Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Is Musgrave a Must-go?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Minnesota Vikings
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Freakout


Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 2801
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2013 6:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

vikingsrule wrote:
moss_is_1 wrote:
swiss_vike wrote:
One reason to fire him:

Rookie wide receiver snaps: Tavon Austin (99), Hopkins (136), Robert Woods (132), Dobson (33), and then #Vikings Patterson (11)

That is inexcusable, simple as that.
I agree CP needs to be on the field more, however, some of that is having Jennings, Simpson and Wright ahead of him now. Those other situations have openings for the rookies to get the playing time. Patterson will get his once he's more comfortable with the offense.


Jennings and Simpson deserve to be ahead of Patterson at this point based on performance. Until those two start regressing, he wont get the opportunities. However, I think you could make an argument for Patterson being the third receiver of Wright (with Jennings moving to the slot in 3 WR sets).


I just don't agree with this. With this line of thinking a rookie Randy Moss would have been buried behind Jake Reed.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vikingsrule


Moderator
Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 47528
Location: Land of 10,000 Lakes!
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2013 7:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Freakout wrote:
vikingsrule wrote:
moss_is_1 wrote:
swiss_vike wrote:
One reason to fire him:

Rookie wide receiver snaps: Tavon Austin (99), Hopkins (136), Robert Woods (132), Dobson (33), and then #Vikings Patterson (11)

That is inexcusable, simple as that.
I agree CP needs to be on the field more, however, some of that is having Jennings, Simpson and Wright ahead of him now. Those other situations have openings for the rookies to get the playing time. Patterson will get his once he's more comfortable with the offense.


Jennings and Simpson deserve to be ahead of Patterson at this point based on performance. Until those two start regressing, he wont get the opportunities. However, I think you could make an argument for Patterson being the third receiver of Wright (with Jennings moving to the slot in 3 WR sets).


I just don't agree with this. With this line of thinking a rookie Randy Moss would have been buried behind Jake Reed.


Different situation that year, Moss was the #3 but they also ran a bunch of 3 WR sets. Randy Moss is also a heck of a lot more talented then Patterson. Jennings and Simpson have both been productive, so I am not sure replacing them is a truly smart decision at this point. I do agree that Patterson should get more playing time, but it should come at the expense of Wright.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Purplexing


Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Posts: 4443
Location: Outside Valhalla, looking in.
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2013 7:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

vikingsrule wrote:
Freakout wrote:
vikingsrule wrote:
moss_is_1 wrote:
swiss_vike wrote:
One reason to fire him:

Rookie wide receiver snaps: Tavon Austin (99), Hopkins (136), Robert Woods (132), Dobson (33), and then #Vikings Patterson (11)

That is inexcusable, simple as that.
I agree CP needs to be on the field more, however, some of that is having Jennings, Simpson and Wright ahead of him now. Those other situations have openings for the rookies to get the playing time. Patterson will get his once he's more comfortable with the offense.


Jennings and Simpson deserve to be ahead of Patterson at this point based on performance. Until those two start regressing, he wont get the opportunities. However, I think you could make an argument for Patterson being the third receiver of Wright (with Jennings moving to the slot in 3 WR sets).


I just don't agree with this. With this line of thinking a rookie Randy Moss would have been buried behind Jake Reed.


Different situation that year, Moss was the #3 but they also ran a bunch of 3 WR sets. Randy Moss is also a heck of a lot more talented then Patterson. Jennings and Simpson have both been productive, so I am not sure replacing them is a truly smart decision at this point. I do agree that Patterson should get more playing time, but it should come at the expense of Wright.


Agreed.

But considering the multiple times the Vikings O faced 8-in-the-box in recent games, the only sensible change is to use 3 WR sets more often, dropping the 2nd TE or Ellison/ Felton;

5 OL
QB
TE
RB
3 WRs

This spreads out the secondary so that '8itb' can't be used as effectively as when 2 TEs or TE & HB are used. ONE of the 3 WRs should get a mismatch on a DB that can be exploited on a quick slant.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Klomp


Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Posts: 6417
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2013 9:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

vikingsrule wrote:
moss_is_1 wrote:
swiss_vike wrote:
One reason to fire him:

Rookie wide receiver snaps: Tavon Austin (99), Hopkins (136), Robert Woods (132), Dobson (33), and then #Vikings Patterson (11)

That is inexcusable, simple as that.
I agree CP needs to be on the field more, however, some of that is having Jennings, Simpson and Wright ahead of him now. Those other situations have openings for the rookies to get the playing time. Patterson will get his once he's more comfortable with the offense.


