It's not just the offense

So maybe a 1-3 record after four games isn't the end of the world, especially when you consider that the Vikings are only one game behind 2-2 Green Bay and Chicago for the division lead in the NFC North. In general, people are pointing to two reasons for the Vikings' slow start: a lackluster offense (accompanied by some of the worst play calling in the league) and the rough opening schedule: road games at Green Bay and undefeated Tennessee and home against Peyton Manning and the Indianapolis Colts. Next week, the team plays at New Orleans, where Drew Brees figures to throw for at least 350 yards.

But here's another theory: Apart from a dismantling of the Carolina Panthers, the defense, pumped up by high-priced free-agent acquisitions, has looked mediocre at best, forcing very few turnovers, rarely hassling the opposing quarterback and, in general, looking just like the defense of the past few years: solid against the run, porous against the pass, and unable to make a stop or make the big play when it needs to. So, just how has the defense looked the first four games?

Here are some of the key defensive stats from Minnesota's first four games:

	Yards	Sacks	Turnovers	Points
Green Bay	317	0	0	24
Indianapolis	321	2	2	18
Carolina	204	5	2	10
Tennessee	275	0	1	30
Average	279.25	1.75	1.25	20.5

Now, here are the offensive stats for those four teams over the 11 games they've played (three for each except Indianapolis) against non-Vikings teams and their per-game averages:

	Yards	Sacks	Turnovers	Points
Green Bay	962	9	2	85
Indianapolis	618	3	3	34
Carolina	1005	4	2	70
Tennessee	947	2	4	72
Average	321.09	1.64	1.00	23.73

Looking at that, you'd say, for the most part, that the Vikings defense has performed well, doing better than average in yards, turnovers, and points allowed, while only being a smidge off the sack rate.

However, as you can see from the first table, much of the Vikings' statistical defensive success comes from a thrashing of Carolina in week 3, when they established or tied their highs in yards allowed, sacks, turnovers, and fewest points allowed. Let's take out Carolina's stats -- the team's only win -- from each chart. I'll abbreviate the charts by just presenting the Vikings' average defensive stats and the average per-game stats of their three opponents in the eight other games they've played:

	Yards	Sacks	Turnovers	Points
Minnesota actual (Avg vs. non-Car)	304.33	0.67	1.00	24.00
GB/Ind/Tenn (Avg vs. non-Min)	315.88	1.75	1.13	23.88

So, what can we say about this comparison? The first thing is that it is a small sample size -- only, in effect, 11 games total, so any analysis has to come with a grain of salt.

That said, it's clear that the Vikings defense has, at best, performed at an average level against the three teams it lost to so far this year, at least from this limited data. Yards, turnovers, and points are nearly equal, and the sack totals are way off. The Vikings managed just two sacks in three games against Green Bay, Indianapolis, and Tennessee, while other defenses have sacked those teams' QBs 14 times in eight games. And this is with the Vikings boasting what's supposed to be the best defensive front (if not front seven) in the league.

It's too early to give up on the season (and we do still have two games against Detroit, always a plus), but it's also a bit of a fallacy to blame the Vikings' early struggles entirely on the offense or on a tough schedule. Other teams have played the same teams we've played and, in general, done the same or better defensively than the Vikings. The Vikings' defense wasn't supposed to be league-average, and its pass rush certainly wasn't supposed to be below average. But that's what they are right now, and it's a big reason the team is 1-3.

How to fix the Vikings

The solution can be largely summed up in three words:

Fire. Brad. Childress.

Today's game had to be the worst example of offensive play-calling I've seen in years. Before or after nearly every play in the second half (and many in the first), my friend or I were asking "Why are they doing this?" To wit:

* Adrian Peterson was clearly out of gas by the third quarter. After racking up 118 yards in the first half, he managed just 42 yards in the second half on 15 carries. "They really need to put Chester Taylor in there for a series or two," we said. Taylor had one carry in the second half and caught one pass (for a loss of two). Meanwhile, the winded Peterson managed a paltry 2.8 yards per carry and, when the team needed him the most, he was unable to keep the chains moving and keep the ball out of Peyton Manning's hands.

