What to make of this team

by jobe on Nov 3, 2009 9:48 PM CST Comment 36 comments

I'm sure most of you have read what Cullen Jenkins had to say after Sunday's game in which the defense gave up four passing touchdowns to Brett Favre and the Vikings. And I'm sure some of you have also read what ESPN.com NFC North Blogger Kevin Seifert makes of the situation. This defense is in trouble, right? Just look at the three games played against legit NFL Offenses, doesn't look that much different than last year, does it? Maybe we're just kidding ourselves that this can be a playoff team, specifically one that can hold a good NFL offense in check. Maybe this defense just isn't going to get it done.

Geez, but then look at the rankings. Our defense is in the top ten in both scoring and total defense. And so what if we only shut out Detroit. I mean Pittsburgh gave up twenty points to Detroit.

But now of all times, is when we could actually stand to listen to some advice of two brothers from Minnesota of all places. For those of you who saw the Coen Brothers' newest movie 'A Serious Man', perhaps you remember this quote on the screen just as the film started.

"Receive with simplicity everything that happens to you."

-Rashi

The problem with the Packer's season so far, is that we haven't really faced much league average competition. Of course thats bound to happen when league average teams are at such a premium at the moment. In the three wins against the cellar dwellers, the defense performed at or above expectations. In the three losses against what looks to be very good teams, the defense performed at or below expectations. There's really been so little to go on to formulate expectations for the rest of the year, not only for the defense but for the entire team, and thats what has been most frustrating for me so far this season.

I mean, I have as good a grasp on this team as I did opening day, which in short means not much.

I think because of this, this season, more than any other I've followed, I've been particularly antsy between games and that really gets frustrating. I've tried to teach myself not to put too much stock into the previous week's game in assessing our chances for the rest of the season, but due to the bipolar competitive nature of our opponents this year, even thats become hard. I almost want the Packers and the defense to have a statement game one way or the other just so I can get a grasp.

We don't know, we just don't know how good this defense or team can be. Seeing as the Coen Brothers' 'A Serious Man' is a 1960's retelling of the story of Job, all of us Packer fans could sure exhibit some patience, including myself.

0 recs | Comment 36 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

The defense is very good

But they couldn’t get to Favre and the safeties were just a step too slow to react on a couple plays. While Bigby is an improvement over anybody else they’ve tried at safety, he showed his limitations in coverage. Though Favre attacked and exploited their weaknesses, I’m overall impressed with what Dom Capers has done with them. I’m going to try to discuss it more in future posts.

by Brandon on Nov 3, 2009 11:56 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

And there doesn't seem to be much talk

about just how well Ryan Pickett played on Sunday. Who would’ve thought it would be Clay Matthews and not B.J. Raji thriving at this point of the season.

Speaking of Clay Matthews, I think he could’ve been a frontrunner for defensive rookie of the year if he had gotten more snaps earlier in the year. At this point it would probably have to go to Brian Cushing or Jairus Byrd.

Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself: "Mankind". Basically, it's made up of two separate words—"mank" and "ind". What do these words mean? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind.
-Jack Handey

by jobe on Nov 4, 2009 12:10 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd say if Byrd can stay healthy he's basically the shoo-in

I think that Matthews will have a better career though

by Donald Driver on Nov 4, 2009 12:35 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That is normal for a 3-4 lineman. They aren’t going to get the glory but when they play well, the LBs look really good!

by TrevorR on Nov 4, 2009 9:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Clay Mathews has played well

However, he still has room for a lot of improvement. His biggest strengths is being where he needs to be on most downs. He is in position to make a play. His biggest weakness is he lacks size and strength. When you look at Pittsburgh, their OLB’s can bull rush and do all sorts of things. Clay Mathews can’t bull rush an OT and sack the QB. At least not yet, but he does make big plays. I think another issue with this defense is how Dom Capers often sets his defense up. On passing downs, Kampmann has his hands in the dirt. That’s great, no adjustment needed. The ILB’s are dropped back, and it is obvious that Mathews is going to blitz. What’s the point of the 3-4 defense if that is going to be played. Our more ideal formation on those situations are to put Cullen Jenkins on the outside with Raji and Pickett on the inside in the 4-3 on those obvious passing downs. That’s just my opinion. If you are not going to try and confuse the offense in the 3-4, then go with your biggest strength in the 4-3 set.

by Jabooty on Nov 4, 2009 4:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Whats been dissapointing to me is that I still expected to play some 4-3 this year and we really haven’t. I can’t remember where I heard this but apparently what Dom Capers was talking about were 4-3 concepts, and not nesecarily line up in 4-3. If so, we still should play some downs in the 4-3 to, like you said, accomadate guys like Cullen Jenkins.

The good news is Ryan Pickett seems to fit in well in the 3-4.

