Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
vike daddy

What might the KSO look like?

Recommended Posts

Arif's article on The Athletic is worth reading, if you've got access: https://theathletic.com/1165766/2019/08/27/how-the-vikings-offense-has-changed-a-look-at-the-key-differences-for-2019/

Summary...

More tight formations, with heavier personnel. 

  • Last year, they were in 11 (3-WR) on 63% of 1st-and-10 plays. In preseason so far, that's down to 13%. They've been in 12 (2-TE) and 21 (2-RB) personnel nearly 70% of those plays.
  • They've been under center more instead of in shotgun. On 1st-and-10, Cousins was under C half the time in 2018, and 63% of the time when hurry-up situations were removed. This preseason, Vikings QBs were under C 70% of the time on 1st-and-10, and 100% of the time when hurry-up situations were removed

More run heavy play calling:

  • wide zone scheme vs the various blocking schemes used last year
  • 53% of 1st-and-10 plays (excluding late in half, and goal-to-go plays) have been runs this year, compared to 36% of those plays last year. I'll point out here that the Vikings have led most of the preseason so far, so the game script (who's winning or losing and by how much at what point in the game) would favor more running even if there wasn't a change in philosophy

More deep passes and more play action: 

  • Cousins' aDOT (average depth of target) is 9.8 this preseason, which would've been 5th in the league last year. In 2018, he was 27th with 7.9
  • 12.8% of passes have been 20+ yards downfield (last year was 10.8%) while only 8% have been behind the LOS (last year was 13.3%)
  • playaction on 28% of drop backs, compared to 19.6% last year

...that all fits with what we expected coming into the year.

I will note that one of the problems with the starting offense in the Cards game is that the passing attack didn't have enough play action, and avoided the TEs. Rudolph and Irv weren't targeted. The only screens in the first half were give up plays on 3rd and long (one to Ham that almost got picked by Suggs, another to Abdullah where the RB fell down and Cousins got hit). Cousins didn't have any boot action rollouts. 

Hopefully Stefanski/Kubiak will go back to the concepts they used with more success in the first two preseason games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, gopherwrestler said:

This is an awesome read

 

The thing that stood out to me here is just how good O'Neill and Bradbury looked on each one of those plays. Kline was definitely solid too. Everything looked seamless. 

I don't think the coaches were paying lip service when they said Irv Smith had surprised them with his blocking. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I didn't realize how good Irv Smith was at blocking until we drafted him. What a surprise.

Hopefully he'll get some opportunities to catch the ball in the coming weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it wasn't in this thread so I'll have to dig for it if I want to find it, but I know earlier this offseason I brought up how the Kubiak influence in the Stefanski offense would result in a considerable drop in importance of the WR3. That's evident through one week, as WR3 Beebe (14 snaps) played considerably less than FB CJ Ham (22 snaps) and TE2 Irv Smith Jr. (26 snaps) last week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Klomp said:

I guess it wasn't in this thread so I'll have to dig for it if I want to find it, but I know earlier this offseason I brought up how the Kubiak influence in the Stefanski offense would result in a considerable drop in importance of the WR3. That's evident through one week, as WR3 Beebe (14 snaps) played considerably less than FB CJ Ham (22 snaps) and TE2 Irv Smith Jr. (26 snaps) last week.

We only threw the ball 10 times. Let’s see how it looks when forced to pass in a competitive game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The VT article by Nick Olson is excellent. Love seeing the diagrams from the old playbooks next to the gif of the plays.

PXWP8BH.png

...

Vikings run game improvement in week one wasn't just down to play design, but to execution. They looked crisp. They varied snap counts and presnap motion. Linemen pulled smoothly and got to the second level quickly. RBs were decisive in hitting the hole and explosive against contact. 

In short, they looked well coached. 

We can hope and expect to see more levels in the run game this week.

They used a lot of presnap motion, including WRs (especially Thielen) on jet motion (just behind the OL) and orbit motion (semicircle deep to the RB), FB (Ham) moving from in-line to off-set I formations, and TEs (especially Irv) moving from one side to the other of the line. 

Luke Inman at ZC broke down the effect presnap motion had on the Falcons defense, keeping them off balance and making it easier for the Vikings to get to the edge. 

One wrinkle not yet seen after week one would be play action passes off this run action. If defenses find they are vulnerable to the Vikings RBs getting to the edge, their LBs will need to bite hard and attack the play side. That opens up backside play action passing off bootlegs, for instance with Irv Smith leaking out to the flat opposite the run action, or a WR running a dig route in the 12-15 yard window. 

Also -- from similar patterns of presnap motion, the Vikings ran some WR sweeps and end-arounds in preseason, using them pretty consistently even with the first team offense.

Arif at The Athletic picked up on it at the time: https://theathletic.com/1155453/2019/08/22/how-a-d-ii-college-football-innovation-could-be-the-key-to-the-vikings-offense/

We will probably see more of that again soon. 

But the bread and butter of this scheme is the explosive run plays to the edge. If the Vikings can consistently threaten defenses with these play, they will open up all sorts of other options. 

And their week one performance was just about dominant. Not only did the Vikings have a half dozen explosive outside runs, there was also the first play of the game, a gain of 13 by Cook running right that was called back by a penalty (which probably would've worked even if Rudolph hadn't held), and there was this play that Jarrett blew up by embarrassing Elflein. Look at the huge hole Mattison would've had...

Adding back the Rudolph hold and the Jarrett TFL, the Vikings might've had 8 explosive run plays in the first 3 quarters of the Falcons game, all around the edge. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question........................