* Taylor's one carry in the second half was a mystifying 3rd-and-5 call at the midway point of the fourth quarter, with the ball on the Colts' 31. Yes, Ryan Longwell was five-for-five on field goals and another one there probably ices the game (making it 18-7), but in what world is a 47-yard field goal, even in a dome, automatic? There's nothing "safe" about that call, and after five missed opportunities to score a touchdown, shouldn't you be trying to actually get it in the end zone and run more time off the clock by holding on to the ball?

* And speaking of third-down plays, the calls on third down were horrible throughout. What on earth are you doing going for long passes on third and short? Three or four times, Tarvaris Jackson heaved the ball deep instead of looking for the short receiver. Some of this blame needs to go on Jackson and his receivers, to be certain, though the coaching staff should know by now how spotty Jackson's long-range accuracy is and be calling short, safe, move-the-sticks kinds of plays on third down. A few of those times, it looked like he did have a short man at or beyond the first-down mark, wide open, but he instead flung it deep and never connected.

(And besides, isn't the oft-stated goal of most teams playing against Peyton Manning to keep him off the field. You don't need to go deep! Keep the ball and take your yardage in small chunks.)

* Finally, there still don't seem to be any passing plays in the playbook that don't require Jackson to a) throw it two yards downfield; or b) throw it 30 yards downfield. Where are the intermediate routes? Where are the 5 to 15-yard plays that are the bread-and-butter of a supposed West Coast offense? When Jackson had a couple of those plays at the end of the first half, he connected and moved the team down the field quickly to set up Longwell's third field goal. Apart from those two plays, Jackson had 85 yards on 22 passes, less than four yards per attempt. Why weren't there more passing plays like that?

All this doesn't mean the players are blameless, though.

* Last week on MNF, it was mentioned that Tarvaris Jackson has a passer rating of 24 -- not 124 -- when he rolls out of the pocket. That's utterly inexcusable for a mobile quarterback. His accuracy is bad enough as it is. I'm willing, however, to give him a slight pass, considering the awful play calling by Childress and his staff, and it's not as if the team has any better options at the position, but if the team doesn't have a win by October, it'll be time to see what Gus Frerotte or even John David Booty can do.

And is there any quarterback poorer at sensing the backside rush than Jackson? At this point, if a defender has any kind of remotely clear shot at his back or his passing arm, it's an automatic sack and fumble.

* After getting burned by Greg Jennings last week, Tyrell Johnson was again in the picture -- but only barely -- on Anthony Gonzalez catch-and-pitch to Reggie Wayne that set up the Colts' first touchdown. Madeiu Williams, please come back, quickly.

* It's only two games, sure, but Bernard Berrian looks like the free-agent bust of the year. I tihnk I saw him on the field, but it doesn't look like it matters if he was or not, as he had no catches.

All of that adds up to a dissapointing, frustrating, 0-2 start, and both of the games were completely winnable. Losing two games to good teams by a total of eight points isn't the end of the world, and the Vikings' schedule looks to be a little easier moving forward, but if this team doesn't show some kind of innovation or intelligence, especially on the offensive side of the ball, the blame should fall on Childress for his inability to assess game-time information and coach his players to handle those situations properly.

Power Rankings Compilation, Week 1

I wasn't going to bring this feature back this year because it was really meaningless in the last few weeks of the season. By the middle point of the season or so, everyone has a pretty good handle on how good every team really is and it's harder to make fun of the dimwits. And what good is this if I can't make fun of people? Still, it's fun for the first few weeks or so and, considering that the Vikings a) were highly touted before the season; and b) laid a major egg in week one, it might still be good for a few chuckles (and angry fist-waving) for at least a month or so. If it becomes staid after that, I might start making fun of the positions of other, non-Viking teams as best I can. Hey, it's a living (figuratively speaking, that is).

