Vikings 1st Draft Pick Makes You Ponder

**Marrdro** · 05-04-2011, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1096210

Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1096198

Or he played behind a line similar to what we have had around here for too many years after he was drafted.

Don't say that, our line is fantastic. Anyone who speaks ill of our line will be stoned in the streets.

Don't exaggerate what I am saying. Our line is about middle of the pack, statistically, with respect to the way the rest of the league plays.

Middle of the pack, to me, doesn't equate to "Suck".

**Purple Floyd** · 05-04-2011, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1096220

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1096210

Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1096198

Or he played behind a line similar to what we have had around here for too many years after he was drafted.

Don't say that, our line is fantastic. Anyone who speaks ill of our line will be stoned in the streets.

Don't exaggerate what I am saying. Our line is about middle of the pack, statistically, with respect to the way the rest of the league plays.

Middle of the pack, to me, doesn't equate to "Suck".

I have never been satisfied with "Average"

**i_bleed_purple** · 05-04-2011, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1096221

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1096220

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1096210

Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1096198

Or he played behind a line similar to what we have had around here for too many years after he was drafted.

Don't say that, our line is fantastic. Anyone who speaks ill of our line will be stoned in the streets.

Don't exaggerate what I am saying. Our line is about middle of the pack, statistically, with respect to the way the rest of the league plays.

Middle of the pack, to me, doesn't equate to "Suck".

I have never been satisfied with "Average"

nor has your wife :laugh:

(sorry, that was too easy)

**Marrdro** · 05-04-2011, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1096221

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1096220

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1096210

Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1096198

Or he played behind a line similar to what we have had around here for too many years after he was drafted.

Don't say that, our line is fantastic. Anyone who speaks ill of our line will be stoned in the streets.

Don't exaggerate what I am saying. Our line is about middle of the pack, statistically, with respect to the way the rest of the league plays.

Middle of the pack, to me, doesn't equate to "Suck".

I have never been satisfied with "Average"

Neither have I.

My point is that they were average with 3/5th of them being backups. When the other 3 come back and start this year, they will probably be a bit better than average.

By the way, most on here are happy with respect to giving up rushing yards if it means we can improve in the sack area. Isn't that, in short, saying the same thing?

**i_bleed_purple** · 05-04-2011, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1096246

Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1096221

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1096220

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1096210

Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1096198

Or he played behind a line similar to what we have had around here for too many years after he was drafted.

Don't say that, our line is fantastic. Anyone who speaks ill of our line will be stoned in the streets.

Don't exaggerate what I am saying. Our line is about middle of the pack, statistically, with respect to the way the rest of the league plays.

Middle of the pack, to me, doesn't equate to "Suck".

I have never been satisfied with "Average"

Neither have I.

My point is that they were average with 3/5th of them being backups. When the other 3 come back and start this year, they will probably be a bit better than average.

By the way, most on here are happy with respect to giving up rushing yards if it means we can improve in the sack area. Isn't that, in short, saying the same thing?

Improving in the sack area means we improve in the passing area, which has been by far our biggest issue on defense.

Top-10 rush D is still good. If we give up a bit on the rush, and get within the top10 or 15 passing D, that's a huge improvement IMO.

So no, it's saying we're not happy with god-awful pass defense, we want better, even if it means taking a bit of a hit from our rush D.

Currently, we're showing up war with nothing but ground troops. Sure, you might run show on the ground, but you'll get bombed in the air.

this isn't the 70's anymore, to win you need to pass, and stop the pass.

**Marrdro** · 05-04-2011, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1096247

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1096246

Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1096221

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1096220

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1096210

Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1096198

Or he played behind a line similar to what we have had around here for too many years after he was drafted.

Don't say that, our line is fantastic. Anyone who speaks ill of our line will be stoned in the streets.

Don't exaggerate what I am saying. Our line is about middle of the pack, statistically, with respect to the way the rest of the league plays.

Middle of the pack, to me, doesn't equate to "Suck".

I have never been satisfied with "Average"

Neither have I.

My point is that they were average with 3/5th of them being backups. When the other 3 come back and start this year, they will probably be a bit better than average.

By the way, most on here are happy with respect to giving up rushing yards if it means we can improve in the sack area. Isn't that, in short, saying the same thing?

Improving in the sack area means we improve in the passing area, which has been by far our biggest issue on defense.

Top-10 rush D is still good. If we give up a bit on the rush, and get within the top10 or 15 passing D, that's a huge improvement IMO.

So no, it's saying we're not happy with god-awful pass defense, we want better, even if it means taking a bit of a hit from our rush D.

Currently, we're showing up war with nothing but ground troops. Sure, you might run show on the ground, but you'll get bombed in the air.

this isn't the 70's anymore, to win you need to pass, and stop the pass.

Were did I say god awful or anything close to that.

**i_bleed_purple** · 05-04-2011, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1096250

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1096247

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1096246

Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1096221

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1096220

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1096210

Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1096198

Or he played behind a line similar to what we have had around here for too many years after he was drafted.

Don't say that, our line is fantastic. Anyone who speaks ill of our line will be stoned in the streets.

Don't exaggerate what I am saying. Our line is about middle of the pack, statistically, with respect to the way the rest of the league plays.

Middle of the pack, to me, doesn't equate to "Suck".

I have never been satisfied with "Average"

Neither have I.

My point is that they were average with 3/5th of them being backups. When the other 3 come back and start this year, they will probably be a bit better than average.

By the way, most on here are happy with respect to giving up rushing yards if it means we can improve in the sack area. Isn't that, in short, saying the same thing?

Improving in the sack area means we improve in the passing area, which has been by far our biggest issue on defense.

Top-10 rush D is still good. If we give up a bit on the rush, and get within the top10 or 15 passing D, that's a huge improvement IMO.

So no, it's saying we're not happy with god-awful pass defense, we want better, even if it means taking a bit of a hit from our rush D.

Currently, we're showing up war with nothing but ground troops. Sure, you might run show on the ground, but you'll get bombed in the air.

this isn't the 70's anymore, to win you need to pass, and stop the pass.

Were did I say god awful or anything close to that.

You didn't, I did. our pass defense is bad. COnsistently our achillies heel. You want to beat us? Just pass the ball. We can make guys like Shaun Hill and Matt Leinart look like all-pros.

Only reason we didn't rate last in the league was because teams could get up early on us, and not have to pass anymore.

We did pretty well yardage wise, 10th best. we were 21st in the league for td's allowed, 21st in QB rating allowed, 21st in completion percentage, 18th in total points allowed, 26th in deflections, 20th in completions allowed.

That is bad. No matter how you slice it.

**Marrdro** · 05-04-2011, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1096255

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1096250

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1096247

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1096246

Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1096221

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1096220

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1096210

Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1096198

Or he played behind a line similar to what we have had around here for too many years after he was drafted.

Don't say that, our line is fantastic. Anyone who speaks ill of our line will be stoned in the streets.

Don't exaggerate what I am saying. Our line is about middle of the pack, statistically, with respect to the way the rest of the league plays.

Middle of the pack, to me, doesn't equate to "Suck".

I have never been satisfied with "Average"

Neither have I.

My point is that they were average with 3/5th of them being backups. When the other 3 come back and start this year, they will probably be a bit better than average.

By the way, most on here are happy with respect to giving up rushing yards if it means we can improve in the sack area. Isn't that, in short, saying the same thing?

Improving in the sack area means we improve in the passing area, which has been by far our biggest issue on defense.

Top-10 rush D is still good. If we give up a bit on the rush, and get within the top10 or 15 passing D, that's a huge improvement IMO.

So no, it's saying we're not happy with god-awful pass defense, we want better, even if it means taking a bit of a hit from our rush D.

