Vikings Message Board.Com

PurpleMustReign wrote:I read everyone's post in the voice of Morgan Freeman.

He had a cool confidence about himself in the huddle. Unshakeable. He had a quiet way about him, a walk and a talk that just wasn't normal around here. He strolled, like a man in a park without a care or a worry in the world, like he had on an invisible coat that would shield him from this place. Yeah, I think it would be fair to say... I liked Teddy from the start.

S197 wrote: He had a cool confidence about himself in the huddle. Unshakeable. He had a quiet way about him, a walk and a talk that just wasn't normal around here. He strolled, like a man in a park without a care or a worry in the world, like he had on an invisible coat that would shield him from this place. Yeah, I think it would be fair to say... I liked Teddy from the start.

He's right, you know.

As far as AP goes, I think the end is inevitable this season simply because he is not worth starting franchise QB money. ($18MM) so either he restructures or tests the market when gets cut. I think he has to know that if he is a FA there is NO WAY he makes $18MM. So the question becomes what he and his agent perceive he can get on the open market vs. the reduced number the Vikings offer him.

In terms of this season I think it is way too soon to tell where he is at. It is week 1 and he has a history of laying an egg in week 1 games, although the egg he laid last Sunday was a bad one. By the bye we'll know how much of a step he's taken back, if any. IMO, there is reason to be optimistic. The pass protection from the OL was some of the best we've seen by a Vikings OL in a LONG time. (Obviously due in part to the low bar that has been set.) It isn't a massive stretch to think that the run blocking should also be improved.

We'll know soon enough where we stand.

mansquatch wrote:As far as AP goes, I think the end is inevitable this season simply because he is not worth starting franchise QB money. ($18MM) so either he restructures or tests the market when gets cut. I think he has to know that if he is a FA there is NO WAY he makes $18MM. So the question becomes what he and his agent perceive he can get on the open market vs. the reduced number the Vikings offer him.

In terms of this season I think it is way too soon to tell where he is at. It is week 1 and he has a history of laying an egg in week 1 games, although the egg he laid last Sunday was a bad one. By the bye we'll know how much of a step he's taken back, if any. IMO, there is reason to be optimistic. The pass protection from the OL was some of the best we've seen by a Vikings OL in a LONG time. (Obviously due in part to the low bar that has been set.) It isn't a massive stretch to think that the run blocking should also be improved.

We'll know soon enough where we stand.

I agree and FWIW I fully expect him to come out and have a couple monster/good games this season. I just don't buy the argument that if AP cant make it work no one can. I think a different running back with a different style might make a lot more hay then AP could this season, maybe not as fun with fewer Hercules runs, maybe even end up with fewer yards but they might make the offense move a little more rhythmically.

IrishViking wrote:So then my question becomes which is it? Is he a superhuman back that we need to build around and no one else on our roster could possibly gel more with the offense and we are forever bound to his triple cut TFL because of his big play ability against all fronts... Or he is a back that does well against bad teams and struggles against good teams... like every other back.

And before you go with "its not an either or" or "its not a zero sum" that is EXACTLY my point!

Playing RB is so much more nuanced then "ugh... me go boom... run hard... make big horn make noise, score points."

Is that all you think Peterson does?

And IF AP is no longer the superman of the back field it might be time to actually look at the negatives he brings to the table His power blitz pick up, his inability to be an asset on all three downs, his tendency more than most to take a TFL and get the offense behind the chains.

You have to understand that last part is a consequence of the offense more than the back. He can pick up the blitz. He can catch. He's done these things for years. He actually caught more passes than McKinnon last year. Do people here even realize that? Just because the Vikings have someone they prefer in their 3rd down packages doesn't mean Peterson has "an inability to be an asset on all three downs". That's BS. They've used him in those packages, sometimes very effectively. Are they supposed to give him 400 touches a year in his 30s? Would that be a wise approach or does it make sense to give McKinnon some opportunities and Peterson some rest? Heck, changing things up at times can be useful anyway. We saw that early in Peterson's career when Taylor was on the team. The Vikings did it effectively back when they had Smith and Hoard too (or even Brown and Osborn, if we want to go WAY back).

He takes more TFLs primarily because he faces more aggressive fronts and they get more penetration into the backfield. The main reasons for that have already been covered. Yes, occasionally he dances around too much but that's not the big issue there and neither is patience.

