Moving On To 2020/2021.

[SemperFeist]

7 minutes ago, Virginia Viking said:

Perhaps...but there is nothing better than an offense imposing their will on a defense by creating holes and running alleys for the backs to run through.  When a fast, strong back get's to the 2nd level, there aren't many LB's and DB's that are going to win a battle against a RB with a full head of steam.  To me that's football at its best.

But it’s just not the modern game. It’s not the game coming out of college. You’re going to have a very hard time building that team, compared to building a passing team. 

[swede700]

On 1/24/2020 at 8:06 PM, babababa said:

No nothing personal at all. John Randle is by far my favorite all time player by the way. I've wished for another John Randle ever since he retired, and there just hasn't been one on any team since. I'd get so fired up watching him play every snap. 

I actually like your assessment for the most part. I just felt like I wasn't seeing the love toward Cook here this week after reading several threads (and it got me thinking that people are overlooking the fact that a deal could really actually get done. Just keep visualizing that instead of thinking we need to trade him because we can't see the road ahead. 

There can only be one (said in the Highlander voice)...John Randle.  He's so unique in his ability to play anywhere on the line and in his personality, I'd be surprised if we ever see anyone similar.  

[swede700]

22 hours ago, Hyperborean said:

The 49ers are sure proving that to be true.  Seems like they can field a different 100 (or 200+) yard rusher every week.  Some guys can get it done seemingly no matter who they run behind.  And yet, when the line is solid and the playcalling creative, relative nobodies can blow your doors off.  

The Patriots did that way before the 49ers ever did.  But, I'm still fairly sure that if they could run just 1 workhorse RB, they probably would.  It's just that they don't have that guy.  The Patriots did try that as well for many years, with running workhorses like Curtis Martin, Kevin Faulk, Corey Dillon (and tried to with Laurence Maroney), but then resorted to running different guys every week like the Law Firm, James White and that cast of characters they have now.  

[Guest]

1 hour ago, SemperFeist said:

But it’s just not the modern game. It’s not the game coming out of college. You’re going to have a very hard time building that team, compared to building a passing team. 

I guess it's a good thing I'm not building a team then.  I will continue to contend that an effective, powerful running game is essential to winning football, as long as it's paired with a competent passing game.  The corollary is also true.  An effective passing game is essential to winning football as long as it's paired with a powerful running game.  Winning football requires both, in my opinion.

[vikingsrule]

7 minutes ago, Virginia Viking said:

I guess it's a good thing I'm not building a team then.  I will continue to contend that an effective, powerful running game is essential to winning football, as long as it's paired with a competent passing game.  The corollary is also true.  An effective passing game is essential to winning football as long as it's paired with a powerful running game.  Winning football requires both, in my opinion.

I think balance is certainly key. I don’t think a powerful running game is needed to create balance. Seems recent winning is dependent upon either having a super star QB or having a great combo of defense and balance on offense. In the end, usually the super star QB prevails.

[Dolmonite26]

46 minutes ago, Virginia Viking said:

I guess it's a good thing I'm not building a team then.  I will continue to contend that an effective, powerful running game is essential to winning football, as long as it's paired with a competent passing game.  The corollary is also true.  An effective passing game is essential to winning football as long as it's paired with a powerful running game.  Winning football requires both, in my opinion.

Correct and in a later post after the one you quoted, I essentially said as much.

The diverging point in this conversation imo is that the RB position is a secondary factor in creating a good running game and secondly, it's the passing game that sets up the running game, not the inverse, at least most of the time. 

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, Dolmonite26 said:

Correct and in a later post after the one you quoted, I essentially said as much.

The diverging point in this conversation imo is that the RB position is a secondary factor in creating a good running game and secondly, it's the passing game that sets up the running game, not the inverse, at least most of the time. 

I am still unconvinced that the passing game sets up the run universally.

[perrynoid]

37 minutes ago, Virginia Viking said:

I am still unconvinced that the passing game sets up the run universally.

It does, by converting 3rd downs and giving the offense a fresh set of downs.  Keenum was quite good at this a few years back.  I think we had the 2nd highest 3rd down conversion rate in the NFL, iirc.

[vikingsrule]

14 minutes ago, perrynoid said:

It does, by converting 3rd downs and giving the offense a fresh set of downs.  Keenum was quite good at this a few years back.  I think we had the 2nd highest 3rd down conversion rate in the NFL, iirc.

