Vikings Message Board.Com

Mothman wrote: Perhaps people are just using that phrase differently. I don't think a dink and dunk offense is an offense that doesn't throw deep at all. I think it's an offense that relies heavily on short passing and the Vikings do.

I can't speak for anybody else but I haven't ignored the stat above when you've posted it. I just don't think it demonstrates, on it's own, that the Vikings weren't a dink and dunk offense. Consider a few other stats:

Bradford's passes traveled an average of 3.34 yards in the air last season (23rd in the league) and 52.5% of the total yards the Vikes gained on passing plays were on the run after the catch. he averaged 6.5 yards per passing attempt (20th in the league). Those are stats indicative of a passing game that relies primarily (not exclusively) on shorter passes.

It's not as if this perception of the offense is limited to a few frustrated fans here either:


http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300000 ... m-bradford

Look for the Vikings to try to build on what Bradford does well, and the strengths of their WRs by continuing to dink and dunk, spreading out defenses, running out of the shotgun, and occassionally going with 2 TEs if they like Morgan or can add a running mate for Rudolph to create mismatches.

fiestavike wrote:Look for the Vikings to try to build on what Bradford does well, and the strengths of their WRs by continuing to dink and dunk, spreading out defenses, running out of the shotgun, and occassionally going with 2 TEs if they like Morgan or can add a running mate for Rudolph to create mismatches.

That's pretty much what I expect to see.

Despite the numbers, no one watching the Vikings' offense would describe it as explosive or even efficient. Behind a debilitating offensive line, Bradford had the NFL's shortest average target last season. He maddeningly threw short of the sticks on third down with regularity. The porous blocking and no run game to speak of relegated the Vikings offense to dink-and-dunk, and led a risk-averse Bradford to get rid of the ball instead of stretching the field.

Hmm, signing some tackles and a RB known for his pass blocking skills seems like a really awful thing to do in Free Agency. We're hosed. Kapp, stop posting crap that defies the narrative. No one likes that!

Guys, I'm not incredibly optimistic about this year either considering how the Vikings did after the first 6 games. I can see plenty of reason for frustration.
Yet this team is technically still trending upwards by record.
Lows since 2012 3-13,6-10,7-9,8-8. Highs since 2012 10-6,11-5.

Last year was a low which makes trading for Bradford seem unnecessary in hindsight... unless we produce a high this year.
I think given losing a first rounder in Teddy (and a first rounder in trading for Bradford that may have been even higher if we hadn't traded for him) and losing Adrian puts us a step backwards... setbacks happen. We will have to rebuild,
But if Bradford is a transition QB to an eventual Draft and Develop QB that makes him McNabb to Ponder or Ponder to Cassel/Teddy and he's way better than any of those. My point is, in the long run if you allow for a single temporary setback, we are still probably trending higher in the future even if we breach the 8-8 low next year.

We have a very strong young core of players and Adrian is a future HOFer for what he did in the past, not what he will do in the future.

mansquatch wrote: Hmm, signing some tackles and a RB known for his pass blocking skills seems like a really awful thing to do in Free Agency. We're hosed. Kapp, stop posting crap that defies the narrative. No one likes that!

That was certainly a passive/aggressive post.

Nothing Kapp posted defied "the narrative" that the Vikings ran a dink and dunk offense. Both the stats and the film clearly show that was the case. Call it an inconvenient truth.

The history of both Bradford and Shurmur suggest we're going to continue seeing a dink and dunk approach on offense. That doesn't mean the offense can't be good or even great but I wouldn't expect to see a dramatic shift to an aggressive downfield passing game over a reliance on short stuff, even if the blocking is improved. Maybe we'll get the best of both worlds.

Mothman wrote: Perhaps people are just using that phrase differently. I don't think a dink and dunk offense is an offense that doesn't throw deep at all. I think it's an offense that relies heavily on short passing and the Vikings do.

I can't speak for anybody else but I haven't ignored the stat above when you've posted it. I just don't think it demonstrates, on it's own, that the Vikings weren't a dink and dunk offense. Consider a few other stats:

Bradford's passes traveled an average of 3.34 yards in the air last season (23rd in the league) and 52.5% of the total yards the Vikes gained on passing plays were on the run after the catch. He averaged about 6.5 adjusted yards per passing attempt (7 yards per attempt unadjusted). Those are stats are indicative of a passing game that relies primarily (not exclusively) on shorter passes.

