Does Peterson make the offense way to predictable?

[Raptorman]

Ok, I know I may be preaching to the choir, but do you think the Vikings offense has become way to predictable with Peterson in the lineup? Now in tonight's game, most of us felt that the first offensive play was going to be Peterson running up the middle. The pass to him in the flats was a new twist. It goes along the line of when they put Patterson in. You know he is going to get the ball so they key in on him. It seems to me that when he sits and other backs are in, they do better. ?????

Thoughts?

And now for the second part. If they were to say use him with someone else in the backfield do you think it would change things up? I know he has never really shared the backfield with anyone other than a fullback. But if he and Mckinnon were to be back there together I just think it would change things up. Not that I expect Norv to do something like that, it would be totally out of his character. Or is there something else they could do to make it not so predictable?

[PurpleMustReign]

There needs to be a "Norv makes the offense too predictable" option. I don't care if Jesus Christ is back there, you can't run on every freakin' first down. The play calling is way too predictable for the offense to be successful. Has AD lost a step? Sure. Is he as good as he once was? No. But a coach has to put them in the best position to succeed, and Norv is not doing that.

[jackal]

Im sorry but Norv play calling sucks.. we run up the guy way too much.

I am hoping Norv retires and we let our supposed TE coach take over...
Norv has about the same offensive play calling that kept Marty ball
from ever winning the big one.. Its not the 70's anymore ...

[Mothman]

I voted for "Norv makes the offense too predictable" too. Peterson doesn't call the plays.

[IrishViking]

Just to play the devils advocate here.

I cannot recall the last time that I saw AP beat someone to the edge in a straight foot race. While he may have lost a step on his north south running, I think he has lost several on his east-west. I think all you can really do is send him between some of the tackles anymore.

I also think that He is a victim of his own success, the defense knows what he is going to do. The announcers even mentioned it on a TFL play. something like,

"(Defenders name) just sat there, he didnt pursue because when you are chasing Peterson you know he is probably going to cut back, and then he comes right to you" ((Paraphrase))

I know he is a great, once in a generation runner but the man has tells and has an exploitable style of running. Its hit a point where if you have 8 guys crashing into the line, regardless of what is available, AP will get happy feet and cut back. Yes the run blocking has been quite poor... BUT and this is a big thing for AP, He has missed a handful of holes, maybe two a game. What if both of those holes had been 30-40 yard runs or more? Suddenly, AP is having a "good" year, right ? That's his style; It isn't famine famine feasts... Its; suck, suck, big play. And those big plays are harder to get.


I don't think AP makes the offense more predictable I think he disrupts rhythm with his running style. Its hard for a qb to get into a passing rhythm when its either "Hey AP scored off the hand off, go sit for another 8 minutes then come out for a hurry up 2 minute drill. OR "Hey AP got tackled for back-to-back TFL, here's a 3-19, good luck."

[Just Me]

There needs to be a "Norv makes the offense too predictable" option. I don't care if Jesus Christ is back there, you can't run on every freakin' first down. The play calling is way too predictable for the offense to be successful. Has AD lost a step? Sure. Is he as good as he once was? No. But a coach has to put them in the best position to succeed, and Norv is not doing that.

Totally agree. Norv got my vote!

[Mothman]

The capacity of Vikings fans to turn on players, no matter how good they are, never ceases to frustrate me. We see it again and again, especially when they've been around for a while or turn 30. We've seen it with Allen, We've seen it with Robison (he still looks pretty good to me, despite people wanting him off the team years ago because he was supposedly over the hill), and we're seeing it with Peterson.

Wake up and smell the predictable playcalling and absolutely terrible blocking, people.

[Just Me]

The capacity of Vikings fans to turn on players, no matter how good they are, never ceases to frustrate me. We see it again and again, especially when they've been around for a while or turn 30. We've seen it with Allen, We've seen it with Robison (he still looks pretty good to me, despite people wanting him off the team years ago because he was supposedly over the hill), and we're seeing it with Peterson.

Wake up and smell the predictable playcalling and absolutely terrible blocking, people.

Terrible blocking? Why that's just not true! In addition to great run blocking, Bradford had great pass protec.... Oh...

[germannorseman]

The capacity of Vikings fans to turn on players, no matter how good they are, never ceases to frustrate me. We see it again and again, especially when they've been around for a while or turn 30. We've seen it with Allen, We've seen it with Robison (he still looks pretty good to me, despite people wanting him off the team years ago because he was supposedly over the hill), and we're seeing it with Peterson.

Wake up and smell the predictable playcalling and absolutely terrible blocking, people.

