Reading between the lines

MMQBing is nothing new or unique to us in the Gopherhole. Schnelker and Burns also faced criticism for underutilization of Herschel Walker. From 1989:


PRO FOOTBALL : Viking Offense Needs to Return to Basics
By BOB OATES
DEC. 6, 1989

12 AM
The Minnesota Vikings are not getting the most out of running back Herschel Walker these days, and it seems to be more their fault than his.
Walker is perhaps the NFL’s most misunderstood player. A fine athlete with raw speed, he was born without much talent for the game. That is, he has few of the skills you see in the great running backs.

Throughout his college and pro career as one of the fastest ballcarriers in football history, Walker, who weighs about 230 pounds, has consistently proved that he is as hard to stop as a freight train. He almost never makes a tackler miss, and almost never runs down tacklers. He gets much of his yardage dragging them along.

Still, he is a remarkably valuable football player. He can be an effective, major contributor to any offensive team that properly fits him in.
Unhappily for the Vikings, their offensive coaches, Jerry Burns and Bob Schnelker, continue to demonstrate that they don’t know how to incorporate Walker’s two great assets--his speed and his abilities as a pass receiver.

Incredibly, they have occasionally benched him on passing downs.

The problem is that Walker is incompatible with the system established in Minnesota, which, despite its talent, is tied with Green Bay at 8-5 atop the NFC Central Division after beating Chicago Sunday night.

Burns-Schnelker running plays, based on trap blocking, usually develop slowly, whereas Walker’s strength is hitting fast. On a running play, that’s his onlystrength, as the Vikings should have known when they traded for him. He can’t change--and the Vikings don’t want to.

But they did change on Walker’s first day in Minnesota two months ago, when he breezed in from Dallas and played after one day of practice. Almost the only ground plays that can be used without much practice are off-tackle runs, and that afternoon, capitalizing on a simplified blocking scheme, Walker repeatedly hit off tackle and ran up 148 yards in 18 carries to beat the Packers. He hasn’t come close to that total since.

Overall, the personnel that Mike Lynn has accumulated for the Vikings--as their $1-million-a-year general manager--is probably the NFL’s most gifted. It’s hard to see how any club could beat them out of the NFL championship if they would use their big back the way the Super Bowl champion Washington Redskins used John Riggins--pounding away with Walker 25 or 30 times each week and throwing 15 or 20 play-action passes after fake handoffs to Walker.

They have that kind of team with a runner who, in the right formations, is a threat to go 40 or 50 yards on any snap--run or pass.

 

There's no logical reason it wouldn't.

And no one has ever, not one single time, argued that we should be doing it even if it doesn't help our offensive production. That's something you made up out of thin air, so that you could go off on a rant against a windmill.
There are a lot of logical reasons that throwing more to our TE's last year and less to TJ and Bateman wouldn't have helped our offense.

What do people think about running QB's? Would the offense have improved if Morgan ran it more? And why didn't we run more jet sweeps?
 

There are a lot of logical reasons that throwing more to our TE's last year and less to TJ and Bateman wouldn't have helped our offense.
More is not a number. If I proposed throwing it to TE on play-action one more time per game, that is included in "more".

What do people think about running QB's? Would the offense have improved if Morgan ran it more? And why didn't we run more jet sweeps?
Morgan is not a great runner, and he's a great thrower. I don't think it makes logical sense to have him running.

I'm open to more jet sweeps, if they add value on average. We can't know if they will, unless we try it.
 

I’d love to have any sort of misdirection. More is better than less although relying on a spectacularly accurate qb and stellar wrs to break big plays was not and is not a bad strategy. The quibbling is over one or two plays a game, at most it seems.
 

I’d love to have any sort of misdirection. More is better than less although relying on a spectacularly accurate qb and stellar wrs to break big plays was not and is not a bad strategy. The quibbling is over one or two plays a game, at most it seems.

There were some great throws and catches that decided games, and could have gone either way. I don’t think I need to remind anyone which ones they were. We could have just as easily been 8-5 or 9-4. So, the #1 goal for the squad should be more consistency in the run game and improved pass protection, so we’re not put in those situations. Perhaps a less predictable offense would help. Mix it up a little, so the defenses can’t just key on a couple things. Auburn made that mistake, but oops... someone else was calling plays.
 
Last edited:


relying on a spectacularly accurate qb and stellar wrs to break big plays was not and is not a bad strategy.
It's a phenomenal strategy ............. when it works.

When it worked, we won. When it didn't work (for significant parts of the game), we didn't win.

Throwing and catching the ball, with medium to long passes, with consistency, the physically most difficult thing in football. That's why teams usually don't rely on it, like we did.
 

