Five-Thirty-Eight: The Vikings Are In For A Rude Awakening

[fiestavike]

That's what they do though, its not an insult. They are basically saying, statistically it would be a first for us to keep up this pace on defense and our offense can't pick up slack right now. Seems about right.

Not saying its the case, but given the offensive power of the Packers and Panthers, it would be exciting if the defense actually fared better as we advance further into the season, and play against, on average, lesser offenses.

[Cliff]

In other words, despite their 3-0 records, Minnesota and Baltimore are each playing with no margin for error right now. Eking out close victories or winning with turnovers and returns can work for a short while, but both methods are cause for plenty of doubts about the teams’ ability to be serious title contenders.

I don't disagree with the fact that a team needs some kind of balance to be a contender ... but Minnesota didn't "eek out" close victories other than against the Packers. No margin of error? They beat the Titans by 9 (two possessions) and the reigning NFC Champs by 12 (also two possessions). The game against the Panthers was a *beating*.

Teams can, and do, win it all with great defenses and subpar offenses. Not that I'm satisfied with a subpar offense, but as long as the defense is good enough to make up for it against good teams (which they have) then I'm not as concerned about it.

When I look at the remaining schedule, I don't see very much in the way of a rude awakening. There are a lot more games where the Vikings should be the favorite rather than the underdog.

[Nunin]

Not saying its the case, but given the offensive power of the Packers and Panthers, it would be exciting if the defense actually fared better as we advance further into the season, and play against, on average, lesser offenses.

It's a distinct possibility. I see no reason to conclude this defense can't play better from start to finish. So, while sacks and Take aways may return to earth in terms of numbers, I'd wager we may finally see a shutout or two when we meet some less talented teams. I can't recall the last time the Vikes shut a team out.

[PacificNorseWest]

That's what they do though, its not an insult. They are basically saying, statistically it would be a first for us to keep up this pace on defense and our offense can't pick up slack right now. Seems about right.

Yeah, I'm familiar with Nate Silver. It's the clear divide between analytics vs. eye test/human element. The article stops short of saying what exactly a rude awakening means. It only mentions "...cause for plenty of doubts about the teams’ ability to be serious title contenders." Well, yeah...It's readily apparent that if the offense doesn't improve the Vikings case for being a Super Bowl Champion is weakened, but if it's implying a steep drop off -- as a term like rude awakening suggests -- they are severely underestimating factors that numbers don't account for. But they're strictly numbers, so I get it...That's why having a healthy balance is always the way to go.

[IrishViking]

Yeah, I'm familiar with Nate Silver. It's the clear divide between analytics vs. eye test/human element. The article stops short of saying what exactly a rude awakening means. It only mentions "...cause for plenty of doubts about the teams’ ability to be serious title contenders." Well, yeah...It's readily apparent that if the offense doesn't improve the Vikings case for being a Super Bowl Champion is weakened, but if it's implying a steep drop off -- as a term like rude awakening suggests -- they are severely underestimating factors that numbers don't account for. But they're strictly numbers, so I get it...That's why having a healthy balance is always the way to go.

I can understand your take completely. I think the rude awakening comment is more directed at the casual/bandwagon fans that frequent ESPN (owner of 538). What he is probably implying is exactly what we are saying already. Running game need to get much better, passing game needs to do more, Defense is smoking hot but the turnover rate will come down, thats just how it is. WE as more knowledgeable ( egotistical much? ) fans already are expecting the drop off. He is basically taking what we take about and bundling it up for the casual SKOLler at home. IMO

[TheCoolerOne]

Bill Connelly, who writes for SB Nation among others, created a metric called the S&P+(S/P+). While it was created for college football, and I can't even say I completely understand it, there is a lot to like about what his numbers suggest a given team will do.

One of the most important things he points out based on statistics, and this is the thing that can be applied to the professional level, is that turnovers are largely luck. In fact, the data is so strong, that many of blogrunners discourage their writers from using the term "forced a turnover."

I think an interesting thing to consider. I lurk on this board a lot, seldomly post, but I always check out the gameday threads pretty consistently as I watch the Vikings. One thing that stood out to me during the Green Bay game is how exasperated the board was that we could not fall on a fumble.

While I too found it frustrating, after really following and beginning to trust Connelly's work, it is a lot easier to accept we could not recover a fumble in that game for the most part, due to the unpredictable chaos that ensues following the football being on the ground.

Obviously interceptions have less to do with luck, but still it still in some ways affects it. I've started to think about turnovers as "the Vikings forced 3 opportunities for a turnover," for example. Capitalizing on those opportunities to recover it have a lot less to do with the player caliber than the opportunity they forced.

It is just something I wanted to share, and this thread seemed to be appropriate, as it is dealing a lot with the same types of metrics.

So I guess the next time the Vikings fail to fall on a fumble, perhaps just try to remember that it takes a lot more luck than skill. At least for me, it has made it much more palatable.

[Mothman]

I don't disagree with the fact that a team needs some kind of balance to be a contender ... but Minnesota didn't "eek out" close victories other than against the Packers. No margin of error? They beat the Titans by 9 (two possessions) and the reigning NFC Champs by 12 (also two possessions). The game against the Panthers was a *beating*.

Cliff, you're right, they didn't "eek out" a victory over the Titans but they won that game by 9 points and they had 2 defensive TDs. That paragraph you quoted read "Eeking out close victories or winning with turnovers and returns can work for a short while". I think there's a fair argument to be made that in the first game, they won with turnovers and returns. If I recall correctly, in that game they also kicked a FG after a big return by Patterson that led to a 3-and-out by the offense. Those points too, were set up by a return so essentially, 17 of 25 points were scored without any real help from the offense.

Teams can, and do, win it all with great defenses and subpar offenses. Not that I'm satisfied with a subpar offense, but as long as the defense is good enough to make up for it against good teams (which they have) then I'm not as concerned about it.

When I look at the remaining schedule, I don't see very much in the way of a rude awakening. There are a lot more games where the Vikings should be the favorite rather than the underdog.

What they're doing is working but I do think it will be hard to sustain without more production from the offense. Right now, it looks to me like a team that can score 20 points and avoid turnovers would have an excellent chance of beating the Vikes. Not that the Vikings defense makes that easy...

[PacificNorseWest]

Bill Connelly, who writes for SB Nation among others, created a metric called the S&P+(S/P+). While it was created for college football, and I can't even say I completely understand it, there is a lot to like about what his numbers suggest a given team will do.

One of the most important things he points out based on statistics, and this is the thing that can be applied to the professional level, is that turnovers are largely luck. In fact, the data is so strong, that many of blogrunners discourage their writers from using the term "forced a turnover."

I think an interesting thing to consider. I lurk on this board a lot, seldomly post, but I always check out the gameday threads pretty consistently as I watch the Vikings. One thing that stood out to me during the Green Bay game is how exasperated the board was that we could not fall on a fumble.

While I too found it frustrating, after really following and beginning to trust Connelly's work, it is a lot easier to accept we could not recover a fumble in that game for the most part, due to the unpredictable chaos that ensues following the football being on the ground.

Obviously interceptions have less to do with luck, but still it still in some ways affects it. I've started to think about turnovers as "the Vikings forced 3 opportunities for a turnover," for example. Capitalizing on those opportunities to recover it have a lot less to do with the player caliber than the opportunity they forced.

It is just something I wanted to share, and this thread seemed to be appropriate, as it is dealing a lot with the same types of metrics.

So I guess the next time the Vikings fail to fall on a fumble, perhaps just try to remember that it takes a lot more luck than skill. At least for me, it has made it much more palatable.

I know what you're referring to with Bill Connelly. I read a lot of his team previews for college teams.

Turnovers are completely timing meets opportunity, which is basically luck. There's been examples over the years of teams having statistical anomalies in regards to turnovers, but it's a year to year carryover, for the most part. Meaning, teams that did not get the breaks last year, but had opportunities (bad luck), should see next year's turnover margin work closer to the median and vice versa...Teams very fortunate in the turnover margin, will see that margin regress to the mean the next season. Having said that, The Vikings have created a lot of opportunities based on defensive pressure and tight coverage...That is something I don't see changing all of a sudden.

The offense isn't turning the ball over, which adds to the turnover margin spread, so while we'd all like more production/points, the fact they are holding onto the ball cannot be taken lightly, in my opinion. It's a huge factor.

Having said that, they still need to get better on offense...Mainly up front.

[Nunin]

I agree about luck and the way the ball bounces. I also think coaches can practice techniques and fundamentals to help players who don't always handle the ball to have more awareness when the opportunity arise. Tip drills, strip drills, even drills to fall on moving footballs.

