The Story of 2012

[Mothman]

If you're dead last at something, doesn't that make it not effective? If you are the very worst, I'd say you are the least effective in the league. That doesn't mean it never works, but that it works less.

But again, that ranking reflects the production of the passing game as a whole, not the short passing game, which is what was being discussed above. Do you see the difference? The Vikings passing game as a whole isn't very effective because they don't compliment a good short passing game with much of anything at the intermediate or deep levels. However, the short passing game itself has been effective and it was extremely effective early in the season when Harvin was healthy.

I don't think any of us do and I doubt there's a Vikings fan out there who doesn't think the passing game needs to be better.

[Mothman]

The funny thing is you DO need a QB like those you mentioned to WIN a superbowl. Any team can win a game here and there with a mediocre QB. But you ain't gonna win the big one. Those days are gone. Our front office has failed miserably over the years in recruiting a real QB for the future.

I seriously doubt those days are gone but a team definitely needs their QB to perform better than Ponder did most of this season in order to win a Super Bowl.

[mansquatch]

Paul Allen brought up a point about Clay Mathews on his show the other day. He doesn't fear him. Why? Because Mathews makes his money stuffing QBs making 7 step drops. The Vikings might do 2 of those on Sunday. Mathews is a great player on GB, why? Because they have Aaron Rogers and make teams pay when they commit turnovers. Mathews ends up rushing in situations where the opponet is making deep throws to try to keep up with Aaron Rogers. That is their model.

Now throw Mathews against Phil Loadholt in the Running Game. I like our chances there. The key is you have to keep the game manable by PLAYING DEFENSE and keeping the Packer O in check. You also have to limit take aways. Most importantly you win TOP and limit the chances Roger's has to make a play. Guys like Rogers are going to get their plays. However if he only has the ball for 25 minutes instead of 32, you limit his snaps. This is effective IMO.

The Vikings are bucking the trend. The question to me is whether or not someone thinks this will work enough to get a SB win. If you do think it is will work then you might re-evaluate what the team needs. Maybe Mike LB is more important than WR in the 1st round?

[Crax]

But again, that ranking reflects the production of the passing game as a whole, not the short passing game, which is what was being discussed above. Do you see the difference? T

Of course I see the difference, however, I believe both purplehaze and I were referring to the passing game as a whole. You can separate out portions if you'd like, but if your passing game sucks overall, it still sucks. I don't have the stats to break it down to just short vs long comparisons with other teams, but as a whole, our passing game is terrible. If you have the stats with that level of detail, go ahead and post them, I'd be interested in a look at them. Are we that much better than others at them, or is that just all we do?

Frankly, it doesn't matter how good you are at one thing if that's the only thing you can do. We can't/won't throw it downfield with any real success. I don't think it matters how good your short game is if you can't pass it for 10 yards when you need 10 yards. 3 yard passes are fine on 1st down, but if it's third and ten and we're counting on two broken tackles to get a first down, that's asking a lot.

I seriously doubt those days are gone

It's been about a decade since Tampa won the SB. What makes you think with all the rule changes lately, that defensive based teams are going to make a comeback? SF changed to Kapernick from Smith because they felt he couldn't get them where they wanted to go with a predominately short only game and they were already a great defensive team. You need big play ability.

[dead_poet]

Our passing game is a complete joke. Sure, we can win a game here and there if Check Down does not throw any interceptions and AD and our defense take over. The bottom line is this team will never make it deep in the playoffs or make a superbowl run with check down at the helms. You can take that to the bank.

There's a difference between check-downs and designed short passes. Ponder doesn't check down much at all, electing to run (or try) instead.

[Mothman]

Ofcourse I see the difference, however, I believe both purplehaze and I were referring to the passing game as a whole. You can separate out portions if you'd like, but if your passing game sucks overall, it still sucks.

I apologize for asking but it wasn't clear to me that you were seeing the difference. I meant no insult by the question.

I don't have the stats to break it down to just short vs long comparisons with other teams, but as a whole, our passing game is terrible. If you have the stats with that level of detail, go ahead and post them, I'd be interested in a look at them. Are we that much better than others at them, or is that just all we do?

