So, who's the man at RB now?

[Pseudo Everything]

After three weeks Toby Gerhart has 82 yds rushing; 3.4 yds per carry.

[BGM]

Listen, I am NOT advocating we make a deal for Gerhart. I said it primarily as a little jokey-joke. However, there would have been some positives in hanging on to him if the Vikes could have. 20/20 and all that. Of course, who could have possibly predicted this season... *sigh*

Is it worth giving McKinnon more reps?

[UKno1VIKING]

I can't see a solution on the roster. McKinnon looks like he could be a decent 3rd down back, but the lack of experience shows.
Asiata I've got lots of time for. But he's a downhill runner at best not a guy who you can build an offence around. which with a rookie or the interception machine under centre, you kind of need to take pressure off them.
My feeling is if the inevitable happens and #28 is history. We pick up a RB in the next draft and start again. Either Gurley or Henry would do for me! Until then, we're just going to have to buckle down and make do with with what we've got.

[soflavike]

After three weeks Toby Gerhart has 82 yds rushing; 3.4 yds per carry.

Well, he has been injured.

[soflavike]

It wasn't that Gerhardt was merely *drafted* - it was that they traded up to draft him.

Going further, do you really think Gerhardt could replace AD's contribution if he were still with the team? Do you think that would make the difference?

It's kind of a pointless exercise, because he's gone, but he did run better than Asiata when he replaced AD a few times.

[headless_norseman]

Maybe we can trade for Toby?

[Just Me]

Don't worry! We'll be fine. From what I've been reading during the off-season about AD and his salary, is that running backs just aren't that important in the NFL any more...

(Some of us remembered why the Vikings made the Walker-trade mistake, in the first place, though.)

[Just Me]

It's kind of a pointless exercise, because he's gone, but he did run better than Asiata when he replaced AD a few times.

In some games (usually outdoors IIRC) he'd run 'better' (in terms of ypc) than Peterson. I don't think he was 'better than Peterson' and his running style was different, so he may have benefited from being a 'change-up,' but I would still be less concerned if we still had him. Water under the bridge, now though.

McKinnon just reminds me of Michael Bennet right now. That's probably unfair, since he barely has any playing time in the NFL, but the parallels are that they are extremely fast but seem to go down on first contact. We've been spoiled with Petereson.

[dead_poet]

We've been spoiled with Petereson.

I'm kind of glad to see this sentiment percolating. I think it's pretty obvious how much more effective this team is with Peterson on the field (though I still find it strange that was even a question), even if some fans previously question(ed) his worth, especially "in a passing league." It's interesting to go from (I'm paraphrasing) "Peterson is done/he's just a running back" to "we may need to draft a talented running back soon because I'm not sure there's a good starter on the roster."

[frosted]

I'm kind of glad to see this sentiment percolating. I think it's pretty obvious how much more effective this team is with Peterson on the field (though I still find it strange that was even a question), even if some fans previously question(ed) his worth, especially "in a passing league." It's interesting to go from (I'm paraphrasing) "Peterson is done/he's just a running back" to "we may need to draft a talented running back soon because I'm not sure there's a good starter on the roster."

To be fair, a team built entirely around one player is obviously going to struggle if that one player is not on the field, but your point has some validity to it.

[dead_poet]

To be fair, a team built entirely around one player

I'm not sure I agree with that point of view. I'm not going to re-hash a previous lengthy post where I outlined the players Spielman has drafted or brought in via free agency since Peterson was drafted, but the idea the team was built entirely around him doesn't really hold water for me.

[soflavike]

Peterson is not "just another running back"... he's one of a kind. That should be obvious to anyone with a brain. The problem is that we can't have him this season, or maybe ever again.

The guys we currently have on the roster are barely "just another running back". None of them is of starting NFL caliber. They're all backup-quality, and McKinnon is just a rookie.

Replacing Peterson with another back that good will be impossible, but we need to do better than a committee of backups, plodding along to a less than 3 yd per carry average.

[frosted]

I'm not sure I agree with that point of view. I'm not going to re-hash a previous lengthy post where I outlined the players Spielman has drafted or brought in via free agency since Peterson was drafted, but the idea the team was built entirely around him doesn't really hold water for me.

Agree to disagree - FWIW, I am not just referring to the personnel on this team, but the offense that was installed all off-season/training camp/preseason/and everything in practice prior to the Friday the story broke. It was an offense built entirely around Adrian, IMO. He is/was the engine that powered everything else. Take that man away, and you're sure to have problems.

As far as personnel, I do think we have heavily invested in offensive lineman who are, generally speaking, superior at run blocking.

I am not saying he's not a great player. I think he is the best non-quarterback in the NFL. I'm just saying, a team built around one player will usually crumble if that player is removed. At the same time, don't get it twisted - I think he would be a huge plus for any team in the league, based on his immense talent.

[dead_poet]

Agree to disagree - FWIW, I am not just referring to the personnel on this team, but the offense that was installed all off-season/training camp/preseason/and everything in practice prior to the Friday the story broke. It was an offense built entirely around Adrian, IMO. He is/was the engine that powered everything else. Take that man away, and you're sure to have problems.

