Great win but...
Don Fraiser
Tod Steussie- got whipped big time in the 1st half (Leroy Hoard probaby
would have played better at the position). I mean, J.George did not have any
time to think at all in the 1st half, let alone breathe. If a player is
playing that bad, why not have him sit for a play or two?
Ray Sherman- the reign of predictable play continues... Green better send
Sherman to a creative thinking course, because if the fans can guess the
play callings on offense... the Defense Coordinator of the opposing team
knows exactly what Sherman's thinking.
Why would you punt the ball when you are at the opponent's 35yd line (too
far for a FG but too close to punt). Especially on a 4th and only 5yds to
go. Let's see, you have some of the best receivers in the league and a QB
that can deliver the ball to them (given time to throw). The Vikes took a
delay penalty and then punted into the endzone for a TB. 1st and 10 at the
20yd for Dallas. Overall the punt was worth 15 yds. Rediculous! ...If
you're gonna punt, why not angle it for the sideline near the endzone
(easier than lodging a high one).
Horrible tackling on defense. Especially on the long TD run by Emmitt Smith.
Kenny Wright of the Vikes (I think) had a clean shot at Emmitt at the 10yd,
but instead asked for Emmitt's autograph.
Come on, a diving tackles at the legs would have brought Emmitt down (or any
strong RB). Instead he tried to tackle high (I do stress TRIED). Emmitt
stiff armed the DB and dragged him into the endzone.
The last time I checked, Deion Sanders was playing hurt (hamstring). Why
didn't the Vikes have their receivers run deep routes on him on every down?
Eventually Deion's gonna give up a big one, because he's not 100%. If
J.Hitchcock played hurt in the game, I'm sure the Boys would have threw the
kitchen sink at him. This is just poor play calling but the Vikes OC.
I'm just glad that Green did not pull J.George at half time. He knew that
George did not have the time to even read the receivers...
Kevin R. Schneider
>Horrible tackling on defense. Especially on the long TD run by Emmitt Smith.
>Kenny Wright of the Vikes (I think) had a clean shot at Emmitt at the 10yd,
>but instead asked for Emmitt's autograph.
>Come on, a diving tackles at the legs would have brought Emmitt down (or any
>strong RB). Instead he tried to tackle high (I do stress TRIED). Emmitt
>stiff armed the DB and dragged him into the endzone.
Man, are you kidding me?!?! This play made Wright the Vikes MVP for the
*GAME*! That's the play that broke Emmitt's hand and put him out of the
game!
--Kevin Schneider
ICQ #28608177
*************************************************************************
Big Wheels rolling through fields
Where sunlight streams
Meet me in a land of hope and dreams - Bruce Springsteen
http://www.students.uiuc.edu/~kschneid
*************************************************************************
Craig Hamann
<ksch...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, Don Fraiser wrote:
>
>>Horrible tackling on defense. Especially on the long TD run by Emmitt Smith.
>>Kenny Wright of the Vikes (I think) had a clean shot at Emmitt at the 10yd,
>>but instead asked for Emmitt's autograph.
>>Come on, a diving tackles at the legs would have brought Emmitt down (or any
>>strong RB). Instead he tried to tackle high (I do stress TRIED). Emmitt
>>stiff armed the DB and dragged him into the endzone.
>
>Man, are you kidding me?!?! This play made Wright the Vikes MVP for the
>*GAME*! That's the play that broke Emmitt's hand and put him out of the
>game!
>
> --Kevin Schneider
Uhh, Kevin...are suggesting that Kenny Wright *alertly* stuck his face
mask out so that E. Smith would grab onto it, bust up his hand and not
be able to score another TD? ;-)
Craig
Michael Bushong
Don Fraiser <don.f...@minn.com> wrote:
: Tod Steussie- got whipped big time in the 1st half (Leroy Hoard probaby
: would have played better at the position). I mean, J.George did not have any
: time to think at all in the 1st half, let alone breathe. If a player is
: playing that bad, why not have him sit for a play or two?
steussie was indeed horrible. part of it looked like he was expecting
help on the inside at times. that was only a few times though. as for
sitting him, well, we really dont have a lot of adequate OL backups.
that is the price we pay for trading lindsay in the offseason so that
we could keep other players (namely reed). i am fighting the urge to
say it... i-told....
: Ray Sherman- the reign of predictable play continues... Green better send
: Sherman to a creative thinking course, because if the fans can guess the
: play callings on offense... the Defense Coordinator of the opposing team
: knows exactly what Sherman's thinking.
i dont know that i hated the playcalling. coming out running until they
stop you seemed to work for me. if you are doing something they dont
stop, why stop yourself? in the same way, if we pass and pass and pass
and they dont stop, no one complains. running just isnt as exciting to
watch i think.
as for the rest of the game, our offense was only on the field for a
very short time in the first half. they didnt look very good, but they
were having a hard time blocking and they werent really in sync yet. i
guess you could wonder why they didnt call a draw with palmer out of the
shotgun or maybe a screen pass. but they did throw the quick hits to the
WRs to slow up the passrush. i thought that worked well and opened up
moss late when the DBs were forced to play up close.
aside from a few drops and errant throws, i thought the playcalling
wasnt the reason the vikes were sucking. although i guess you could
argue that the blocking schemes are part of that, in which case i guess
i agree.
