One more CG Thread: Can someone explain to me why we couldn't beat Eagle Slants?

Ross Tucker said the exact same thing on Barriero's radio show this week. How could you not go into this game and take the slant routes away from Foles when that is his favorite throw to make? It defies any logical explanation and we will be haunted by this for years trying to figure it out. 

We were mentally exhausted from the last second win the week before. It seems we had shut down at halftime of the Staints game when Brees suddenly started making any pass he wanted and our O went into conservative mode, but, whatever?

We came out on O and drove it down their throats then our O sat on the bench after Case threw the int. Our D sat on the bench after the blocked punt. Our team just went into shutdown mode and suddenly we played leslie Frasier cover-2 off coverage (so we weren't pressing the RPO slants) and our game plan was shot. If you looked at our sideline, our entire team looked tired and sold by the middle of the 2nd quarter. It was a joke that we just couldn't adjust to or recover from.

We should be here this weekend. This is pretty disappointing. Our team looked hurt, tired, and distant. They just weren't in Philly mentally for the game after the first series. 

We got owned and it was very obvious that the team had a major hangover from the dramatic win the week before.

To keep it simple, the Vikings game plan didn't account for Foles' ability to throw the ball 15 yards + down the field. The Eagles hadn't hit anything past that for weeks and Peterson devised a game plan to give Foles the opportunity to air it out when nobody else expected it. The slants became more of an issue once the Vikings were trying to adjust their game plan on the fly. You can't expect Xavier or Trae to get inside leverage of Jeffery, the LB has to get underneath it. Once Barr came out of the game due to his injury the exploited that. It all comes down to a good game plan and play calling by Peterson. 

The takeaway from the game is that the Vikings had a very poor defensive game plan when it mattered the most. But, if you go back and watch the Eagles offense since Wentz went down they'd been a very horizontal unit that tried to get RAC yardage. There is no way you would guess their approach would be to test the Vikings vertically all day long. 

That game wasn't just a fluke. The year before the Eagles had a better game plan than the Vikings and Zimmer couldn't adjust. 

@"Norse" said: That game wasn't just a fluke. The year before the Eagles had a better game plan than the Vikings and Zimmer couldn't adjust. 

Yep.   Outcoached on all levels.  Pregame, game and probably post game... although I didn’t watch any post game stuff.  

@"Bezerker88" said:

@"Norse" said: That game wasn't just a fluke. The year before the Eagles had a better game plan than the Vikings and Zimmer couldn't adjust. 

Yep.   Outcoached on all levels.  Pregame, game and probably post game... although I didn’t watch any post game stuff.  

Since no one else mentioned it: the slants were the product of the Eagle's "RPO" (Run - Pass Option) plays, where the QB has the option of handing the ball to the RB or throwing it.  In essence, it is a play-action pass, designed to force the LB's to stay in the box and defend the run.  At that point, the slant becomes "wide open".  If we keep our LB's back in the passing lanes, then the QB hands off.  The way *I* would've defended it would've been to play man defense and line our CBs up on the inside of the WR's- in effect taking away the slant (but giving up any kind of "out" route).  

@"Geoff Nichols" said: To keep it simple, the Vikings game plan didn't account for Foles' ability to throw the ball 15 yards + down the field. The Eagles hadn't hit anything past that for weeks and Peterson devised a game plan to give Foles the opportunity to air it out when nobody else expected it. The slants became more of an issue once the Vikings were trying to adjust their game plan on the fly. You can't expect Xavier or Trae to get inside leverage of Jeffery, the LB has to get underneath it. Once Barr came out of the game due to his injury the exploited that. It all comes down to a good game plan and play calling by Peterson. 

The takeaway from the game is that the Vikings had a very poor defensive game plan when it mattered the most. But, if you go back and watch the Eagles offense since Wentz went down they'd been a very horizontal unit that tried to get RAC yardage. There is no way you would guess their approach would be to test the Vikings vertically all day long. 

This is what I have been saying as well.  It wasn't the RPO slants that killed us, it was the double moves that took advantage of our game plan to take those short throws away.  Peterson had Foles take some shots and it caught us completely off guard.  Have to hand it too them, they outschemed us.  Partly because we lost a step after the pick 6 and the Eagles got bolder.

@"Norse" said: That game wasn't just a fluke. The year before the Eagles had a better game plan than the Vikings and Zimmer couldn't adjust. 

The year we had multiple INTs that lead to zero points by the offense?  The year the defense handed the offense the ball inside the 20 twice and we turned it over on one and backed out of FG range on the other?  The year the Eagles shut down Bradford's short game and we couldn't adjust?

Yeah, not thinking the Eagles handled our D that year.

@"purplefaithful" said: Sorry, that Eagle loss and collapse of the D gave gave me pause and harkened me back to 70's SB's. 

Those RPO slants killed the Falcons the week before the CG. Why did Waynes and XR not play those differently technique wise? I get getting beat by a trick play here or there, but Zimmer got taken to the woodshed by the Eagles staff - and Vikings fans got #6 CG loss in a row. 

