Interesting "First Take" exchanges regardig the vikings

A forum for the hard core Minnesota Vikings fan. Discuss upcoming games, opponents, trades, draft or what ever is on the minds of Viking fans!

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
IrishViking
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:02 am

Re: Interesting "First Take" exchanges regardig the vikings

Post by IrishViking » Mon Oct 17, 2016 10:26 am

Mothman wrote: The TFL problem wasn't Peterson's fault and it hasn't gone away. If I'm not mistaken, Jadaveon Clowney alone had 4 TFLs against the Vikings in their last game.

There's "ZERO" evidence that Peterson would have rushed for more yardage than Asiata and McKinnon have in his absence because he hasn't played. It would be equally true to say there's zero evidence that he wouldn't have out-performed them. There's no way to know but the "history or whatever' you want to conveniently set aside suggests he would have had been pretty productive.
Do they really? I doubt there's a player on the team that thinks losing Peterson has improved the Vikes chances. They actually respect his ability.

The offense has made some adjustments since he went down but I think those were adjustments that needed to be made anyway and should have been made whether he was healthy or not.

So by that logic we should coax Farve out of retirement again. He lit it up in the past. The rushing game produced 90+ yards in back to back weeks and the offense. While not spectacular, is getting it done well. AP is arguable for being in, fine. But thats it's, ARGUABLE. same for Teddy. ARGUABLE. These players are not losing sleep because they are producing as a team in everyway that counts. Frame it however you like but "Arguably would be an upgrade" is a huge difference from "this team would definitively be better with XYZ"

History is great, except for APs catch % right? Then its only recent production that counts. His yard production though, you don't take recent production because it's blown, then you go with his historical production based on being 4-5 years younger.

I don't want this to turn into another AP thread. But it takes some serious cherry picking of stats and arguments to make the case for an injuried RB who has more sub 65 yard games then 100 yard games in his last 8 starts if he had started a season with his second half production last year and up till week two this year, there would be a reasonable position for benching him.

EDIT, I was on my phone. I am not ANTI AP by any stretch I would love to have 26 year old AP running for us this year and I think he would power stomp us to a superbowl.
0 x

User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 37386
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Interesting "First Take" exchanges regardig the vikings

Post by Mothman » Mon Oct 17, 2016 4:49 pm

IrishViking wrote:So by that logic we should coax Farve out of retirement again. He lit it up in the past.
That's a rather obvious straw man.
The rushing game produced 90+ yards in back to back weeks and the offense. While not spectacular, is getting it done well. AP is arguable for being in, fine. But thats it's, ARGUABLE. same for Teddy. ARGUABLE. These players are not losing sleep because they are producing as a team in everyway that counts. Frame it however you like but "Arguably would be an upgrade" is a huge difference from "this team would definitively be better with XYZ"

History is great, except for APs catch % right? Then its only recent production that counts. His yard production though, you don't take recent production because it's blown, then you go with his historical production based on being 4-5 years younger.
You lost me. :confused:
I don't want this to turn into another AP thread. But it takes some serious cherry picking of stats and arguments to make the case for an injured RB who has more sub 65 yard games then 100 yard games in his last 8 starts if he had started a season with his second half production last year and up till week two this year, there would be a reasonable position for benching him.
Selecting only his last 8 games and glossing right over the 100+ yard rushing performance in the latter half of those games while ignoring the various circumstances involved in the sub-65 yard rushing performances you mentioned takes far more cherry picking.
0 x

User avatar
fiestavike
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3489
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am

Re: Interesting "First Take" exchanges regardig the vikings

Post by fiestavike » Tue Oct 18, 2016 6:55 am

As comprised, I think the team is better without Peterson. In an ideal world we'd have the kind of offensive line I REALLY wish we had and Peterson would be the center of our offense.
0 x

User avatar
IrishViking
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:02 am

Re: Interesting "First Take" exchanges regardig the vikings

Post by IrishViking » Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:49 am

Mothman wrote: That's a rather obvious straw man.
You lost me. :confused:
Selecting only his last 8 games and glossing right over the 100+ yard rushing performance in the latter half of those games while ignoring the various circumstances involved in the sub-65 yard rushing performances you mentioned takes far more cherry picking.

