For anyone doubting AD

[Mothman]

Great post.

Thank you.

[losperros]

Third, I think the characterization of me making a straw man argument is unfair. Because there was no argument to counter. If this had been a simple gif post with a "check these plays out" type comment, I would have gladly chimed in with awe. Instead this is a combative post "calling out" people who didn't "believe" in AP. and I think I posted my thoughts in a respectful manner. I am sorry if you feel very forcefully that AP is still the AP of yore. But I don't and that is the ONLY point I made apart from general commentary on the state of the "Debate"

I would be thrilled to see a comparison of the Asiata/Mc touches compared to AP. It does seem like (with a small sample size) our ground game moves a bit better without AP in there. At some point I would think they need to do a value comparison of AP taking pressure off the passing game vs the actual production of the passing game/running game. I wouldn't say bench him for a game to test the A/Mc tandem because I still think AP is the best option. I personally believe the drop off isn't as big as we would believe though.


I do sincerely apologize if I upset anyone I wasn't trying to bait or troll, just expressing my opinion and frustration. If I came off as rude or dismissive I do, again, apologize.

Just my two cents but I think the straw man claim was valid, especially the way Jim outlined it.

I realize you're merely talking about the "drop off" but comparing Asiata to Peterson is any possible way as pure runners (not blocking or receiving) is mind-boggling to me. There simply is no comparison. Sure, Peterson isn't what he once was, but he's still one of the best. Proof of that is that D coordinators sell out on almost every play to stop him when he's on the field. Now that's respect. They don't do the same to Asiata. Not by a long shot.

As for you expressing your opinion, that works for me. We don't all have to agree here. We just have to keep it civil.

[Norv Zimmer]

Exactly, when asiata or mckinnon are in the opposing defense is expecting pass. When AP is on the field they sell out to stop him.
I wonder why they haven't tried split backs with peterson and asiata/mckinnon. I think they could run some interesting running plays or sweeps outta that formation along with screens to either side while faking a run, or just normal play action.

[sneaxsneax]

That literally just happened in the game yesterday. They scored on 7 different possessions.

They threw for almost 150 yards off play action yesterday. Those opportunities were there because the Lions were working so hard to stop Peterson. People need to stop focusing on the few runs McKinnon or Asiata make when the defense isn't keying it's resources on stopping the run and see the bigger picture. Peterson may be getting stuffed as defenses commit extra resources to stopping him but he's still making big plays and his presence helps create big plays elsewhere.

By the way, a huge run resulting in a TD can be the difference between winning and losing. It's not something that should be casually dismissed.
They have one: Adrian Peterson.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did Teddy Bridgewater not effectively throw the football last year without AP, with Charles Johnson as his number 1? Just because we moved the ball with the pass doesn't mean we couldn't if AP wasn't in the game yesterday. To attribute our passing success to AP drawing defenders is not necessarily true. A more balanced attack would help this offense. We are constantly in 2nd and 3rd and longs with AP. Those are harder passes to hit, they aren't run blitzing on 3rd and 12. My guess is Teddy is not facing a stacked box in those situations, and he was succeeding just fine.

[Mothman]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did Teddy Bridgewater not effectively throw the football last year without AP, with Charles Johnson as his number 1? Just because we moved the ball with the pass doesn't mean we couldn't if AP wasn't in the game yesterday. To attribute our passing success to AP drawing defenders is not necessarily true. A more balanced attack would help this offense. We are constantly in 2nd and 3rd and longs with AP. Those are harder passes to hit, they aren't run blitzing on 3rd and 12. My guess is Teddy is not facing a stacked box in those situations, and he was succeeding just fine.

It appears we've reached an impasse.

[S197]

We've had this discussion before so I'll keep my thoughts brief.

1. It's not an average if you take out the best run(s) without making equal adjustments to the negative side and to the stats of others to whom you are making a comparison. Even then, it's still not an average but at least it's slightly more accurate.
2. Not to take anything away from McKinnon or Asiata but typically those who spell AD put up better stats than if they were a true starter. Toby Gerhart, as an example.
3. Even if you are in the trade camp, there are very few (if any) teams that can absorb and/or be willing to take the cap hit.

