A message board dedicated to the discussion of Minnesota Viking Football.
https://vikingsmessageboard.com/
Nobody is going to make that trade. There is a shortage of competent linemen all over the NFL.IrishViking wrote:I think our biggest issue was on oline and our inability to establish any sort of ground game (play calling and execution).
Our front seven need to improve dramatically. I was pretty happy with our deeper coverage but crossing routes are still the worst thing ever for us.
I by no means think that AP is finished but I think now, with him locked in to a slightly less absurd contract situation, would be the time to trade him for an Olineman we can just plug in and not worry about that slot for the next 10 years barring injury. I am sure some will disagree but I just don't see his value being as high in our new system and I dont think you should base your gameplan around any 30 year old player that isnt a QB. Ever.
Isn't that also the way to build a championship team?Mothman wrote:Most of the complaining about Peterson I'm seeing today doesn't hold much water, as far as I'm concerned. I watched the plays last night and I watched his carries and receptions again this morning. I don't know when he supposedly left so many yards on the field. It sure looked to me like when he had a hole to run through, he hit it just fine. I don't recall any needless juking. There was one short pass where he was headed outside, saw an unblocked defender heading off his path up the sideline and he tried to cut it inside where he was met by LBs. It's possible if he had continued to the outside he would have gained a few more yards before getting pushed out but I don't think his instinct to cut back was poor. It's just that the 49ers pursuit was good. If people want a back who will just take that safer route, get an extra 2-3 yards, then the Vikes should just start Asiata. One of the reasons Peterson has been such a great back is that he follows his instincts, takes chances, makes cuts and choices other backs wouldn't necessarily make. Sometimes that may cost him a few yards he could have gained and sometimes it results in a much bigger gain. Barry Sanders was constantly criticized for that sort of decision-making too but nothing ventured, nothing gained.
Peterson had a few good runs yesterday and one terrific run after catch play, but otherwise he was looking at a jammed up line of scrimmage, being hit be penetrating defenders in the backfield, etc. He appeared a little rusty but the 49ers were clearly keying on him and the Vikes didn't do enough to open things up. I don't think he left many yards on the field at all.
If the Vikes want to get Peterson going, they have to block better and they have to commit to playing him and running him. He can't gain yards standing on the sidelines and unless he's able to break a big gain, he's simply not going to put up big numbers against a disciplined defense with a mere 10 carries. The 49ers focused on him. Everyone is going to focus on him and it will be that way until the Vikes passing game makes teams pay enough to adopt a different strategy.
If Peterson had been running behind the SF line last night, with the way they were opening holes and pushing Vikes defenders around, he might have gained 200 yards.
It all starts up front, folks.
This.IrishViking wrote: I am sure some will disagree but I just don't see his value being as high in our new system and I dont think you should base your gameplan around any 30 year old player that isnt a QB. Ever.
The beat guys were on this.Crax wrote:One thing brought up on the radio this morning was about how peterson doesn't like running out of shotgun which they had him doing last night. He'd much rather line up behind the qb and get running before grabbing the ball. I'm also not a huge fan of running out of shotgun.
@mattvensel: It was a smaller sample size, sure, but Peterson actually was slightly better running out of the gun in 2012/2013. https://t.co/Ba5u2xszbX
I agree. After missing almost all of last season, I think it would have made sense to get him at least a few carries a week in the preseason this year.losperros wrote:I might be alone in this but I think AD should play during preseason. He needs to get the feel of the game before the regular season starts.
By being strong up front? Yes, indeedly doodly!CbusVikesFan wrote:Isn't that also the way to build a championship team?
If you want to do it occasionally, fine, but I think it's a bad strategy in general as your starting so much farther back you have that much more distance just to get a positive gain from when you get the ball. Mixing it in occasionally is fine, but not as your standard setup.dead_poet wrote: The beat guys were on this.
I know the line was bad, but Walsh is the other thing I have 0 confidence in. We're going to be in close games at some point this year, and I have no faith in walsh whatsoever. 44 yards isn't a short FG, but it's not that bad either. He was close to missing the one he made as well.PurpleKoolaid wrote: Walsh made one FG. Thats one more then I thought he would make. The vikings go for a 4th down instead of even letting him try a 49 yrd kick. So glad Rick isnt worried about this.
@eric_j_thompson: #Vikings defense bottom 5 PFF ratings Monday:
5. Sendejo -2.2
4. Stephen -2.6
3. Greenway -2.7
2. Hodges -3.7
1. Griffen -4.9
Yuck.