12-03-2019, 11:33 AM
This is based purely on observation (not stats): The Vikings can't stop the run (when they need to). For years I have believed that the main reason that our run defense is pretty good... is because very few teams are willing to commit to it against us. Those who have (and have some semblance of a running game) always seem to be able to use it to control the clock (and the scoreboard). Seattle was the latest example of that. Last year I blamed Richardson. In previous years, it was the LBs' fault. Maybe the "fault" is in the design: that our scheme is just not predicated on stopping the run. We have Linval... but all our high draft picks (spent on defense) have gone towards the secondary. Barr was some kind of "hybrid" player, but I think Zimmer wanted him for his versatility in pass defense- NOT in his ability to stop the run (which I'm not evaluating, one way or the other). It just seems to me that Zimmer's defense is designed to stop the pass (which is not a bad idea, considering how much most teams pass). But when we have to stop the run, we aren't really able to do so. The Cowboy game comes to mind. Supposedly (based on the talking heads) the reason we gave up so many passing yards to Dak was because we were committed to stopping Zeke. If that's true, it kinda supports my theory: that our defense is not designed to stop the run... and, therefore, extraordinary measures need to be taken in order to do so. Against Seattle, it appears that we were more worried about stopping Wilson (good idea); but that left us very vulnerable to the run.
I don't know if I'm right or not... or if we just don't have the horses to stop the run. Our LBs seem to be predisposed to stop the pass; none of them are what I would call, "classic" LBs (run-stuffing thumpers). Kendricks is a great LB... but his greatness is found in his versatility and reliability. It's not that he is a run-stuffing machine.
All of this is to say: with as many resources as we have poured into our defense, we should expect better. Other teams, with far-less accomplished "geniuses" for defensive coordinators, have been able to have success against good offensive teams. Why aren't "we"?
I don't know if I'm right or not... or if we just don't have the horses to stop the run. Our LBs seem to be predisposed to stop the pass; none of them are what I would call, "classic" LBs (run-stuffing thumpers). Kendricks is a great LB... but his greatness is found in his versatility and reliability. It's not that he is a run-stuffing machine.
All of this is to say: with as many resources as we have poured into our defense, we should expect better. Other teams, with far-less accomplished "geniuses" for defensive coordinators, have been able to have success against good offensive teams. Why aren't "we"?