: Why would you punt the ball when you are at the opponent's 35yd line (too
: far for a FG but too close to punt). Especially on a 4th and only 5yds to
: go. Let's see, you have some of the best receivers in the league and a QB
: that can deliver the ball to them (given time to throw). The Vikes took a
: delay penalty and then punted into the endzone for a TB. 1st and 10 at the
: 20yd for Dallas. Overall the punt was worth 15 yds. Rediculous! ...If
: you're gonna punt, why not angle it for the sideline near the endzone
: (easier than lodging a high one).
why not angle it? you think they didnt think of that? what a novel idea!
thats akin to saying "why dont they just score more?" punting is not easy.
you kick an odd-shaped ball with 10 guys screaming towards your body.
as for why kick it? the viking D had dominated the second half. the cowboys
were minus their 3 best offensive stars. they had been unable to pass
effectively in the second half. it may seem unimaginative, but it was
playing to the team's strengths that game. we picked off 2 passes, dropped
2 other easy picks, and had one pick hit the ground. i agree with forcing
them to pass in that situation.
: The last time I checked, Deion Sanders was playing hurt (hamstring). Why
: didn't the Vikes have their receivers run deep routes on him on every down?
: Eventually Deion's gonna give up a big one, because he's not 100%. If
: J.Hitchcock played hurt in the game, I'm sure the Boys would have threw the
: kitchen sink at him. This is just poor play calling but the Vikes OC.
because that would kil drives quickly. sure, you hit on one, maybe 2. but
the rest of the time you are 3 and out. and WRs get tired running too.
so we run the ball a little, stay with short gains and keep our defense
on the sideline after a VERY long first half for them. in the meantime,
you set up short plays, drawing the DBs in, and then you hit the 47 yarder
late to ice the game and win by 10. at the same time, you keep turnovers
to a minimum en route to a 3 TD/1 INT performance.
given the shoddy tackling early on, the dallas OL dominance through much
of the game (they did rush for over 200 yds i think), and the time of
possession (remember, we rely on old guys in doleman and ball), it made
sense to try to control the clock, especially after momentum had clearly
shifted. and they did pass downfield after that (the 30 yarder to glover
that was knocked away, the interception called back for the penalty, the
47 yarder to moss, etc).
-mike
Kevin R. Schneider
>Uhh, Kevin...are suggesting that Kenny Wright *alertly* stuck his face
>mask out so that E. Smith would grab onto it, bust up his hand and not
>be able to score another TD? ;-)
Whether he did it intentionally or not, it changed the outcome of the game
in the Vikes favor! :o)
>
>
>Craig
Chad Rohrs
I'm assuming most of you mean you are guessing: a) pass b)run
That doesn't mean you are calling the plays. It also means you have a
50% chance of being right. Then if you factor in the down and distance
you probably automatically have a 75% chance of being right. Then,
being a fan of the Vikings and knowing the team very well probably ups
that percentage even more. But it doesn't mean you know what plays are
being called, what routes are being run, what run blocking schemes are
being called, what hole the running back is supposed to go thru, etc.
The defense may know if a run is coming, but where? And to whom? And
what if they do a play action and go deep to Moss? Uh-oh, now the
defense is in trouble. It isn't as simple as we fans make it out to be.
Sure, maybe the offense isn't great now, maybe the playcalling isn't as
good as last season, but do we all expect Sherman to step in and be
Billick? It is obvious to everybody the offense isn't what it was last
season. What I'm worried about is will it improve and be potent enough
at the end of the season? That has yet to be determined.
The good teams usually are the most predictable in the league. They do
the plays that work well and execute them over and over and the opposing
team can't stop it anyway.
chad
Viker 44
>Quite long, so bare with me...
No thanks. I only "bare" with females.............
>Tod Steussie- got whipped big time in the 1st half (Leroy Hoard probaby
>would have played better at the position). I mean, J.George did not have any
>time to think at all in the 1st half, let alone breathe. If a player is
>playing that bad, why not have him sit for a play or two?
This dude seems to be easily psyched by opposing defenses. He needs to gain
some self confidence or something.......
>Ray Sherman- the reign of predictable play continues... Green better send
>Sherman to a creative thinking course, because if the fans can guess the
>play callings on offense... the Defense Coordinator of the opposing team
>knows exactly what Sherman's thinking.
>Why would you punt the ball when you are at the opponent's 35yd line (too
>far for a FG but too close to punt). Especially on a 4th and only 5yds to
>go. Let's see, you have some of the best receivers in the league and a QB
>that can deliver the ball to them (given time to throw). The Vikes took a
>delay penalty and then punted into the endzone for a TB. 1st and 10 at the
>20yd for Dallas. Overall the punt was worth 15 yds. Rediculous! ...If
>you're gonna punt, why not angle it for the sideline near the endzone
>(easier than lodging a high one).
This game and game one were poorly coached. No way to argue that. All coaches
on all teams are criticized for their playcalling. So many experts out there.
Still even though the coaching was poor in the first half, so was the offense,
the defense, hmm the special teams sucked too, and the mascot was horrible.
