Under 20 carries again?

[BGM]

This was the Vikings best sustained drive of the day. And it involved running the ball consistently. It is easily apparent where the drive stalled. This was the ONLY time all day that more than two running plays were run in succession. Imagine if the offensive game plan had stuck with this smash mouth approach.

Minnesota Vikings at 09:14
1-10-MIN 24 (9:14) 7-C.Ponder scrambles right end to MIN 32 for 8 yards (57-M.Morgan).
2-2-MIN 32 (8:36) 28-A.Peterson up the middle to SEA 44 for 24 yards (39-B.Browner, 69-C.McDonald).
1-10-SEA 44 (7:52) 28-A.Peterson up the middle to SEA 29 for 15 yards (29-E.Thomas).
1-10-SEA 29 (7:11) 12-P.Harvin right end pushed ob at SEA 14 for 15 yards (25-R.Sherman).
1-10-SEA 14 (6:37) 7-C.Ponder pass short left to 32-T.Gerhart to SEA 11 for 3 yards (57-M.Morgan; 54-B.Wagner).
2-7-SEA 11 (5:58) (Shotgun) 7-C.Ponder pass incomplete short right to 12-P.Harvin.
3-7-SEA 11 (5:55) (Shotgun) 7-C.Ponder sacked at SEA 18 for -7 yards (54-B.Wagner).
4-14-SEA 18 (5:29) 3-B.Walsh 36 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-46-C.Loeffler, Holder-5-C.Kluwe.
MIN 17 SEA 14 Plays: 8 Possession: 3:49

[VikingLord]

This was the Vikings best sustained drive of the day. And it involved running the ball consistently. And you can see where the drive stalled. This was the ONLY time all day that more than two running plays were run in succession. Imagine if the offensive game plan had stuck with this smash mouth approach.

Minnesota Vikings at 09:14
1-10-MIN 24 (9:14) 7-C.Ponder scrambles right end to MIN 32 for 8 yards (57-M.Morgan).
2-2-MIN 32 (8:36) 28-A.Peterson up the middle to SEA 44 for 24 yards (39-B.Browner, 69-C.McDonald).
1-10-SEA 44 (7:52) 28-A.Peterson up the middle to SEA 29 for 15 yards (29-E.Thomas).
1-10-SEA 29 (7:11) 12-P.Harvin right end pushed ob at SEA 14 for 15 yards (25-R.Sherman).
1-10-SEA 14 (6:37) 7-C.Ponder pass short left to 32-T.Gerhart to SEA 11 for 3 yards (57-M.Morgan; 54-B.Wagner).
2-7-SEA 11 (5:58) (Shotgun) 7-C.Ponder pass incomplete short right to 12-P.Harvin.
3-7-SEA 11 (5:55) (Shotgun) 7-C.Ponder sacked at SEA 18 for -7 yards (54-B.Wagner).
4-14-SEA 18 (5:29) 3-B.Walsh 36 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-46-C.Loeffler, Holder-5-C.Kluwe.
MIN 17 SEA 14 Plays: 8 Possession: 3:49

This isn't college - the Hawks would have eventually clamped down and stopped it.

[BGM]

This isn't college - the Hawks would have eventually clamped down and stopped it.

Sure, but this also is not rocket science. In a perfect world, the Vikings would have a QB that at least gives the illusion of a passing attack. Lacking that, go with what works until they DO stop it.

Check out the TB game. Compare how effectively TB used D. Martin, at one point running him three plays in a row (LG, LT and Middle)... successfully.

I know there is a huge upside to a balanced offensive attack, but how often does that actually bear out in game time? With a struggling QB, an OL that has issues with pass blocking and a WR corps that is mostly Percy and the Pips, why not think old school and set up the pass by pounding the running game?

It is painfully obvious that Peterson is succeeding even without the threat of a passing game. So, make them stop AD. Until they do... crush them under the treads of our tank, so to speak.

