Monday, January 25, 2010

Vikings End

As many probably know, I live in Minneapolis (as does DG), and so I watched with great interest the NFC Title Game yesterday.

I'll keep this short, but underline my comment that I played football for a couple of years in High School, and played on an NROTC club team in college. I'm no great expert, but I know a little.

The Vikings certainly turned the ball over a lot, 3 fumbles (2 lost), and 2 interceptions never helped any team win a game. Conversely, the Saints made many similar kinds of mistakes in being flagged for numerous penalties, and personally, many more COULD have been called as the Saints defensive backs (the position I played) routinely were forced to hold the Vikings receivers to prevent long gains.

The reality though is this, the Vikings didn't lose this game because of turn-overs alone (probably). They could not protect Favre, and as a result Favre was rushed, frequently overthrowing or throwing behind various receivers. He also tried to force a number of completions which were simply not there to make. The Saints DB's were not up to covering the Vikings receivers, but Favre routinely didn't have time to let them find space.

Conversely, the Saints routinely provided excellent protection for Drew Brees. Brees routinely had a long time to find receivers, and yet, due to a superior defense (Vikings vs. Saints Defense) was less able to find open receivers than he normally was this season (a season in which he set the NFL record for completion percentage), yet he found just enough to move the Saints down the field on critical posessions, and scored when they needed to.

Ultimately, then, in my humble opinion, outside of the Adrian Peterson fumble at the very end of the 1st half (which without doubt cost the Vikings points), the Vikings lost because they couldn't protect their QB, and the Saints won because they could and did.

7 comments:

  1. Exactly the way the Vikings beat the Cowboys a week earlier. If given time Romo can do a lot but he does get flustered easier (maybe because this was the first time he had made it to the playoffs). If you can harass the quarterback enough that he cannot pass it is easy to stop the run. Th Vikings had him running around like no one else did this season.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am very sorry the Vikes lost...but to be honest, I didn't even watch the game.

    I get it that this is important to soooooooooooo many people. But I am so darn tired of hearing about it, before, during AND after that the whole subject makes my teeth hurt (maybe it's from grinding my teeth while smiling, nodding and trying to appear interesed,LOL).

    ReplyDelete
  3. DG,

    Our friendship is over. You are a philistine (or however Dr. Charles Emerson Winchster III would have spelt it).

    ;)

    ReplyDelete
  4. In general, I disagree, Pen.

    Brees and his crew had wonderful field position for many of their "touchdown drives"--which, in reality, consisted of several plays in which they went 40 or so yards. This was often the scenario due to Viking turnovers and bad Vikings special teams play.

    The Vikes, by contrast, racked-up very nearly TWICE as many yards as did the Saints. That's right--TWICE as many. They also managed 31 first downs to the Saints' 15. (This might not mean a lot, until it is revealed that they averaged more yardage per play than the Saints, despite the fact that the Vikings had many more offensive plays than the Saints.)

    So, though Favre got hit, he generally found his receivers, and the Vikings put together several lengthy, impressive drives.

    (The surprise to me was this: the Vikings were by far the better team, particularly in the second half. I had not anticipated that.)

    They simply couldn't hang onto the ball. (Five turnovers? Come on!) And they played poorly on special teams. Those are the two main reasons they lost.

    ReplyDelete
  5. ROFL - I'll try to redeem myself in your esteem.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hass,

    We'll have to agree to disagree. The two interceptions were the result of pressure, and while I absolutely agree that the Vikings moved the ball, as I said the Saints DB's had a hard time covering the Vikings wide-outs, there were at least three instances of wide open Vikings WR's running down the field being completely missed by Favre due to pressure/hurry etc.. He also overthrew and/or underthrew multiple receivers on multiple other occassions. His completion percentage was well below his norm for the year.

    As for Brees, our cover people did a better job, at least until Cedric Griffin got hurt, and so NO had a hard time completing passes, but it wasn't due to a lack of time. That time allowance gave Brees the time in a few critical situations, not the least of which was the 3rd down just before they kicked the winning field goal which they completed to change it from a 55 plus yarder to a 40 yarder.

    The point is, we often miss the underlying details. The Saints were known for being ball-strippers, and Harvin and Peterson should have taken better care of the ball, noo question, but at least as important was our line not protecting Favre, and our line not harrassing Brees. The Vikes were the better team, I concur, but their line play was inferior.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Pen, I didn't mean to imply that your analysis wasn't good. In fact, as applied to the first half of the game, it's spot-on.

    I just think that when the whole game is taken into account, it's a little too clever by half (as it were).

    Speaking of halves, Troy Aikman was right (in my estimation) when he said that the Vikings' initially porous defense should be given some credit for stepping-up in the second half. This was particularly the case in the fourth quarter.

    Offensively, your lack-of-quarterback-protection point is both taken and valid. However, this was an odd game in the following respect: when you put up 450+ total yards and 31 first downs, you're moving the ball pretty well, regardless of protection.

    And when you do that and hold your opponents to 15 first downs and 250-or-so total yards, you need to win the game. If you don't win and those are indeed the raw numbers, then you often need to look at two things: 1.) turnovers, and 2.) special teams.

    So....

    1.) The Vikes turned the ball over 5 times, and the Saints turned the ball over once. Whether or not those turnovers led to a lot of Saints scoring is almost irrelevant, because first and foremost that many turnovers make much of the 450+ yards the Vikes gained irrelevant and academic.

    2.) The Saints got some big kick returns, which meant, amongst other things, that the Vikes in turn had to go a lot longer for their touchdowns, given their average starting field position, which was quite often worse than that of the Saints. Minnesota's special teams were not special, to be sure.

    I maintain that had the Vikings turned the ball over once (like the Saints), Minnesota would have won by at least 10 points and would be headed to Miami.

    But, as you say, underlying details are what were missed. On that point, I agree wholeheartedly.

    ReplyDelete