By the way, for those who think we’ve had an awkward transition to the 3-4 (which by no means I think we’ve had) just watch a Jacksonville Jaguars game. It’s the lethal combo of average to below average players with average to below average players that don’t fit their scheme.

by jobe on Nov 5, 2009 1:41 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

agree with Pickett

I think the switch to the 3-4 has helped everyone on the DL except for maybe Jenkins. Jenks is still doins good just not having the same numbers he used to have. But Jolly, Pickett, BJ (was drafted for the 3-4 i know) but they all fit the system so well! Back in April, after we drafted BJ who would have thought Jolly and Pickett would both still be starting heading into week 9? They have both played very well except the mental mistakes (Jolly) but you have to take the good with the bad and his good has been pretty damn good so far

by bizzle4 on Nov 6, 2009 11:50 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The D is fine...

Ted Thompson needs to be fired!

by jabuddha on Nov 4, 2009 12:45 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Stop

The Ted bashing is getting old. People need to stop diverting the discussion to Ted bashing.

by StephanL on Nov 4, 2009 12:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Or you could STOP

denying that Thompson gave away my teams shot at a superbowl…to the Vikes.

by jabuddha on Nov 6, 2009 8:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

The Vikings sucked before Brett Favre came.

by jobe on Nov 6, 2009 12:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Sigh

If I remember correctly Favre gave away our opportunity at a SB to Corey Webster.

by packallday555 on Nov 6, 2009 7:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

heheh

Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb

by verno329 on Nov 6, 2009 8:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

ZING

by Charlie Kelly on Nov 7, 2009 10:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

So if the defense is fine

who do you think stocked it with fine players?

by jobe on Nov 4, 2009 1:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Brett Favre?

by Charlie Kelly on Nov 4, 2009 2:00 PM CST up reply actions 4 recs

Lmao +100

by packallday555 on Nov 4, 2009 5:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

?

Let’s be honest. You have played 4 games against teams with a winning record and lost 3. To rate your defense in any other way is drawing at straws.

by PurpleJesus on Nov 4, 2009 10:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Another Vikings fan weighing in here, I think that the stats speak for themselves, the Packer DO have a tough top 5 defense in place. They just had trouble winning against some elite teams – nothing more, nothing less. Elite teams tend to make good teams’ stats not matter so much. That’s all.

I’m not saying that to defend the Packers, a team that I do not like all that much as our rivals, but to be honest. I see no need to rip them while they’re down, either.

by Wytefang on Nov 5, 2009 2:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

My post may have been a bit dry

But I am certainly not trying to kick anyone while they are down. I was down right serious in my post. To further explain…

Stats (yardage) do not mean very much. They are always a factor of who you have played (could be mostly easy teams) and never take into account the type of team you are (run and shoot team who will have their defense on the field a lot, etc.) or never account for turnover differential and so on. It is for that reason that I said “4 games against teams with a winning record and lost 3”. Isn’t that a far better measure of your defense? Anyone, can accumulate immpresive stats against bad teams. It’s what you do against the better (elite as you call them) teams that ultimately matters.

A far better way to measure defenses IMO is the AER (Aikman Efficiency Rating). It takes into account many things including some of the items I mentioned above and is much more accurate when you look at the AER and who is winning etc.

by PurpleJesus on Nov 6, 2009 5:57 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

They can only play the teams on the schedule right? Remember many of the Vikes big wins are against some really poor teams too. Against elite teams, the Vikes are what 1-1? The packers are at best a good team this year. Same goes for the 49ers. The rest of the games have been cakewalks for them too so lets not try to spin this too much. The Vikings have been very good this year, but I haven’t seen them dominate a team for a complete game yet…even against the bad teams. They need to learn to play a complete game if they are going to keep up with Pitt, NO, Indy, etc. They are a better team than the Packers though, that is clear so far this year.

by TrevorR on Nov 6, 2009 10:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

agree...

The Packers have lost to only 2 teams this year! The Vikings are a pretty team than us plain and simple so as PurpleJesus keeps pointing out we have 3 loses, but 2 of the three are to one team that is simply better than us. So are we a horrible team that can only beat below average teams? Who knows we havent had many games against teams that are just good not elite. But you brought a very good point about the Vikes. They havent dominated a team for 60 minutes. When playoff time goes I think they can have trouble with teams that can protect their QB and have a high powered O i.e. the Saints

by bizzle4 on Nov 6, 2009 12:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t keep pointing it out. I mentioned it once as a statement in a series of posts that were strange to say the least. I simply pointed out that measuring your defense right now when you have only played 3 games against winning teams isn’t accurate. It is all part of the way the schedule falls out. Later in the year when you play more winning teams it will start to level out but, all in all, yardage is not the best way to measure a successful defense.

by PurpleJesus on Nov 6, 2009 3:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

actually its 4 winning teams…which is exactly the same amount as the vikings so far. They’ve both had 3-4 patsy matchups and 4 tough matchups.

