Talk Vikes and Other MN Sports Talk Vikes and Other MN Sports

Forums  Register  Login  My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums 

Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ  Ticket List  Log Out

RE: 2017 Training Camp

 
Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [The Minnesota Vikings] >> Vikes Talk >> RE: 2017 Training Camp Page: <<   < prev  24 25 [26] 27 28   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/9/2017 1:47:53 PM   
shakeywalton

 

Posts: 4728
Joined: 7/31/2007
From: Maplewood
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Richard Neussendorfer

quote:

ORIGINAL: shakeywalton

quote:

ORIGINAL: Richard Neussendorfer

quote:

ORIGINAL: shakeywalton

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott

quote:

ORIGINAL: JT2

quote:

ORIGINAL: kurt bilben

If these guys can keep Bradford fairly clean against our defense on any given day I think we have hope up front. Like they did today.



I would like to see our offense be as aggressive as our D. Especially philosophically.
If your D is great, why not be aggressive offensively?

I do think Zimmer is getting it. I think he needs to be more HC than DC. No reason why he isn't impacting the offense like he does the defense. He's a legit football freak. Attention to detail, ultra demanding. Knows the X's and O's. IMO, he has delegated too much. Put your stamp on this entire team.

The days of being okay with FG's, and turning the game over to your defense is a losing recipe.



With a Defense as stout as ours our offense should be more about moving the chains and maintaining possession and minimizing turnovers. Keep the chains moving. Scoring too quickly sometimes can be detrimental in that the Defense isn't off the field long enough to get enough rest to be as effective the next time they are on the field. It's nice to take shots and be aggressive But the offense should be more about extending drives.

It is the Patriots blueprint (and as much as I hate the Patriots, you have to respect their success).


Exactly, last thing you want to do if you have a great defense is to put them in a bad spot with dumb turnovers.

I'm sure the 2000 Ravens defense would have loved it if the offense scored quickly and got them out to any sizeable lead. The season would have been a cakewalk.


And they would have loved it even more if their offense took chances all over the field and left the defense with regular short fields to defend.

Scoring quickly will never be a problem for a good defense. A good defense will dictate the game. Get them he lead and game over. I don't think anyone said we should turn it over and put the defense on short fields. You can have a good offense and score plenty of points without turning the ball over.


The topic at hand is having an aggressive offense to match our defense. I'm all in favor of taking shots when the field position is favorable, but you don't take shots and risks when you're inside your own 20.

Just behind turnovers, field position is the greatest factor in winning games. When you're pinned inside your own 10, the first goal is ONE first down and then to get outside your 30 and then your own 40 yard line. Then you can open up the offense.
Post #: 626
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/9/2017 1:53:21 PM   
Richard Neussendorfer

 

Posts: 13195
Joined: 12/7/2007
From: Alamogordo, NM
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: shakeywalton

quote:

ORIGINAL: Richard Neussendorfer

quote:

ORIGINAL: shakeywalton

quote:

ORIGINAL: Richard Neussendorfer

quote:

ORIGINAL: shakeywalton

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott

quote:

ORIGINAL: JT2

quote:

ORIGINAL: kurt bilben

If these guys can keep Bradford fairly clean against our defense on any given day I think we have hope up front. Like they did today.



I would like to see our offense be as aggressive as our D. Especially philosophically.
If your D is great, why not be aggressive offensively?

I do think Zimmer is getting it. I think he needs to be more HC than DC. No reason why he isn't impacting the offense like he does the defense. He's a legit football freak. Attention to detail, ultra demanding. Knows the X's and O's. IMO, he has delegated too much. Put your stamp on this entire team.

The days of being okay with FG's, and turning the game over to your defense is a losing recipe.



With a Defense as stout as ours our offense should be more about moving the chains and maintaining possession and minimizing turnovers. Keep the chains moving. Scoring too quickly sometimes can be detrimental in that the Defense isn't off the field long enough to get enough rest to be as effective the next time they are on the field. It's nice to take shots and be aggressive But the offense should be more about extending drives.

It is the Patriots blueprint (and as much as I hate the Patriots, you have to respect their success).


Exactly, last thing you want to do if you have a great defense is to put them in a bad spot with dumb turnovers.

I'm sure the 2000 Ravens defense would have loved it if the offense scored quickly and got them out to any sizeable lead. The season would have been a cakewalk.


And they would have loved it even more if their offense took chances all over the field and left the defense with regular short fields to defend.

