Adrian Peterson -- The elephant in the room

[TSonn]

I'm SO tired of this shotgun silliness.

I guess I'm confused on how it is "shotgun silliness" when the stats show that Teddy is much more productive out of the shotgun. Based on all the information we have, it doesn't seem like that big of a leap to think that our offense would be more effective if we ran it primarily from the shotgun with a RB who can run out of the shotgun and passed on downs where the defense isn't almost always expecting it (aka 3rd down shotgun formations).

What makes you think he didn't work on it last summer? Presumably, they were running from it in camp and practice.

Well, that's kinda the point. If he wasn't able to improve it last summer, we probably shouldn't expect much of a change next year.

If they'd been truly committed to the shotgun as their base formation, and stuck with it, I see no reason to assume he wouldn't have grown more comfortable in it with repetition.

Maybe! When analysts talked about AD running from the shotgun most seemed to talk about how it doesn't fit his style at all and implied that he wouldn't be successful in it. Of course, they could have just been looking at the stats and making a generalization.

Maybe Peterson would be better off elsewhere. Too many Vikings fans seem to have lost all perspective on what this Hall of fame back has brought, and continues to bring, to the team.

Don't get me wrong, I've loved AD on the team and supported him throughout that whole issue last year. He's a superstar player who has given us endless amazing plays and won us many games by himself. But, just what if, our constant dedication to him has negatively impacted our offense as a whole? I know you weren't that into that line of thinking before, but in a discussion about whether or not to keep AD, we should be able to discuss it. It seems like the tables have turned from people hating on Teddy to people hating on AD and you're getting emotional about it.

We've got an aging running back, a young QB, and a young defense. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to pair our young and stout defense with an offense dedicated to our young QB? I know they aren't mutually exclusive, but that sounds like the recipe for prolonged success to me. If we are able to greatly improve our oline in both run blocking and pass protection, I'm sure we'd improve across the board and we'd all get to have our cake and eat it, too.

[Cliff]

Maybe Peterson would be better off elsewhere. Too many Vikings fans seem to have lost all perspective on what this Hall of fame back has brought, and continues to bring, to the team.

Of all the things he brings, unfortunately being the focal point of a consistently good offense isn't one of them. Ranked offense;

2007 - 13th
2008 - 17th
2009 - 5th (Favre argueably the focal point)
2010 - 23rd
2011 - 18th
2012 - 20th
2013 - 13th
2014 - No Peterson
2015 - 29th

Please don't get me wrong, it's not as if Peterson is the reason the teams were this bad but I think it's clear at this point building an offense around him isn't the answer. They've basically been doing that since 2008 with no better than middling results (other than the Favre year).

I want Peterson on the team but I want the team to move away from him as a focal point. I know it can be argued that they had no choice this year but in general, I'd like to see that phase out as we approach the end of his career. Plus, him being the focal point just doesn't seem to work or at least the various combinations of him being the focal point haven't yielded winning results or even very good offenses.

[Mothman]

I guess I'm confused on how it is "shotgun silliness" when the stats show that Teddy is much more productive out of the shotgun.

The stats show that he's more productive from the shotgun because he throws more from that formation but in terms of being better from the shotgun, we covered that in the Bridgewater thread not long ago.

This season, his passer rating and YPA were better from under center than in the shotgun. He threw TDs at the pretty much the same percentage rate from either formation. He threw INts at a slightly higher percentage from under center.

Basically, the stats show that he played about the same under center as he did in the shotgun this season.

I also referred to it as "shotgun silliness" because I think people have been drawing broad conclusions based on scant or inaccurate evidence about this subject all season.

Well, that's kinda the point. If he wasn't able to improve it last summer, we probably shouldn't expect much of a change next year.

Is it safe to apply that same logic to every player on the team who didn't improve a specific area of their game? For example, since Bridgewater's deep passing accuracy doesn't seem any better in 2015, is it aafe to assume it won't be any better in 2016?

Don't get me wrong, I've loved AD on the team and supported him throughout that whole issue last year. He's a superstar player who has given us endless amazing plays and won us many games by himself. But, just what if, our constant dedication to him has negatively impacted our offense as a whole? I know you weren't that into that line of thinking before, but in a discussion about whether or not to keep AD, we should be able to discuss it. It seems like the tables have turned from people hating on Teddy to people hating on AD and you're getting emotional about it.

