Norv

[Mothman]

Well,I'm not trying to put marks against him. I merely saying the limits in his game allow me to view him as one dimentional...especially in the realm of greatest ever... and that there are several other backs I would prefer based how much more they can do at a high level. And interestingly enough most of them have rings too....primarily because the competant QB was the focal point of their offense.
-
What was suggested above was that AD's dominance in terms of being the focus on the field, for both sides, possibly hinders the progress of a young QB.
I see the possibility, due to him being really easy to gameplan for...(bringing him down is an altogether different task)
-
I'm not blaming Adrian for the way this team relies on him nor the fact the when he's in the game he's most likely going to run the ball, cause that's basically what he does well.
-
I dispute the sentiment that AD is taking pressure off of TB. Because of the way this team is currently built and run and the subsequent way opposing defenses prepare for it, there is more pressure on TB IMO.

I'm not trying to be difficult but I just don't follow your logic here. How is there more pressure on him in an offense that has a good running game than there would be in an offense that lacked that dimension and enabled defenses to focus almost all of their efforts on pressuring him and stopping the passing game?

[mondry]

I'm not trying to be difficult but I just don't follow your logic here. How is there more pressure on him in an offense that has a good running game than there would be in an offense that lacked that dimension and enabled defenses to focus almost all of their efforts on pressuring him and stopping the passing game?

1. He could play almost entirely in the shotgun, where AD has a hard time running the football effectively.

2. Less 2 TE / FB power sets and more formations that spread the field making it easier to read the defense.

3. Less predictable play calling by having a complete back that can pass block and run routes out of the back field.

4. With less of a threat in the backfield there would be less run blitz's that turn into pass blitz's.

We saw all of this take place last year when we only had peterson for one game so there is evidence to support his argument.

[mosscarter]

i don't care how you analyze it you need put into an asylum if you think this team is 8-3 without peterson. in reality, we should be 3-8 and i believe that. maybe i'll give another win or two to our pathetic offense, but what games are you guys watching? i don't understand it. we possibly have the WORST passing offense in the nfl.

[Purple bruise]

i don't care how you analyze it you need put into an asylum if you think this team is 8-3 without peterson. in reality, we should be 3-8 and i believe that. maybe i'll give another win or two to our pathetic offense, but what games are you guys watching? i don't understand it. we possibly have the WORST passing offense in the nfl.

[808vikingsfan]

i don't care how you analyze it you need put into an asylum if you think this team is 8-3 without peterson. in reality, we should be 3-8 and i believe that. maybe i'll give another win or two to our pathetic offense, but what games are you guys watching? i don't understand it. we possibly have the WORST passing offense in the nfl.

San Diego and New Orleans have two of the best passing offenses. What's your point?

[Mothman]

1. He could play almost entirely in the shotgun, where AD has a hard time running the football effectively.

2. Less 2 TE / FB power sets and more formations that spread the field making it easier to read the defense.

3. Less predictable play calling by having a complete back that can pass block and run routes out of the back field.

4. With less of a threat in the backfield there would be less run blitz's that turn into pass blitz's.

We saw all of this take place last year when we only had peterson for one game so there is evidence to support his argument.

He wasn't really better last year and the team wasn't winning at the pace they are this year so why go back to that?

When they've moved away from using Peterson this season, the results haven't been good. They were blown out by SF, lost in Denver, were blown out by Green Bay... Bridgewater was sacked 18 times in those games (and hit even more than that). I doubt he'd make it through a season with the approach you're suggesting.

Spreading the defense out with this OL also means putting more pressure on them, which would likely result in more pressure and hits on Bridgewater than we already see.

#2: The 2 TE power sets have been among the Vikings more effective sets this season. Their passing game to the WRs has been pathetic.

#3: Peterson has been doing both of those things he supposedly can't do all year. At this point in his career, it's about time people started noticing the difference between a complete inability to to block and catch and not excelling in those areas. The benefits he provides to the offense far exceed any drawbacks created by those aspects of his game.

#4: Fewer run blitzes wouldn't necessarily mean fewer blitzes or less pressure.

San Diego and New Orleans have two of the best passing offenses. What's your point?

His point is that Peterson has carried the offense this year and without him, the Vikings record would likely be much worse. The idea that he's somehow holding back a passing game that would break out without him if only Bridgewater didn't have the burden of a Hall of Fame running back in his backfield and the league's leading rushing attack is absurd. Bridgewater has provided virtually no indication that's the case, this year or last year.

[chicagopurple]

there are WAY too many apologists for Teddy here. Its the NFL. You wanna be the starting QB? You better be able to do at least an average job out of the shotgun OR under center. You think Teddy would be doing sooo mucch better if the offense centered around him rather then having AP around? Really??....He turtles up and eats the ball for long sacks or throws the ball away all the time when AP is there as a major distractor for the pass rush. What do you think happens without AP there?? The only down side to having AP on the field (I can't believe I even just typed that) is that AP has been a piss poor pass blocker his whole career and not much of a receiver. Last year every one made excuses for Teddy because he DIDN'T have AP. This year they say the problem is that he DOES have AP on the field. You cant have it both ways and its crazy to say his poor vision, lack of downfield accuracy, and tendency to hold the ball so long are due to AP.....really......now, the fact that his OL is junior college quality, THAT may play a role........

