Thoughts Week 1

[IrishViking]

That's just it: he doesn't need an offense built around him to excel. What he really needs (and has desperately needed most of his career) is a more balanced offense that doesn't make him the first, second and third priority of every defense the Vikings face. How is this not obvious?

He's played for one Vikings team in 9+ years that had a genuinely good QB and passing game. He had a great season that year and the team had one of their most successful seasons. He also did quite well as a receiver that year.

The problem isn't that Peterson needs the Vikings offense to be one-dimensional so he can succeed. The problem is the Vikings offense IS one-dimensional and that makes it more difficult for Peterson, and the team, to succeed. Way too many people look at this situation and try to make the tail wag the dog.

This is the argument I am most confused by. At the point where we have a passing game that makes AP not the focus of the defense he will be getting 40 yards a game because he will only get handed off to 15 times a game because our passing offense will need to be Rodgers or Brady caliber in order to take the focus away from Peterson and at that point why hand it off if your QB is throwing 3-4 TDs a game beyond what you need to stay balanced. Your point about the 09 season sorta makes my point IMO. AP ended up with 1383 yards on 314 carries that year. Last year, a year we agree he was the focal piece of the offense he had 1485 on 327. So Brett Farve having the best season of his career allowed for AP to perform about as well as he did last year with a extremely sub par air attack. Virtually identical actually if you extrapolate out the ypc by the difference. Within 50 yards of each other. To me that sorta proves that our passing attack has little impact on that APs ability to perform and that if Bradford were to suddenly throw for 3 TDs a game AP will not have a windfall of yardage.

I also don't think that this is an isolated issue. AP faded HARD down the stretch last year. Including last game and going back to December of last year.

In his last 7 games he has broken 100 once, by 4 yards.

In his last 7 games he has average 2.9 yards a carry.

And a fun side note; He has only broken 70 yards once in his last 4 games against GB. true the one he did was a monster, 146. But if I told you before the game Sunday "You can play a running back that has a 25% chance of getting you 150 yards or a 75% of getting you under 70 yards or you can go with someone else" how long would you think about that?

Is AP a bad running back? No far from it. Is he still the type of back you pay 12 million dollars to and build your team around? I don't think so.

I want the Vikings to have what you want them to have. I want AP to still be the runner he was seven years ago. It will be sad when he finally does get forced out or he retires. But the writing is on the walls on this. Age is very dramatically showing its signs on AP. I don't think that Year off did anything for his longevity and it robbed him of a chance to break some records.

[Jordysghost]

The difference is, Treadwell has to compete with Johnson who has been in this offense for 3 years and knows it inside and out. Braxton Miller is a rookie and Strong struggled to get playing time last year behind Cecil Shorts so what does that tell you about their WR corps? We have an outside stud in Diggs and another guy that has been in the system for 3 years. Houston has one of those in Hopkins and nothing beyond that. So I'll refer back to what I said originally that Houston has zero depth at WR. So with Fuller getting time early doesnt means crap to me.

Diggs is nowhere even close to being Hopkins level, not. even. close.

Strong struggled to get playing time last year? So did Johnson.

It seems to me like the Vikings and Texans depth is pretty comparable, except they have a bona fide star in Hopkins.

[IrishViking]

Seriously though


The Pass Protection was a sight for sore eyes.

[Jordysghost]

This is the argument I am most confused by. At the point where we have a passing game that makes AP not the focus of the defense he will be getting 40 yards a game because he will only get handed off to 15 times a game because our passing offense will need to be Rodgers or Brady caliber in order to take the focus away from Peterson and at that point why hand it off if your QB is throwing 3-4 TDs a game beyond what you need to stay balanced. Your point about the 09 season sorta makes my point IMO. AP ended up with 1383 yards on 314 carries that year. Last year, a year we agree he was the focal piece of the offense he had 1485 on 327. So Brett Farve having the best season of his career allowed for AP to perform about as well as he did last year with a extremely sub par air attack. Virtually identical actually if you extrapolate out the ypc by the difference. With 50 yards of each other. To me that sorta proves that our passing attack as little impact or that APs ability to preform and that if Bradford suddenly throw for 3 TDs a game AP will not have a windfall of yardage.

