Defense - Raising the Barr

[french t0ast]

1 hour ago, ArcticNorseman said:

Think back to 1987, 1988, 1998 and 2009 .  . . take a moment to compare those teams to this 2017 Vikes squad.  Remember in the late '80s how the defense was dominant, but the O was shaky?   Those Jerry Burns coached teams weren't as talented at the QB and RB positions as other rosters, but that defense had DBs and DL beyond compare . . . well, actually, this defense has Barr and Kendricks at LB, and I'd say those two are better than Studwell-Merriweather.

The '98 team was barely serviceable defensively, and on offense that team had an ailing Robert Smith going into the playoffs.  Most importantly, that team had a HC that checked-out in the NFC Conference Championship.  

The '09 team was nearly as balanced as '17, but they had one glitch . . . their last 4 games, didn't go well and you could sense a lack of confidence going into the playoffs.  

This team is playing unbelievably confident on both offense and defense.  Any one of these last 8 games, they could've floundered hard, but they didn't.  Sure, there was a loss on the road to Carolina . . . a game they didn't play well in, and still had a chance to take the lead late.  That loss seems to have elevated the "team-ness" for this '17 squad . . . quite frankly, I see these guys playing as wicked as the those reknowned Bucs, Ravens and Steelers teams.

So, as the post-season evolves, let's hope they keep things light-hearted, but serious . . . lol.

 

I totally agree. I dont remember the last time we had a team so confident going into the playoffs!

Was the 98 defense as bad as people say? When I look back at their rankings one stat that stood out to me was that they were 6th in the NFL of points allowed, at 18.5 points per game

[SemperFeist]

20 minutes ago, french t0ast said:

 

I totally agree. I dont remember the last time we had a team so confident going into the playoffs!

Was the 98 defense as bad as people say? When I look back at their rankings one stat that stood out to me was that they were 6th in the NFL of points allowed, at 18.5 points per game

They were not a defense that you could count on to get a stop when you needed it. They had the luxury of the offense scoring so much, that it made the opposition one dimensional, and the defense was allowed to pin their ears back. 

[ArcticNorseman]

If we compare Denny Green's concept to Mike Zimmer's, role-reversal comes to mind.  Denny spent all his high draft picks on O . . . Moss, McDaniel, Stringer, Stuessie, Smith and probably some others were 1st round picks.  3-deep was truly a nightmare for defenses, so as exciting as it was to watch them, the defense with very little high-draft talent was thin behind the starters.  In order to win games (last I checked), you need to keep opponents from scoring.  

The '98 squad outscored most everybody, and as I recall, they did keep other teams from scoring if you look at score sheets.   As I recall, they were so dominant offensively, you didn't notice how later in the season, wins didn't come comfortably.  For me, that defense always had me on edge because ya never knew if they would blow the game.  

Zimmer, conversely, invested more heavily in defense.  It's paying off as we see.  We're fortunate to have an offense that's substantially more balanced with "lower drafted" personnel.  The offense will score points, and this defense is nearly impervious.  So, as we go forward, it'll be exciting to see how far Zimmer's concept will carry the team!

[CriminalMind]

Pretty much everything treaded into the right direction for our defense this year.

Hunter is an upgrade over Robison as starter, even if the sack numbers not there. Barr is having a plus year. Wayne's having a huge improvement year. No Greenway who was a liability. Lots of Newman in nickle playing great replaced Captain. Alexander playing better then last year as well. Senjeao with a plus year too.

No drop off by Everson, Linval, Rhodes, Harry, Kendricks. Decent play from Johnson & Ben who are surrounded by star defenders. Robison been nice in nickle as well.

 

[TENINCH]

http://www.1500espn.com/vikings-2/2017/12/terence-newman-will-change-life/

 

Not sure if it's been posted anywhere but this is a great article.

[Purplexing]

6 hours ago, ArcticNorseman said:

If we compare Denny Green's concept to Mike Zimmer's, role-reversal comes to mind.  Denny spent all his high draft picks on O . . . Moss, McDaniel, Stringer, Stuessie, Smith and probably some others were 1st round picks.  3-deep was truly a nightmare for defenses, so as exciting as it was to watch them, the defense with very little high-draft talent was thin behind the starters.  In order to win games (last I checked), you need to keep opponents from scoring.  

The '98 squad outscored most everybody, and as I recall, they did keep other teams from scoring if you look at score sheets.   As I recall, they were so dominant offensively, you didn't notice how later in the season, wins didn't come comfortably.  For me, that defense always had me on edge because ya never knew if they would blow the game.  