I don't think people should "hate" on either of them so that's not it at all. I'm actually exasperated for many of the same reasons I was exasperated in the discussions about Bridgewater, people are constantly dealing with the version of the game in their heads as opposed to what really happened on the field and the lack of perspective shown in some of the comments frustrates me. For me, when a conversation about Adrian Peterson turns to comments like "I think Peterson benefited from a huge commitment to the run from our team that would have carried over to virtually any running back in the league" and "I do wonder if most other starting RBs in the league would have had similar production numbers with the amount of carries AD got this year" I feel it's jumped the shark.

We've got an aging running back, a young QB, and a young defense. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to pair our young and stout defense with an offense dedicated to our young QB?

Yes, but they need to have the personnel to do that and that young QB needs to play at a level that shows making that kind of move is a better strategy to win, because that's what the coaching staff is trying to do. There seems to be a tendency for the tail to wag the dog on this subject. The Vikings could have tailored their offense to Bridgewater this season but they made sure Peterson was in camp and happy with a renegotiated deal and then leaned on him heavily all season. Why do you suppose they did that instead of playing from the shotgun and patiently waiting for Peterson to adapt?

What happened against SF, Green Bay and Seattle when the coaches minimized Peterson's game presence, as so many people in this thread want them to do permanently? The offense scored a total of 16 points in those 3 performances and the Vikes were blown out each time so I ask you, what makes more sense, continuing to utilize the league's leading rusher and a key player in the league's #4 rushing game or discarding him to rely on the league's 31st-ranked passing game (or for those who prefer to point to 2014 and say we saw what Bridgewater could do without Peterson, the league's 28th-ranked passing game)?

[Mothman]

Of all the things he brings, unfortunately being the focal point of a consistently good offense isn't one of them. Ranked offense;

2007 - 13th
2008 - 17th
2009 - 5th (Favre argueably the focal point)
2010 - 23rd
2011 - 18th
2012 - 20th
2013 - 13th
2014 - No Peterson
2015 - 29th

Please don't get me wrong, it's not as if Peterson is the reason the teams were this bad but I think it's clear at this point building an offense around him isn't the answer. They've basically been doing that since 2008 with no better than middling results (other than the Favre year).

I tend to look at it as them failing to build an offense around him since he was drafted and I think that's why he's remained such a focal point in every season but 2009.

I want Peterson on the team but I want the team to move away from him as a focal point. I know it can be argued that they had no choice this year but in general, I'd like to see that phase out as we approach the end of his career. Plus, him being the focal point just doesn't seem to work or at least the various combinations of him being the focal point haven't yielded winning results or even very good offenses.

I've wanted them to move away from leaning on him so heavily for most of his career, Cliff but they have to develop a passing game that allows them to do that.

They did have winning results this year though.

[IrishViking]

Maybe Peterson would be better off elsewhere. Too many Vikings fans seem to have lost all perspective on what this Hall of fame back has brought, and continues to bring, to the team.

he gained 1400 under ideal conditions this year and fumbled more than any back with at least 100 rushes. He will be older and slower next year. I just don't see why anyone believes he found the fountain of youth?

[purpletinted66]

after watching him this season, i have no doubt at all that, if we can improve other aspects of the O, he could be good for an avg. of 150 yds. per game off of 15 to 20 carries per game: which would of course be totally cool to see.

[Mothman]

he gained 1400 under ideal conditions this year and fumbled more than any back with at least 100 rushes. He will be older and slower next year. I just don't see why anyone believes he found the fountain of youth?

Did anybody say that? I just see a back who looks like he can still be one of the best in the league. Yes, he'll be older next year. Nobody knows if he'll be slower but even if he is, that doesn't mean he can't be very, very effective.

By the way, what was so ideal about the conditions? The 31st-ranked passing game that couldn't hit enough throws down the field to take pressure off the running game? The terrible offensive line? The predictable play calling that telegraphed the run on so many first downs? None of that was working in his favor.

This is all moot anyway. He's not going anywhere. He'll be a VIking in 2016. Book it. There's no way Zimmer doesn't want him back next year.

[Cliff]

The offense needs to get better. Specifically the passing game. If Peterson clearly hinders the team (can't improve enough of the rest of the offense with his salary for example) then do something with him. Otherwise why get rid of a good player.

How close you think you are to winning it all matters too. His value will likely only go down from here as far as trade value. McKinnon is no slouch and might be better suited for Turner's offense even if he isn't the better back.

It's a lot to consider.

Sent using tapatalk. Typos should be expected.

[IrishViking]

Did anybody say that? I just see a back who looks like he can still be one of the best in the league. Yes, he'll be older next year. Nobody knows if he'll be slower but even if he is, that doesn't mean he can't be very, very effective.

By the way, what was so ideal about the conditions? The 31st-ranked passing game that couldn't hit enough throws down the field to take pressure off the running game? The terrible offensive line? The predictable play calling that telegraphed the run on so many first downs? None of that was working in his favor.

This is all moot anyway. He's not going anywhere. He'll be a VIking in 2016. Book it. There's no way Zimmer doesn't want him back next year.

The oline wasnt terrible for the running game at all! Football outsider has them at 10th (they rank them at 29th in passing). Peterson had Excellent blocking this year, coming off a year off, and they telegraphed the run because he is useless on third and anything longer than 2 so he comes off the field meaning that a bigger majority, than most RBs, of his carries come on 1st and 2nd. But that aside. an above average run blocking team and 330 carries shows a commitment to the running game that I think inflates his numbers. I think it is overly optimistic to expect him to repeat this years numbers with shorter rest and a higher age and if you take 200 yards off his totals he looks like a running back you should get at half the price, production wise.


Patterson isn't getting on the field anytime soon but we've all managed a lively discussion about that

[J. Kapp 11]

he gained 1400 under ideal conditions this year and fumbled more than any back with at least 100 rushes. He will be older and slower next year. I just don't see why anyone believes he found the fountain of youth?

Has brought = past tense.

Continues to bring = present tense.

At some point, somebody has to determine exactly when he WILL decline = future tense.

That's not a loss of perspective. In fact, I'd say it's the exact opposite. It's facing reality head-on.

NFL football is like the stock market. Buy low, sell high. If you wait until AP is definitively on the downside of his career, you risk long-term damage to a franchise. That may seem like hyperbole, but it's how the consistently good teams operate -- New England, Green Bay (gosh, I have a hard time saying that), Pittsburgh. They don't keep players beyond their peak. By necessity, those players HAVE to include those with great sentimental value.

So ... where is Adrian at this point?

It's my opinion that Adrian Peterson has hit his peak and is just beginning to decline. I know some will disagree, but I saw a man who showed definite signs this year. For one thing, he was consistently brought down by one tackler. Forget the times the O-line crapped the bed ... nobody can perform well under those circumstances. I'm talking about the times AP came up against a single tackler in the open field ... how many times did we see that tackler bring him down? I don't know exactly, but I'm certain it was a significantly higher percentage than it's ever been. Many times, he went down pretty easily at the hands of DBs without delivering the slightest amount of punishment. The old Adrian would have powered through or at least made the tackler pay. Today's Adrian tries to dance his way out of the tackle. Maybe the years of pounding have taken their toll. Maybe he's avoiding contact.

And by the way, at the halfway point of this season, many on this board were saying AP had a great chance of breaking the single-season rushing record because he was at 900+ yards and gaining steam. Talk about hyperbole! I went on record at that time saying he not only wouldn't do it, but wouldn't be as effective in the second half of the season -- and I took plenty of heat for it. Well, I'd say that 567 yards in the last 8 games of the season (including playoffs), for a guy getting 20+ carries per game, is pretty much slowing down to a crawl. Again, these are, to me, signs of a decline.

Note, I am NOT saying AP is ready for a rocking chair, or that he's ineffective, or that he didn't do great things this year. What I AM saying is that he's not the back he was even two years ago, and his second-half decline is cause for concern that he won't repeat this year's success. For those reasons, the Bill Belichicks of the world would part ways with him and not think twice -- and I wouldn't be surprised if Spielman/Zimmer, seeking to follow the model of successful NFL teams, do the same.

[IrishViking]

Continues to bring = present tense.

