Is it Ponder or the O line

[Mothman]

But Jim, those stats are a direct result of the 10+ turnovers. If the Vikings don't commit these turnovers, there won't be 11 TDs scored by the opposition.

I think that passes the buck to the offense to an extent that isn't supported by the evidence. If turnovers automatically equalled TDs, the Vikes would have more of the latter. It's the defense's job to keep opposing teams out of the endzone, whether they get the ball 30 yards away or 90 yards away.

Lets look at the facts:

In week one, Detroit scored TDs on drives of 70, 50, 80, and 39 yards. They scored two FGs on drives of 65 and 25 yards. Two scoring drives started in Vikings territory, the 25 yard FG and the 39 yard TD.

The Lions had 14 points off turnovers, the 70 yard and 39 yard TDs. The first is entirely on the defense. They had 70 yards to defend. The second is on the defense too, although the Lions got the ball in borderline FG range so if we're generous, we can say that 3 of those 14 points were on the offense.

------------

In week 2, the Chicago offense scored TDs on drives of 32, 86 and 66 yards. They had 1 FG to cap a drive of 78 yards. The Bears offense scored no points off turnovers. Those TDs are all on the defense. Again, we can knock 3 points off the first one because the special teams put them in a bad position.

------------

In week 3, the Browns scored TDs on drives of 68, 82, 38 and 55 yards. They had one FG to cap a 60 yard drive. They scored 7 points off turnovers (the 38 yard TD drive). That TD came on the fake FG so it should be dropped.

------------

I don't see a TD above that supports the idea, "if the Vikings don't commit these turnovers, there won't be 11 TDs scored by the opposition". None of the TDs were scored off turnovers in the red zone. The 38 yard TD by the Browns just reinforces that a defense is capable of coming out and stopping the opposing offense from scoring a TD even when they start a drive in FG range. Unfortunately, on that particular drive, the special teams allowed a TD anyway.

I'm glad you brought up the fake FG/TD because that amends the totals indicated on NFL.com. The defense has actually allowed 8 passing TDs, not 9.

Admittedly, the offense and special teams have both put the defense in some tough spots thus far but not so many that they couldn't be overcome by playing better and not nearly as many as the defense is responsible for themselves.

Are you counting the TD given up after Ponders INT? What about the FG given up after the fake punt? Another 7 was due to Cooks injury. As far as giving up 7 in the final 37 minutes. That pass by Hoyer, that was a perfect pass. Even if Smith was a foot taller, or was in better position, I think Cameron still makes the catch. Like I said before, sometimes, as we've seen tonight in Denver, sometimes an offense just can't be stopped no matter what.

... and Cleveland has that offense? That final TD pass capped a 55 yard drive.

To answer your question, when I referred to the 17 points allowed before the final 7, I didn't include the fake FG but I did include the FG after the fake punt, which was probably unfair.

If the Vikings want to have any chance at all at salvaging this season, the first step is taking care of the ball. If they don't, it won't matter how much the defense improves or if AD comes back into 2012 form.

I agree with that!

[mansquatch]

Of course it does. So does actually allowing 11 TDs (9 through the air) and almost 430 yards per game. When you put the yards allowed per game with the points allowed by the defense, it becomes very clear that their problems can't be put on the offense. There's no denying that the performance of each unit impacts the others and there's absolutely no point in trying to absolve any of them of blame or even in shifting more blame on one than the other. All 3 have struggled mightily at times this year. They've all been highly effective at times too.

The defense gave up 7 points in the final 37 minutes yesterday but unfortunately, football games are 60 minutes long and they gave up 17 more points prior to that. they're tied for the league lead in INTs but they're also leading the league in passing TDs allowed.

The Vikings are 7th in the league in scoring too but they're still 0-3.

Jim, this exchange is where I'm at with the defense. How many of those 11TDs came off of offensive turnovers, that is probably the missing stat here. Regardless, you guys are both right. Defense is on pace to have a monster year in terms of takeaways, but it is also extremely porous and giving up way too much in the passhing game and the redzone. That being said, if the offense could get it's crap together and stop coughing up the ball we'd probably be at least 2-1 right now.