Cheerleaders were still in good form tho...........
>Horrible tackling on defense. Especially on the long TD run by Emmitt Smith.
>Kenny Wright of the Vikes (I think) had a clean shot at Emmitt at the 10yd,
>but instead asked for Emmitt's autograph.
>Come on, a diving tackles at the legs would have brought Emmitt down (or any
>strong RB). Instead he tried to tackle high (I do stress TRIED). Emmitt
>stiff armed the DB and dragged him into the endzone.
They seem to want to strip the ball on every play. They need to wrap up first
and then have the second tackler maybe attempt to cause a turnover.
>The last time I checked, Deion Sanders was playing hurt (hamstring). Why
>didn't the Vikes have their receivers run deep routes on him on every down?
>Eventually Deion's gonna give up a big one, because he's not 100%. If
>J.Hitchcock played hurt in the game, I'm sure the Boys would have threw the
>kitchen sink at him. This is just poor play calling but the Vikes OC.
Very good point. Should have ran the hell out of Peon Deon. As crappy as the
Cowpies are, they still have a chance to win their crappy division as they are
only one game back with 8 to go....................
>I'm just glad that Green did not pull J.George at half time. He knew that
>George did not have the time to even read the receivers...
Green has already stated that he is going to give George the starter's job full
time. He will get every chance possible to prove himself and so far so
good...............
#44 VIKER
Craig Hamann
<ksch...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, Craig Hamann wrote:
>
>>Uhh, Kevin...are suggesting that Kenny Wright *alertly* stuck his face
>>mask out so that E. Smith would grab onto it, bust up his hand and not
>>be able to score another TD? ;-)
>
>Whether he did it intentionally or not, it changed the outcome of the game
>in the Vikes favor! :o)
I wonder who taught him that? Richard Solomon? Hard to believe.
Sounds like something Corey Fuller would teach DBs if he was a DB
coach.
Craig
Mothman
chad...@webtv.net (Chad Rohrs) wrote:
> Guys, please stop saying you can call the plays the Vikings are running!
> I'm assuming most of you mean you are guessing: a) pass b)run
>
> That doesn't mean you are calling the plays. It also means you have a
> 50% chance of being right. Then if you factor in the down and distance
> you probably automatically have a 75% chance of being right. Then,
> being a fan of the Vikings and knowing the team very well probably ups
> that percentage even more. But it doesn't mean you know what plays are
> being called, what routes are being run, what run blocking schemes are
> being called, what hole the running back is supposed to go thru, etc.<
Chad, don't even try to defend the abysmal playcalling at this point.It's
undeniably predictable, particularly inside the opponents' 10 yard line.
>The defense may know if a run is coming, but where? And to whom?<
Well since the Vikes run a lot of one-back and h-back sets, "to whom" is
pretty obvious. As for where he's running, a good defense can figure that
out in a hurry and, as we've seen all year, stuff it.
> what if they do a play action and go deep to Moss?<
LOL! It's a good idea, isn't it? Unfortunately, Sherman doesn't seem interested.
> Sure, maybe the offense isn't great now, maybe the playcalling isn't as
> good as last season, but do we all expect Sherman to step in and be
> Billick?<
No, we expect him to step in and be good. He isn't. He's a bad OC. He's
beena bad Oc in the past and he's a bad OC today.
BTW, there's no "maybe" involved in this. The playcalling is not as good
as last year and the offense isn't great.
> What I'm worried about is will it improve and be potent enough
> at the end of the season? That has yet to be determined.<
True enough, Chad, but with each passing week we see less and less to
indicatethat the offenseive philosophy is going to change.
> The good teams usually are the most predictable in the league.<
What are you talking about? That's a ridiculous statement.
Jim
Mothman
<bus...@ocf.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> i dont know that i hated the playcalling. coming out running until they
> stop you seemed to work for me. if you are doing something they dont
> stop, why stop yourself?<
Because eventually they'll stop it, and they did. The Vikings took it to
the Cowboys for a few plays but they didn't use their early running
success to set anything up. They just pounded it at Dallas until it was
stopped. Anderson missed a FG and a promising drive came up empty.
>...in the same way, if we pass and pass and pass
> and they dont stop, no one complains.<
That's not true.
> as for the rest of the game, our offense was only on the field for a
> very short time in the first half. they didnt look very good, but they
> were having a hard time blocking and they werent really in sync yet><
What is that supposed to mean? They didn't look good BECAUSE they had a
hard tiem blocking and they weren't in sunc. They weren't on the field
much in the first half because the could barely manage a #@$*% first down.
The question is why? That was a big game and they were completely
unprepared to play. They looked pitiful in the first half.
> aside from a few drops and errant throws, i thought the playcalling
> wasnt the reason the vikes were sucking. although i guess you could
> argue that the blocking schemes are part of that, in which case i guess
> i agree.<
They ran waaay too much on first down.
Jim
Don Fraiser
Viker 44 <vik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991109235804...@ng-fb1.aol.com...
> >"Don Fraiser"
>
> >Quite long, so bare with me...
>
> No thanks. I only "bare" with females.............
