Adrian Peterson -- The elephant in the room

mondry · Post by **mondry** » Tue Mar 01, 2016 2:34 pm

Mothman wrote: Oh, it's no illusion:

http://www.scout.com/nfl/vikings/story/ ... ns-of-wear
He makes a big, positive difference and that's why Zimmer worked hard to make sure Peterson stayed in Minnesota last year.

heh, that's the kind of stuff that drives me crazy! I mean, why don't we just give AD 18 carries on the first 18 offensive plays of the game and lock in our win, don't they know how it works!??!? Championship!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by **Mothman** » Tue Mar 01, 2016 4:05 pm

mondry wrote:heh, that's the kind of stuff that drives me crazy! I mean, why don't we just give AD 18 carries on the first 18 offensive plays of the game and lock in our win, don't they know how it works!??!? Championship!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, we both know it's more complex than that but it's a stat that shows his value and is also indicative of what sort of football has been successful for the team. The main reason I posted that quote was for the part where it mentioned the Vikings 12-5 record in games where Zimmer could play Peterson and the 6-9 record without him. He clearly continues to make a big difference.

mondry · Post by **mondry** » Tue Mar 01, 2016 5:43 pm

Mothman wrote: Well, we both know it's more complex than that but it's a stat that shows his value and is also indicative of what sort of football has been successful for the team. The main reason I posted that quote was for the part where it mentioned the Vikings 12-5 record in games where Zimmer could play Peterson and the 6-9 record without him. He clearly continues to make a big difference.

Oh I understand, the thing is it's overwhelmingly common for just about every team that the more they're winning, the more they'll run the ball and the more you're losing the more you throw.

I agree with you on Peterson so this post isn't really about that but again I'll take a tiny bit of issue with the record thing as well. We had a rookie QB for most of the games he couldn't play Peterson and the defense grew a ton from that year to this last one. The whole team basically got better (outside of O-line) and having Peterson come back is a part of that but is he the sole reason they won more games, I don't think so but obviously he had a solid impact.

Raptorman · Post by **Raptorman** » Tue Mar 01, 2016 10:49 pm

Mothman wrote: Well, we both know it's more complex than that but it's a stat that shows his value and is also indicative of what sort of football has been successful for the team. The main reason I posted that quote was for the part where it mentioned the Vikings 12-5 record in games where Zimmer could play Peterson and the 6-9 record without him. He clearly continues to make a big difference.

These don't just go for the time Zimmer has been here. It's been that way for Peterson's whole time here. I posted the numbers elsewhere, but yes, he is a big part of it. The winning percentage is much greater when he has 18+ carries.

20+ 70% win percentage.
18+ 65% win percentage.
17- 30% win percentage.

DK Sweets · Post by **DK Sweets** » Sat Mar 05, 2016 12:54 am

Raptorman wrote:These don't just go for the time Zimmer has been here. It's been that way for Peterson's whole time here. I posted the numbers elsewhere, but yes, he is a big part of it. The winning percentage is much greater when he has 18+ carries.

20+ 70% win percentage.
18+ 65% win percentage.
17- 30% win percentage.

I would like to point out that while those numbers seem very clear, they aren't as definitive as they seem on the surface. For most of Adrian's career, the offense has been built around him/suffered from poor QB play. If Adrian isn't getting seventeen carries, that means the team has spent most of the game playing from behind. It's not easy to win when you're one dimensional and/or playing from behind, especially with poor QB play.

I'm not saying Adrain doesn't have a positive impact on the team. The Seahawks played outstanding football with an offense revolving around Marshawn Lynch, who isn't exactly a multi dimensional threat like Marshall Faulk. You can center an offense around a RB in today's game and have success. But I think when you factor in everything, it's not as simple as feeding Adrian the ball.

The case that some people are making (I don't know where I stand, I'm just throwing my thoughts out here) is that Adrian's enormous salary could be better utilized on players that would help the offense become more balanced. If the offense isn't necessarily dependent on one player, it becomes harder to shut it down.

Again, I'm not sure where I stand on this issue, but I think both arguments have merit. The big question that needs answered for this team is this: we already have cap space. If you trade Adrian, which player(s) do you plan on bringing in to give the offense the same firepower? Cap space for the sake of cap space isn't wise; you need to have a plan to utilize it.

Raptorman · Post by **Raptorman** » Sat Mar 05, 2016 10:10 pm

DK Sweets wrote:I would like to point out that while those numbers seem very clear, they aren't as definitive as they seem on the surface. For most of Adrian's career, the offense has been built around him/suffered from poor QB play. If Adrian isn't getting seventeen carries, that means the team has spent most of the game playing from behind. It's not easy to win when you're one dimensional and/or playing from behind, especially with poor QB play.

I'm not saying Adrain doesn't have a positive impact on the team. The Seahawks played outstanding football with an offense revolving around Marshawn Lynch, who isn't exactly a multi dimensional threat like Marshall Faulk. You can center an offense around a RB in today's game and have success. But I think when you factor in everything, it's not as simple as feeding Adrian the ball.

The case that some people are making (I don't know where I stand, I'm just throwing my thoughts out here) is that Adrian's enormous salary could be better utilized on players that would help the offense become more balanced. If the offense isn't necessarily dependent on one player, it becomes harder to shut it down.

Again, I'm not sure where I stand on this issue, but I think both arguments have merit. The big question that needs answered for this team is this: we already have cap space. If you trade Adrian, which player(s) do you plan on bringing in to give the offense the same firepower? Cap space for the sake of cap space isn't wise; you need to have a plan to utilize it.

I want to address this issue because it seems that is the story line that most people go with and believe. So, here are the numbers. I looked at each game that Peterson had 18 or fewer carries. First looked at the wins vs losses. Then I looked at the half time score to see if the Vikings were ahead or behind and by how much. Now, let's see if I can make sense of this for folks.

50 games. 15 wins, 30% and 35 losses 70%
35 losses. 5 (14%) the Vikings were leading at halftime. By, 1 point, 1 point, 7 points, 10 points and 20 points.
35 losses. 30 (86%) the Vikings were losing at halftime.
35 losses. 16 (46%) the Vikings were within 10 points at halftime.
35 losses. 11 (31%) the Vikings were within 8 points at halftime.
In only 8 games(16%) were the Vikings ever behind by more than 14 points at the half.

15 wins. 3 times Vikings were behind at the half, by 2,3, and 4 points.
In 5 of the wins, the Vikings were up by 14 or more at the half, 14, 24, 27, 31 and 31 points ahead

Out the 50 games, the Vikings were leading or tied at halftime for 17 of them, or 34% of the time.
Out of 50 games the Vikings were within one score in 22 of them at the half.

DK Sweets · Post by **DK Sweets** » Sun Mar 06, 2016 4:36 am

So basically you're saying that in 24 of those 35 losses, the Vikings were two scores behind by halftime, which to me, is significant. You shouldn't be behind be more than a TD by halftime with an anemic passing offense...that's a recipe for disaster, as the numbers indicate.

You seem to view 14 points as a more accurate view of "behind for most of the game", which I would consider a blowout.

jackal · Post by **jackal** » Mon Mar 07, 2016 1:46 am

Peterson is a HOF game and the only thing I can knock on his game is fumbles. IMO Peterson was not coached to be
an overall NFL back. He was an NFL star and kept two of our bad coaches in the NFL longer than they should have
been(Childress and Frazier). So I am giving Peterson a break on the receiving and pass blocking, to some extent.

Peterson is over paid IMO. The league is become a passing league in the last ten years. Not Peterson's fault but
it is reality. We could sign Chris Ivory for close to half of what Peterson makes and have a nice tandem with McKinnon
and him. There are still four five OG's in free agency to put at LG like Mathis. Yeah a two year deal with good pay.
You cut Kalil, Wallace, Locke, and Patterson. Between that and Peterson's salary you can afford two or three FA's

You sign Alex Boone and Mathis OG's with Peterson's money
Chris Ivory of 75 percent of wallace's deal
Kailil is replaced with 1st round draft pick
You sign Jermaine Kerse
and Mohamed Sanu with Kali's money

This gives you a very good OL Conklin LT Mathis LG Sullivan C Alex Boone RG Loadholt RT

Running Back Chris Ivory and McKinnon

Wide Out Sanu and Diggs starters Wright and Kearse back ups and KR/PR Thielen backup

Draft OG and C in rounds 2, 3 Turner OG Jack Allen C Michgan State that gives you depth across the OL and you cut the two or three worst players you have.

chicagopurple · Post by **chicagopurple** » Mon Mar 07, 2016 4:08 pm

i would totally be OK with that situation.......but it will never happen.....they will ride AP into the sunset....

jackal · Post by **jackal** » Mon Mar 07, 2016 4:12 pm

Your probably right ....

allday1991 · Post by **allday1991** » Mon Mar 07, 2016 4:14 pm

Speaking of overpaid elephants in the room.... Blair Walsh. Just can't handle the spot light and pressure of kicking in a big game. Can't blame it all on Locke, change the holder all you want, when it's a game that has playoff implications or against a good team he will choke.

Post by **dead_poet** » Mon Mar 07, 2016 4:15 pm

allday1991 wrote:Speaking of overpaid elephants in the room.... Blair Walsh. Just can't handle the spot light and pressure of kicking in a big game. Can't blame it all on Locke, change the holder all you want, when it's a game that has playoff implications or against a good team he will choke.

Hasn't Blair had a handful (footfall) of game winners?

allday1991 · Post by **allday1991** » Mon Mar 07, 2016 4:20 pm

dead_poet wrote: Hasn't Blair had a handful (footfall) of game winners?

Yes sir he has. I'd be interested in seeing how many of them where against teams with winning records or playoff implications. Just saying there is alot less pressure of kicking a game winning field goal and going 6-10 against a team doing worse than us than there is kicking a game winner against a team no one gave us a chance against. I know there isn't a large sample size to go off for games he has kicked in that involves playoff implications for us but anything that amplifies the pressure. ... like monday night games, thursday games, rivals etc. I may be wrong but the bigger the situation the worse he is?

DK Sweets · Post by **DK Sweets** » Mon Mar 07, 2016 4:46 pm

Full disclosure: I was thinking this when playing Madden. It was based on a video game decision, but I think it has a realistic application in real life.

If Dallas decided they really wanted Peterson, would you guys be happy with a trade of Peterson and Kalil (pending a contract restructure for Dallas) for Tyron Smith?

I think that would be great value for both teams, and would open up the possibility of us signing a guard in FA and instantly upgrading our line to a very solid unit.

Consider a line of Smith/FA/(Sullivan/Berger)/(Fusco/Harris)/Loadholt. That's a solid line. McKinnon has shown nice value and we can still pick up another RB. Additionally, this open up Rudolph to be more of a pass catcher and we have a more serious threat of a pass catcher out of the backfield.

I think that moves our team in a direction where this can be Teddy's offense, and we're trading away a great player for a very good player at an important position while moving on from a Kalil, who most people have given up on.

On Dallas' side, they would still have a very good line with a once-in-a-lifetime RB. They would have to believe Kalil could at least be average, but I think with the rest of their line that is a gamble they would be willing to take.

I obviously would be in favor, but what are your thoughts?

mansquatch · Post by **mansquatch** » Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:17 pm

NO WAY!

Ask yourself where this offense would have been in 2015 without Adrian Petersen. My guess is they win at least 4 fewer games. Will swapping Tyron Smith for Matt Kalil add back those 4 wins? I just don't see it.

On second thought, I think you would get Tyron Smith to stick around more than the 1-2 seasons AP probably has left in Purple, so over the long run the deal probably has better value to the Purple. However, next season would likely be a step backwards in the W/L department, especially playing a 1st place schedule without the offense's most productive player.

As an aside, Can you imagine how much of a goat Smith would be? Every time he allowed a Sack people would call for Rick's head. It would be as bad or worse that Napoleon Harris/Troy Williamson for Randy Moss.

Vikings Message Board.Com