Totally different situations. The Bucs ran Martin 25 times in large part because they were sitting on a comfortable lead. The Vikings were playing from behind in the second half, necessitating more pass plays. If the Vikings were up by 10+ points you can believe they would have put the ball in Adrian and Toby's hands more than five times at that point. The Vikings have said and executed game plans where Peterson is the focal point. Unfortunately when they get behind by more than one or two scores it's difficult to remain committed to the ground game when time is not on your side. I understand where you're coming from, though. I would've loved to see AD with 25-28 combined touches in this one. Unfortunately the defense couldn't stop anybody (again) and Ponder's inefficiency on the few chances he took precipitated punts instead of extending drives and allowing AD more carries. It's a frustrating situation when you're forced away from of your strength due to game situations.Infinity wrote: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.
Under 20 carries again?
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Commissioner
- Posts: 24788
- Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
- Location: Des Moines, Iowa
- x 108
Re: Under 20 carries again?
“Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that.” --- Bill Shankly
Re: Under 20 carries again?
I can't agree with you there. They didn't trail by more than one score until the 6:27 mark of the second half so I don't think the circumstances necessitated more passing plays, especially when almost all of their big plays in the game were coming from the running game.dead_poet wrote:different situations. The Bucs ran Martin 25 times in large part because they were sitting on a comfortable lead. The Vikings were playing from behind in the second half, necessitating more pass plays.
The defense's inability to get off the field and the inefficiency on offense definitely contributed to Peterson's contribution being minimized in the second half.Unfortunately the defense couldn't stop anybody (again) and Ponder's inefficiency on the few chances he took precipitated punts instead of extending drives and allowing AD more carries. It's a frustrating situation when you're forced away from of your strength due to game situations.
Re: Under 20 carries again?
The guys on Access Vikings talked about the same thing. When the score was as close as it was and the Vikings needed to play catch up, it was probably more likely that Peterson would break open a big run as it was the Vikings coming up with a big pass. They said the same thing about Harvin. Going short to Harvin and getting big YAC happens more than successful long passes for the Vikings.Mothman wrote: I can't agree with you there. They didn't trail by more than one score until the 6:27 mark of the second half so I don't think the circumstances necessitated more passing plays, especially when almost all of their big plays in the game were coming from the running game.
Re: Under 20 carries again?
That is true, however having a great back doesn't hurt. If AD was with the Pats how many more rings would Brady have? The Eagles have tried doing it without a decent back for over a decade and look what it has got them. You need a good back with all that you said. We have one (maybe two) time to fix this thing before we don't anymore.LA Viking wrote: RBs don't have that much to do with winning a Super Bowl. Look back at the Super Bowl winners and tell me the last great RB you see. Marshall Faulk in 2000 is the only one that jumps out in the last 15 yrs (maybe Terrell Davis). To win Super Bowls, you need a great QB, great coach and great defense (usually). We have none.
-
- Franchise Player
- Posts: 466
- Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:11 pm
- Location: St.Francis Minnesota
Re: Under 20 carries again?
You have to take into account too on how many of his rushes were at the goal line or in short yardage situations.Mothman wrote: 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.
The term fan comes from FANatic or fanatical.
-
- Commissioner
- Posts: 24788
- Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
- Location: Des Moines, Iowa
- x 108
Re: Under 20 carries again?
That was very helpful and rational explanation. Well worth the read. Thanks for posting.Mothman wrote:Craig: Peterson's second half use in Seattle explainable
“Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that.” --- Bill Shankly
Re: Under 20 carries again?
Without Harvin, how many 8 man fronts do you think the Vikings will be looking at this week? Could be a tough day for Peterson unless someone steps up in the passing game.Purple Jesus wrote:I expect to see him get a pretty good work load this week with Percy potentially not playing. The passing game just went from bad to worse. So he should continue his streak of 3 straight 100 yard games.