LOL
> >Tod Steussie- got whipped big time in the 1st half (Leroy Hoard probaby
> >would have played better at the position). I mean, J.George did not have
any
> >time to think at all in the 1st half, let alone breathe. If a player is
> >playing that bad, why not have him sit for a play or two?
>
> This dude seems to be easily psyched by opposing defenses. He needs to
gain
> some self confidence or something.......
Perhaps gain some more weight, atleast he won't get thrown around so easily.
> This game and game one were poorly coached. No way to argue that. All
coaches
> on all teams are criticized for their playcalling. So many experts out
there.
> Still even though the coaching was poor in the first half, so was the
offense,
> the defense, hmm the special teams sucked too, and the mascot was
horrible.
> Cheerleaders were still in good form tho...........
How much of the game did you see... heh.. besides the Cheerleaders...
>
> >Horrible tackling on defense. Especially on the long TD run by Emmitt
Smith.
> >Kenny Wright of the Vikes (I think) had a clean shot at Emmitt at the
10yd,
> >but instead asked for Emmitt's autograph.
> >Come on, a diving tackles at the legs would have brought Emmitt down (or
any
> >strong RB). Instead he tried to tackle high (I do stress TRIED). Emmitt
> >stiff armed the DB and dragged him into the endzone.
>
> They seem to want to strip the ball on every play. They need to wrap up
first
> and then have the second tackler maybe attempt to cause a turnover.
>
It's funny to see the DB catch up to Emmitt and forget how to make a tackle.
> >The last time I checked, Deion Sanders was playing hurt (hamstring). Why
> >didn't the Vikes have their receivers run deep routes on him on every
down?
> >Eventually Deion's gonna give up a big one, because he's not 100%. If
> >J.Hitchcock played hurt in the game, I'm sure the Boys would have threw
the
> >kitchen sink at him. This is just poor play calling but the Vikes OC.
>
> Very good point. Should have ran the hell out of Peon Deon. As crappy as
the
> Cowpies are, they still have a chance to win their crappy division as they
are
> only one game back with 8 to go....................
>
Yeah, put Reed (since he can't catch anyway) on Deion and run deep on every
down. Maybe Deion might letting Reed break one, since Reed will probably
drop it any way.
Don Fraiser
Chad Rohrs <chad...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:1730-382...@storefull-174.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> Guys, please stop saying you can call the plays the Vikings are running!
> I'm assuming most of you mean you are guessing: a) pass b)run
You're right...Pass or Run and no trick plays.
Actually there are different types of running & passing plays but Sherman
does not know or elects to not mix it up. He want's a team that can drive
down the field with basic run & pass plays... but the Vikes aren't that
dominant running nor passing this year. A great OC knows how to create
mis-match and give his players advantage over the opposition.
Just because it's a running play, it doesn't mean that you can't throw in a
counter, shotgun draw, misdirection, reverse...etc. (there ya go, more
running plays than Sherman knows).
Just because it's a passing play, it doesn't mean that you can't throw in
quick slants, screens, QB option...etc...(there ya go, more passing plays
than Sherman knows)
*I think the Bears have a great passing scheme... their receivers runs all
over the field, thus confuses the DBs and allows a receiver to get open.
> That doesn't mean you are calling the plays. It also means you have a
> 50% chance of being right. Then if you factor in the down and distance
> you probably automatically have a 75% chance of being right. Then,
> being a fan of the Vikings and knowing the team very well probably ups
> that percentage even more. But it doesn't mean you know what plays are
> being called, what routes are being run, what run blocking schemes are
> being called, what hole the running back is supposed to go thru, etc.
It seems like the receivers run the same routes on every down, because none
of them are getting open. Perhaps throw in some more routes to Moss to allow
him to get open?
> The defense may know if a run is coming, but where? And to Whom?
Up the middle with L. Hoard (Hoard hardly runs East - West)
> what if they do a play action and go deep to Moss? Uh-oh, now the
> defense is in trouble.
Sherman's not that creative. They have yet to do that this year (remind me
if I'm wrong).
The consecutives of great runs in the 1st series against Dallas was the
golden opportunity for a playaction play, but Sherman elects to run it til
the well runs dry.
> It isn't as simple as we fans make it out to be.
It's never simple, but the play calling is killing us in the Redzone. The
run-run-pass formula is not working....
> Sure, maybe the offense isn't great now, maybe the playcalling isn't as
> good as last season, but do we all expect Sherman to step in and be
> Billick? It is obvious to everybody the offense isn't what it was last
> season. What I'm worried about is will it improve and be potent enough
> at the end of the season? That has yet to be determined.
>
> The good teams usually are the most predictable in the league. They do
> the plays that work well and execute them over and over and the opposing
> team can't stop it anyway.
>
The Vikes are predictable and quite stoppable... maybe they should change to
being unpredictable and perhaps unstoppable...
Don Fraiser
send
> : Sherman to a creative thinking course, because if the fans can guess the
> : play callings on offense... the Defense Coordinator of the opposing team
> : knows exactly what Sherman's thinking.
>
> stop you seemed to work for me. if you are doing something they dont
> and they dont stop, no one complains. running just isnt as exciting to
> watch i think.
A playaction pass after consecutive successful runs?
> as for the rest of the game, our offense was only on the field for a
> very short time in the first half. they didnt look very good, but they
> were having a hard time blocking and they werent really in sync yet. i
> guess you could wonder why they didnt call a draw with palmer out of the
> shotgun or maybe a screen pass. but they did throw the quick hits to the
> WRs to slow up the passrush. i thought that worked well and opened up
> moss late when the DBs were forced to play up close.
>
> aside from a few drops and errant throws, i thought the playcalling
> wasnt the reason the vikes were sucking. although i guess you could
> argue that the blocking schemes are part of that, in which case i guess
> i agree.
The play calling did affect the Vikes inability to score TDs in the Redzone,
in result they kicked 3 FGs (missed one).
>
> : Why would you punt the ball when you are at the opponent's 35yd line
(too
> : far for a FG but too close to punt). Especially on a 4th and only 5yds
to
> : go. Let's see, you have some of the best receivers in the league and a
QB
> : that can deliver the ball to them (given time to throw). The Vikes took
a
> : delay penalty and then punted into the endzone for a TB. 1st and 10 at
the
> : 20yd for Dallas. Overall the punt was worth 15 yds. Rediculous! ...If
> : you're gonna punt, why not angle it for the sideline near the endzone
> : (easier than lodging a high one).
If it's that complicated then why not go for it on 4 & 5 (around the 32yd
line of the opposing team)?
> why not angle it? you think they didnt think of that? what a novel idea!
> thats akin to saying "why dont they just score more?" punting is not
easy.
> you kick an odd-shaped ball with 10 guys screaming towards your body.
>
> as for why kick it? the viking D had dominated the second half. the
cowboys
> were minus their 3 best offensive stars. they had been unable to pass
> effectively in the second half. it may seem unimaginative, but it was
> playing to the team's strengths that game. we picked off 2 passes,
dropped
> 2 other easy picks, and had one pick hit the ground. i agree with forcing
> them to pass in that situation.
Reminder, Dallas got the ball at the 20yd line after the Touch back. The
next play, Chris Warren broken open for a large gain surpassing the 32 yd
line for a 1st down. If the Dallas coaching staff had any brain they would
have ran the hell out of the Minnesota Defense (can't tackle jack).
>
> : The last time I checked, Deion Sanders was playing hurt (hamstring). Why
> : didn't the Vikes have their receivers run deep routes on him on every
down?
> : Eventually Deion's gonna give up a big one, because he's not 100%. If
> : J.Hitchcock played hurt in the game, I'm sure the Boys would have threw
the
> : kitchen sink at him. This is just poor play calling but the Vikes OC.
>
> because that would kil drives quickly. sure, you hit on one, maybe 2.
but
> the rest of the time you are 3 and out. and WRs get tired running too.
Reed, Hatchette, Walsh ... anyone of them would have got the job done.
I betcha Deion would have been walking the sideline after a few deep routes.
Whereas the offense can swap in fresh player to his side of the field.
> so we run the ball a little, stay with short gains and keep our defense
> on the sideline after a VERY long first half for them. in the meantime,
> you set up short plays, drawing the DBs in, and then you hit the 47 yarder
> late to ice the game and win by 10. at the same time, you keep turnovers
> to a minimum en route to a 3 TD/1 INT performance.
>
A deep interception in the opponent's end of the field is as good as a punt
(especially on 3rd down & long).
> given the shoddy tackling early on, the dallas OL dominance through much
> of the game (they did rush for over 200 yds i think), and the time of
> possession (remember, we rely on old guys in doleman and ball), it made
> sense to try to control the clock, especially after momentum had clearly
> shifted. and they did pass downfield after that (the 30 yarder to glover
> that was knocked away, the interception called back for the penalty, the
> 47 yarder to moss, etc).
>
The only way the Vikes can control the clock is by throw short passing
patterns to Carter or the other receivers. They can not run at will.
Michael Bushong
: In article <80a0mg$80b$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>, Michael Bushong
: <bus...@ocf.berkeley.edu> wrote:
:> i dont know that i hated the playcalling. coming out running until they
:> stop you seemed to work for me. if you are doing something they dont
:> stop, why stop yourself?<
: Because eventually they'll stop it, and they did. The Vikings took it to
: the Cowboys for a few plays but they didn't use their early running
: success to set anything up. They just pounded it at Dallas until it was
: stopped. Anderson missed a FG and a promising drive came up empty.
the first run "stop" was a 4 yard gain. the very next play was a playaction
pass, wasnt it? i dont have the game on tape and its been a few days, so
i could be wrong. thats what i thought they did though.
:> as for the rest of the game, our offense was only on the field for a
:> very short time in the first half. they didnt look very good, but they
:> were having a hard time blocking and they werent really in sync yet><
: What is that supposed to mean? They didn't look good BECAUSE they had a
: hard tiem blocking and they weren't in sunc. They weren't on the field
: much in the first half because the could barely manage a #@$*% first down.