I agree completely. The play. Calling has been way to predictable and the blocking has been atrocious. How many times does Peterson or any of our backs have to get hit in the backfield for us to recognize that fact. I was really hoping they would be better this year.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

[IrishViking]

And here we go. Criticism of AP means we have rabidly turned upon him, spit upon his great works and plunged the dagger into his back as he exclaimed "e tu?!"

Send him to the glue factory.


Is it even the tiniest bit possible that maybe both are at fault and maybe since the "burn Norv to the ground boat" is completely full we are perhaps pointing out other concerns?

Also, we should just cut Bridgewater already, lazy #### dead weight.

[Cliff]

I think the biggest problem with Peterson is that he didn't play in preseason (and of course now he's injured). It felt like he was just starting to knock the dust off (and the passing game was making them come out of the box a bit) right as he got injured.

I think having a running back as the focal point of your offense makes it somewhat predictable. When you're a run first team you have to get at least decent run blocking. The idea isn't necessarily to "trick" the other team, it's to "impose their will" on the other team and the offensive line isn't "mauler" enough for that. However, I don't think the offensive line gets all of the blame, nor the play calling, Peterson gets some too. He was either rusty, lost a step, or is thinking too hard but there was sometime hesitation when there didn't need to be. Maybe that was a result of trying to figure out which lineman was going to let a defensive player through lol

[Mothman]

And here we go. Criticism of AP means we have rabidly turned upon him, spit upon his great works and plunged the dagger into his back as he exclaimed "e tu?!"

Send him to the glue factory.

That seems to be the basic nature of the criticism. There's too much illogical thinking that overlooks what can actually be seen on film and too much of what Peterson actually contributes to the team. If the arguments made more sense, I'd feel differently but the play calling under Turner has been demonstrably predictable, the blocking demonstratively poor at times, etc. Blaming a player for getting tackled in the backfield when he's not the one who allowed tacklers into the backfield or blaming a player for the play calling when he's not the one actually calling the plays is just misguided. Last year, we repeatedly heard this same thinking about how the team would be better without Peterson on the field and then, when he was actually taken out of games, the team lost or, on at least 3 occasions, were blown out. How does that support a theory that the team is better with him off the field? when this strange wish was granted, the team was clearly worse.

It's not that Peterson's a sacred cow above criticism. It's that so much of the criticism amounts to little more than misplaced blame and there's a strange desire to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[losperros]

I voted Norv is the predictable one. He's calling the plays. Not only is he predictable but he has a limited view on how to utilize certain players.

AD is still a great runner but the OL isn't blocking well. They don't pass block worth a hoot either. As a fan, I'm sick of the Vikings having a porous offensive line.

At least, that's how I see it.

[Mothman]

I think the biggest problem with Peterson is that he didn't play in preseason (and of course now he's injured). It felt like he was just starting to knock the dust off (and the passing game was making them come out of the box a bit) right as he got injured.

I think having a running back as the focal point of your offense makes it somewhat predictable. When you're a run first team you have to get at least decent run blocking. The idea isn't necessarily to "trick" the other team, it's to "impose their will" on the other team and the offensive line isn't "mauler" enough for that.

Bingo.

[IrishViking]

That seems to be the basic nature of the criticism. There's too much illogical thinking that overlooks what can actually be seen on film and too much of what Peterson actually contributes to the team. If the arguments made more sense, I'd feel differently but the play calling under Turner has been demonstrably predictable, the blocking demonstratively poor at times, etc. Blaming a player for getting tackled in the backfield when he's not the one who allowed tacklers into the backfield or blaming a player for the play calling when he's not the one actually calling the plays is just misguided. Last year, we repeatedly heard this same thinking about how the team would be better without Peterson on the field and then, when he was actually taken out of games, the team lost or, on at least 3 occasions, were blown out. How does that support a theory that the team is better with him off the field? when this strange wish was granted, the team was clearly worse.

It's not that Peterson's a sacred cow above criticism. It's that so much of the criticism amounts to little more than misplaced blame and there's a strange desire to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Most of what I am reading is more an acknowledgement that it's an analog situation, not digital. It isn't Norv; on/off. Run blocking on/off Peterson on/off. Its a combination of all three. Norv calls a predictable play on drive. The run blocking fails on another. Peterson quadruple cuts on another. But the response seems to be; Norv that's unacceptable. Run blocking, that's unacceptable. Peterson, its cool, we will adjust, there wasnt much there, we aer sorry for letting you down.

Either way, looks like we get to find out in the next couple of weeks