I'm tired of arguing about this. It's "backup QB" syndrome with an RB. I feel like I'm back in the days when people were making the case for Bouman to start over Culpepper.

Mothman wrote:

Is that all you think Peterson does?
He can pick up the blitz. He can catch. He's done these things for years. He actually caught more passes than McKinnon last year. Do people here even realize that? Just because the Vikings have someone they prefer in their 3rd down packages doesn't mean Peterson has "an inability to be an asset on all three downs". That's BS. They've used him in those packages, sometimes very effectively. Are they supposed to give him 400 touches a year in his 30s? Would that be a wise approach or does it make sense to give McKinnon some opportunities and Peterson some rest? Heck, changing things up at times can be useful anyway. We saw that early in Peterson's career when Taylor was on the team. The Vikings did it effectively back when they had Smith and Hoard too (or even Brown and Osborn, if we want to go WAY back).

He takes more TFLs primarily because he faces more aggressive fronts and they get more penetration into the backfield. Yes, occasionally he dances around too much but that's not the big issue there and neither is patience.

I'm tired of arguing about this. It's "backup QB" syndrome with an RB. I feel like I'm back in the days when people were making the case for Bouman to start over Culpepper.

His blitz pickup has been subpar for years, going from a D- to a C- doesnt make you good, I guess I can dig around for stats... I could also dig around to prove FDR won a second term... It has always been considered the weakest part of his game, apart from maybe big game fumbles. He dropped 26% of passing targets in 2013 (to put that in perspective, Pierre thomas and Danny Woodhead that year Dropped FEWER passes on more than DOUBLE the targets) His career average is a 72% catch rate. so he drops over 25% of targets. I don't buy the aggressive fronts as a viable reason for total numbers, occasionally yes, but he misses holes or freezes/triple cuts several times a game, anecdotally they usually seem to come in drive killing bunches. He doesn't play Third down because in most situations he is a detriment compared to other options.


EDIT to answer first part.

No I don't think that is all Peterson does. But I also dont think his job is to wait for the Autobahn to be opened up for him either (facetiously speaking)
I am implying that pre reads, post reads, instincts, tells, body leans, dip moves, avoiding first contact, etc, are all parts of being a RB. and My point for that part is that maybe, just maybe a different RB with a different stylistic mixture of those skills, moves, and traits, would run better than feasting or starving.

S197 wrote: He had a cool confidence about himself in the huddle. Unshakeable. He had a quiet way about him, a walk and a talk that just wasn't normal around here. He strolled, like a man in a park without a care or a worry in the world, like he had on an invisible coat that would shield him from this place. Yeah, I think it would be fair to say... I liked Teddy from the start.

I wish I could tell you that Teddy fought the good fight and didn't injure his knee. I wish I could tell you that - but the NFL is no fairy-tale world.

IrishViking wrote:He dropped 26% of passing targets in 2013 (to put that in perspective, Pierre thomas and Danny Woodhead that year Dropped FEWER passes on more than DOUBLE the targets) His career average is a 72% catch rate. so he drops over 25% of targets.

He was targeted 36 times last year and caught 30 of them. I remember at least 1 or 2 drops. I doubt he dropped all 6 incompletions. That's rarely how it works out. We're not in 2014 so what he did in 2013 or over his career matters less than what he can do now. I agree that blitz pick-up is still a weakness but again, it's not that he can't do it, it's just not something at which he excels. They could help that by not asking him do it after a play action fake, which they frequently did last year. In order to sell the fake, he ends up out of position and it's harder to identify and pick up a blitzer. They could also simply not ask him to pass protect much and use him more as a receiver out of the backfield on passing plays. These aren't insurmountable problems nor do they offset the positives he brings to the offense.

I don't buy the aggressive fronts as a viable reason for total numbers

Then quite honestly, you need to watch the film.

I am implying that pre reads, post reads, instincts, tells, body leans, dip moves, avoiding first contact, etc, are all parts of being a RB. and My point for that part is that maybe, just maybe a different RB with a different stylistic mixture of those skills, moves, and traits, would run better than feasting or starving.

Maybe... but would the offense as a whole be better for it? Remember, they were blown out in several games last year when defenses were able to effectively take Peterson out of the game plan (ie: get him off the field). Without him, the Vikes proved incapable of making up for his absence against SF, Green Bay and Seattle. They never even scored on offense against the Seahawks in that first game. Those results don't suggest to me that the path to greater success is to bench Peterson.