: The question is why? That was a big game and they were completely
: unprepared to play. They looked pitiful in the first half.
i would argue that the offense was bad because of the blocking and not
because of the particular plays being called. true, blocking schemes are
part of that (andits probably not fair for me to distinguish the two, but
i will anyway, so there!). and the offense was on the field less because
the dallas offense dictated the pace of the game and controlled the clock.
i guess im just not sure the piss poor performance was all playcalling. there
looked to be quite a bit of execution problem there as well.
: They ran waaay too much on first down.
with the pass blocking as poor as it was and a constant doubleteam on
moss, i dont necessarily think that is a bad thing. in retrospect, sure
the first half sucked. how do you explain the other 27 points?
-Mike
Michael Bushong
: A playaction pass after consecutive successful runs?
they did try to use the playaction pass as i recall, from that 2 WR, 2 RB
set. maybe im just inventing that. i really dont remember at this point.
: The play calling did affect the Vikes inability to score TDs in the Redzone,
: in result they kicked 3 FGs (missed one).
i dont know about that. i think the false start and getting plays in late
and the sack contributed to that as well. reeds dropped ball (yeah, i know
the debate on that play) didnt help either. too much selective amnesia
is being used to critique the playcalling this time.
: Reminder, Dallas got the ball at the 20yd line after the Touch back. The
: next play, Chris Warren broken open for a large gain surpassing the 32 yd
: line for a 1st down. If the Dallas coaching staff had any brain they would
: have ran the hell out of the Minnesota Defense (can't tackle jack).
thanks for the reminder. it doesnt change anything i said. the viking
D dominated the second half aside from a few plays. i still say it was
playing the odds to force garrett to beat them. and hindsight is always
20-20. they didnt score again.
: Reed, Hatchette, Walsh ... anyone of them would have got the job done.
: I betcha Deion would have been walking the sideline after a few deep routes.
: Whereas the offense can swap in fresh player to his side of the field.
so your solution was to run decoys every play streaking down the field,
hoping that deion matches against our #4 receiver or our #3? they set up
a 47 yarder witht he short routes. they went on to score 20 points in
the second half. am i the only one here who thinks a 20 point half
deserves some credit? sheesh. this is ridiculous. the half could easily
have been a 30 point half if a few things go the other way.
i know its in fashion to critique until the cows come home, but at what
point are people content with things? sorry to vent, but i find all the
moaning about things a tad monotonous. the vikes put up 27 unanswered points
after playing piss poor. the coaching staff turned things around and made
halftime adjustments for the first time in i dont know how long (well, the
detroit game to be fair). give them credit for something. but instead we
say its still horrible playcalling even though they scored, won the game,
and dominated the half. i just dont get you people. this is exactly why
so many people who are not pessimists quit posting here.
: A deep interception in the opponent's end of the field is as good as a punt
: (especially on 3rd down & long).
not true at all. maybe on paper. ask anyone who has ever played football
if interceptions are as good as punts when it comes to team and QB morale.
i dont mean to pick on you in this post. the (in my opinion) excessive
criticism of green and (never thouhgt i would say this) sherman is just
getting to me. everyone complains that the coaches dont make halftime
adjustments (ive said it too). but they did this time and they are still
getting reamed. everyone says the playcalling cant lead to points, but
it led to 27 points in 35 mins. i just think that people are not being
fair.
-Mike
Mothman
<bus...@ocf.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> the first run "stop" was a 4 yard gain. the very next play was a playaction
> pass, wasnt it? i dont have the game on tape and its been a few days, so
> i could be wrong. thats what i thought they did though.<
I think you're right, but that was too late. 2nd and 6 in the NFL is a
passing down so the playaction didn't fool anybody. They let the best
opportunity for that play pass them by before calling it.
> i would argue that the offense was bad because of the blocking and not
> because of the particular plays being called. true, blocking schemes are
> part of that (andits probably not fair for me to distinguish the two, but
> i will anyway, so there!).<
Hmmph! ;)
I agree that the playcalling and blocking are inextricably linked but
predictable playcalling definitely puts blockers in a bad position. They
lose a considerable advantage when the defense can easily detemine what's
coming. I also think your point (in another thread) about the o-line
struggling when it takes too long to get to the LoS is a good one.
> and the offense was on the field less because
> the dallas offense dictated the pace of the game and controlled the clock.
> i guess im just not sure the piss poor performance was all playcalling. there
> looked to be quite a bit of execution problem there as well.<
There was. I'm not trying to say that the poor performance was all
playcalling, simply that the first half playcalling did nothing to help
the Vikes get on track. Sherman contributed to the problems rather than
helping to solve them.
> : They ran waaay too much on first down.
>
> with the pass blocking as poor as it was and a constant doubleteam on
> moss, i dont necessarily think that is a bad thing.<
I do. The obsession with running on first down contributes to the o-lines
pass-blocking problems.
> in retrospect, sure the first half sucked. how do you explain the other
27 points?<
The Vikes got it together. The o-line blocked better, they started getting
the ball to CC and, as usual, that ignited the offense. The defense played
much better and the Vikes had good field position to work with for much of
the second half. Several of the biggest plays of the second half were
audibles. Sherman had nothing to do with them. That's becoming a trend.
