Zimmer: Vikings QB Sam Bradford having ‘amazing’ season

[RFIP]

Agreed. Also, Mike McCoy was fired by SD today and I'm guessing Whisenhunt will go too. Both of these guys would be solid OC's to bring in. McCoy is one of the better offensive minds in the NFL

Both good points, I would love Whisenhunt as OC too.

[Texas Vike]

Totally understand your sentiments. I admit to having no overall seasonal statistical evidence to support Shurmur. I just have my eyes and my opinion.

It really has to do with the passing game. Wth this line, I'm actually amazed at what they've managed to accomplish through the air. It's almost gone unnoticed, but with 373 yards Sunday against the Bears, Sam Bradford would surpass 4,000 for the season -- and he didn't even play the first game. We've only had ONE 3,000-yard passer in the past SEVEN years. Also, Adam Thielen and Cordarrelle Patterson have flourished under Shurmur, and Kyle Rudolph is quietly having a very good season. Four players are likely to exceed Stefon Diggs' team-leading 52 receptions from 2015, and we have a shot at having two 1,000-yard receivers -- first time since Moss-Carter. Finally, while the offense under Shurmur was dink-and-dunk in the beginning, they've taken a number of successful shots downfield the past few weeks (mostly to Adam Thielen). I'd like to see what Sam and Co. can do with an off-season of continuity (and hopefully some better talent on the O-line).

Of course, the other factor is that we have had 14 players on IR this season. Our offensive line, not particularly stellar to begin with, has been held together with duct tape and baling wire. Yet I've seen this team move the ball very well at times. Obviously we stink in the red zone. We have no running game, which cannot be blamed on Shurmur, so it takes away the balance we need, especially in the red zone.

That being said, I certainly would understand if they went a different direction. I just see something in the passing game that I like.

While reading your post it hit me why we stunk against INDY: after refashioning our offense to suit our personnel, accentuating our strengths and covering up our weaknesses, AD's presence forced Shurmur to attempt to revert to a previous iteration of our offense. AD does not fit with our Bradford-Shurmur offense.

It's time to move on from AD and commit to Bradford. I'm fine with Shurmur, but wouldn't mind a change if it's a good match and provides us with a strong offensive vision. Someone as confident and clear about what he wants to implement as Zimmer is on D.

[Mothman]

While reading your post it hit me why we stunk against INDY: after refashioning our offense to suit our personnel, accentuating our strengths and covering up our weaknesses, AD's presence forced Shurmur to attempt to revert to a previous iteration of our offense.

I just don't think that's true, although I keep seeing that interpretation. Peterson touched the ball 7 times in that game, once on a pass and rarely on back-to-back plays. How on earth can that be interpreted as a return to a previous iteration of the offense (which, I assume, is meant to mean a predictable, "run first" attack)?

I think Peterson gets made a scapegoat for issues elsewhere on the team.

[PurpleMustReign]

I just don't think that's true, although I keep seeing that interpretation. Peterson touched the ball 7 times in that game, once on a pass and rarely on back-to-back plays. How on earth can that be interpreted as a return to a previous iteration of the offense (which, I assume, is meant to mean a predictable, "run first" attack)?

I think Peterson gets made a scapegoat for issues elsewhere on the team.

I agree, Jim.

Also, Mike McCoy would be an AWESOME hire for our OC.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

[Mothman]

I agree, Jim.

Also, Mike McCoy would be an AWESOME hire for our OC.

They should definitely interview him for the job, if he's interested.

[Texas Vike]

I just don't think that's true, although I keep seeing that interpretation. Peterson touched the ball 7 times in that game, once on a pass and rarely on back-to-back plays. How on earth can that be interpreted as a return to a previous iteration of the offense (which, I assume, is meant to mean a predictable, "run first" attack)?

I think Peterson gets made a scapegoat for issues elsewhere on the team.

Did you watch the game, Jim? I mean that literally, not in a snarky way. I did watch it and to my eyes it looked like his presence made Bradford and Shurmur uncertain about what we were trying to do.