We had a discussion weeks ago about AP and his historical struggles to catch and you argued his recent production is far more important. We talk about APs recent struggles and you argued that his historical production has more merit. I tend to ignore extenuating circumstances with regards to his production because it seems a moot point. Mckinnon is out producing him behind Arguably a worse line. Its like in "Bull Durham" when costner goes on that tear about batting average and how it comes down to one flukey single a wee/month to either make it or not. At the end of the day you cant watch every single play to assign blame to those deserving. You take the end result. It just seems that whenever we talk about AP we use the methodology that makes him look the best. I would love to have peak AP back, he gone though.

On topic. SAS is a tool.
0 x

User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 37386
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Interesting "First Take" exchanges regardig the vikings

Post by Mothman » Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:22 am

IrishViking wrote:We had a discussion weeks ago about AP and his historical struggles to catch and you argued his recent production is far more important. We talk about APs recent struggles and you argued that his historical production has more merit.
He led the NFL in rushing last season. Yes, that has merit. I'm not reaching back 5 years and suggesting we should ignore the last 4. He was literally the most productive runner in the NFL last year. It's absurd to suggest that doesn't have merit.

Regarding catching the ball: recent history is more pertinent to where his skills are as a receiver but I also pointed out that in 2009 he had 43 catches for 436 yards.
I tend to ignore extenuating circumstances with regards to his production because it seems a moot point.
It's not a moot point. it's a very pertinent point.
Mckinnon is out producing him behind Arguably a worse line.
Yet you've continually argued that the line is "improving". Which is it? Also: if circumstances don't matter, why are you bringing up the line at all?

You're looking at a very small sample size to make your "McKinnon is out-producing Peterson" argument and ignoring extenuating circumstances when they inconveniently undermine your argument. McKinnon has 174 yards on 57 carries this season. In his last outing, he averaged 1.8 ypc on 20 carries, not much different than the 1.6 ypc Peterson averaged in the first week and a half of the season. Maybe those circumstances matter, after all, eh? ;)
Its like in "Bull Durham" when costner goes on that tear about batting average and how it comes down to one flukey single a wee/month to either make it or not. At the end of the day you cant watch every single play to assign blame to those deserving. You take the end result.
The end result is the product of the efforts of 11 players at a time, not one. Blocking matters. Quality of opponent matters. Playcalling matters. Players don't perform in a vacuum.
It just seems that whenever we talk about AP we use the methodology that makes him look the best. I would love to have peak AP back, he gone though.
... and therefore he's not worth playing anymore, eh?

I'm not the one trying to cherry pick my case here.
0 x

User avatar
fiestavike
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3489
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am

Re: Interesting "First Take" exchanges regardig the vikings

Post by fiestavike » Tue Oct 18, 2016 11:08 am

Mothman wrote:
Generally speaking, it seems to be pertinent when it suits someone's 'case' and not pertinent when it doesn't. I think the problem is that we are making 'cases' to begin with. Its very ESPN of us, but I think its where we are culturally.
0 x

User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 37386
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Interesting "First Take" exchanges regardig the vikings

Post by Mothman » Tue Oct 18, 2016 11:24 am

fiestavike wrote:Generally speaking, it seems to be pertinent when it suits someone's 'case' and not pertinent when it doesn't.


It's always pertinent.
I think the problem is that we are making 'cases' to begin with. Its very ESPN of us, but I think its where we are culturally.
... and your proposed solution?
0 x

User avatar
fiestavike
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3489
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am

Re: Interesting "First Take" exchanges regardig the vikings

Post by fiestavike » Tue Oct 18, 2016 11:27 am

Mothman wrote:

It's always pertinent.
... and your proposed solution?
I don't have one that's realistic.
0 x

User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 37386
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Interesting "First Take" exchanges regardig the vikings

Post by Mothman » Tue Oct 18, 2016 11:28 am

fiestavike wrote:I don't have one that's realistic.
Fair enough.
0 x

User avatar
jackal
Strong Safety
Posts: 11578
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:05 am
Location: California

Re: Interesting "First Take" exchanges regardig the vikings

Post by jackal » Tue Oct 18, 2016 11:56 am

Honestly I don't know if Peterson has
finally hit the age barrier. He didn't do
any better than McKinnon this year. IMO
he is not worth the QB money he gets.