It's not as if this perception of the offense is limited to a few frustrated fans here either:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300000 ... m-bradford

Don't disagree with any of this, Jim. The Vikings were far from explosive. They actually weren't terrible between the 20s as far as efficiency, but once they got to the red zone, it was a dumpster fire.

I just find it interesting that people think we CAN'T throw deep because they say we don't have the QB to deliver it or the receivers to go get it. The stat I've cited proves, I believe, that we have the skill people to throw deep. The problem is that our O-line was so horrible that we were forced to throw those short passes you cite. We also couldn't run the ball, which took away the effectiveness of play-action. I'm hoping -- no praying -- for better O-line play, even league average, and solid play from Latavious Murray. Not spectacular. Not all-pro. Just solid for 200 carries and 40 receptions. Give us 1,000 yards from scrimmage.

One thing I believe you'll see with Murray, assuming the Vikings use him the way the Raiders did, is the play-fake to him, then the throw short to him on the wheel route. That will, in effect, be a running play that will show up as one of those passes that travel a short distance. It'll also hold linebackers and safeties a bit -- Murray had a lot of 5-7 yard gains on those plays that turned into 10-15 yards if LBs and safeties didn't play honest. That could open up more opportunities in the 15-20 yard range, which is where good teams excel.

J. Kapp 11 wrote:Don't disagree with any of this, Jim. The Vikings were far from explosive. They actually weren't terrible between the 20s as far as efficiency, but once they got to the red zone, it was a dumpster fire.

I just find it interesting that people think we CAN'T throw deep because they say we don't have the QB to deliver it or the receivers to go get it. The stat I've cited proves, I believe, that we have the skill people to throw deep

Oh, they can definitely throw deep and Bradford does it well.

The problem is that our O-line was so horrible that we were forced to throw those short passes you cite. We also couldn't run the ball, which took away the effectiveness of play-action. I'm hoping -- no praying -- for better O-line play, even league average, and solid play from Latavious Murray. Not spectacular. Not all-pro. Just solid for 200 carries and 40 receptions. Give us 1,000 yards from scrimmage.

One thing I believe you'll see with Murray, assuming the Vikings use him the way the Raiders did, is the play-fake to him, then the throw short to him on the wheel route. That will, in effect, be a running play that will show up as one of those passes that travel a short distance. It'll also hold linebackers and safeties a bit -- Murray had a lot of 5-7 yard gains on those plays that turned into 10-15 yards if LBs and safeties didn't play honest. That could open up more opportunities in the 15-20 yard range, which is where good teams excel.

Hopefully, that's just what we'll see.

Mothman wrote: That was certainly a passive/aggressive post.

Nothing Kapp posted defied "the narrative" that the Vikings ran a dink and dunk offense. Both the stats and the film clearly show that was the case. Call it an inconvenient truth.

The history of both Bradford and Shurmur suggest we're going to continue seeing a dink and dunk approach on offense. That doesn't mean the offense can't be good or even great but I wouldn't expect to see a dramatic shift to an aggressive downfield passing game over a reliance on short stuff, even if the blocking is improved. Maybe we'll get the best of both worlds.

God, this gets old.

I've said we have the CAPABILITY of making big plays in the passing game, mostly because plenty of people on VMB think we have no receivers, no QB, and no coach. Nothing you've posted disproves the FACT that we were 12th in the NFL in 20+ yard pass plays, Jim, which proves we have the CAPABILITY. My response to your dink-and-dunk assertion is that it's because we've had a dumpster fire for an O-line. Again, you haven't disproved that.

And I don't think that was a passive-aggressive post. Not at all. It's called sarcasm, and frankly when it comes to Vikings fans, it's warranted. Most of what I've read from fans on this board in the 12 years I've been part of it is how terrible we are; how bad our front office is; how much discord there is in the locker room because a freaking DAD made an unsubstantiated, third-party accusation; how our team doesn't care about the offensive side of the ball. I hear it when we're good, and I hear it when we're bad. I've even read posts intimating that if we somehow win it all, it will mean nothing if it's not sustainable. It just gets old.