At some point, somebody has to determine exactly when he WILL decline = future tense.

That's not a loss of perspective. In fact, I'd say it's the exact opposite. It's facing reality head-on.

NFL football is like the stock market. Buy low, sell high. If you wait until AP is definitively on the downside of his career, you risk long-term damage to a franchise. That may seem like hyperbole, but it's how the consistently good teams operate -- New England, Green Bay (gosh, I have a hard time saying that), Pittsburgh. They don't keep players beyond their peak. By necessity, those players HAVE to include those with great sentimental value.

So ... where is Adrian at this point?

It's my opinion that Adrian Peterson has hit his peak and is just beginning to decline. I know some will disagree, but I saw a man who showed definite signs this year. For one thing, he was consistently brought down by one tackler. Forget the times the O-line crapped the bed ... nobody can perform well under those circumstances. I'm talking about the times AP came up against a single tackler in the open field ... how many times did we see that tackler bring him down? I don't know exactly, but I'm certain it was a significantly higher percentage than it's ever been. Many times, he went down pretty easily at the hands of DBs without delivering the slightest amount of punishment. The old Adrian would have powered through or at least made the tackler pay. Today's Adrian tries to dance his way out of the tackle. Maybe the years of pounding have taken their toll. Maybe he's avoiding contact.

And by the way, at the halfway point of this season, many on this board were saying AP had a great chance of breaking the single-season rushing record because he was at 900+ yards and gaining steam. Talk about hyperbole! I went on record at that time saying he not only wouldn't do it, but wouldn't be as effective in the second half of the season -- and I took plenty of heat for it. Well, I'd say that 567 yards in the last 8 games of the season (including playoffs), for a guy getting 20+ carries per game, is pretty much slowing down to a crawl. Again, these are, to me, signs of a decline.

Note, I am NOT saying AP is ready for a rocking chair, or that he's ineffective, or that he didn't do great things this year. What I AM saying is that he's not the back he was even two years ago, and his second-half decline is cause for concern that he won't repeat this year's success. For those reasons, the Bill Belichicks of the world would part ways with him and not think twice -- and I wouldn't be surprised if Spielman/Zimmer, seeking to follow the model of successful NFL teams, do the same.

I agree with you. I don't think AP will be a bad RB for a long time. I could see him bringing value for 3 more years to a team. But I think the sun is setting on his peak and we can squeeze similar yards to what AP will get us next year out of Mck/*power running back here* while becoming less predictable because suddenly we have Mck in on 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, and we start running him out of the backfield more, start running more draws, etc.

[Mothman]

The oline wasnt terrible for the running game at all! Football outsider has them at 10th (they rank them at 29th in passing). Peterson had Excellent blocking this year, coming off a year off, and they telegraphed the run because he is useless on third and anything longer than 2 so he comes off the field meaning that a bigger majority, than most RBs, of his carries come on 1st and 2nd. But that aside. an above average run blocking team and 330 carries shows a commitment to the running game that I think inflates his numbers. I think it is overly optimistic to expect him to repeat this years numbers with shorter rest and a higher age and if you take 200 yards off his totals he looks like a running back you should get at half the price, production wise.

You're right: we're too far apart on pretty much every aspect of this.

I don't know what the folks at Football Outsiders were watching all year but the run blocking was not "excellent". Watch Sunday's game again and see how many times Bennett and other Seahawks were in the backfield before Peterson had a chance to do anything. That dynamic wasn't unique to Sunday's game. We saw it quite a bit this season. There were games (like the game at Atlanta) were the o-line did a good job run-blocking but overall, running conditions for Peterson were FAR from ideal.

I don't care about the price. They can afford him and he's better than most backs they could get for less.

As I said, he'll be playing for the Vikes in 2016. Those who don't like the idea might as well get accustomed to it.

[DK Sweets]

As I said, he'll be playing for the Vikes in 2016. Those who don't like the idea might as well get accustomed to it.

[Mothman]

Thanks, DK.

[losperros]

As I said, he'll be playing for the Vikes in 2016. Those who don't like the idea might as well get accustomed to it.

Yes, that's the bottom line. Nobody but the Vikings will make the decision. From the sound of it so far, Peterson is coming back.