I don't know where to find those stats but short passing is primarily what the Vikes do because it's about all they do effectively in the passing game. The point is that they do it effectively. Since pass ranking is based on yardage, naturally a team that doesn't have much of an intermediate or deep passing game is going to be ranked low (as is a team with a relatively low number of attempts). I think the distinction Thatguy was trying to make above is that the Vikes have gradually accepted their limitations in the passing game this season and are now finding ways to win by emphasizing what they can do efficiently.

Frankly, it doesn't matter how good you are at one thing if that's the only thing you can do.

I agree but thats not the only thing the Vikings offense can do well. They can run the ball, even against stacked fronts. When combined with good defense and a short-but-efficient passing game, that's been a winning formula. It probably isn't a Super Bowl-winning formula and nobody is suggesting we should all just be satisfied with an offense that lacks a deep passing game but we should be able to acknowledge shortcomings in one area while simultaneously acknowledging effectiveness in another.

It's been about a decade since Tampa won the SB. What makes you think with all the rule changes lately, that defensive based teams are going to make a comeback? SF changed to Kapernick from Smith because they felt he couldn't get them where they wanted to go with a predominately short only game and they were already a great defensive team. You need big play ability.

My point (which I should have made more clearly) was that a team doesn't need a QB like Brady, Peyton Manning, Rodgers, Brees, etc. to win the Super Bowl. It's not necessary to have a 4000 yard passer. More often than not, balance wins Super Bowls and it's not as if strong defensive teams stopped winning Super Bowls after Tampa Bay won. GB was second in the NFL in scoring defense when they won a few years ago. The 2008 Steelers led the league in scoring defense and won the Super Bowl. The 2005 Steelers, 2003-04 Patriots all had very good defenses. Defense can still be a very big factor in determining the league champion. Does a team need big play ability? Absolutely but that's usually not what wins Super Bowls. In almost every case, it's good team football that leads to a championship...

... and please, don't misinterpret any of this as an argument that the Vikings passing game is just fine as it is right now because it obviously needs to be upgraded.

[Crax]

My point (which I should have made more clearly) was that a team doesn't need a QB like Brady, Peyton Manning, Rodgers, Brees, etc. to win the Super Bowl. It's not necessary to have a 4000 yard passer. More often than not, balance wins Super Bowls and it's not as if strong defensive teams stopped winning Super Bowls after Tampa Bay won. GB was second in the NFL in scoring defense when they won a few years ago. The 2008 Steelers led the league in scoring defense and won the Super Bowl. The 2005 Steelers, 2003-04 Patriots all had very good defenses. Defense can still be a very big factor in determining the league champion. Does a team need big play ability? Absolutely but that's usually not what wins Super Bowls. In almost every case, it's good team football that leads to a championship...

Yes, you need more than just offense. However, almost all those teams you mentioned had a QB in the top 10.

Rankings below are where they ranked by passer rating.

Big Ben 3rd in 2005 season with 3836 yards in regular season
Brady 10th in 2003 season with 3620yards, 9th in 04 with 3692
Ben was mediocre in 2008 regular season but was 2nd for overall rating in playoffs
Rogers was 3rd in the regular season with 3922 yards and #1 in postseason QB rating the year the packers won.
Brees was #1 in the regular season the year they won and had 4388 yards

So, even with those great defensive teams you pointed out, they still had extremely good QB play. You could argue about 2008 as Ben was average in the season, but did turn it on for the playoffs. Most had at least 3500 yards and even Ben in 2008 had 3300.

Brad Johnson was 17th in the regular season the year tampa won it and like 6th in the playoffs(9th in yds/game for the playoffs). I just don't see a team winning it like that these days.

[mansquatch]

Not sure who said it this bluntly, but here it is: "Our passing game sucks"

I would say that it is definitely the weakest aspect of our team. Which would make the statement "It needs to be improved" quite valid. So I think we all agree on that.

However, this is the question that I think seems obvious, but in reality might now be: "How?"

Not so far as which guy do we get. My question is do we truly need a downfield deep passing game? If they are taking 2 or 3 shots a game tops, what benefit does this have? That is the thing about a deep threat. Yes a defense has to respect him, but you also have to take shots to keep the respect. The Vikings are not taking many of these shots right now. So say they double it to 5-6 a game. Deep shots typically result in no gain or worse a pick when you don't get the catch. Over the course of a game would these extra shots hurt or help the team?

