Moderator: Moderators
I think Spielman should trade draft picks for established linemen as well as drafting some.VikingLord wrote:If there is a solid QB prospect in next year's draft, the Vikes should take him. If not, then Spielman needs to make sure he's in play for the best veteran option out there whether that is a free agent or via a trade for a promising young backup or even an established vet.
How was 2009 his best all around year? Yards wise, it was his 4th best year (after this year is completed). Yards per attempt wise it was his worst season (I'm throwing out last season because he only played one game). 20 yard runs it was his 3rd best, 40 yard runs it was his 5th best, fumbles it was his second worst. The only stat that 2009 was his best for was touchdowns.mosscarter wrote:so you are saying we should run our entire offense through a guy who can't complete a 20 yard pass on a consistent basis? that premise is absurd. how come peterson had his best all around year with favre? did favre struggle because peterson was in the backfield? you have to be kidding me.
What else are they going to design it around? Bridgewater's own ineffective play, and the ineffective pass protection, were probably the driving forces behind the decision to re-focus on running with Peterson (which has been an important factor in pretty much every Vikes win this year). People keep insisting the offense would be better without Peterson but every time they try to run the offense that way, they get their collective #### kicked. Have they even won a single game this season by putting the ball in Bridgewater's hands and minimizing Peterson's role? I cant recall one.akvikingsfan wrote: How was 2009 his best all around year? Yards wise, it was his 4th best year (after this year is completed). Yards per attempt wise it was his worst season (I'm throwing out last season because he only played one game). 20 yard runs it was his 3rd best, 40 yard runs it was his 5th best, fumbles it was his second worst. The only stat that 2009 was his best for was touchdowns.
When Favre was the quarterback, the offense was designed and ran through him. Also, that team had a much better line than we currently have. Bridgewater is struggling for a lot of reasons (his talent, the line, the receivers, etc.) including the offensive game plan being designed around Peterson.
I'm not advocating to design our offense around Bridgewater at this point. That would be pointless and ineffective this year, as has been shown in the games where they have been forced to try. The team is not currently designed to be a pass first offense. I was just pointing out that 1) Peterson did not have his best year in 2009 and 2) Designing the offense around Peterson is part of why Teddy's numbers are what they are and its not fair to use the Favre comparison.Mothman wrote: What else are they going to design it around? Bridgewater's own ineffective play, and the ineffective pass protection, were probably the driving forces behind the decision to re-focus on running with Peterson (which has been an important factor in pretty much every Vikes win this year). People keep insisting the offense would be better without Peterson but every time they try to run the offense that way, they get their collective #### kicked. Have they even won a single game this season by putting the ball in Bridgewater's hands and minimizing Peterson's role? I cant recall one.
This insistence that Peterson is holding Bridgewater back seems born out of fan denial, a desperate need to find anyone but Bridgewater himself to hold responsible for his poor performance.
I'm not advocating to design our offense around Bridgewater at this point. That would be pointless and ineffective this year, as has been shown in the games where they have been forced to try. The team is not currently designed to be a pass first offense. I was just pointing out that 1) Peterson did not have his best year in 2009 and 2) Designing the offense around Peterson is part of why Teddy's numbers are what they are and its not fair to use the Favre comparison.Mothman wrote: What else are they going to design it around? Bridgewater's own ineffective play, and the ineffective pass protection, were probably the driving forces behind the decision to re-focus on running with Peterson (which has been an important factor in pretty much every Vikes win this year). People keep insisting the offense would be better without Peterson but every time they try to run the offense that way, they get their collective #### kicked. Have they even won a single game this season by putting the ball in Bridgewater's hands and minimizing Peterson's role? I cant recall one.
This insistence that Peterson is holding Bridgewater back seems born out of fan denial, a desperate need to find anyone but Bridgewater himself to hold responsible for his poor performance.
Right... and that's why the offense runs through Peterson. It's designed for the two phases of the game to complement one another and be in greater balance but the Vikings have been trying to do that for years and haven't found a QB or put together a passing game that allows them to do it.akvikingsfan wrote:I'm not advocating to design our offense around Bridgewater at this point. That would be pointless and ineffective this year, as has been shown in the games where they have been forced to try. The team is not currently designed to be a pass first offense. I was just pointing out that 1) Peterson did not have his best year in 2009 and 2) Designing the offense around Peterson is part of why Teddy's numbers are what they are and its not fair to use the Favre comparison.
Going forward, I don't believe it is wise for the team to continue to design the offense around a 31 year old back (at the start of next year). They need to get with the modern times and design a offense that features their quarterback. The team needs to improve the line play and come up with game plans that aren't run, run, incomplete pass, punt. However, Bridgewater needs to develop as a passer as well (he doesn't get a pass, his play has been piss poor).