Cleveland, St. Louis, Detroit and teams like that can do wonders for a teams ego and for padding its stats. I think it fair to say that the NFC North in general has had a nice road so far with a few more challenges along the way. I’d feel a LOT better about my chances for the playoffs if I was a Viking fan though I might have jumped out a window years ago if I was! ;-)

by TrevorR on Nov 6, 2009 4:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I like the way our scheudle has played out

Having played a couple of patsies before SF when they were playing well and right before playing you. Then at the end playing Baltimore and Pitt before you again. Not sure if that is 4 easy games but ok. I’ll still take it.

Also, don’t forget any team playing a TB, STL or Cleve in the first two weeks of the year are still facing teams that believe they might be good. That is far different than playing them week 7 and 8 or later when they now have lost their heart. So from that perspective I would have rather played Cleveland now than week 1.

by PurpleJesus on Nov 6, 2009 5:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Clevehand has been a joke since week one

when the Mangina tried hiding which QB would start in an effort to confuse an opposing team’s defense that couldn’t care less whether they played Brady Quinn or Derek Anderson.

by Charlie Kelly on Nov 7, 2009 10:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

But they had hope...

They no longer have “hope” that they are a good team and that means certain players don’t play as hard and theoretically make them easier to play now than early.

And I agree they suck…. however when the Vikings played them it was 34-13 until late when we let up a late score with 2 minutes left to make it 34-20.

by PurpleJesus on Nov 7, 2009 11:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You do know

putting down the Packers makes the Vikings look worse as well.

by jobe on Nov 8, 2009 2:33 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Umm...

Not putting down the Packers. Actually not sure where that statement comes from. I made a tongue in cheek comment about measuring your defense in wins, or using the AER. You are still pretty high but not 3 as it appears by only using yards.

by PurpleJesus on Nov 8, 2009 7:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

the Vikings seem to make a habit out of letting up and allowing teams back into games. what does that say about the mighty vikes?

Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb

by verno329 on Nov 8, 2009 7:14 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Not sure

Definitely a concern…. I can only guess it has something to do with only rushing 4 all game and then they eventually get winded. In the Packer game they came on strong again in the 4th when they played tighter again and mixed in a few blitzes to help out the front 4. Maybe they have learned something from that?

by PurpleJesus on Nov 8, 2009 7:28 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

The Vikings can only play who they put in front of them too. My point is that everyone wants to look at yardage as the measure of a team rank defensively. It just isn’t an accurate assesment IMO because all too often teams let up when way ahead, etc. The AER I mentioned above is far more accurate when measuring offense and defense.

Also, I wasn’t trying to get this into a Viking/Packer debate so I am not sure why you are trying to. This was simply a statement about measuring a defense based on yardage versus wins against quality opponents or even better the AER.

Lastly, since we have a far different way of measuring “domination” in games, I will choose not to get into that debate right now. Maybe in 3 weeks when the recent game is behind us further, but likely not anyway as it isn’t worth it…

by PurpleJesus on Nov 6, 2009 3:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Really??

Gotcha…won’t turn it into a viking/packer debate. Just doing a comparison for comparison’s sake cause I get the feeling like the Packers schedule is being looked down upon when really its very similar in comparison.

I guess we do have a different opinion of domination.
Cleveland: Losing at the half, came on strong in the second half but should have against probably the worst team out there
Detroit: Losing at the half again, came on strong to win in second half
49ers: Fought tooth and nail entire game and took a last second heave to win the game.
Packers: Outplayed us but didn’t dominate for an entire game. Had a serious letdown and almost gave the game away despite playing better for 3/4 of the game
Ravens: Looked GREAT in first half only to almost piss it away. Was almost a loss again
Steelers: Played them tough all game, their most impressive game defensively could have won if not for a complete meltdown in the fourth quarter. Either team could have won it but Steelers just outplayed the Vikings in the fourth
Packers: Came out huge in first half, made Packers look like JV team. Fell apart in 3rd quarter and finally got it going again after it looked like they might blow it.

I don’t see a dominant or complete game in there. I watched all seven of them with my wife (HUGE Viking fan) and she would agree with me that they haven’t dominated anyone or played a complete game yet. I thought that would be a comment that would get your agreement.

by TrevorR on Nov 6, 2009 4:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Packers schedule isn't being looked down upon

Remember when everyone said the Vikings hadn’t played anyone? Well, as you said, you can only play who they put in front of you.

Good try on the Vikings analysis. Not being baited into that one. I’ll take 7-1 no matter how it came to be. Fact is, everyone has us # 3 in their power rankings so we are getting the respect where it counts.

by PurpleJesus on Nov 6, 2009 5:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Like I said before, we may find that the Vikes are one of the elite teams this year…the Packers are still a team in flux. They are young, building and still a few years behind the Vikes in terms of development. You were here a few years ago. The team gave false hopes by dominating in the preseason and in practice but they are making progress. Against the best of the best, they fall short. Against good and worse teams they seem to dominate. The good news is they don’t seem to play down to the level of their opponents which is nice. When they play terrible teams they dominate as they should.

by TrevorR on Nov 6, 2009 10:22 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs