Is O'line getting it '1/2 right' each week?

by jshep on Oct 7, 2009 1:33 AM CDT Comment 20 comments

I consider this an anamoly of sorts... How is it in the 1st 3 weeks, the O'line opens up holes consistently (Great job!!) for AD that put him atop of the league rushing, but Favre sports bruises, and a sore butt from being on it too much.

Week 4 shows an anemic rush block effort against a lame rush defense, yet Favre goes unscathed (Great job!!). It doesn't seem they've quite gotten both sides of the offensive game 'right' in the same game. This will be key to poduction against the better teams up the road.

Where do the weaknesses lie in each facet, in your view?

This FanPost was created by a registered user of The Daily Norseman, and does not necessarily reflect the views of the staff of the site. However, since this is a community, that view is no less important.

0 recs | Comment 20 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

BTW

I hope noone looks at this thread isn’t a knock at all- I think they’re doing well this ealy in the season overall. I’d just love for them to find a way to cover all their bases…

by jshep on Oct 7, 2009 1:46 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

sold out

Packers sold out to stop the run and Favre made them pay for it .. U take what Def gives U… Im more worried abt all yardage we gave up to Packers…

by WVVikings on Oct 7, 2009 2:39 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

+1

We should learn something from our defense. We are much better limiting ourselves in blitzes against precision quarterbacks. Our sacks all came from a combination of excellent scheme coverage and applied pressure. When we bring our linebackers in for blitzing we lose the protection they give us in the secondary, which I would imagine accounts for a majority of the attacks that hurt us most.

by Anthony Carter on Oct 7, 2009 9:09 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Favre had like 7 seconds in the pocket on that 25 yard strike to Dugan. I will take that any day. I mean they were gearing up to stop Peterson because they figured if you take away AD you stop us. But that wasn’t the case this time.

by Frost on Oct 7, 2009 7:35 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

If you really watch that '7 second' play,

it’s a masterpiece of co-ordination between Favre and the O-line. Favre moves about 4 times – just a couple steps at a time, forward and back, left and right. He’s not really evading the rush as much as he is manipulating it, and he never stops looking downfield.

It shows that he trusts his line and that they are on the same page. I thought it was one of the more memorable moments from that game (among many).

by Migrant lurker on Oct 7, 2009 1:56 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

It also doesn't hurt that...

we had 5 down linemen on that play and they only rushed their front three.

Fire Childress!

by dwarg on Oct 7, 2009 2:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

which makes the result even better...

3 guys rushing = 8 guys in coverage…

and yet, Dugan got separation and Favre got him the ball!

I BELIEVE...

by ArizonaVikingsFan on Oct 7, 2009 2:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually, they rushed 4.

Then 2 of them got distracted as AP went out on a pass pattern and only one of them came back to rush Favre.

by Bjorno on Oct 8, 2009 10:06 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think his pump-faking also worked against them. If you rewatch it, the D-linemen pretty much freeze every time Favre pump fakes because they’re expecting him to toss it since he’s been back there for so long already.

by Frost on Oct 8, 2009 11:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed.

by Bjorno on Oct 8, 2009 1:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

3-4 defense with fast linebackers

The young guys (Loadholt & Sullivan) were a little confused by the 3-4 run-stopping schemes which are far more complex in terms of blocking. Hutch was playing hurt. We didn’t run between the tackles with power enough. That’s really the best way to run against a 3-4. As much as I like Peterson, I also think Taylor should have had more carries as his style seems to work slightly better in power running schemes. That said, GB was very focused on the run and the Vikings weren’t going to dominate by running the ball. The run game was just enough to keep GB honest and setup some great play action.

by ChemErik on Oct 7, 2009 9:02 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

+4

Also GB did quite a bit of zone run blitzes which really stretches run plays out if you don’t take the run right up the gut at the defense, which we couldn’t do (as ChemErik gave reasons). They sometimes had 2 spies on AP during some plays and an experienced QB like BF can beat zones very easily.

by midnightwonder on Oct 7, 2009 9:49 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

?

Actually, I thought we were ruinning up the gut successfully, and I was frustrated that we kept calling, of AD kept running, plays to run wide, which were having no success at all at any point. I felt like AD was looking for home runs instead of the 4-5 yard gains up the middle that were there more than half the time we tried ’em. Very frustrating. Wish I knew what Bienemy thinks about that.

