Play calling

[sneaxsneax]

Wow finally I can post, been lurking here for 5 years and every time I have tried to make an account to post until now the admin never approves the account.

Anyway play calling is not the issue as much as everyone thinks it is. Norv isn't calling for a 2 yard pass on 3rd and long. That is what Teddy is taking, because he is used to not having time, and our WR aren't getting open. And before anyone says anything about pocket presence and sensing pressure or getting the ball out, he is getting constant pressure from his BLIND SIDE. Which is on kalil, who is supposed to be a rock of our offense. Right now he is on the road to becoming an animated penguin in a movie about dancing.

This team is being built completely wrong (at least on offense), you don't build from the skill positions out, you build from your lines out. Our defense is starting to do it right, with dominant line play, everything looks better, the same thing is true for the offensive line. We keep putting good money after bad trying to win now on the back of AP. He is just a sunk cost at this point, we will never win the super bowl with him in purple even if he plays for another 2-3 years. We need to do a proper rebuild, and that starts with the offensive line.

Teams like the browns and rams are going to be good when they flesh out their skill position/qb because they consistently win the battle in the trenches on both sides of the ball. And it's the same reason why the packers don't automatically win the super bowl every year despite having probably the best QB in the league and some of the best wide receivers.


TLDR; no plays develop consistently with our offensive roster, no one is calling for a 2 yard pass on 3rd and 11.

[VikingPaul73]

Wow finally I can post, been lurking here for 5 years and every time I have tried to make an account to post until now the admin never approves the account.

Anyway play calling is not the issue as much as everyone thinks it is. Norv isn't calling for a 2 yard pass on 3rd and long. That is what Teddy is taking, because he is used to not having time, and our WR aren't getting open. And before anyone says anything about pocket presence and sensing pressure or getting the ball out, he is getting constant pressure from his BLIND SIDE. Which is on kalil, who is supposed to be a rock of our offense. Right now he is on the road to becoming an animated penguin in a movie about dancing.

This team is being built completely wrong (at least on offense), you don't build from the skill positions out, you build from your lines out. Our defense is starting to do it right, with dominant line play, everything looks better, the same thing is true for the offensive line. We keep putting good money after bad trying to win now on the back of AP. He is just a sunk cost at this point, we will never win the super bowl with him in purple even if he plays for another 2-3 years. We need to do a proper rebuild, and that starts with the offensive line.

Teams like the browns and rams are going to be good when they flesh out their skill position/qb because they consistently win the battle in the trenches on both sides of the ball. And it's the same reason why the packers don't automatically win the super bowl every year despite having probably the best QB in the league and some of the best wide receivers.


TLDR; no plays develop consistently with our offensive roster, no one is calling for a 2 yard pass on 3rd and 11.

I agree 100% on building the OLine first and this will make everyone look better. Hopefully that will start this offseason, the concern is getting the right guys because just throwing first round picks at OLine is no guarantee - need to look no further than Kalil

[Mothman]

I'm generally a firm supporter of Norv Turner, but today didn't seem like one of his better days.

Honestly, I got extremely tired of watching Chicago's offense. It was so boring ... felt like that was all we saw. Given the Bears' nearly 39 minutes of possession, I guess the stats bear it out. But I blame the offense much more than the defense. We had far too many possessions with 3-and-out or slightly better. Even though the defense gave up 468 yards, it was actually a great effort on their part that we actually had a chance to tie this game late. The offense was really bad.

The offense was really bad but I view it as a team loss and I was disappointed in the Vikes defense. All of those yards allowed and that big advantage in ToP for Chicago contributed to the Vikes lack of offensive production. They can't produce when they aren't on the field (not that they produced much when they were). The defense is to be commended for keeping the score close, coming up with a goal line stand and setting the offense up on a turnover that should have led to points. However, they tackled poorly, didn't get much pressure on Cutler, didn't do a good job of containing him in the pocket and didn't do a good job of getting off the field either. The Bears were 10/17 on third down, 2/3 on 4th down and they racked up 138 yards on the ground.