I will also, before looking at my various sites and averaging out their rankings for the Vikings, try to give what I think should be the team's ranking this week. Following week one, I'd put the team about at #15 -- still top half and maybe a little higher than they deserve, but losing by five on the road isn't that bad, regardless of how they looked. Put up a similar stinkfest against Indy, though, and I'll change my tune...

Yahoo.com's Michael Silver writes:

12. Minnesota Vikings: Can this built-to-win-now team afford to wait for Tarvaris Jackson to grow into the job?

ESPN.com's Kevin Seifert writes:

16. They have to get more consistency from QB Tarvaris Jackson. (KS)

SportingNews.com's Vinnie Iyer writes:

18. Minnesota Vikings (0-1), down 6. All eyes are on Tarvaris Jackson to deliver for a talented team, but if the same passing struggles continue, should Gus Frerotte be considered? The Vikings still have some work to do to dethrone the Pack.

Not surprisingly, a lot of the entries this week concentrate on the play of Tarvaris Jackson, and rightfully so. I don't think, however, that the team is "waiting for" Jackson to grow into his role -- he should be there already.

And Gus Frerotte is not the answer. Then again, what is?

The Vikings' biggest backer before the season began was SI.com's Dr. Z. In dropping the Vikings all the way from #4 to #18 in his rankings, he says:

18. I never should have fallen for that stuff I read a few months ago about how they were going to the Super Bowl and all that. They can tell me all they want about Tarvaris Jackson's miraculous improvement, but, to me, he still has that deer in the headlights look.

Just before the season, I allowed myself a brief moment of optimism about Jackson after an entire offseason dismissing the guy. I thought maybe his decent (though limited) preseason showing meant something. And maybe, like Dr. Z, I fell into the trap of his so-called "miraculous improvement," but I should have remembered one thing:

Troy Williamson looks good every off-season, too. He had two catches for 11 yards in his Jaguars debut last week.

Fox Sports' Adrian Hasenmayer writes:

16. Yes, watching Tarvaris Jackson at QB during portions of the Packers game was difficult at times. Despite his up-and-down game, the Vikings were one critical third-quarter punt return touchdown allowed away from pulling off the upset against the hated Packers.

That's a salient point, but it's both good and bad. Yes, Jackson played poorly, but so did the special teams and the defense. Despite all of it, though, we still had a chance to win at the end. I'm still debating whether I'm pleased about that whole situation or not.

USAToday.com writes:

13. Colts squad in need of win will invade Metrodome to face 0-1 Vikings.

Er, OK. Care to write about the team you're actually ranking next time?

Finally, that brings us to Pete Prisco of CBS SportsLine.com. Back in June, Prisco ranked the Vikings at #24 and his comments on pretty much every team from #20 down were along the lines of "This team has quarterback issues." Which may have been true, but the other 21 players on the team have some effect, too. So it should be no surprise as to what his comment is for this week:

19. Quarterback, quarterback, quarterback. It's all about how Tarvaris Jackson progresses for the Vikings. He looked good at times Monday, but looked really bad at others against the Packers.

He then goes on to rank teams currently led by Kerry Collins and Kyle Orton at #7 and #8, respectively. Quarterback, quarterback, QUARTERBACK! Also, his "last week" rankings had the Vikings at #13, so they apparently somehow jumped up 11 points in his mind without playing a single game over two months. We may have the new Jason Cole (who doesn't appear to be doing rankings this year, *snif*), people.

All of that evens out to a #16 overall ranking, with very little divergence. Frankly, I'm surprised, and also a little disappointed that I don't have too much to poke fun at. So my "What the hell are you thinking?" category features ESPN.com, which lists San Diego at #3. Yeah, I know they lost on the last play and they probably are still a pretty good team (even without Shawne Merriman). But you can't lose your first game and still be considered a top-three team, can you?

The big question is, if Minnesota beats Indy this week, how many people will still rank the Colts ahead of the Vikings? About half, I'll guess. Quarterback, quarterback, QUARTERBACK!

