Cliff wrote:
You're dethpicable.
Moderator: Moderators
Cliff wrote:
Pondering Her Percy wrote: Exactly!! People on here are freaking out saying his age is catching up to him and everything else. And I said it once and I'll say it again, does anyone remember the SF game last year when he had a very similar game? Yet he went on to lead the league in rushing. Relax people
Fair enough. If we look closer, we see that 2 of the 6 games in which he ran for under 100 yards were against Seattle, the #1 run defense in the NFL last season. That alone might explain those two outings.slapnut19 wrote:you can also look at last week's thursday night game. the panthers sold out to stop the bronco running game with simien at qb and anderson still had 100 yards.
there has to be legit concern for peterson. in his last 8 games he has gone over 100 twice and under 70 the other 6. I'm not saying he can't be a very productive back still, but the idea that he's the same ole a.d. might need to be looked at a little closer.
Indeed. We've seen too much of them.mansquatch wrote:These are all too familiar themes.
Mothman wrote: Fair enough. If we look closer, we see that 2 of the 6 games in which he ran for under 100 yards were against Seattle, the #1 run defense in the NFL last season. That alone might explain those two outings.
The remaining 4:
@TN (last week)
@ Green Bay
CHI
@ARI
The Titans sold out to stop the run with 8 or 9 men near the line of scrimmage and they swarmed at Peterson every time he touched it. The Vikes couldn't force them out of it with the pass so basically, it worked.
If I recall correctly, the other 3 teams took the same approach. The Vikes were unable to force GB out of it with the pass either (I think TB finished that game with 99 yards passing) so the strategy was pretty successful. They didn't really force Chicago or Arizona out of their commitment to stop AD but in those games, they were able to actually take advantage of the defensive commitment to stop Peterson by making plays in the passing game. They blew out Chicago in what was easily Bridgewater's best performance of the year and while they came up short against Arizona, they had 300+ yards passing in that game, in no small part because the Cardinals #6-ranked run defense was focused on stopping Peterson. When his presence helps open up the passing game as it did in those 2 games, and the passing game delivers, he's still bringing real value to the offense even if his stat line looks mediocre.
There's not enough in this 8 game stretch to concern me yet. His production seems increasingly tied to the ability of the passing game to produce points because without that, a heavy commitment to stopping him remains a very viable strategy and it's not one the Vikes OL and AD can overcome on a weekly basis. You're right, this bears watching but it's not as if he's spent his career topping 100 yards on a weekly basis. He's had stretches like this before.
One last thought: I sometimes think Vikes fans expect what AD was able to do down the stretch in 2012 to be his new norm. That doesn't seem realistic to me. Musgrave put together an incredibly effective power running game that year and Peterson ran like a man possessed. It was extraordinary but if I'm not mistaken, no NFL back has ever repeated a 2000 yard season. That was a level of achievement that was fun to watch but probably impossible to sustain.
Mothman wrote: Fair enough. If we look closer, we see that 2 of the 6 games in which he ran for under 100 yards were against Seattle, the #1 run defense in the NFL last season. That alone might explain those two outings.
The remaining 4:
@TN (last week)
@ Green Bay
CHI
@ARI
The Titans sold out to stop the run with 8 or 9 men near the line of scrimmage and they swarmed at Peterson every time he touched it. The Vikes couldn't force them out of it with the pass so basically, it worked.
If I recall correctly, the other 3 teams took the same approach. The Vikes were unable to force GB out of it with the pass either (I think TB finished that game with 99 yards passing) so the strategy was pretty successful. They didn't really force Chicago or Arizona out of their commitment to stop AD but in those games, they were able to actually take advantage of the defensive commitment to stop Peterson by making plays in the passing game. They blew out Chicago in what was easily Bridgewater's best performance of the year and while they came up short against Arizona, they had 300+ yards passing in that game, in no small part because the Cardinals #6-ranked run defense was focused on stopping Peterson. When his presence helps open up the passing game as it did in those 2 games, and the passing game delivers, he's still bringing real value to the offense even if his stat line looks mediocre.
There's not enough in this 8 game stretch to concern me yet. His production seems increasingly tied to the ability of the passing game to produce points because without that, a heavy commitment to stopping him remains a very viable strategy and it's not one the Vikes OL and AD can overcome on a weekly basis. You're right, this bears watching but it's not as if he's spent his career topping 100 yards on a weekly basis. He's had stretches like this before.
One last thought: I sometimes think Vikes fans expect what AD was able to do down the stretch in 2012 to be his new norm. That doesn't seem realistic to me. Musgrave put together an incredibly effective power running game that year and Peterson ran like a man possessed. It was extraordinary but if I'm not mistaken, no NFL back has ever repeated a 2000 yard season. That was a level of achievement that was fun to watch but probably impossible to sustain.
Except that's not the point I'm making, unless your point is simply that he can be stopped. As I said, he's had stretches like this before. Throughout his career, there have been good defenses that were able to hold him in check. It's not new. SF held him to 3 yards on 14 carries all the way back in his rookie season and he had set the NFL record for yards in a single game just a month or so earlier.slapnut19 wrote:you are pretty much making my point. versus good defenses and teams that want to stop him he is becoming less and less effective.
It's not that he's now that type of back. He's always been that type of back. There's no running game that can't be contained by a defense that executes well against it, especially if the offense can't counter with a sufficiently effective passing attack. There's a reason that's a popular response. It's true!the popular response is "well if the passing game was better, he'd be better." if he is now that type of back then it makes zero sense to pay him anywhere close to what he's making, and it probably means cutting him loose after this season if he isn't willing to re work his 18 mil dollar cap figure that he has for next season.
He probably still can. He just did it last year. Now he's suddenly incapable because of a week 1 loss to the Titans? You're posting as if he always overcame loaded boxes and poor QB play. That's fiction.in his prime he was type of back that could overcome loaded boxes and poor qb play.
I'm not the one looking at this from a "fanboy" perspective.he's just not that player anymore, and if you look at him objectively and not from a fan boy perspective you would start to see the same thing
In other words, it's easier for an RB to have a good game against a bad run defense or a team that's playing 7 in the box on every down and more worried about the pass? I think it's safe to say that's true.IrishViking wrote:Just to play Devil's advocate; Using the above logic you would then need to reduce "credit" to AP for any team that had a poor rushing defense, or teams that for whatever reason didn't game plan to stop him.
There were two in that stretch. The other one was against Atlanta, who, if I'm not mistaken, actually had one of the league's top-rated run defenses at that point in the season (they finished 14th though, so they ended up basically average).He rushed for around 125 yards against both San Diego and St Louis last year. Both were very near the bottom in rushing defense. his single 100 yard a game last year in that stretch we are talking about came against the Giants who had the 8th worst rushing Defense.
Nobody's giving him a pass. It's just not all about him, just like QB performance isn't all about the QB. If fans can't grasp that blocking is critical to success in the running game and that it's more difficult to run against 9 players near the line of scrimmage than against 7, I don't know what to say. It's not reasonable to expect Peterson to be Superman and achieve great results against any defense, regardless of the strategies used against him or the performance of the players around him. A poor performance by the player is not the same as a poor performance by the running game as a whole. Peterson averaged just 1.16 yards before contact per carry on Sunday. That speaks volumes about the blocking in front of him.If he gets a pass for rushing poorly against good teams, rushing well against bad teams shouldn't be held up as evidence of quality.
Looking back, AD was also his trademarked impatient at times, not waiting for the holes to possibly open a fraction. It could be -- as has been the case his whole career -- it's less he is slowing down and more that he's too jacked upTSonn wrote:I don't think AD's skills have diminished all that much but I think his average (being generous) help in the passing game (blocking, routes, catching) really hinders the offense when he's in the game. Not only can the D sell out on the run, but he's not much of a threat as a pass-catching RB so they also don't have to worry about that either as opposed to having a RB who is equally dangerous in the pass and run game.
This is what I believe is the case. He's already been on record that he's bored during the offseason. His adrenaline is probably going nuts by that first snap. I think it was John Lynch that said there's some guys who need to get hit in the preseason, they like it. I think AD is probably one of those guys. You don't have to play him all 4 games but I think it's worth the risk to at least let him play in 1 (most likely the 3rd preseason game).dead_poet wrote: Looking back, AD was also his trademarked impatient at times, not waiting for the holes to possibly open a fraction. It could be -- as has been the case his whole career -- it's less he is slowing down and more that he's too jacked up
Mothman wrote: In other words, it's easier for an RB to have a good game against a bad run defense or a team that's playing 7 in the box on every down and more worried about the pass? I think it's safe to say that's true.
There were two in that stretch. The other one was against Atlanta, who, if I'm not mistaken, actually had one of the league's top-rated run defenses at that point in the season (they finished 14th though, so they ended up basically average).
Nobody's giving him a pass. It's just not all about him, just like QB performance isn't all about the QB. If fans can't grasp that blocking is critical to success in the running game and that it's more difficult to run against 9 players near the line of scrimmage than against 7, I don't know what to say. It's not reasonable to expect Peterson to be Superman and achieve great results against any defense, regardless of the strategies used against him or the performance of the players around him. A poor performance by the player is not the same as a poor performance by the running game as a whole. Peterson averaged just 1.16 yards before contact per carry on Sunday. That speaks volumes about the blocking in front of him.
I think this criticism falls primarily on Turner. The Vikings have been way too predictable in their use of personnel since he arrived, and even by down and situation. Peterson could definitely stand to improve as a receiver but he's hardly incompetent in that area and I doubt he gets many reps as a receiver in practice because teams tend to practice what they play. If they want him to be a bigger part of the passing game and want that to help keep defenses off balance, they have to actually do it more often, not just pay lip service to the idea. His deficiencies as a receiver and pass blocker have been greatly exaggerated.TSonn wrote:I don't think AD's skills have diminished all that much but I think his average (being generous) help in the passing game (blocking, routes, catching) really hinders the offense when he's in the game. Not only can the D sell out on the run, but he's not much of a threat as a pass-catching RB so they also don't have to worry about that either as opposed to having a RB who is equally dangerous in the pass and run game.