The 21 points allowed looks reasonable but I thought the Bears controlled that game, offensively and defensively.

If I had to pick which unit was worse for the Vikings, I'd pick the offense but I didn't think either unit played well.

[Mothman]

Very well said, Jim. After watching the game, I couldn't agree more. It's disheartening to see any kind of play-not-to-lose dynamic in effect. It's never worked for the Vikings before and it sure didn't work against the Bears.

The part I put in bold letters is also an interesting observation, partly because I'm wondering if some of the role players are even being allowed to play to their strengths (Patterson, for example). I mean, let the role player at least play his role.

I know what you mean and I don't think the role-players are being allowed to play to their strengths. Frankly, with the exception of the Atlanta game and a drive here or there, Turner's offense has been terrible. I understand that he's not working with all of the players he expected to have available and those he has are limiting his options a little but from what I've seen, his playcalling isn't doing them many favors. Then again, when he calls a play that looks like it's going to work great, the players don't always execute it so it's a two way street.

The whole offense looks dysfunctional to me and it's frustrating. The Vikes are currently ranked #30 in the league in on offense. The Browns finished 17th last year. The Chargers offense was 31st in the league the year before that. They were in the top 10 the prior 3 years.

I know Norv hasn't been working with elite offensive talent the past few years but the dropoff from top 10 offenses to mediocrity and much, much worse has to viewed as cause for concern.

[Mothman]

This team is being built completely wrong (at least on offense), you don't build from the skill positions out, you build from your lines out. Our defense is starting to do it right, with dominant line play, everything looks better, the same thing is true for the offensive line. We keep putting good money after bad trying to win now on the back of AP. He is just a sunk cost at this point, we will never win the super bowl with him in purple even if he plays for another 2-3 years. We need to do a proper rebuild, and that starts with the offensive line.

I think there's a difference between building wrong (philosophically) and just failing. It seems apparent that the Vikes thought they were building from the o-line outward. They drafted and developed Loadholt and Sullivan and signed both to extensions when the time came. They drafted and developed Fusco (now injured). They drafted Kalil, who looked like a great pick as a rookie and has struggled ever since. They've invested high picks and low in the o-line, tried to keep the unit together so it could develop as a unit and yet here we are, with a weak line. Is that due to a strategic/philosophical failure (ie: should they have invested even more high picks in the line or signed more free agent linemen)? Is it the result of poor scouting? Poor coaching? Bad luck with players who should be better than they are at this point?

I don't know. I think they had the right idea but still ended up with the wrong line, if that makes any sense.

[sneaxsneax]

I think there's a difference between building wrong (philosophically) and just failing. It seems apparent that the Vikes thought they were building from the o-line outward. They drafted and developed Loadholt and Sullivan and signed both to extensions when the time came. They drafted and developed Fusco (now injured). They drafted Kalil, who looked like a great pick as a rookie and has struggled ever since. They've invested high picks and low in the o-line, tried to keep the unit together so it could develop as a unit and yet here we are, with a weak line. Is that due to a strategic/philosophical failure (ie: should they have invested even more high picks in the line or signed more free agent linemen)? Is it the result of poor scouting? Poor coaching? Bad luck with players who should be better than they are at this point?

I don't know. I think they had the right idea but still ended up with the wrong line, if that makes any sense.

I agree in a sense, we have got the wrong guys and we did make some sort of effort (half assed in my mind). The problem is, we don't have it right, so we need to keep drafting o-line till we have a good one.

Most of this line is from an old guard. Loadholt is terrible in pass protection, Sullivan we already had and is serviceable-slightly above average. The big investment in loadholt indicates to me that this team doesn't get it.

How can you expect teddy (or anyone) to play well when both tackles are probably near the worst pass protectors in the league. This team will not do well until those 2 players are replaced, or turn it around. Long are the days when we cried about Charlie Johnson, at this point he might be our best line men (with fusco gone) and he sucks.