If you're talking about just this season only, of course it's a system that's going to feature one of the best football players in the history of the game. Going contrary to that doesn't make any sense (at least, not to me). You really wanted the game plan to focus on Cassel throwing the ball 35+ times/game? I just don't understand the perspective some people have at voluntarily going away from an offensive strength just for the sake of passing the ball just to pass it. You need balance and, as even recent history has shown, a strong running game is needed to make it to the post-season and beyond.

As far as personnel, I do think we have heavily invested in offensive lineman who are, generally speaking, superior at run blocking.

Matt Kalil was not drafted because of his supposed run blocking prowess. His supposed strength was his agility and work in the pass game (I think I saw a stat the either his junior or senior year he didn't allow a sack...where'd THAT guy go?). One of the knocks at him was his apparent lack of strength and needed work in the weight room to improve his run blocking. Charlie Johnson was never known for his run blocking; instead, he was "known" for protecting Peyton Manning (who, as we all know, is really good at making his offensive linemen look better than they are). John Sullivan wasn't noted for his run blocking coming out of Notre Dame either. His strength was his intelligence and "quick feet." Fusco and Loadholt are two that probably fit the description of guys that are more assets in the run game. However Fusco has done surprisingly well in pass protection as a sixth-round center out of Slippery Rock. If anything, until Kalil, you could say the Vikings haven't made the offensive line much of a priority at all (from left to right, 1st rounder, below-average free agent former sixth-rounder, sixth-rounder, sixth-rounder, second-rounder).

I am not saying he's not a great player. I think he is the best non-quarterback in the NFL. I'm just saying, a team built around one player will usually crumble if that player is removed.

Again, the team wasn't built around Adrian Peterson. Was/is he the team's best offensive player? Yes. Do you generally feature that player? Yes. That's true of any offensive player on any team in the league. If we had Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Andrew Luck or Aaron Rodgers (*spit*), instead of Peterson, our offensive identity would probably be different.

[frosted]

If you're talking about just this season only, of course it's a system that's going to feature one of the best football players in the history of the game. Going contrary to that doesn't make any sense (at least, not to me). You really wanted the game plan to focus on Cassel throwing the ball 35+ times/game? I just don't understand the perspective some people have at voluntarily going away from an offensive strength just for the sake of passing the ball just to pass it. You need balance and, as even recent history has shown, a strong running game is needed to make it to the post-season and beyond.

Why are you putting words in my mouth? I never said I wanted to focus the game plan on Cassel thowing the ball 35+ times a game. I agree, it wouldn't make sense not to feature Adrian, when he is as I just said in my last post, the best non-quarterback in the NFL, IMO. I am not disagreeing with the idea that you need a strong running game in this league either. Yikes. Are you even reading and responding to my posts, or is this supposed to be directed at VikingLord? My point, which seems to be coming through in your post, is that an offense built around a player (its best player, obviously), is going to struggle without that player, regardless of what position that player plays, if that player is lost in the midst of the season. Plugging an inferior player into a position that a superior player usually occupies, is going to yield a negative result.

Matt Kalil was not drafted because of his supposed run blocking prowess. His supposed strength was his agility and work in the pass game (I think I saw a stat the either his junior or senior year he didn't allow a sack...where'd THAT guy go?). One of the knocks at him was his apparent lack of strength and needed work in the weight room to improve his run blocking. Charlie Johnson was never known for his run blocking; instead, he was "known" for protecting Peyton Manning (who, as we all know, is really good at making his offensive linemen look better than they are). John Sullivan wasn't noted for his run blocking coming out of Notre Dame either. His strength was his intelligence and "quick feet." Fusco and Loadholt are two that probably fit the description of guys that are more assets in the run game. However Fusco has done surprisingly well in pass protection as a sixth-round center out of Slippery Rock. If anything, until Kalil, you could say the Vikings haven't made the offensive line much of a priority at all (from left to right, 1st rounder, below-average free agent former sixth-rounder, sixth-rounder, sixth-rounder, second-rounder).

I disagree with you. I think you are wrong about Johnson and Sullivan. I agree that Kalil is a pass blocking left tackle. Beyond him, I feel that Loadholt, Sullivan, Fusco, and Johnson are all superior at run blocking (than they are at pass blocking). I think that we have locked up Sully, Fusco, and Loadholt to long term extensions, because they are solid offensive lineman, who are at their best when run blocking. I don't really pay much attention to what they're 'known' or noted for, I am just going off of what I have seen from these players on the field.

This is neither here nor there, however. My point was, and remains, the offense is predicated on what Adrian brings to the table.

Again, the team wasn't built around Adrian Peterson. Was/is he the team's best offensive player? Yes. Do you generally feature that player? Yes. That's true of any offensive player on any team in the league. If we had Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Andrew Luck or Aaron Rodgers (*spit*), instead of Peterson, our offensive identity would probably be different.

Again, the team was built around Adrian Peterson. It is what it is, take any of those players away from their respective team and they would struggle, just as we are struggling without Adrian. When you install an offense to take advantage of a certain player and their talents, the team will struggle without said player. I don't think that takes away from Adrian at all, it's just common sense.