Vikings Message Board.Com

Eli wrote: Who has ever said that?

A Strib article addressing this same subject:

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikin ... 90891.html

VikingLord wrote:Thanks for the analysis Jim. It's always helpful when someone breaks things down like that.

You're more than welcome. I wish I had time to do more of that stuff. Hopefully, as the season goes on...

losperros wrote:On one play the Vikings threw to Aromashodu in the end zone. Do you or anyone else know why the Vikings chose Aromashodu over Rudolph or Harvin or even Jenkins as a target?

I missed some of the game and didn't see that particular play but it confused me when I read about it. Does Aromashodu really seem like the kind of WR to use in that situation?

I don't know. I think the whole idea was for the defense to bite hard enough on the fake handoff to Harvin to allow Aromashodu to get a step on the defense and in that situation, a step would be enough. Unfortunately, it didn't work. I don't know if that's just because Aromashodu wasn't quick enough to get that step, because the Redskins didn't bite hard enough on the fake or if the defense just did a great job. The Vikes were lined up in a tight run formation so they tried hard to sell the hand-off. It's easy to see Musgrave's intent on a play like that. The problem is that if Aromsahodu didn't get open, there was only one other option: Jenkins, in a crowd in the endzone. I think I'd drop that one from the playbook.

PurpleKoolaid wrote:I think Musgrave outhnks himself sometimes. And I dont agree with them pulling AD and PH out at any time. AD was limping before the game, he will let them know when he should be on the sidelines. We need then in the redzone or close every single down.

I agree why would you take your best players out in the most important part of the drive.
Also taking peterson out in the redzone really screams this is going to be a pass.

I think a bit of playaction in the redzone is the way to go. It seems telegraphed that it will go to peterson.

But hey I will admit that if they hand it to peterson i complain that their to conservative....But if they pass it ill be like omg why not give it to the best player haha xD

I dont usually buy into the idea that a single play can change the outcome of a game (barring obviously ending game intercepts, hail marys, field goals, etc.) However. I believe it was in the second quarter. We were somewhere around midfield (leaning Skins side) and it was a 4th and 1 or less. I think if we had gone for it and made it (which I am fairly confident we would have) we would have won that game. It would have crushed the momentum that they were building up and i think lead to some kind of score. (Even another field goal at that point would have been big).

I dont play monday morning quarter back. I think they have too little time and too much stress to really nit pick specific plays. But I dont extend the same curtesy to coaches who have nearly a minute to think of what action to take and dont have defenders bum rushing them. Apart from even play calling, I would like to see a more agressive offense taking chances.

Thoughts?


Slainte

I still think the blames on Musgrave. I dont think Ponder has the strongest arm, but he throw fade passes, hes proven that.

PurpleJarl wrote:I dont usually buy into the idea that a single play can change the outcome of a game (barring obviously ending game intercepts, hail marys, field goals, etc.) However. I believe it was in the second quarter. We were somewhere around midfield (leaning Skins side) and it was a 4th and 1 or less. I think if we had gone for it and made it (which I am fairly confident we would have) we would have won that game. It would have crushed the momentum that they were building up and i think lead to some kind of score. (Even another field goal at that point would have been big).

I dont play monday morning quarter back. I think they have too little time and too much stress to really nit pick specific plays. But I dont extend the same curtesy to coaches who have nearly a minute to think of what action to take and dont have defenders bum rushing them. Apart from even play calling, I would like to see a more agressive offense taking chances.

Thoughts?

It would have been an interesting call but I can't blame Frazier for not taking a chance on 4th and 1 from his own 45 (in the second quarter) on the road. The Vikings had a 6 point lead, and a chance from that position to pin the Redskins deep. Their defense had just allowed Washington to put together a scoring drive of about 50 yards that ended in a FG and made it a one score game (9-3). I see your point: a first down there could be demoralizing for the Redskins and help kill whatever momentum their scoring drive had built. However, a failed attempt would give Washington the ball in Minnesota territory trailing by just 6. Despite the 50 yard FG drive, the Vikes defense had been playing pretty well up to that point. I think punting was a good, understandable call in that situation. They pinned the Redskins at their own 10. Frazier had no way to know that possession would end in a 90 yard TD drive.

Did anyone else catch the little sound bite they showed during half-time on MNF last night? Ponder on the sideline saying "It should be 21-0 now."

I thought Gerhardt would be a first and second down back and be used to rest/"spell" Peterson. I would primarily use a big, bruising, hard-hitting Yards After Contact guy in the first half to wear a defense down and keep Peterson fresh. He'd be our 20ish to 40ish yards on the field, first/second down and first second quarter guy and Peterson would be second/third down, 2nd quarter onwards, after midfield and especially our red zone running back.

Instead we throw to Gerhardt and rush Gerhardt on third downs and past mid field and bench Peterson in favor of Gerhardt in the red zone when we struggle getting touchdowns in the red zone. If you pass or run with Gerhardt earlier in the games and earlier in the downs that keeps Peterson fresh for second and third downs and for red zone performance. That is how I'd do it at any rate. I don't see why we take our best/second best offensive weapon off the field on third down and in red zone situations so often.

I thought we should has Peterson try and punch it in a few times.. we got into the red zone and then
changed our offense.