Another point is that when your heavy on the run and do get stuffed at the LOS, typically teams need the passing game to get back on schedule. No matter how good your run game is, there will be situations where the defense sniffs it out.

[swede700]

Ultimately, I don't think it matters at all which way you do it, either pass to set up the run, or run to set up the pass...it just matters that you better be damn good at whichever one you want to base it off of.  And based upon our current offensive line make-up, which is far better run-blocking than pass-blocking, it only makes sense to run to set up the pass.  

[Dolmonite26]

1 hour ago, swede700 said:

Ultimately, I don't think it matters at all which way you do it, either pass to set up the run, or run to set up the pass...it just matters that you better be damn good at whichever one you want to base it off of.  And based upon our current offensive line make-up, which is far better run-blocking than pass-blocking, it only makes sense to run to set up the pass.  

Yeah but it's harder to rely on a line to consistently be good to great at run blocking because everybody needs to do their job for the play to work.

For the passing game you can have a lineman miss a blocking assignment but still get a 20 yard gain. There's more margin for error. We've seen teams win both ways but to my eye, the "play great defense and run the ball" needs a lot more resources and luck to work well enough to win a champion or get close enough to do so.

Both ways work imo, but teams in the Vikings position should be trying to build their offese through the air imo (this doesn't mean you never run the ball). But this isn't going to happen so...

[vikingsrule]

12 minutes ago, Dolmonite26 said:

Yeah but it's harder to rely on a line to consistently be good to great at run blocking because everybody needs to do their job for the play to work.

For the passing game you can have a lineman miss a blocking assignment but still get a 20 yard gain. There's more margin for error. We've seen teams win both ways but to my eye, the "play great defense and run the ball" needs a lot more resources and luck to work well enough to win a champion or get close enough to do so.

Both ways work imo, but teams in the Vikings position should be trying to build their offese through the air imo (this doesn't mean you never run the ball). But this isn't going to happen so...

I agree, especially having targets like Diggs and Thielen. You have to be a pass focused team to improve the efficiency of the run game. MN tried being a run first team down the stretch but largely struggled against playoff caliber teams. Didn’t help that Thielen was out for half the year, it’s certainly more difficult to lean on the passing game like the Vikes should have done with him out. 

Cousins is deadly off playaction but that doesn’t mean you just keep pounding the ball into a wall and being okay with the run game not producing. 

It becomes even more difficult to lean on a run first ball control approach when the defense struggled too.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, vikingsrule said:

Another point is that when your heavy on the run and do get stuffed at the LOS, typically teams need the passing game to get back on schedule. No matter how good your run game is, there will be situations where the defense sniffs it out.

And the same, of course, can be said about those teams that depend on the passing game.  If a defense doesn't have to defend against the run, then the passing attack will get stuffed...ala' the JDF scheme in 2018.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Dolmonite26 said:

Yeah but it's harder to rely on a line to consistently be good to great at run blocking because everybody needs to do their job for the play to work.

For the passing game you can have a lineman miss a blocking assignment but still get a 20 yard gain. There's more margin for error. We've seen teams win both ways but to my eye, the "play great defense and run the ball" needs a lot more resources and luck to work well enough to win a champion or get close enough to do so.

Both ways work imo, but teams in the Vikings position should be trying to build their offese through the air imo (this doesn't mean you never run the ball). But this isn't going to happen so...

You sure observe football and offensive line play differently than I do. Pass blocking is imminently more complicated than run blocking, and if a man misses his assignment, and your QB isn't comfortable in a collapsing pocket, then the play is likely to fail.  Many, many, many more ways for a passing play to go wrong than a run. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, vikingsrule said:

I agree, especially having targets like Diggs and Thielen. You have to be a pass focused team to improve the efficiency of the run game. MN tried being a run first team down the stretch but largely struggled against playoff caliber teams. Didn’t help that Thielen was out for half the year, it’s certainly more difficult to lean on the passing game like the Vikes should have done with him out. 

Cousins is deadly off playaction but that doesn’t mean you just keep pounding the ball into a wall and being okay with the run game not producing. 

It becomes even more difficult to lean on a run first ball control approach when the defense struggled too.

I would say that Thielen's lack of production, not having a productive 3rd receiver, and an offensive line that cannot handle the better competition in pass protection, is what made the run game less effective.  I don't think the quality opponents respected the passing game, so the run game suffered.  Then Cook got dinged.  The Vikings had no choice but to be a run first team to get the pressure off of Cousins and the passing attack, because pass protection was dismal.