There were some great throws and catches that decided games, and could have gone either way. I don’t think I need to remind anyone which ones they were. We could have just as easily been 8-5 or 9-4. So, the #1 goal for the squad should be more consistency in the run game and improved pass protection, so we’re not put in those situations. Perhaps a less predictable offense would help. Mix it up a little, so the defenses can’t just key one a couple things. Auburn made that mistake, but oops... someone else was calling plays.
Yep, they were great. Had the defense played better in those games, we most likely would not have had the chance to seem those great passes.
 

Yep, they were great. Had the defense played better in those games, we most likely would not have had the chance to seem those great passes.

Are you really going to let the offense off the hook for close calls against SDSU and GSU...and the failures in the red zone/piss poor pass protection against Iowa....and total ineffective play against Wisconsin? I’m only asking because this is the 2nd time you’ve mentioned this.
 

I don't think we actively attempted to avoid our TE. We just had 3 WR and 2 RBs who were better than any of our TEs. That's a lot of guys to already. With that type of talent, it's hard to get 4 receptions to a TE. I think our TE crew is getting improved and we will see them getting more passes next season.

Yeah, I can see that. Good point. And you express your opinion in so much more of an easy way to read/listen to compared to that other guy who seems off his meds, lol. And I was watching some highlight videos the other day, and I think our 3rd or 4th receiver got some of the shallow pass routes that a TE might otherwise have gotten? I'm no expert so that is just something I noticed and paid attention to since getting in on this discussion. So if Tanner is checking down, deep receivers are covered and so he goes to the 3rd receiver on a shorter pass route or to the RB, then yeah, I could see there not being a lot of opportunities to need to go to the TE. We'll see, after losing Johnson, will another receiver step up and make up for the loss, or will an improved group of TEs maybe get a few more tosses their way to make up for fewer downfield opportunities?
 



Are you really going to let the offense off the hook for close calls against SDSU and GSU...and the failures in the red zone/piss poor pass protection against Iowa....and total ineffective play against Wisconsin? I’m only asking because this is the 2nd time you’ve mentioned this.


Exactly, if you could go back and strip each game of just one crazy catch that wowed us all, it could be argued that we lose to SDSU, GSU, Purdue, PSU, Auburn & FSU. Well, forget Auburn as we wouldn't have gone to that bowl game with 7 losses. In fact we wouldn't have gone to any bowl game with 7 losses. So even if you could prove that taking away one catch from one of those 5 games wouldn't have resulted in a loss, then it may have prevented us from winning whatever crappy bowl we went to with our 6-6 record, giving us that 7th loss one way or another. And don't tell me we were TOO good to lose to a GSU/FSU type team in a lower bowl game, because we barely beat both of them, and anything can happen in cfb, bad matchups, the other team bringing their A game. I mean, does anyone truly believe that Auburn showed up and played their A game that day? They did show up and were fired up and did want the win, and I'd say they brought their B game, and that we brought our A game, so I'm not trying to downplay that accomplishment, but had our excitement level maybe not have been high going to some toilet bowl in Detroit or whatever, maybe we show up with our B or C game, and the other schmuck team brings their A game because it would be the highlight of their season to take out a B1G team, we could have lost a lower rung bowl game even with all the guys we had on our roster. Also, would all of the Seniors that did play in the bowl game, would they have opted to skip it had it been a trip to Detroit or some other version of a toilet bowl?

So yeah, we had a BLESSED season this year. Miracle catches, many with just an inch or less inside the line, that could have, under different circumstances, ended up being on the line or not caught. And there were at least one of those in every game I mentioned, so we could have just as easily have finished the season 5-7 or 6-7. So YEAH, absolutely, there is room for improvement, even on the offense, especially on the offense seeing as we may take a step back on defense next year? Lets hope we don't, but most expect that we will. And where might some of that improvement come from? I say from mixing it up, making our offense more unpredictable. And even if we don't need that to beat the UW's and Iowa's coming up on our schedule, we are all hoping to be playing the likes of Oklahoma, OSU, Clemson, Bama, LSU & Georgia, and maybe Oregon, in the post season in the future, and against those teams with their very smart coaching staffs and highly recruited players, we just may need to mix things up some.
 

There are a lot of logical reasons that throwing more to our TE's last year and less to TJ and Bateman wouldn't have helped our offense.
Why are you still insistent on a zero sum gain? No one is saying this - so I’m not sure who you are arguing that point against.

Maybe, if we threw to the TEs a bit more we would have picked up a few more first downs and could have then actually increased our passes to TJ and Bateman?
 




Top Bottom