It doesn't get too much more balanced than that. I don't think balance is the problem, predictability is more of the problem IMO.Raptorman wrote: As a point. the Vikings ran 20 more running plays than passing plays for the year. 49% passing, 51% running plays. NFL average was 57% passing, 43% running. With only the Vikings, Seattle, Carolina and Buffalo running more running plays than passing plays.
Adrian Peterson -- The elephant in the room
Moderator: Moderators
-
- All Pro Elite Player
- Posts: 1292
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:17 pm
- Location: St. Paul, MN
- x 6
Re: Adrian Peterson -- The elephant in the room
-
- All Pro Elite Player
- Posts: 1631
- Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:02 am
Re: Adrian Peterson -- The elephant in the room
Those numbers don't tell the whole story since we took AP out on third downs and can only think of a handful of times we handed off then. That 49% came almost exclusively on 50% of our downsPurple Reign wrote: It doesn't get too much more balanced than that. I don't think balance is the problem, predictability is more of the problem IMO.
Re: Adrian Peterson -- The elephant in the room
Does anyone know the % of runnning vs. passing plays we ran with AD on the field?
-
- All Pro Elite Player
- Posts: 1292
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:17 pm
- Location: St. Paul, MN
- x 6
Re: Adrian Peterson -- The elephant in the room
Sorry, but I don't understand your point/logic. The numbers merely showed the percentage of running plays to pass plays, no other criteria involved. What does taking AP out on 3rd down have to do with how many times we ran the ball versus threw it?IrishViking wrote: Those numbers don't tell the whole story since we took AP out on third downs and can only think of a handful of times we handed off then. That 49% came almost exclusively on 50% of our downs
Also 49% came almost exclusively from 50% of our downs??? 49% is based on 100% of the downs (except 4th downs).
-
- All Pro Elite Player
- Posts: 1631
- Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:02 am
Re: Adrian Peterson -- The elephant in the room
Purple Reign wrote: Sorry, but I don't understand your point/logic. The numbers merely showed the percentage of running plays to pass plays, no other criteria involved. What does taking AP out on 3rd down have to do with how many times we ran the ball versus threw it?
Also 49% came almost exclusively from 50% of our downs??? 49% is based on 100% of the downs (except 4th downs).
49% came on almost exclusively on first and second down. IE 50% of the downs. The point I am trying to make is since the vast majority of his carries came on those downs then those number falsely skew people towards thinking we run an extremely balanced offense when the truth is that the first and second down weight means that a defense could blitz 12 guys every 1st and 2nd and get burned well under half the time
-
- All Pro Elite Player
- Posts: 1292
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:17 pm
- Location: St. Paul, MN
- x 6
Re: Adrian Peterson -- The elephant in the room
But the definition of being balanced is 50/50. My points is that when you look at total plays, it is balanced and you can't get much more balanced than that. As I said previously, the balance is not the problem, being too predictable is the major problem (as you pointed out, running mostly on 1st and 2nd down). So I don't think you can argue that we aren't balanced when you take all plays into consideration, which is what that stat shows. But I agree that we aren't balanced when just looking at 1st and 2nd down.IrishViking wrote:
49% came on almost exclusively on first and second down. IE 50% of the downs. The point I am trying to make is since the vast majority of his carries came on those downs then those number falsely skew people towards thinking we run an extremely balanced offense when the truth is that the first and second down weight means that a defense could blitz 12 guys every 1st and 2nd and get burned well under half the time
- Raptorman
- Hall of Fame Candidate
- Posts: 3403
- Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:23 pm
- Location: Sebastian, FL
- x 67
Re: Adrian Peterson -- The elephant in the room
Ok, so let's throw some stats out there. Can you tell I'm bored. The following is a list of pass vs run by down. Numbers come from ESPN. Of the 1st down rushing attempts Peterson is responsible for 76%, and 69% of 2nd down attempts. At 3rd down he drops to 30%. While Bridgewater jumps to 41% of rushing attempts on 3rd down.
As you can see they ran on first down more that twice the number of times they passed on 1st down. Average yards gained on those runs was 4.4. Average yards gained passing on 1st down was 7.1.
Note: Attempts is passing and rushing attempts added.
As you can see they ran on first down more that twice the number of times they passed on 1st down. Average yards gained on those runs was 4.4. Average yards gained passing on 1st down was 7.1.