I know, I know. "Mediocrity gets old, too." "All I'm doing is showing I care about this team." Whatever. As smart as we think we are, we're not the GMs of the Minnesota Vikings, and there's a reason for that. The only thing any of us have ever done is sit here and armchair quarterback. So I choose to take a different approach. I'm trying to look at the offseason and assess whether the Vikings are addressing their stated weaknesses. I believe they are. It might not be in the WAY some of you want them to address them, but how difficult is it to alway be "right" when a franchise hasn't won a Super Bowl in 55 seasons of existence?

I choose optimism, just as I have done for every single season of the nearly 50 I've been a fan. Every year, I believe we have a chance. I guess I'm still that 9-year-old watching his first Vikings game. Whatever. I can't stand living life under a shroud of doom. I choose optimism. Flame away. I don't care.

Rant over.

Mothman wrote: That was certainly a passive/aggressive post.

Nothing Kapp posted defied "the narrative" that the Vikings ran a dink and dunk offense. Both the stats and the film clearly show that was the case. Call it an inconvenient truth.

The history of both Bradford and Shurmur suggest we're going to continue seeing a dink and dunk approach on offense. That doesn't mean the offense can't be good or even great but I wouldn't expect to see a dramatic shift to an aggressive downfield passing game over a reliance on short stuff, even if the blocking is improved. Maybe we'll get the best of both worlds.

I was worried you'd think I was picking on you which is why I posted the article quote and not what you wrote with regards to it. Regardless, it was risky, so rest assured it was not intent to tease you specifically. (I would be direct and funny if that was my intent. )

Intent of my post was to point out that major culprits identified by your source are exactly the areas that were addressed in Free Agency. Just doing my sarcastic best to stem the tide of Doom and Gloom that seems so prevalent in Vikings land in 2017.

J. Kapp 11 wrote:God, this gets old.

Indeed it does but my response was to mansquatch's implication about "the narrative", not to what you wrote. I responded directly to that and you said you didn't disagree with any of that response.

I've said we have the CAPABILITY of making big plays in the passing game, mostly because plenty of people on VMB think we have no receivers, no QB, and no coach. Nothing you've posted disproves the FACT that we were 12th in the NFL in 20+ yard pass plays, Jim, which proves we have the CAPABILITY. My response to your dink-and-dunk assertion is that it's because we've had a dumpster fire for an O-line. Again, you haven't disproved that.

I'm not attempting to disprove the OL was awful and I didn't suggest the team lacked the capability to throw deep so we did not and do not disagree about that. I didn't attempt to disprove that the team was 12th in 20+ yard passing plays either so why, exactly, is any of the paragraph above being directed at me?

And I don't think that was a passive-aggressive post. Not at all. It's called sarcasm, and frankly when it comes to Vikings fans, it's warranted. Most of what I've read from fans on this board in the 12 years I've been part of it is how terrible we are; how bad our front office is; how much discord there is in the locker room because a freaking DAD made an unsubstantiated, third-party accusation; how our team doesn't care about the offensive side of the ball. I hear it when we're good, and I hear it when we're bad. I've even read posts intimating that if we somehow win it all, it will mean nothing if it's not sustainable. It just gets old.

I know, I know. "Mediocrity gets old, too." "All I'm doing is showing I care about this team." Whatever.

So it goes. It's a public board with an inevitable diversity of opinions. Some of them are frustrating but over the course of the past 12 years, the team has had 5 winning seasons, 4 playoff appearances and just one playoff win. Over that time, the team has sometimes been terrible. That track record certainly provides more than a little reason to be dissatisfied with the front office. The offense has struggled for the majority of that time too so whether the Vikings care about it or not, they haven't done a very good job with it most of the time. Blaming fans for expressing frustration over all of the above is shooting the messenger. The organization has underperformed and there's no disproving that particular fact.

