Why two fullbacks? Zimmer says they're hard to find

[VikingLord]

So teams should be pass-first or only pass-first teams can be successful.

Offenses that spread it out and threaten the entire field are going to be more successful than offenses that bunch in and try to ram it down the field. So if you want to just boil it down and call what I'm saying "pass-first", be my guest, but the point stands, whatever one calls it.

They're allocating plenty of resources to the passing game. Allocating resources to other positions doesn't mean they're neglecting the passing game.

I'm still waiting for the results of that to show up on the field, then. Seems like despite all of what you've mentioned we're still watching Chilly-ball for the most part. The new head coach is still referring to his offense as a "fullback offense". YMMV.

[Demi]

Speaking of this type of mindset, after last game the less I see of Asiata on offense the better. Should have stayed at full back. Plays like one...and we definitely don't need *three* of them.

[Crax]

Funnily enough, Asiata more or less was the fullback on that big run by Patterson and had a great block on that play.

[VikingLord]

Is that supposed to mean Peterson represents another misallocation of resources"?

Well, how many other teams are dumping that kind of money into a starting RB who is entering an age range when statistics compiled over a very long period of time indicate a high likelihood of a major dropoff in production? Heck, I wonder how many NFL teams have as much invested in the entire RB position on their roster as the Vikes have in one. Of course, stating this gets a lot of Vikings fans up in arms because AD is so popular, but if one steps back and looks at it objectively, and then compares it with what other very successful teams have invested in that position over recent years, it really does look like a misallocation.

The same concept applies to power running. Defenses aren't being built to stop it and consequently, it's coming back around as a very effective element of offenses. I think the Vikes may be closer to following a trend than bucking one.

The Seahawks are *not* a power running team. Lynch does what he does because Wilson and his receivers do what they do, not the other way around. Unless you want to argue that the Seahawks would be just as successful running with TJ taking the snaps.

Finally, regarding the allocation of resources: as dead_poet pointed out, they've already allocated considerable resources to their passing game and keep in mind that the first round QB they just drafted is their second first round QB in 4 years. They're investing heavily in their passing game and making a clear, determined effort to improve in that department and field a versatile offense.

I will give them credit for reaching on Ponder. Unfortunately, Ponder sucked. Had Ponder turned out to be the real deal, it's very possible they'd be running the sort of offense that might win a championship by now. Which speaks to my slight retraction on this topic that maybe Zimmer and Turner are running the offense that matches the talent they have. I don't have a problem with that provided the intent to modernize the approach is there.

We can debate this ad-naseum and I doubt we'll convince each other. Suffice it to say, I read that Cassel threw at a target deeper than 10 yards a whopping *3* times against the Rams, and, of course, the running game piled up more yards than the passing game. Again. It worked against the Rams, and it will probably work against some other teams too. I just fail to get excited about it now. The defense played well. Patterson was electric on his long run. But it's still Chilly-ball out there, and just as I grew tired of watching Ponder after a while, I'm getting equally tired of watching this trudging style of offense.

[VikingLord]

Funnily enough, Asiata more or less was the fullback on that big run by Patterson and had a great block on that play.

I thought that was Felton, but it wouldn't surprise me if both were in on that play.

[Crax]

I thought that was Felton, but it wouldn't surprise me if both were in on that play.

Nah, don't think Felton was there. Asiata(#44) was running ahead of patterson at the start of that one and blocked a guy to help spring him.
http://www.vikings.com/media-vault/vide ... 532de4b242

[Mothman]

Well, how many other teams are dumping that kind of money into a starting RB who is entering an age range when statistics compiled over a very long period of time indicate a high likelihood of a major dropoff in production? Heck, I wonder how many NFL teams have as much invested in the entire RB position on their roster as the Vikes have in one. Of course, stating this gets a lot of Vikings fans up in arms because AD is so popular, but if one steps back and looks at it objectively, and then compares it with what other very successful teams have invested in that position over recent years, it really does look like a misallocation.

I'd say it looks more like a unique situation. Honestly, I don't care what other teams have invested in the RB position. How many other teams have a running back like Peterson available to them? I'm beyond tired of hearing about the statistical likelihood of a dropoff in production. Let's worry about the drop in production when it actually happens.

I find it amazing that so many Vikes fans fret over AD's age, cap hit and eventual drop in production instead of just celebrating the fact that we're probably watching one of the all-time great RBs and all-time great Vikings, still in his prime, still producing at a high level and just one year removed from an MVP season in which he almost broke an all-time record. I think an MVP-caliber player is worth the cap hit.

