Vikings Free Head Exam (Vikes vs. 49ers)

[VikingLord]

It seems even more unlikely that they're being coached not to keep moving and help their QB out.

So in your view it's more likely that these WR's made it all the way through Pop Warner, high school, college, and for most, several years in the pros and were never told to keep moving and help the QB out, and that the Vikings of all teams obtained not just one, not just two, but 3+ of these guys, several of whom are regular starters?

I don't know for a fact that they're being told to sit down on broken plays, but if I had to bet between they are being told to do that (directly or indirectly given what Ponder is instructed to do in those situations) or they are just so clueless they literally can't grasp the concept of staying alive and trying to make a play, I'd have to go with the former. To go with the latter suggests a level of incompetence on the part of the team's talent evaluators that would be impossible to believe.

[Delaqure]

Well, I don't know the answer of course. None of us do, unless someone has an inside source. All is speculation at this point. But it must be said that I really have a hard time believing a coaching staff would tell receivers to stand around while the quarterback is scrambling. Good lord! All the DBs had to do was stand along side and wait for the rushers to get to the QB.

I am actually leaning towards the incompitence of the receivers here. We all know what a lousy bunch we have had. They are all journeymen receivers. One has to ask why? Well maybe Sunday we got just one more glimpse as to why. They can't run good routes, they can't separate and they can't figure out what to do when the QB scrambles.

I will eat my words if we find out otherwise.

[Mothman]

So in your view it's more likely that these WR's made it all the way through Pop Warner, high school, college, and for most, several years in the pros and were never told to keep moving and help the QB out, and that the Vikings of all teams obtained not just one, not just two, but 3+ of these guys, several of whom are regular starters?

No, and I haven't said that either. However, is there any good reason to think it's more likely that coaches who have been around the game much longer than the team's eligible receivers are telling their players to sit down on routes while their QB scrambles?

I don't know for a fact that they're being told to sit down on broken plays, but if I had to bet between they are being told to do that (directly or indirectly given what Ponder is instructed to do in those situations) or they are just so clueless they literally can't grasp the concept of staying alive and trying to make a play, I'd have to go with the former. To go with the latter suggests a level of incompetence on the part of the team's talent evaluators that would be impossible to believe.

Fortunately, those aren't the only 2 choices available.

The Vikings have an experienced offensive coaching staff and all of the eligible receivers have been playing football for a long time so I doubt this issue has anything to do with incompetence. As I said, I think it's a question of field awareness and perhaps, in some cases, it's a matter of indecision as well. The WRs aren't looking back at the QB all the time. If they're running a route and haven't turned back yet when Ponder scrambles, maybe by the time they're aware that he's running it's too late to help. Perhaps they don't move to help him quickly enough or they feel it's better to block. Maybe they just experience a moment of indecision. Maybe their route have taken them to the opposite side of the field from where their QB is scrambling and there's nothing they can do to get themselves into position to help. There are plenty of explanations beyond the two you proposed.

[psjordan]

The Vikings have an experienced offensive coaching staff and all of the eligible receivers have been playing football for a long time so I doubt this issue has anything to do with incompetence. As I said, I think it's a question of field awareness and perhaps, in some cases, it's a matter of indecision as well. The WRs aren't looking back at the QB all the time. If they're running a route and haven't turned back yet when Ponder scrambles, maybe by the time they're aware that he's running it's too late to help. Perhaps they don't move to help him quickly enough or they feel it's better to block.

Gotta say those all sound like coaching issues to me, especially when these issues appear to be systemic to the Vikes.

How about a meaningless comparison:

NYG vs CAR:
HC: Coughlin
WR Coach: Kevin Gilbride
QB: Manning
WR/TE: Ramses Barden (who?), 9-138
WR/TE: Martellus Bennett (who?) 6-73
WR/TE: Victor Cruz 6-42
WR/TE: Henry Hynoski (who?): 2-15

MIN vs SF:
HC: Frazier
WR Coach: George Stewart
QB: Ponder
WR/TE: Percy Harvin 9-89
WR/TE: Kyle Rudolph 5-36
WR/TE: Devin Aromashodu 2-24
WR/TE: Michael Jenkins 1-8

Would you guess the difference between Aromashodu and Barden is all that much physically or athletically? As an admittedly wild guess, I don't.

I would lean WAY more towards Coughlin/Gilbride/Manning having a huge effect on Barden's ability to perform on game day when called.

I guess in general I have a "Henry Hynoski" rule: When Henry Hynoski is outperforming our supposed #1 WR, I feel we have coaching issues.

There is no way (probability-wise) in my book that over the past (George Stewart) years we have simply gotten stuck, luck-of-the-draw-wise, with sub-standard, not-sure-what-to-do-on-busted-plays receivers.