I wish we would fixed our OL and moved
from Kalil and Peterson
0 x
no one expects the Spanish Inquisition!

User avatar
IrishViking
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:02 am

Re: Interesting "First Take" exchanges regardig the vikings

Post by IrishViking » Tue Oct 18, 2016 12:45 pm

Mothman wrote: He led the NFL in rushing last season. Yes, that has merit. I'm not reaching back 5 years and suggesting we should ignore the last 4. He was literally the most productive runner in the NFL last year. It's absurd to suggest that doesn't have merit.
He beat Doug by 83 yards on 40 more carries, literally an entire game and a half worth and he dramatically faded in the second half. I don't understand why nuance leaves the discussion for this point. "Rushing title, nuff said" doesn't have merit when you look at his advantage in carries and his fade at the end and the fact that he is 31 going on 32 and is at the outer edge of the decline for a running back.
It's not a moot point. it's a very pertinent point.
In what way? Heck, we should watch the game three tape then, who knows how many "credited" yards Asiata would have had if we account for any whiffed blocks or other issues.
Yet you've continually argued that the line is "improving". Which is it? Also: if circumstances don't matter, why are you bringing up the line at all?
Actually what I say very consistently is that the pass blocking is holding up pretty average to top 15 by the numbers and that technically the run game is trending in the right direction based strictly on numbers. We agree the blocking is pretty terrible. But this point to me is worth highlighting because it does highlight the issue, you say that the run blocking is terrible but our running game has improved nearly 100% in YPC and 250% in YPG without AP in (I am using the percentages to make the point more clear, obviously 1.6 to 2.4 is still bad) So, is the run blocking getting better or are our 2nd and 3rd string backs out performing AP? I bring it up because if circumstance didn't matter in any way (not what I was implying) then AP would have been cut and Mckinnon would be getting paid double what AP was based on production this season but clearly it does. My point is that; IF the line is terrible and the injuries are hurting us then our running game is doing more with less now.
You're looking at a very small sample size to make your "McKinnon is out-producing Peterson" argument and ignoring extenuating circumstances when they inconveniently undermine your argument. McKinnon has 174 yards on 57 carries this season. In his last outing, he averaged 1.8 ypc on 20 carries, not much different than the 1.6 ypc Peterson averaged in the first week and a half of the season. Maybe those circumstances matter, after all, eh? ;)
I think you are reading way to much into my "extenuating circumstance" statement. :) I really just meant that as a catch all for the run blocking as a whole. And while I keep using Mckinnon its mostly just because I don't want to write Asiata as well because I am usually on my phone haha. Essentially Mckinnon (read running game) is what I mean.
The end result is the product of the efforts of 11 players at a time, not one. Blocking matters. Quality of opponent matters. Playcalling matters. Players don't perform in a vacuum.
I agree but at some point the end result is what matters. If something, however legitimate, always happens that makes Player A gain 20 fewer yards than Player B eventually you just need to start playing player B to get those extra yards. Which is why I ignore "extenuating circumstances" IE, whiffed block that would have gone for big yards, terrible handoff, poor play selection, slippery turf, etc, etc, etc. If for some reason the Line blocks better whenever Asiata is in the backfield fine, it gets us more yards. It sucks for AP and McK and I would definitely NOT buy my Linemen gift that Christmas but the point of the game is win
... and therefore he's not worth playing anymore, eh?
I mean, yes? :confused: IF the run game continues to improve this year then it does become a real question in my mind. IF they work up to 3.5-4YPC and 100ish yards a game... Do you plug AP in rusty AF for a late season push or the playoffs? And if you do. How many TFLs, do you tolerate? If he has 25 yards at the Half do you sit him? Honestly if the running game starts clicking to a certain degree I wouldn't be surprised to either see AP come in back on the depth chart or his rehab to be pushed back to "make sure he is ready for next season."