[jackal]

there are WAY too many apologists for Teddy here. Its the NFL. You wanna be the starting QB? You better be able to do at least an average job out of the shotgun OR under center. You think Teddy would be doing sooo mucch better if the offense centered around him rather then having AP around? Really??....He turtles up and eats the ball for long sacks or throws the ball away all the time when AP is there as a major distractor for the pass rush. What do you think happens without AP there?? The only down side to having AP on the field (I can't believe I even just typed that) is that AP has been a piss poor pass blocker his whole career and not much of a receiver. Last year every one made excuses for Teddy because he DIDN'T have AP. This year they say the problem is that he DOES have AP on the field. You cant have it both ways and its crazy to say his poor vision, lack of downfield accuracy, and tendency to hold the ball so long are due to AP.....really......now, the fact that his OL is junior college quality, THAT may play a role........

Go look at your history ... Peyton, Aikman Rodgers (even after the years backing up Farve) have not done better, than Teddy(wins).
Teddy is an asset to the Vikings organization and Norv and Zimmer are developing him, over time. We are winning games with
in real world experience (one year as the Vikings organizations starter.) We just won four straight road games with Teddy and
our defense and A.P.

Teddy went 21 for 28 yesterday and should have been 23 for 28 .. Peterson ran away from the screen pass and
Line dropped one as well. The only mistake I really noticed was looking down the receiver which costs the pick.

I think in a lot of ways Teddy is already one of the best QB's in the NFL pressure and creating plays.
Montana had a pretty weak arm, worse than Teddy's IMO and won 4 Superbowls...

[chicagopurple]

I think its pretty simple to see that if anything is holding the Viking back (and we are NOT as great as our record, but I am enjoying every win), its the play at QB, WR, and OL. Ol is the easiest to address, as those player are just not very expensive and often, no name guys bloom into good OL players. QB is the opposite, ie very hard to find and takes most time to learn systems, so its not likely we will improve there unless Teddy starts learning and changing. WR, well, either the guys we have are being majorly underutilized by play calls and iffy QB decisions or the coaching staff is wasting the vast untapped talents of Mike Wallace, CP, etc etc. Its just very hard to decide about our WRs because they are handcuffed by the crappy OL and a raw QB. I fear that if we traded our current WRs they might shine elsewhere

[halfgiz]

You ever watch Carson Palmer play? The guy isn't afraid to throw the ball and let his receivers make a play.
I watched Teddy pump fake to Zach Line " I believe " and then on the 3rd pump throw it to him, but by that time he was already covered.
I have seen Teddy pump fake numours times and then take a sack. He is to indecisive.
Between TB and some of Norv's play calling no wonder were in the bottom 1/3 of the league in passing.
We have the receivers!

I do think TB can be our quaterback of the future though.

[chicagopurple]

Its too early to give up on him, and he needs to be given at least an average OL. What we need to see is consistent small steps of improvement.

[808vikingsfan]

His point is that Peterson has carried the offense this year and without him, the Vikings record would likely be much worse. The idea that he's somehow holding back a passing game that would break out without him if only Bridgewater didn't have the burden of a Hall of Fame running back in his backfield and the league's leading rushing attack is absurd. Bridgewater has provided virtually no indication that's the case, this year or last year.

Why should we care who's carrying the offense. This team is 8-3. IMO, the defense is carrying this team. IMO, Bridgewater has made more critical, game changing plays than anyone on this team to be at 8-3. IMO, this team would have a worse record without Bridgewater, especially with the performance of the OL.

If you remember, the Vikings did pretty well last year rushing the ball. They ranked #12 in yards per rush and #14 in yds/game. If you calculate 2014 stats (yds/attempt) with the amount of rushes per game in 2015, they would be ranked #3 in rushing this year. I'm not saying that the Vikings wouldn't miss Peterson because that would be absurd. But to say without thought that the Vikings would be much worse than 8-3 without Peterson is absurd in my eyes, especially with this defense.

[IrishViking]

Why should we care who's carrying the offense. This team is 8-3. IMO, the defense is carrying this team. IMO, Bridgewater has made more critical, game changing plays than anyone on this team to be at 8-3. IMO, this team would have a worse record without Bridgewater, especially with the performance of the OL.

If you remember, the Vikings did pretty well last year rushing the ball. They ranked #12 in yards per rush and #14 in yds/game. If you calculate 2014 stats (yds/attempt) with the amount of rushes per game in 2015, they would be ranked #3 in rushing this year. I'm not saying that the Vikings wouldn't miss Peterson because that would be absurd. But to say without thought that the Vikings would be much worse than 8-3 without Peterson is absurd in my eyes, especially with this defense.

It's the what came first arguement that honestly won't be provable until AP retires. I am happy with Teddy's progress. He took some more risks this game and they didn't cost us the game. I think it is invaluable for him to be able to watch his own personal mistake in practice this week and learn from it.

[mosscarter]

we should care who is carrying the offense because at some point we'll need to be balanced. if peterson has an off game, like he did in green bay, then what? we get smoked because we don't have a passing attack whatsoever. in the past 15 years how many top ranked defenses have won superbowls aside from seattle and baltimore? the point is our defense is great; peterson has always been great, and unless we get a passing attack i simply see an early round exit presuming we make the playoffs. you can't beat teams consistently by throwing for under 200 freaking yards each week. russel wilson threw for 5 touchdowns yesterday and teddy has 8 all season. if that isn't alarming i don't know what is.

[Mothman]

we should care who is carrying the offense because at some point we'll need to be balanced. if peterson has an off game, like he did in green bay, then what? we get smoked because we don't have a passing attack whatsoever. in the past 15 years how many top ranked defenses have won superbowls aside from seattle and baltimore? the point is our defense is great; peterson has always been great, and unless we get a passing attack i simply see an early round exit presuming we make the playoffs. you can't beat teams consistently by throwing for under 200 freaking yards each week. russel wilson threw for 5 touchdowns yesterday and teddy has 8 all season. if that isn't alarming i don't know what is.

Well said!