A message board dedicated to the discussion of Minnesota Viking Football.
https://vikingsmessageboard.com/
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.
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.
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
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).
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
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 are 1-1 when scoring first in 2016.Raptorman wrote:Vikings went 9-0 when scoring first in 2015.
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.Purple Reign wrote: Vikings are 1-1 when scoring first in 2016.
What game did they lose when scoring first?Jordysghost wrote: The Vikings are not 9-0 nor 8-0 when scoring first in 2015.
Your right, im an idiot.S197 wrote: What game did they lose when scoring first?
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 idiotJordysghost wrote: Your right, im an idiot.
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.
$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.