|
|
Post by vikingslore on Sept 25, 2022 15:06:48 GMT -6
Thanks to all who stuck around, didn't give up on OUR team. and supplied info and links how the game ended.  Love the look on KJ's face when he scored, stopped at the back of the endzone but instead of celebrating looked at the fans in the stands like "see what I can do if I get the ball". KOC has to design plays involving ALL the WR's (including TE's and RB's out of the backfield) which he did in the 2nd half before going to Osborn on back-to-back plays against Hughes.
On to the next game and...victory.
These streams are reliable in a pinch : tv.720pstream.me/nfl-streamsThanks Proud. |
|
|
|
Post by Prටudhටrn on Sept 25, 2022 15:09:49 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by ponifan on Sept 25, 2022 15:22:09 GMT -6
Kudos all the way around, tremendous comeback.
Adjustments were made, so the coaches are learning too.
The team did not give up. That was the main takeaway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vikeroo on Sept 25, 2022 15:22:42 GMT -6
I honestly don't think it's the personnel on D. It's the scheme. The "shell" D (just re-casting the old cover 2) has be shelved permanently and Donatell has to dial up blitzes from time to time to keep the opposing team's O off balance. Hopefully they will get some blitzes to help the pass rush, but I don't think the basic shell D concept is going anywhere. That's going to be our core defensive concept for the year, like it or not. if they do any major tweaks will probably be during the bye |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2022 16:56:01 GMT -6
Hopefully they will get some blitzes to help the pass rush, but I don't think the basic shell D concept is going anywhere. That's going to be our core defensive concept for the year, like it or not. That may be the case but the Vikes came out of that "shell" (which is out-date and archaic) in the 2nd half playing the CB's 5-7 yds off the ball instead of 10 (sometime man up on the LOS) and the S's also moved up to about 15 yds deep. They played much better in pass D and forced the Lions to run the ball (which they did pretty effectively but for some key stops by the Vikes when they needed them).
I certainly don't know the validity of the concept within football. Maybe it sucks always and in every way. But I am aware of two general ideas that relate to strategy and temporality, that I think are worth considering here: 1) It sometimes happens that stuff that was considered archaic or outdated gets refreshed and renewed, finds new life if someone can figure out a new angle on it, a new way to make it work. I don't rule out that being possible in the present case. 2) I think the majority of people looking at and evaluating this defense are doing so in a sort of static or "in the moment" way: What kind of defense should you play at any given moment, where each moment is in isolation, or where there is ONE universal "moment" that covers every point in every game. I think the philosophy here MIGHT take a more continuous approach, where the moments are not universally homogenous, nor independent of one another, but rather where the philosophy adapts through the game. One way it adapts is as the drive advances into the scoring half of the field and the amount of available playing field shrinks. I think it probably also is by design supposed to adapt to become less of comfortable shell late in the game, so that the late change is itself part of the defense. Could be wrong about that too, of course. With regard to #2 it may be kind of the opposite of the Zimmer approach, which moved in the late game from a tighter defense to an easier "prevent" style of play, which comes from like 40 years ago. This one may be to play the looser defense, intended to force continued drives while pressuring the QB into mistakes in a bend-don't-break way for most of the game and then make the scheme tighter at the end of the game. |
|
