our WRs are heralded for thier blocking abilities.
    When you and I were watching it, I think I was asking you were are the recievers as he was rolling out wasn't I?
    Having played WR in a run-heavy offense in high school, this one is easy. On run plays, we were instructed to mimick our pass play routes before blocking downfield. The only difference between our runnning and passing plays was who got the ball. Design-wise, and pre/post-snap backfield motion-wisem they look the same. That is the key to the Wing-T offense.

    Again, it was a misdirection play. Given that, I would think the WRs either:
    A. Ran Slants away from TJ to pull DBs with them.
    B. Ran Streaks to pull DBs with them.
    C. Ran downfield to block the safeties.
    D. Were lined up on the other side of the field to pull defensive personnel away from the point of attack.

    If you are suggesting a WR should have been blocking the CB who made the tackle, I disagree because the play was designed to leave that guy free and catch him biting on the play-fake. That CB did a great job of recovering and making the tackle.

    You are right, this is the play you were asking me about. Given our WRs strength in blocking, you again would have to put that on our coaches, who tried to use them as decoys rather than blockers.
    [/quote]
    All good points and probably what happened, however, if memory serves there were still 3 guys out there for 1 guy (TJ).
    Someone didn't fake someone out is my guess.
    [/quote]

    I am looking at the play right now:
    D&D: 3rd and 4
    Formation: Two TE with Wade split out to the right. AD is the lone back 8 yards deep in the backfield. Tahi is lined up as an H-Back on the left side before motioning accross to the right.

    Looking back, we lost on the motion. We hoped for man coverage on Tahi, which would have made the D shift to the right when he went into motion. They didn't budge. We now have a Two TE set with an H-Back and WR both lined up to the right. The Colts have 8, including the weakside DB (#23) in the box.

    Play: TJ fakes the run to AD before peeling off to the left. Again, no WRs on that side. Colts #23 bites on the run but recovers quickly. TJ tries to cutback inside of him and gets stopped by the strong side DE, who beat Shank off of the right side and came all the way around to finish the play.

    Like I said before, the goal of the play is to catch #23 inside and have TJ beat him to the edge. The DE never gets TJ if the DB doesn't force him back inside. No LBs were in the picture. They committed to the run-fake and Wade. #23 simply did a great job on that play.

    Recap
    Wade: Lined up wide right. Ran to his man's outside shoulder.
    Shank: Lined up at right TE. Got beat around the edge of the play's weak side. (A fine job as his goal is to not let his man inside of him. If the DE wants the outside rush take him that way.
    Tahi: Left H-Back then motions right. Runs straight ahead.
    AD: Single Back. Fakes Dive.
    Sauce: Lines up at left TE. He fakes the run block, blocking the down lineman.

    Two more things:
    Someone, maybe Wade, ran a deep post because the Safety was reluctant to come up for run support.
    It may have been up to Sauce to block #23. He seemed pretty committed to the run fake though.

    I think we just got beat on the playcall.
    [/quote]
    Thanks.

    Still, does it sound like a bad play call, a poorly executed call or both?
    Sounds like the call was right for the situation but at least 1 possibly 2 people didn't do thier job correctly.
    [/quote]

    It doesn't sound like a bad playcall, but it was a playcall that didn't work. The players executed it well but as I said before the key is to catch the corner inside, but the corner did a phenomenal job in recovery. I don't think any Viking did thier job incorrectly...

    I wish you guys could just watch the play and be convinced, but my word should be good enough for ya'll anways.
    [/quote]
    LOL, I believe you my friend.
    Just trying to get to ground truth.
    ;D

    So your saying now that it was a great job by the defense not to bite on a well designed and well executed play?
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  10. #30
    V-Unit's Avatar
    V-Unit is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,317

    Re: Week 2 Vikings vs. Colts

    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "V" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "V" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    [quote author=V link=topic=51004.msg923123#msg923123 date=1237243333]
    [quote author=Marrdro link=topic=51004.msg922964#msg922964 date=1237227281]
    [quote author=V link=topic=51004.msg922949#msg922949 date=1237225780]
    [quote author=Marrdro link=topic=51004.msg922812#msg922812 date=1237213860]
    [quote author=V link=topic=51004.msg922792#msg922792 date=1237210556]
    [quote author=Tad7 link=topic=51004.msg922738#msg922738 date=1237173700]
    And Shiancoe's dropped TD on a good throw that would've made the Colts comeback much harder.
    See it's this mentality that pisses me off. Sure Shank had that drop, but we blew tons of other chances that game.
    - Longwell's missed FG
    - A complete stall after getting the ball at the 50.
    - 2-13 on 3rd downs, 12 of which were passing plays
    - Average starting position of our own 43 in the first quarter, which only yielded 6 points due to TJ's cold start.
    - We only got into the Indy redzone once and went 3 and out both times.

    We lost that game because of a lack of ability to throw the ball throughout the entire game, not one play.
    How about the one were the line blocked perfectly, TJ rolled out, had no one in his face, and there was no reciever there as a candidate?
    I put that one on the coaches. I don't think it was a bootleg pass. I think it was a designed run for TJ, but he couldn't beat the DB to the edge. It was a playcall that didn't work.
    I guess I could buy that.
    Problem for me is if it was a designed run, were were our WR's out there blocking?


