3rd Quarter melt downs

by NMVike on Jan 23, 2012 4:53 PM CST

I stumbled upon this article over at Viking Update. John Holler paints quite the discouraging picture with this statistic.

How much weight should be given to third-quarter production? Let’s put it this way – the top five teams in third quarter scoring disparity made the playoffs and the top three teams earned the four available playoff byes. Only 13 of 32 teams outscored their opponents in the third quarter and nine of them made the playoffs, including all of the top five.

A view from the flipside? Of the 19 teams that didn’t outscore their opponents in the third quarter, 15 of them did not make the playoffs – 79 percent. The teams that ranked at the bottom three of the NFL in that category have the top three picks in April’s draft.

Coincidence? Not a chance.

Last among those teams? The Minnesota Vikings.

The Vikings not only allowed the most third-quarter points, but their scoring disparity of minus-71 was the worst in the league – behind even 2-14 Indianapolis (minus-56) and St. Louis (minus-63).

Below is the entire list of teams and their fate in the third quarter. Each team is listed, followed by their points scored, points allowed and the disparity in those two numbers in parentheses. While there are a few anomalies – Seattle and Miami are unusually high and the Giants are pathetically low – this may be the most pure form of ranking a coaching staffs in the NFL. And, by that standard, the Vikings were the worst-coached team in the NFL. Here is the list:

New England – 141-50 (91)
Green Bay – 150-66 (84)
San Francisco – 101-40 (61)
New Orleans – 126-67 (59)
Detroit – 125-74 (51)
Seattle – 90-40 (50)
San Diego – 116-67 (49)
Miami – 91-50 (41)
Cincinnati – 86-50 (33)
Philadelphia – 74-64 (10)
Baltimore – 78-71 (7)
Houston – 63-56 (7)
Pittsburgh – 63-56 (7)
New York Jets – 75-79 (-4)
Arizona – 79-85 (-6)
Carolina – 83-90 (-7)
Tennessee – 67-74 (-7)
Washington – 60-73 (-11)
Chicago – 83-95 (-12)
Dallas – 62-75 (-13)
Denver – 75-91 (-16)
New York Giants – 59-79 (-20)
Tampa Bay – 65-86 (-21)
Cleveland – 35-62 (-27)
Jacksonville – 33-64 (-29)
Buffalo – 78-109 (-31)
Oakland – 66-115 (-49)
Kansas City – 43-95 (-52)
Atlanta – 74-127 (-53)
Indianapolis – 36-92 (-56)
St. Louis – 37-100 (-63)
Minnesota – 61-132 (-71)

While no statistic is infallible, this one does as much to explain success and failure as any. Of the 12 playoff teams, only three of them (Denver, the Giants and Atlanta) were on the wrong side of third-quarter scoring. Two of those – Atlanta and Denver – had humbling postseason exits.

But, where Vikings fans should be concerned is that not only were the Vikings the worst in the league in scoring disparity, but their 132 points allowed in the third quarter not only were the worst in the league, but only three other teams allowed more than 100 points in the third quarter – Oakland, Buffalo and Atlanta, all teams that had collapse moments during their seasons that turned momentum and promise into offseason disappointment.

It can be argued that the success and failure of coaching staffs can be accurately measured by third-quarter scoring. Run down the list and it is almost a blueprint of disappointment for most of the 2011 season. It seems fitting that the Vikings are at the bottom of that list. They deserve to be there.

When one looks to assign blame to the 2011 Vikings season, it’s equal opportunity. There wasn’t a phase of the game – offense, defense or special teams – that didn’t have its back-breaking moments that good teams largely avoid. The coaches can prepare players and, a strip sack, a one-handed catch, an incomprehensible punt return for a touchdown can all do in a team effort. But, when it comes to third-quarter performance, the onus lies as much on the coaching staff as it does on the players.

The coaches are asked to spend days preparing for an opponent and 10 minutes at halftime to devise alternate plans to win games. The seamless coaching staffs accomplish that mission. The ragged ones don’t. The Vikings were the most ragged of them all. With the exception of Atlanta, you have to go a long way up the list before you find a team that most objective fans can say is better than the Vikings when it comes to players on the roster.

If one statistic could be your guide for regular-season gambling, third-quarter scoring (the result of halftime adjustments) might be the one you would want most. The rankings speak for themselves.

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.

Tweet Comment 13 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Ouch!

by nmvikesfan on Jan 23, 2012 10:43 PM CST reply actions

stats for the sake of stats.