Before we got down by 17 points we looked like the offense of old. Once we got in a hole, we had to try to revert back to more of a pass heavy attack, which is why your numbers stand out, but here's our first few drives:

1st and 10 at MIN 25
(9:01 - 1st) A.Peterson up the middle to MIN 27 for 2 yards (A.Morrison).
2nd and 8 at MIN 27
(8:34 - 1st) (Shotgun) S.Bradford pass short right to A.Peterson to MIN 28 for 1 yard (D.Butler).
3rd and 7 at MIN 28
(8:06 - 1st) (Shotgun) S.Bradford pass short left to K.Rudolph to MIN 30 for 2 yards (T.Green).
4th and 5 at MIN 30
(7:34 - 1st) (Punt formation) J.Locke punts 52 yards to IND 18, Center-K.McDermott. C.Rogers to IND 48 for 30 yards (J.Locke).

1st and 10 at MIN 25
(2:22 - 1st) S.Bradford pass short right to C.Johnson to MIN 42 for 17 yards (R.Melvin).
1st and 10 at MIN 42
(1:51 - 1st) A.Peterson up the middle to MIN 43 for 1 yard (A.Morrison).
2nd and 9 at MIN 43
(1:09 - 1st) (Shotgun) J.McKinnon right end pushed ob at MIN 44 for 1 yard (A.Ayers).
3rd and 8 at MIN 44
(0:44 - 1st) (Shotgun) PENALTY on MIN-S.Diggs, False Start, 5 yards, enforced at MIN 44 - No Play.
3rd and 13 at MIN 39
(0:27 - 1st) (Shotgun) S.Bradford pass incomplete deep right to A.Thielen.
4th and 13 at MIN 39
(0:22 - 1st) (Punt formation) J.Locke punts 44 yards to IND 17, Center-K.McDermott, downed by MIN-J.Kearse.

1st and 10 at MIN 38
(14:07 - 2nd) (Shotgun) S.Bradford pass short right to K.Rudolph to MIN 42 for 4 yards (R.Melvin).
2nd and 6 at MIN 42
(13:44 - 2nd) (No Huddle, Shotgun) A.Peterson up the middle to MIN 42 for no gain (T.Green; Z.Kerr).
3rd and 6 at MIN 42
(13:08 - 2nd) (Shotgun) S.Bradford pass incomplete short left to S.Diggs.
4th and 6 at MIN 42
(13:04 - 2nd) (Punt formation) J.Locke punts 50 yards to IND 8, Center-K.McDermott, fair catch by C.Rogers.

On the next series, AD finally runs for more than a few yards, but he fumbles and kills any chance we have of getting back into the game.

All of this doesn't look familiar? If not, we just see things differently, which is fine.

[Mothman]

Did you watch the game, Jim? I mean that literally, not in a snarky way. I did watch it and to my eyes it looked like his presence made Bradford and Shurmur uncertain about what we were trying to do.

I watched and it I didn't come away with that interpretation at all.

Before we got down by 17 points we looked like the offense of old. Once we got in a hole, we had to try to revert back to more of a pass heavy attack, which is why your numbers stand out, but here's our first few drives:

If you substitute the name Asiata or McKinnon for Peterson on those drives they look a lot like many, many other drives since Shurmur took over. It's not as if you just posted a list of 3 drives featuring Adrian Peterson runs up the middle on first and second down followed by third and long situations.

All of this doesn't look familiar? If not, we just see things differently, which is fine.

We just see them differently.

[Texas Vike]

We just see them differently.

That's fine. But just to give you your own sauce: I can't imagine HOW ON EARTH you don't see how we change as an offense when AD is in the backfield. It's so evident to me. And I don't think I'm making him a scapegoat at all. Just calling it like I see it.

Do you think it's just a coincidence that our O looked lost the game that he came back?

[Mothman]

That's fine. But just to give you your own sauce: I can't imagine HOW ON EARTH you don't see how we change as an offense when AD is in the backfield. It's so evident to me. And I don't think I'm making him a scapegoat at all. Just calling it like I see it.

Do you think it's just a coincidence that our O looked lost the game that he came back?

They looked lost a lot this season, with or without him in the lineup so I don't attribute that to him.

I think the offense changes at times when he's in (in the sense that they sometimes use different formations) but I don't think he was the problem against the Colts (aside from the fumble).

Honestly, I think at this point there's a LOT of fan baggage associated with Peterson and I think it impacts how people perceive the game. It feels to me like it's reached the point where people get worked up about the Vikings running him at all if not's immediately and unequivocally successful. The reaction to running Peterson 3 or 4 times on 3 unsuccessful series seems much different than the fan response when the Vikings do the same thing with other backs.

[Texas Vike]

They looked lost a lot this season, with or without him in the lineup so I don't attribute that to him.

I think the offense changes at times when he's in (in the sense that they sometimes use different formations) but I don't think he was the problem against the Colts (aside from the fumble).

Honestly, I think at this point there's a LOT of fan baggage associated with Peterson and I think it impacts how people perceive the game. It feels to me like it's reached the point where people get worked up about the Vikings running him at all if not's immediately and unequivocally successful. The reaction to running Peterson 3 or 4 times on 3 unsuccessful series seems much different than the fan response when the Vikings do the same thing with other backs.

Sure, that's what happens when you earn the kind of money he does: it gives rise to expectations.

It seems to me that lots of posters in favor of keeping AD have a hard time facing the current reality: he isn't what he used to be and he limits our offensive scheme. Bradford's a statue and our OL sucks, we need a back that can pick up the blitz and isn't just a 2 down back who might break a long run or, just as likely, will fumble. He is not a good fit for the new Vikings offense, which, judging by Zimmer's recent comments (see below) is going to be centered on Sam Bradford.

Zimmer called Bradford “remarkable,” adding he’s done enough to earn the long-term job.

“He’s earned the right to be the starting quarterback,” Zimmer said Tuesday during his season-ending press conference.

http://www.startribune.com/mike-zimmer- ... 409549435/

[PurpleMustReign]

They looked lost a lot this season, with or without him in the lineup so I don't attribute that to him.

I think the offense changes at times when he's in (in the sense that they sometimes use different formations) but I don't think he was the problem against the Colts (aside from the fumble).

Honestly, I think at this point there's a LOT of fan baggage associated with Peterson and I think it impacts how people perceive the game. It feels to me like it's reached the point where people get worked up about the Vikings running him at all if not's immediately and unequivocally successful. The reaction to running Peterson 3 or 4 times on 3 unsuccessful series seems much different than the fan response when the Vikings do the same thing with other backs.

What about the offense in Green Bay? Or in Washington? Or against Dallas? The offense looked terrible in those games and AD didn't even dress for those games.

[Mothman]

Sure, that's what happens when you earn the kind of money he does: it gives rise to expectations.

That's true.

It seems to me that lots of posters in favor of keeping AD have a hard time facing the current reality: he isn't what he used to be and he limits our offensive scheme. Bradford's a statue and our OL sucks, we need a back that can pick up the blitz and isn't just a 2 down back who might break a long run or, just as likely, will fumble. He is not a good fit for the new Vikings offense, which, judging by Zimmer's recent comments (see below) is going to be centered on Sam Bradford.

As I've already said, I expect the Vikings to move on so there's probably not much point in debating whether Peterson will fit into Shurmur's offense (assuming he will even be the OC, which seems likely). I definitely understand that Peterson's not the player he was in his prime but I've said for years that he's not the one limiting the scheme. I think it's the coaching and the limitations of the passing game over the years that have done that.

[Mothman]

What about the offense in Green Bay? Or in Washington? Or against Dallas? The offense looked terrible in those games and AD didn't even dress for those games.

Exactly. We've seen a lot of terrible offense this year and a lot of ineffective running behind a bad offensive line.

[Texas Vike]

What about the offense in Green Bay? Or in Washington? Or against Dallas? The offense looked terrible in those games and AD didn't even dress for those games.

In my opinion, you and Moth are conflating two different forms of incompetence, but I don't care enough about the issue to go on. The smart, non-sentimental move for the Vikings to make is to cut AD, draft a young guy that can replace Asiata in this draft that is strong at the position and think about the future, not the past.

[MrPurplenGold]

Zimmer called Bradford “remarkable,” adding he’s done enough to earn the long-term job.

“He’s earned the right to be the starting quarterback,” Zimmer said Tuesday during his season-ending press conference.

http://www.startribune.com/mike-zimmer- ... 409549435/[/quote]

I think this statement is indicative of 2 things: 1. The vikings have no idea how teddy Bridgewater is going to recover, particularly from his dislocated knee and 2. They remember the reaction from Bradford when the Eagles drafted Wentz and the negative response associated with it. Bradford is a good QB. He's not going to be able to carry a bad team and he's not going to be the reason they lose. With Bradfords injury history they would be wise to continue to develop Bridgewater or draft another QB and develop them. One thing about Bridgewater is we have no idea how he would do in Shurmurs system. Although Bradfords stats look good, he was only 7-8 this year and for his career he is 32 and 45.