I'm not 100% convinced this would all be for the better. I think this team is built to manage down and distance, play ball control, and get it's burst yardage from #28. That means not wasting many plays on passing shots. More shots means more 3rd and long and fewere touches for AP. I'm not sure this is what we want or even need? To further compound this, when Harvin is healthy, that means fewer shots for him.

Here is another angle. What "shot" is better? Some might argue that giving the ball to AP is taking a shot every carry. PH is even more interesting. Any bubble screen or quick out and he has what 2 guys to beat and he is gone? Those seem to be much higher % "shots" than the deep post. Especialy with out Talent.

It seems to me that embedded in this discussion is the question of whether run first/ short pass/ solid defense can work. This model is different than pass first/ produce turnovers style you see in NE/GB/NO. In many ways the two approaches are opposite of one another. One values risk taking and explosiveness, the other values control. Even this is too simplistic, I think both methods are viable. The issue is whether you have the talent to make it work. I'd argue that with AP/PH you have a 2 headed monster that doesn't take it's bite in the deep passing game.

[Mothman]

Yes, you need more than just offense. However, almost all those teams you mentioned had a QB in the top 10.

Rankings below are where they ranked by passer rating.

Big Ben 3rd in 2005 season with 3836 yards in regular season
Brady 10th in 2003 season with 3620yards, 9th in 04 with 3692
Ben was mediocre in 2008 regular season but was 2nd for overall rating in playoffs
Rogers was 3rd in the regular season with 3922 yards and #1 in postseason QB rating the year the packers won.
Brees was #1 in the regular season the year they won and had 4388 yards

So, even with those great defensive teams you pointed out, they still had extremely good QB play. You could argue about 2008 as Ben was average in the season, but did turn it on for the playoffs. Most had at least 3500 yards and even Ben in 2008 had 3300.

Brad Johnson was 17th in the regular season the year tampa won it and like 6th in the playoffs(9th in yds/game for the playoffs). I just don't see a team winning it like that these days.

I see absolutely no logical reason why it can't happen. I'm not arguing that a QB and highly productive passing game aren't huge assets in winning the Super Bowl, only that there are still other viable paths to winning it all. I also wasn't suggesting the teams I listed above won the Super Bowl without strong QB play. I don't think Tampa Bay did either. At the time the Bucs won, I wouldn't call Brad Johnson a mediocre or average QB. He had an excellent season that year, throwing 22 TDs and just 6 INTs. He threw for 3000+ yards and finished with a passer rating of 92.9 for the season. Only 3 QBs with 200+ attempts had a higher rating that season (Pennington, Bulger and Gannon). Johnson wasn't a top 10 QB in terms of passing yardage but among starters, he was in the top 10 in passer rating and completion percentage.

If you look back through Super Bowl history, more often than not the teams that won had good-to-great QBs. It would be surprising if it was otherwise since QB is the most important position on a football team. However, as I said above, balance is what usually wins Super Bowls and that's why there's absolutely no reason why a team can't win without a 4000 yard passer or a even a top 10 QB (in terms of yardage). The game hasn't changed that dramatically since the Bucs won it all. The Super Bowl is always won by the team that plays the better game. It's not always won by the team with the best QB.

[Mothman]

not 100% convinced this would all be for the better. I think this team is built to manage down and distance, play ball control, and get it's burst yardage from #28. That means not wasting many plays on passing shots. More shots means more 3rd and long and fewere touches for AP. I'm not sure this is what we want or even need? To further compound this, when Harvin is healthy, that means fewer shots for him.

.. and when Harvin is healthy, I'd amend your statement above to read: "...this team is built to manage down and distance, play ball control, and get it's burst yardage from #28 and #12." You basically said the same thing later in your post.

It seems to me that embedded in this discussion is the question of whether run first/ short pass/ solid defense can work. This model is different than pass first/ produce turnovers style you see in NE/GB/NO. In many ways the two approaches are opposite of one another. One values risk taking and explosiveness, the other values control. Even this is too simplistic, I think both methods are viable. The issue is whether you have the talent to make it work. I'd argue that with AP/PH you have a 2 headed monster that doesn't take it's bite in the deep passing game.

