tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8268346.post116035339184924331..comments2023-10-30T09:37:03.456-05:00Comments on Vikes Geek: Defense Saves the Dayvikes geekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06530336385552424416noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8268346.post-1160493502884654252006-10-10T10:18:00.000-05:002006-10-10T10:18:00.000-05:00Anyone know what Bevell does other than work with ...Anyone know what Bevell does other than work with players on technique and watch from the booth on gameday? Childress did good hiring a ramrod for the defense. Perhaps he should scrap the Andy Reid method and get a high powered OC. Then he can concentrate on fitting all the pieces in the big picture.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8268346.post-1160458611467521762006-10-10T00:36:00.000-05:002006-10-10T00:36:00.000-05:00John,Just because the Vikings won the game doesn't...John,<BR/><BR/>Just because the Vikings won the game doesn't mean that the play was called correctly--or the play before that. It's that kind of mindset that allows a coach to look at a dubious play call and rely on it again later to his and his team's detriment. That's why it matters, even in victory, what the thought process was on a given set of plays rather than merely what the outcome was.<BR/><BR/>VGvikes geekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06530336385552424416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8268346.post-1160423741323420332006-10-09T14:55:00.000-05:002006-10-09T14:55:00.000-05:00Well, you can crab all you want to about the play ...Well, you can crab all you want to about the play sequence that ended with the fake field goal/punt, but it worked. It put the Lions in very poor field position and led to a Vikings score.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8268346.post-1160415311663103932006-10-09T12:35:00.000-05:002006-10-09T12:35:00.000-05:00Anony,I'm not calling Childress a fraud, I'm calli...Anony,<BR/><BR/>I'm not calling Childress a fraud, I'm calling his self-designation as an offensive guru fraudulent to this point. He has added the top left guard in the NFL, returned one of the top centers, added the running back that he stated would fit perfectly into his system--whatever that is--and lost one receiver, a receiver who did little for the Vikings as a receiver last year and has done nothing for the Packers since joining them. To actually take a step backward from the offenses run under Mike Tice is no mean feat. Either Childress grossly overestimated his offensive talent or he grossly overestimated his ability to call plays. While I think there is support for arguing that the Vikings lack talent on offense, there is even more support for questioning an offensive game plan that favors the backward pass over the forward pass and the high risk forward pass over the low risk short pass or run on makeable short-yardage plays. This isn't just players failing to execute, it's players being put into situations where execution too often is irrelevant or in which execution is virtually impossible.<BR/><BR/>The sign of a good coach is what that coach does with what he has. To date, Childress has done less than Tice did with what each had at their disposal. And if that's good, I don't want to see bad.<BR/><BR/>I suspect that the Vikings are interested in Porter but that the Raiders still think that someone will cough up a high draft pick for their disgruntled wideout. There's also the issue of salary cap and it could be that the Vikings have been unable to negotiate a deal that fits under their 2006 cap, even though both teams want to work a deal. At some point, the Raiders presumably will recognize the merit of getting something for Porter rather than nothing.<BR/><BR/>VGvikes geekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06530336385552424416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8268346.post-1160384837529919972006-10-09T04:07:00.000-05:002006-10-09T04:07:00.000-05:00Considering the season is so young, I am not ready...Considering the season is so young, I am not ready to call the offensive line and head coach frauds. Time will tell, but for now, I will reserve such a harsh judgment. What we need sooner rather then later is a real #1 reciever. Porter? I hope so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8268346.post-1160369283607062162006-10-08T23:48:00.000-05:002006-10-08T23:48:00.000-05:00Anony,Romer didn't have too difficult of a task pr...Anony,<BR/><BR/>Romer didn't have too difficult of a task proving his thesis if it was that NFL coaches should call more fourth down plays. Most NFL coaches clearly favor long field goal attempts over fourth down attempt because it is the safe call. Few will criticize the call because it is the norm and the norm is rarely challenged. Of course, until this year, most NFL coaches went for two whenever it would close a five-point gap to three or a nine-point gap to seven--no matter the point in the game. Why? Because while NFL coaches know football they seem entirely oblivious to statistics and how to use them until they have been beaten over the head with them over and over and over again--i.e., until everyone else is already doing it. Obviously, that's a difficult cycle to complete.<BR/><BR/>What coaches ought to care about is the probability of success of a given play in a given situation, the alternatives and their probabilities of success, and the consequences of success or failure for the given play. It sounds simple, but few NFL coaches appear to apply the logic. That's why they do what Childress did today. Hopefully, Childress is one of the curve setters going forward rather than one of the overdue followers.<BR/><BR/>VGvikes geekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06530336385552424416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8268346.post-1160368635689266492006-10-08T23:37:00.000-05:002006-10-08T23:37:00.000-05:00Lichty,Childress actually comes across as less arr...Lichty,<BR/><BR/>Childress actually comes across as less arrogant in his weekly (and utterly, mind-numbingly worthless) radio show than he initially appeared to be upon his hiring. But that doesn't mean that he does not have a tremendous ego that blinds him to his faults as a coach. I said after the Bears' game that Childress was already exhibiting signs of a coach unwilling simply to admit that he is not the offensive guru that he portrayed himself to be when he commented that it was merely a bad week for the offense. Childress made it worse by dividing camps and juxtaposing "his" squad (the offense) with "them" (the defense). That's wasn't a good sign then and it looms as even more ominous as the season progresses and Childress continues to struggle in demonstrating that his contribution to the team is as it was billed to be. The offense is bad. The offensive line is as bad as it was at the end of the season last year (or as good, depending on your view). The team continues to take critical penalties, particularly the offensive line. The primary deep threat cannot catch or gain separation in man coverage. And little things are starting to happen that look like backsliding--like the awful special teams' play today.<BR/><BR/>To date, the only coach that has lived up to the pre-season accolades is Tomlin. And it's not even a close call.<BR/><BR/>VGvikes geekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06530336385552424416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8268346.post-1160366232461943362006-10-08T22:57:00.000-05:002006-10-08T22:57:00.000-05:00When the Vikes have the ball at the opponent's 30-...When the Vikes have the ball at the opponent's 30-40 yard line they should routinely think "This is four down territory". Their defense is playing well. Longwell can't kick a field goal from that distance. A punt will gain them only a few yards. Thus, they should call plays on third down, knowing that they will go for it on fourth. The bomb was an OK call on tird down, but the fourth down call, as you said, was inexcusablbly dumb. Let's hope they start going for it on fourth down. There is statisical analysis by an economist, Romer, that shows that coaches should call many more fourth down plays.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com