Currently, we're showing up war with nothing but ground troops. Sure, you might run show on the ground, but you'll get bombed in the air.

this isn't the 70's anymore, to win you need to pass, and stop the pass.

Were did I say god awful or anything close to that.

You didn't, I did. our pass defense is bad. COnsistently our achillies heel. You want to beat us? Just pass the ball. We can make guys like Shaun Hill and Matt Leinart look like all-pros.

Only reason we didn't rate last in the league was because teams could get up early on us, and not have to pass anymore.

We did pretty well yardage wise, 10th best. we were 21st in the league for td's allowed, 21st in QB rating allowed, 21st in completion percentage, 18th in total points allowed, 26th in deflections, 20th in completions allowed.

That is bad. No matter how you slice it.

So your gonna blame the DB's, in a C2 scheme, solely for sucking in pass defense?

The scheme alone, based on the premise that DB's let the recievers catch the ball and then tackle discount the following:

Completion percentage.
Deflections.
Completion allowed.

Hard to get that any lower considering, your letting them catch the ball in the scheme.

**i_bleed_purple** · 05-04-2011, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1096262

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1096255

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1096250

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1096247

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1096246

Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1096221

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1096220

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1096210

Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1096198

Or he played behind a line similar to what we have had around here for too many years after he was drafted.

Don't say that, our line is fantastic. Anyone who speaks ill of our line will be stoned in the streets.

Don't exaggerate what I am saying. Our line is about middle of the pack, statistically, with respect to the way the rest of the league plays.

Middle of the pack, to me, doesn't equate to "Suck".

I have never been satisfied with "Average"

Neither have I.

My point is that they were average with 3/5th of them being backups. When the other 3 come back and start this year, they will probably be a bit better than average.

By the way, most on here are happy with respect to giving up rushing yards if it means we can improve in the sack area. Isn't that, in short, saying the same thing?

Improving in the sack area means we improve in the passing area, which has been by far our biggest issue on defense.

Top-10 rush D is still good. If we give up a bit on the rush, and get within the top10 or 15 passing D, that's a huge improvement IMO.

So no, it's saying we're not happy with god-awful pass defense, we want better, even if it means taking a bit of a hit from our rush D.

Currently, we're showing up war with nothing but ground troops. Sure, you might run show on the ground, but you'll get bombed in the air.

this isn't the 70's anymore, to win you need to pass, and stop the pass.

Were did I say god awful or anything close to that.

You didn't, I did. our pass defense is bad. COnsistently our achillies heel. You want to beat us? Just pass the ball. We can make guys like Shaun Hill and Matt Leinart look like all-pros.

Only reason we didn't rate last in the league was because teams could get up early on us, and not have to pass anymore.

We did pretty well yardage wise, 10th best. we were 21st in the league for td's allowed, 21st in QB rating allowed, 21st in completion percentage, 18th in total points allowed, 26th in deflections, 20th in completions allowed.

That is bad. No matter how you slice it.

So your gonna blame the DB's, in a C2 scheme, solely for sucking in pass defense?

My god, I never said a word about DB's here, I said pass defense. In fact, this stemmed from talking about DL, but go on putting words in my mouth.

The scheme alone, based on the premise that DB's let the recievers catch the ball and then tackle discount the following:

I like how yous till preach this as fact.

We seem to be the only team that says "It's ok, in the cover two, play off your man, let him catch the ball, try real hard to tackle him, oh wait, our safeties are scared to hit.

Here's a fun link. An outline on the COver-2 Dungy defense.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2941589/Cover-2-Dungy-Tampa-Bay-Defense-Install

Not sure where it's from, but it's pretty in depth.

Why don't you go to the defensive objective sections.

#1? TURNOVERS (hint, you don't get them from allowing the catch)

Through most of what I read (I"ll admit, I haven't read every word), there's not one mention of letting up a catch and making the tackle.