I'm starting to see my ire drift in the direction of the coaching staff. We have essentially the same squad as last year minus Winfield. How do we take this big of a step back?

As far as offense goes, I think if Ponder doesn't clean it up this week in London they should strongly consider benching him for Cassel. The scoring is great, but they are leaving way too many plays on teh field in the passing game. Way too many.

[maembe]

2. You're so quick to blame the defense for loses because we are leading at the end but don't consider the game before. If Ponder doesn't throw an immediate pick 6 and last say a.p fumbles instead which gives our defence a chance to make it a field goal. Also our offence had something like 4 turnovers and our defence almost makes up by getting us 3 turnovers back, if we didn't have 4 turnovers on offence we win, if we didn't have 3 turnovers on defence its a blow out for the browns....all signs point to offence.

We gave up 31 points to a team who traded it's only talented offensive player, started its third string QB, and had score 16 points up until this week. No, not 16 points per game, 16 points total. So they quadrupled their average point total without a running back and a third string QB. How can anyone possibly put this all on the offence?

[Mothman]

Jim, this exchange is where I'm at with the defense. How many of those 11TDs came off of offensive turnovers, that is probably the missing stat here.

I posted it above but you obviously hadn't seen it yet when you wrote this post. 3 TDs came off turnovers and one of them was allowed by the special teams on the fake FG, which I overlooked when just relaying on NFL.com's stats, so there have actually been 10 TDs allowed by the defense.

I'll confess: I've never understood the idea that a TD off a turnover is somehow excusable, although I get it a little more if the turnover occurs in or very near the red zone and I obviously understand variables like field position and momentum.

Regardless, you guys are both right. Defense is on pace to have a monster year in terms of takeaways, but it is also extremely porous and giving up way too much in the passhing game and the redzone. That being said, if the offense could get it's crap together and stop coughing up the ball we'd probably be at least 2-1 right now.

Yes, I think we can all agree the pace at which the offense has been turning it over is killing the team. I still think these are team losses in every sense of those words but without the turnovers, the Vikes would have a good chance of being 2-1 and if they were 2-1, the conversation would be very, very different. For example, I doubt we'd have many if any, calls for Frazier's head in that situation.

I'm starting to see my ire drift in the direction of the coaching staff. We have essentially the same squad as last year minus Winfield. How do we take this big of a step back?

My ire is drifting away from them, although I still think they're culpable. The problems I see are primarily performance-based. I think strategy and personnel use can be questioned but as we were just saying, if the team had taken better care of the ball in these first 3 games, they'd probably have a winning record.

Here's how they've taken this big step back: sloppy football. The missed blocks and tackles and the turnovers that plagued the team mid-season last year are back. Winfield's gone and Robinson's getting torched every week in the veteran's old spot. The special teams, which were solid last year, have hurt the team in every game, first with poor punting by a rookie, then by allowing Hester to torch them with a career-best performance, then by giving up huge plays on fakes by the Browns. I could go on and as I said, the coaches are culpable but they can't block, tackle and hang onto the ball for the players. The strategy and use of personnel could be better but I think they've also been good enough to win at least a couple of these games IF the players had just done their jobs.

As far as offense goes, I think if Ponder doesn't clean it up this week in London they should strongly consider benching him for Cassel. The scoring is great, but they are leaving way too many plays on the field in the passing game. Way too many.

Agreed. Ponder's starting job should be on the line this week in London.

[Crax]

I think that passes the buck to the offense to an extent that isn't supported by the evidence.

Which evidence exactly? The historical nfl stats say otherwise.
FACT: Turn the ball over 3+ times on the road and your chance to win the game is 2%. It pretty much just doesn't happen. I guess our offense gave the defense a 2% chance to win our first two games. That stat is also 3+. I'm sure it's even lower with 4 in one game.

Having a bad defense seemed to work fine for the Packers the other year when their defense was close to dead last against the pass but generated a lot of turnovers. Their offense wasn't turning the ball over like crazy though.

[The Breeze]

Here's a couple of stats:

In two games with leads and under 3 min to go the Vikes gave up TDs.
Each of those drive began with poor special teams play....big return by Hester and a 35yd punt by Locke

Our DEs have 1 sack between the 3 of them. And the entire defense has sacked the QB on 2.8% of 141 dropbacks, which is less than half the rate of last season.


They are giving up 4.4 yds per rush...and they've yet to face a solid rushing team. Meanwhile, AD is averaging just over two, if you factor out the 78 yder.

Both the Steelers and Giants are -9 in TOs. The Giants are free falling but the Steelers should be tough to beat.

[Mothman]

Which evidence exactly?

The evidence I posted about the actual drives and points off turnovers.

The historical nfl stats say otherwise.
FACT: Turn the ball over 3+ times on the road and your chance to win the game is 2%. It pretty much just doesn't happen. I guess our offense gave the defense a 2% chance to win our first two games. That stat is also 3+. I'm sure it's even lower with 4 in one game.

The Bears and Browns turned it over 3+ times when they played the Vikes too. the browns were on the road so the same percentages applied to them... and yet they overcame them.

Look, nobody here is claiming turnovers don't hurt. They're killers. The point here is that a turnover doesn't automatically equal a TD. It is not true that the Vikings current TDs allowed stats are "a direct result of the 10+ turnovers". In fact, it's demonstrably false and all you have to do is look at the actual games and drives to prove it. Most of the scores against them haven't even come off turnovers.

It's fair to point to turnovers as a reason, arguably even the primary reason, the Vikings lost the first 3 games but that still doesn't let the defense off the hook for their overall performance and why does anybody want to let them off the hook in the first place? These were clearly team losses.

[Crax]

The evidence I posted about the actual drives and points off turnovers.

That stuff above seemed more like your opinion about how the offense should maybe only be responsible for 3 points instead of 7 based on your feelings. Didn't seem like facts in either direction.

It's fair to point to turnovers as a reason, arguably even the primary reason, the Vikings lost the first 3 games but that still doesn't let the defense off the hook for their overall performance and why does anybody want to let them off the hook in the first place? These were clearly team losses.

Who is letting anyone off the hook? If I am choosing to blame the offense or defense in these losses as more(not all) responsible, I'm leaning towards the offense for turning the ball over constantly. If the offense stops turning the ball over 3-4 times a game and having special teams give up big returns and we can do all sorts of blaming on the defense for not stopping the opponents with terrible field position.

The Defense isn't great. I hate our secondary. I also hate our scheme, but that's been discussed to death already.

[Mothman]

That stuff above seemed more like your opinion about how the offense should maybe only be responsible for 3 points instead of 7 based on your feelings. Didn't seem like facts in either direction.

I posted info about the length and results of scoring drives against the Vikings and about how many points each opponent has actually scored off turnovers. That was all information about what happened in the games.

The comments about how many points each unit should be held responsible for were intended to address 808's point so yes, that part of it involved some personal opinion (and hopefully some logic too) but the rest was just data straight from the games. I don't understand how that could be interpreted as anything other than facts. Did you think I was just making the numbers up based on personal feelings?

Regarding the idea of letting the defense off the hook: thanks for the clarification. As I said, I'm just not interested in trying to apportion percentages of blames for these losses. As far as I'm concerned, they lost and pretty much everybody on the team has contributed to those losses so they call take the blame together.

[mansquatch]

See Jim, here is where we disagree. I look at the slop we saw mid-season last year and are seeing now and then I contrast it with the crisp and sharp football we saw early last season and especially late last season. We are obviously as a team capable of playing at the sharp level needed to win. What caused the regression? Obviously the difference between winning and losing in the NFL is very small, so for me, I look at MGMT. The reason being, at the end of the day, it is up to the coaches to mentally have these guys where they need to be to perform at an ultra-high level.

Consider Jim Schwartz. No one will argue that the Lion's undiscplined play is a direct result of his leadership. So to my point, why would Frasier and Co. be held harmless when our team, which has shown signs of brilliance, is mired by really pathetic mistakes and inconsistency?

I agree on the performance issues being player driven, the players are on the field, but I feel the drop off is firmly on the coaches. Even if they rally this team back to winning football and do it fast, it still begs the question of why were we down here in the sewer in the first place. Right now they are doing very little with a lot of talent.

[Crax]

The comments about how many points each unit should be held responsible for were intended to address 808's point so yes, that part of it involved some personal opinion (and hopefully some logic too) but the rest was just data straight from the games. I don't understand how that could be interpreted as anything other than facts. Did you think I was just making the numbers up based on personal feelings?

No, but you seemed to be going with the "turnovers only led to x amount of points" so they aren't too bad. The reason other teams haven't scored more off turnovers is the Defense does stop them at times. It's not fair to say that a turnover isn't costly if the defense does a great job to stop the opponents. You can't say a turnover only hurts if it leads to points. Having the momentum shift and throwing the defense right on the field after they just got off the field is never helpful.

[Mothman]

No, but you seemed to be going with the "turnovers only led to x amount of points" so they aren't too bad.

I wasn't trying to say they weren't too bad. My goal with that post was to illustrate that, contrary to what 808 suggested, most of the TDs allowed by the defense have not been a direct result of the turnovers. That's it. I wasn't trying to diminish the significance of turnovers or their relationship to the outcome of games.

The reason other teams haven't scored more off turnovers is the Defense does stop them at times. It's not fair to say that a turnover isn't costly if the defense does a great job to stop the opponents.

I agree but I didn't say that. I was simply trying to illustrate that the defensive stats aren't, as 808 claimed, "a direct result of the 10+ turnovers. If the Vikings don't commit these turnovers, there won't be 11 TDs scored by the opposition."

You can't say a turnover only hurts if it leads to points.

Again, I agree but I didn't say that either. You've clearly read much more into my comments than was ever intended. I'm not defending turnovers by the offense or trying to minimize their impact on the game. I'm simply saying turnovers are not the primary reason the defense has given up so many TDs and, in fact, opponents haven't scored that many points off turnovers against the Vikings. Overall, the defense has actually done a pretty good job of responding well when the offense has turned the ball over.

[Crax]

Again, I agree but I didn't say that either.

Hmm, seemed that way.

The Bears offense scored no points off turnovers. Those TDs are all on the defense.

Give the bears 3 less chances to score and maybe they wouldn't be? We've talked about "points directly off turnovers", what about scoring chances lost by the Vikings due to turnovers?

I'm simply saying turnovers are not the primary reason the defense has given up so many TDs

Primary reason is they aren't that good. Secondary reason is the offense and special teams are repeatedly hurting them with turnovers and bad field position

[smoothoperator]

1 received punts in the first 2 games, not sure how many against the browns but that is a pretty good indication of how poorly our defense is playing. i feel like the tampa 2 has a big role in our issues.

[Mothman]

See Jim, here is where we disagree. I look at the slop we saw mid-season last year and are seeing now and then I contrast it with the crisp and sharp football we saw early last season and especially late last season. We are obviously as a team capable of playing at the sharp level needed to win. What caused the regression? Obviously the difference between winning and losing in the NFL is very small, so for me, I look at MGMT. The reason being, at the end of the day, it is up to the coaches to mentally have these guys where they need to be to perform at an ultra-high level.

Consider Jim Schwartz. No one will argue that the Lion's undiscplined play is a direct result of his leadership. So to my point, why would Frasier and Co. be held harmless when our team, which has shown signs of brilliance, is mired by really pathetic mistakes and inconsistency?

I agree on the performance issues being player driven, the players are on the field, but I feel the drop off is firmly on the coaches.

I just don't see how it can be, especially when so many of the problems are clearly player mistakes and not new mistakes for those players. We've seen most or all of them from the same culprits in the past. As I said, the coaches are culpable too but I don't see anything that would suggest the 0-3 start is firmly on them. I really don't think it's firmly on anyone. It seems to me like we're all just angry and want to find a target for that anger but in every way, these seem like team losses to me. It looks like everyone needs to do a better job.