I usually try not to bash other peoples fan posts, but as this is just a copy and paste I’ll feel free. This is basically a truism if you get out scored you lose, if you turn the ball over more you lose, if you can’t get a first down you lose.

I’m sure I could write a scintillating story teams that have less than a 10% chance of converting on 3rd down often don’t make it to the play offs. then I could state because this article uses the number three and my article uses the number three we actually verify each other. there are four downs just like four quarters, and isn’t a play just a microcosm of the game? But in reality it’s retarded, um mentally handicapped I’m sorry.

Sorry nothing against you, and I don’t mean to be a douche pickle, but people who abuse stats annoy me.

The Vikes aren't in a remodeling or reconstruction they are in a burn the place down and start praying they don't mimic the Lions rebuilding process.

by Grime on Jan 24, 2012 8:46 AM CST reply actions

Youre right, I'm not a big stats guy either

Just thought I’d share…

"At this point, what we got to lose, right? So we might as well throw caution to the wind and hit people in the face."
--Vikings DE Jared Allen

by NMVike on Jan 24, 2012 9:07 AM CST up reply actions

Yeah man nothing against you

Hope we’re still buddies! :D

The Vikes aren't in a remodeling or reconstruction they are in a burn the place down and start praying they don't mimic the Lions rebuilding process.

by Grime on Jan 25, 2012 9:57 AM CST up reply actions

I agree that this is "stat abuse", but there is one noteworthy consideration.

With so much real-time information these days adjustments are made throughout the game. Still, the early 3rd quarter can reflect coaching staffs’ effectiveness at re-scheming. In 2011 we did often seem to face different offensive strategies from our opponents in the 3rd quarter. When those strategies were successful we failed to adjust or respond adequately. I have to agree with the original writer’s argument that our coaching staff got their asses kicked in the 3rd quarter in several games (San Diego, Tamp Bay, Detroit, Green Bay, Denver).

by Jshore on Jan 24, 2012 3:23 PM CST up reply actions

Honestly I don't think anyone can remotely explain the first couple of games we had

It wasn’t a coaching issue, or a conditioning issue it was more like who built the pyramids. No one will ever know… Ok that’s a bad analogy, but it was a statistical outlier for sure.

The Vikes aren't in a remodeling or reconstruction they are in a burn the place down and start praying they don't mimic the Lions rebuilding process.

by Grime on Jan 25, 2012 10:08 AM CST up reply actions

I may be over-simplifying...

but in the first two games both of our opponents came out in the 2nd half throwing the drop-offs in the flats and underneath. We seemed to be comfortable allowing that to happen, even after some long sustained drives for scores. We eventually missed tackles and they broke some longer gains off of RAC. I don’t know, maybe mix in some man underneath, or some zone-blitzes..? Especially late in the game when we were on the verge of losing..?

I’ve supported Frazier, and I still want to believe that he will get us heading back in the right direction. But lately I’ve had a hard time getting around the fact that we were 3-13 with a roster that really should have done better. I think we played below our ability, and that is 100% on the coaching staff. Hopefully we see dramatic improvement next year. I think Frazier’s job will depend on it.

by Jshore on Jan 25, 2012 3:49 PM CST up reply actions

What scares me isn’t that this statistic is all knowing, all powerful, but that it can show you a part of the picture about coaching staffs. granted, it doesn’t tell you everything, no stat can. but it kinda shows, (along with the glaring lack of talent) that by and large we haven’t made good halftime adjustments at all. look at all the games where we were up at half and lost. we had all week to plan and scheme for the other team, but when we only had 15 or so minutes, we couldn’t get it done. worries me.

by RedHat16 on Jan 24, 2012 4:56 PM CST reply actions

This makes me wonder what the hell our coaching staff does during halftime.

You don't tug on Superman's cape
You don't spit into the wind
You don't pull the mask of the Spiderman
And you don't trash talk about him

by REVENGE4WEBB on Jan 24, 2012 5:30 PM CST reply actions

Smoking the chiba

Which is why they looked better after that guy in Chicago got busted…

The Vikes aren't in a remodeling or reconstruction they are in a burn the place down and start praying they don't mimic the Lions rebuilding process.

by Grime on Jan 25, 2012 10:09 AM CST up reply actions

In reality our 1st 3 games

what halftime adjustments could we make except:

“hey instead of going out there and moving the ball, let’s stop converting 3rd downs,” ‘defense I want you to let their offense score and and catch up then we’ll see if we can get a win in the last min"

wait they did make those adjustments

by midnightwonder on Jan 25, 2012 1:03 PM CST reply actions