Two of those fumbles in the GB were locks that the players just effed up. Sendejo got the ball stripped trying to gain more yds. Which sucked because he was already inside the 10 I believe. And Munnerlin's was a simple case of just falling on it as it was right in front of him rather than trying to scoop it up and roll with it.
Anyhow, I think there are ways to increase your luckand odds of securing turnovers through practice of ball handling and situational awareness.

[PacificNorseWest]

Anyhow, I think there are ways to increase your luckand odds of securing turnovers through practice of ball handling and situational awareness.

This.

[TheCoolerOne]

This.

I agree, certainly, but no matter how many tip drills and scoops or falls on a football you practice, you are only taking into account one factor, and that is the football. You can't practice for, or predict what your teammates will do, let alone what the opposing players will do.

If a receiver shoves Terrance Newman while he is leaping up for a sure interception, while that may be a solid play for the opposing team, smart and heady, I think it is simply bad luck for us, because it never would occur to Newman in that instance that he was about to be jarred in mid-air.

Sure, he would be aware that can and does happen, but right in the moment, the only thing he is considering is the football.

[Texas Vike]

Bill Connelly, who writes for SB Nation among others, created a metric called the S&P+(S/P+). While it was created for college football, and I can't even say I completely understand it, there is a lot to like about what his numbers suggest a given team will do.

One of the most important things he points out based on statistics, and this is the thing that can be applied to the professional level, is that turnovers are largely luck. In fact, the data is so strong, that many of blogrunners discourage their writers from using the term "forced a turnover."

I think an interesting thing to consider. I lurk on this board a lot, seldomly post, but I always check out the gameday threads pretty consistently as I watch the Vikings. One thing that stood out to me during the Green Bay game is how exasperated the board was that we could not fall on a fumble.

While I too found it frustrating, after really following and beginning to trust Connelly's work, it is a lot easier to accept we could not recover a fumble in that game for the most part, due to the unpredictable chaos that ensues following the football being on the ground.

Obviously interceptions have less to do with luck, but still it still in some ways affects it. I've started to think about turnovers as "the Vikings forced 3 opportunities for a turnover," for example. Capitalizing on those opportunities to recover it have a lot less to do with the player caliber than the opportunity they forced.

It is just something I wanted to share, and this thread seemed to be appropriate, as it is dealing a lot with the same types of metrics.

So I guess the next time the Vikings fail to fall on a fumble, perhaps just try to remember that it takes a lot more luck than skill. At least for me, it has made it much more palatable.

Nice post.

It seems to me that we have produced many more opportunities for turnovers this season and the GB game was witness to that too... we just didn't get a wink from Lady Fortune.

[mansquatch]

I agree that teams can do things to maybe not enable, but "encourage" mistakes. Otherwise why bother with disguised coverages, etc? I agree on the Luck and Opportunity assessment, but of those two variables the only one you can legitimately influence is opportunity. So practice punching out balls etc. Eventually one will bounce your way.

I think the key to beating this defense is to keep them in the 4-3 BASE set for most of the game vs. getting them in Nickel where they have the most freedom to disguise pressure and mess with the QB. To do that would require a persistent and successful rushing attack since if the offense throws a bunch it forces the Vikings into Nickel. Keeping Lacy at bay was a significant contributor to our victory over GB.

In some ways our scheme takes advantage of the fact that so much of the NFL is pass happy. We've been hearing for the entire Adrian Petersen era that a power rushing attack isn't enough in the NFL. It is somewhat delicious that we now field a defense that can best be beaten by a power rushing team, but wreaks total havoc on pass happy offenses. Also of note is the fact that we just delivered a massive beating to one of the likely NFC playoff teams which fields a potent rushing attack, although admittedly without Jonathan Stewart.

[IrishViking]

This.

definitely. The more times the ball is on the ground the more chances you have for the timing to be right. You miss 100% of the shots you don't take

[S197]

I think it's certainly the case that without offensive production, Cinderella's carriage is going to turn back into a pumpkin. But, our offense scored more than Green Bay and Carolina's offenses. Two offenses that we know can put up big points. I think the Titans is really the only game so far that the defense took the full load and sometimes you need those types of games.

Clearly the defense is the strength of this team but Bradford hasn't been in the building a month yet, AD was lost last week, so was Kalil. As DP mentioned, why is there no growth potential especially considering the circumstances?

I don't know that there's been another team that has been hit as hard with injuries and yet the Vikings are still 3-0. Every coach says there's 3 aspects to the game, each equally important, and the Vikings are playing very well in two of those (D and special teams). Walsh being the exception. Stats without context is meaningless and I think the author fails to use context in this instance.