[losperros]

I agree in a sense, we have got the wrong guys and we did make some sort of effort (half assed in my mind). The problem is, we don't have it right, so we need to keep drafting o-line till we have a good one.

Most of this line is from an old guard. Loadholt is terrible in pass protection, Sullivan we already had and is serviceable-slightly above average. The big investment in loadholt indicates to me that this team doesn't get it.

How can you expect teddy (or anyone) to play well when both tackles are probably near the worst pass protectors in the league. This team will not do well until those 2 players are replaced, or turn it around. Long are the days when we cried about Charlie Johnson, at this point he might be our best line men (with fusco gone) and he sucks.

Is it possible that the team simply went overboard on trying to build around AD and be a power running force? From the time Culpepper ruined his career with an injury, the Vikings haven't had a strong passing game, aside from one year with Favre. Maybe this left the offense overly dependent on Adrian Peterson making super-human big plays every game.

I agree that building up around the LoS is a front burner issue on both sides of the ball. It's equally important to think of balance, too.

[Cliff]

The defense wasn't nearly perfect but was good enough to win in most circumstances. That offense would have sunk pretty much any other team as well.

[The Breeze]

I think there's a difference between building wrong (philosophically) and just failing. It seems apparent that the Vikes thought they were building from the o-line outward. They drafted and developed Loadholt and Sullivan and signed both to extensions when the time came. They drafted and developed Fusco (now injured). They drafted Kalil, who looked like a great pick as a rookie and has struggled ever since. They've invested high picks and low in the o-line, tried to keep the unit together so it could develop as a unit and yet here we are, with a weak line. Is that due to a strategic/philosophical failure (ie: should they have invested even more high picks in the line or signed more free agent linemen)? Is it the result of poor scouting? Poor coaching? Bad luck with players who should be better than they are at this point?

I don't know. I think they had the right idea but still ended up with the wrong line, if that makes any sense.

I agree that the effort was/is there in terms of building and the result to this point has been failure. This line is no better IMO, than the one TJack had.
A lot should be placed at the feet of the coaches.

The bears, for example, got destroyed along the o-line the past 2 games. The scheme of quick release screens to wrs and Forte was a great adjustment. The bears thoroughly controlled the game and a missed fg plus the strange boot leg call to Cutler made the game closer than it actually was.

I don't know if they are running the same blocking schemes as in years past, or if they've made any real adjustments since AD has been out....but they look over matched most of the time on pass protection....for years now. And in spite of that, they scored a lot of points last year.

I think there is a lot to be said for ADs presence in the offense in this regard and I think the left side of the line has talent issues while the whole unit could probably be better coached.

[Mothman]

Is it possible that the team simply went overboard on trying to build around AD and be a power running force?

It's possible, Craig, but I honestly don't think that's what has happened. Instead, I think they've tried to build a good passing game and failed. There are a lot of reasons for that failure but that's the bottom line.

[mansquatch]

Jim,

I wouldn't underestimate the impact that changing the blocking scheme had on our OL this season. We've been hearing for a few years now about the value of continuity in reference to keeping the same five guys together. It seems logical that part of that continuity was also the blocking scheme they were accustomed to executing. What impact did the scheme change have on our personnel?

Also, I've been wondering for awhile about CP84. I get that he is sucking as a WR right now. However, even poor old Musgrave was able to figure out ways to get that guy balls in space on the short stuff and let his athletic ability make plays. It seems like that method of using CP is completely gone from our game plan. Why is that?

Finally, why abandon McKinnon in the 2nd half?

I do not have answers, but I am starting to wonder if the results on offense would have really been that much better if Fusco and AP hadn't gone down early. Some of this stuff just begs some rather annoying questions about our roster on offense. Right now it seems like we need more talent on the OL and we are not much better at WR than we were four seasons ago. I'm not ready to say this is in fact the case, but given the performance so far this season it is becoming harder and harder to not starting looking at Turner and Co.

