I'm really frustrated with the defense right now and I'm not sure how they dig themselves out of this hole:
- Rhodes and Hughes are struggling mightily.
- Waynes and Alexander are playing better (by comparison), but both of them are supposed to be FAs.
- The DT play was terrible against Seattle. They were gashed all game and couldn't generate an interior pass rush.
- Wilson was struggling with gap discipline. He's still better than Gedeon, but that's not saying much.
- While this may not have been the game to do it, I'm still disappointed that they are not using Barr as more of a pass rusher.
- Teams have either figured out the double A gap blitz and/or we don't have the corners to spread out in man coverage anymore.
- Zimmer tends to get out-coached by good teams and there haven't been any new wrinkles in the defense this year. The closest I can think of was the awful set where they'd line up 4 DBs at the first down marker on 3rd and long and still get beat.
They are still capable of beating bad teams, but I'm not convinced that the defense is playoff caliber at this point. They have a month to fix things, but I'm not sure how they can get back on track. I don't think Zimmer will be fired, but I think it's time to bring in some new ideas on defense and maybe bring in a stronger DC. It's harder to say what to do about personnel. A UT is a huge need, but I'm working under the assumption that they'll burn another 1st rounder on a CB, while continuing to ignore DL and other needs.
Now to be fair to the defense, the offense was having trouble sustaining drives, so the D was on the field for the majority of the game and the offense did turn the ball over twice. Special teams also did no favors with a missed extra point, Ham's fumble at the end of the game, and Abdullah continuing to be unable to get kicks back to the 25.
I think our best shot this year is through the offense. We're just going to need to keep putting up 30+ points and that becomes a lot easier if Thielen can get healthy.
Quote: @Mattyman said:
I don't know, I might have looked at some personnel changes during the bye, but that is just me.
Since 2014, off the top of my head the only defensive player I recall getting benched was Gerald Hodges. I'm sure I'm missing others.
Name defensive players Zimmer has benched due to poor play?
That is an interesting question Matty. Someone mentioned Barr as a possibility. As I see it, when Zimmer took over the team and the defense in particular, the d was comprised of young, ascending players. 5 years later and you have to expect some of those players to be descending and hopefully you have planned for that transition. At the CB position, you would think they were fully prepared to replace descending players with 3 corners drafted in the 1st round and 1 player drafted in the 2nd round.
Quote: @VikingOracle said:
@ Mattyman said:
I don't know, I might have looked at some personnel changes during the bye, but that is just me.
Since 2014, off the top of my head the only defensive player I recall getting benched was Gerald Hodges. I'm sure I'm missing others.
Name defensive players Zimmer has benched due to poor play?
That is an interesting question Matty. Someone mentioned Barr as a possibility. As I see it, when Zimmer took over the team and the defense in particular, the d was comprised of young, ascending players. 5 years later and you have to expect some of those players to be descending and hopefully you have planned for that transition. At the CB position, you would think they were fully prepared to replace descending players with 3 corners drafted in the 1st round and 1 player drafted in the 2nd round.
You hit on one of the issues with the D. It's natural that some of the first wave of players that Zimmer had would be on the decline, but you'd that there would be a next wave of players ready to take over. There is to an extent with players like Harris, Hunter, Alexander, Kearse, and Weatherly, but the mid-round DTs haven't materialized. Hughes has not shown that he can be the replacement for Waynes or Rhodes and while we have some nice rotational DEs, I don't think Weatherly or Odenigbo are clear replacements for Griffen. They are developing some talent, but not enough to sustain the defense. I'm not sure if we'll be in cap Hell again, but it's a situation where they'll need to supplement the defense in FA to make up for issues in player development.
Quote: @greediron said:
@ VikingOracle said:
So, the bye week came and went and Zimmer implemented a change to help the pass defense -- basically, don't assist the run defense with safeties. “They kept playing 2 high shell, just super deep,” Wilson said. “They didn’t want any shots thrown on them. So we said, OK, and we’ll just run it and do what we do really well.”
I don't know, I might have looked at some personnel changes during the bye, but that is just me.
I look at the Patriots and I see a team that is willing to bench, trade, cut descending players -- no loyalty, no playing based on past performance. That philosophy has worked out okay for them.
Funny you mention the patriots cuz they lost in a bad way Sunday.
And yes, Seattle was able to run, but somehow we were winning the game into the 3rd quarter when the offense had 2 huge turnovers.
