Good points. I don't see how any of that is debatable.Mothman wrote:I think they are and I think their inability to do so more effectively speaks to deeper issues on the team. For example, if the line could block more effectively for Peterson, I think he'd be more consistently productive. I've never seen a back have to break so many tackles behind the line of scrimmage just to gain yardage or avoid a loss.
Peterson's presence created a lot of single coverage this season and the Vikes didn't take much advantage of it. I believe if they improved on that, he'd suddenly look like a much greater asset.
Great post, Jim. I agree the offense doesn't have much of an identity and that's especially true of its crippled passing attack. There were times that I felt Zimmer and Turner were utilizing a 70s Big Ten college scheme with their offense last season. But it was either attack with Peterson or rely on a passing game that was near the bottom of the league. As a result, I saw no way that AD held the passing game back last year. Rather I saw the passing game holding the passing game back (from the OL's porous pass blocking to the Bridgewater's hit and miss execution).Mothman wrote:It's a good question but I don't think the Vikes are at that point with Peterson. Personally, I felt his production did match his price. He led the league in rushing and was instrumental in a number of the team's wins. I don't see him as a factor that's held back the development of the passing game. I anything, they may have tried to hide their passing deficiencies by leaning on his ability. Even in games where his yards-per-carry total wasn't great, his ability to grind out yardage and "eat clock", giving the defense (clearly the strength of the team) a chance to rest. he still seems like a tremendous asset to me.
I like McKinnon's game a lot but I think one of the reasons he looks so good is because he's a role-player. In the team's most lopsided losses this season, they turned away from Peterson and got clobbered. It happened against SF, against Green Bay, against Seattle... I think that speaks volumes about his continued importance to the team. He may be the focal point of the offense but without him, it doesn't seem to have much of an identity.
Would I like to see a better and more frequent passing game that can also stretch the field? Yes, you bet! But I'd also like to see Patterson and Johnson incorporated into the offense more often too. These are things that Zimmer/Turner chose not to do. What are they going to choose to do next year? I don't know. But I'm not betting against more of the same run first and pass conservatively, despite Zimmer stating that he'd like to see more explosiveness from the offense. As it is, AD is the best explosion they field.
