Vikings Message Board.Com

I'm buying in. Since OTAs the team has had a different vibe. They really believe they can be champions, I love the intensity Zimmer brings.

It'll be a tough road, but we have the "rough draft" talent to make a playoff push. And this time it won't be a fluke on AP's back, it'll be as a team.

jackal wrote:I think we could win the division after watching the Packers in Seattle.

They still have trouble tackling people. Both of their lines look weak Defensive and Offensive.

Rodgers is the only reason they are not a bottom feeder team.

The Bears are old and Cutler is not as good as people think..

The lions always self destruct

and we play the weak AFC east this year...

The only problem is at some point you run into Seattle of the Niners in the NFC ... and we are not there
yet. Its a whole lot better outlook than with Frazier though

I'm not sure how much better we would perform in Seattle, especially with Cassel. It's great GB lost, but I'm still withholding judgement on them. Seattle would probably annihilate us too especially with Cassel at the helm and not someone like Rodgers. Not sure if any team can beat them right now except the 49ers.

been following this team for over 40 yrs....waaaaay to early to know anything BUT I do like their decisions with QB, I like the attitude the coach has injected in the D, and I hoe to see Teddy get some garbage time if we keep running up scores when we can.

This New England game is going to go one of two ways:

1.) 49er game in 2012 where NOBODY picked us to beat SF and we're suddenly legit as F

2.) We lose like we did to the Panthers in 2013. Awful awful

I went with "on the way" at this point. There's 2 things I need to see...

One, I have to see them be able to throw the ball down the field. They didn't do that against the Rams, which was absolutely the right thing to do against a team with an amazing front 7. The went with short passes and screens and lots of runs to neutralize the pass rush, and it was smart, and it worked, and I liked the gameplanning. But I need to know that when the gameplan calls for it, they can sling the ball down the field and effectively threaten with the long ball. Downfield passing is a staple of Norv's core philosophies as a Coryell disciple, and its also something that we have to be able to do to victimize weak secondaries and make teams pay for putting 8+ in the box to stop the run, which they absolutely will do.

The other thing I need to see is how they handle a real, credible passing attack. I think I've seen enough from the front 7 to be at ease with them, but I need more of a test of the secondary to feel ok there.

I think I'll get both of my questions answered by the time week 3 is over. We'll face 2 elite passers in Brady and Brees, and after what Atlanta just did to them, downfield passing should absolutely be part of the gameplan against New Orleans.

Another poll and appreciation friend, but option "5" is missing.

* 5. Too early to tell; it takes 4-6 games to know where a team stands, "and" to make any sound, hopeful, slightly-intelligent judgment and prediction on a season.

...wisdom

ATL_Viking wrote:One, I have to see them be able to throw the ball down the field. They didn't do that against the Rams, which was absolutely the right thing to do against a team with an amazing front 7. The went with short passes and screens and lots of runs to neutralize the pass rush, and it was smart, and it worked, and I liked the gameplanning. But I need to know that when the gameplan calls for it, they can sling the ball down the field and effectively threaten with the long ball. Downfield passing is a staple of Norv's core philosophies as a Coryell disciple, and its also something that we have to be able to do to victimize weak secondaries and make teams pay for putting 8+ in the box to stop the run, which they absolutely will do.

Norv Turner never worked for Don Coryell.

He first worked for John Robinson with the Rams in the late 80s, then for Jimmy Johnson in Dallas, then took a couple of ill-fated head coaching jobs with Washington and Oakland. The only "connection" Norv Turner has to Don Coryell is that Turner was the backup quarterback at Oregon to Dan Fouts, who later played for Coryell.

The fact is that Norv Turner has, first and foremost, ALWAYS stressed balance. He has always taken advantage of the running game (the notable exception was last year in Cleveland, which needs no explanation). From Emmitt Smith to LaDanian Tomlinson and now Adrian Peterson, he's always gotten the most out of a featured running back.

