Vikings Message Board.Com

YikesVikes wrote:
74 catches in the last 2 years is not something to write home about. He is in a pass happy offense and he should have more. His catch per target ratio is much lower that AP, who you believe can't catch. Murry can't run out of the gun either. That's the point. At this stage in their careers, AP is still a better overall back than Murray.

I know it's fashionable that when a player leaves the Vikings we pretend that they suck and we over emphasize their flaws but this is ridiculous. The same is said for when someone joins the Vikings, they become the savior we always needed. The fact of the matter is we overpaid for Murray by giving him 5 million a year.

The sad part about this is that I don't care if we bring AP back or not. I wanted an improvement to our running game from 2016. This moves the bar a smidgen for a premium price. Just filling spots isn't the answer. Filling them with players that make sense is how decent teams become great teams. Even ESPN has mentioned how odd our offseason has been. Yet, in the land of Purple shades... you're jumping up and down in delight.

Dude you've done nothing but complain the past two days yet where you're coming up with some of this stuff is beyond me. Peterson is carrying the ball over 300 times a year. Murray has never done that. Peterson shouldve had many more receptions than him over the years. He's been on the field a lot more.

And Murray cant run out of the gun?? Like this is what I am saying. Where do you even come up with that? I've followed Murray close since being in the NFL because I played against him. Oaklands offense is gun heavy. So yes, he can run out of the gun. Much more effective than Peterson ever could.

via ESPN 1500: At least defense want know whats coming when he is on the field being that he is one of the better pass blockers at RB ~ When AP was on the field teams just loaded the box and didn’t worry about him catching the ball out of the backfield ~ It cant look any uglier watching him catching passes out of the backfield than it was watching AP ~ Murray is capable of picking up the tough yards ~ He can run out of the shotgun also ~ And he can find the endzone ~

He is mostly a upgrade over AP at this point and who knows how much better he might be in Shurmur offense ~

AP is not even close to being a better overall back then Murray at this stage of their careers. From strictly running the ball under i-Formation.... yeah AP is better. But there is MUCH MUCH more to a running back than that. And Murray trumps him in just about every other category there is outside of running out of the I.

I think it's more the fact that youre just being thickheaded and missing my point behind this.

You have yet to tell me what reasons other than "explosiveness" why AP is better to have than Murray. I mean have you paid any attention to what I've been saying regarding what Murray brings to the table that AP doesnt. Just search Latavius Murray on google and you will find plenty of articles saying how Murray is an upgrade. Yet you refuse to believe it. That's on you I guess. Not sure what else to tell you. There are no "purple shades", it's just common sense when you break everything down.

Rhodes Closed wrote: So your answer is: Let's get someone who's even older than Adrian Peterson because a 27 year old with a lot of upside isn't good enough, AND who will be wanting starting position and higher pay.

Again, average is perfectly fine here. We don't need Barry F'in Sanders behind us. After all, his contract is voidable after this year. We have a strong RB class and Jerrick McKinnon. If all goes well, he won't put a dent in our cap space. What is it about this transaction that's so deplorable?

The money spent versus the talent acquired is deployable. There is also no way Williams ask for more than 3 million a season given his age and that his last contract was approx 2 years 5 million at a younger age.

You know what I would like. Take 3 of this 5 million and add it to Remmers contract and bring in Wagner. This is the same thing that Rick has done for the past couple of years. Spend the same amount on 2 average players vs. spending on 1 great player. As a result, the offense is horrible. We brought in all those average Tackles last season instead of actually signing one of merit.

YikesVikes wrote:
I'm acting like a (not sure censured so I will assume it rhymes with witch) because I disagree. Silly me, I thought this was a discussion board. Do me a favor, block my posts if my disagreeing with you gets the old VS' in a bunch. From this draft, Freeman could easily fill his role and be available in the 3rd or 4th round.

Dude listen to yourself. You just said Foreman can easily fill that role huh?? The same role as Murray?? Well Foreman had a whopping 13....let me repeat.....13 CAREER catches at Texas. And you just spent how long complaining about Murray's pass catching ability and that 74 receptions in two years wasnt anything to write home about? Foreman had 13 catches in 3 years!!! Now dont get me wrong, I want to draft a RB too but is there something wrong with have two RBs that can be workhorses?? That's what many NFL teams have now. A starting workhorse, a 3rd down back, and a potential workhorse in case the starter goes down. So yeah we can easily still draft a RB. And I'm guessing they will since they can void Murray's deal after 1 year if they want.