A disappointing debut

The Vikings were hoping their revamped defense would spark lots of big, game-changing plays in 2008. They were right.

Unfortunately, the big plays that came while the defense was on the field all came from the opposing offense Monday night.

Discounting a punt-return touchdown, the defense gave up a tolerable 17 points on the night. But the Packers' two touchdowns came after big plays by the offense: a 56-yard Greg Jennings catch in the second quarter and a 57-yard Ryan Grant run in the fourth quarter that put Green Bay up by 12 and virtually sealed the win for the Packers. Toss in the 76-yard punt return by Will Blackmon and you have three big plays that doomed the Vikings. The defense allowed over 300 yards, forced zero turnovers, and sacked Aaron Rodgers zero times.

Oh, and the offense didn't play particularly well, either.

Adrian Peterson was his usual brilliant self, rushing for 103 yards on 19 carries for a 5.4 average. And Tarvaris Jackson deserves some credit for making the score as close as it was, with a pair of nice-looking touchdown drives in the fourth quarter. But where Rodgers hit his players in the chest with his passes most of the time, Jackson was typically firing at players' knees or above them or out of bounds or, as I told a friend, "He hit his receivers right to the left of the numbers." The final offensive play may have been an incorrect route run by Visanthe Shiancoe, leading to the interception that ended it -- and an offense that relies on a Jackson-Shiancoe connection has more than a few problems anyway -- but, in the end, Jackson did little to convince me that he's any different from the quarterback who suited up for the team last year: scattershot, unreliable, and unable to make the difficult play when called upon.

But it would be unfair to blame Jackson solely for the night's loss. Had Bernard Berrian been able to stay on his feet on a pass play early in the third quarter, he would have gone for 6 (points) instead of 24 (yards). Aaron Rodgers was rarely challenged by the defense, only being hit (by my rough count) a half-dozen or so times while completing 18 of 22 passes, usually to wide-open receivers. And, as frustratingly usual, that "Lambeau magic" manifested itself on a first-quarter fumble by Brandon Jackson that bounced away from four Vikings and was scooped up by Greg Jennings, who took it for a first down.

While the Vikings were certainly not the most disciplined they could be, their nine penalties only totaled 42 yards. Meanwhile, the Packers were flagged a dozen times for 118 yards, giving the Vikings chance after chance to take control of the game, which they never managed to do. It was frustrating to watch the team be handed one opportunity after another, only to squander them with field-goal attempts and a few late (and ultimately meaningless) touchdowns. I don't know what was more uninspiring: the play-calling or the execution of those plays. Maybe this team missed Bryant McKinnie more than they thought they would.

As bad as they looked last night, maybe we can catch the Indianapolis Colts with their proverbial pants down next week in the Metrodome. When all is said and done, a five-point loss on the road in one of the tougher stadiums in the league for a visitor isn't half bad (and it's a hell of a lot better than the result the last time the Vikings visited Lambeau). But the nature of that loss and the way the defense was routinely carved up by a quarterback making his first start in the NFL, has to be some kind of concern. Personally, I think Aaron Rodgers will do just fine in the NFL, but next week's opponent, Peyton Manning, is probably a little better. It's only one game, and I'm not going to throw in the towel just yet, but it's going to take a much better effort, in all phases of the game, to make this team look better next week.

How good is your team's top receiver?

When I wrote my post last week about Bernard Berrian's expectations, I found that the Vikings haven't had a single receiver top the 700-yard mark (much less the 1,000-yard mark) for three straight seasons. Clearly, lack of production from the team's #1 wideout contributed to the Berrian signing, but it got me to thinking: Were the Vikings the team most in need of a true #1 receiver this offseason? Or was there another team that needed that deep threat more?