Are you actually attempting to somehow compare the Patriots to the Vikings? Wow, that's a really stupid analogy, even coming from a mouth breather like you. NE was on the road, against a likely playoff team, with a MVP caliber QB, coming off a week where they had numerous players with the flu (legitimately), playing without their starting Center (all year), mediocre at best skill players and a 42 year old QB.....and yet they are STILL 10-2, primed for another 1 or 2 seed after winning 2 of the last 3 SB's. You might want to keep the comparisons to teams like the Brown's...it's safer that way.
You keep harping on the the 2 TO's by the Vikings on Monday, but neglect to mention the fluke 14 points that the Seahawks gave up, Wilson's volleyball play and the incredible coverage breakdown by Seattle's secondary. If you're gonna "qualify" games, the way that losers such as yourself often do, you have to apply that same whining bitchiness towards the other team, too.
But, hey, you keep on living in your revisionist history fantasy world, DB. That's all that your simple mind can tolerate. The rest of us here in reality know that the Vikings were simply beat by a better team, with a better scheme and better coaching.....DESPITE the Vikings having 2 weeks to prepare. This has been a regular occurrence the past several decades.....when are you going to take your thumb out your mouth, let go of Mommy's skirt and grow up already and face facts?
Nighty-nite!
Quote: @njvike said:
@ greediron said:
@ VikingOracle said:
So, the bye week came and went and Zimmer implemented a change to help the pass defense -- basically, don't assist the run defense with safeties. “They kept playing 2 high shell, just super deep,” Wilson said. “They didn’t want any shots thrown on them. So we said, OK, and we’ll just run it and do what we do really well.”
I don't know, I might have looked at some personnel changes during the bye, but that is just me.
I look at the Patriots and I see a team that is willing to bench, trade, cut descending players -- no loyalty, no playing based on past performance. That philosophy has worked out okay for them.
Funny you mention the patriots cuz they lost in a bad way Sunday.
And yes, Seattle was able to run, but somehow we were winning the game into the 3rd quarter when the offense had 2 huge turnovers.
Are you actually attempting to somehow compare the Patriots to the Vikings? Wow, that's a really stupid analogy, even coming from a mouth breather like you. NE was on the road, against a likely playoff team, with a MVP caliber QB, coming off a week where they had numerous players with the flu (legitimately), playing without their starting Center (all year), mediocre at best skill players and a 42 year old QB.....and yet they are STILL 10-2, primed for another 1 or 2 seed after winning 2 of the last 3 SB's. You might want to keep the comparisons to teams like the Brown's...it's safer that way.
You keep harping on the the 2 TO's by the Vikings on Monday, but neglect to mention the fluke 14 points that the Seahawks gave up, Wilson's volleyball play and the incredible coverage breakdown by Seattle's secondary. If you're gonna "qualify" games, the way that losers such as yourself often do, you have to apply that same whining bitchiness towards the other team, too.
But, hey, you keep on living in your revisionist history fantasy world, DB. That's all that your simple mind can tolerate. The rest of us here in reality know that the Vikings were simply beat by a better team, with a better scheme and better coaching.....DESPITE the Vikings having 2 weeks to prepare. This has been a regular occurrence the past several decades.....when are you going to take your thumb out your mouth, let go of Mommy's skirt and grow up already and face facts?
Nighty-nite!
Excuses excuses. And your infatuation with me is so special.
His change out of the bye amounted to playing Tampa-2, a defense I think he never had much respect for, to cover for Xavier's deficiencies. And his record out of byes is 2-4 which is weak. Zim just seems to have certain issues and he doesn't grow past them.
But he can get a team to win the games they should- home games, games against weaklings, an occasional good road win. But this pattern has a negligible chance of changing at this point and an equally negligible chance of ever winning a championship.
Quote: @comet52 said:
His change out of the bye amounted to playing Tampa-2, a defense I think he never had much respect for, to cover for Xavier's deficiencies. And his record out of byes is 2-4 which is weak. Zim just seems to have certain issues and he doesn't grow past them.
But he can get a team to win the games they should- home games, games against weaklings, an occasional good road win. But this pattern has a negligible chance of changing at this point and an equally negligible chance of ever winning a championship.
It's interesting that you think Zim is playing a "Cover 2" to cover for Rhodes. I don't know if that's true or not... but it's something to think about. I think that DC's run a "Cover 2" in order to get more DBs involved in stopping the run. I wonder if that might have more to do with it? And if that is the case... it means he doesn't trust our front 7.
|