The run game is firing on ALL cylinders. Cook is looking like an animal.

What and the heck happened to the play-action and PA rollouts that have worked well for us?

Did I just miss them vs. Green Bay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Vikes_Bolts1228 said:

Question........................

The run game is firing on ALL cylinders. Cook is looking like an animal.

What and the heck happened to the play-action and PA rollouts that have worked well for us?

Did I just miss them vs. Green Bay?

Seemed like there was someone in cousins face right away most of the time when they tried it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vikes_Bolts1228 said:

Question........................

The run game is firing on ALL cylinders. Cook is looking like an animal.

What and the heck happened to the play-action and PA rollouts that have worked well for us?

Did I just miss them vs. Green Bay?

One of the main reasons the run game was effective was because GB was scheming to take away the play action rollouts. Their backside DEs stayed home and got upfield, and DBs tracked routes to the backside even when run action was coming downhill toward them. 

You can see it on the long TD run by Cook, especially the replay from behind the defense.

91 doesn’t crash inside on the run but gets upfield where he’ll pressure Cousins if he keeps it. 23 and 31 track Thielen (crossing the formation behind the LOS) and the other route (Rudolph?). So 3 Packers are committing to 3 Vikings (Cousins, Thielen and Rudolph), which leaves 7 blocking 7, and Cook one-on-one with the deep safety. 

Now if Cousins keeps the ball on this play, he’s going to have pressure in his face immediately from 91, and his receivers are going to be covered. 

Edited by Krauser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Krauser said:

One of the main reasons the run game was effective was because GB was scheming to take away the play action rollouts. Their backside DEs stayed home and got upfield, and DBs tracked routes to the backside even when run action was coming downhill toward them. 

You can see it on the long TD run by Cook, especially the replay from behind the defense.

91 doesn’t crash inside on the run but gets upfield where he’ll pressure Cousins if he keeps it. 23 and 31 track Thielen (crossing the formation behind the LOS) and the other route (Rudolph?). So 3 Packers are committing to 3 Vikings (Cousins, Thielen and Rudolph), which leaves 7 blocking 7, and Cook one-on-one with the deep safety. 

Now if Cousins keeps the ball on this play, he’s going to have pressure in his face immediately from 91, and his receivers are going to be covered. 

i love when you post..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Krauser said:

One of the main reasons the run game was effective was because GB was scheming to take away the play action rollouts. Their backside DEs stayed home and got upfield, and DBs tracked routes to the backside even when run action was coming downhill toward them. 

You can see it on the long TD run by Cook, especially the replay from behind the defense.

91 doesn’t crash inside on the run but gets upfield where he’ll pressure Cousins if he keeps it. 23 and 31 track Thielen (crossing the formation behind the LOS) and the other route (Rudolph?). So 3 Packers are committing to 3 Vikings (Cousins, Thielen and Rudolph), which leaves 7 blocking 7, and Cook one-on-one with the deep safety. 

Now if Cousins keeps the ball on this play, he’s going to have pressure in his face immediately from 91, and his receivers are going to be covered. 

Great analysis as usual.  It's plain to see that Kubiaks influence has helped unleash a great running attack.  It will be interesting to see how the coaches are able to adjust and scheme for defenses bent on taking away the play action option going forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Krauser said:

One of the main reasons the run game was effective was because GB was scheming to take away the play action rollouts. Their backside DEs stayed home and got upfield, and DBs tracked routes to the backside even when run action was coming downhill toward them. 

You can see it on the long TD run by Cook, especially the replay from behind the defense.

91 doesn’t crash inside on the run but gets upfield where he’ll pressure Cousins if he keeps it. 23 and 31 track Thielen (crossing the formation behind the LOS) and the other route (Rudolph?). So 3 Packers are committing to 3 Vikings (Cousins, Thielen and Rudolph), which leaves 7 blocking 7, and Cook one-on-one with the deep safety. 

Now if Cousins keeps the ball on this play, he’s going to have pressure in his face immediately from 91, and his receivers are going to be covered. 

I noticed this in the game. Any time Cousins had a PA rollout one of the Smiths was instantly in his face. Essentially the defense is letting you run  the ball some to take away the big plays in the passing game. 

Odd game to review really. I feel like the Packers D had a great day but at the same time the 3 big plays (Diggs, Beebee, Cook) really kept it closer than it seemed to look. On top of that Cousins should have been INT on the Diggs play or at the very least it should have been broken up and Cousins should have been sacked on the Beebee play if not for an extremely savvy move from Beebee to cut off his route and help his QB (Good throw going down by Cousins as well). You also look at the call backed TD on Cook PI affecting the outcome as well. 

I'm happy as hell that the Packers D looks legit but its still up in  the air on how legit it actually is. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

I noticed this in the game. Any time Cousins had a PA rollout one of the Smiths was instantly in his face. Essentially the defense is letting you run  the ball some to take away the big plays in the passing game. 

Odd game to review really. I feel like the Packers D had a great day but at the same time the 3 big plays (Diggs, Beebee, Cook) really kept it closer than it seemed to look. On top of that Cousins should have been INT on the Diggs play or at the very least it should have been broken up and Cousins should have been sacked on the Beebee play if not for an extremely savvy move from Beebee to cut off his route and help his QB (Good throw going down by Cousins as well). You also look at the call backed TD on Cook PI affecting the outcome as well. 

I'm happy as hell that the Packers D looks legit but its still up in  the air on how legit it actually is. 

 

 

We'll see what happens when they face a decent quarterback. They gave up a lot of rushing yards and let some Wrs run free

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  



×