    Lets not forget, our WRs are heralded for thier blocking abilities.
    When you and I were watching it, I think I was asking you were are the recievers as he was rolling out wasn't I?
    Having played WR in a run-heavy offense in high school, this one is easy. On run plays, we were instructed to mimick our pass play routes before blocking downfield. The only difference between our runnning and passing plays was who got the ball. Design-wise, and pre/post-snap backfield motion-wisem they look the same. That is the key to the Wing-T offense.

    Again, it was a misdirection play. Given that, I would think the WRs either:
    A. Ran Slants away from TJ to pull DBs with them.
    B. Ran Streaks to pull DBs with them.
    C. Ran downfield to block the safeties.
    D. Were lined up on the other side of the field to pull defensive personnel away from the point of attack.

    If you are suggesting a WR should have been blocking the CB who made the tackle, I disagree because the play was designed to leave that guy free and catch him biting on the play-fake. That CB did a great job of recovering and making the tackle.

    You are right, this is the play you were asking me about. Given our WRs strength in blocking, you again would have to put that on our coaches, who tried to use them as decoys rather than blockers.
    [/quote]
    All good points and probably what happened, however, if memory serves there were still 3 guys out there for 1 guy (TJ).
    Someone didn't fake someone out is my guess.
    [/quote]

    I am looking at the play right now:
    D&D: 3rd and 4
    Formation: Two TE with Wade split out to the right. AD is the lone back 8 yards deep in the backfield. Tahi is lined up as an H-Back on the left side before motioning accross to the right.

    Looking back, we lost on the motion. We hoped for man coverage on Tahi, which would have made the D shift to the right when he went into motion. They didn't budge. We now have a Two TE set with an H-Back and WR both lined up to the right. The Colts have 8, including the weakside DB (#23) in the box.

    Play: TJ fakes the run to AD before peeling off to the left. Again, no WRs on that side. Colts #23 bites on the run but recovers quickly. TJ tries to cutback inside of him and gets stopped by the strong side DE, who beat Shank off of the right side and came all the way around to finish the play.

    Like I said before, the goal of the play is to catch #23 inside and have TJ beat him to the edge. The DE never gets TJ if the DB doesn't force him back inside. No LBs were in the picture. They committed to the run-fake and Wade. #23 simply did a great job on that play.

    Recap
    Wade: Lined up wide right. Ran to his man's outside shoulder.
    Shank: Lined up at right TE. Got beat around the edge of the play's weak side. (A fine job as his goal is to not let his man inside of him. If the DE wants the outside rush take him that way.
    Tahi: Left H-Back then motions right. Runs straight ahead.
    AD: Single Back. Fakes Dive.
    Sauce: Lines up at left TE. He fakes the run block, blocking the down lineman.

    Two more things:
    Someone, maybe Wade, ran a deep post because the Safety was reluctant to come up for run support.
    It may have been up to Sauce to block #23. He seemed pretty committed to the run fake though.

    I think we just got beat on the playcall.
    [/quote]
    Thanks.

    Still, does it sound like a bad play call, a poorly executed call or both?
    Sounds like the call was right for the situation but at least 1 possibly 2 people didn't do thier job correctly.
    [/quote]

    It doesn't sound like a bad playcall, but it was a playcall that didn't work. The players executed it well but as I said before the key is to catch the corner inside, but the corner did a phenomenal job in recovery. I don't think any Viking did thier job incorrectly...

    I wish you guys could just watch the play and be convinced, but my word should be good enough for ya'll anways.
    [/quote]
    LOL, I believe you my friend.
    Just trying to get to ground truth.

    ;D

    So your saying now that it was a great job by the defense not to bite on a well designed and well executed play?
    [/quote]

    Given that I understand how the play was designed, I think it was executed properly. It was a great job by one defender, not the defense.

    The acutal design and timing of the playcall is questionable though. Why give your QB no options on a crucial 3rd down? Why not give the ball to AD if you are going to run it? Remember, this discussion started with you questioning how the WRs were being used. So another question is, why go to a two TE set on 3rd down when you have WRs who can block well? Why use your WR as a decoy and not as a blocker?

    Sauce and Shank both stayed in to block, meaning TJ had only Wade and Tahi as even remote options, which he bootlegged away from as the play called for.

    The play also probably works better against man coverage and they were in zone. Not sure how it would work against zone. That CB is going to sit there if he does his job correctly and doesn't bit on the run. He was able to play contain on a possible AD cutback before sprinting out to beat TJ to the edge. Maybe if you run Sauce out on an out pattern that would draw the CB back. He would then have to choose between covering the TE or pursuing the QB, and TJ would at least have a choice to pass or run based on what the CB did. That is danergous though, because if the LB covers Sauce instead of the CB, you then are bringing an extra man into the space where you want TJ to run, and the QB still has no options. So now you have to change your TE assignment based on how the D reacts to the Tahi motion. Ideally the QB would make the same read and no what to expect, or hell even audible out of the play.
    "I hate when threads are destroyed by facts and logic."
    - Prophet


    Thanks Josdin!

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Game of the Week - Vikings vs. Colts
    By hav0x in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-17-2008, 08:38 PM
  2. Vikings/Colts Connections
    By Webby in forum Gameday Previews
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-13-2008, 06:09 PM
  3. colts at vikings
    By scorptile in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 04-17-2008, 12:08 PM
  4. Colts | Team wins Week 10, sets NFL record
    By Prophet in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-15-2006, 08:52 PM
  5. Vikings v Colts Series
    By Webby in forum Gameday Previews
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-06-2004, 01:20 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
  •