I also don't think that this is an isolated issue. AP faded HARD down the stretch last year. Including last game and going back to December of last year.

In his last 7 games he has broken 100 once, by 4 yards.

In his last 7 games he has average 2.9 yards a carry.

And a fun side note; He has only broken 70 yards once in his last 4 games against GB. true the one he did was a monster, 146. But if I told you before the game Sunday "You can play a running back that has a 25% chance of getting you 150 yards or a 75% of getting you under 70 yards or you can go with someone else" how long would you think about that?

Is AP a bad running back? No far from it. Is he still the type of back you pay 12 million dollars to and build your team around? I don't think so.

I want the Vikings to have what you want them to have. I want AP to still be the runner he was seven years ago. It will be sad when he finally does get forced out or he retires. But the writing is on the walls on this. Age is very dramatically showing its signs on AP. I don't think that Year off did anything for his longevity and it robbed him of a chance to break some records.

Even if his stats didn't go up from an adequate passing attack, the offensive production would be better, that is the important part.

If you had a good passing attack, Defenses being made to stack the box on AD will make your passing attack even better, if they stop stacking the box, AD gets room to work with, it is simple cause and effect.

[IrishViking]

Even if his stats didn't go up from an adequate passing attack, the offensive production would be better, that is the important part.

If you had a good passing attack, Defenses being made to stack the box on AD will make your passing attack even better, if they stop stacking the box, AD gets room to work with, it is simple cause and effect.

That's true. But I think you and Eddie Lacy would agree, you don't need to be AP or get paid like AP to produce ground yards if you have a Good passing attack.


EDIT to clarify

Which is to say that If the MONSTER that is AP didn't suddenly run for 3k yards behind Brett Farve's air attack why keep him when he has a target painted on him when a decentish back is going to produce only a pittance less in the same situation.

AP seems like an extention of the old joke "if you need 3 yards he'll get you 3, if you need 4 yards he'll get you 3" "If you have a terrible passing attack he'll get you 1400 yards. If you have a great passing attack, he'll get you 1400 yards."

[Jordysghost]

That's true. But I think you and Eddie Lacy would agree, you don't need to be AP or get paid like AP to produce ground yards if you have a Good passing attack.

No, don't 'need' to, but it doesn't hurt. Why would a good passing attack with Mckinnon and Asiata at RB be any better then a good passing attack with AD at RB?

I also think your Lacy shoutout is barking up the wrong tree a little bit, I think Lacy is a damn special back. Not AD of course but few are.

[IrishViking]

No, don't 'need' to, but it doesn't hurt. Why would a good passing attack with Mckinnon and Asiata at RB be any better then a good passing attack with AD at RB?

I also think your Lacy shoutout is barking up the wrong tree a little bit, I think Lacy is a damn special back. Not AD of course but few are.

Because they can play on Third, because the defense cant be near 100% certain when they are on the field they are getting it, because mckinnon is more elusive than AP at this stage of his career, more money to spend on other players.

Eddie Lacy is a fine back who benefits from a monster passing attack. He is a good back I agree but Rodgers is a Good QB as well, right?

[losperros]

Here are my thoughts...

-- The Vikings need to wake up about their passing game. Hill is just a backup, so he wasn't all that bad. But they need a big time QB and have needed one for a while. Is it Bradford or Bridgewater? If not, it's back to the drawing board.

-- Like Jackal, I thought Diggs (who could and maybe should be the #1 WR), Thielen and Patterson looked good catching the ball. The Vikes should throw to all three of them a lot. And yes, I want Treadwell, Johnson, and Wright to get chances as well. But Diggs, Thielen and Patterson were making excellent catches against more than competent coverage, and all three really should be a part of the passing attack. A 3WR set with them would be tough to defend, given how they looked in the first game.

-- It was big plays by the D that put the most points on the board. Big plays are important. The offense needs more of them.

-- Speaking of big plays, I know I always say this but Patterson needs more touches. He looked good with every touch in the game. His explosiveness was obvious. He'll help the team score more points if the Vikings give him the opportunity.

-- I agree with PurpleKoolaid about the run blocking being a big concern. No excuses for AD, who definitely did not look as sharp as normal, but the run blocking looked as if it was picking up from where it left off last season, despite some new faces on the offensive line.