Obviously that's a lot of ifs and such and I will be the first to say that it could very well be that AP isn't done or washed up. But he hasn't looked good for a decent clip of games now. It just seems weird for it to be considered a forgone conclusion that the team is suffering either mentally or on the field without him there, given the body of work he has provided to his team recently.
0 x

User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 37386
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Interesting "First Take" exchanges regardig the vikings

Post by Mothman » Tue Oct 18, 2016 1:40 pm

IrishViking wrote:I agree but at some point the end result is what matters. If something, however legitimate, always happens that makes Player A gain 20 fewer yards than Player B eventually you just need to start playing player B to get those extra yards.
Yes, but we aren't looking at a situation like that at this point.
I mean, yes? :confused: IF the run game continues to improve this year then it does become a real question in my mind. IF they work up to 3.5-4YPC and 100ish yards a game... Do you plug AP in rusty AF for a late season push or the playoffs? And if you do. How many TFLs, do you tolerate?
How many are they allowing beforehand? As I pointed out upthread, they haven't exactly gone away.

That's just one factor to consider.

Look, they should plug him in if they believe he's ready to play and healthy enough to play well. Don't plug him in if he that's not the case. Perhaps he could be worked in gradually. I haven't seen anything out of his replacements thus far that he didn't look capable of doing and if they stack the line against him like the Titans did in week 1, the Vikes now have Bradford back there to punish the defense as opposed to Hill, whose arm didn't scare anybody.
If he has 25 yards at the Half do you sit him?
No, especially if they're playing a team with a really strong defense.
Obviously that's a lot of ifs and such and I will be the first to say that it could very well be that AP isn't done or washed up. But he hasn't looked good for a decent clip of games now.
Yeah, about 3, and one of those was against Seattle, the #1 run defense in the league last year. It would be nice to see what he could do with a QB who's actually a downfield passing threat in the backfield and some decent blocking up front.
It just seems weird for it to be considered a forgone conclusion that the team is suffering either mentally or on the field without him there, given the body of work he has provided to his team recently.
I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that they're suffering mentally but I do think his absence hurts them on the field because he's a great player.

Sorry I didn't reply to more. I'm pressed for time and honestly, it's all been said before.
0 x

User avatar
soflavike
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9526
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:38 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL

Re: Interesting "First Take" exchanges regardig the vikings

Post by soflavike » Tue Oct 18, 2016 1:52 pm

Old Brad Johnson did pretty good for a 9th round draft pick who didn't even start at QB in college. I thought he did a great job in his first stint with the Vikes... smart, poised, decent arm, decent mobility, got the job done.

Where are they now video:

http://www.si.com/nfl/2016/06/30/brad-j ... e-they-now
0 x
*********
A die-hard Vikings fan in South Florida

User avatar
IrishViking
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:02 am

Re: Interesting "First Take" exchanges regardig the vikings

Post by IrishViking » Tue Oct 18, 2016 2:45 pm

Mothman wrote:Sorry I didn't reply to more. I'm pressed for time and honestly, it's all been said before.

I think we are honestly to the point of Agreeing to Disagree its seems neither of us can grasp why the other looks at it the way they do, lets talk about something less toxic.
0 x

User avatar
Purple Martin
Starter
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2014 6:08 pm
Location: The Trees

Re: Interesting "First Take" exchanges regardig the vikings

Post by Purple Martin » Thu Oct 20, 2016 7:40 am

IrishViking wrote:
I think we are honestly to the point of Agreeing to Disagree its seems neither of us can grasp why the other looks at it the way they do, lets talk about something less toxic.

I think you won this round anyway. :wink: I loved watching AP run in his heyday and he can still explode and take it to the house on occasion but all things considered we are a better team with him on the bench, and I think we will only improve from here. In theory we could be just as good with him on the field but in practice it hasn't worked that way in a long time.
0 x
Mothman wrote:... a good completion percentage in a performance like that is like putting lipstick on a pig.

Post Reply