Adrian Peterson -- The elephant in the room

A forum for the hard core Minnesota Vikings fan. Discuss upcoming games, opponents, trades, draft or what ever is on the minds of Viking fans!

Moderator: Moderators

Purple Reign
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

Post by Purple Reign »

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.
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.
IrishViking
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:02 am

Re: Adrian Peterson -- The elephant in the room

Post by IrishViking »

Purple 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.
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
TSonn
Career Elite Player
Posts: 2127
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2014 11:52 am
Location: Michigan
x 132

Re: Adrian Peterson -- The elephant in the room

Post by TSonn »

Does anyone know the % of runnning vs. passing plays we ran with AD on the field?
Purple Reign
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

Post by Purple Reign »

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
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).
IrishViking
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:02 am

Re: Adrian Peterson -- The elephant in the room

Post by IrishViking »

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
Purple Reign
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

Post by Purple Reign »

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
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.
User avatar
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

Post by Raptorman »

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.

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
Note: Attempts is passing and rushing attempts added.
Vikings fan since Nov. 6, 1966. Annoying Packer fans since Nov. 7, 1966
Purple Reign
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

Post by Purple Reign »

Raptorman wrote:Vikings went 9-0 when scoring first in 2015.
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.
Jordysghost
Packers Suck
Posts: 2992
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:40 pm

Re: Adrian Peterson -- The elephant in the room

Post by Jordysghost »

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.
The Vikings are not 9-0 nor 8-0 when scoring first in 2015.
"Follow my lead today, whos goona be the big dog with me?" - Aaron Rodgers, February 6th, 2011
S197
Fenrir
Posts: 12790
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:28 pm
Location: Hawaii
x 662

Re: Adrian Peterson -- The elephant in the room

Post by S197 »

Jordysghost wrote: The Vikings are not 9-0 nor 8-0 when scoring first in 2015.
What game did they lose when scoring first?
Jordysghost
Packers Suck
Posts: 2992
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:40 pm

Re: Adrian Peterson -- The elephant in the room

Post by Jordysghost »

S197 wrote: What game did they lose when scoring first?
Your right, im an idiot. :oops: I keep forgetting that Crosby scored the first points of that first GB Minny game.
"Follow my lead today, whos goona be the big dog with me?" - Aaron Rodgers, February 6th, 2011
PurpleMustReign
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

Post by PurpleMustReign »

Jordysghost wrote: Your right, im an idiot. :oops: I keep forgetting that Crosby scored the first points of that first GB Minny game.
Being a Green Bay fan goes hand in hand with being an idiot :-D

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
Jordysghost
Packers Suck
Posts: 2992
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:40 pm

Re: Adrian Peterson -- The elephant in the room

Post by Jordysghost »

PurpleMustReign wrote: Being a Green Bay fan goes hand in hand with being an idiot :-D

Just teasing you :-)

Cold is temporary. Purple Pride is forever.
:point:
"Follow my lead today, whos goona be the big dog with me?" - Aaron Rodgers, February 6th, 2011
User avatar
PurpleKoolaid
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8641
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 9:52 pm
x 28

Re: Adrian Peterson -- The elephant in the room

Post by PurpleKoolaid »

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.
jeg067
Starter
Posts: 166
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 11:21 am

Re: Adrian Peterson -- The elephant in the room

Post by jeg067 »

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.
$11M next year, 18 in 2017, no guaranteed money.

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.
Post Reply