The Seahawks are *not* a power running team. Lynch does what he does because Wilson and his receivers do what they do, not the other way around. Unless you want to argue that the Seahawks would be just as successful running with TJ taking the snaps.

Are you suggesting they would be just as successful passing if they didn't have that potent running game? They are absolutely a power-running team. There's no question about it. They use power running formations and they run out of them often. Their running game sets up their passing game just as much as it works the other way around and I imagine that's the kind of balance and versatility the Vikes would like to achieve. I think they've been trying to achieve it for the past 3 years but they didn't have the QB or the weapons in the passing game to do it most of the time.

We can debate this ad-naseum and I doubt we'll convince each other. Suffice it to say, I read that Cassel threw at a target deeper than 10 yards a whopping *3* times against the Rams, and, of course, the running game piled up more yards than the passing game. Again. It worked against the Rams, and it will probably work against some other teams too. I just fail to get excited about it now. The defense played well. Patterson was electric on his long run. But it's still Chilly-ball out there, and just as I grew tired of watching Ponder after a while, I'm getting equally tired of watching this trudging style of offense.

No offense, but that almost makes it sound like you're more interested in the style of offense they play than the substance of what it achieves. In the end, I'm getting the impression that you just crave a star QB and a high-flying passing game. That would be great but I just want them to win. If they "trudge" their way into a Super Bowl victory, I'll be just as happy as if they throw their way to one.

[VikingLord]

I'd say it looks more like a unique situation. Honestly, I don't care what other teams have invested in the RB position. How many other teams have a running back like Peterson available to them? I'm beyond tired of hearing about the statistical likelihood of a dropoff in production. Let's worry about the drop in production when it actually happens.

As luck would have it, I stumbled upon an article that discusses just this: http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/ ... ons-future

From that article:

If his production decreases in 2014, will the Vikings want to pay him $13 million in 2015? That salary dwarfs the running back market, which is at an all-time nadir. In 2015, the average running back salary will be $1.3 million. Peterson would be one of only two running backs making as much as $8 million

I find it amazing that so many Vikes fans fret over AD's age, cap hit and eventual drop in production instead of just celebrating the fact that we're probably watching one of the all-time great RBs and all-time great Vikings, still in his prime, still producing at a high level and just one year removed from an MVP season in which he almost broke an all-time record. I think an MVP-caliber player is worth the cap hit.

On the production front: http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/ ... ter-age-27

AD is already 2 years past the age at which the average back goes into decline. AD, as we know, isn't the average back. He's above average in all things, including the number of carries he gets and the pounding he has taken.

And for the record, I enjoy watching AD run. He's a fantastic player and I think he could buck the odds and keep things going for a while longer, maybe even long enough to be there when that new stadium opens.

But also for the record, as much as I like watching AD, I'd like seeing the Vikings win a Superbowl more, and if I had to choose between AD and a Superbowl, I'd take the Superbowl every time.

Are you suggesting they would be just as successful passing if they didn't have that potent running game? They are absolutely a power-running team. There's no question about it. They use power running formations and they run out of them often. Their running game sets up their passing game just as much as it works the other way around and I imagine that's the kind of balance and versatility the Vikes would like to achieve. I think they've been trying to achieve it for the past 3 years but they didn't have the QB or the weapons in the passing game to do it most of the time.

This is where we have to agree to disagree I guess, because from my perspective the run is just an aspect of a a larger offensive strategy. It's not run or pass - it's spread the defense out wide and deep and that can only be done via the pass. Once the defenders have to move away from the LOS, the matchups inside favor big runs, but those runs come out of as many single-back sets and delayed handoffs as they do classic power I formations. I do not believe the Seahawks would have nearly the success they have offensively without Russell Wilson at QB. No way. Heck, even Percy is happy there. Compare what he'll do there (as a receiver) with what he did with the Vikings as a receiver. Just give it time. It will be markedly better and that won't be because he's playing on a team that runs it better than the Vikings did when he was here.

No offense, but that almost makes it sound like you're more interested in the style of offense they play than the substance of what it achieves. In the end, I'm getting the impression that you just crave a star QB and a high-flying passing game. That would be great but I just want them to win. If they "trudge" their way into a Super Bowl victory, I'll be just as happy as if they throw their way to one.

You keep writing "no offense". Not sure why. I have yet to ever be offended by anything you post.