[dkoby]

Why does this always become an all or nothing argument?
Some here (including me) are just saying the AD is not as effective as he once was. Why does that evoke such a contrarian response? It is frustrating to me because he is getting paid more than ever before and is not as effective as he once was.
You can post all the clips of him as you want, but the eyes don't lie, this guy is hit or miss these days.
Is he still a great back? Yup, I never heard anyone saying otherwise. But if they are constantly stuffing him because the other team is run blitzing constantly, then the OC should not have to take 3 quarters to figure that out.
Someone here mentioned a two back set or split backs...I think that could be tried. But, I'm not the offensive coordinator of the Minnesota Vikings.

What I find troubling is that some here refuse to acknowledge that he just is not the same. I find that it likens itself to when we had the Randy Rule. When Peterson is on the field, the defense sells out to stop him. why should we not be throwing for 450 yards and 4 TD's? Either he's really not that effective, or Teddy is not reading the defense right yet, or Norv is missing huge opportunities.
Getting stuffed for 2 yards or less for 20 plays a game is not what I would call an efficient offense. In hopes that you might break one......

[Just Me]

I'm considering several factors when trying to evaluate the efficacy of Peterson this year:

1) Peterson's ability/performance by itself (total yards, carries, etc.).
2) A sub-par (and that's putting it nicely) performance at times by the offensive line.
3) The effect on defenses Peterson has (just be being in the game).
4) The degree to which Bridgewater and Peterson's teammates can capitalize on the increased attention Peterson is drawing.


1) Peterson's performance (as of today) is 4th in the NFL in total rushing yards, but he is 21st in the NFL for yards per attempt. Removing the QB position from that list, and all running backs with less than 50 carries, still puts Peterson tied at 15th in the NFL for YPA. Peterson is averaging 4.4 Yards per attempt (along with Latavius Murry, Deangelo Williams, and Mark Ingram). Still 4.4 YPA is (IMHO) a "healthy" average, and I don't necessarily subscribe to the theory that one has to "throw out the highs and the lows" to achieve a "true" average. For one thing, throwing out the "high" affects the final average MUCH more than throwing out the low. Let's face it: a bad run is maybe -3 to -4 yards. If a back totally messed up, he might lose -7 or -8 but that is rare. In essence, I subscribe to the theory that the "stats are the stats" and 'tweaking them' only calls into question my motives for doing so. Yes, Peterson has benefitted from some long runs. If that's the panacea for a low YPA average, why hasn't McKinnon (and I like this kid BTW) made some long runs to bolster his YPA? McKinnon currently sits at 3.8 YPA. So to me, the stats are the stats. Take them for what their worth, but 'massaging' them will result in its own set of biases.

The last full season Peterson played (2013) he averaged 4.5 YPA and about 90.4 yards per game (He currently is at 88.3 YPG). So despite what my "eyes" see, his performance really is only minimally less (one could argue comparable since our OL woes this year alone could account for the slight drop in performance). Peterson's MVP season (2012) saw him average 6.0 YPA and 131.1 YPG. In 2011, Peterson was at 4.7 YPA and 80.8 YPG. In 2010 he averaged 4.6 YPA and 86.5 YPG. In 2009, he averaged 4.4 YPA and 86.4 YPG. (The year of Favre). Now granted, our passing attack was much more successful then, but the facts are, Peterson is playing at roughly the same level he was in 2009. He steadily improved until his MVP year and appear to be on a slow decline in performance (assuming this average holds for the remainder of the season.

Basically, he is still a top tier running back and by every measurable performance, still better than McKinnon.

2) It's hard to quantify the performance of our OL, but suffice to say that when a running back receives both the ball and a defensive player at the same time the OL is not helping. IMHO, that factor alone, could account for the slight drop-off from 2013 until this year.

3) I call it the "Moss Effect." Not to start a whole new argument, but I always maintained that Moss helped Culpepper more than the other way around. Opponents of that theory have always pointed out that Culpepper's best year was when Moss played injured much of the time. My point was that Moss, while hurt, was still playing. That affected how defenses planned/played, and set up other opportunities for plays just because Moss was gathering more defenders around him. I won't change minds on this (and others won't change my mind), but I use it to illustrate the point. Peterson does create offensive opportunities on the field, even if he does "nothing" on the play, other than be a decoy.

4) Which brings us to the final point: How are the Viking capitalizing on the situation? I think part of the frustration is watching Peterson get stuffed on short runs (again an OL issue in many cases - not all, though) just because the defense is "keying on him." Bridgewater needs to step up here and become the QB that makes defenses pay when they overplay the run. Just my 2 cents...