Scoring quickly will never be a problem for a good defense. A good defense will dictate the game. Get them he lead and game over. I don't think anyone said we should turn it over and put the defense on short fields. You can have a good offense and score plenty of points without turning the ball over.


The topic at hand is having an aggressive offense to match our defense. I'm all in favor of taking shots when the field position is favorable, but you don't take shots and risks when you're inside your own 20.

Just behind turnovers, field position is the greatest factor in winning games. When you're pinned inside your own 10, the first goal is ONE first down and then to get outside your 30 and then your own 40 yard line. Then you can open up the offense.

I definitely agree with what you're saying here. I also wouldn't mind us being a more aggressive offense than what we had last year. It's probably entirely dependent on the line. I'm interested to see them in action tomorrow. Oline is probably the facet of the game I'll be watching closest.
Post #: 627
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/9/2017 2:04:47 PM   
shakeywalton

 

Posts: 4728
Joined: 7/31/2007
From: Maplewood
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Richard Neussendorfer

quote:

ORIGINAL: shakeywalton

quote:

ORIGINAL: Richard Neussendorfer

quote:

ORIGINAL: shakeywalton

quote:

ORIGINAL: Richard Neussendorfer

quote:

ORIGINAL: shakeywalton

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott

quote:

ORIGINAL: JT2

quote:

ORIGINAL: kurt bilben

If these guys can keep Bradford fairly clean against our defense on any given day I think we have hope up front. Like they did today.



I would like to see our offense be as aggressive as our D. Especially philosophically.
If your D is great, why not be aggressive offensively?

I do think Zimmer is getting it. I think he needs to be more HC than DC. No reason why he isn't impacting the offense like he does the defense. He's a legit football freak. Attention to detail, ultra demanding. Knows the X's and O's. IMO, he has delegated too much. Put your stamp on this entire team.

The days of being okay with FG's, and turning the game over to your defense is a losing recipe.



With a Defense as stout as ours our offense should be more about moving the chains and maintaining possession and minimizing turnovers. Keep the chains moving. Scoring too quickly sometimes can be detrimental in that the Defense isn't off the field long enough to get enough rest to be as effective the next time they are on the field. It's nice to take shots and be aggressive But the offense should be more about extending drives.

It is the Patriots blueprint (and as much as I hate the Patriots, you have to respect their success).


Exactly, last thing you want to do if you have a great defense is to put them in a bad spot with dumb turnovers.

I'm sure the 2000 Ravens defense would have loved it if the offense scored quickly and got them out to any sizeable lead. The season would have been a cakewalk.


And they would have loved it even more if their offense took chances all over the field and left the defense with regular short fields to defend.

Scoring quickly will never be a problem for a good defense. A good defense will dictate the game. Get them he lead and game over. I don't think anyone said we should turn it over and put the defense on short fields. You can have a good offense and score plenty of points without turning the ball over.


The topic at hand is having an aggressive offense to match our defense. I'm all in favor of taking shots when the field position is favorable, but you don't take shots and risks when you're inside your own 20.

Just behind turnovers, field position is the greatest factor in winning games. When you're pinned inside your own 10, the first goal is ONE first down and then to get outside your 30 and then your own 40 yard line. Then you can open up the offense.

I definitely agree with what you're saying here. I also wouldn't mind us being a more aggressive offense than what we had last year. It's probably entirely dependent on the line. I'm interested to see them in action tomorrow. Oline is probably the facet of the game I'll be watching closest.


I agree that it's 100% dependent on the pass protection.
Post #: 628
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/9/2017 2:27:38 PM   
Bruce Johnson

 

Posts: 12306
Joined: 8/27/2007
Status: online
It looks like Wobby posted my question with his answer at Vikings.com It seems that there was a second part of his answer that wasn't included in his email to me.

What is the biggest basis for your optimism for the new season and can you offer anything that you have observed about our changes on offense.
-- Bruce Johnson
Eagan, MN
The fundamental reason for my optimism about the offense improving this season is a two-part equation. First, the changes made along the offensive line have been significant. The Vikings signed two new starting tackles – Riley Reiff and Mike Remmers. Reiff and Remmers have been durable during their careers, they’ve played both left and right tackle during their careers and they’ve recently been starting linemen on teams that made it to the playoffs. They may not be household names or perennial all-pros, but they are solid starters and they represent a drastic improvement at the position over what we had last season. Secondly, Bradford and Shurmur had a full offseason to work together and work with the rest of the offense. If Bradford can do what he did last season after coming in only eight days in front of the first game, I have to think he can be even better with a full offseason of preparation under his belt.


_____________________________

I do think it is wonderful that football can bring people together from different persuasions. We need more of that and less of what divides us.
Post #: 629
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/9/2017 2:37:29 PM   
Bruce Johnson

 

Posts: 12306
Joined: 8/27/2007
Status: online
Checking the Viking.com website roster, it looks like Cook is listed as two inches taller (5'11" vs 5'9") and eight pounds heavier than McKinnon. (213 vs 205)

http://www.vikings.com/team/roster.html

_____________________________

I do think it is wonderful that football can bring people together from different persuasions. We need more of that and less of what divides us.
Post #: 630
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/9/2017 2:42:54 PM   
Richard Neussendorfer

 

Posts: 13195
Joined: 12/7/2007
From: Alamogordo, NM
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

Checking the Viking.com website roster, it looks like Cook is listed as two inches taller (5'11" vs 5'9") and eight pounds heavier than McKinnon. (213 vs 205)

http://www.vikings.com/team/roster.html

Cook is a close number 2 for me tomorrow night. Hearing all the great reports thus far is exciting. The season is upon us and I'm starting to get excited.
Post #: 631
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/9/2017 2:52:48 PM   
Phil Riewer


Posts: 14556
Joined: 8/24/2007
From: MN
Status: offline
Another one of them Hypothetical Questions: Who is the worst guy to leave on the Practice Squad gets picked up? (Coley, Adams, J Johnson, Heneicke, E Lee, E Wilson, Bowers (Basically same build as D Hunter))

_____________________________

SSG Riewer, Greg A Co 2/136 CAB
KIA 23 March 2007 Habbaniyah Iraq
Post #: 632
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/9/2017 2:58:24 PM   
David Levine


Posts: 63159
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Las Vegas
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

Checking the Viking.com website roster, it looks like Cook is listed as two inches taller (5'11" vs 5'9") and eight pounds heavier than McKinnon. (213 vs 205)

http://www.vikings.com/team/roster.html


I'm also guessing Cook isn't made of tissue paper and duct tape.

McKinnon reminds me a whole lot of Mike Mamula.
Post #: 633
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/9/2017 3:18:55 PM   
Bruce Johnson

 

Posts: 12306
Joined: 8/27/2007
Status: online
I just offered a new question for Wobby and in doing so asked him to log in to our site. It was a question about Cook being a three down running back. We'll see. If he does log in, please everyone be polite. It would be cool if he would join us on a regular basis. The thing about him is that he has unparalleled access to the players and the coaches. I understand that it is his job to be a promoter of the team so he has to be careful what he says, but I like him especially because he is a fan, just like us.

_____________________________

I do think it is wonderful that football can bring people together from different persuasions. We need more of that and less of what divides us.
Post #: 634
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/9/2017 3:54:29 PM   
ratoppenheimer


Posts: 6549
Joined: 12/9/2007
From: girona, catalonia...in exile
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

Checking the Viking.com website roster, it looks like Cook is listed as two inches taller (5'11" vs 5'9") and eight pounds heavier than McKinnon. (213 vs 205)

http://www.vikings.com/team/roster.html


and the reality is cook is closer to 2.5" taller than 2" taller....

_____________________________

the journey...is paradise.
Post #: 635
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/9/2017 3:58:02 PM   
Bruce Johnson

 

Posts: 12306
Joined: 8/27/2007
Status: online
I'm not sure that being taller is better when it comes to a running back, although Adrian actually is taller.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1669734-height-weight-and-speed-designing-the-perfect-nfl-running-back

_____________________________

I do think it is wonderful that football can bring people together from different persuasions. We need more of that and less of what divides us.
Post #: 636
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/9/2017 6:42:46 PM   
drviking


Posts: 35224
Joined: 7/17/2007
From: South Dakota
Status: offline
RosterWatch‏Verified account @RosterWatch 5h5 hours ago

CPatterson just told the fans to "Shut the F**K Up" after an absolutely terrible drop downfield from Carr for a would be TD #RaiderNation

_____________________________

"Only one thing left to do..."
Post #: 637
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/9/2017 7:00:41 PM   
kgdabom

 

Posts: 19991
Joined: 7/29/2007
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: ratoppenheimer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

Checking the Viking.com website roster, it looks like Cook is listed as two inches taller (5'11" vs 5'9") and eight pounds heavier than McKinnon. (213 vs 205)

http://www.vikings.com/team/roster.html


and the reality is cook is closer to 2.5" taller than 2" taller....