My method of figuring this out was simple. I took each team's top receiver and divided his yardage total by his team's total passing yards, discounting sacks to determine the percentage of his team's yards each "top" receiver accumulated. The smaller that percentage, the "worse" that team's #1 receiver. Thus, a receiver who caught 1,200 yards worth team that threw for 3,600 yards would have accounted for 33.3% of his team's passing yards. That would have made him a "better" #1 receiver than a player who caught 1,400 yards for a team that threw for 4,500 (31.1%) but "worse" than a 1,000-yard receiver on a team that threw for 2,500 (40%). After all, it should be harder to have a 1,000-yard season on a crappy team than it is to get 1,500 yards on a good passing team, right?

Here are the results for 2007:

Team	PassYds	#1Rec	#1RecYds	Percent
Indianapolis	4172	Wayne	1510	36.2%
Denver	3759	Marshall	1325	35.2%
Cincinnati	4131	Johnson	1440	34.9%
Carolina	2941	Smith	1002	34.1%
NY Jets	3330	Cotchery	1130	33.9%
Atlanta	3573	White	1202	33.6%
St. Louis	3561	Holt	1189	33.4%
Cleveland	3866	Edwards	1289	33.3%
Arizona	4228	Fitzgerald	1409	33.3%
Kansas City	3525	Gonzalez	1172	33.2%
Baltimore	3308	Mason	1087	32.9%
Dallas	4290	Owens	1355	31.6%
San Diego	3175	Gates	984	31.0%
New England	4859	Moss	1493	30.7%
NY Giants	3376	Burress	1025	30.4%
Buffalo	2842	Evans	849	29.9%
Tampa Bay	3579	Galloway	1014	28.3%
Philadelphia	4005	Curtis	1110	27.7%
Pittsburgh	3418	Holmes	942	27.6%
Seattle	4181	Engram	1147	27.4%
New Orleans	4423	Colston	1202	27.2%
Chicago	3701	Berrian	951	25.7%
Oakland	2893	Curry	717	24.8%
Tennessee	3077	Gage	750	24.4%
Green Bay	4461	Driver	1048	23.5%
Detroit	4216	McDonald	943	22.4%
San Francisco	2685	Battle	600	22.3%
Washington	3622	Moss	808	22.3%
Minnesota	2938	Wade	647	22.0%
Houston	3925	Johnson	851	21.7%
Jacksonville	3495	Williams	629	18.0%
Miami	3319	Booker	556	16.8%

Looks like Minnesota wasn't the worst at getting top production from its top receiver. Houston, Jacksonville, and Miami did worse, though two of those teams have excuses. Houston can at least point to the injury to Andre Johnson that kept him out for nearly half the season. His 94.6 average yards per game actually led the league last year, though he only suited up for nine games. Miami, meanwhile, traded Chris Chambers after six games; he had accumulated 415 yards up until that game and added 555 in San Diego, finishing with 970. If he'd gained all that yardage with Miami, he would have accounted for 29.2% of the team's production in the passing game, and even with lesser success, it's likely he would have kept the team out of the bottom spot. Meanwhile, espite David Garrard's breakthrough year, Jacksonville is probably the only team in the league consistently referred to as having worse wide receivers than Minnesota. Hey, good luck with Troy Williamson and 30-year-old Jerry Porter, guys!

It's both a little surprising and unsurprising to see Indianapolis at the top of this list. On the one hand, as much as the team is known for passing, you'd think there'd be enough yards to go around. Then again, Peyton Manning has been known to throw a lot (to the tune of 143 catches for Marvin Harrison in 2002) to his favorite receiver Reggie Wayne led the team this year, but from 1999 to 2006, Manning threw for 33,847 yards while Harrison caught 11,219, the vast majority of them coming from the arm of Manning. That would make for a 33.1% rate for virtually their entire career together, which would put them at #11 on this list. Wow.

In reality, this chart is just a fun way of looking at how much each team got out of its "top" receiver. For Berrian to manage 1,160 yards, as WhatIfSports thinks, though, Vikings passers would have to manage just over 3,200 yards in the air to get to Indy's 36.1% rate from last year -- possible, but unlikely. With the running game as good as it is and the potential emergence of Sidney Rice, Berrian probably won't put up those kind of numbers, but he should be good enough to get us out of the bottom five.

More of the Worst Teams in NFL History

My article about the 1934 Cincinnati Reds of the NFL, who went 0-8 while being outscored 243 to 10, got a lot of good feedback, so I've chosen to dive back into my NFL Record and Fact Book to come up with some more of the most horrendous, most lopsided, most inept teams in the history of the NFL. This is not being done to make fun of the teams themselves, or the individual players, but --

Oh, who am I kidding? It is to make fun of them. And to make your team look not-so-bad in comparison, even if you're a Dolphins or Raiders fan.

We'll start with an easy team to make fun of: the Detroit Lions, specifically the 1942 version. I know, I know, as in Major League Baseball, a lot of eligible players were stolen by the draft and went off to fight in World War II, but every team should have faced the same obstacles, and they didn't all go 0-11 while being outscored 263-38. And perhaps the '42 Lions should have sent some of its boys over to learn how to throw a grenade, since they were so abysmal at throwing a football. As a team, the Lions hurled just one TD pass while notching 33 interceptions. As a team, the passer rating of all passers was 8.2, which is just 1.8 lower than the number of wins Jon Kitna would like for the Lions in 2008.

.....

With their storied success over the past four decades, it's easy to forget just how bad the Pittsburgh Steelers used to be. From their inception (as the Pirates) in 1933 to their first Super Bowl win in 1972, the Steelers boasted exactly seven winning seasons in 39 campaigns and was even twice merged with another team (the Eagles in 1943 and the Cardinals in 1944) to compensate for players lost to World War II.

The 1969 Steelers, however, stand out not only for their abysmal 1-13 record but for the poor head coach who led the squad to the worst record in the league. Chuck Noll, in his first season leading an NFL team, actually won his first game as a head coach, a 16-13 affair against -- you guessed it -- the Detroit Lions. The team then lost 13 straight, including back-to-back 52-14 and 47-10 affairs against the Vikings and Cardinals, respectively. The future Steel Curtain defense yielded 404 points, most in the league, and the offense wasn't much better, with a second-worst 218 points scored.

Then again, what can you expect when your quarterback is named Dick Shiner?

On the bright side, Pittsburgh's horrific 1969 season landed them the #1 overall draft pick in 1970, with which the team selected another quarterback: Louisiana Tech's Terry Bradshaw. That worked out reasonably well, I'd say.

.....

Finally, there's the 1981 Baltimore Colts (not to be confused with the 1-15 1991 Indianapolis Colts), a team that bracketed season-opening and season-ending wins with 14 consecutive losses; only the 2001 Carolina Panthers have done "better" in a single season. (Note to self: There's a historically bad team every 10 years. Will wait to see what 2011 holds.) In fact, think of the '81 Colts as the team that turns everyone into the 2007 Patriots, because no team in NFL history has ever surrendered more points in a season than Baltimore's 533. In fact, only one other team, the 1966 New York Giants, has ever given up 500 points (501, and in 14 games), but I'm going with the raw numbers here over average.

No opponent scored fewer than 23 points against the Colts in 1981. That average alone would have resulted in 368 points given up, good enough for 8th worst in the league, but the Colts wouldn't settle for that. They gave up 40 or more four times, 30 or more 10 times, and allowed a mind-boggling 67 touchdowns (37 passing and 30 rushing), more than twice as many as the 32 offensive touchdowns the team put up. By comparison, the 2007 Patriots scored 67 touchdowns on the ground or through the air. Opposing quarterbacks were only sacked 13 times and racked up a passer rating of 99.7, five points higher than Peyton Manning's career 94.7 mark.

Combine a 2-14 1981 and a 0-8-1 strike-shortened 1982, and it's easy to see why John Elway wanted nothing to do with this team in the 1983 draft. The 1981 Colts might have been better off with Art Donovan manning the defensive line. At the very least, they would have been more entertaining.