Offensive formations & film observations --Week 8

A forum for the hard core Minnesota Vikings fan. Discuss upcoming games, opponents, trades, draft or what ever is on the minds of Viking fans!

Moderator: Moderators

dead_poet
Commissioner
Posts: 24788
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
x 108

Offensive formations & film observations --Week 8

Post by dead_poet »

For the second straight week, the Vikings offense produced just one drive of 10-plus plays, while the Packers put up scoring drives of 14-, 15- and 17-plays that kept the ball in their hands.
Because of those lengthy Packers drives, Ponder held the ball for a combined eight plays in the first and third quarters. The Vikings made the most of their season-low 19:06 time of possession in garbage time
That TOP is entirely unacceptable.
Running back Adrian Peterson had 13 carries for 60 yards and now has just 36 carries for 150 yards across his last three games.
THAT is entirely unacceptable.
Personnel sets:

Shotgun 1 tight end / 3 receivers: 21 plays
1 tight end / 2 receivers / 1 fullback: 7 plays
1 tight end / 3 receivers: 7 plays
2 tight ends / 2 receivers: 4 plays
1 fullback / 3 receivers: 2 plays
1 tight end / 2 receivers / 2 running backs: 2 plays

Total: 43 plays
Noteworthy.

More crap: http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/Offe ... kers102913
“Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that.” --- Bill Shankly
User avatar
Texas Vike
Hall of Fame Inductee
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:52 am
x 405

Re: Offensive formations & film observations --Week 8

Post by Texas Vike »

dead_poet wrote: Noteworthy.
Very interesting. 3 WRs on 21 plays in shotgun and 7 plays not in shotgun; 28 of 43 plays? 65% of the plays. I wonder how many of those plays included CP84. Is Musgrave FINALLY realizing that Carlson is not worth having on the field? And that Patterson is a much bigger threat?

Our TOP is totally unacceptable.
dead_poet
Commissioner
Posts: 24788
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
x 108

Re: Offensive formations & film observations --Week 8

Post by dead_poet »

Texas Vike wrote: Very interesting. 3 WRs on 21 plays in shotgun and 7 plays not in shotgun; 28 of 43 plays? 65% of the plays. I wonder how many of those plays included CP84. Is Musgrave FINALLY realizing that Carlson is not worth having on the field? And that Patterson is a much bigger threat?
Pretty sure Patterson played on around 14-15 offensive plays in this one, one fewer than Webb.
“Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that.” --- Bill Shankly
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: Offensive formations & film observations --Week 8

Post by Mothman »

dead_poet wrote:Pretty sure Patterson played on around 14-15 offensive plays in this one, one fewer than Webb.
Who, as far as I'm concerned, shouldn't be taking a single snap that Patterson could be taking instead. :evil:
mondry
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8455
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 12:53 pm

Re: Offensive formations & film observations --Week 8

Post by mondry »

Texas Vike wrote: Very interesting. 3 WRs on 21 plays in shotgun and 7 plays not in shotgun; 28 of 43 plays? 65% of the plays. I wonder how many of those plays included CP84. Is Musgrave FINALLY realizing that Carlson is not worth having on the field? And that Patterson is a much bigger threat?

Our TOP is totally unacceptable.
Nice, that's what I've been wanting to see, but I guess having that many targets on the field is a waste when your QB can't get past his first read before he tucks it down to run. :(
User avatar
soflavike
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9601
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:38 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
x 24

Re: Offensive formations & film observations --Week 8

Post by soflavike »

mondry wrote:Nice, that's what I've been wanting to see, but I guess having that many targets on the field is a waste when your QB can't get past his first read before he tucks it down to run. :(
True... maybe they should play a single wideout with two TE's and two RB's on every play. Better blocking for the tuck and run. :lol:
*********
A die-hard Vikings fan in South Florida
mondry
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8455
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 12:53 pm

Re: Offensive formations & film observations --Week 8

Post by mondry »

soflavike wrote: True... maybe they should play a single wideout with two TE's and two RB's on every play. Better blocking for the tuck and run. :lol:
haha! Actually it'd be better to put 4 WR's on the field and just send them all on go routes deep, pull all those DB's down the field and then let Ponder take off.
S197
Fenrir
Posts: 12790
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:28 pm
Location: Hawaii
x 662

Re: Offensive formations & film observations --Week 8

Post by S197 »

Texas Vike wrote: Very interesting. 3 WRs on 21 plays in shotgun and 7 plays not in shotgun; 28 of 43 plays? 65% of the plays. I wonder how many of those plays included CP84. Is Musgrave FINALLY realizing that Carlson is not worth having on the field? And that Patterson is a much bigger threat?

Our TOP is totally unacceptable.
I think it's a little skewed due to being down so many points forcing passing situations. I'd venture to guess most of those shotgun formations were in garbage time. Also, 1 fullback and 3 receivers? I don't recall any plays where Felton was out there solo. I do recall seeing at least one play with Peterson and Gerhart.
im4mnvikes
Starter
Posts: 133
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 10:27 am

Re: Offensive formations & film observations --Week 8

Post by im4mnvikes »

Shotgun 1 tight end / 3 receivers: 21 plays
1 tight end / 2 receivers / 1 fullback: 7 plays
1 tight end / 3 receivers: 7 plays
2 tight ends / 2 receivers: 4 plays
1 fullback / 3 receivers: 2 plays
1 tight end / 2 receivers / 2 running backs: 2 plays

Total: 43 plays[/quote]


Noteworthy.

[/quote]

Very interesting. 3 WRs on 21 plays in shotgun and 7 plays not in shotgun; 28 of 43 plays? 65% of the plays. I wonder how many of those plays included CP84. Is Musgrave FINALLY realizing that Carlson is not worth having on the field? And that Patterson is a much bigger threat?

Our TOP is totally unacceptable.[/quote]

Nice, that's what I've been wanting to see, but I guess having that many targets on the field is a waste when your QB can't get past his first read before he tucks it down to run. :([/quote]


That is the only positive that I saw with Freeman, he is able to move in the pocket and throw the ball. To bad he can't hit water if he fel out of a boat

That is the only positive that I saw with Freeman, he is able to move in the pocket and throw the ball. To bad he can't hit water if he fell out of a boat
Orion
Pro Bowl Elite Player
Posts: 924
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 3:54 pm

Re: Offensive formations & film observations --Week 8

Post by Orion »

This year's vikings makes my BLOOD BOIL!! I've already had three fierce rows over what to do with this team. Every game I'm yelling at the screen.
When you're born, you get a ticket to the freak show. When you're born in America, you get a front row seat.
720pete
Pro Bowl Elite Player
Posts: 654
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 11:07 pm
x 7

Re: Offensive formations & film observations --Week 8

Post by 720pete »

Do you think Ponder is more comfortable working out of the shotgun?

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: Offensive formations & film observations --Week 8

Post by Mothman »

S197 wrote:I think it's a little skewed due to being down so many points forcing passing situations. I'd venture to guess most of those shotgun formations were in garbage time. Also, 1 fullback and 3 receivers? I don't recall any plays where Felton was out there solo. I do recall seeing at least one play with Peterson and Gerhart.

It might have been Ellison in the backfield instead of Felton...

... or it might be a mistake. :)
Last edited by Mothman on Wed Oct 30, 2013 6:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Funkytown
Hall of Fame Inductee
Posts: 4044
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 8:26 pm
Location: Northeast, Iowa
x 1
Contact:

Re: Offensive formations & film observations --Week 8

Post by Funkytown »

Mothman wrote:By the way, I thought your post earlier in this thread was great. It was just the kind of response I wanted to see when I started the thread. Thanks!
This thread?

Time to go back to night night. :) You're losing it.
Image
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: Offensive formations & film observations --Week 8

Post by Mothman »

MelanieMFunk wrote: This thread?

Time to go back to night night. :) You're losing it.
Just exhausted... I posted that 5 minutes after getting up and I worked 18 hours yesterday.

Actually, I guess that means i probably am losing it! :oops:

I should add that when I made that post, I had just been reading some new posts at the end of the "Fix the offense' thread so I'm not completely out of it, just mostly out of it. Going "back to night night" sounds good right now.
Last edited by Mothman on Wed Oct 30, 2013 6:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
PurpleMustReign
Starting Wide Receiver
Posts: 19150
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:48 pm
Location: Crystal, MN
x 114
Contact:

Re: Offensive formations & film observations --Week 8

Post by PurpleMustReign »

Mothman wrote: Just exhausted... I posted that 5 minutes after getting up and I worked 18 hours yesterday.

Actually, I guess that means i probably am losing it! :oops:
Don't sell yourself short Jim, you lost it years ago. :-D
The Devil whispered in the Viking's ear, "There's a storm coming." The Viking replied, "I am the storm." ‪#‎SKOL2018
Post Reply