Coryell was the opposite. He was the first coach to call more passing plays than running plays. He was the first to make the tight end a downfield threat (Turner emphasizes the tight end, as well). No team in history took more downfield shots than Coryell's Chargers -- Turner's teams have never thrown downfield to anywhere near the extent that Coryell did. Turner may have been INFLUENCED by Coryell, but he wasn't a Coryell disciple. He never worked for the man.

I don't mean to nitpick a comment, but it does bring up an important point that seems to be a source of confusion ... Norv Turner is not going to suddenly turn the Vikings into a bombs-away club. His great strength is the ability to get the utmost out of both the passing game AND the running game, especially when he has a great back.

J. Kapp 11 wrote:Norv Turner never worked for Don Coryell.

He first worked for John Robinson with the Rams in the late 80s, then for Jimmy Johnson in Dallas, then took a couple of ill-fated head coaching jobs with Washington and Oakland. The only "connection" Norv Turner has to Don Coryell is that Turner was the backup quarterback at Oregon to Dan Fouts, who later played for Coryell.

There's actually a rather substantial connection you may not have heard about: Turner worked with former Coryell assistant Ernie Zampese on the Rams staff and he learned the Coryell offense from Zampese. Turner runs a variation of the offense with fewer slow-developing pass plays and a greater emphasis on the run but in essence his offense is derived from Coryell's, just via Zampese.

I don't mean to nitpick a comment, but it does bring up an important point that seems to be a source of confusion ... Norv Turner is not going to suddenly turn the Vikings into a bombs-away club. His great strength is the ability to get the utmost out of both the passing game AND the running game, especially when he has a great back.

Agreed and well said!

Mothman wrote:There's actually a rather substantial connection you may not have heard about: Turner worked with former Coryell assistant Ernie Zampese on the Rams staff and he learned the Coryell offense from Zampese. Turner runs a variation of the offense with fewer slow-developing pass plays and a greater emphasis on the run but in essence his offense is derived from Coryell's, just via Zampese.

Good point, Jim. I forgot about Ernie Zampese. Thanks for pointing that out.

I'll add this ... Turner was also influenced greatly by Rams head coach John Robinson, for whom the term "ground and pound" was coined and who rode Eric Dickerson to a pair of NFC title game appearances. So in essence, Zampese's influence would have been balanced by Robinson's. It's probably not a stretch to say that both influences made Turner as effective as he's been in both parts of the offensive game.

Mothman wrote: Agreed and well said!

Why, thank you!

From what I understand, Turner's thumbprint on the modern passing game (and I'd guess this comes from Zampese's influence) stems from the fact that he coaches virtually all routes in the tree to be run deeper down the field than normal. The typical West Coast Offense is so horizontal -- Turner runs all the same routes, but more vertically. That's not to say Turner calls more bombs, but his QBs do tend to have higher YPAs, which is a good thing.

J. Kapp 11 wrote:Good point, Jim. I forgot about Ernie Zampese. Thanks for pointing that out.

I'll add this ... Turner was also influenced greatly by Rams head coach John Robinson, for whom the term "ground and pound" was coined and who rode Eric Dickerson to a pair of NFC title game appearances. So in essence, Zampese's influence would have been balanced by Robinson's. It's probably not a stretch to say that both influences made Turner as effective as he's been in both parts of the offensive game.

I don't think that's a stretch at all... it's probably pretty accurate.

Why, thank you!

From what I understand, Turner's thumbprint on the modern passing game (and I'd guess this comes from Zampese's influence) stems from the fact that he coaches virtually all routes in the tree to be run deeper down the field than normal. The typical West Coast Offense is so horizontal -- Turner runs all the same routes, but more vertically. That's not to say Turner calls more bombs, but his QBs do tend to have higher YPAs, which is a good thing.

That's my understanding of what he does too.

I've always really liked Turner's approach to offense and his ability to game plan and attack the specific weaknesses of opposing defenses so it's exciting to have him coaching the Vikes offense. I'm really looking forward to seeing how he calls some of these upcoming games because I suspect he hasn't unveiled much of his playbook yet this year.