TiggerSr

by TiggerSr on Oct 7, 2009 6:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, we started running up the gut. That 4th down in the first quarter was a run straight up the middle. I think the reason we don’t do it more often though is Sullivan is under-sized. Granted he wasn’t going against a premier NT, but he still has trouble with brutish D-linemen it seems. Also, Peterson has a great cutback, which I’m sure they were trying to take advantage of.

by Frost on Oct 8, 2009 9:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sullivan is Undersized?

I remember reading about that too, that was supposed the knock on him, and I’ve definitely watched him get manhandled out there, but here’s the NFL.com comparision;

Birk, Matt C ACT 6’4" 309
Sullivan, John C ACT 6’4" 301

Considering his youth (doesn’t have the weight that more maturity can bring), I think maybe he’s right on track. If Matty B can be a Pro-Bowler while weighing just 8lbs more, I think with Sully it’s a matter of experience and ability, not size.

Ah, ah,
We come from the land of the ice and snow,
From the midnight sun where the hot springs blow.
The hammer of the gods will drive our ships to new lands,
To fight the horde, singing and crying: Valhalla, I am coming!
SKOL!

by DCPurple on Oct 9, 2009 3:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Personally

I like that we have an option this year. Although I think we need to get back to the run. I would hate to have Favre pull a Cunningham and run out of gas in post season.

by Grime on Oct 7, 2009 9:31 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Could It Be...

that the Packers were so arrogant to think that they knew Favre well enough that if they stopped AP, Brett would try to carry the team and throw a few picks? Possible.

by purplegrey on Oct 7, 2009 11:24 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I Liked the O-Line Play

I know that AP didn’t get his hundred yards but I’ve watched Sullivan and Loadholt the three times I reran this game. Neither one got beat up on like the last three weeks. I won’t even say how good their pass protection was. However, the whole line did a poor job of creating any run lanes for AP. I do give credit to the Packers D. They went with 8 in the box on 1st down. We didn’t pass against it.. We tried a double tight end line and just couldn’t open up the holes. They then shifted to the 3-4 set on the passing downs and on most occasions just ran sideways faster than we could. It looked like our wide receivers could have helped by blocking down but its so hard to tell with the view they give you on TV.

I do know that our run game kept their defense honest. There were three plays that AP almost broke off for huge runs that only went for 1 yard. Because of what the run game accomplished the passing game was opened.

I also give Chilly credit. I think he has done a good job of playing rope a dope with play calling until the players ( q.b & receivers, O-Line) can learn to play together. The play book is now open and it is a very interesting playbook.( or should I scare scary).

Don’t look for anything very creative against St. Louis. No sense in letting Baltimore have more tape than they need. I feel a big dose of AP and Chester coming up.

by lifelongvike on Oct 8, 2009 7:18 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Strange game

I also review the game every week with Tivo and I must say, this was a strange game to critique, especially on the offensive line. I have been very critical of the line in this season’s other 3 games, especially of Sullivan who couldn’t seem to move a shopping cart if it was placed in front of him. But this game was different. Sullivan and the line didn’t really get pushed back by bigger stronger d-linemen (see: Sullivan vs Shaun Rodgers and A.Franklin), rather they just couldn’t account for the number of bodies piled up on the line of scrimage. The video review fully backs what others have said about GB selling out vs the run. Of their 4 linebacks on any given play, they very often had 3 of them sticking their nose in the pile before they even knew the run was coming. Our oline just got, for lack of a better way to describe it, tangled up in the mess of bodies. It was weird and I don’t expect to see that much any more this season.

by Jayrome007 on Oct 8, 2009 6:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Our oline just got, for lack of a better way to describe it, tangled up in the mess of bodies. It was weird and I don’t expect to see that much any more this season.

I don’t know that I agree on this point. I still think many teams will take their chances pressing the line of scrimmage, hoping Favre has an attack of ‘pickitis’ by being dared to throw. I think AD has a higher ‘fear factor’ for opponents.

Lots of good thoughts in all your replies. Thanks alot – Shep

by jshep on Oct 9, 2009 1:34 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs