Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 59
  1. #11
    ItalianStallion's Avatar
    ItalianStallion is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,615

    Re: Childress on Peterson

    "singersp" wrote:
    "ItalianStallion" wrote:
    They don't question how ineffective our offense is, which is what Childress seemed like he was explaining (3 and out, 3 and out, 3 and out etc.), they question why he's still splitting the ball with Taylor when he averages 30% more yards/ carry and it our only offensive star.

    We're still passing the ball more than running, which is ridonkulous considering the weapons we have in the running game and the complete ineffectiveness of our passing game.
    Well you need to be able to pass in order to open up the running game. If all you do is run, run, run, defenses will simply stuff the box & AD's production will go down, like we saw last week.
    In our offense, we have no hope to pass unless we get a running game going.
    Like I said, we're passing more than running when we should be running more than passing.
    We do not have enough of a threat in the passing game to pull defenders out of the box, we have to show we can run anyway.


    I m like a Ja Rule poster, cause I'm off the wall.

  2. #12
    mblack76's Avatar
    mblack76 is offline Pro-Bowler
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    412

    Re: Childress on Peterson

    "Redmption" wrote:
    I'm surprised I didnt see this posted or any commentary on Brads press conference today.

    Last thing I’d say before I take questions is we understand here that we have a great talent in Adrian Peterson and we are trying to grow him just like we attempt to grow all of our young guys.
    I am sure his role will increase as we go through the rest of this football season, but there will be times and situations where situations will dictate that we have other folks in the football game.
    That was kind of a left-handed game as I mentioned kind of football game.
    I go back through and look at touches and play called and that type of thing.
    When you have a 48-play game of which there are only 17 plays in the first half, he touches the ball seven out of 17 plays.
    I go down through how many was he in for, 11 plays in the first series.
    He had five touches; he was in for six plays.
    We were backed up in the second series.
    He was in for two, had a great protection. We were three and out; he didn’t touch the ball.
    The third series, he touched it two of three times.
    Fourth series we take a knee and the half is over.


    In the second half, seven of 11 he is in for he touches the football.
    He touches it one of three, we’re out.
    He touches it one of three, we’re out.
    We have a blocked field goal in an eight-play series; he is in for four and he touches it two.
    So you catch my point.
    The last series three series 10, 11, and 12, we are down 10 with 10:29 to go.
    He is in for two, three pass plays, he doesn’t touch it; 0-5, 0-3, 0-2, he is not in the last two series. The last two series were at 6:29 and 0:23 to go. As I mentioned to you, his role will continue to increase. Just like everybody you want to see somebody have success. There are things that he does better than others and obviously the goal is to get him to do all things well within this offense. Just as most people, they don’t know it all after five games.
    "

    The way he breaks it down makes everyone sound stupid for questioning how many touches Peterson gets...

    Nice post. Like others have been saying and I reiterate, there are a bunch here that just like to run the coach under the bus without considering the facts and situation. Very nice break down.

  3. #13
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,899

    Re: Childress on Peterson

    "mblack76" wrote:
    "Redmption" wrote:
    I'm surprised I didnt see this posted or any commentary on Brads press conference today.

    Last thing I’d say before I take questions is we understand here that we have a great talent in Adrian Peterson and we are trying to grow him just like we attempt to grow all of our young guys.
    I am sure his role will increase as we go through the rest of this football season, but there will be times and situations where situations will dictate that we have other folks in the football game.
    That was kind of a left-handed game as I mentioned kind of football game.
    I go back through and look at touches and play called and that type of thing.
    When you have a 48-play game of which there are only 17 plays in the first half, he touches the ball seven out of 17 plays.
    I go down through how many was he in for, 11 plays in the first series.
    He had five touches; he was in for six plays.
    We were backed up in the second series.
    He was in for two, had a great protection. We were three and out; he didn’t touch the ball.
    The third series, he touched it two of three times.
    Fourth series we take a knee and the half is over.


    In the second half, seven of 11 he is in for he touches the football.
    He touches it one of three, we’re out.

    He touches it one of three, we’re out.

    We have a blocked field goal in an eight-play series; he is in for four and he touches it two.
    So you catch my point.
    The last series three series 10, 11, and 12, we are down 10 with 10:29 to go.

    He is in for two, three pass plays, he doesn’t touch it; 0-5, 0-3, 0-2, he is not in the last two series. The last two series were at 6:29 and 0:23 to go. As I mentioned to you, his role will continue to increase. Just like everybody you want to see somebody have success. There are things that he does better than others and obviously the goal is to get him to do all things well within this offense. Just as most people, they don’t know it all after five games.
    "

    The way he breaks it down makes everyone sound stupid for questioning how many touches Peterson gets...

    Nice post. Like others have been saying and I reiterate, there are a bunch here that just like to run the coach under the bus without considering the facts and situation. Very nice break down.
    Both of you just got moved over into a new column on the spread sheet my friends.

    ;D

    Very nice.
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  4. #14
    soonerbornNbred is offline Pro-Bowler
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    357

    Re: Childress on Peterson

    Redemption
    So YOUR sayin The facts of the situation is?coach is Doing a Geat Job? a Fine Job? a Good Job?

  5. #15
    COJOMAY is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    7,005

    Re: Childress on Peterson

    "ItalianStallion" wrote:
    "singersp" wrote:
    "ItalianStallion" wrote:
    They don't question how ineffective our offense is, which is what Childress seemed like he was explaining (3 and out, 3 and out, 3 and out etc.), they question why he's still splitting the ball with Taylor when he averages 30% more yards/ carry and it our only offensive star.

    We're still passing the ball more than running, which is ridonkulous considering the weapons we have in the running game and the complete ineffectiveness of our passing game.
    Well you need to be able to pass in order to open up the running game. If all you do is run, run, run, defenses will simply stuff the box & AD's production will go down, like we saw last week.
    In our offense, we have no hope to pass unless we get a running game going.
    Like I said, we're passing more than running when we should be running more than passing.
    We do not have enough of a threat in the passing game to pull defenders out of the box, we have to show we can run anyway.
    You could state that in reverse, too. We have no hope of getting the running game going unless the passing game clicks. Near the end of the game when we had all those 3 and outs, we were behind and had to depend on passing to move the ball quickly. Unfortunately we got no passing game so defenses stack the box. Until we can get some resembelence of a passing game we won't have a effective running game either.
    Kentucky Vikes Fan

    When you require nothing, you get nothing; when you expect nothing, you will find nothing; when you embrace nothing, all you will have is nothing.

  6. #16
    mblack76's Avatar
    mblack76 is offline Pro-Bowler
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    412

    Re: Childress on Peterson

    "soonerbornNbred" wrote:
    Redemption
    So YOUR sayin The facts of the situation is?coach is Doing a Geat Job? a Fine Job? a Good Job?
    If I may chip in here...
    No he is not doing a good job per the results but I am seeing some good things he is doing in developing the team (things that have been pointed out here many times) over all and we need to give him time and let him do his job.
    My 'beef with many here is the grossly unfounded negative criticism about the team/ players/ coaches
    more often than not without the barest glance at the real occurrences both on and off the pitch. What most here find easy and in vogue
    to say is just go with the popular phrases...'Childress is clueless' and ...'fire the coach' with very few examples to support their quickly depreciated lines which have become old beaten and battered cliches.


  7. #17
    Redmption's Avatar
    Redmption is offline Pro-Bowler
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    307

    Re: Childress on Peterson

    "soonerbornNbred" wrote:
    Redemption
    So YOUR sayin The facts of the situation is?coach is Doing a Geat Job? a Fine Job? a Good Job?
    It looks like Childress is doing a bad job because the team sucks on offense which is supposed to be his specialty, but its hard to grade because there are too many factors. This team has a noob QB. QB is the most critical part of a football team for its side of the ball. It take years to get a good QB going but Childress has to fast track it because of the win now mentality spewed by the media, owners and irate forum posters ;D
    He has three years, one of which was tanked by a QB who turned over the ball way too much and was a veteran. At least we now have a rookie who turns the ball over but is learning and can possibly the franchise QB with time. So year two he has to stick him in the game and let him learn. If this kid pans out and the WRs play up to their potential, Rice, this could be an awesome team next year. That happens, Childress is a genius. Hes drafted well so far and has set a lot of the good peices we have on offense and defense in place. The flip side, he fails and we can say he sucked. Give Childress his three years to layout his plan. When he got here there were no big faces or real franchise players, the defense sucked and the team was a discrace as far as morality is concerned. Childress cleaned that up, got us AD when he could have easily gone Quinn, hired the personell to turn our talent on D into stallions, and may possibly have a soild QB in the making.
    Is that not enough to warrant the guy some time to let things play out?
    Its not like he walked into an awesome situation like Tice did with two of the best offensive players in the league but could only win one playoff game. Moss was gone and Culpepper turned into an A-hole.

  8. #18
    ItalianStallion's Avatar
    ItalianStallion is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,615

    Re: Childress on Peterson

    "COJOMAY" wrote:
    "ItalianStallion" wrote:
    "singersp" wrote:
    "ItalianStallion" wrote:
    They don't question how ineffective our offense is, which is what Childress seemed like he was explaining (3 and out, 3 and out, 3 and out etc.), they question why he's still splitting the ball with Taylor when he averages 30% more yards/ carry and it our only offensive star.

    We're still passing the ball more than running, which is ridonkulous considering the weapons we have in the running game and the complete ineffectiveness of our passing game.
    Well you need to be able to pass in order to open up the running game. If all you do is run, run, run, defenses will simply stuff the box & AD's production will go down, like we saw last week.
    In our offense, we have no hope to pass unless we get a running game going.
    Like I said, we're passing more than running when we should be running more than passing.
    We do not have enough of a threat in the passing game to pull defenders out of the box, we have to show we can run anyway.
    You could state that in reverse, too. We have no hope of getting the running game going unless the passing game clicks. Near the end of the game when we had all those 3 and outs, we were behind and had to depend on passing to move the ball quickly. Unfortunately we got no passing game so defenses stack the box. Until we can get some resembelence of a passing game we won't have a effective running game either.
    Except that we've shown the opposite.
    We haven't had a decent passing game all season yet somehow manage to lead the NFL in rushing.
    Somehow I doubt it's our passing game that is setting up the runs we make...

    The fact is that even when we were down by 7 (which was long after Childress decided to ride Tarvaris, and thus our offense, into the ground) we were passing more than running, and specifically, passing in short yardage 3rd down situations (of which Tarvaris had converted zero).

    We need to get used to defenses stacking the box.
    In fact, I'd be willing to bet defenses have been doing that already all season and yet we DO have an effective running game.


    I m like a Ja Rule poster, cause I'm off the wall.

  9. #19
    ItalianStallion's Avatar
    ItalianStallion is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,615

    Re: Childress on Peterson

    "Redmption" wrote:
    "soonerbornNbred" wrote:
    Redemption
    So YOUR sayin The facts of the situation is?coach is Doing a Geat Job? a Fine Job? a Good Job?
    It looks like Childress is doing a bad job because the team sucks on offense which is supposed to be his specialty, but its hard to grade because there are too many factors. This team has a noob QB. QB is the most critical part of a football team for its side of the ball. It take years to get a good QB going but Childress has to fast track it because of the win now mentality spewed by the media, owners and irate forum posters ;D
    He has three years, one of which was tanked by a QB who turned over the ball way too much and was a veteran. At least we now have a rookie who turns the ball over but is learning and can possibly the franchise QB with time. So year two he has to stick him in the game and let him learn. If this kid pans out and the WRs play up to their potential, Rice, this could be an awesome team next year. That happens, Childress is a genius. Hes drafted well so far and has set a lot of the good peices we have on offense and defense in place. The flip side, he fails and we can say he sucked. Give Childress his three years to layout his plan. When he got here there were no big faces or real franchise players, the defense sucked and the team was a discrace as far as morality is concerned. Childress cleaned that up, got us AD when he could have easily gone Quinn, hired the personell to turn our talent on D into stallions, and may possibly have a soild QB in the making.
    Is that not enough to warrant the guy some time to let things play out?
    Its not like he walked into an awesome situation like Tice did with two of the best offensive players in the league but could only win one playoff game. Moss was gone and Culpepper turned into an A-hole.
    Keep in mind Tice inherited a great offense and a terrbile defense, Childress inherited an unknown offense (we still had Culpepper but he had been terrible the previous year) and a great defense.


    We built most of the defense we have now during Tice's reign (K-Will, P-Will, Udeze, James, EJ, Winfield, Sharper, etc.), we'll see if Childress can build anything out of our offense...

    Childress will get his 3 years and Tarvaris will get at least till the end of the year to prove we don't need to take a QB in the top 10.
    The fact is this year is rapidly becoming a write-off, and if this team was managed properly it never should have been.



    I m like a Ja Rule poster, cause I'm off the wall.

  10. #20
    VikingsMB's Avatar
    VikingsMB is offline Pro-Bowler
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    361

    Re: Childress on Peterson

    "ItalianStallion" wrote:
    "Redmption" wrote:
    "soonerbornNbred" wrote:
    Redemption
    So YOUR sayin The facts of the situation is?coach is Doing a Geat Job? a Fine Job? a Good Job?
    It looks like Childress is doing a bad job because the team sucks on offense which is supposed to be his specialty, but its hard to grade because there are too many factors. This team has a noob QB. QB is the most critical part of a football team for its side of the ball. It take years to get a good QB going but Childress has to fast track it because of the win now mentality spewed by the media, owners and irate forum posters ;D
    He has three years, one of which was tanked by a QB who turned over the ball way too much and was a veteran. At least we now have a rookie who turns the ball over but is learning and can possibly the franchise QB with time. So year two he has to stick him in the game and let him learn. If this kid pans out and the WRs play up to their potential, Rice, this could be an awesome team next year. That happens, Childress is a genius. Hes drafted well so far and has set a lot of the good peices we have on offense and defense in place. The flip side, he fails and we can say he sucked. Give Childress his three years to layout his plan. When he got here there were no big faces or real franchise players, the defense sucked and the team was a discrace as far as morality is concerned. Childress cleaned that up, got us AD when he could have easily gone Quinn, hired the personell to turn our talent on D into stallions, and may possibly have a soild QB in the making.
    Is that not enough to warrant the guy some time to let things play out?
    Its not like he walked into an awesome situation like Tice did with two of the best offensive players in the league but could only win one playoff game. Moss was gone and Culpepper turned into an A-hole.
    Keep in mind Tice inherited a great offense and a terrbile defense, Childress inherited an unknown offense (we still had Culpepper but he had been terrible the previous year) and a great defense.


    We built most of the defense we have now during Tice's reign (K-Will, P-Will, Udeze, James, EJ, Winfield, Sharper, etc.), we'll see if Childress can build anything out of our offense...

    Childress will get his 3 years and Tarvaris will get at least till the end of the year to prove we don't need to take a QB in the top 10.
    The fact is this year is rapidly becoming a write-off, and if this team was managed properly it never should have been.

    Come on...Childress was not proven in what was done in Philedelphia and was hired because he hit it off with Zygi.
    After Tice's lack of discipline, over his players and especially with himself, Zygi was looking for a no personality,
    straight from the him coach.
    He has ideas but has no idea how to implement them.
    He has surrounded himself with coaches who are also new to their positions (exception Les Frazier).
    Childress was guaranteed 2 years of a 5 year contract.
    End of season will be end of line for Childress.
    He is surrounded by great football players on paper except at one position...QB...where he is choosing to hang his career on.
    Bad coaching move.
    Bad coach.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Childress wants 20 to 30 carries for Peterson
    By NodakPaul in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 12-29-2009, 05:13 PM
  2. Childress & Peterson Address the Media
    By marstc09 in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-09-2008, 12:02 PM
  3. Childress: There's room for Peterson to improve
    By COJOMAY in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 02-11-2008, 11:02 AM
  4. Childress Needs to Let up On Peterson Running
    By Webby in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-16-2007, 08:28 PM
  5. Childress on Peterson: 'A willing learner, a willing worker'
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-25-2007, 11:41 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •