The State of the Vikings

[mosscarter]

seems to be a tad bit of over reacting going on. i mean it is only zimmer's 5th week as an nfl coach cut him some slack. bridgewater in one week looked better than any qb we've had since favre. in one measly week he was able to do that, so he needs some time too. look at the offense when you have a competent qb playing it was night and day with ponder and bridgewater. i cannot believe what we've witnessed for 3 seasons with ponder. as far as guys giving up; who really knows except the coach and players inside that locker room? i called it, but that game was over before they kicked the ball of and it ended up exactly how i thought it would score wise--a beatdown. don't forget, there was a stretch there when the pack went 4 straight 3 and out's and yet we couldn't find a way to put a field goal on the board? that stifles moral level and that is what appeared to happen as far as i saw it. you can only take so many times of aaron rodgers smiling like a clown and jumping up and down like a kid after ever possession on the field.

[PurpleKoolaid]

People here had a lot of patience with Fraizer and #7, Zimmer, if a heart attack doesn't kill him first, should have this D ready by the end of the year. I think in 3 years, we will be closer to a SB, then we have been in ages.

Im unsure about Norv, strikes a little of Musgrave. Not getting the ball to CP is just bad work by the play calling. Im not real worried about the offense if Teddy doesn't get hurt. Its been a while since the Vikings have been known for their good D, I would like to see that again. A few 1st downs can make the D look a lot better.

[DK Sweets]

People here had a lot of patience with Fraizer and #7, Zimmer, if a heart attack doesn't kill him first, should have this D ready by the end of the year. I think in 3 years, we will be closer to a SB, then we have been in ages.

2009 isn't exactly AGES ago. Although, I do agree with the idea that we're going to be contenders soon.

[PurpleKoolaid]

2009 isn't exactly AGES ago. Although, I do agree with the idea that we're going to be contenders soon.

I don't count Childress or his selling out the team for an ex packer, as a success. I would say 90% of the people here hate Childress as much as I hate #7's being here. But yeah, if we can find another 2500 yard rusher, we should be ok.

[DK Sweets]

I don't count Childress or his selling out the team for an ex packer, as a success. I would say 90% of the people here hate Childress as much as I hate #7's being here. But yeah, if we can find another 2500 yard rusher, we should be ok.

I'm assuming by the "ex-Packer" comment that you didn't enjoy the 09 season, which is astonishing to me. Regardless, you can't come any closer to the Super Bowl than we did that year, which is what I was saying. You didn't mention anything about it being a success of a season.

[84BreaksAnkles]

Here's the players I feel we eventually or quickly need to separate ourselves from:
Robert Blanton- We saw Eddie Lacy ruin his world on thursday, he was literally scared to try to tackle him after he got Bucked on the first run.. Has always been a liability in coverage in my eyes, and hasn't shown me anything to be hopeful about

Captain Munnerlynn- We picked him up to be a solid cornerstone of our secondary, cover the slot, come up and make big plays in the run-game. He really hasn't been that guy... He is timid when a sweep comes his way and just has trouble getting off of blocks and making the play. He has gotten beat deep multiple times this year, and has busted a few coverages..

Brian Robison- Here's why. I like B Rob, but I don't think he gels with our team as far as chemistry is concerned. He also is a non-factor in the run-game. Has trouble setting the edge. And on thursday, I saw Eddie Lacy make a cutback and it Made B Rob look like an unathletic fish as he flopped onto the ground missing him, as Lacy stormed around the edge for a huge gain.

Christian Ponder- k?

Matt Kalil- It's pretty obvious. We need to address this and our secondary in our draft 1st and foremost. I would love to swipe Alabama's Safety, but realistically, If we can't snag a top-notch corner or safety early, I would like our first pick to address the Tackle position.

Charlie Johnson- because.

Everyone else, I feel fits, and can really develop into solid playmakers. Tell me who you think I'm missing, or if you think I'm wrong on any of these..

[fiestavike]

People here had a lot of patience with Fraizer and #7,

People here were patient with Frazier and Ponder?

Im unsure about Norv, strikes a little of Musgrave. Not getting the ball to CP is just bad work by the play calling. Im not real worried about the offense if Teddy doesn't get hurt. Its been a while since the Vikings have been known for their good D, I would like to see that again. A few 1st downs can make the D look a lot better.

The goal should be to get the ball to the open receiver, and the receivers should get open. Its nice to have bubble screens and sweeps etc but it can't be your whole offense. I think Norv Turner has a pretty darn good track record of making stars out of his best players so I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt and put the onus on Patterson to get better. Actually, given his track record, its a bit absurd to see some Vikings fans doubting Norv after 5 weeks.