As smart as we think we are, we're not the GMs of the Minnesota Vikings, and there's a reason for that. The only thing any of us have ever done is sit here and armchair quarterback. So I choose to take a different approach. I'm trying to look at the offseason and assess whether the Vikings are addressing their stated weaknesses. I believe they are. It might not be in the WAY some of you want them to address them, but how difficult is it to alway be "right" when a franchise hasn't won a Super Bowl in 55 seasons of existence?

It's very difficult but what is it you want from people here, to be cheerleaders? There's always someone upset that somebody else isn't optimistic enough or is too optimistic. In these free agency threads, we're ALL assessing whether the Vikings are addressing their stated weaknesses and presumably, most of us are also trying to assess if they've done so effectively and if so, how effectively.

I choose optimism, just as I have done for every single season of the nearly 50 I've been a fan. Every year, I believe we have a chance. I guess I'm still that 9-year-old watching his first Vikings game. Whatever. I can't stand living life under a shroud of doom. I choose optimism. Flame away. I don't care.

It's your choice, no need to flame you for it. Everybody else gets to make a choice too. Personally, I don't choose a default setting of optimistic or pessimistic when it comes to the Vikings. I certainly don't live "under a shroud of doom" when it comes to the team either and I don't think many fans here do.

Again, what do you want? Conformity to a particular point of view? Are people supposed to look at an offense comprised almost entirely of players with a history of being mediocre-to-average in the NFL, led by a coordinator with a similar history, and automatically anticipate greatness? Are we supposed to expect a team that's been disappointing for so long, and that disappointed us once again last year with a serious collapse after a great start, to storm to a Super Bowl?

I think you'll agree that there's a difference between hopes and expectations and I doubt many fans here have given up the former but at least some of us have been conditioned by the Vikings to reign in the latter. If I could have it my way, the Vikes would be seeking their 10th Super Bowl or so this season and we'd all have reason for great optimism. Unfortunately, that's not the case.

mansquatch wrote:I was worried you'd think I was picking on you which is why I posted the article quote and not what you wrote with regards to it. Regardless, it was risky, so rest assured it was not intent to tease you specifically. (I would be direct and funny if that was my intent. )

Intent of my post was to point out that major culprits identified by your source are exactly the areas that were addressed in Free Agency. Just doing my sarcastic best to stem the tide of Doom and Gloom that seems so prevalent in Vikings land in 2017.

I don't know if you read the article but it also points out that things could improve with better OL play and a full offseason for Shurmur, Bradford and company to work together.

I don't think the doom and gloom is as thick around here as people are implying. I just think people are reacting to free agency differently and viewing the team with understandable trepidation after a season that ended in collapse. For example, when it comes to free agency there seems to be a disconnect occurring between people, especially in regard to the tackle signings. I suspect almost everybody views the signing of Remmers and Rieff as a good thing in the sense that the Vikings needed tackles and these 2 tackles should certainly be better than those who played for the Vikes last season.

1.) There are fans happy that the Vikes addressed the positions and presumably upgraded them.
2.) There are other fans unhappy or at least questioning the price of those upgrades.
3.) There are still others who see these 2 players as upgrades but also view them, in the larger overall context of NFL tackles, as mediocre-to-average players.

I get the impression that some fans are just stopping at #1. The Vikes addressed two big positions of need and upgraded them. Net positive. It looks like fans concerned about #2 and #2 are getting under the skin of the fans who stopped at #1.

I'm oversimplifying things but it does feel like there's a disconnect like this about almost every move the Vikes have made in free agency.

J. Kapp 11 wrote:Shoring up the O-line, or at least attempting to shore it up, gives SB more time to throw downfield. Signing Latavius Murray means they're trying to throw more to backs out of the backfield, allowing receivers to run deeper routes. Throwing to backs isn't dink and dunk. It's a substitute for the power running game.

I'm not certain the offensive line is shored up. We will see.

Dink and dunk offenses throw to their RBs, especially in check-off situations. Having a good receiving RB doesn't tell me anything at this point. Just my take on it.

J. Kapp 11 wrote:And re-signing Adam Thielen is a big step. Now, I fully realize that some idiot Packer fans (including at least one on this board, who shall remain nameless) laugh when I compare Adam Thielen to Jordy Nelson before Jordy Nelson became Jordy Nelson, but I don't see it as a stretch at all. He's tall, fast, and tough. He's had to work his butt off for everything he's ever gotten, and he's never had the luxury of having Aaron Rodgers throwing to him. I believe Adam Thielen -- not Stefon Diggs -- emerges as the Vikings' true deep threat in 2017. You heard it here first.