You also mention DeAngello Williams. You mentioned how Murray was behind one of the best lines. Well according to PFF this year, Pitt had the #3 overall line, Oakland having #4. So Williams had just as good or a better OL. Oh and by the way, DeAngello Williams averaged 3.5 YPC this year. While Murray averaged 4.0.

You're pulling this stuff out of the air man. Not trying to be a d###. But what youre saying just hasnt added up

This is what one Raiders beat writer (Ted Nguyen) said about Murray, “Murray is OK at catching. He’ll catch the easy ones but don’t expect him to reach out for passes. He’s a great pass protector, maybe one of the best in the league. Big, fast Athlete. He’s tall and runs upright, which gets him in trouble. Doesn’t lower the shoulder as much as you want. Vision is below average, feet are average to below average. [Murray] got better at zone running but not ideal. His best fit is in a gap scheme where he could just run full speed into a hole. Goes down on first contact more than people realize.”

He had some good examples in film breakdown (also some good ones after the Raiders signed Patterson) but can't seem to find them right now. From what I can recall, his vision was not great and missed some big holes and chances to bounce outside. It sounds like his pass protection is his greatest asset, which will definitely be valuable. I have a feeling he won't be putting up the numbers people are pointing to with the Vikes line so this signing seems a little meh to me. Good for depth and sounds like a team friendly one year guaranteed deal?

YikesVikes wrote:Once again, he had 74 catches the last 2 years. How does that warrant "questionable" hands?? And like I said, what does Adrian Peterson have to offer us other than his name, fumbles, injuries, 2 downs, not being able to run out of the gun, etc?? Please enlighten me what this guy has to offer at this stage in his career?? You've done nothing but complain about Murray but have yet to say why Peterson is a better option. It's an improvement. There were no better backs out there that had the durability and age like Murray. No less we're probably drafting one too.

So yeah, you should be excited about a younger back coming in here. Better than what we had and can carry a load if we need him to.

74 catches in the last 2 years is not something to write home about. He is in a pass happy offense and he should have more. His catch per target ratio is much lower that AP, who you believe can't catch. Murry can't run out of the gun either. That's the point. At this stage in their careers, AP is still a better overall back than Murray.

I know it's fashionable that when a player leaves the Vikings we pretend that they suck and we over emphasize their flaws but this is ridiculous. The same is said for when someone joins the Vikings, they become the savior we always needed.[/quote]

It's a dynamic that makes me crazy. The Vikes could have signed two Costa Rican monkeys last week and within hours there would have been fans talking about what an improvement it will be to finally have Costa Rican monkeys on the roster (hmmm... now that i think about it, that might be fun). Meanwhile, they'd be rationalizing away any player that left, regardless of how much they once loved him or how valuable he was/is to the team.

The sad part about this is that I don't care if we bring AP back or not. I wanted an improvement to our running game from 2016. This moves the bar a smidgen for a premium price. Just filling spots isn't the answer. Filling them with players that make sense is how decent teams become great teams.

Exactly. Addressing positions with bodies that can play isn't the same as addressing them in a manner that moves the team closer to a championship.

YikesVikes wrote: The money spent versus the talent acquired is deployable. There is also no way Williams ask for more than 3 million a season given his age and that his last contract was approx 2 years 5 million at a younger age.

You know what I would like. Take 3 of this 5 million and add it to Remmers contract and bring in Wagner. This is the same thing that Rick has done for the past couple of years. Spend the same amount on 2 average players vs. spending on 1 great player. As a result, the offense is horrible. We brought in all those average Tackles last season instead of actually signing one of merit.

AGAIN, AVERAGE is ALL. WE. NEED. (And we did sign two tackles of merit if you didn't notice).

Average tackles with our O-Line lead to average O-Line play, but average is better than what we had the last three years. An Average overall running back is better than a running back who can only run in i-formation. But! (And here's where things get interesting), we have a great QB, two great wide receivers, and potentially two great TEs. What's not to love about how this offense looks as of this moment (aside from RG)?