[Mothman]

People here were patient with Frazier and Ponder?

The goal should be to get the ball to the open receiver, and the receivers should get open. Its nice to have bubble screens and sweeps etc but it can't be your whole offense. I think Norv Turner has a pretty darn good track record of making stars out of his best players so I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt and put the onus on Patterson to get better. Actually, given his track record, its a bit absurd to see some Vikings fans doubting Norv after 5 weeks.

His offense has generated 10 points or less in 3 games. It's inevitable that a little doubt will creep in.

There's no doubt Norv is a knowledgeable coach with a long track record of success as an NFL coordinator. In that sense, I think he knows what he's doing but I don't think that track record places him above criticism. You're right: the onus to improve is on Patterson but the onus to get production out of his most talented players is on Turner. I think we can agree that you can't base an entire offense around bubble screens and sweeps but nobody is suggesting anything so extreme. Some of us are just saying that if it takes a few more of those plays, or something similar, per game to get the ball into Patterson's hands, run them. If it takes some trickery and deception to help him be productive while he's still working on his skills as a route runner, they should be doing that. It's Norv's job to be resourceful and get as much as he can out of the players he has available to him. It's pretty hard to say he's getting all he can get out of Patterson so far, wouldn't you agree?

Jim

[Raptorman]

One of the main problems I see on offense is this. When they are run blocking they do ok, sometime fantastic. But for some reason they cannot give the QB more than 2.5 seconds to pass the ball. It gets annoying when you see other QB's standing in a pocket for 5-7 seconds before they have to get rid of the ball. This idea moves over to the defense as well. The D line has to get pressure on QB or they will pick you apart.

Now, as to the Packer game. Rodgers has to be one of the most accurate passers ever in the league. He is also throwing to the same WR's he had over the last 3-7 years. He knows Nelson and they connect on some passes that just shouldn't be possible. Over time, I am hoping that Bridgewater can do the same with the Vikings WR's.

[fiestavike]

His offense has generated 10 points or less in 3 games. It's inevitable that a little doubt will creep in.

There's no doubt Norv is a knowledgeable coach with a long track record of success as an NFL coordinator. In that sense, I think he knows what he's doing but I don't think that track record places him above criticism. You're right: the onus to improve is on Patterson but the onus to get production out of his most talented players is on Turner. I think we can agree that you can't base an entire offense around bubble screens and sweeps but nobody is suggesting anything so extreme. Some of us are just saying that if it takes a few more of those plays, or something similar, per game to get the ball into Patterson's hands, run them. If it takes some trickery and deception to help him be productive while he's still working on his skills as a route runner, they should be doing that. It's Norv's job to be resourceful and get as much as he can out of the players he has available to him. It's pretty hard to say he's getting all he can get out of Patterson so far, wouldn't you agree?

Jim

I would agree to some extent. But to me its a short term fix to just find more ways to get Patterson the ball. The offense needs to get into a rhythm and become competent at a lot more fundamentals and basics. Yes, we might score 7 more points in week 2 or get 40 more yards in week 3 or we might win 2 more games in 2014, but none of that really has anything to do with becoming an effective offense in the big picture. If Norv can get the guys to run the offense effectively I think we are talking about 7 more points every week, and 40 more yards every week, and who knows how many more wins in 2014, or 2015 for that matter. I just think its a fixation from many fans, writers and fantasy players on instant gratification from the offense rather than lasting solutions, which is what coaches should be working toward if we want a contender.

There's also no doubt that Patterson has effectively been used even when he doesn't touch the ball to manufacture several of our biggest plays this year. Watching the way teams react to his motion suggests to me that teams are waiting for the Vikings to find some other way to beat them and keying on Patterson. That's ok, so long as we are able to capitalize on that, because it doesn't matter whether Patterson or Asiata score to the coaching staff nor should it to us fans. Its a team effort, and Patterson had a big role in the success of those plays even though he was on the opposite side of the field and didn't touch the ball.

Long story short, what I'm trying to say is that the problem is only scoring 10 points or 7 points or 9 points. Trying to solve that by forcing the ball to Patterson is unlikely to create more than occasional success. We misidentify the problem if we think the problem is Patterson's number of touches instead of the number of points on the board.

[fiestavike]

One of the main problems I see on offense is this. When they are run blocking they do ok, sometime fantastic.

One of the main problems I have seen is an inability to maintain blocks. We've had a lot of plays where we get blockers out in front, we've got everyone accounted for, and the play ends up going for 4 when it could have gone for 20.

There are a lot of screen shots one could take from the games this year, and anyone would look at them and think, "this is going to be a big play" only to see one lineman whiff and block nobody, and two others lunge and "push" the defender instead of blocking him only to have his guy make the tackle on the play.