[Pondering Her Percy]

As I said before, I can't believe this is even a discussion. 4th in the league in rushing yards at 30 years old with aruguably the worst blocking he's ever had in front of him. But yeah, he's "diminished"

Can anyone find the stat for how much he was hit within 1 yard of the LOS vs KC?? I bet it was even worse than Detroit. The stats don't lie guys. The big run he had vs SD he was stopped right at the line too and somehow made a spectacular play. I just don't see anything to back up him being "diminished". If he was diminished then he would be about 20th in the league in rushing, be much slower, and have trouble breaking tackles. I don't see any of those things. Not one. It just makes me seriously question some peoples football knowledge

[fiestavike]

As I said before, I can't believe this is even a discussion. 4th in the league in rushing yards at 30 years old with aruguably the worst blocking he's ever had in front of him. But yeah, he's "diminished"

Can anyone find the stat for how much he was hit within 1 yard of the LOS vs KC?? I bet it was even worse than Detroit. The stats don't lie guys. The big run he had vs SD he was stopped right at the line too and somehow made a spectacular play. I just don't see anything to back up him being "diminished". If he was diminished then he would be about 20th in the league in rushing, be much slower, and have trouble breaking tackles. I don't see any of those things. Not one. It just makes me seriously question some peoples football knowledge

I'm not convinced he's diminished, but I do think he's a bit flummoxed.

[Mothman]

I'm not convinced he's diminished, but I do think he's a bit flummoxed.

Being repeatedly met by defenders in the backfield has been proven to have a genuinely flummoxing effect on running backs.

By the way, I think you just made that post so you could use the word flummoxed.

[fiestavike]

Being repeatedly met by defenders in the backfield has been proven to have a genuinely flummoxing effect on running backs.

By the way, I think you just made that post so you could use the word flummoxed.

I agree its mostly attributable to poor blocking, but I think his resulting befuddlement is making the situation a little worse.

[Mothman]

I agree its mostly attributable to poor blocking, but I think his resulting befuddlement is making the situation a little worse.

His befuddlement is baffling but it's the confounding bewilderment of the discombobulated offensive line that's disconcerting.

[Just Me]

As I said before, I can't believe this is even a discussion. 4th in the league in rushing yards at 30 years old with aruguably the worst blocking he's ever had in front of him. But yeah, he's "diminished"

And even that may not be totally accurate (didn't look to see if the 3 ahead of him had already had their "bye's" this year. But the YPA would ostensibly cover that variable and he is at "21." Take out the 2 QBs and the one running back with less than 50 attempts and he shows "18" (along with three others at 4.4 - ypc which is why I show 'tied at 15'). I'd be concerned with that (#15) but 4.4 is still pretty good, and as I mentioned before, is the same as his 2009 YPA average. I understand the thought that he might be 'falling off' because he has looked tentative at times, but the stats really don't suggest he is 'diminished' to any significant degree. (Especially when taken in context with how poorly the OL has been playing).

Can anyone find the stat for how much he was hit within 1 yard of the LOS vs KC?? I bet it was even worse than Detroit. The stats don't lie guys. The big run he had vs SD he was stopped right at the line too and somehow made a spectacular play. I just don't see anything to back up him being "diminished". If he was diminished then he would be about 20th in the league in rushing, be much slower, and have trouble breaking tackles. I don't see any of those things. Not one. It just makes me seriously question some peoples football knowledge

I didn't find the 'within 1 yard of LOS' stat, but I did find this article.

Part of the problem in the first half was the Vikings’ inability to clear space for Peterson; according to ESPN Stats & Information, he was hit behind the line of scrimmage on 10 of his 17 first-half carries, and gained just 5 yards before contact.

(Added emphasis was mine.)

[dead_poet]

I agree its mostly attributable to poor blocking, but I think his resulting befuddlement is making the situation a little worse.

I think Zimmer has said recently that AD may be "pressing" and trying to do too much (again) due to all the run blitzes and shoddy run blocking getting hit behind the line of scrimmage on 70-80% of his rushes and getting frustrated by it. Something to keep in mind that may be less about his potential decline and more trying to make bigger plays than the two or so yards that might be "blocked."