Code: Select all
Pass % Attempts % Rush Pete Mckin Bridge Asiata Line
133 32 417 68 284 216 33 10 12 4
181 57 319 43 138 95 17 13 9 1
136 75 182 25 46 13 2 19 8 1
4 40 10 60 6 2 0 2 0 0
Vikings fan since Nov. 6, 1966. Annoying Packer fans since Nov. 7, 1966
-
- All Pro Elite Player
- Posts: 1292
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:17 pm
- Location: St. Paul, MN
- x 6
Re: Adrian Peterson -- The elephant in the room
Vikings are 1-1 when scoring first in 2016. But I believe the actual number is 8-0 since the last game against GB was actually in 2016, not 2015.Raptorman wrote:Vikings went 9-0 when scoring first in 2015.
-
- Packers Suck
- Posts: 2992
- Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:40 pm
Re: Adrian Peterson -- The elephant in the room
The Vikings are not 9-0 nor 8-0 when scoring first in 2015.Purple Reign wrote: Vikings are 1-1 when scoring first in 2016. But I believe the actual number is 8-0 since the last game against GB was actually in 2016, not 2015.
"Follow my lead today, whos goona be the big dog with me?" - Aaron Rodgers, February 6th, 2011
Re: Adrian Peterson -- The elephant in the room
What game did they lose when scoring first?Jordysghost wrote: The Vikings are not 9-0 nor 8-0 when scoring first in 2015.
-
- Packers Suck
- Posts: 2992
- Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:40 pm
Re: Adrian Peterson -- The elephant in the room
Your right, im an idiot. I keep forgetting that Crosby scored the first points of that first GB Minny game.S197 wrote: What game did they lose when scoring first?
"Follow my lead today, whos goona be the big dog with me?" - Aaron Rodgers, February 6th, 2011
-
- Starting Wide Receiver
- Posts: 19150
- Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:48 pm
- Location: Crystal, MN
- x 114
- Contact:
Re: Adrian Peterson -- The elephant in the room
Being a Green Bay fan goes hand in hand with being an idiotJordysghost wrote: Your right, im an idiot. I keep forgetting that Crosby scored the first points of that first GB Minny game.
Just teasing you
Cold is temporary. Purple Pride is forever.
The Devil whispered in the Viking's ear, "There's a storm coming." The Viking replied, "I am the storm." #SKOL2018
-
- Packers Suck
- Posts: 2992
- Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:40 pm
Re: Adrian Peterson -- The elephant in the room
PurpleMustReign wrote: Being a Green Bay fan goes hand in hand with being an idiot
Just teasing you
Cold is temporary. Purple Pride is forever.
"Follow my lead today, whos goona be the big dog with me?" - Aaron Rodgers, February 6th, 2011
- PurpleKoolaid
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 8641
- Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 9:52 pm
- x 28
Re: Adrian Peterson -- The elephant in the room
One thing that hasnt been commented on alot, is the cap hit/money the Vikes will have after next season is up, and we have to pay half the team. Can we even aford to keep AD? Are they going to be forced to keep AD on the team. Because if they are, it will be AD's team, and I dont see Norv changing much. We need some heavy duty WR power, but we wont get that paying off AD. We dont need for AD to break 1000 yards, we need him to become a better blocker and receiver then he has been up to this point if hes getting the HUGE dollar again.
If anyone knows how the money, cap, contracts, guaranteed money, etc. of AD will effect this team in 2 years please post them here, for dummies like me.
If anyone knows how the money, cap, contracts, guaranteed money, etc. of AD will effect this team in 2 years please post them here, for dummies like me.
Re: Adrian Peterson -- The elephant in the room
$11M next year, 18 in 2017, no guaranteed money.PurpleKoolaid wrote:If anyone knows how the money, cap, contracts, guaranteed money, etc. of AD will effect this team in 2 years please post them here, for dummies like me.
http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/minnesota-vi ... -peterson/
YEAR..AGE..BASE.SALARY......SIGNING.BONUS...ROSTER.BONUS...WORKOUT.BONUS...CAP.HIT............DEAD.CAP
2015...29...$11,000,000........$2,400,000.........$2,000,000......................................$15,400,000......$15,400,000
2016...30...$7,750,000.....................................$3,000,000..........$250,000.............$11,000,000
2017...31...$11,750,000...................................$6,000,000..........$250,000.............$18,000,000
2018...32...UFA
The natural state of the football fan is bitter disappointment. - N.H.