Pondering Her Percy wrote: Dude you've done nothing but complain the past two days yet where you're coming up with some of this stuff is beyond me. Peterson is carrying the ball over 300 times a year. Murray has never done that. Peterson shouldve had many more receptions than him over the years. He's been on the field a lot more.

That's not how this works! Just because I am on the field more, it doesn't mean I have more opportunities to catch the ball. We were a rush heavy offense. What I do know is that Peterson is a more efficient catcher of the ball (google targets vs. catches). Your inability to grasp that is scary.

Pondering Her Percy wrote:
And Murray cant run out of the gun?? Like this is what I am saying. Where do you even come up with that? I've followed Murray close since being in the NFL because I played against him. Oaklands offense is gun heavy. So yes, he can run out of the gun. Much more effective than Peterson ever could.

My fault. I'll be clear. He's not great at it. He's average. Just like I said he is and average runner. Oakland is Gun heavy (most offenses are in today's NFL) but he only had 85 carried from the Gun. He had twice as many from single back. You keep comparing him to AP like they are the only two RBs in the world. Who gives a fluke about AP. Find me the best talent for this pathetic offense.

Pondering Her Percy wrote: via ESPN 1500: At least defense want know whats coming when he is on the field being that he is one of the better pass blockers at RB ~ When AP was on the field teams just loaded the box and didn’t worry about him catching the ball out of the backfield ~ It cant look any uglier watching him catching passes out of the backfield than it was watching AP ~ Murray is capable of picking up the tough yards ~ He can run out of the shotgun also ~ And he can find the endzone ~

He is mostly a upgrade over AP at this point and who knows how much better he might be in Shurmur offense ~

Already addressed the AP point. We don't have an offense that finds the endzone or gets close to it often. Spare me if I don't jump for Joy because he pludged in 12 times last year.

Pondering Her Percy wrote:
I think it's more the fact that youre just being thickheaded and missing my point behind this.

You have yet to tell me what reasons other than "explosiveness" why AP is better to have than Murray. I mean have you paid any attention to what I've been saying regarding what Murray brings to the table that AP doesnt. Just search Latavius Murray on google and you will find plenty of articles saying how Murray is an upgrade. Yet you refuse to believe it. That's on you I guess. Not sure what else to tell you. There are no "purple shades", it's just common sense when you break everything down.

Again. With the AP. My thoughts on the signing are clear. I don't care if we bring AP back. There were better, cheaper alternatives. I don't care if he is 27 years old. Being younger =/= make him the best option. If so, explain why Oakland let him walk. Explain why Seattle choose Lacy over him. Most teams haven't had the "3rd best blocking back" in for a visit in a pass happy league? #shocked

Pondering Her Percy wrote: Dude you've done nothing but complain the past two days yet where you're coming up with some of this stuff is beyond me. Peterson is carrying the ball over 300 times a year. Murray has never done that. Peterson shouldve had many more receptions than him over the years. He's been on the field a lot more.

And Murray cant run out of the gun?? Like this is what I am saying. Where do you even come up with that? I've followed Murray close since being in the NFL because I played against him. Oaklands offense is gun heavy. So yes, he can run out of the gun. Much more effective than Peterson ever could.
AP is not even close to being a better overall back then Murray at this stage of their careers. From strictly running the ball under i-Formation.... yeah AP is better. But there is MUCH MUCH more to a running back than that. And Murray trumps him in just about every other category there is outside of running out of the I.

I think it's more the fact that youre just being thickheaded and missing my point behind this.

You have yet to tell me what reasons other than "explosiveness" why AP is better to have than Murray. I mean have you paid any attention to what I've been saying regarding what Murray brings to the table that AP doesnt. Just search Latavius Murray on google and you will find plenty of articles saying how Murray is an upgrade. Yet you refuse to believe it. That's on you I guess. Not sure what else to tell you. There are no "purple shades", it's just common sense when you break everything down.

Apparently, you didn't get the message yesterday. Please, adjust your tone.

Mothman wrote: Apparently, you didn't get the message yesterday. Please, adjust your tone.

Not stepping on toes @mothman but he's fine. I think we both just passionate about this team and we have opposing views. I don't think his responses hold anything against me personally. I'm ok with his responses.

