Vikings Message Board.Com

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.

Good points. I don't see how any of that is debatable.

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.

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).

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.

It really is a difficult decision to make. I feel that if we really want the Vikings to become Teddy Bridgewater's team then the answer is a definite yes. But, the problem is that the jury is still very much out on Bridgewater. Also, can we be certain that Jerick McKinnon will be able to handle the full load of a #1 RB? It all depends on what Zimmer and Spielman's tolerance for risk is at this point in time.

vikesfan87 wrote:Also, can we be certain that Jerick McKinnon will be able to handle the full load of a #1 RB?

That's what I wonder as well. He had some good moments when Peterson was suspended, but also some mediocre games as well. He's appeared to have improved with experience though since then so I guess it's a matter of if the staff believes he can be the main guy or not. I don't think he would do worse then Peterson though if we do decide to go with more shotgun.

Crax wrote: That's what I wonder as well. He had some good moments when Peterson was suspended, but also some mediocre games as well. He's appeared to have improved with experience though since then so I guess it's a matter of if the staff believes he can be the main guy or not. I don't think he would do worse then Peterson though if we do decide to go with more shotgun.

So much could be made clear if we could just determine what kind of QB #5 is going to be.

vikesfan87 wrote: So much could be made clear if we could just determine what kind of QB #5 is going to be.

Agreed but the point has been made a few times that Bridgewater is much better out of shotgun. AP and TB are polar opposites as far as the initial formation they like to work out of and each off season the argument for building around Peterson gets weaker as he ages. I think we should move on sooner rather than later

indianation65 wrote:What's the point of having the best NFL back if he continually breaks your heart?

Tradehim, and keep Walsh. We'll learn a few games into next season if Walsh has forgiven himself, then talks of getting rid of Walsh may ensue if he hasn't.

...wisdom (?) who knows...

Ok, comon now, I know he has had some key fumbles but he is not the reason for those losses.

Jordysghost wrote: Ok, comon now, I know he has had some key fumbles but he is not the reason for those losses.

The lost fumble yesterday directly lead to the game winning points.

IrishViking wrote:
The lost fumble yesterday directly lead to the game winning points.

And it was all there for the taking at the end.

I hate to say it but I think we do move on from him before April. I would say try to trade him maybe the Cowboys are willing to give up a second or a 3rd. Or maybe the Cowboys would trade him for one of their linemen straight up. Trade Adrian Peterson for Collins. And then with the 23rd pick in the draft the Select Ezekiel Elliott I really think he is going to be a stud he is a three down player who is an amazing blocker has great hands and pretty good running ability. Then if we do get a second or third round pick for Peterson you have two seconds one of them being the fourth overall in the second we could draft to lineman in the second or third along with a safety because Sendejo can't catch and should stick to special teams.

Oh Locke is bad.... draft north dakota state all American punter in the 7th.

Jordysghost wrote:Ok, comon now, I know he has had some key fumbles but he is not the reason for those losses.

The lost fumble yesterday directly lead to the game winning points.[/quote]

And it was all there for the taking at the end. [/quote]


I don't disagree that we had the shot but with the way or defense was playing. No fumble means we win.

IrishViking wrote:
The lost fumble yesterday directly lead to the game winning points.

And it was all there for the taking at the end. [/quote]


I don't disagree that we had the shot but with the way or defense was playing. No fumble means we win.[/quote]

I am not absolving AP by any means, but just as 2009 it was a multitude of factors.

Jordysghost wrote: And it was all there for the taking at the end.

I don't disagree that we had the shot but with the way or defense was playing. No fumble means we win.[/quote]

I am bot absolving AP by any means, but just as 2009 it was a multitude of factors.[/quote]


Agreed. Anything can happen but you'd expect that your savvy RB vet who is in the convo for GOAT, who has had a documented history of fumble issues, would be making sure he didn't fumble in one of his last shots at the one thing he wants more than anything. Its just frustrating.

I'd probably say it similar to a certain GB QB and his history of game ending interceptions.

IrishViking wrote:
I don't disagree that we had the shot but with the way or defense was playing. No fumble means we win.

I am bot absolving AP by any means, but just as 2009 it was a multitude of factors.[/quote]




I'd probably say it similar to a certain GB QB and his history of game ending interceptions.[/quote]

Oh don't even insult AP with such an insinuation, (sigh) Favre had too many moronic playoff interceptions for me to even keep straight.

But I get what you are saying, btw.

Unless there is a deal that we can't pass up, we should keep ap. AP is still too valuable as a player to get rid of. The offense does need to become more balanced, let Mckinnon get a few more carrys out the gun and dont be as predictable when ap is on the field.