We (obviously to me) simply don't practice this stuff enough. As a 3-13 team we could certainly have bigger practice concerns, I will grant you that.

Edit: I guess you'd have to throw OC's in the above as well.

[Mothman]

Gotta say those all sound like coaching issues to me, especially when these issues appear to be systemic to the Vikes.

You have got to be kidding me. If a player is running a deep route and the protection breaks down before he turns to look for the ball, that's a coaching issue? If a player is running a crossing route from right to left and the protection breaks down on the left side, forcing the QB to roll right, in the opposite direction of the route, it's a coaching issue if the receiver doesn't break off his route and get all the way back cross the field into position to help the QB? That wouldn't even be advisable since the receiver would already have run his defender out of the play.

How about a meaningless comparison:

You're right, that was a meaningless comparison. Sorry to be flippant but seriously, you're picking one game with a big performance by a backup WR as an example. I just don't see the relevance.

I guess in general I have a "Henry Hynoski" rule: When Henry Hynoski is outperforming our supposed #1 WR, I feel we have coaching issues.

What does your "Hynoski rule" have to do with the Vikings? Henry Hynoski hasn't even come close to out-performing the Vikes #1 WR this season (and by the way, Hynoski is a fullback).

There is no way (probability-wise) in my book that over the past (George Stewart) years we have simply gotten stuck, luck-of-the-draw-wise, with sub-standard, not-sure-what-to-do-on-busted-plays receivers.

We (obviously to me) simply don't practice this stuff enough.

I think that's an assumption with little real evidence to support it. I understand your views on coaching and practice and how the latter translates into game performance and I think they're valid. However, players still have to be held responsible for their performances. It's too easy to constantly point the finger back at coaching for every little thing that doesn't go well. The Vikes better receivers over the George Stewart years have done just what you would expect them to do in most broken play situations. If coaching was the problem, we shouldn't see that , should we? To me, the more logical conclusion is that mediocre and marginal receivers on the team over the same time period performed in inconsistent, mediocre ways because they are inconsistent, mediocre players.

[Demi]

We (obviously to me) simply don't practice this stuff enough.

Don't even try to argue with him on this, there are a number of issues with this team it seems aren't coached. Or at least aren't focused on enough to make a difference. But for some reason the idea the coaches are to blame at all isn't a possibility. Skills like this aren't something players have, or don't. They're coached. And the fact that some players have it, and others don't on this team, make me wonder if those "better" receivers we have were simply better coached and able to overcome the lack of coaching they're receiving now...

[Purple bruise]

Don't even try to argue with him on this, there are a number of issues with this team it seems aren't coached. Or at least aren't focused on enough to make a difference. But for some reason the idea the coaches are to blame at all isn't a possibility. Skills like this aren't something players have, or don't. They're coached. And the fact that some players have it, and others don't on this team, make me wonder if those "better" receivers we have were simply better coached and able to overcome the lack of coaching they're receiving now...

You and I certainly do not agree on many aspects of this team but what is the point that you are trying to make here Your sentences are usually well constructed and you get your point across but I can't figure this out.

[Mothman]

Don't even try to argue with him on this, there are a number of issues with this team it seems aren't coached. Or at least aren't focused on enough to make a difference. But for some reason the idea the coaches are to blame at all isn't a possibility.

I'm wondering why it seems so hard for people to believe the actual players involved in these plays might be responsible.

I'm openminded, I just need more than unsupported assumptions or kneejerk reactions to convince me the coaches are responsible. If the coaches are supposedly teaching players to sit down on routes instead of moving to help the QB when he scrambles, then why aren't they all doing it and why aren't they doing it more consistently? For example, there have been plays when Aromashodu has failed to break off a route or come back and help Ponder and plays where he has reacted to the scramble and helped. Harvin, Rudolph and the RBs tend to react and help too. If there was a consistent failure to move, improvise and help the QB, it would make a much more convincing argument that coaching was responsible for the problem but that consistent non-reaction simply isn't there... and it's hard to understand why the coaches would want the players to sit on routes when a play breaks down in the first place.

It's possible that lack of practice in this area is the problem (or at least part of the problem) but that's simply an unsupported assumption, one possible explanation among many. Point me to something more substantial than an assumption or an unrelated comparison to the Giants performance against Carolina and I might find it more convincing. Until then, it's a theory I'm happy to entertain but not a conclusion I'm willing to draw.

Skills like this aren't something players have, or don't. They're coached.

Kids who play street ball know enough to improvise and try to get open on a broken play. It barely even qualifies as a skill. Doing it well is a skill but understanding that you need to get open or throw a block is beyond basic. It's absurd to suggest players who have played football long enough to reach the pro level don't grasp the concept that they need to help their QB when a play breaks down. It's even more absurd to suggest that experienced professional coaches would actually teach them to stand around in a situation like that rather than throw a block, get open or run defenders out of the play.