They have been to back to back superbowls because they have a superstar QB.Mothman wrote: Right... and that's why the offense runs through Peterson. It's designed for the two phases of the game to complement one another and be in greater balance but the Vikings have been trying to do that for years and haven't found a QB or put together a passing game that allows them to do it.
As for getting with the times... the team that just crushed them has been as run-heavy as the Vikings in recent years and they've been to back-to-back Super Bowls.
I think they've been to back-to-back Super Bowls because they've had a terrific team.purplehaze wrote:They have been to back to back superbowls because they have a superstar QB.
They've found a QB that enables them to strike a healthy balance between running and passing but Wilson hasn't prevented them from featuring their running game in a big way. Based on comments I've read here over the years, a lot of Vikings fans seem to be under the impression the Vikes can't feature Peterson and have a modern offense, that's not the case. They've just failed to build an offense that can function like Seattle's and one of the main reasons for that is they can't get the QB position right.I brought it up in another thread but it's not fan denial. It's clear that the passing game is suffering. I pointed out that it has been suffering since we got AD and maybe that is a factor. I don't think it's such a wild suggestion to deem us to be in denial. Just off the top of my head...Mothman wrote:This insistence that Peterson is holding Bridgewater back seems born out of fan denial, a desperate need to find anyone but Bridgewater himself to hold responsible for his poor performance.
Excellent assessment! Wholeheartedly agree. There comes a time where a team has come to the realization that their project has hit their ceiling. It sure seems that TB is flat-lining and as a whole the offense is Frazier-worthy.Mothman wrote:The Vikings absolutely had problems running and passing the ball in 2014. That's why they finished 27th in total offense, 28th in passing and 14th in rushing (clearly their offensive strength last year even without Peterson). It's why they scored fewer than 20 points (often much fewer) in over half of their games. This was not a good offense a year ago that's fallen on hard times. It was a bad offense that, despite having the league's #1 rusher this season, has taken a further step back.
There's a clear and obvious desire out there to find something, anything, to divert responsibility for Bridgewater's struggles away from Bridgewater himself. He's not playing alone out there. What's happening around him, from coaching to the performance of his teammates, influences his game but that's a two way street.
There's just no point in denying it. Bridgewater isn't progressing well. At this point, with the team continuing to have one of the worst passing seasons in their history, they really need to consider some contingency plans.
Except he doesn't stink at catching passes. I think it's an exaggeration to say he stinks in pass protection but I'm done fighting that battle and I'll concede that it's the weakest aspect of his game by far.TSonn wrote: I brought it up in another thread but it's not fan denial. It's clear that the passing game is suffering. I pointed out that it has been suffering since we got AD and maybe that is a factor. I don't think it's such a wild suggestion to deem us to be in denial. Just off the top of my head...
AD stinks at pass protection.
AD kinda stinks at catching passes.
That's conjecture but even if it's true, it wouldn't be a Peterson issue, it would be a personnel evaluation and acquisition issue, a problem stemming from team management.Perhaps Spielman has picked up offensive linemen who are better at run blocking than pass blocking because of AD.
The tail doesn't wag the dog. The Vikes QB and passing game aren't bad because they have Adrian Peterson. As I pointed out to you in that other thread, Favre's season in 2009 clearly proves Peterson's not a limiting factor in fielding a successful passing game. When there's a good QB and enough other elements of a quality passing game in place, it works just fine. Peterson even "stunk" at catching passes to the tune of 43 catches for 436 yards that season.The defense puts more guys in the box which makes shorter passes more difficult (and longer passes are just more difficult in general and take some chemistry between WR and QB).
Our game plan is more predictable with AD.
Mothman, I don't even know if I believe that AD is the cause or even a contributing factor for our lack of a passing attack for a decade. I'm just saying he has been the only member of the offense still playing since the passing game has fallen. I agree that AD has been our most dangerous offensive weapon since he was drafted, but maybe building around AD has significantly hurt the passing game long term. Partly because of AD and his skill set and partly because focusing on the run inherently means we're not focusing on the passing game. I wasn't trying to suggest it's all because of AD. Some of my suggestions point to Spielman. The league sure favors QBs and WRs now and doesn't really help out power running games at all - that's at play here, too.Mothman wrote:The tail doesn't wag the dog. The Vikes QB and passing game aren't bad because they have Adrian Peterson. As I pointed out to you in that other thread, Favre's season in 2009 clearly proves Peterson's not a limiting factor in fielding a successful passing game. When there's a good QB and enough other elements of a quality passing game in place, it works just fine. Peterson even "stunk" at catching passes to the tune of 43 catches for 436 yards that season.
It's clear that the passing game has suffered but it hasn't been because of AD. The Vikes have trotted out a parade of sub-par QBs over the course of Peterson's career, few receivers that were quality downfield threats and some underperforming o-lines yet he's the reason the passing game has suffered?
It just doesn't add up for me.
