Vikings Message Board.Com

What happened on those first 3 possessions Sunday? Why did the Vikes end up settling for a 9-0 lead instead of opening the game with first quarter TDs and a commanding 21-0 lead? I just watched the first quarter over lunch and took notes (please excuse any typos):

1ST POSSESSION:
1st and goal at the 10: AD carries to the 5 yard line. Nice gain. He leaves the game after two consecutive runs for a total of about 40 yards.

2nd and goal: Harvin in the backfield. Ponder fakes to Harvin and throws toward Aromashodu in the endzone. He's not open and neither is Jenkins, who is also in the endzone. Both are in traffic near the middle of the endzone. Nobody attacked the outside so there's a lot of traffic there. Aromashodu lined up wide left on the play and ran a crossing route. It's an odd call. I'm thinking Musgrave thought the fake to Percy would draw defenders left and Aromashodu would then be open coming from the opposite direction into the middle.

3rd and goal: Ponder drops back, and protection quickly breaks down. Kalil and Loadholt both get pushed into the backfield but so does Fusco, leaving Ponder nowhere to step up. he scrambles to his right and throws a pass to Gerhart at about the 3.5 yard mark.


2ND POSSESSION:
1st and 10, just outside the 14: Handoff to Peterson, who heads left. Nobody blocks #37 who comes from the backside and tackles Peterson for a short loss.

2nd and 12: Ponder throws high toward Ellison, who is at the 11 yard line, near the left sideline. Incomplete.

3rd and 12: Screen to Peterson. he gets tripped up at the 9, bringing up 4th down.


3RD POSSESSION:
1st and 10 at the 16: Peterson carries for a 1 yard loss. No room to run on the left side… the play may have been designed to go up the middle but that was collapsing and Peterson went left.

2nd and 11 at the 17: Peterson leaves, Gerhart comes in. Ponder hits Carlson underneath the coverage for a 7 yard gain to the 10.

3rd and 4 at the 10: Gerhart carries for 1 yard. Ponder says something to Charlie Johnson before the snap and johnson relays it to the line. I'm not sure if the play was changed or if Ponder saw something from the defense he wanted the line to see too. Gerhart got the ball on what looked like a delay or draw and went nowhere.

--------------------

So, what can we take away from this? I'd say there were execution issues and playcalling/personnel use issues. I don't know why Peterson came off the field for Gerhart in some of those situations but that seems like a mistake to me. Running Peterson on first down each time strikes me as too predictable. I could understand if they were starting at first and goal from the 5 each time but Musgrave is making it easy on the defense by being that predictable.

The only shot they took to the endzone on those 3 red zone possessions was the throw to Aromashodu, not exactly the ideal target in that situation. There were no attempts to Rudolph, arguably their best red zone threat.

I think Musgrave needs to keep AD on the field in red zone situations and be more aggressive on first down and in attacking the end zone. Peterson is harping on the issue of settling for FGs and hopefully, after this game, the Vikes will take a close look at what happened and make some adjustments for the better.

Hmm.... Play calling, personnel, execution.

"Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

Eli wrote:Hmm.... Play calling, personnel, execution.

"Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

LOL! Well, it wasn't likely to be something as simple as the guard lining up wrong on every play.

The important thing is I'd say it's all correctable.

Mothman wrote: LOL! Well, it wasn't likely to be something as simple as the guard lining up wrong on every play.

The important thing is I'd say it's all correctable.

That has been most people's complaint about Musgrave since the beginning. I still think he needs to come up with some better plays for the Red Zone. Put AD and Harvin in the backfield. Line up Harvin at QB. Put Webb in.

For cryin out loud... try something different!

PurpleMustReign wrote:That has been most people's complaint about Musgrave since the beginning. I still think he needs to come up with some better plays for the Red Zone. Put AD and Harvin in the backfield. Line up Harvin at QB. Put Webb in.

For cryin out loud... try something different!

In Musgrave's defense, he's done a bit of that. If anything, I think he tries to get too clever down there instead of playing to the team's strengths. For example, he's lined Harvin up at QB in a red zone situation this year and it didn't go well. He hasn't used Webb yet but I think that would scream "QB run" and I'd rather have Ponder passing down there than Webb. I don't think Musgrave needs to get particularly tricky, just a little less predictable. Going against a tendency like running AD on first down in the red zone (not sure if it''s a season long tendency or just something he did on Sunday but I think they've done that a lot this season), running play action and throwing to the corner might be a good move. If nothing else, I think just keeping their 3 best weapons on the field on red zone plays would help. I'd like to see Peterson, Harvin and Rudolph in on every play inside the 20. The opposing defense has to pay close attention to each of them in that situation.

I think this is another area of the field where the lack of a big, playmaking WR hurts the Vikes. Rudolph is the closest player on the roster to that big, hard-to-defend red zone receiver. Jenkins is tall and has good hands but going up and getting the ball in the endzone doesn't seem to be a strength of his game. They lack a good outside matchup in redzone situations and that hurts.

We didn't get get ahead, allowed them to continue to run the ball, allowed the option offense to continue and... yeah. By not being more aggressive you allowed RGIII to stay comfortable in his offense, and allowed him to heat up.

FailedtoOpen wrote:We didn't get get ahead

The Vikings had a 9-0 lead at the end of the first quarter.

Eli wrote: The Vikings had a 9-0 lead at the end of the first quarter.

You're up 9 points on the road against a very strong offensive team with a very confident QB. Your team just proved 3 consecutive times that it cannot score a TD in the red zone. A 9-0 deficit at home is nothing to get down about and the Redskins proved it. Instead of being on their heels at falling behind so early , they did the offense they wanted to do and won the game.

I would have liked to see them go for a fake FG on the first attempt as it was early in the game and would have set a more aggressive tone.

Thanks for the analysis! It was obviously all Ponders fault!

So, I am a bit confused as to why AD isn't left it the game in those situations. It isn't like Toby is a much better pass catcher and AD is far more likely to bust one through for that 11-12 yard TD run. Also he serves as a much better decoy than Toby. It's almost like they feel they need to give Toby something to do and so throw him in on 3rd downs and red zones.

All three times were a run with Peterson. Seriously? How abount play action, or fake to Peterson then throw to him? How about Peterson and Harvin in the backfield and fake to one and throw to the other? Jeez, there's got to be a better way!

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

I think what stands out for me is the play that *isn't* listed - where is the high toss to the back of the endzone for Rudolph?

Why the Vikes don't try that play at least once each time they're in the red zone is beyond me. Rudolph is a height mismatch for, well, everyone. People say the Vikes don't have the big target who can go up and get it in the end zone? I don't buy that. They don't have a WR like that, but they do have a TE like that, and their failure to target him in that situation is disappointing.

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

I think what stands out for me is the play that *isn't* listed - where is the high toss to the back of the endzone for Rudolph?

Why the Vikes don't try that play at least once each time they're in the red zone is beyond me. Rudolph is a height mismatch for, well, everyone. People say the Vikes don't have the big target who can go up and get it in the end zone? I don't buy that. They don't have a WR like that, but they do have a TE like that, and their failure to target him in that situation is disappointing.

I agree.

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?

Thanks for the analysis, Jim. It was so interesting that three red zone possessions all ended so anticlimactically after the offense looked so strong to get them there. It seemed when the urgency rose in the second half, they got TDs. Just need to figure out what changed. Dave

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.

Purplemania wrote:"Ponder needs to stop trying to force the ball into Rudolph's hand in the endzone. It's gonna get intercepted one day".

Who has ever said that?