Jennings and Simpson deserve to be ahead of Patterson at this point based on performance. Until those two start regressing, he wont get the opportunities. However, I think you could make an argument for Patterson being the third receiver of Wright (with Jennings moving to the slot in 3 WR sets).


Heck, Patterson has gotten fewer snaps in each of our first two games than Joe Webb.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
thestonedkoala


Joined: 28 Jan 2005
Posts: 4051
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 4:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Minnesota has ran 117 offensive plays (64 in Chicago, 53 in Detroit). Patterson has seen 11 plays. That's 10% of the snaps. It looks bad when you yell but he's only taken 11 snaps -- of 117 PLAYS.

St. Louis - 62 plays against the Cardinals, 73 against the Falcons for 133 snaps

Houston - 78 Plays against the Titans, 75 plays against the Chargers for 153 plays (36 more plays than Minnesota). Furthermore, Houston has Owen Daniels and Andre Johnson than nothing. They've been looking for that second wide receiver for a long, long time.

Buffalo - 73 plays against Carolina, 61 plays against New England for a total of 134. They have Steven Jackson and CJ Spiller and who?

New England - 64 against the Jets, 89 plays against Buffalo - 153 total plays. Who does Brady have to play with again?


Out of all those receivers, they have played on teams that have ran more offensive plays than Minnesota, have less talented receivers (and other positions) than Minnesota, and doesn't run the same offense. None of these teams are a power run team.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swiss_vike


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 856
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 7:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

10% of snaps is simply not enough for the most talented WR of the draft, who had only positive plays in all of his touches and didn't commit one single error. There is no reason at all for him not to be on the field. And one point he has to learn in-game.

I would also say that the other teams mentioned here all have better recievers behind tgeir rookies than what we have in front of Patterson (with the exception of Jennings). While Simpson was good, he also was not that innocent on 2 Ponder interceptions.

Musgrave is simply stupid to find reasons not to play Patterson.
_________________
Ponder is not done in Minnesota...yet. I think now, he might be. Will miss you, Samantha Hottie.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Purplexing


Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Posts: 4443
Location: Outside Valhalla, looking in.
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 8:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

swiss_vike wrote:
10% of snaps is simply not enough for the most talented WR of the draft, who had only positive plays in all of his touches and didn't commit one single error. There is no reason at all for him not to be on the field. And one point he has to learn in-game.

I would also say that the other teams mentioned here all have better recievers behind tgeir rookies than what we have in front of Patterson (with the exception of Jennings). While Simpson was good, he also was not that innocent on 2 Ponder interceptions.

Musgrave is simply stupid to find reasons not to play Patterson.


Agree that 10% of snaps is too low.

Disagree that Patterson should be on the field most of the snaps. He may not have learned enough routes so that Musgrave can be sure he will know what to do if an audible is called by Ponder.

Patience.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PrplChilPill


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 8944
Location: SLP, MN
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 9:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, the best way to open up the field for Peterson is 3 WR sets.....

If you are going to deal up to take a guy in the first round, and pass on linebackers which your team desperately needs, maybe he should play some?

Why would Joe Webb see the field more than him? It's not like he's a good blocker yet. Keeping Webb instead of Burton, assuming their role is to block, was silly stubbornness, imo.
_________________
Wins are a team stat, not a QB stat
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jshowers


Joined: 03 May 2013
Posts: 12041
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 9:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anyone think Paul Chryst, former Wiscsonsin OC and current Pitt HC would be a good fit for our OC position? He's a run-first guy who has experience coaching with average QBs playing well and leading successful teams. The only time that I remember him having a stud QB was with Russell Wilson at Wisconsin and he totally adapted the offense to Russell's strengths, leading him to become one of the more efficient passers in the country and provide a ground threat as well. Chryst actually preaches adaptation as the single most important thing for an offense to be able to do.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kellerman


Joined: 16 May 2010
Posts: 3551
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 10:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

At this point I'd give Wright's spot to Patterson without a heartbeat. Get him and Simpson outside with Jennings in the slot.
_________________

#97 Everson Griffin: 27 tackles : 5.5 sacks : 1 FF ; 16 games played
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PeteyPercyPonde


Joined: 06 Sep 2011
Posts: 668
Location: Billings, MT
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 1:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PrplChilPill wrote:
Well, the best way to open up the field for Peterson is 3 WR sets.....