[Mothman]

Jim,

I wouldn't underestimate the impact that changing the blocking scheme had on our OL this season. We've been hearing for a few years now about the value of continuity in reference to keeping the same five guys together. It seems logical that part of that continuity was also the blocking scheme they were accustomed to executing. What impact did the scheme change have on our personnel?

I think it's clearly had an impact. Confusion about blocking assignments has been apparent at times.

Also, I've been wondering for awhile about CP84. I get that he is sucking as a WR right now. However, even poor old Musgrave was able to figure out ways to get that guy balls in space on the short stuff and let his athletic ability make plays. It seems like that method of using CP is completely gone from our game plan. Why is that?

Why indeed? I have no idea. All I know is that Norv is making Musgrave look like a pretty smart, resourceful offensive coordinator at this point.

Finally, why abandon McKinnon in the 2nd half?

I do not have answers, but I am starting to wonder if the results on offense would have really been that much better if Fusco and AP hadn't gone down early. Some of this stuff just begs some rather annoying questions about our roster on offense. Right now it seems like we need more talent on the OL and we are not much better at WR than we were four seasons ago. I'm not ready to say this is in fact the case, but given the performance so far this season it is becoming harder and harder to not starting looking at Turner and Co.

That's where I'm at in my thinking too...

[PurpleMustReign]

Jim,

I wouldn't underestimate the impact that changing the blocking scheme had on our OL this season. We've been hearing for a few years now about the value of continuity in reference to keeping the same five guys together. It seems logical that part of that continuity was also the blocking scheme they were accustomed to executing. What impact did the scheme change have on our personnel?

Also, I've been wondering for awhile about CP84. I get that he is sucking as a WR right now. However, even poor old Musgrave was able to figure out ways to get that guy balls in space on the short stuff and let his athletic ability make plays. It seems like that method of using CP is completely gone from our game plan. Why is that?

Finally, why abandon McKinnon in the 2nd half?

I do not have answers, but I am starting to wonder if the results on offense would have really been that much better if Fusco and AP hadn't gone down early. Some of this stuff just begs some rather annoying questions about our roster on offense. Right now it seems like we need more talent on the OL and we are not much better at WR than we were four seasons ago. I'm not ready to say this is in fact the case, but given the performance so far this season it is becoming harder and harder to not starting looking at Turner and Co.

Yeah but they have been bad for years, not just when something changed.

[frosted]

Why indeed? I have no idea. All I know is that Norv is making Musgrave look like a pretty smart, resourceful offensive coordinator at this point.

That seems an awfully simplistic way of looking at it - I'd hesitate to compare coaches (or players for that matter) when there are so many variables involved. Musgrave's offense was productive, and that stands by itself, based on the numbers they put up last season. I don't think we need to downgrade Norv to appreciate that fact.

Our offenses the past three seasons have been buoyed by an extremely strong rushing attack. Perhaps we'll have Adrian back in the fold as well going forward as well. That would certainly make everyone's job easier.

[Mothman]

That seems an awfully simplistic way of looking at it - I'd hesitate to compare coaches (or players for that matter) when there are so many variables involved. Musgrave's offense was productive, and that stands by itself, based on the numbers they put up last season. I don't think we need to downgrade Norv to appreciate that fact.

I'm not trying to downgrade Norv to muster appreciation for Musgrave. I'm simply saying I think Musgrave's approach seemed more resourceful to me than Norv's. I acknowledge that there are variables but I don't see Norv doing much to adjust to those variables and get more out of the players he has available. I'm not comparing coaches based on production. I'm comparing them based on how I see them utilizing personnel. I'm throughly unimpressed with Turner so far.

Our offenses the past three seasons have been buoyed by an extremely strong rushing attack. Perhaps we'll have Adrian back in the fold as well going forward as well. That would certainly make everyone's job easier.

I certainly hope so.