Mothman wrote: It's a dynamic that makes me crazy. The Vikes could have signed two Costa Rican monkeys last week and within hours there would have been fans talking about what an improvement it will be to finally have Costa Rican monkeys on the roster (hmmm... now that i think about it, that might be fun). Meanwhile, they'd be rationalizing away any player that left, regardless of how much they once loved him or how valuable he was/is to the team.

I disagree. I've been saying for how long now that we should let AP go?? Much longer before he was actually let go. And I've explained the reasons. Murray is an upgrade from what we had. Simple as that.

Exactly. Addressing positions with bodies that can play isn't the same as addressing them in a manner that moves the team closer to a championship.

So what free agents would've brought us a championship in your opinion then?? If that's what Rick Spielman's doing wrong, then who should we have signed?? 267 pound Eddie Lacy?? 32 year old Adrian Peterson?? Andrew Whitworth, Kevin Zeitler and Ricky Wagner all together so we would have no cap room?? Just curious. And I dont want to hear about the past and how the line has rotted for years. I want to hear who wouldve brought us a championship now

Rhodes Closed wrote:Average tackles with our O-Line lead to average O-Line play, but average is better than what we had the last three years. An Average overall running back is better than a running back who can only run in i-formation.

Peterson isn't half as one-dimensional as he's being portrayed around here lately and that's been made clear over the course of his career. There's a difference between being used in a one-dimensional way by coaches with limited imagination and being a wholly one-dimensional player. There's a difference between seldom being asked to do something and not being able to do it at all. Peterson is not a back "who can only run in i-formation". He prefers that formation, just like QBs prefer to throw certain routes, WRs prefer to run certain routes, etc.

But! (And here's where things get interesting), we have a great QB, two great wide receivers, and potentially two great TEs. What's not to love about how this offense looks as of this moment (aside from RG)?

Great? As in "considerably above normal or average"? Who are these mystery men?

Rhodes Closed wrote: AGAIN, AVERAGE is ALL. WE. NEED. (And we did sign two tackles of merit if you didn't notice).

Average tackles with our O-Line lead to average O-Line play, but average is better than what we had the last three years. An Average overall running back is better than a running back who can only run in i-formation. But! (And here's where things get interesting), we have a great QB, two great wide receivers, and potentially two great TEs. What's not to love about how this offense looks as of this moment (aside from RG)?

And that right there is the reason the Vikes are 50+ years without a chip. When you aim for average, that is what you get. Average. The Pats have an Average WR corp and won a chip with it. This year they traded for a talented WR because average isn't good enough. They have a talented defensive backfield, they signed the top CB on the market.

Specifically signing average players to fill starting spots has 8-8 written all over it.

YikesVikes wrote:Not stepping on toes @mothman but he's fine. I think we both just passionate about this team and we have opposing views. I don't think his responses hold anything against me personally. I'm ok with his responses.

They reflect a pattern of behavior that needs to change.

Pondering Her Percy wrote: I disagree. I've been saying for how long now that we should let AP go?? Much longer before he was actually let go. And I've explained the reasons. Murray is an upgrade from what we had. Simple as that.
So what free agents would've brought us a championship in your opinion then?? If that's what Rick Spielman's doing wrong, then who should we have signed?? 267 pound Eddie Lacy?? 32 year old Adrian Peterson?? Andrew Whitworth, Kevin Zeitler and Ricky Wagner all together so we would have no cap room?? Just curious. And I dont want to hear about the past and how the line has rotted for years. I want to hear who wouldve brought us a championship now

I didn't suggest there was a player or players who would have brought us a championship now.

YikesVikes wrote: And that right there is the reason the Vikes are 50+ years without a chip. When you aim for average, that is what you get. Average. The Pats have an Average WR corp and won a chip with it. This year they traded for a talented WR because average isn't good enough. They have a talented defensive backfield, they signed the top CB on the market.

Specifically signing average players to fill starting spots is has 8-8 written all over it.

People don't want to count it, but the 1969 NFL Championship IS a chip. Not only that, they had nothing but great players from 1967-1980.

Anyways, before this gets into a pissfest, I'll defer from answering further and just say this: We'll find out the results. Let's just sit back and enjoy ourselves.