If you are going to deal up to take a guy in the first round, and pass on linebackers which your team desperately needs, maybe he should play some?

Why would Joe Webb see the field more than him? It's not like he's a good blocker yet. Keeping Webb instead of Burton, assuming their role is to block, was silly stubbornness, imo.


I would LOVE to see 3 WR sets. It opens up the quick slant, it opens up the delayed draw to Peterson and it takes away from AD facing 8 in the box every time he touches the ball.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AQuintus


Joined: 16 Oct 2012
Posts: 1307
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 1:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jshowers wrote:
Anyone think Paul Chryst, former Wiscsonsin OC and current Pitt HC would be a good fit for our OC position? He's a run-first guy ...


Nope. Peterson isn't going to play forever, and even while he's here, the league incentivizes passing so much that we'd be better off transitioning to a pass first offense anyway (or at least an option/pistol offense).

Edit:

jshowers wrote:
The only time that I remember him having a stud QB was with Russell Wilson at Wisconsin and he totally adapted the offense to Russell's strengths, leading him to become one of the more efficient passers in the country and provide a ground threat as well. Chryst actually preaches adaptation as the single most important thing for an offense to be able to do.


I do like the sound of this, though. One of the biggest problems with the current coaching staff (along with clock management and valuing seniority over talent) is a general failure to adept the offensive and defensive systems to fit the roster (which has been a problem for the last few coaching staffs here).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
thestonedkoala


Joined: 28 Jan 2005
Posts: 4051
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 1:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Purplexing wrote:
swiss_vike wrote:
10% of snaps is simply not enough for the most talented WR of the draft, who had only positive plays in all of his touches and didn't commit one single error. There is no reason at all for him not to be on the field. And one point he has to learn in-game.

I would also say that the other teams mentioned here all have better recievers behind tgeir rookies than what we have in front of Patterson (with the exception of Jennings). While Simpson was good, he also was not that innocent on 2 Ponder interceptions.

Musgrave is simply stupid to find reasons not to play Patterson.


Agree that 10% of snaps is too low.

Disagree that Patterson should be on the field most of the snaps. He may not have learned enough routes so that Musgrave can be sure he will know what to do if an audible is called by Ponder.

Patience.


Not to mention, Patterson, Jennings and Wright are brand new receivers (well Wright played some last year), so Ponder has to get comfortable with them. Simpson is really the only receiver we have from last year to this year.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jshowers


Joined: 03 May 2013
Posts: 12041
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 1:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AQuintus wrote:
jshowers wrote:
Anyone think Paul Chryst, former Wiscsonsin OC and current Pitt HC would be a good fit for our OC position? He's a run-first guy ...


Nope. Peterson isn't going to play forever, and even while he's here, the league incentivizes passing so much that we'd be better off transitioning to a pass first offense anyway (or at least an option/pistol offense).

Edit:

jshowers wrote:
The only time that I remember him having a stud QB was with Russell Wilson at Wisconsin and he totally adapted the offense to Russell's strengths, leading him to become one of the more efficient passers in the country and provide a ground threat as well. Chryst actually preaches adaptation as the single most important thing for an offense to be able to do.


I do like the sound of this, though. One of the biggest problems with the current coaching staff (along with clock management and valuing seniority over talent) is a general failure to adept the offensive and defensive systems to fit the roster (which has been a problem for the last few coaching staffs here).


So you believe that just because the league is becoming more pass-happy, we must follow the trend? And this makes you opposed to any offensive coordinator preaching a strong running game first and foremost?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
disaacs


Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 22294
Location: Brownbackistan
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the last thing the Vikings should ever do is transition to a pass-first offense. Right now, if they get proper execution, they have a huge advantage over most other teams, as most of the other pass-happy offenses have no ability whatsoever to wear teams down in the 4th quarter.

In fact, they wear themselves down, because their o-lines get tired of having to drop back in pass blocking all game long. I myself prefer the run-first offense, I just think they need to execute it better.
_________________


Thx to Uncle Buck!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Minnesota Vikings All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 7 of 9

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group