I agree that it looked like AD was about to start punishing the Pack just as he got injured. They were either getting tired, getting scared of the pass, or our OL was finally blocking better. I guess in my head, playing against a team that's not stacking the box will give us fewer 2nd/3rd and longs since they might actually be able to gain some yards when the D isn't stacking the box. Potentially I just don't understand the deeper levels of offensive and defensive game planning and that's on me!Mothman wrote: Just 1 of his first 5 carries was for positive yardage. However, 6 of his next 7 carries were for positive yardage, most of them for 4 or 5 yards.
Does Peterson make the offense way to predictable?
Moderator: Moderators
Re: Does Peterson make the offense way to predictable?
Re: Does Peterson make the offense way to predictable?
Nobody is "losing their minds".IrishViking wrote:To phrase my point in a total different way.
You tell me the running offense is terrible. That the Offensive line is struggling and that the play calling is poor and the Peterson is having a rusty year to start with.
I say, I agree completely on all points.
I look at the parts and how they interconnect with the rest and say
"welp lets see what combo works, and reach for peterson"
And everyone loses their minds...
Got to start somewhere, if you are testing the cars starter system. You check the battery first, even if you are pretty sure the starter is hosed, you check the battery because it is the easiest to check and swap.
I just don't agree with your premise or your conclusion. Heck, I don't even agree with your analogy! Sorry...
To me, the easiest "check" isn't to pull Peterson off the field, it's to modify the play calling. That doesn't require a change in personnel at all, just a change in strategy. From there, the greater problem seems to be blocking so is anybody on the roster actually capable of performing better than the underachieving bunch we've seen in the past 2 games? Benching the most productive offensive player from a year ago seems more like a last resort to me than the place to start.
In other words, to re-work your analogy: you should check the battery before you replace the engine.
Re: Does Peterson make the offense way to predictable?
No problem.TSonn wrote:I agree that it looked like AD was about to start punishing the Pack just as he got injured. They were either getting tired, getting scared of the pass, or our OL was finally blocking better. I guess in my head, playing against a team that's not stacking the box will give us fewer 2nd/3rd and longs since they might actually be able to gain some yards when the D isn't stacking the box. Potentially I just don't understand the deeper levels of offensive and defensive game planning and that's on me!
In my view, it's all about the team's approach and it begins with play calling. If the opposing defense is continually putting 8 or 9 men in the box on first and second down, the best way to get fewer 2nd/3rd and long situations is to throw against those defenses because that's what they're daring the offense to do. Keep doing that effectively and they have to pick their poison. They can back off the line of scrimmage to defend the pass but once they do, it should enable the offense to run the ball effectively. Do that and now the defense is guessing because they have to stop one or the other and they don't know what's coming. Advantage: offense!
What Peterson provides that should be advantageous to the coaching staff is a threat that forces opposing defenses to be predictable if they want to stop him and a player that can punish them when they don't make that commitment. That should be a huge advantage when game-planning because most defenses will commit to stopping him first.
-
- All Pro Elite Player
- Posts: 1631
- Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:02 am
Re: Does Peterson make the offense way to predictable?
Mothman wrote: Nobody is "losing their minds".
I just don't agree with your premise or your conclusion. Heck, I don't even agree with your analogy! Sorry...
To me, the easiest "check" isn't to pull Peterson off the field, it's to modify the play calling. That doesn't require a change in personnel at all, just a change in strategy. From there, the greater problem seems to be blocking so is anybody on the roster actually capable of performing better than the underachieving bunch we've seen in the past 2 games? Benching the most productive offensive player from a year ago seems more like a last resort to me than the place to start.
In other words, to re-work your analogy: you should check the battery before you replace the engine.
I am going to contend with you on the last year idea simply because people don't age that way. On your birthday every part of your body doesn't say "okay everyone, get one year ####!"
Its a slow decline and he clearly wasnt the player the last 8 games of last year and going into this year. And the majority of this decline started behind a line that helped him get the rushing title.
To rework my reworked analogy; I don't accept the forgone conclusion that AP is our engine anymore. Teddy technically took that from him towards the end of last year and Hill/Bradford have hung onto it for the first part of this year.
Either way, I would love to be wrong and to have AP come back and destroy the league after the bye. I just don't see it happening.
Re: Does Peterson make the offense way to predictable?