[Mothman]

This is a TOP and getting behind issue. AD is a monster, but unless he's breaking his runs for TDs the Vikings are not sustaining drives. On the flip side, the defense isn't getting off the field, either, and is surrendering long drives and giving up points. So the vice closes. Vikes either get monster AD runs or punt, while the other team gets the lead and then holds it, forcing the Vikings to lean more heavily on passing late to try to catch up.

The only way AD gets more touches and the offense overall runs more is if they can sustain drives and get a lead. If they can't pass more effectively, that's not going to happen.

Keep in mind, they don't have to run to give him touches.

[Eli]

This was the Vikings best sustained drive of the day. And it involved running the ball consistently. It is easily apparent where the drive stalled. This was the ONLY time all day that more than two running plays were run in succession. Imagine if the offensive game plan had stuck with this smash mouth approach.

Part of the trouble is Peterson's penchant for -1 and 0 yard carries - this puts them into long yardage situations, while at the same time giving them little confidence that they can run the ball consistently. Peterson had carries of 74, 16, 24, 15 and 28 yards, and those five carries accounted for 157 of his 182 yards. That's not smash mouth football. The chances are far more likely that he's going to get you less than 2 yards. You don't often see teams running on 3rd and long with that kind of inconsistent running game.

[PurpleKoolaid]

We get behind, and if the D and ST doesnt bail us our, we have to throw. And that gets us no where. I wish we would start out with more screens to AD. I see other teams runs these screens, when the D is getting all over the QB, and they work so well. I did notice even when we were behind by 10, they were still stacking the box with 8-9 guys. And Ponder still couldnt find anyone. And plzzzzzzzzzzzz dont blame that one the receivers.

[BGM]

Part of the trouble is Peterson's penchant for -1 and 0 yard carries - this puts them into long yardage situations, while at the same time giving them little confidence that they can run the ball consistently. Peterson had carries of 74, 16, 24, 15 and 28 yards, and those five carries accounted for 157 of his 182 yards. That's not smash mouth football. The chances are far more likely that he's going to get you less than 2 yards. You don't often see teams running on 3rd and long with that kind of inconsistent running game.

Yes, but what is the option? Put the game in the hands of a completely incompetent passing game? Where has Gerhart been all season? He has proven himself a durable and consistent running back. It's far past time to implement the two-headed backfield!

Also, consider the play-by-play above. Three straight running plays that netted 53 yards of offense. What do the Vikings do inside the red zone? Pass. Really??

[Mothman]

Part of the trouble is Peterson's penchant for -1 and 0 yard carries - this puts them into long yardage situations, while at the same time giving them little confidence that they can run the ball consistently. Peterson had carries of 74, 16, 24, 15 and 28 yards, and those five carries accounted for 157 of his 182 yards. That's not smash mouth football. The chances are far more likely that he's going to get you less than 2 yards.

Do you mean the chances are far more likely that he'll get less than 2 as opposed to 15+?

[mansquatch]

That was the drive that aggravated me the most on Sunday. They moved down the field with the run, just gashing the hawk D. Then they make 3 successive passing play calls and just sputtered. The one on 2nd and 8 really had me raving. You just passed to Gerhart for 2 years. RUN IT!!!!! Get 3-4 yards and give Ponder 3rd and 4 or 5 vs. 3rd and 8. Instead they toss two incompletes and move get bailed out by the Kicker. I do not understand why you suddenly pass 3 times after such consistent success with your HOF RB.

[Eli]

Do you mean the chances are far more likely that he'll get less than 2 as opposed to 15+?

Actually, I missed one long run. Six runs of 74, 16, 24, 15, 28, 12 yards, accounted for 169 of his 182 yards. The other 11 runs, the longest of which was 5 yards, netted 13 yards. If, en route to that 10+ ypc average, Peterson was pounding out 5, 6, 7 yards runs with any kind of reliability, then you could reasonably call more runs on 2nd and 15 or 3rd and 8. But when he gets stuffed on half of his attempts, it's just as big a gamble as putting the ball in Ponder's hands.