What Mothman said

While you're right, they never worked together, Turner is still generally viewed as having come from the Coryell coaching tree and running offenses that are variations of Coryell's system. You're also right that his flavor of it is more balanced and way less "bombs-away", and yeah, I definitely didn't mean to convey that I expect Norv to be dialing up 999 every down. But those 90s cowboy teams definitely drove the ball down the field through the air when needed, even if there was a steady diet of Emmitt most of the time. I'm thinking of pro set formations with the WRs running streaks or fades or corner routes, attacking the outside deep zones with Novacek running a post attacking the mid/deep middle. We've got to be able to do that and be successful doing that when the situation or the matchups dictate it.

There's actually fairly decent info about Turner's flavor of Coryell's system out on the wikipedia page for Air Coryell; goes into detail about H/F-backs and stuff. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Coryell

ATL_Viking wrote:What Mothman said

While you're right, they never worked together, Turner is still generally viewed as having come from the Coryell coaching tree and running offenses that are variations of Coryell's system. You're also right that his flavor of it is more balanced and way less "bombs-away", and yeah, I definitely didn't mean to convey that I expect Norv to be dialing up 999 every down. But those 90s cowboy teams definitely drove the ball down the field through the air when needed, even if there was a steady diet of Emmitt most of the time. I'm thinking of pro set formations with the WRs running streaks or fades or corner routes, attacking the outside deep zones with Novacek running a post attacking the mid/deep middle. We've got to be able to do that and be successful doing that when the situation or the matchups dictate it.

There's actually fairly decent info about Turner's flavor of Coryell's system out on the wikipedia page for Air Coryell; goes into detail about H/F-backs and stuff. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Coryell

I probably should have been more clear that my opposition to this concept wasn't really directed at YOU. It's the downfall of the typed word as opposed to the spoken word ... hard to inflect.

A lot of Vikings fans mistakenly think that Turner is basically Coryell II, and it's just not true. With the Cowboys, they didn't dial up that many "bombs," as it were, but Turner definitely took advantage of Aikman's incredible arm strength. Aikman could put the ball in tight windows on intermediate routes of 20-ish yards (which often required nearly 40-yard throws on a line) better than just about any QB in history, so Dallas often ate up big chunks of yardage, a la Air Coryell (just with fewer over-the-top bombs).

The big difference that I see is in the running game. With Coryell, it was strictly a counter to the passing game. He used small backs like James Brooks who couldn't stand up to the pounding of 20 carries a game, but threw to them out of the backfield. He also typically used at least two backs in a rotation. Like John Robinson, Turner has always favored a workhorse back (when he's had them) and a more balanced attack.

This has been good discussion. Thanks to both of you for engaging.

Edit: I read the article you mentioned, ATL_Viking. Very enlightening. Thanks for pointing it out. For one thing, I totally forgot about Chuck Muncie. For another, the Coryell offense did use the run as the second option, but it was when the defense tried to counter the passing attack with extra DBs. Good stuff.

ATL_Viking wrote:...

One, I have to see them be able to throw the ball down the field. They didn't do that against the Rams, which was absolutely the right thing to do against a team with an amazing front 7. The went with short passes and screens and lots of runs to neutralize the pass rush, and it was smart, and it worked, and I liked the gameplanning. But I need to know that when the gameplan calls for it, they can sling the ball down the field and effectively threaten with the long ball. Downfield passing is a staple of Norv's core philosophies as a Coryell disciple, and its also something that we have to be able to do to victimize weak secondaries and make teams pay for putting 8+ in the box to stop the run, which they absolutely will do.

...

I downgraded to not yet. They clearly cannot pass downfield with Cassel and receivers dropping balls.

Maybe they can pull off 8 wins and win this crappy division.

Hunter Morrow wrote:Maybe they can pull off 8 wins and win this crappy division.

Right now I think that 7-9 could win the division this year. The Packers are getting beat by the jets and their defense doesn't look good while the offense has taken a few steps back, the bears defense also isn't good and cutler is going to throw alot of ints, and the lions are the lions, they will win a few games at the beginning of the seasons but fade late. So all we probably have to do is win 7 games which isnt going to be easy.