[Mothman]

I would agree to some extent. But to me its a short term fix to just find more ways to get Patterson the ball. The offense needs to get into a rhythm and become competent at a lot more fundamentals and basics. Yes, we might score 7 more points in week 2 or get 40 more yards in week 3 or we might win 2 more games in 2014, but none of that really has anything to do with becoming an effective offense in the big picture. If Norv can get the guys to run the offense effectively I think we are talking about 7 more points every week, and 40 more yards every week, and who knows how many more wins in 2014, or 2015 for that matter. I just think its a fixation from many fans, writers and fantasy players on instant gratification from the offense rather than lasting solutions, which is what coaches should be working toward if we want a contender.

I apologize but I'm unclear on why you you think getting the ball to Patterson more will somehow inhibit the long term development of the offense or prevent it from finding a rhythm. The idea is that getting him the ball more could help it do those things. The only instant gratification I'm looking for is improvement.

There's also no doubt that Patterson has effectively been used even when he doesn't touch the ball to manufacture several of our biggest plays this year. Watching the way teams react to his motion suggests to me that teams are waiting for the Vikings to find some other way to beat them and keying on Patterson. That's ok, so long as we are able to capitalize on that, because it doesn't matter whether Patterson or Asiata score to the coaching staff nor should it to us fans. Its a team effort, and Patterson had a big role in the success of those plays even though he was on the opposite side of the field and didn't touch the ball.

Long story short, what I'm trying to say is that the problem is only scoring 10 points or 7 points or 9 points. Trying to solve that by forcing the ball to Patterson is unlikely to create more than occasional success. We misidentify the problem if we think the problem is Patterson's number of touches instead of the number of points on the board.

I've already said the problem is the lack of point production so I agree about that but I'm not saying they should force the ball to Patterson. I'm simply saying they need to devise ways to get him more involved because one of the ways a team can solve scoring problems on offense is by getting the ball into the hands of their most talented playmakers. I don't understand the resistance to this idea of getting Patterson more involved. They don't need to build their entire scheme around him or force the ball to him 20 times a game but he's averaging a mere 3.8 touches. It doesn't seem unreasonable to suggest that getting it to him, say, 8 times a game might help the offense be more productive in both the short and long term.

[Mothman]

One of the main problems I have seen is an inability to maintain blocks. We've had a lot of plays where we get blockers out in front, we've got everyone accounted for, and the play ends up going for 4 when it could have gone for 20.

There are a lot of screen shots one could take from the games this year, and anyone would look at them and think, "this is going to be a big play" only to see one lineman whiff and block nobody, and two others lunge and "push" the defender instead of blocking him only to have his guy make the tackle on the play.

Well said and the same could be said for this line over the past several years.

[Leafman]

One of the main problems I have seen is an inability to maintain blocks. We've had a lot of plays where we get blockers out in front, we've got everyone accounted for, and the play ends up going for 4 when it could have gone for 20.

There are a lot of screen shots one could take from the games this year, and anyone would look at them and think, "this is going to be a big play" only to see one lineman whiff and block nobody, and two others lunge and "push" the defender instead of blocking him only to have his guy make the tackle on the play.

Sure, but this is the case with every team in the NFL, and it's a function of going up against athletic NFL defenders ... holes close up very quickly, especially on runs or sweeps to the edge. The Vikings are in the top third of NFL teams in rushing yards per attempt ... not bad considering the greatest running back in the history of the game hasn't been much of a part of that effort. So I'd say they are maintaining blocks better than most other teams in the league.

LEAFMAN THE PURPLE FAN

[Mothman]

Sure, but this is the case with every team in the NFL, and it's a function of going up against athletic NFL defenders ... holes close up very quickly, especially on runs or sweeps to the edge. The Vikings are in the top third of NFL teams in rushing yards per attempt ... not bad considering the greatest running back in the history of the game hasn't been much of a part of that effort. So I'd say they are maintaining blocks better than most other teams in the league.

I don't think we can draw that conclusion just by looking at the total yards per attempt stat alone. A few big runs have inflated it somewhat. Those runs occurred so everyone involved, including the o-line, deserves their share of credit for them but if we're talking about how well the line blocks on the majority of plays, the stats are less supportive. If you remove Patterson's 4 carries from the team total of 142, the yards per attempt average drops all the way from 4.6 to 3.9. Take McKinnon's 55 yard run out and it drops to 3.6. Again, I understand that those plays happened and the blocking on most of them (one of Patterson's runs was for a loss) was very good, but I don't think a 3.6 yards per attempt average on the vast majority of the running plays particularly speaks to effective, sustained blocking. YMMV.