Jim
Mothman
<bus...@ocf.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> i know its in fashion to critique until the cows come home, but at what
> point are people content with things?<
It has nothing to do with being fashionable, Mike. Many of us are
frustrated with the lackluster, inconsistent performances we're seeing
from a team that should be better. We had high expectations for the
Vikings this year and those expectations weren't unreasonable. The team
hasn't even come close to living up to them, so people are being critical.
> sorry to vent, but i find all the moaning about things a tad
monotonous. the vikes put up 27 unanswered points after playing piss
poor.<
It's the "piss poor" part that has fans like myself angry. There's no
excuse for that crap.
> the coaching staff turned things around and made halftime adjustments
for the first time in i dont know how long (well, the detroit game to be
fair). give them credit for something.<
The single biggest factor in the outcome of the game was the injury to
Emmitt Smith. He's a great player and he was running at will against a
porous defense that was obviously unable to adjust and stop the Cowboys
running game. Did the coaches make great adjustments at halftime to stop
the Cowboys or did injuries to two of the best players of the decade stall
a Cowboys attack that was all but unstoppable in the first half? We'll
never know for sure. All I know is when the Vikings were facing the
playoff-caliber players on the Cowboys, they were getting their collective
ass kicked.
>but instead we say its still horrible playcalling even though they
scored, won the game, and dominated the half. i just dont get you
people. this is exactly why so many people who are not pessimists quit
posting here.<
Is it pessimism or realism, Mike? One of the people you're referring to,
Leafman, ran off because a few of us dared to question Dennis Green's
ability to lead the team to a Super Bowl this year and what he insisted
was an undeniably improved defense. If the defense is better than it was
last year, it's not much better. As for Green, he's coaching a Super Bowl
favorite and he's lucky to be a game over .500. The playcalling often
sucks and the coaching staff isn't getting it done. Most of the Vikings
best offensive plays in the last 3 weeks have come on audibles made by
George. The players are overcoming bad coaching to win these games.
> i dont mean to pick on you in this post. the (in my opinion) excessive
> criticism of green and (never thouhgt i would say this) sherman is just
> getting to me.<
The Vikes had more penalty yards than yards gained in the first half of
the Dallas game. They didn't complete a pass until there were less than 6
minutes remaining in the first half. They didn't even gain 75 yards in the
first half! Is that the play of a playoff-caliber, much less championship
caliber team? Why the hell shouldn't Green and his coaches be criticized
for this? The personnel that set the record for most points scored in a
season is right there on the field and they can't seem to get 4 quarters
woth of good football out of them.
The players share the blame, but this team's coaching problems are
glaringly obvious.
If Green and Sherman don't deserve all the heat they're getting, than tell
me what they're doing so well.
> everyone complains that the coaches dont make halftime
> adjustments (ive said it too). but they did this time and they are still
> getting reamed. everyone says the playcalling cant lead to points, but
> it led to 27 points in 35 mins.<
Audibles made a big difference. The last TD to Moss was all George and
Randy. IIRC, Sherman had nothing to do with it. The key play on the
opening drive of the second half was the 39 yard audible to CC.
> i just think that people are not being fair.
I'm being perfectly fair. Green has coached ths team for 8 years. It's
time for him to produce a real winner, not a team that creeps into the
playoffs and loses inthe first round. I expect to see a top-notch team on
the field every week, ready to play. I expect to see good tackling, good
blocking and smart football. I expect to see the talent on the team used
to it's full potential. When I don't I get "pessimistic".
Is that unfair? Frankly, I don't care.
Jim
Bhaskar Thyagarajan
>Don Fraiser <don.f...@minn.com> wrote:
>: A playaction pass after consecutive successful runs?
>they did try to use the playaction pass as i recall, from that 2 WR, 2 RB
>set. maybe im just inventing that. i really dont remember at this point.
I was driving home from work when that happened, and so I was listening
on the radio, so I may be wrong here. But, I was pretty sure that they
tried an unsuccessful play-action pass on that first drive. Maybe I'm just
remembering it wrong as well. Anyone have the tape?
>: The play calling did affect the Vikes inability to score TDs in the Redzone,
>: in result they kicked 3 FGs (missed one).
>i dont know about that. i think the false start and getting plays in late
>and the sack contributed to that as well. reeds dropped ball (yeah, i know
>the debate on that play) didnt help either. too much selective amnesia
>is being used to critique the playcalling this time.
While I'm not a huge fan of Sherman's playcalling, I have to say that
there were a lot of other things (like execution, for instance) that
contributed more to the offensive woes in the first half. George did not
even have a decent pass attempt until the second quarter.
>: Reminder, Dallas got the ball at the 20yd line after the Touch back. The
>: next play, Chris Warren broken open for a large gain surpassing the 32 yd
>: line for a 1st down. If the Dallas coaching staff had any brain they would
>: have ran the hell out of the Minnesota Defense (can't tackle jack).
>thanks for the reminder. it doesnt change anything i said. the viking
>D dominated the second half aside from a few plays. i still say it was
>playing the odds to force garrett to beat them. and hindsight is always
>20-20. they didnt score again.
You are right about the viking philosophy of making Garrett beat them. But
I'm more conservative than most people around here. It would have been
interesting to see what the Vikes would have done if Aikman had still been
in the game.
>: Reed, Hatchette, Walsh ... anyone of them would have got the job done.