[Mothman]

Actually, I missed one long run. Six runs of 74, 16, 24, 15, 28, 12 yards, accounted for 169 of his 182 yards. The other 11 runs, the longest of which was 5 yards, netted 15 yards. If, en route to that 10+ ypc average, Peterson was pounding out 5, 6, 7 yards runs with any kind of reliability, then you could reasonably call more runs on 2nd and 15 or 3rd and 8. But when he gets stuffed on half of his attempts, it's just as big a gamble as putting the ball in Ponder's hands.

Sure, but look at how often the "gamble" of handing it to Peterson paid off over the course of the game. It was no more risky than doing anything else and a run for 1 or 2 yards is still better than an incomplete pass.

Here's what Peterson did on all 17 runs in the game: 5, 74, 1 (TD), 0, 16, 0, 2, 1, 2, 4 (TD), 24, 15, -1, -1, 28, 0, 12,

Over 50% his runs went for either 5+ yards or a TD. Only two resulted in negative plays and the total gained was 182 yards and 2 TDs.

On the other hand, the passing game picked up 63 yards on 11-22 attempts and Ponder added 23 more yards on 5 scrambles. They allowed 4 sacks for 19 yards, resulting in a net of just 44 yards gained. Barely 50% of dropbacks to pass resulted in positive plays (completions + scrambles = 16 positive plays out of 31 dropbacks).

Gerhart and Harvin had another 38 yards rushing (although one of those plays ended in a fumble) so it seems pretty clear that in this game, their best bet for a positive play was to run the ball, especially with Peterson. They obviously couldn't just run it on every play but a passing play was more likely to yield no gain or a negative result than a running play.

[John_Viveiros]

Sure, but look at how often the "gamble" of handing it to Peterson paid off over the course of the game. It was no more risky than doing anything else and a run for 1 or 2 yards is still better than an incomplete pass.

Here's what Peterson did on all 17 runs in the game: 5, 74, 1 (TD), 0, 16, 0, 2, 1, 2, 4 (TD), 24, 15, -1, -1, 28, 0, 12,

Over 50% his runs went for either 5+ yards or a TD. Only two resulted in negative plays and the total gained was 182 yards and 2 TDs.

Thanks for putting the list of runs together. Now look at them as if they were continuous plays: 5/74(FD)/1 (TD). Next drive: 0/16(FD)/0/2/1 (Punt). Next drive: 2/4*/24(FD)/15(FD)/-1/-1/28(FD)/0/12(FD). So essentially, Peterson's big plays were like a passing attack. They would have effectively given us first downs on even a 3rd and 12. And even though Seattle might have adjusted their defense on early downs, I don't think they would have on 3rd and long. Peterson would have been more effective (IMHO) than passing on nearly any play. The danger wasn't going to be watching drives stall (which seems pretty inevitable on 3rd and long with Ponder throwing), the danger was going to be overuse of our best asset.

[S197]

LOL! Sorry, I'm sure breaking the remote was frustrating but I couldn't help laughing at the mental picture of you chucking the thing in frustration over the Vikes.

If my smartphone wasn't so expensive it would have gone out the window during the Saints NFCC game. Nothing like your friends texting you the second after something bad happens. Berrian fumbles. *Ping**Ping**Ping* AD Fumbles. *Ping**Ping**Ping*. Favre throws INT. *Ping**Ping**Ping**Ping**Ping**Ping**Ping*

That phone was SO close to taking a 16 story ride out my window.

[J. Kapp 11]

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_ ... vikings-39

And then he broke away for 28. Conveniently overlooked by Seattle and the press.

This idea that Seattle had "adjusted" to Peterson at halftime is nonsense. "Limiting" AP to five carries for almost 8 yards per carry does not constitute a successful adjustment. Seattle only adjusted to our impotent quarterback.

[Infinity]

I agree. With a RB like Peterson and a QB like Ponder, you need to be running the ball a lot more. Did you see how much Tampa ran Martin?? If we ran Peterson that much it could have been a blowout. The coaching staff believes in Ponder too much and is trying to rush him into the leading role, when I think they should ease him into that role and leave most of the work for Peterson.