I think the real problem here is that for many fans, the default response to almost any aspect of the team that dissatisfies them is to jump to the conclusion that coaching is the problem.

[psjordan]

You have got to be kidding me. If a player is running a deep route and the protection breaks down before he turns to look for the ball, that's a coaching issue?

Therein lies the rub. We are not talking about A player running A deep route. We are talking about more than a handful of receivers and several years of routes. We are talking about different QB's. The common ground is the WR coach of six years, the HC who is in his 5th season with the team and an OC in his second year who is a bit of a retread.

It is simply not realistic for me to believe our coaches are doing a good job addressing this issue. I'm not saying our receivers are blameless, I am saying the much more common thread here is the coaching.

You were right about one thing, there is no reason to get flippant.

[VikingLord]

Kids who play street ball know enough to improvise and try to get open on a broken play. It barely even qualifies as a skill. Doing it well is a skill but understanding that you need to get open or throw a block is beyond basic. It's absurd to suggest players who have played football long enough to reach the pro level don't grasp the concept that they need to help their QB when a play breaks down. It's even more absurd to suggest that experienced professional coaches would actually teach them to stand around in a situation like that rather than throw a block, get open or run defenders out of the play.

I think the real problem here is that for many fans, the default response to almost any aspect of the team that dissatisfies them is to jump to the conclusion that coaching is the problem.

For me it comes down to which is more likely - the incompetent group of receivers at the pro level or the incompetent coaching at the pro level. Given the way coaches have been hired by this ownership group, I'd argue that the latter is more likely than it might be otherwise.

For the examples you cited where the WR is in no position to react, I don't think anyone is citing those cases as part of the problem. The only case where this matters is where the receiver is in a position to react and fails to do so. At that point it is either the receiver who is not reacting as one would expect, or the coaching that is telling that receiver to do something particular in that situation.

Blaming this on coaching isn't as far-fetched as you make it sound, Jim. Remember when Childress basically forbade Brad Johnson from audibling? That was hard to believe given Johnson's experience and the relative ineffectiveness of Chilly's playcalling at the time, but it was true. Remember when Johnson came out and said he and Chilly rarely talked? One would think Chilly as the offensive mastermind would want to be sure he and his QB are on the same page, and yet that didn't happen, either. It's not beyond reason to think that a coach might get something in his head and decide that's the way it's going to be in a particular situation even if it doesn't make sense to external observers.

As before I admit I don't know the answer, but to me it continues to be less likely that the Vikings managed to find a group of receivers who made it all the way to the pros who don't know how or when to do something as basic as try to keep themselves alive when a play starts to break down. As to the why that would be coached, I have no idea, but I'd imagine there is a good one in someone's mind somewhere.

[Mothman]

Therein lies the rub. We are not talking about A player running A deep route. We are talking about more than a handful of receivers and several years of routes. We are talking about different QB's. The common ground is the WR coach of six years, the HC who is in his 5th season with the team and an OC in his second year who is a bit of a retread.

The common ground to what? I thought I understood what we were talking about in this thread but now I wonder if we're talking about different things. I haven't seen a consistent, multi-year tendency by Vikings receivers to leave the QB on his own when the play breaks down. Heck, I haven't even seen a consistent tendency to do that this year. It's happened but definitely not consistently. In fact, the Vikes receivers did a good job of helping Ponder out on broken plays against the 49ers. The announcers commented on it and I've been re-watching the game and seeing the receivers do a good job in this department. Of course, they didn't do a very good job of it against Indy which suggests to me that, if anything, the coaches may have addressed the problem when they saw it on film.

You were right about one thing, there is no reason to get flippant.

We've known each other long enough that I figured you could take the ribbing and this IS supposed to be fun, right? You said yourself that you were posting a meaningless comparison and I honestly did find it meaningless. What happened in one Giants/Panthers game has no real relevance to the performance of the Vikings receivers.

[psjordan]

I think the real problem here is that for many fans, the default response to almost any aspect of the team that dissatisfies them is to jump to the conclusion that coaching is the problem.

Dangerously teetering near the bane of the Internet "there are no gray areas only black and white". A position you usually do not take.
No one that I have seen has stated "coaching is the problem period end of story". I would say universally we agree there is more than one source of the team's problems in any given area. No one would realistically take the position the coaching is 100% of the problem in the area under discussion.

We are talking shades here. And for me, it is far more likely that the coaches carry the biggest burden with our lack of "receiver" production outside of the odd superstar (Moss, Harvin) we happen to land.