>: I betcha Deion would have been walking the sideline after a few deep routes.
>: Whereas the offense can swap in fresh player to his side of the field.
>so your solution was to run decoys every play streaking down the field,
>hoping that deion matches against our #4 receiver or our #3? they set up
>a 47 yarder witht he short routes. they went on to score 20 points in
>the second half. am i the only one here who thinks a 20 point half
>deserves some credit? sheesh. this is ridiculous. the half could easily
>have been a 30 point half if a few things go the other way.
>i know its in fashion to critique until the cows come home, but at what
>point are people content with things? sorry to vent, but i find all the
>moaning about things a tad monotonous. the vikes put up 27 unanswered points
>after playing piss poor. the coaching staff turned things around and made
>halftime adjustments for the first time in i dont know how long (well, the
>detroit game to be fair). give them credit for something. but instead we
>say its still horrible playcalling even though they scored, won the game,
>and dominated the half. i just dont get you people. this is exactly why
>so many people who are not pessimists quit posting here.
The thing is, a lot of people feel that the Vikings would have lost this
game if Smith and Aikman (or even just Smith) hadn't left the game. Most
people who are complaining do not really believe that the Vikes defense
would have played any better if they were playing first stringers. It is a
lot easier to stop 2nd teamers than to stop future hall of famers. It is
to the Vikings credit that they did that. If you look at the time of
possession in the 2nd half (I haven't looked so I could be wrong), I
wouldn't be surprised if the Vikings had the ball for over 20 minutes.
Yes, they used that time effectively and scored 20 points. But do you
really think that if Smith hadn't gone out, they would have had the luxury
of knowing that they would get the ball back almost immediately?
Can you really count on something like this happening every time?
>: A deep interception in the opponent's end of the field is as good as a punt
>: (especially on 3rd down & long).
>not true at all. maybe on paper. ask anyone who has ever played football
>if interceptions are as good as punts when it comes to team and QB morale.
I would much rather have a punt than an interception.
>i dont mean to pick on you in this post. the (in my opinion) excessive
>criticism of green and (never thouhgt i would say this) sherman is just
>getting to me. everyone complains that the coaches dont make halftime
>adjustments (ive said it too). but they did this time and they are still
>getting reamed. everyone says the playcalling cant lead to points, but
>it led to 27 points in 35 mins. i just think that people are not being
>fair.
Well, most people here want the team to be perfect. We just have to accept
the facts and learn to live with the deficiencies on our team. Forget
about the 1998 regular season. Ain't gonna happen anytime soon.
Bhaskar
Craig Hamann
wrote:
>In article <1730-382...@storefull-174.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
>chad...@webtv.net (Chad Rohrs) wrote:
>
>> The good teams usually are the most predictable in the league.<
>
>What are you talking about? That's a ridiculous statement.
>
>Jim
Unless he means the good teams are predictably good. ;-)
Craig
Craig Hamann
<bus...@ocf.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>Mothman <mot...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>: In article <80a0mg$80b$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>, Michael Bushong
>: <bus...@ocf.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
>i would argue that the offense was bad because of the blocking and not
>because of the particular plays being called. true, blocking schemes are
>part of that (andits probably not fair for me to distinguish the two, but
>i will anyway, so there!). and the offense was on the field less because
>the dallas offense dictated the pace of the game and controlled the clock.
>i guess im just not sure the piss poor performance was all playcalling. there
>looked to be quite a bit of execution problem there as well.
Your point is well-taken. There was a HUGE execution problem with the
OL in the first half, particularly with Todd Steussie. However, the
playcalling sucked as well. As with any abysmal performance, it takes
a team effort, players and coaches, just like a great performance
comes from a whole team.
>
>: They ran waaay too much on first down.
>
>with the pass blocking as poor as it was and a constant doubleteam on
>moss, i dont necessarily think that is a bad thing. in retrospect, sure
>the first half sucked. how do you explain the other 27 points?
Better pass blocking by the OL, which gave Jeff George (a very smart
QB) time to study the field before and during the actual play, though
there was a communication problem regarding the plays that kept
rearing its ugly head. Also, great individual efforts on the part of
Cris Carter and Randy Moss.
Now, does this mean that Ray Sherman is a good OC? No way. He stunk
up the place with his paranoiac, unimaginative typically predictable
playcalling, and it's gotten time to quit making excuses for this guy.
In fact, it's time for us and everyone else to drop the excuses for
the entire team, IMHO.
Craig
Mothman
ham...@worldnet.att.net (Craig Hamann) wrote:
> Now, does this mean that Ray Sherman is a good OC? No way. He stunk
> up the place with his paranoiac, unimaginative typically predictable
> playcalling, and it's gotten time to quit making excuses for this guy.
> In fact, it's time for us and everyone else to drop the excuses for
> the entire team, IMHO.
Correct-a-mundo (as you might say, Craig)!
There are NO excuses for the Vikes. They have the talent, but they aren't
prepared to play every down, every week. They aren't executing
consistently, they're often outcoached, and the playcalling...well,
everybody knows about the playcalling.
After 9 games, they're a big disappointment. However, they've won 3
straight, so maybe they're on the right track!
Jim