And we're not done with free agency. Or the draft.

Hang in there. I know we're Vikings fans, and it may actually be against the law, but have a little optimism!

I'm overjoyed Adam Thielen was re-signed. Admittedly, I was nervous about it. I think Thielen can run deep routes and he may emerge as a downfield threat.

Somebody posted about Diggs and Thielen being very fast. They are fast but maybe not very fast in NFL WR terms. The Vikings lost a lot of speed letting Johnson and Patterson go. Johnson can get downfield in a hurry (and did for TB) and Patterson can take shorter passes and turn them into a first down or more. The only current Viking WR with their kind of speed is Wright and I believe he can be a weapon for the Vikings if they'll just play him.

Mothman wrote:I don't think the doom and gloom is as thick around here as people are implying. I just think people are reacting to free agency differently and viewing the team with understandable trepidation after a season that ended in collapse. For example, when it comes to free agency there seems to be a disconnect occurring between people, especially in regard to the tackle signings. I suspect almost everybody views the signing of Remmers and Rieff as a good thing in the sense that the Vikings needed tackles and these 2 tackles should certainly be better than those who played for the Vikes last season.

1.) There are fans happy that the Vikes addressed the positions and presumably upgraded them.
2.) There are other fans unhappy or at least questioning the price of those upgrades.
3.) There are still others who see these 2 players as upgrades but also view them, in the larger overall context of NFL tackles, as mediocre-to-average players.

I get the impression that some fans are just stopping at #1. The Vikes addressed two big positions of need and upgraded them. Net positive. It looks like fans concerned about #2 and #2 are getting under the skin of the fans who stopped at #1.

I'm oversimplifying things but it does feel like there's a disconnect like this about almost every move the Vikes have made in free agency.

Well said. I count myself in the 3rd category because I acknowledge the upgrades but I don't think the team acquired great players. I also wouldn't bet the farm it means the Vikings have truly fixed their problems. That's especially true with the offensive line.

As I said before, it's too early to tell what kind of team the Vikings will be. Whether it means good or bad, I see a team shaping up to be similar to last year or the year before. That's to say a short passing and power running offense dependent on a great defense. I'm not sure what the special teams will look like.

losperros wrote: Well said. I count myself in the 3rd category because I acknowledge the upgrades but I don't think the team acquired great players. I also wouldn't bet the farm it means the Vikings have truly fixed their problems. That's especially true with the offensive line.

As I said before, it's too early to tell what kind of team the Vikings will be. Whether it means good or bad, I see a team shaping up to be similar to last year or the year before. That's to say a short passing and power running offense dependent on a great defense. I'm not sure what the special teams will look like.

I also agree. I am ok with the Reiff signing because I believe he will play a spot on the line and would be good at RT or either guard spots. He is serviceable at LT.

Not sure why it is lost on so many that just signings players do not mean the issues has been solved. Murray is not a player that we should be jumping up and down for (despite how nice a guy he is). He is an improvement but not much of one. If a team like Denver has a great defense but still understands that Average on offense isn't good enough... why can't we?

losperros wrote:Well said. I count myself in the 3rd category because I acknowledge the upgrades but I don't think the team acquired great players. I also wouldn't bet the farm it means the Vikings have truly fixed their problems. That's especially true with the offensive line.

I feel the same way. Oddly enough, they signed tackles who are better at run blocking than pass blocking but got rid of their elite running back to sign one more suited to a passing offense. They might still draft a running back and change that dynamic further but so far, the moves they're making lead me to believe FiestaVike is pretty much on target with his assessment of where the offense is headed.

As I said before, it's too early to tell what kind of team the Vikings will be. Whether it means good or bad, I see a team shaping up to be similar to last year or the year before. That's to say a short passing and power running offense dependent on a great defense. I'm not sure what the special teams will look like.

I'm not either and I'm not even sure we'll see much power running. We'll see what the future brings...