Zimmer, conversely, invested more heavily in defense.  It's paying off as we see.  We're fortunate to have an offense that's substantially more balanced with "lower drafted" personnel.  The offense will score points, and this defense is nearly impervious.  So, as we go forward, it'll be exciting to see how far Zimmer's concept will carry the team!

Typically, the cliche "Offense sells tickets.  Defense wins games." is thrown around without consideration of the concept of 'balance'.

The 1998 team was far off-balance as regard defensive talent and coaching relative to the offense.  Enny Green earned the nickname I used due to his erroneous belief that a powerful O would not require an equally talented, or even mediocre defense.  That worked well in the regular season, where the 16 opponents include, say, 4 bad teams, 4 mediocre teams, 4 better than average teams, and 4 very good teams.  You can win many games in that 16 game period, with some luck yielding more than 10 wins.  But in the playoffs, you will face teams that reached the playoffs due to good balance on O & D, and perhaps a very good D that will slow down or shut down the powerful 1998 Vikings offense.  Or, a playoff opponent might have a very potent offense that can score multiple times on the Vikings meager defense, leaving the Vikings offense little room for error, e.g. a missed 38 yd FG, in a shootout game.

Bud Grant and Jerry Burns had teams with great defenses and good to above average offenses.   Norm Van Brocklin, Les Steckel, and Leslie Frazier had varying levels of quality Os and Ds, but never had a very good D.  Ex-Coachilly used a 'Wet Coat' (sic) offense coupled with a modest defense.  Mike Tice had a 'Randy Ratio O', a modest/mediocre defense, a cheapskate owner as his boss, and some tickets to scalp.

So, seeing how Enny Green and ex-Coachilly erred in their thought process, I'll modify the old cliche as follows:  "Offense can sell tickets and win games...  But only if the Defense doesn't lose games and Tice doesn't undercut ticket prices too greatly."

[Purplexing]

44 minutes ago, CriminalMind said:

Pretty much everything treaded into the right direction for our defense this year.

Hunter is an upgrade over Robison as starter, even if the sack numbers not there. Barr is having a plus year. Wayne's having a huge improvement year. No Greenway who was a liability. Lots of Newman in nickle playing great replaced Captain. Alexander playing better then last year as well. Senjeao with a plus year too.

No drop off by Everson, Linval, Rhodes, Harry, Kendricks. Decent play from Johnson & Ben who are surrounded by star defenders. Robison been nice in nickle as well.

 

True.  Gedeon fit in after being drafted.  But he's almost MIA as regards play-making.  Perhaps he's just doing his job, learning, and will put up some stats and highlight plays in the future?

[swede700]

12 hours ago, french t0ast said:

 

I totally agree. I dont remember the last time we had a team so confident going into the playoffs!

Was the 98 defense as bad as people say? When I look back at their rankings one stat that stood out to me was that they were 6th in the NFL of points allowed, at 18.5 points per game

It was a bad defense.  The Vikings' offense to the defense was equivalent to the Packers' offense with Rodgers as compared to without him.  The offense would jump out to such a quick lead that the defense could play loosey-goosey.  They ended up losing both times the games were close, to Tampa Bay and to Atlanta.  

[Klomp]

6 hours ago, Purplexing said:

Typically, the cliche "Offense sells tickets.  Defense wins games." is thrown around without consideration of the concept of 'balance'.

The 1998 team was far off-balance as regard defensive talent and coaching relative to the offense.  Enny Green earned the nickname I used due to his erroneous belief that a powerful O would not require an equally talented, or even mediocre defense.  That worked well in the regular season, where the 16 opponents include, say, 4 bad teams, 4 mediocre teams, 4 better than average teams, and 4 very good teams.  You can win many games in that 16 game period, with some luck yielding more than 10 wins.  But in the playoffs, you will face teams that reached the playoffs due to good balance on O & D, and perhaps a very good D that will slow down or shut down the powerful 1998 Vikings offense.  Or, a playoff opponent might have a very potent offense that can score multiple times on the Vikings meager defense, leaving the Vikings offense little room for error, e.g. a missed 38 yd FG, in a shootout game.

Bud Grant and Jerry Burns had teams with great defenses and good to above average offenses.   Norm Van Brocklin, Les Steckel, and Leslie Frazier had varying levels of quality Os and Ds, but never had a very good D.  Ex-Coachilly used a 'Wet Coat' (sic) offense coupled with a modest defense.  Mike Tice had a 'Randy Ratio O', a modest/mediocre defense, a cheapskate owner as his boss, and some tickets to scalp.

So, seeing how Enny Green and ex-Coachilly erred in their thought process, I'll modify the old cliche as follows:  "Offense can sell tickets and win games...  But only if the Defense doesn't lose games and Tice doesn't undercut ticket prices too greatly."