But it's a line whose performance also declined when they faced better competition last year. We've been over this. You can talk about AD having a string of 6 poor performances out of 7 but without context, that doesn't mean much. The last two have clearly had a lot to do with the offensive line's performance. So did the two games against Seattle. Their d-line dominated the Vikes OL in those games. The others didn't happen in a bubble either and we've already discussed them. In several of them, the focus Peterson drew from the defense helped the passing offense to be highly effective so that's a net win for the offense even if peterson's stat line didn't look great.IrishViking wrote:I am going to contend with you on the last year idea simply because people don't age that way. On your birthday every part of your body doesn't say "okay everyone, get one year ####!"
Its a slow decline and he clearly wasnt the player the last 8 games of last year and going into this year. And the majority of this decline started behind a line that helped him get the rushing title.
I see a fan base that knows his age, knows the other shoe is going to drop at some point (ie: his age will catch up with him) and is overly eager to declare it dropped.
Oh come on... you don't really believe that, do you? Defenses didn't respect him at all. It's one of the main reasons Peterson's stats started to decline. In Teddy's best performances during the same stretch of games you're talking about, the defenses were clearly keying heavily on Peterson.To rework my reworked analogy; I don't accept the forgone conclusion that AP is our engine anymore. Teddy technically took that from him towards the end of last year
-
- All Pro Elite Player
- Posts: 1631
- Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:02 am
Re: Does Peterson make the offense way to predictable?
And you think AP was the engine that drove week one and last night? AP is running for 50 yards with 8 in box. How long until he doesn't command that front anymore? What happens when he runs for 65 with 7 in the box?Mothman wrote: But it's a line whose performance also declined when they faced better competition last year. We've been over this. You can talk about AD having a string of 6 poor performances out of 7 but without context, that doesn't mean much. The last two have clearly had a lot to do with the offensive line's performance. So did the two games against Seattle. Their d-line dominated the Vikes OL in those games. The others didn't happen in a bubble either and we've already discussed them. In several of them, the focus Peterson drew from the defense helped the passing offense to be highly effective so that's a net win for the offense even if peterson's stat line didn't look great.
I see a fan base that knows his age, knows the other shoe is going to drop at some point (ie: his age will catch up with him) and is overly eager to declare it dropped.
Oh come on... you don't really believe that, do you? Defenses didn't respect him at all. It's one of the main reasons Peterson's stats started to decline. In Teddy's best performances during the same stretch of games you're talking about, the defenses were clearly keying heavily on Peterson.
AP will not be commanding 8 man fronts soon because we cant produce yards against them. I understand that it isn't all his fault but he used to be able to, but now he cant. So maybe we just need to get a running back in their that doesn't get 8 man fronts because our Passing offense looks like it doesn't need an 8 man front anymore to produce yards.
Re: Does Peterson make the offense way to predictable?
Defenses have keyed on Peterson for years. It's crazy to say we are better without him in the game. Last night SB showed some real promise that he could be a QB to beat 8 or 9 in the box if needed. Without Peterson in the game, we aren't going to see those too often. That doesn't mean he'll be worse, but it remains to be seen that he can do as well when defenses are game-planning to stop the pass instead of Peterson.
On the positive side, I do think it forces Norv to be a little more creative, and that could be a good thing. It's rediculous that it would take losing Peterson to make that happen though.
On the positive side, I do think it forces Norv to be a little more creative, and that could be a good thing. It's rediculous that it would take losing Peterson to make that happen though.
Damian
Re: Does Peterson make the offense way to predictable?
I really don't want to bicker about the analogy.IrishViking wrote:And you think AP was the engine that drove week one and last night?
His presence clearly had an impact on the defensive strategies of the Titans and Packers and helped open up the Vikings passing game in both games. Perhaps he wasn't the "engine" but he played an important role even if his stat lines look awful. Tennessee, in particular, sold out heavily to stop him.
That's fine. At that point, they should be able to run him more effectively, assuming this OL can at least block well against 7 man fronts.AP will not be commanding 8 man fronts soon because we cant produce yards against them.
Now he "can't"... after a mere handful of games, several against top run defenses.I understand that it isn't all his fault but he used to be able to, but now he cant.
You're acknowledging the poor OL play in writing but you're still ignoring it's impact! He's never been able to beat 8 man fronts with any consistency with bad blocking in front of him. Nobody does that. The running game's not a one-man show so you can't have it both ways. if the blocking sucks, the huge impact that makes has to be taken into consideration and when it's taken into consideration, writing Peterson off as too old to produce clearly becomes a premature assessment.
