Pass me that wrench: Fixing the D in 2022

[battle2heaven]

With the impending free agents, now might be as good of a time as any to change the scheme completely. I don't think we necessarily need a continuation of the current scheme.

[gopherwrestler]

What coulda shoulda woulda.

Where would this defense have been?
 

Hunter woulda never got hurt.
Hughes woulda never got hurt and got to continue to develop under Zimmer. Had the same vibes of Teddy from Zimmer.
Barr shoulda had a surgery that went planned
Gladney coulda stayed out of trouble
Griffen woulda stayed in the right mind.
Piece woulda never got hurt.

This defense in the past 5 years has had money spent on it, and picks spent on it. It SHOULD have been better. Health, off-the-field issues, really played into that. As it does with every team. We just were never able to over-come it.

I really do believe in Zimmers scheme, he just has to have the talent on the field to be able to pull it off. I truly believe with Hunter 100% healthy this defense would not of been in the bottom 12, but that's part of the game when a defense relies that much on having a pass rush with just 4 rushers.
 

[swede700]

8 hours ago, battle2heaven said:

With the impending free agents, now might be as good of a time as any to change the scheme completely. I don't think we necessarily need a continuation of the current scheme.

I think this is the best scheme they've had on defense.  I see absolutely no reason to change it. You change it and you end up with something like the Tampa 2.  

[vikingsrule]

42 minutes ago, swede700 said:

I think this is the best scheme they've had on defense.  I see absolutely no reason to change it. You change it and you end up with something like the Tampa 2.  

There are so many holes on defense and very few building blocks, I feel like any scheme can be pursued and there wouldn’t be much lost in trying to transition. I just hope they don’t get too pigeon holed into one scheme unless they get a true defensive guru to run it like a Vic Fangio. Otherwise, I’d prefer a fairly flexible defensive scheme which seems to be what Zimmer essentially had. Seems we ran a bunch of different looks when he was here. Ultimately I’d love a defense that can keep the opposition from scoring in the final two mins of the halves.

Edited January 20, 2022 by vikingsrule

[RpMc]

17 hours ago, swede700 said:

I think this is the best scheme they've had on defense.  I see absolutely no reason to change it. You change it and you end up with something like the Tampa 2.  

There's absolutely reason to change it... it doesn't currently fit, based on what I've seen, the players that are on the team.  Change may be the wrong word, but it certainly needs to be tweaked.  Across the defensive front the players we have fit the mold of an odd front team more than an even front.  Wonnum is out of place as an every down end and would be better served as a Jack/Buck backer like he played as in South Carolina.  Guys like Lynch and Tomlinson come from more of those hybridized odd front schemes at Baylor and Alabama.  Pierce comes from an odd front in Baltimore.  Backers like Dye and Lynch as come from those type of schemes.  Part of Zimmer's problem, and this was hinted at by Spielman in his podcast, was the square peg/round hole issue we saw under Childress as well.  Players needed to fit his scheme, he wasn't great at adapting the scheme to his players.

Hunter/Smith/Kendricks can play in any system, but how much longer do they have; in general, or with this team?  While some tennants of what we've done can, and should, absolutely be kept in, I'm not factoring that in to my coaching search for either a HC or coordinator.

[battle2heaven]

So we got confirmation their "base" will be a 3 man front; although it'll mostly be multiple in practice.

The interesting nugget was Oconnell talked about Barr yesterday...A LOT. When he's set to be a free agent. I'm not sure if that was just a slip up on his part, or they are working on something we don't know, but I had always thought the Vikings and Barr were moving on from each other.

Maybe they have other plans now, and they like him a lot in the new 3-4 hybrid front role. If that's the case, that's even more money they'll have to move around.

K/O mentioned Harrison Smith, Kendricks and Barr yesterday. Nothing about Hunter though.

[swede700]

1 hour ago, battle2heaven said:

So we got confirmation their "base" will be a 3 man front; although it'll mostly be multiple in practice.

The interesting nugget was Oconnell talked about Barr yesterday...A LOT. When he's set to be a free agent. I'm not sure if that was just a slip up on his part, or they are working on something we don't know, but I had always thought the Vikings and Barr were moving on from each other.

Maybe they have other plans now, and they like him a lot in the new 3-4 hybrid front role. If that's the case, that's even more money they'll have to move around.