The Giants comparison is not totally meaningless and was posted for a reason. Under Coughlin they are perennially drafting behind us and perennially finishing in front of us in a ton of meaningful categories. Even though they seemingly have as many - if not more - devastating injuries to important positions as any other team. In the area under discussion, they consistently have receivers (I really don't care if it's a FB) who seem to annihilate common expectations. From current stud Victor Cruz to the unknowns catching 17 passes in a game to Jake Ballard to Ahmad Bradshaw etc. etc.

You are free to continue to believe coaches are zero percent of the problem

[psjordan]

The common ground to what? I thought I understood what we were talking about in this thread but now I wonder if we're talking about different things.

Yeah maybe that is an issue.
In general I am talking about the woeful lack of receiving production (by non-superstar receivers) our team has managed under the current WR coach and the current HC who has been with the team for awhile. A subset of that problem is the "getting open when the play breaks down", but it seems a nice litmus test/focal point for the discussion.

[Mothman]

For me it comes down to which is more likely - the incompetent group of receivers at the pro level or the incompetent coaching at the pro level. Given the way coaches have been hired by this ownership group, I'd argue that the latter is more likely than it might be otherwise.

The hiring process has absolutely nothing to do with this. This isn't an unproven staff lacking in NFL experience or pedigree. As for incompetence... I just don't think the only 2 choices in this situation are incompetence on the part of the coaches or the players. I don't think it's anywhere near that black and white and the problem is hardly an epidemic. As I just mentioned to Paul, in the last game the Vikes receivers actually did a good job of helping their QB out when the play broke down. There have been times when they didn't but I believe there are easier and more logical explanations for that than incompetence. We've discussed a few but another potential explanation is that players can slip into bad habits which need to be corrected. We read about it all the time, even regarding star players.

For the examples you cited where the WR is in no position to react, I don't think anyone is citing those cases as part of the problem. The only case where this matters is where the receiver is in a position to react and fails to do so. At that point it is either the receiver who is not reacting as one would expect, or the coaching staff that is telling that receiver to do something particular in that situation.

Blaming this on coaching isn't as far-fetched as you make it sound, Jim. Remember when Childress basically forbade Brad Johnson from audibling? That was hard to believe given Johnson's experience and the relative ineffectiveness of Chilly's playcalling at the time, but it was true. Remember when Johnson came out and said he and Chilly rarely talked? One would think Chilly as the offensive mastermind would want to be sure he and his QB are on the same page, and yet that didn't happen, either. It's not beyond reason to think that a coach might get something in his head and decide that's the way it's going to be in a particular situation even if it doesn't make sense to external observers.

No, it's not but since it would be highly unorthodox, if not just baffling, for coaches to ask players to sit down at the end of their routes and not react to a broken play. That seems like one of the more unlikely explanations for the problem, not an explanation that should top the list. I can't think of a reason the Vikes would ask players to do that and their receivers don't behave that way consistently enough for me to conclude they are being coached to do it. It's hard to even imagine the skewed logic that would lie behind such a strategy.

As before I admit I don't know the answer, but to me it continues to be less likely that the Vikings managed to find a group of receivers who made it all the way to the pros who don't know how or when to do something as basic as try to keep themselves alive when a play starts to break down. As to the why that would be coached, I have no idea, but I'd imagine there is a good one in someone's mind somewhere.

You might be right about that but I'd love to hear it. Like you, I have no idea why anyone would coach that...

Regarding the idea that pro receivers are failing to keep themselves alive when a play breaks down because they don't know how or when to have the proper reaction: I think they could easily just have a moment of indecision on some plays, not sure whether they should throw a block or try to get open... or they might fail to diagnose the situation quickly enough to help out.

[Mothman]

Dangerously teetering near the bane of the Internet "there are no gray areas only black and white". A position you usually do not take.

You're right and I wasn't really trying to take it there. I was just aggravated.

The Giants comparison is not totally meaningless and was posted for a reason. Under Coughlin they are perennially drafting behind us and perennially finishing in front of us in a ton of meaningful categories. Even though they seemingly have as many - if not more - devastating injuries to important positions as any other team. In the area under discussion, they consistently have receivers (I really don't care if it's a FB) who seem to annihilate common expectations. From current stud Victor Cruz to the unknowns catching 17 passes in a game to Jake Ballard to Ahmad Bradshaw etc. etc.

You are free to continue to believe coaches are zero percent of the problem

Very funny.

I'll admit the Giants have done a great job of finding some gems while sometimes drafting later than the Vikings but that doesn't necessarily have much to do with coaching. That could be due to superior scouting and drafting (although the coaches are the ones developing the players). I'm certainly not going to make the argument that the Vikes are better than the Giants or other teams that have been successful for an extended period of time when it comes to scouting and drafting.

Regarding the FB... I just don't understand his inclusion in your comments. I see how players like Cruz or Bradshaw have annihilated expectations but I don't see what Henry Hynoski and his 2 catches for 15 yards have to do with anything.