This is exactly it, and I feel like it's similar in other sports too.

Remember the 7SOD Phoenix Suns? That team was great in the regular season, but struggled in the playoffs.

In football, you have varying degrees of balance, as you put it.

Some teams are carried by an amazing QB with minimal talent around him. These teams may be good enough to get through the season, but have a harder time in the playoffs (Packers most of this decade. Great QB play and slightly better offensive supporting cast can help you go a little bit farther, but still often don't get all the way if someone can slow the attack (1998 Vikings). Good offense and above average defense has a better chance, but still can fall short in certain situations.

Everyone looks back to the early 2010s to say the QB is the most important piece, as Manning, Roethliserger, Warner, Brees used their arms to bring their team to the Super Bowl. But except for last year, I feel like defenses have been far more important in recent years, with dominant units like Denver, Carolina, Seattle and Baltimore playing in the game.

[Klomp]

3 hours ago, disaacs said:

It was a bad defense.  The Vikings' offense to the defense was equivalent to the Packers' offense with Rodgers as compared to without him.  The offense would jump out to such a quick lead that the defense could play loosey-goosey.  They ended up losing both times the games were close, to Tampa Bay and to Atlanta.  

All I remember is how bad a 12-year old Klomp thought starters like Derrick Alexander, Tony Williams, Dixon Edwards, Corey Fuller and Jimmy Hitchcock were.

[swede700]

14 minutes ago, Klomp said:

All I remember is how bad a 12-year old Klomp thought starters like Derrick Alexander, Tony Williams, Dixon Edwards, Corey Fuller and Jimmy Hitchcock were.

And 12-yr old Klomp was not wrong.  Jimmy Hitchcock was the epitome of the term "front-runner".   He was a horrible CB made to look good because of the offense.  

[vikingsrule]

3 minutes ago, disaacs said:

And 12-yr old Klomp was not wrong.  Jimmy Hitchcock was the epitome of the term "front-runner".   He was a horrible CB made to look good because of the offense.  

He was opportunistic. Made some Ints. That's about it.

[Klomp]

I loved our safeties though! And two of the LBs! and Randle on the DL! But it wasn't a very cohesive unit.

Good ol Foge Fazio....

[swede700]

12 minutes ago, Klomp said:

I loved our safeties though! And two of the LBs! and Randle on the DL! But it wasn't a very cohesive unit.

Good ol Foge Fazio....

I loved Robert Griffith...but he was the only one in the secondary worth salt.  The late Orlando Thomas was an okay safety, but other than his rookie year, wasn't anything more than an passable player.  Him and Fuller were good people, just not great players.  

[Purplexing]

4 hours ago, Klomp said:

This is exactly it, and I feel like it's similar in other sports too.

Remember the 7SOD Phoenix Suns? That team was great in the regular season, but struggled in the playoffs.

In football, you have varying degrees of balance, as you put it.

Some teams are carried by an amazing QB with minimal talent around him. These teams may be good enough to get through the season, but have a harder time in the playoffs (Packers most of this decade. Great QB play and slightly better offensive supporting cast can help you go a little bit farther, but still often don't get all the way if someone can slow the attack (1998 Vikings). Good offense and above average defense has a better chance, but still can fall short in certain situations.

Everyone looks back to the early 2010s to say the QB is the most important piece, as Manning, Roethliserger, Warner, Brees used their arms to bring their team to the Super Bowl. But except for last year, I feel like defenses have been far more important in recent years, with dominant units like Denver, Carolina, Seattle and Baltimore playing in the game.

There doesn't have to be a (near) balance of talent on O and D (and ST) to achieve success in any sport, but one unit being poor or mediocre certainly spoils a teams' chance to win consistently.   In football, defenses can give their offense good field position by stopping drives or getting turnovers.  Green's D units weren't able to defend against passing attacks because their secondaries were largely, but not completely, void of talent because Green focused on building the O.  And there was nepotism in Green hiring the secondary coach, Richard Solomon, who was over-matched at the pro level.  I believe there were good DL drafted, but never coached properly in Minnesota, but I can't recall who the DL coach was, and if he had prior success coaching DL.

QBs are very important because of their great influence in the performance of the offense.  There isn't an equally important counterpart position on D.   I prefer a top tier QB over a top tier RB, with an exception for cold weather games, especially during playoffs, when a good ground game becomes more important than in the regular season. 

I agree that a dominant defense is more important lately, as it can provide good field position (by stopping opponent's drives or getting turnovers) to an effective offense that has a QB who throws few INTs and a RB who rarely fumbles.