I get what you're saying. Is it possible that the Vikings could be more successful with a different back? Sure, it's possible but I don't think they have a better option on the roster right now and I believe the evidence strongly suggests that predictable playcalling, a lack of creativity on offense, sub-par blocking and a very poor passing game are more responsible for the "feast or famine" dynamic everybody is fretting about than Peterson himself. Improve in those areas and I'm betting the results would be dramatically different.

What I don't believe is that benching a Hall of Fame-caliber back who just led the NFL in rushing last season is a good idea. I doubt the Vikes do either.

dead_poet wrote: Looking back, AD was also his trademarked impatient at times, not waiting for the holes to possibly open a fraction. It could be -- as has been the case his whole career -- it's less he is slowing down and more that he's too jacked up

With Teddy out AP would naturally feel he has to carry the team and win the game himself, so I think he would be prone to being overly jacked.

Cliff wrote: I wish I could tell you that Teddy fought the good fight and didn't injure his knee. I wish I could tell you that - but the NFL is no fairy-tale world.

Please keep these coming. I'm enjoying them too much.

I'm sure glad to see that some of you understand that your Vikings got a lot of breaks. Unlike some of your media who were yelling super bowl contenders. I am a realist when it comes to most things. 1. Vikings need a QB, Better run blocking, scheme, and AP needs to hit the hole. Kicker needs to see psychiatrist. D is good but against top tier teams they need to cover tighter and attack QB more. 2 Educate your media I've heard SB Contender way too much after only 1 game! Really,! In Reality they are nowhere close. Let's see what they do this week against the GB fudge packets. And I did not like the trade to get your QB, too many injuries, and watch film he hears footsteps. Very jittery in pocket.

My thoughts:

1. I am surprised by the AD hate! It looked to me like he missed 1 hole, but other than that he was swarmed instantly. 8 or 9 guys in the box every single play!!
2. I get the concept of establishing the run but sheeeesshhhh....with 9 guys in the box, you PASS!!!. As others have questioned....I really wonder how much liberty Hill had to audibilize. As an old man one of his few strengths should be the ability to change a play once he sees the defense....but Norv is so hard-headed it wouldn't shock me if audibilizing wasn't an option. would love to know.
3. Can't remember who said it (either Cliff or DP I think but I don't feel like sifting through the posts) but he summed up my feelings perfectly by saying that 'paraphrasing' people were happy with Hill because of the LOW expectations.
4. See #3. If it weren't for AD commanding the defenses he does, then I think Hill would have had an ugly start. But I was pleasantly surprised by his performance (between the 20s). He missed Diggs WIDE open for a sure TD, but other than that (and the fact that his passes looked like a turtle walking through molasses) he did what you'd expect a reasonably somewhat decent backup to do....he took what the D gave him and did not turn the ball over. Good enough to beat a below average team on the road.
5. See #1 and #4......Shaun Hill should buy AD a nice gold watch for giving him the Titan D looks that he got on Sunday.

If Bradford can be as decisive as Hill.....with more arm strength and accuracy.....then I think we could have something here. Trouble is, Hill has been in the system for over 2 years now and Bradford for less than 2 weeks, so thinking Bradford can be as decisive as Hill was is extremely optimistic, unfortunately

Scary thought:

What if Bradford starts Sunday night before he's developed sufficient chemistry with the receivers and really good knowledge of the playbook? What happens if he struggles out of the gate? What if the Vikings have < 7 points at the half and Bradford has thrown a pick? How forgiving will we, as Vikings fans be? Will they/we start chanting for Hill? How long of a leash do we/the coaches give him if he appears to be worse than Hill was in week 1?

My thoughts are the coaching staff needs to be 100% sure Sam is a legitimate upgrade to Hill and it's not even close before turning the reins over. Because once the switch is made for the guy you gave up a 1st and a 4th for...well...there's no turning back. I won't equate it to the Freeman debacle, but this is something that has to go well.

I don't know if I can take reading comments like, "Oh my God. Put Hill back in" after what was traded. Then dealing with the back-and-forth.

I'm not saying Bradford is going to be awful. But I'm nervous about my own and other fans' expectations.