Vikings Message Board.Com

I don't think we ever saw an article like this focused on the team's TD passing futility last season but the press seems to actually be on this particular negative trend for the Vikings offense in 2016:

Vikings’ running game in danger of being NFL’s most futile since 1946 Lions

The Vikings’ futility in the running game this season could be historic.

Through six games, Minnesota is averaging a paltry 2.6 yards per carry. That is on pace to be the lowest figure in the NFL since the 1946 Detroit Lions averaged just 1.7 yards per attempt.

Those Lions, led by Camp Wilson’s 207 rushing yards, went 1-10. Entering Monday’s game at Chicago, the Vikings are 5-1 thanks to a dominant defense and a solid passing game led by Sam Bradford, although he faltered in last weekend’s 21-10 loss at Philadelphia.

No NFL team has averaged less than 3 yards per carry since the 1994 New England Patriots finished at 2.8. Rounded to the next decimal, the Vikings are averaging 2.61, so a better performance Monday might take them past the 1953 New York Giants, who averaged 2.64.

“It’s negative yards plays, that brings your average down,’’ Vikings coach Mike Zimmer said Saturday. “It is what is is. I can’t change it. It’s 2.6. That’s what it is. So we’ll just keep trying to do better.’’

Again, driving home the point that AP's importance to our team is less critical then ever before. The time of the RB is has passed him by.

chicagopurple wrote:Again, driving home the point that AP's importance to our team is less critical then ever before. The time of the RB is has passed him by.

That's your takeaway?

I really hope AP comes back soon. I heard that he is seen walking around without a limp and no boot or crutches. I think he means a lot to this offense, if teams are focused on him it would open up the passing game and teams wouldnt be able to blitz as much.

I know lots of people saying we are better off without him but they are flat wrong.

chicagopurple wrote:Again, driving home the point that AP's importance to our team is less critical then ever before. The time of the RB is has passed him by.

This is completely wrong... no offense. How do you get this out of it? The article is about us being in danger of having one of the worst rushing attacks ever without AP. What you said makes 0 sense.

yet we are in first place.
the entire league is showing a decline in rushing. Every leading team is doing so by passing. The rules are entire stacked in favor of a passing game and NO team needs a RB who is the highest paid player on the team by a huge margin. Run first is a strategy that was discarded by the league.
If we keep AP it HAS to be at a greatly reduced pay scale, even if he WAS a healthy young dependable player.
The focus has to change to the passing game.
I don't like it....but it is the reality of the league.

Yes, we are in first place. Imagine how much better of a team we would be with a decent/good rushing attack. Peterson will do so much for the team not only in rushing but opening up the passing game too. I think he can come back the week of the Thanksgiving game VS the lions.

chicagopurple wrote:yet we are in first place.
the entire league is showing a decline in rushing. Every leading team is doing so by passing.

You keep peddling that idea in spite of the facts. "Every leading team is doing so by passing"? The Cowboys currently have the best record in the conference (pending the outcome of tonight's game) and they lead the league in rushing.

The rules are entire stacked in favor of a passing game and NO team needs a RB who is the highest paid player on the team by a huge margin. Run first is a strategy that was discarded by the league. If we keep AP it HAS to be at a greatly reduced pay scale, even if he WAS a healthy young dependable player.

The strategy hasn't been discarded by the league. The Seahawks went to back-to-back Super Bowls in 2 of the last 3 seasons using that strategy. The Vikes won the NFC North last season using that approach. It's still valid, still used, still effective with the right personnel.

Yes, Peterson's making a lot of money and yes, that will change after this season. That's been a given since he signed his current deal so I have no idea why people feel the need to bring it up every week. The Vikings won't bring Peterson back at the salary he's slated to make next season. It's not even worth worrying about because it's not going to happen. The contract will undoubtedly be revisited and revised or terminated this offseason.

The focus has to change to the passing game.
I don't like it....but it is the reality of the league.

The focus should be on what works best for the team, based on their personnel. They should continue trying to build a better passing game but that's been true for a decade now. As far as I know, nobody has argued against it.

Let's get back on topic. This thread isn't about Peterson, who hasn't even played since the 3rd quarter in week 2. It's about the Vikings overall struggles in the running game this season, which have far more to do with other factors.

Oddly, when we HAD AP and the opponents were stacking the box every play, we still had a passing game that was anemic. It likely goes back to the fact that we have a crappy OL but also Bridgewater hadn't really proven much even with AP or our back up RBs.
Either way....we go no where without a competent OL. And having a payroll largely consumed by a RB is not going to be a recipe for success .

chicagopurple wrote:Oddly, when we HAD AP and the opponents were stacking the box every play, we still had a passing game that was anemic. It likely goes back to the fact that we have a crappy OL but also Bridgewater hadn't really proven much even with AP or our back up RBs.
Either way....we go no where without a competent OL. And having a payroll largely consumed by a RB is not going to be a recipe for success .

Bridgewater is playing currently? and by currently it's entirely possible mothman meant as in this season's rushing attack. I could be wrong.....

Lol, talk about confirmation bias. Wow.

Boon wrote: Bridgewater is playing currently? and by currently it's entirely possible mothman meant as in this season's rushing attack. I could be wrong.....

This thread is definitely supposed to be about this season's rushing attack.

The headline here is that the Vikings are currently on a pace to have the worst rushing performance the league has seen in a season since the 1940s. That has nothing to do with Peterson's salary or teams having a "run first" philosophy. The thread was derailed immediately.

The running game is a big problem. It increases the pressure on the passing game and the defense. They have to find a way to get it going.

we are on the third string RB with a crummy O Line. Being the worst league wide in decades doesn't surprise me.

watching last night...do you REALLY think AP would have been successful with this piss-poor excuse for an OL? I would rather take APs entire salary and buy 4 great OL players....that would be a far wiser use of the $$'s.

chicagopurple wrote:watching last night...do you REALLY think AP would have been successful with this piss-poor excuse for an OL? I would rather take APs entire salary and buy 4 great OL players....that would be a far wiser use of the $$'s.

ap is a one of a kind back. sliver of room and he's gone. you cant really say that he wouldn't have. through 7 games you would imagine somewhere along the line he would have broken a few long td's already.