-- The Vikings are fielding an ultra-quick defense. I thought Kendricks showed what kind of fast LB he is on his INT TD. Hunter also looked quick when he picked up the fumble and scored.

[Jordysghost]

EDIT to clarify

Which is to say that If the MONSTER that is AP didn't suddenly run for 3k yards behind Brett Farve's air attack why keep him when he has a target painted on him when a decentish back is going to produce only a pittance less in the same situation.

AP seems like an extention of the old joke "if you need 3 yards he'll get you 3, if you need 4 yards he'll get you 3" "If you have a terrible passing attack he'll get you 1400 yards. If you have a great passing attack, he'll get you 1400 yards."

If you didn't have AD drawing guys into the box, Favre wouldn't have had the year he did, or even close to it. That is why he didn't have 3k yards, and that is why you keep him.

'Same situation'? Running against a loaded box, and running against a 6 man box are NOT the 'same situation'. You want AD to keep drawing those full boxes so that the passing game can take advantage, Mckinnon and Asiata aren't going to do that, nor will they be able to take advantage of unstacked boxex as well as AD either.

[IrishViking]

If you didn't have AD drawing guys into the box, Favre wouldn't have had the year he did, or even close to it. That is why he didn't have 3k yards, and that is why you keep him.

'Same situation'? Running against a loaded box, and running against a 6 man box are NOT the 'same situation'. You want AD to keep drawing those full boxes so that the passing game can take advantage, Mckinnon and Asiata aren't going to do that, nor will they be able to take advantage of unstacked boxex as well as AD either.

I don't understand what you are saying. that's not the situation I am talking about. Its an either or venture its not both. EITHER AP drew in the Defense and faced 8 man boxes and thats how farve excelled in which case we can never open up the game for him and its a moot point OR Farve drew off the opposing teams defenders and AP ran against a 6 man front with less success than an 8 man front and there is no reason to think a decent back couldn't get 1400 yards against a 6 man front. You cant have 8 on pass and 8 on run every play.

[Jordysghost]

Because they can play on Third, because the defense cant be near 100% certain when they are on the field they are getting it, because mckinnon is more elusive than AP at this stage of his career, more money to spend on other players.

Eddie Lacy is a fine back who benefits from a monster passing attack. He is a good back I agree but Rodgers is a Good QB as well, right?

Do you not understand, that if you had a passing game, AD being on the field would not be 100% indicative of him getting the ball? The only reason it seems as if 'AD being on the field means he is getting the ball' is because your passing O is too bad to to take advantage of the loaded box he gives you, so you usually do give it to AD.

Even if the D THOUGHT that AD being on the field means he gets the ball, it would only open it up a TON for your passing O, therefore helping increase your Offenses production.

Would you rather have a good passing game going against loaded boxes consistently? Or s good passing game going against 8 or 7 DBs consistently?

Im trying not to talk about the Packers or their players much in this forum right now, but I think Lacy helps the passing game more then the passing game helps him, when Matt Flynn was his QB he averaged 4.7 ypc against constantly loaded boxes selling out to stop him, and on a bum ankle no less.

[TSonn]

I was pleasantly surprised by Hill but I think Bradford could have executed the exact same game plan. In fact, I think Bradford would have connected on a couple of those deeper throws that Hill just lofted into the air mostly as what I could only assume was him trying to throw it away or match the velocity of a helium-filled balloon floating into the sky.

[Jordysghost]

I don't understand what you are saying. that's not the situation I am talking about. Its an either or venture its not both. EITHER AP drew in the Defense and faced 8 man boxes and thats how farve excelled in which case we can never open up the game for him and its a moot point OR Farve drew off the opposing teams defenders and AP ran against a 6 man front with less success than an 8 man front and there is no reason to think a decent back couldn't get 1400 yards against a 6 man front. You cant have 8 on pass and 8 on run every play.

What? AD DID draw extra men in the box in 09, and that is a big reason Favre had the season he had, how is that a bad thing? You want AD on the team because him causing the D to stack the box consistently only helps the O and passing game, in the event that the D ends up taking men away from the box to defend the pass (They may or may not), AD will eat them up.

No, you apparently would rather them be able to load up on DBs to defend the pass, while not having to worry greatly about the RB making them eat it.