We'll see. If that's true, it would be great news.So maybe we just need to get a running back in their that doesn't get 8 man fronts because our Passing offense looks like it doesn't need an 8 man front anymore to produce yards.
Re: Does Peterson make the offense way to predictable?
I see the predictability a result of how AD is most effective. It's well established that in order to get the most out of him, he needs to have the QB under center, 7 yards deep and have a fullback lead. This in essence makes the scheme predictable.
If AD were standing next to the QB, I wouldn't run blitz because he generally only gets a couple yards out of that formation. 7 yards deep with a fullback? I'm bringing it. Hard for Norv to be unpredictable and use Peterson in his most effective fashion.
I have to give Norv some credit though, I thought the wildcat plays did make the packers think about another kind of situation and at least they are trying something different.
I think this victory (with or without AD) will back off some of that pressure.
BTW, the new stadium is definitely as loud as the metrodome. Great atmosphere.
If AD were standing next to the QB, I wouldn't run blitz because he generally only gets a couple yards out of that formation. 7 yards deep with a fullback? I'm bringing it. Hard for Norv to be unpredictable and use Peterson in his most effective fashion.
I have to give Norv some credit though, I thought the wildcat plays did make the packers think about another kind of situation and at least they are trying something different.
I think this victory (with or without AD) will back off some of that pressure.
BTW, the new stadium is definitely as loud as the metrodome. Great atmosphere.
The Marines I have seen around the world have the cleanest bodies, the filthiest minds,the highest morale, and the lowest morals of any group of animals I have ever seen. Thank God for the United States Marine Corps.
Elenore Roosevelt. 1945
Elenore Roosevelt. 1945
- Raptorman
- Hall of Fame Candidate
- Posts: 3403
- Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:23 pm
- Location: Sebastian, FL
- x 67
Re: Does Peterson make the offense way to predictable?
Let's go to the way back machine. Back in 2014 when Peterson was sat down by Rodger, Mckinnon and Asiata tooke over. During that time span Mckinnon averaged 4.8 yards per carry and Asiata averged 3.8. I am not as worried about Peterson sitting out a few games as some people may be.
Vikings fan since Nov. 6, 1966. Annoying Packer fans since Nov. 7, 1966
Re: Does Peterson make the offense way to predictable?
The commentators at Good Morning Football talked this morning about how the Vikings might be better on offense without Peterson moving forward. All hypothetical, of course, but their point was that with AD it is easy to justify running on 1st and 2nd down whereas now they might need to get more creative and depend on the passing game more.
Hopefully they are correct at least for the next couple months!
Hopefully they are correct at least for the next couple months!
-
- Pro Bowl Elite Player
- Posts: 545
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 9:52 am
- x 3
Re: Does Peterson make the offense way to predictable?
I have not read the first two pages of responses, but I'm fairly confident I'm not to first to answer this way.
No, he does not. Norv T does that all by himself.
I want to be a loyal Vikes fan, and not bash anything/anyone purple, white and yellow, but Norv, well, that cat rubs me the wrong way.
As to the question, any team with a back like AP can predict what will probably happen on 1st and 2nd, or Red Zone within the 5.
...wisdom--Go Vikes!
No, he does not. Norv T does that all by himself.
I want to be a loyal Vikes fan, and not bash anything/anyone purple, white and yellow, but Norv, well, that cat rubs me the wrong way.
As to the question, any team with a back like AP can predict what will probably happen on 1st and 2nd, or Red Zone within the 5.
...wisdom--Go Vikes!
...spirits in the wind and the trees
-
- Hall of Fame Inductee
- Posts: 4959
- Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
- x 395
Re: Does Peterson make the offense way to predictable?
Unless you are saying Peterson himself is giving tells, it really makes no sense to pin predictability on Peterson. Its not up to him what plays are called. That said, I'm not bothered by being predictable, I'm bothered by being soft. The line needs to step up.
"You like that!"
-- Cap'n Spazz Cousins
-- Cap'n Spazz Cousins
- PurpleKoolaid
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 8641
- Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 9:52 pm
- x 28
Re: Does Peterson make the offense way to predictable?
I think Norv and AD are equally to blame. AD doesnt even run in certain formations he doesnt like, its well known. He has never been our 3rd down back. Our best player on the team sits out on the most important down. That, with Norv been a little weak at play calling imho, and a poor blocking Oline, well, its no wonder we are among the worst at rushing the balll.