What are your expectations for Teddy this season?

[losperros]

I understand what you're saying but guys on here are acting like it's impossible to play well behind a bad offensive line. The thing is, rivers is playing exceptionally well. Teddy is playing below average. Big difference there. I would be happy if teddy was playing average to slightly above average but right now he's not and I'm not going to sit here and put all the blame on the offensive line

I just watched the game again and I must say the OL played terrible. Both their run and pass blocking sucked. If this doesn't somehow improve, the Vikings offense isn't going to get much better. And they definitely need to get better.

That said, Teddy played hot and cold. Usually Bridgewater doesn't try to force things but there were too many times when he did exactly that in this game. He needs to get on top of his game.

Bridgewater's inexperience certainly plays into some of the troubles in the passing game, though he's far from being the only one to blame. As I said, the blocking is terrible and like some others on this board, I'm beginning to seriously question what Turner is doing with the passing game, if not the entire offense.

As for Bridgewater vs Rivers, it's a comparison that should never be made. TB is still learning. He needs time to develop.

[Pondering Her Percy]

I just watched the game again and I must say the OL played terrible. Both their run and pass blocking sucked. If this doesn't somehow improve, the Vikings offense isn't going to get much better. And they definitely need to get better.

That said, Teddy played hot and cold. Usually Bridgewater doesn't try to force things but there were too many times when he did exactly that in this game. He needs to get on top of his game.

Bridgewater's inexperience certainly plays into some of the troubles in the passing game, though he's far from being the only one to blame. As I said, the blocking is terrible and like some others on this board, I'm beginning to seriously question what Turner is doing with the passing game, if not the entire offense.

As for Bridgewater vs Rivers, it's a comparison that should never be made. TB is still learning. He needs time to develop.

I hear ya. I'm not necessarily trying to compare them i am just simply saying that QBs can still play well behind bad offensive lines. He's definitely not the only one to blame but he had some costly mistakes that game that he needs to fix. I thought our pass blocking was better that game but I also have no idea what KC was doing. There was so many times where they only rushed 3 and Teddy had lots of time and at times, still didnt convert. Did KC not watch game tape of us?? You send blitzes and that line has serious trouble.

[Boon]

The Patterson deal alone shows me turner has no idea what he's doing. It frustrates me to no end. He has really good hands too which is mind boggling. If you gave CP to Cam Newton right now you wouldn't stop hearing about that pair for the rest of the season. They would welcome that talent with open arms and on the Vikings he can't even see the field unless its to start the game/half or the other team scores.

I honestly think zim needs to get a "second opinion" on what's wrong with the offense because we all know he's just leaving it 100% to turner and it's going to cost us a playoff berth. And as mentioned, get patterson the ball somehow about 5-7 times a game. SOMEHOW, just do it. He should not be on the bench.

[dead_poet]

The Patterson deal alone shows me turner has no idea what he's doing. It frustrates me to no end. He has really good hands too which is mind boggling. If you gave CP to Cam Newton right now you wouldn't stop hearing about that pair for the rest of the season. They would welcome that talent with open arms and on the Vikings he can't even see the field unless its to start the game/half or the other team scores.

I honestly think zim needs to get a "second opinion" on what's wrong with the offense because we all know he's just leaving it 100% to turner and it's going to cost us a playoff berth. And as mentioned, get patterson the ball somehow about 5-7 times a game. SOMEHOW, just do it. He should not be on the bench.

The Patterson Paradox is still a perplexing one. I can see the argument for not putting him in the field if he's not going to be where he needs to be and can't create separation (something he's consistently struggled with, particularly press coverage). On the other hand, I can't help but think that there would be specific games where a coach like The Hoodie wouldn't make him an offensive focal point like he likes to do when he sees a clear advantage. I won't go into it in detail as my thoughts are pretty well documented on Patterson but I'll say it would be nice to have him contribute more on offense. But with the emergence of Diggs, it becomes even more difficult for Patterson to get snaps. To me, this is why it would make perfect sense to trade Patterson prior to the November 3 trade deadline to a team like the Panthers. Unfortunately Patterson has been de-valued so much since his rookie year after underperforming and getting phased out of the offense with the stink of "he can't run routes" all over him I'm not sure the Vikings would get much for him at this point, making him more useful to the team on special teams than the sixth-round pick he may garner. And if the league does see him as more of an asset on returns, the Panthers have their version of Patterson in Ginn. The Patriots could make some sense but they're getting LaFell back and seem to be content with running Edelman into the ground and are seemingly satisfied with Amendola.