There is stuff about limiting 1st down gains, forcing third and long (you don't do that by 'allowing the catch'

THe key empasis seems to be disrupting patterns, and trying to take certain routes/positions out of the play, rushing the passer so he HAS to make a quick read and find his open guy. This hopefully forces a poor throw making a turnover.

I'll re-iterate. THe #1 Objective of the Tampa-2 is to force turnovers.

for some odd reason, that isn't happening here.

(but seriously, check out that link, it is quite excellent, not sure if it's actually from an NFL coach, or geared towards HS coaches or what.

**Purple Floyd** · 05-04-2011, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1096263

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1096262

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1096255

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1096250

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1096247

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1096246

Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1096221

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1096220

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1096210

Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1096198

Or he played behind a line similar to what we have had around here for too many years after he was drafted.

Don't say that, our line is fantastic. Anyone who speaks ill of our line will be stoned in the streets.

Don't exaggerate what I am saying. Our line is about middle of the pack, statistically, with respect to the way the rest of the league plays.

Middle of the pack, to me, doesn't equate to "Suck".

I have never been satisfied with "Average"

Neither have I.

My point is that they were average with 3/5th of them being backups. When the other 3 come back and start this year, they will probably be a bit better than average.

By the way, most on here are happy with respect to giving up rushing yards if it means we can improve in the sack area. Isn't that, in short, saying the same thing?

Improving in the sack area means we improve in the passing area, which has been by far our biggest issue on defense.

Top-10 rush D is still good. If we give up a bit on the rush, and get within the top10 or 15 passing D, that's a huge improvement IMO.

So no, it's saying we're not happy with god-awful pass defense, we want better, even if it means taking a bit of a hit from our rush D.

Currently, we're showing up war with nothing but ground troops. Sure, you might run show on the ground, but you'll get bombed in the air.

this isn't the 70's anymore, to win you need to pass, and stop the pass.

Were did I say god awful or anything close to that.

You didn't, I did. our pass defense is bad. COnsistently our achillies heel. You want to beat us? Just pass the ball. We can make guys like Shaun Hill and Matt Leinart look like all-pros.

Only reason we didn't rate last in the league was because teams could get up early on us, and not have to pass anymore.

We did pretty well yardage wise, 10th best. we were 21st in the league for td's allowed, 21st in QB rating allowed, 21st in completion percentage, 18th in total points allowed, 26th in deflections, 20th in completions allowed.

That is bad. No matter how you slice it.

So your gonna blame the DB's, in a C2 scheme, solely for sucking in pass defense?

My god, I never said a word about DB's here, I said pass defense. In fact, this stemmed from talking about DL, but go on putting words in my mouth.

The scheme alone, based on the premise that DB's let the recievers catch the ball and then tackle discount the following:

I like how yous till preach this as fact.

We seem to be the only team that says "It's ok, in the cover two, play off your man, let him catch the ball, try real hard to tackle him, oh wait, our safeties are scared to hit.

Here's a fun link. An outline on the COver-2 Dungy defense.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2941589/Cover-2-Dungy-Tampa-Bay-Defense-Install

Not sure where it's from, but it's pretty in depth.

Why don't you go to the defensive objective sections.

#1? TURNOVERS (hint, you don't get them from allowing the catch)

Through most of what I read (I"ll admit, I haven't read every word), there's not one mention of letting up a catch and making the tackle.

There is stuff about limiting 1st down gains, forcing third and long (you don't do that by 'allowing the catch'

THe key empasis seems to be disrupting patterns, and trying to take certain routes/positions out of the play, rushing the passer so he HAS to make a quick read and find his open guy. This hopefully forces a poor throw making a turnover.

I'll re-iterate. THe #1 Objective of the Tampa-2 is to force turnovers.

for some odd reason, that isn't happening here.

(but seriously, check out that link, it is quite excellent, not sure if it's actually from an NFL coach, or geared towards HS coaches or what.

So first you talk to me about muddying the water with facts and then you go out and do the same thing yourself.......