2016 Season General Comments (pressers, practice notes, etc)

[Mothman]

How about direct snapping to Adrian on those, remove that hitch with the hand off that seems to screw up his timing.

It's essentially a draw play so I would think the "hitch" is built in.

[dead_poet]

Zimmer believes Greenway can play and lead without starting: "I do. I think there’ll be a role for Chad, very similar to his role last year"

Zimmer if #Vikings defense can be top-5 unit: "I don’t know. I don’t think we’re very good, to be honest. I think we played good in spurts."

[fiestavike]

It's essentially a draw play so I would think the "hitch" is built in.

But why not turn it into a power running play, where Peterson might actually be able to excel. That's what I was suggesting.

[Mothman]

Zimmer saying all the right things.

At the risk of seeming perpetually grumpy (too late?), I disagree.

Some of what he's saying may be a smokescreen, as I suggested in my last post but to me, he sounds a little too satisfied with the state of the o-line after the moves they've made. Tweeting "no excuses" to Bridgewater and Peterson after signing Boone and Smith implies a sense of satisfaction with the OL that makes me uncomfortable.

I'm glad he's encouraging competition on the line. I wish they'd create a little more at QB. I think it might be good for Bridgewater to feel a little pressure from the players behind him on the depth chart. If competition is that important, and if Kalil’s $11M salary makes him a likely starter but doesn't guarantee him a starting job, why should Bridgewater get his starting job handed to him on a silver platter? I know QB works a bit differently but the kid plays like he could use a big push.

I'm glad Zimmer realizes he needs to get more involved with the offense and special teams but will he do that? His comment that it's hard to give his "baby" and that he doesn't want to be a CEO raises a big, giant red flag for me. He needs to fully face the fact that a head coach is a manager above all else. The comment speaks volumes about why the offense has taken a step backward on his watch.

That said, I like his capacity for self-criticism and I like that he's pushing himself and his team to get better. Those are big positives.

Folks, if any of those criticisms seem picky, please keep in mind, I'm in Zimmer's corner. I like him and I want him to succeed. I just share his desire for the team to be great.

[Mothman]

But why not turn it into a power running play, where Peterson might actually be able to excel. That's what I was suggesting.

Because it's not a power running play or a power running formation. It's a passing formation.

[fiestavike]

At the risk of seeming perpetually grumpy (too late?), I disagree.

Some of what he's saying may be a smokescreen, as I suggested in my last post but to me, he sounds a little too satisfied with the state of the o-line after the moves they've made. Tweeting "no excuses" to Bridgewater and Peterson after signing Boone and Smith implies a sense of satisfaction with the OL that makes me uncomfortable.

I'm glad he's encouraging competition on the line. I wish they'd create a little more at QB. I think it might be good for Bridgewater to feel a little pressure from the players behind him on the depth chart. If competition is that important, and if Kalil’s $11M salary makes him a likely starter but doesn't guarantee him a starting job, why should Bridgewater get his starting job handed to him on a silver platter? I know QB works a bit differently but the kid plays like he could use a big push.

I'm glad Zimmer realizes he needs to get more involved with the offense and special teams but will he do that? His comment that it's hard to give his "baby" and that he doesn't want to be a CEO raises a big, giant red flag for me. He needs to fully face the fact that a head coach is a manager above all else. The comment speaks volumes about why the offense has taken a step backward on his watch.

That said, I like his capacity for self-criticism and I like that he's pushing himself and his team to get better. Those are big positives.

Folks, if any of those criticisms seem picky, please keep in mind, I'm in Zimmer's corner. I like him and I want him to succeed. I just share his desire for the team to be great.

Some of them are fair. I don't get your view on Bridgewater, which for me is just out of left field, but I very much agree he sounds too satisfied with the state of the OL. What I really liked hearing was the understand of how much the OL held back the whole offense last year and that they are going to allow competition all along the line, and even outside the box thinking, like allowing Smith to possibly compete at LT. Its unlikely he will take that position, but I love the competition, especially since they will likely have 20 OL by the start of camp. I like the self criticism (he should mention bad clock management to end halves/games too) and the criticism of the defense.