Do you honestly believe Mckinnon or Asiata wouldn't have done even worse then AD on Sunday against those loaded boxs? You don't have a passing game to take advantage yet, but the constant need to load the box will severely inhibit the opposing teams passing D.

[Mothman]

This is the argument I am most confused by. At the point where we have a passing game that makes AP not the focus of the defense he will be getting 40 yards a game because he will only get handed off to 15 times a game because our passing offense will need to be Rodgers or Brady caliber in order to take the focus away from Peterson and at that point why hand it off if your QB is throwing 3-4 TDs a game beyond what you need to stay balanced.

Because they can stay balanced, keep defenses off balance, manage the clock, get big plays out of both the passing and running game, etc. They don't need an elite passing game for Peterson to be more effective, just a good one. There's no reason to think he'd only gain 40 yards per game in that situation. For Pete's sake his lowest ypc average in a season where he's played more than one game is 4.4 and that was in 2009, when he accounted for over 1800 yards of offense and 18 TDs with a good passing attack.

Your point about the 09 season sorta makes my point IMO. AP ended up with 1383 yards on 314 carries that year. Last year, a year we agree he was the focal piece of the offense he had 1485 on 327. So Brett Farve having the best season of his career allowed for AP to perform about as well as he did last year with a extremely sub par air attack.

That doesn't make your point, it undermines it because not only did Peterson's production not fall to 40 yards per game in that situation, he didn't need an entire offense built around his abilities in order to thrive. Instead, the whole offense thrived because the Vikes were able to create a "pick your poison" situation for opposing defenses.

Virtually identical actually if you extrapolate out the ypc by the difference. Within 50 yards of each other. To me that sorta proves that our passing attack has little impact on that APs ability to perform and that if Bradford were to suddenly throw for 3 TDs a game AP will not have a windfall of yardage.

I'm not saying he'd suddenly have a windfall of yardage. The point is the offense as a whole would be much better and he'd still be an effective part of it. In other words, as I said above (and contrary to what you suggested earlier), he doesn't need an offense built around him to excel. He can excel within the context of a more balanced offense.

And a fun side note; He has only broken 70 yards once in his last 4 games against GB. true the one he did was a monster, 146. But if I told you before the game Sunday "You can play a running back that has a 25% chance of getting you 150 yards or a 75% of getting you under 70 yards or you can go with someone else" how long would you think about that?

I wouldn't worry about it because its not fantasy football. If the 70 yard result is created because the defense committed heavily to stopping the RB and the offense was able to take advantage in the passing game and help the Vikings win, I'd consider that a good result.

Look, it's not a coincidence that the only 2 seasons in which the Vikings have made the playoffs in the last 6 years were seasons in which Peterson led the league in rushing. He was absolutely crucial to those successes. I'm absolutely fine with working McKinnon in more but benching Peterson is just a silly idea at this point. He's not the problem.

I want the Vikings to have what you want them to have. I want AP to still be the runner he was seven years ago. It will be sad when he finally does get forced out or he retires. But the writing is on the walls on this. Age is very dramatically showing its signs on AP. I don't think that Year off did anything for his longevity and it robbed him of a chance to break some records.

He doesn't need to be the runner he was 7 years ago. I think you're too focused on his age and not nearly focused enough on the performance of the offense around him (or the coaching). The Titans showed NO respect for the Vikings passing game yesterday and opposing teams showed virtually no respect for the passing game last year with Bridgewater at the helm because they had little reason to fear it. Teddy flirted with a franchise low for TD passes in a 16 game season, struggled to complete passes downfield and the Vikings dysfunctional passing attack scared nobody. Heck, it's taken Mike Wallace 1 week to get half way to his TD total from 2015! It's amazing Peterson had the success he did but, of course, it's impossible for him to excel every week under those circumstances. I don't know if Bradford will help change that or not. It depends on him, on coaching, on blocking, etc. but if the Vikes actually get their passing game going, I sincerely doubt Peterson will look like an over-the-hill back to anybody.

[Mothman]

Seriously though


The Pass Protection was a sight for sore eyes.

It had a lot to do with Hill getting the ball out of his hand quickly and anticipating where his receivers would be. He was decisive.