The Minnesota Vikings will always give you cause to pause!

@"pumpf" said: Since no one else mentioned it: the slants were the product of the Eagle's "RPO" (Run - Pass Option) plays, where the QB has the option of handing the ball to the RB or throwing it.  In essence, it is a play-action pass, designed to force the LB's to stay in the box and defend the run.  At that point, the slant becomes "wide open".  If we keep our LB's back in the passing lanes, then the QB hands off.  The way *I* would've defended it would've been to play man defense and line our CBs up on the inside of the WR's- in effect taking away the slant (but giving up any kind of "out" route).  

I have never understood giving inside leverage to a wide receiver... never.  I will always want my DBs to take away the inside first and then force the QB to beat them over the top where hopefully the S is able to assist.

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"pumpf" said: Since no one else mentioned it: the slants were the product of the Eagle's "RPO" (Run - Pass Option) plays, where the QB has the option of handing the ball to the RB or throwing it.  In essence, it is a play-action pass, designed to force the LB's to stay in the box and defend the run.  At that point, the slant becomes "wide open".  If we keep our LB's back in the passing lanes, then the QB hands off.  The way *I* would've defended it would've been to play man defense and line our CBs up on the inside of the WR's- in effect taking away the slant (but giving up any kind of "out" route).  

I have never understood giving inside leverage to a wide receiver... never.  I will always want my DBs to take away the inside first and then force the QB to beat them over the top where hopefully the S is able to assist.

@"pumpf" said:

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"pumpf" said: Since no one else mentioned it: the slants were the product of the Eagle's "RPO" (Run - Pass Option) plays, where the QB has the option of handing the ball to the RB or throwing it.  In essence, it is a play-action pass, designed to force the LB's to stay in the box and defend the run.  At that point, the slant becomes "wide open".  If we keep our LB's back in the passing lanes, then the QB hands off.  The way *I* would've defended it would've been to play man defense and line our CBs up on the inside of the WR's- in effect taking away the slant (but giving up any kind of "out" route).  

I have never understood giving inside leverage to a wide receiver... never.  I will always want my DBs to take away the inside first and then force the QB to beat them over the top where hopefully the S is able to assist.

That's exactly what I coach my DBs to do (unless it's a zone... which we didn't run much because I like to blitz too much). By the way, I am pretty sure that the coaching staff "assumed" that we could take away the deep passes by putting pressure on Foles.  It didn't happen.  Our DBs weren't used to covering guys that long- and often they "gave up" because they assumed the play HAD to be over by then.  And then the ball went sailing over their heads...

@"pumpf" said:

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"pumpf" said: Since no one else mentioned it: the slants were the product of the Eagle's "RPO" (Run - Pass Option) plays, where the QB has the option of handing the ball to the RB or throwing it.  In essence, it is a play-action pass, designed to force the LB's to stay in the box and defend the run.  At that point, the slant becomes "wide open".  If we keep our LB's back in the passing lanes, then the QB hands off.  The way *I* would've defended it would've been to play man defense and line our CBs up on the inside of the WR's- in effect taking away the slant (but giving up any kind of "out" route).  

I have never understood giving inside leverage to a wide receiver... never.  I will always want my DBs to take away the inside first and then force the QB to beat them over the top where hopefully the S is able to assist.

That's exactly what I coach my DBs to do (unless it's a zone... which we didn't run much because I like to blitz too much). By the way, I am pretty sure that the coaching staff "assumed" that we could take away the deep passes by putting pressure on Foles.  It didn't happen.  Our DBs weren't used to covering guys that long- and often they "gave up" because they assumed the play HAD to be over by then.  And then the ball went sailing over their heads...

@"StickyBun" said: We got owned and it was very obvious that the team had a major hangover from the dramatic win the week before.

I think it's that simple.  & what Nicholls said. 

I think the coaching staff suffered a bit of hangover, as well.  

I'm optimistic, tho, even after we pick over the bones as to why we're not playing this weekend. 

If'n you'd a told me, going into last season..... 
1) We'd finish the yr, with one of the best O-lines 
2) We'd finish even higher, defensively
3) We'd have tons o' cap space, to sign any qb, we want
4) We beat the Packers, twice
5) We personally ended Rodgers/Packer season
6) We ran away with the NFC North
7) We lost our opening  starting QB/RB, yet made the NFCCG
8) Our UDFA QB, pressed into duty,  would finish fourth in the NFL MVP race
8) We beat the Saints twice.  On opening day, and then tore their hearts out, in the playoffs (sweet 09 revenge)

...... I'd have taken that ^^ season, gladly, not knowing the result of the NFCCG and why we lost to the Iggles. 
8 surprises is a lot... and normally gets you a SB.  :)

Heard the other day, Alshon Jeffrey ultimately chose the Iggles last off-season, over us.  
That (Iggles signing) may have been, the "difference". 

Can you imagine Jeffrey with Diggs/Thielen/Rudolf, this past yr?  