[fiestavike]

Because it's not a power running play or a power running formation. It's a passing formation.

It doesn't have to be.

I thought the whole idea was to not be too predictable. The threat of a run out of that formation is pretty valuable. If Peterson knew how to run a draw play, that would be fine, but he doesn't do it well, so why not adapt. Its just an idea, but I don't understand your level of resistance to the possibility. Teams have run effectively out of passing formations in the past.

[Mothman]

It doesn't have to be.

You just wrote "why not turn it into a power running play". That's why I was talking about them.

If Peterson knew how to run a draw play, that would be fine, but he doesn't do it well, so why not adapt.

He knows how to run a draw play. He's run them successfully many times. He ran some good ones last year.

Its just an idea, but I don't understand your level of resistance to the possibility. Teams have run effectively out of passing formations in the past.

I'm not resistant to the idea of running out of passing formations. You proposed directly snapping the ball to Peterson and suggested that would somehow turn the draw they typically run from the shotgun into a power running play. My point is simply that a direct snap doesn't turn a draw into a power run. In standard football parlance, a power running play usually involves two lead blockers, typically a fullback and a pulling guard. It's traditionally run from an i-formation but there are variations. I'm sure they could design some power running plays that would work from a spread formation (probably utilizing a TE as one of the lead blockers) and I'm not opposed to that but it would involve bigger changes than a direct snap, which wouldn't even be necessary.

[Mothman]

Some of them are fair. I don't get your view on Bridgewater, which for me is just out of left field...

Everyone from fans to coaches, the GM and Bridgewater himself have talked about the need for him to "cut it loose" and play more aggressively so to me, it doesn't seem out of left field to suggest he plays like he needs a push. He's played very conservative football for the Vikings. He's been handed a starting job without any real competition so maybe a little competition is necessary to move him forward and get him playing with more urgency and aggressions in his game.

... but I very much agree he sounds too satisfied with the state of the OL. What I really liked hearing was the understand of how much the OL held back the whole offense last year and that they are going to allow competition all along the line, and even outside the box thinking, like allowing Smith to possibly compete at LT. Its unlikely he will take that position, but I love the competition, especially since they will likely have 20 OL by the start of camp. I like the self criticism (he should mention bad clock management to end halves/games too) and the criticism of the defense.

Agreed.

[fiestavike]

You just wrote "why not turn it into a power running play". That's why I was talking about them.
He knows how to run a draw play. He's run them successfully many times. He ran some good ones last year.
I'm not resistant to the idea of running out of passing formations. You proposed directly snapping the ball to Peterson and suggested that would somehow turn the draw they typically run from the shotgun into a power running play. My point is simply that a direct snap doesn't turn a draw into a power run. In standard football parlance, a power running play usually involves two lead blockers, typically a fullback and a pulling guard. It's traditionally run from an i-formation but there are variations. I'm sure they could design some power running plays that would work from a spread formation (probably utilizing a TE as one of the lead blockers) and I'm not opposed to that but it would involve bigger changes than a direct snap, which wouldn't even be necessary.

If you believe Peterson is good at running draw plays, I guess I can see why this wouldn't be a good thing to even consider. I just don't share your evaluation there.

I'm just taking Zimmer's comment that they are looking at ways to innovate to get Peterson effective carries out of the shotgun, and having fun imagining what those innovations might be. I don't see why the draw is the only option, or that its particularly innovative. I don't know how that turned into another argument.

Seems obvious to me -- and in fact Peterson mentioned it himself -- that he doesn't have a real good grasp of the timing of running those draw plays out of the shotgun. Also seems obvious to me -- and in fact his offensive linemen have joked about it for years -- that in his entire career Peterson is at his best when he gets the ball and goes full speed, right into their back if they don't clear a hole. I would think a direct snap might help eliminate his weakness and boost his effectiveness by putting him in a position to get downhill fast. A TE, a WR in motion, a dive play, there are lots of options. Its just an idea. Its certainly outside the box. Feel free to disagree. I guess I don't understand the reaction to it.