K/O mentioned Harrison Smith, Kendricks and Barr yesterday. Nothing about Hunter though.

I agree.  I thought it was very telling about mentioning Barr specifically.  My guess is that, if he's willing to take a paycut to resign, they'd like to have him back, because he clearly fits into the 3-4 scheme.  I did notice that Hunter wasn't mentioned.  I believe they will move him for the right price.  

[SemperFeist]

I’m not reading anything into the players that weren’t mentioned. There were a lot of them. 

 

I’ll be shocked if the team moves Hunter. The Fangio defense, which is what Donatell is bringing, is completely dependent on getting pressure with the  “front 4”. There’s not a lot of blitzing involved. Hunter is paramount in having any type of defensive success. 

Edited February 18, 2022 by SemperFeist

[wcblack34]

Hunter, when healthy, is a Top 5 defender. He is elite. Teams spend years trying to find a guy like him. People have often complained about our failure to develop mid-round picks. Hunter is one that the Vikings did develop. Anything less than a Khalil Mack type deal is foolish. 

QB is the most important position on the field. Pass rusher is pretty much the 2nd most important position. They can find a way to use Hunter in any scheme. If you can't, you shouldn't be a coach. 

[swede700]

While I can't disagree, just like with Kirk, but for a different reason (injury history), Danielle's contract may be prohibitive, so you may have to move him.  It's certainly not like you can't use him in the 3-4 (I've never made that argument), but you have do something with the big contracts, and the decision on him is even more pressing than Kirk's, because he has a guaranteed roster bonus of $18M kicking in a month from now.   

[PrplChilPill]

7 minutes ago, swede700 said:

While I can't disagree, just like with Kirk, but for a different reason (injury history), Danielle's contract may be prohibitive, so you may have to move him.  It's certainly not like you can't use him in the 3-4 (I've never made that argument), but you have do something with the big contracts, and the decision on him is even more pressing than Kirk's, because he has a guaranteed roster bonus of $18M kicking in a month from now.   

I'd love to keep him, but if the Jets offer 2 of their top 3 picks, you have to be very tempted. Very.

Danielle and MN's 2nd for the Jets first three picks.....? Danielle and Cook for the Jets first three picks?

[wcblack34]

6 minutes ago, swede700 said:

While I can't disagree, just like with Kirk, but for a different reason (injury history), Danielle's contract may be prohibitive, so you may have to move him.  It's certainly not like you can't use him in the 3-4 (I've never made that argument), but you have do something with the big contracts, and the decision on him is even more pressing than Kirk's, because he has a guaranteed roster bonus of $18M kicking in a month from now.   

Injury history or not, you have to gamble on him. Nothing is zero risk, but the risk/reward with Hunter is franchise altering. An extension brings his cap number down. Additionally, his trade value right now is as low as it's going to get. I don't think there's any way we'd get a return that would make it worth letting him go. 

[PrplChilPill]

Just now, wcblack34 said:

Injury history or not, you have to gamble on him. Nothing is zero risk, but the risk/reward with Hunter is franchise altering. An extension brings his cap number down. Additionally, his trade value right now is as low as it's going to get. I don't think there's any way we'd get a return that would make it worth letting him go. 

The Vikings should sign him, but no team will offer value for him? 

[wcblack34]

11 minutes ago, PrplChilPill said:

The Vikings should sign him, but no team will offer value for him? 

Yes. As noted in the post, it's a gamble. We're in a better position to assess that gamble than anyone else. Do you really think the Jets are going to give up two of their first three picks for a guy who has barely played for the last 2 years? Especially when they're also going to have to gamble on giving him a top-of-the-market contract? 

Edited February 18, 2022 by wcblack34

[PrplChilPill]

12 minutes ago, wcblack34 said:

Yes. As noted in the post, it's a gamble. We're in a better position to assess that gamble than anyone else. Do you really think the Jets are going to give up two of their first three picks for a guy who has barely played for the last 2 years? Especially when they're also going to have to gamble on giving him a top-of-the-market contract? 

I wouldn't, but more than one national writers has mentioned it......But, I really don't get the position that the Vikings should value him like that, when no other team will. He's either worth it, or not (in the eyes of GMs).