@"savannahskol" said:

@"pumpf" said:

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"pumpf" said: Since no one else mentioned it: the slants were the product of the Eagle's "RPO" (Run - Pass Option) plays, where the QB has the option of handing the ball to the RB or throwing it.  In essence, it is a play-action pass, designed to force the LB's to stay in the box and defend the run.  At that point, the slant becomes "wide open".  If we keep our LB's back in the passing lanes, then the QB hands off.  The way *I* would've defended it would've been to play man defense and line our CBs up on the inside of the WR's- in effect taking away the slant (but giving up any kind of "out" route).  

I have never understood giving inside leverage to a wide receiver... never.  I will always want my DBs to take away the inside first and then force the QB to beat them over the top where hopefully the S is able to assist.

That's exactly what I coach my DBs to do (unless it's a zone... which we didn't run much because I like to blitz too much). By the way, I am pretty sure that the coaching staff "assumed" that we could take away the deep passes by putting pressure on Foles.  It didn't happen.  Our DBs weren't used to covering guys that long- and often they "gave up" because they assumed the play HAD to be over by then.  And then the ball went sailing over their heads...

I thought you were an O-Line coach?  :)

@"savannahskol" said:

Heard the other day, Alshon Jeffrey ultimately chose the Iggles last off-season, over us.  
That (Iggles signing) may have been, the "difference". 

Can you imagine Jeffrey with Diggs/Thielen/Rudolf, this past yr?  

If you believe the apologists for Treadwell and Floyd, Jeffery would have caught about 30 passes for 300 yards, because Thielen and Diggs left no opportunities for a #3 WR.

I think we had a QB who was not looking for all possible targets. It worked, I loved the season, thank you Case - but it would not have been more effective with another WR in the mix. Maybe Diggs or Thielen would have just been doing the 3rd-slot-guy-for-bunch-formations role that Wright performed, and got more from it, and maybe Jeffery would have gained more yards than Diggs did. But I don't think we would have had 3 WRs with 800+ yards each.

@"savannahskol" said:

@"StickyBun" said: We got owned and it was very obvious that the team had a major hangover from the dramatic win the week before.

I think it's that simple.  & what Nicholls said. 

I think the coaching staff suffered a bit of hangover, as well.  

I'm optimistic, tho, even after we pick over the bones as to why we're not playing this weekend. 

If'n you'd a told me, going into last season..... 
1) We'd finish the yr, with one of the best O-lines 
2) We'd finish even higher, defensively
3) We'd have tons o' cap space, to sign any qb, we want
4) We beat the Packers, twice
5) We personally ended Rodgers/Packer season
6) We ran away with the NFC North
7) We lost our opening  starting QB/RB, yet made the NFCCG
8) Our UDFA QB, pressed into duty,  would finish fourth in the NFL MVP race
8) We beat the Saints twice.  On opening day, and then tore their hearts out, in the playoffs (sweet 09 revenge)

......

@"Geoff Nichols" said: To keep it simple, the Vikings game plan didn't account for Foles' ability to throw the ball 15 yards + down the field. The Eagles hadn't hit anything past that for weeks and Peterson devised a game plan to give Foles the opportunity to air it out when nobody else expected it. The slants became more of an issue once the Vikings were trying to adjust their game plan on the fly. You can't expect Xavier or Trae to get inside leverage of Jeffery, the LB has to get underneath it. Once Barr came out of the game due to his injury the exploited that. It all comes down to a good game plan and play calling by Peterson. 

The takeaway from the game is that the Vikings had a very poor defensive game plan when it mattered the most. But, if you go back and watch the Eagles offense since Wentz went down they'd been a very horizontal unit that tried to get RAC yardage. There is no way you would guess their approach would be to test the Vikings vertically all day long. 

Accurate analysis, but I have another takeaway: Mike Zimmer has not yet learned how to win in the playoffs. No way to guess the Eagles would throw deep? Foles has a good arm and deep threats, and good playoff coaches will play outside what they did in the regular season - especially after seeing Drew Brees expose our pass defense. Vikings approached both playoff games like they did regular-season games. Maybe in week 9 the Saints, down by 17, would start thinking about next week. Maybe in the regular season, Doug Pederson would follow normal patterns, but why not throw out the playbook for the game that takes his team to the Super Bowl?

I don't hate Zimmer, I'm not saying he is on the hot seat or should be fired. Best Vikings coach since Denny Green, and he could eventually rank higher. But: he has faced a learning curve about being a head coach. Not great his first year, then better in his second - but he went 11-5 on an easier schedule and by beating losing teams in the regular season. Until 2017, he won most of his games against weaker teams. This year, he learned how to beat good teams - in the regular season. He has become a winning regular-season coach, now he needs to become a playoff winner. I think he will, but it's frustrating. I fear the team will take a bit of a step back in 2018 due to OC and QB changes (and because this team seems to alternate good years with mediocre ones), so it might be 2019 before he settles those and gets another shot for the SB.