Why Kevin Stefanski Might Be the NFL's Next Great Offensive Coach

[J. Kapp 11]

Even though they struggled against WAS who was giving up 28ppg, and with Haskins at QB (who really has no business being on the field right now), the main thing is they won.

I'm not sure they struggled against Washington. They didn't hit a lot of big plays down the field and they didn't score TDs, but they quietly won the time of possession battle handidly by the end and piled up over 400 yards of total offense. Had they punch the ball into the endzone instead of settling for field goals, it would have been a proper blowout.

Yeah, the only reason we didn't score TDs was penalties, most of them on Pat Elflein. I don't remember how many penalties we had when deep in plus territory, but it was quite a few.

[Dames]

Here is execute carry out or put into effect (a plan, order, or course of action). Against the Bears we did execute. The plan was followed having a guy that's not a great blocker take on Mack. Execution wasn't the problem having the wrong player taking the course of action was the problem. I don't care if a team executes perfectly if the skill level is far below the opponents level it won't matter. That's were our OC swung and missed. You need to match guys up and if the skill level isn't there then they need help. Skill level is much more important than some buzzword like execute. I watched LT for many years and it wasn't execution or ever knowing the D call. He dominated based on superior skill level. You couldn't block him.

This is an example of execution to me. The LT should be able to block someone.

Mack only had 1.5 sacks 2 tackles and 1 QB hit in that game as well. One of those sacks resulted in a fumble, and that was big, but the majority of the time he wasn't the main reason we failed to do anything offensively in that game.

Maybe it's a bit of both. That said, I don't recall Mack being the issue that game, other than the strip sack (which is obviously not small). I recall a lot of missed opportunities in the passing game. Some due to pressure of course, some due to just bad execution. Maybe Mack was more of a problem than I remember, but the stats don't really show that.

[Dames]

I'm not sure they struggled against Washington. They didn't hit a lot of big plays down the field and they didn't score TDs, but they quietly won the time of possession battle handidly by the end and piled up over 400 yards of total offense. Had they punch the ball into the endzone instead of settling for field goals, it would have been a proper blowout.

Yeah, the only reason we didn't score TDs was penalties, most of them on Pat Elflein. I don't remember how many penalties we had when deep in plus territory, but it was quite a few.

Correct. They were bad in the red zone. Washington got some well timed pressure too.

[CharVike]

Here is execute carry out or put into effect (a plan, order, or course of action). Against the Bears we did execute. The plan was followed having a guy that's not a great blocker take on Mack. Execution wasn't the problem having the wrong player taking the course of action was the problem. I don't care if a team executes perfectly if the skill level is far below the opponents level it won't matter. That's were our OC swung and missed. You need to match guys up and if the skill level isn't there then they need help. Skill level is much more important than some buzzword like execute. I watched LT for many years and it wasn't execution or ever knowing the D call. He dominated based on superior skill level. You couldn't block him.

This is an example of execution to me. The LT should be able to block someone.

Mack only had 1.5 sacks 2 tackles and 1 QB hit in that game as well. One of those sacks resulted in a fumble, and that was big, but the majority of the time he wasn't the main reason we failed to do anything offensively in that game.

1.5 sacks isn't that bad. I'm sure plenty of guys would take that. I think Mack caused some of the issues. We only scored 6 points. We won't win many doing that.

[VikingLord]

IMO we did struggle. Diggs fumble in the beginning was a huge play for the Skins. That gave them some breath because we were moving the ball easily. If we do that BS against the Chiefs, a good team, the TO will hurt much more and then we will be behind. You can't turn it over.

Diggs has had some trouble holding on to the ball lately. He's got to get that fixed, but on the play where he fumbled, he picked up a lot of yards.

Turnovers haven't been a big problem in general for the offense, though. Penalties, on the other hand, have been more of a consistent problem, and that did hurt them against the Redskins.

I just think KC is a really poor run defense, much worse than the Redskins even if the overall stats don't necessarily support that. KC's defensive front can be pushed around, and their linebackers struggle in pursuit. To compensate, Reid brings more pressure and tries to get disruption at the point of attack, but if that fails, there is a lot of room for RBs to roam. You hit them with a steady diet of TE heavy formations and a regular rotation of fresh legs in Cook, Mattison, Abdullah/Boone and short of the refs getting involved, by the mid 3rd quarter you can probably do anything you want on offense (provided the defense has done their part and kept KC's offense at bay).

This game could end up being the highest rushing yardage game for the Vikings this season when all is said and done. If not, it should be close to it.

[CharVike]

Here is execute carry out or put into effect (a plan, order, or course of action). Against the Bears we did execute. The plan was followed having a guy that's not a great blocker take on Mack. Execution wasn't the problem having the wrong player taking the course of action was the problem. I don't care if a team executes perfectly if the skill level is far below the opponents level it won't matter. That's were our OC swung and missed. You need to match guys up and if the skill level isn't there then they need help. Skill level is much more important than some buzzword like execute. I watched LT for many years and it wasn't execution or ever knowing the D call. He dominated based on superior skill level. You couldn't block him.

This is an example of execution to me. The LT should be able to block someone.

Mack only had 1.5 sacks 2 tackles and 1 QB hit in that game as well. One of those sacks resulted in a fumble, and that was big, but the majority of the time he wasn't the main reason we failed to do anything offensively in that game.

1.5 sacks isn't that bad. I'm sure plenty of guys would take that. I think Mack caused some of the issues. We only scored 6 points. We won't win many doing that.

[J. Kapp 11]

Perhaps speculating Stefanski's future is a bit premature and would qualify as hype. But did you find anything wrong with the analysis of his playcalling?

I found the article to be extremely informative. It really helps me understand what has been making this offense click. I tend to think that it wouldn't have mattered who we were playing ... those play calls were going to work. Stefanski was in an absolute zone against Detroit, and he's been really good in the other games during this streak.

And let's dont forget his greatest strength.. He is a handsome guy!!
Sorry Kapp my brother I had to do it!! Those who don't join the game chat wont get it, but those of us who do will.
Just having fun with ya bro. That was funny that day!

Just saw this. Glad you brought this up because it's truly important.

Yeah, that's a huge factor. I mean, let's be honest ... Stefanski is definitely a handsome bastard.

I mean, compare him to the other geniuses. Better looking than Kyle Shanahan, for sure. McVay has his own appeal, I suppose, but I think he tries too hard with that hair. Kingsbury is supposed to be a ladies' man, but can we really call him a genius at this point? Stefanski has it all ... high offensive IQ coupled with an easy, natural handsomeness that has every one of you snaggletoothed mutts on this board going, "My wife might actually give me more than birthday sex if I looked like that."