Page 1 of 2
Without Peterson, long runs missing from ground game
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:19 pm
by Mothman
This article if from November 4th (ie: before the Lions game) but it remains relevant:
Without Adrian Peterson, long runs missing from Vikings' ground game
Still, the Vikings' ability to change the complexion of a game on the ground -- long a staple of the offense with Peterson in the backfield -- has gone missing. The Vikings have broken just two runs of 20 yards or more this season, and only four others have surpassed 10 yards. Since the team drafted Peterson in 2007, it has posted at least 11 runs of 20 yards or more in each season, according to ESPN Stats and Information. The Vikings have averaged 34.7 yards on those runs. This season, they've averaged 27 yards on their two big gains.
"We're still not breaking any long runs," Zimmer said. "We keep trying to do that and get better."
More at the link.
Re: Without Peterson, long runs missing from ground game
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:50 pm
by halfgiz
Prefect example is Oakland, they spent big money in the offseason to improve their offensive line.
Last night against Denver they ran for 218 yards.
With our injured offensive line I'm not so confident that AP would be having a good season.
Maybe 22 year old AP might have broke a few runs, but the 31 year old AP not so sure.
Plus it doesn't help have banged up running backs.
Re: Without Peterson, long runs missing from ground game
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2016 7:45 pm
by Mothman
halfgiz wrote:Prefect example is Oakland, they spent big money in the offseason to improve their offensive line.
Last night against Denver they ran for 218 yards.
Exactly.
With our injured offensive line I'm not so confident that AP would be having a good season.
I think he'd be struggling behind this line but last year, he was still able to pop off some big runs, even in some games where he was otherwise contained. His strength and burst tend to mean he needs a little less help to do so, but he still needs help.
Maybe 22 year old AP might have broke a few runs, but the 31 year old AP not so sure.
Plus it doesn't help have banged up running backs.
No, it doesn't. They're banged up everywhere now!
Re: Without Peterson, long runs missing from ground game
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2016 7:48 pm
by PurpleKoolaid
Even AD cant take multiple blows/surgeries like he just did, at 31. Even if the doctors give him a 99% ok, if I were Rick, I would see what I could get for trade value or whatever.. We are going to have some heavy bills due, and right now we need to work on our Oline more then AD.
The scare of AD in the backfield wont be there to the extent it has been. When every time he touched the ball you got thrills down your spine. Now you just hope he can make it back it to the LoS.
Re: Without Peterson, long runs missing from ground game
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:33 pm
by VikingPaul73
halfgiz wrote:Prefect example is Oakland, they spent big money in the offseason to improve their offensive line.
Last night against Denver they ran for 218 yards.
With our injured offensive line I'm not so confident that AP would be having a good season.
Maybe 22 year old AP might have broke a few runs, but the 31 year old AP not so sure.
Plus it doesn't help have banged up running backs.
Maybe maybe not. But Bradford would have an easier time finding an open WR with AD in the backfield, of that I'm sure.
Re: Without Peterson, long runs missing from ground game
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:48 pm
by HardcoreVikesFan
I think it is safe to say the offense is NOT better off without Adrian Peterson. Even if the run game struggled (which, it probably would be), we wouldn't be dead last in the NFL. Peterson would be able to pick up 4th and inches more often than not. Finally, the play action game would be WIDE open. That alone would help the offense more than it would hurt it.
Re: Without Peterson, long runs missing from ground game
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:50 pm
by purpletinted66
in the 1st 2 games peterson looked like he was wearing smaller shoulder pads and white shoes made him look nimble - not that appearance is everything, but he looked like maybe preseason form?
Re: Without Peterson, long runs missing from ground game
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:40 pm
by Purple Reign
purpletinted66 wrote:in the 1st 2 games peterson looked like he was wearing smaller shoulder pads and white shoes made him look nimble - not that appearance is everything, but he looked like maybe preseason form?
Exactly what is preseason form? If you mean midseason form, like you said, appearance doesn't mean anything. Statistics are what count and he definitely didn't have midseason form stats.
Re: Without Peterson, long runs missing from ground game
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:51 pm
by losperros
Given the present state of the offensive line, the RBs will have problems finding the daylight needed to break a long run.
OTOH, as I said in another post, I'd like the Vikings to start Hillman at RB. He looks fast and strong, and he seems to have an extra gear after initial contact.
Re: Without Peterson, long runs missing from ground game
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2016 11:13 pm
by PurpleKoolaid
losperros wrote:Given the present state of the offensive line, the RBs will have problems finding the daylight needed to break a long run.
OTOH, as I said in another post, I'd like the Vikings to start Tillman at RB. He looks fast and strong, and he seems to have an extra gear after initial contact.
He looked good last year. But having a decent Oline will do that. I dont think If AD heals, and starts in a few weeks, he will get 1k yards. Or scare other teams into thinking he will either, at least this year.
Re: Without Peterson, long runs missing from ground game
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2016 1:00 pm
by autobon7
losperros wrote:Given the present state of the offensive line, the RBs will have problems finding the daylight needed to break a long run.
OTOH, as I said in another post, I'd like the Vikings to start Tillman at RB. He looks fast and strong, and he seems to have an extra gear after initial contact.
I liked Tillman in the sample size he gave us.....to me he earned more touches.
Re: Without Peterson, long runs missing from ground game
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2016 2:03 pm
by Mothman
HardcoreVikesFan wrote:I think it is safe to say the offense is NOT better off without Adrian Peterson. Even if the run game struggled (which, it probably would be), we wouldn't be dead last in the NFL. Peterson would be able to pick up 4th and inches more often than not. Finally, the play action game would be WIDE open. That alone would help the offense more than it would hurt it.
Agreed. I don't think there's any doubt that the offense is missing him right now or that he'd make a difference if healthy.
PurpleKoolaid wrote:He looked good last year. But having a decent Oline will do that.
The Vikes had a decent line last year? Okay, I can see it in comparison to this year but they weren't good last year either.
Re: Without Peterson, long runs missing from ground game
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2016 11:50 pm
by Purple Reign
autobon7 wrote:
I liked Tillman in the sample size he gave us.....to me he earned more touches.
If you guys like him so much you should know that his name is Hillman - not Tillman.
Re: Without Peterson, long runs missing from ground game
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:34 am
by autobon7
OTOH, as I said in another post, I'd like the Vikings to start Tillman at RB. He looks fast and strong, and he seems to have an extra gear after initial contact.[/quote]
I liked Tillman in the sample size he gave us.....to me he earned more touches.[/quote]
If you guys like him so much you should know that his name is Hillman - not Tillman.
[/quote]
Damned auto/spell correct checker thing lol
Re: Without Peterson, long runs missing from ground game
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:32 am
by losperros
Purple Reign wrote:
If you guys like him so much you should know that his name is Hillman - not Tillman.
Just typing fast. It happens.
And yes, I liked what I saw of Hillman a lot. He should be the starting RB.