[Mothman]

If you believe Peterson is good at running draw plays, I guess I can see why this wouldn't be a good thing to even consider. I just don't share your evaluation there.

I'm just taking Zimmer's comment that they are looking at ways to innovate to get Peterson effective carries out of the shotgun, and having fun imagining what those innovations might be. I don't see why the draw is the only option, or that its particularly innovative. I don't know how that turned into another argument.

Seems obvious to me -- and in fact Peterson mentioned it himself -- that he doesn't have a real good grasp of the timing of running those draw plays out of the shotgun. Also seems obvious to me -- and in fact his offensive linemen have joked about it for years -- that in his entire career Peterson is at his best when he gets the ball and goes full speed, right into their back if they don't clear a hole. I would think a direct snap might help eliminate his weakness and boost his effectiveness by putting him in a position to get downhill fast. A TE, a WR in motion, a dive play, there are lots of options. Its just an idea. Its certainly outside the box. Feel free to disagree. I guess I don't understand the reaction to it.

Please read our exchange again and see if it makes more sense to you the second time around. I don't mean that sarcastically. I tried to be very concise and I don't think I can really phrase what I wrote much more clearly.

[fiestavike]

Please read our exchange again and see if it makes more sense to you the second time around. I don't mean that sarcastically. I tried to be very concise and I don't think I can really phrase what I wrote much more clearly.

Ya, I don't get it. I must be missing something. I mean that sincerely.

If I said "Why not replace it with a power running play" instead of "Why not turn it into a power running play" would that have changed your response? I dunno.

[fiestavike]

I'm not resistant to the idea of running out of passing formations. You proposed directly snapping the ball to Peterson and suggested that would somehow turn the draw they typically run from the shotgun into a power running play. My point is simply that a direct snap doesn't turn a draw into a power run. In standard football parlance, a power running play usually involves two lead blockers, typically a fullback and a pulling guard. It's traditionally run from an i-formation but there are variations. I'm sure they could design some power running plays that would work from a spread formation (probably utilizing a TE as one of the lead blockers) and I'm not opposed to that but it would involve bigger changes than a direct snap, which wouldn't even be necessary.

Maybe this is where the confusion is? I didn't mean to indicate that directly snapping would turn a draw into a power running play. I guess I figured it wasn't that big a bridge to cross to assume the line would also block differently. Is that what threw you off?

[Mothman]

Maybe this is where the confusion is? I didn't mean to indicate that directly snapping would turn a draw into a power running play. I guess I figured it wasn't that big a bridge to cross to assume the line would also block differently. Is that what threw you off?

It was all of the above. If you had said "Why not replace it with a power running play" instead of "Why not turn it into a power running play" that would have made much more sense to me. You also seemed to be implying that the direct snap had something to do with making it a power running play, when that's actually determined by the blocking and scheming to out-number the opposing team at the point of attack.

Anyway, I understand why you like the idea of a direct snap to Peterson although it's hard to imagine that becoming something they'd do frequently.

[fiestavike]

It was all of the above. If you had said "Why not replace it with a power running play" instead of "Why not turn it into a power running play" that would have made much more sense to me. You also seemed to be implying that the direct snap had something to do with making it a power running play, when that's actually determined by the blocking and scheming to out-number the opposing team at the point of attack.

Anyway, I understand why you like the idea of a direct snap to Peterson although it's hard to imagine that becoming something they'd do frequently.

Ok, I'll try to be more clear and specific in future. I can see how that implication could be confusing. I was trying to suggest that a direct snap made those types of plays possible out of that formation by speeding up the process. I just assumed all the other relevant pieces to trying that play would be obvious and a given.