[Mothman]

Here you go, folks... Teddy is just peachy. It's everyone else on offense that's the problem.

StaTuesday: Is the Vikings' passing attack playoff caliber?

Edit: Just to be clear, I'm not implying that it's the other way around.

[Cliff]

Here you go, folks... Teddy is just peachy. It's everyone else on offense that's the problem.

StaTuesday: Is the Vikings' passing attack playoff caliber?

I don't think Teddy or the WRs get a free pass, especially Wallace (Have the Vikings gotten a vet receiver who came in and lived up to or exceeded expectations other than Cris Carter?) but the offensive line is a terrible fit for this offense (and just plain terrible, really) which relies heavily on getting enough time for longer plays to develop.

Teddy is making mistakes, yes, but he's also consistently under pressure. This leads to premature throws or late throws depending on if he has to elude pressure or get rid of the ball earlier. Being under pressure all the time can also result in "hearing footsteps" and fearing pressure when there is none. In fact, I think that was one of Ponder's biggest downfalls. It was a mentality that he never recovered from. Don't get me wrong, it's obvious to anybody now that he was never going to be an all-star, but he could have been a decent backup.

It really seems like a trickle down effect to me. The offensive line is the biggest problem, which magnifies the other problem areas (up and down QB play, dropped passes or more difficult passes to catch) on offense.

[Mothman]

I don't think Teddy or the WRs get a free pass, especially Wallace (Have the Vikings gotten a vet receiver who came in and lived up to or exceeded expectations other than Cris Carter?) but the offensive line is a terrible fit for this offense (and just plain terrible, really) which relies heavily on getting enough time for longer plays to develop.

Teddy is making mistakes, yes, but he's also consistently under pressure. This leads to premature throws or late throws depending on if he has to elude pressure or get rid of the ball earlier. Being under pressure all the time can also result in "hearing footsteps" and fearing pressure when there is none. In fact, I think that was one of Ponder's biggest downfalls. It was a mentality that he never recovered from. Don't get me wrong, it's obvious to anybody now that he was never going to be an all-star, but he could have been a decent backup.

It really seems like a trickle down effect to me. The offensive line is the biggest problem, which magnifies the other problem areas (up and down QB play, dropped passes or more difficult passes to catch) on offense.

You're right: one area clearly impacts another and the OL is clearly the part of the offense that's struggling the most. I think the trickle down effect begins further up the chain, with coaching (or even with personnel decisions, since depth along the OL has clearly contributed to the OL problem). For me, it comes back to adaptation. Why is Teddy under so much pressure? The blocking is sub-par, the offense uses quite a few slow-developing routes, etc. so why do we continue to see those routes run as often as we do? I don't want to belabor the point, especially since it's not new, but where are the adaptations to personnel strengths and limitations that could and should help put the players in better position to succeed every week?

Are the game plans we're seeing the best approach to take each week considering the strengths and weaknesses of the personnel?

[Cliff]

You're right: one area clearly impacts another and the OL is clearly the part of the offense that's struggling the most. I think the trickle down effect begins further up the chain, with coaching (or even with personnel decisions, since depth along the OL has clearly contributed to the OL problem). For me, it comes back to adaptation. Why is Teddy under so much pressure? The blocking is sub-par, the offense uses quite a few slow-developing routes, etc. so why do we continue to see those routes run as often as we do? I don't want to belabor the point, especially since it's not new, but where are the adaptations to personnel strengths and limitations that could and should help put the players in better position to succeed every week?

Are the game plans we're seeing the best approach to take each week considering the strengths and weaknesses of the personnel?

The trickle down effect does start with the coaching to a degree, but at some point talent is a bigger factor than anything you can do with scheme. Not to say that Norv isn't to blame ... but if guys aren't executing, can the scheme really make up for that enough to overcome the deficiencies on the offensive line? I have my doubts about that.

In the end, I'm not shocked to see Turner sticking to the offense that he's known for and is really the only way he knows how to direct an offense. As a result we do see some square pegs trying to be forced through round holes, but I think we've also seen the West Coast offense, known for it's quick throws, to break down without proper offensive line talent as well.

It might be cliche but it really does all start up front. Like you, I wish the Vikings had invested more heavily in it.

[Mothman]

The trickle down effect does start with the coaching to a degree, but at some point talent is a bigger factor than anything you can do with scheme. Not to say that Norv isn't to blame ... but if guys aren't executing, can the scheme really make up for that enough to overcome the deficiencies on the offensive line? I have my doubts about that.

In the end, I'm not shocked to see Turner sticking to the offense that he's known for and is really the only way he knows how to direct an offense. As a result we do see some square pegs trying to be forced through round holes, but I think we've also seen the West Coast offense, known for it's quick throws, to break down without proper offensive line talent as well.

It might be cliche but it really does all start up front. Like you, I wish the Vikings had invested more heavily in it.

[fiestavike]

You're right: one area clearly impacts another and the OL is clearly the part of the offense that's struggling the most. I think the trickle down effect begins further up the chain, with coaching (or even with personnel decisions, since depth along the OL has clearly contributed to the OL problem). For me, it comes back to adaptation. Why is Teddy under so much pressure? The blocking is sub-par, the offense uses quite a few slow-developing routes, etc. so why do we continue to see those routes run as often as we do? I don't want to belabor the point, especially since it's not new, but where are the adaptations to personnel strengths and limitations that could and should help put the players in better position to succeed every week?

Are the game plans we're seeing the best approach to take each week considering the strengths and weaknesses of the personnel?

I would almost like to see them approach the games with nothing but quick underneath passes and a Childress era offense just to hear the howls and screams and gnashing of teeth around here when it was nothing but one 3 and out after another and the losses piled up. Oh, and to hear fans demand Norvs head on a platter for only running short passing plays and not being aggressive enough. God it would be hilarious to see what an offensive trainwreck that idea would be with this crap O line and defenses just pouring downhill until Taylor Heinecke was forced to come in and play due to injury.

[Mothman]

I would almost like to see them approach the games with nothing but quick underneath passes and a Childress era offense just to hear the howls and screams and gnashing of teeth around here when it was nothing but one 3 and out after another and the losses piled up. Oh, and to hear fans demand Norvs head on a platter for only running short passing plays and not being aggressive enough. God it would be hilarious to see what an offensive trainwreck that idea would be with this crap O line and defenses just pouring downhill until Taylor Heinecke was forced to come in and play due to injury.

Sigh... you posted that as if you believe someone is actually calling for such a strategy. It's just another straw man. I haven't seen anyone here suggest the type of offense you described above. It certainly isn't what I've been talking about.

What do you think they should do? I'm under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that you just want to see them take Peterson off the field when they use the shotgun and otherwise stay the course. Is that accurate and if not, can you please articulate your position on this? Are you satisfied with the way the offense has been coached and implemented under this staff?

[fiestavike]

Sigh... you posted that as if you believe someone is actually calling for such a strategy. It's just another straw man. I haven't seen anyone here suggest the type of offense you described above. It certainly isn't what I've been talking about.

What do you think they should do? I'm under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that you just want to see them take Peterson off the field when they use the shotgun and otherwise stay the course. Is that accurate and if not, can you please articulate your position on this? Are you satisfied with the way the offense has been coached and implemented under this staff?

That's the only change I would suggest that Norv make.

I still don't know what changes you would suggest. It seems whenever you suggest something, and I respond, you just say you didn't suggest that. So, to date, you haven't suggested an improvement, just a general dissatisfaction with the statistical production and with Norv's lack of adaptability.

[Mothman]

That's the only change I would suggest that Norv make.

I still don't know what changes you would suggest. It seems whenever you suggest something, and I respond, you just say you didn't suggest that. So, to date, you haven't suggested an improvement, just a general dissatisfaction with the statistical production and with Norv's lack of adaptability.

That's simply not true.

I had written a longer reply but it's become clear that there's no point and I'm tired of having my comments thrown back as straw man arguments to be ridiculed.

[fiestavike]

That's simply not true.

I had written a longer reply but it's become clear that there's no point and I'm tired of having my comments thrown back as straw man arguments to be ridiculed.

I'm not trying to antagonizing you Jim, and I understand your frustrated, and apologize if my tone contributed. I am just frustrated by a surge in criticism without much of a "constructive" or substantive and specific quality to it.

[Mothman]

'm not trying to antagonizing you Jim, and I understand your frustrated, and apologize if my tone contributed. I am just frustrated by a surge in criticism without much of a "constructive" or substantive and specific quality to it.

I've tried to provide specifics and substance, to be constructive, not simply critical.

Anyway, I appreciate the apology. Let's just drop it.