But as to your point here, it seems to be under-pinned by this notion that a run-based offense has substance in the modern NFL. It doesn't. It hasn't for over a decade, and more than likely it will never again. It's just a fact. They aren't going to trudge into a Superbowl in your lifetime if they continue to play Chilly-ball.

Please don't read what I just wrote to say that running effectively is no longer necessary. Running effectively is as necessary as passing effectively at all levels of the field. It just can't the locus upon which the offensive is built anymore. Does that mean I want a high-flying passing game? Well, if by that you mean the Vikings can run an offense similar to what Seattle runs now, I absolutely want that, but then again, you can just claim that is a power-run-based-offense, so I guess I can't win.

[Mothman]

AD is already 2 years past the age at which the average back goes into decline. AD, as we know, isn't the average back. He's above average in all things, including the number of carries he gets and the pounding he has taken.

And for the record, I enjoy watching AD run. He's a fantastic player and I think he could buck the odds and keep things going for a while longer, maybe even long enough to be there when that new stadium opens.

But also for the record, as much as I like watching AD, I'd like seeing the Vikings win a Superbowl more, and if I had to choose between AD and a Superbowl, I'd take the Superbowl every time.

Fortunately, I don't think it's an either/or choice. We all know that at some point, his contract will probably have to be renegotiated. The media hasn't shut up about his age, the dreaded dropoff point for running backs or his salary all offseason and I suspect they'll just keep at it. Meanwhile, as you said, Peterson isn't the average back. He might play at a high level for another 4 or 5 years.

This is where we have to agree to disagree I guess, because from my perspective the run is just an aspect of a a larger offensive strategy. It's not run or pass - it's spread the defense out wide and deep and that can only be done via the pass. Once the defenders have to move away from the LOS, the matchups inside favor big runs, but those runs come out of as many single-back sets and delayed handoffs as they do classic power I formations.

They use power formations pretty extensively. They mix it up but from what I've seen, they aren't running out of a spread offense the majority of the time. Sure, the run is an aspect of a larger offensive strategy for them but that's true of the Vikings too.

I do not believe the Seahawks would have nearly the success they have offensively without Russell Wilson at QB. No way. Heck, even Percy is happy there. Compare what he'll do there (as a receiver) with what he did with the Vikings as a receiver. Just give it time. It will be markedly better and that won't be because he's playing on a team that runs it better than the Vikings did when he was here.

We'll see... it will be interesting to see how much he develops his game as a receiver while in Seattle and how long he'll be happy.

You keep writing "no offense". Not sure why. I have yet to ever be offended by anything you post.

I'm glad. I'll stop with the "no offenses".

But as to your point here, it seems to be under-pinned by this notion that a run-based offense has substance in the modern NFL. It doesn't. It hasn't for over a decade, and more than likely it will never again. It's just a fact. They aren't going to trudge into a Superbowl in your lifetime if they continue to play Chilly-ball.

Please don't read what I just wrote to say that running effectively is no longer necessary. Running effectively is as necessary as passing effectively at all levels of the field. It just can't the locus upon which the offensive is built anymore. Does that mean I want a high-flying passing game? Well, if by that you mean the Vikings can run an offense similar to what Seattle runs now, I absolutely want that, but then again, you can just claim that is a power-run-based-offense, so I guess I can't win.

I think we're dealing with semantic differences here. I said the Seahawks were a power-running team but I didn't mean that was the basis of their entire offense. I don't believe there's a team in the league using a power run-based offense in the sense that you seem to be talking about and I don't think it has been the Vikings intent the past 3 years to build an offense that would ultimately be predicated on running the ball with the passing game playing second fiddle. I think their actions as a whole strongly suggest otherwise. In my opinion, that's why they've been trying to find their QB of the future for the past 4 years and why they've been steadily adding weapons to their passing game since the 2011 draft.

That said, Seattle's offense is as run-based as any in the league. Consider these run/pass ratio numbers for Seattle since Pete Carroll became the head coach:

2010: 385/544
2011: 444/509
2012: 536/405
2013: 509/420

Note how much they've run since making Wilson their QB. They've had over 500 attempts per year and they've run more than they've passed. Some of that is because of Wilson, of course. He's had 90+ carries in both years but a lot of those are designed runs.

Anyway, my point is that teams like the Seahawks and 49ers have been running more than the Vikings for a few years now and, like the Vikings, they use power formations fairly often as a part of their rushing attacks. We're talking about two of the most successful teams in the conference at this point and, to the extent that any team can be said to be a "running team" in this NFL era, they are running teams.