I think that's true and I agree that both methods you described above are viable. However, I do think the Vikes need more of a downfield passing game and a better threat on the outside. Otherwise, it's still too easy for good defenses to limit what they can do offensively. To answer your question, the benefit of taking 2-3 deep shots a game (or even 5 or 6) is minimal if, like this year's Vikes, those shots almost never result in a positive play. However, if the team can connect on more of those shots over the course of a season, it can result in more points, open things up even more for AD, PH and Rudolph and create a much more difficult situation for opposing defenses.

That said, I don't think it's the deep threat they need so much as the outside threat. To put it another way, I don't think they need to be able to hit 40+ yard passes nearly as much as they need to be able to connect on far more 15-25 yard passes. That ability to occupy a safety with an outside WR or pick on an overmatched corner should make their entire offense more productive.

[mansquatch]

So here is my take on the whole clogged LOS line. If you line Harvin up at WR, that would seem to alleviate the issue, you could still line him up in a Twins Formation on the far side of the field to run bubble screens and what not. That is going to foce two defenders outside, or more if they are focusing on #12. Point being, formation can solve that problem.

I agree to some extent on the outside threat, I'm just not sold on how important it really is to this offense. It wouldn't hurt, but when Harvin is healthy you've got an outside threat, he just gets his yards AFTER the catch. What I think think they really need is a guy who can make a defense pay given the favorable coverages he'll see with 28 and 12 on the field. Such a player doesn't need to be spectacular, just more consistent than the current assortment of knuckleheads.

It is also worth recognizing that Harvin went down just as AP was starting to come on. We never really got to see them both playing at peak level at the same time.

[Mothman]

So here is my take on the whole clogged LOS line. If you line Harvin up at WR, that would seem to alleviate the issue, you could still line him up in a Twins Formation on the far side of the field to run bubble screens and what not. That is going to foce two defenders outside, or more if they are focusing on #12. Point being, formation can solve that problem.

I don't think it's a clogged LOS issue as much as it is a "defense can focus on PH and AD and the Vikes can rarely beat them with anyone else" issue. Sometimes, even with that focus, the Vikes will still be able to win because PH and AD are that good and if the defense plays well too, it's going to result in wins just like it did this season. Rudolph will make his share of catches but there will be games (just as there were this season) when the team needs more.

I agree to some extent on the outside threat, I'm just not sold on how important it really is to this offense. It wouldn't hurt, but when Harvin is healthy you've got an outside threat, he just gets his yards AFTER the catch.

That's not quite the same thing. A true outside threat moves the safety and draws double teams or he beats single coverage. Harvin can do those things but it's not his strong suit. He's much more effective in the slot, where it's easier to create matchup problems, get him a free release, create room for him to run, etc.

What I think think they really need is a guy who can make a defense pay given the favorable coverages he'll see with 28 and 12 on the field. Such a player doesn't need to be spectacular, just more consistent than the current assortment of knuckleheads.

Exactly!

Just to be clear, when I say "outside threat", I don't just mean it as a euphemism for "deep threat", although ideally, that would be part of that player's game. I literally mean an outside threat. An above average flanker or split end would make a real difference. Right now, I'd say the players at those two positions are average at best and I believe they'd be reducing Harvin's effectiveness if they asked him to play either of those positions the majority of the time.

[CalVike]

Comparison of 2012 Vikings Offensive TD Drives with 4 Recent Super Bowl Champs

Please match the team listed below the graphic with the letters A, B, C, D, E



I picked the 2011 Giants and 2010 Packers because they barely got in as the #6 seed. I picked the 2003 Bucs and 2000 Ravens as they were known for winning with less offense and superb defense.

[Spoiler Below]








A = Giants, B= Packers, C = Vikings, D = Bucs, E = Ravens

[Mothman]

Comparison of 2012 Vikings Offensive TD Drives with 4 Recent Super Bowl Champs

Please match the team listed below the graphic with the letters A, B, C, D, E



I picked the 2011 Giants and 2010 Packers because they barely got in as the #6 seed. I picked the 2003 Bucs and 2000 Ravens as they were known for winning with less offense and superb defense.

Hmmm... I'll say:

A= Giants
B= Packers
C= Vikings
D= Bucs
E= Ravens

[yezzir]

This Vikings season is a solid justification as to why the NFL is the most popular sport in America.