I don't care how tall our RBs are. If anything it is an advantage to be shorter.

_____________________________

"So let it be written.
So let it be done."
Post #: 638
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/9/2017 7:05:14 PM   
Ian Joseph


Posts: 15392
Joined: 7/15/2007
From: Los Angeles, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: drviking

RosterWatch‏Verified account @RosterWatch 5h5 hours ago

CPatterson just told the fans to "Shut the F**K Up" after an absolutely terrible drop downfield from Carr for a would be TD #RaiderNation


So much for being sad about losing a KR impersonating a WR. Good luck to him.

_____________________________

Hate the message, not the messenger.

Enjoy the process; crave the goal.

Believe.
Post #: 639
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/9/2017 8:20:17 PM   
ratoppenheimer


Posts: 6549
Joined: 12/9/2007
From: girona, catalonia...in exile
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: ratoppenheimer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

Checking the Viking.com website roster, it looks like Cook is listed as two inches taller (5'11" vs 5'9") and eight pounds heavier than McKinnon. (213 vs 205)

http://www.vikings.com/team/roster.html


and the reality is cook is closer to 2.5" taller than 2" taller....

I don't care how tall our RBs are. If anything it is an advantage to be shorter.


cool....

_____________________________

the journey...is paradise.
Post #: 640
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/9/2017 8:28:23 PM   
Bill Jandro

 

Posts: 13311
Joined: 8/13/2007
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: David Levine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

Checking the Viking.com website roster, it looks like Cook is listed as two inches taller (5'11" vs 5'9") and eight pounds heavier than McKinnon. (213 vs 205)

http://www.vikings.com/team/roster.html


I'm also guessing Cook isn't made of tissue paper and duct tape.

McKinnon reminds me a whole lot of Mike Mamula.


I know it is hind sight but why did Spielman pick a qb to play rb in the 3rd rd?????

I like Jet but he couldn't have possibly rated as a 3rd rd pick when guys like Howard and Johnson (whom actually played rb) went in the 4 & 5th rd.

_____________________________

MLB---Choose well and Championships will follow
Post #: 641
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/9/2017 8:33:30 PM   
Bill Jandro

 

Posts: 13311
Joined: 8/13/2007
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: ratoppenheimer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

Checking the Viking.com website roster, it looks like Cook is listed as two inches taller (5'11" vs 5'9") and eight pounds heavier than McKinnon. (213 vs 205)

http://www.vikings.com/team/roster.html


and the reality is cook is closer to 2.5" taller than 2" taller....

I don't care how tall our RBs are. If anything it is an advantage to be shorter.


Maybe we should send a midget out there then.

He can run underneath the NT's legs.

_____________________________

MLB---Choose well and Championships will follow
Post #: 642
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/9/2017 9:00:48 PM   
kgdabom

 

Posts: 19991
Joined: 7/29/2007
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Jandro

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: ratoppenheimer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

Checking the Viking.com website roster, it looks like Cook is listed as two inches taller (5'11" vs 5'9") and eight pounds heavier than McKinnon. (213 vs 205)

http://www.vikings.com/team/roster.html


and the reality is cook is closer to 2.5" taller than 2" taller....

I don't care how tall our RBs are. If anything it is an advantage to be shorter.


Maybe we should send a midget out there then.

He can run underneath the NT's legs.

If you can find a midget who is 210 pounds of solid muscle and runs a 4.2 I think he would do just fine except for a problem handing the ball off to him.

_____________________________

"So let it be written.
So let it be done."
Post #: 643
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/9/2017 9:15:26 PM   
joejitsu

 

Posts: 9673
Joined: 3/21/2010
From: 60411
Status: offline
Barry Sanders was about 5'8" and weighed 205 soaking wet. He had a pretty decent career in Detroit.
Post #: 644
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/9/2017 10:35:30 PM  1 votes
Bruce Johnson

 

Posts: 12306
Joined: 8/27/2007
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: drviking

RosterWatch‏Verified account @RosterWatch 5h5 hours ago

CPatterson just told the fans to "Shut the F**K Up" after an absolutely terrible drop downfield from Carr for a would be TD #RaiderNation


I think Patterson still has a good side (as well as a dark side) but I'm betting that he was more angry with himself.

_____________________________

I do think it is wonderful that football can bring people together from different persuasions. We need more of that and less of what divides us.
Post #: 645
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/9/2017 10:41:49 PM   
Bruce Johnson

 

Posts: 12306
Joined: 8/27/2007
Status: online
I think the article suggested that the ideal height for a running back was 5'10", which is what Cook is. (within a fraction of an inch I believe) His weight seems to be pretty close to being in the right range for the article, as well. The article mentioned that it's not just weight, but thicker in the lower body. It seems to me that Cook fits that, but I am going by my casual looking. It was interesting to me that a running back shouldn't be too big in the upper frame so that he can squeeze through narrow holes in the line. If that matters, than football truly can be a game of inches.

_____________________________

I do think it is wonderful that football can bring people together from different persuasions. We need more of that and less of what divides us.
Post #: 646
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/9/2017 10:48:30 PM   
Bruce Johnson

 

Posts: 12306
Joined: 8/27/2007
Status: online
Winners and losers from training camp: (once again you can listen while you surf the net- I wouldn't just sit and listen for 30 minutes.)

https://twitter.com/Luke_Spinman/status/895141300944732160

_____________________________

I do think it is wonderful that football can bring people together from different persuasions. We need more of that and less of what divides us.
Post #: 647
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/9/2017 11:06:25 PM   
JT2

 

Posts: 12338
Joined: 2/15/2011
From: United States
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

I think the article suggested that the ideal height for a running back was 5'10", which is what Cook is. (within a fraction of an inch I believe) His weight seems to be pretty close to being in the right range for the article, as well. The article mentioned that it's not just weight, but thicker in the lower body. It seems to me that Cook fits that, but I am going by my casual looking. It was interesting to me that a running back shouldn't be too big in the upper frame so that he can squeeze through narrow holes in the line. If that matters, than football truly can be a game of inches.



I really don't think there is such a thing as ideal height for a RB. There are far too many exceptions to that rule. Some of the best rushers in the history of the NFL were over 6 feet. Hell, our 3 best RB's have all been over 6'.

As long as you don't run straight up, like George Rogers, tall RB's don't necessarily have a disadvantage just because of height. It can actually be an advantage. Far too many other things way more important than height.

Per usual, in many American sports, long arms probably are more important than actual height. Even for RB's.
Post #: 648
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/9/2017 11:21:41 PM   
Bruce Johnson

 

Posts: 12306
Joined: 8/27/2007
Status: online
Walter Payton was 5'10". The article makes the point that it helps the running back to not be as visible to the defenders. I bet if there was a statistical analysis, you would find that 5'10" is like a sweet spot for the frequency for better running backs. Of course, Adrian was special and like no one else we will ever see again.

Having long arms makes sense to me as an advantage for blocking, which good running backs should be able to do and for pass receiving. Adrian did poorly in that department and I'm wondering why. Did Adrian have longer arms?

I see from this article that his arm length is 32 1/4". I couldn't tell you if that is long or short for a running back. I see that Murray has arms that are a full inch longer than Adrians, but a quick check on Cook and it's 32 3/8", which is only slightly longer than Adrians, but remember that his arms as as long despite him being two inches shorter in height, so the proportions are better for longer arms.

https://www.mockdraftable.com/player/adrian-peterson-2007

< Message edited by Bruce Johnson -- 8/9/2017 11:29:48 PM >


_____________________________

I do think it is wonderful that football can bring people together from different persuasions. We need more of that and less of what divides us.
Post #: 649
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/9/2017 11:56:24 PM   
JT2

 

Posts: 12338
Joined: 2/15/2011
From: United States
Status: online
Like I said, far too many exceptions to this ideal RB height. You say Payton, I say Brown. You say Sanders, I say Dickerson. You say Tomlinson, I say Allen. You say Faulk, I say Harris. You say Thomas, I say Simpson, etc...

I don't think height, or lack of it, matters that much. Far more important is foot speed, explosion, low center of gravity and strength. Sure, generally speaking, smaller guys tend to have better foot speed, but that's not automatic either.

As far as being less visible to the defenders, why not have 5'-2" RB's dominating the league?

Arm length aids in blocking, receiving and ball security.
Post #: 650
Page:   <<   < prev  24 25 [26] 27 28   next >   >>
All Forums >> [The Minnesota Vikings] >> Vikes Talk >> RE: 2017 Training Camp Page: <<   < prev  24 25 [26] 27 28   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode