Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 59
  1. #21
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,266

    Re: Childress on Peterson

    "ItalianStallion" wrote:
    "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.
    Ah, but it is! Even though we are not having a lot of success throwing the ball, the fact of the matter is, we are still throwing those passes. As long as we do, the defense has to protect for it.

    If you resort only to the run, the defense will weigh heavly on it, bringing more men up front in the box.

    "If at first you don't succeed, parachuting is not for you"

  2. #22
    marcosMN is offline Star Spokesman
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Mpls, MN
    Posts
    2,097

    Re: Childress on Peterson

    "singersp" wrote:
    "ItalianStallion" wrote:
    "COJOMAY" wrote:
    "ItalianStallion" wrote:
    "singersp" wrote:
    [quote author=ItalianStallion link=topic=39095.msg661470#msg661470 date=1193275419]
    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.
    Ah, but it is! Even though we are not having a lot of success throwing the ball, the fact of the matter is, we are still throwing those passes. As long as we do, the defense has to protect for it.

    If you resort only to the run, the defense will weigh heavly on it, bringing more men up front in the box.
    [/quote]

    I think the point is being missed here...

    The reason the Vikes lead the league in rushing is not because of defensive looks. It is because we have two really good backs and a bunch of blockers for them.

    Whether the "box" is stacked or not, both Chester and (to a greater extent) AD hit the hole and explode through it. On the big plays that have created the status of league-leaders, the ball-carrier is in to the second level of the defense before they know what hit them. At that point, whatever "look" they had set up is fucking crumbling, and its every man for himself.

    Chester and AD are the reason.
    8)
    -Sno

  3. #23
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,266

    Re: Childress on Peterson

    "SnoBumMN" wrote:
    "singersp" wrote:
    "ItalianStallion" wrote:
    "COJOMAY" wrote:
    "ItalianStallion" wrote:
    [quote author=singersp link=topic=39095.msg661480#msg661480 date=1193275984]
    [quote author=ItalianStallion link=topic=39095.msg661470#msg661470 date=1193275419]
    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.
    Ah, but it is! Even though we are not having a lot of success throwing the ball, the fact of the matter is, we are still throwing those passes. As long as we do, the defense has to protect for it.

    If you resort only to the run, the defense will weigh heavly on it, bringing more men up front in the box.
    [/quote]

    I think the point is being missed here...

    The reason the Vikes lead the league in rushing is not because of defensive looks. It is because we have two really good backs and a bunch of blockers for them.

    Whether the "box" is stacked or not, both Chester and (to a greater extent) AD hit the hole and explode through it. On the big plays that have created the status of league-leaders, the ball-carrier is in to the second level of the defense before they know what hit them. At that point, whatever "look" they had set up is fucking crumbling, and its every man for himself.

    Chester and AD are the reason.
    8)
    [/quote]

    Exactly what was AD average yard per carry last Sunday when they stacked the box a lot, compared to the Bears game when according to Marrdro, they didn't.


    Dallas: 5.25 ypc

    Chicago: 11.2 ypc

    "If at first you don't succeed, parachuting is not for you"

  4. #24
    ItalianStallion's Avatar
    ItalianStallion is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,615

    Re: Childress on Peterson

    "singersp" wrote:

    Ah, but it is! Even though we are not having a lot of success throwing the ball, the fact of the matter is, we are still throwing those passes. As long as we do, the defense has to protect for it.

    If you resort only to the run, the defense will weigh heavly on it, bringing more men up front in the box.
    Opposing defenses already do, mainly because our passing game is no threat, and we are still successful running the ball.

    I'm not suggesting we run the ball exclusively, I'm suggesting we run the ball more than we pass.
    Obviously no team is going to abandon their pass defense and concentrate fully on the run, even if we did run 100% of the time.
    Defenses have to defend our run a lot more than theiy do our pass and thus their primary job is to stop the run and MAKE us pass (Childress managed to save the effort of the Dallas defense, and accomplished this task himself).

    I'll take Peterson's 5+ yards/carry against a stacked box over Jackson's 3.5-4 yards/attempt against a defense keying on the run.


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

  5. #25
    marcosMN is offline Star Spokesman
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Mpls, MN
    Posts
    2,097

    Re: Childress on Peterson

    "singersp" wrote:
    "SnoBumMN" wrote:
    "singersp" wrote:
    "ItalianStallion" wrote:
    "COJOMAY" wrote:
    [quote author=ItalianStallion link=topic=39095.msg661490#msg661490 date=1193276957]
    [quote author=singersp link=topic=39095.msg661480#msg661480 date=1193275984]
    [quote author=ItalianStallion link=topic=39095.msg661470#msg661470 date=1193275419]
    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.
    Ah, but it is! Even though we are not having a lot of success throwing the ball, the fact of the matter is, we are still throwing those passes. As long as we do, the defense has to protect for it.

    If you resort only to the run, the defense will weigh heavly on it, bringing more men up front in the box.
    [/quote]

    I think the point is being missed here...

    The reason the Vikes lead the league in rushing is not because of defensive looks. It is because we have two really good backs and a bunch of blockers for them.

    Whether the "box" is stacked or not, both Chester and (to a greater extent) AD hit the hole and explode through it. On the big plays that have created the status of league-leaders, the ball-carrier is in to the second level of the defense before they know what hit them. At that point, whatever "look" they had set up is fucking crumbling, and its every man for himself.

    Chester and AD are the reason.
    8)
    [/quote]

    Exactly what was AD average yard per carry last Sunday when they stacked the box a lot, compared to the Bears game when according to Marrdro, they didn't.


    Dallas: 5.25 ypc

    Chicago: 11.2 ypc

    [/quote]

    If you include # of carries in that stat you see that he never had a chance to figure the Dallas D out and far fewer opportunities to break a big one. The law of averages, man. The more touches he gets, the more likely he is to score.

    And the injury risk argument is not a factor.

    If they don't want him injured, take him off of kick returns.
    -Sno

  6. #26
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,266

    Re: Childress on Peterson

    "SnoBumMN" wrote:
    "singersp" wrote:
    "SnoBumMN" wrote:
    "singersp" wrote:
    "ItalianStallion" wrote:
    [quote author=COJOMAY link=topic=39095.msg661500#msg661500 date=1193278068]
    [quote author=ItalianStallion link=topic=39095.msg661490#msg661490 date=1193276957]
    [quote author=singersp link=topic=39095.msg661480#msg661480 date=1193275984]
    [quote author=ItalianStallion link=topic=39095.msg661470#msg661470 date=1193275419]
    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.
    Ah, but it is! Even though we are not having a lot of success throwing the ball, the fact of the matter is, we are still throwing those passes. As long as we do, the defense has to protect for it.

    If you resort only to the run, the defense will weigh heavly on it, bringing more men up front in the box.
    [/quote]

    I think the point is being missed here...

    The reason the Vikes lead the league in rushing is not because of defensive looks. It is because we have two really good backs and a bunch of blockers for them.

    Whether the "box" is stacked or not, both Chester and (to a greater extent) AD hit the hole and explode through it. On the big plays that have created the status of league-leaders, the ball-carrier is in to the second level of the defense before they know what hit them. At that point, whatever "look" they had set up is fucking crumbling, and its every man for himself.

    Chester and AD are the reason.
    8)
    [/quote]

    Exactly what was AD average yard per carry last Sunday when they stacked the box a lot, compared to the Bears game when according to Marrdro, they didn't.


    Dallas: 5.25 ypc

    Chicago: 11.2 ypc

    [/quote]

    If you include # of carries in that stat you see that he never had a chance to figure the Dallas D out and far fewer opportunities to break a big one. The law of averages, man. The more touches he gets, the more likely he is to score.

    And the injury risk argument is not a factor.

    If they don't want him injured, take him off of kick returns.
    [/quote]

    Why should that matter. You said yourself, "AD & C-Tay are in to the second level of the defense before they know what hit them. At that point, whatever "look" they had set up is fucking crumbling, and its every man for himself."


    "If at first you don't succeed, parachuting is not for you"

  7. #27
    marcosMN is offline Star Spokesman
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Mpls, MN
    Posts
    2,097

    Re: Childress on Peterson

    "singersp" wrote:
    "SnoBumMN" wrote:
    "singersp" wrote:
    "SnoBumMN" wrote:
    "singersp" wrote:
    [quote author=ItalianStallion link=topic=39095.msg661516#msg661516 date=1193279436]
    [quote author=COJOMAY link=topic=39095.msg661500#msg661500 date=1193278068]
    [quote author=ItalianStallion link=topic=39095.msg661490#msg661490 date=1193276957]
    [quote author=singersp link=topic=39095.msg661480#msg661480 date=1193275984]
    [quote author=ItalianStallion link=topic=39095.msg661470#msg661470 date=1193275419]
    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.
    Ah, but it is! Even though we are not having a lot of success throwing the ball, the fact of the matter is, we are still throwing those passes. As long as we do, the defense has to protect for it.

    If you resort only to the run, the defense will weigh heavly on it, bringing more men up front in the box.
    [/quote]

    I think the point is being missed here...

    The reason the Vikes lead the league in rushing is not because of defensive looks. It is because we have two really good backs and a bunch of blockers for them.

    Whether the "box" is stacked or not, both Chester and (to a greater extent) AD hit the hole and explode through it. On the big plays that have created the status of league-leaders, the ball-carrier is in to the second level of the defense before they know what hit them. At that point, whatever "look" they had set up is fucking crumbling, and its every man for himself.

    Chester and AD are the reason.
    8)
    [/quote]

    Exactly what was AD average yard per carry last Sunday when they stacked the box a lot, compared to the Bears game when according to Marrdro, they didn't.


    Dallas: 5.25 ypc

    Chicago: 11.2 ypc

    [/quote]

    If you include # of carries in that stat you see that he never had a chance to figure the Dallas D out and far fewer opportunities to break a big one. The law of averages, man. The more touches he gets, the more likely he is to score.

    And the injury risk argument is not a factor.

    If they don't want him injured, take him off of kick returns.
    [/quote]

    Why should that matter. You said yourself, "AD & C-Tay are in to the second level of the defense before they know what hit them. At that point, whatever "look" they had set up is fucking crumbling, and its every man for himself."


    [/quote]

    I never said it would be instant. I was merely saying he should have had more of a chance to help win that game. And every game.
    -Sno

  8. #28
    hx38596's Avatar
    hx38596 is offline Pro-Bowler
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    456

    Re: Childress on Peterson

    "SnoBumMN" wrote:
    "singersp" wrote:
    "SnoBumMN" wrote:
    "singersp" wrote:
    "SnoBumMN" wrote:
    [quote author=singersp link=topic=39095.msg661530#msg661530 date=1193280911]
    [quote author=ItalianStallion link=topic=39095.msg661516#msg661516 date=1193279436]
    [quote author=COJOMAY link=topic=39095.msg661500#msg661500 date=1193278068]
    [quote author=ItalianStallion link=topic=39095.msg661490#msg661490 date=1193276957]
    [quote author=singersp link=topic=39095.msg661480#msg661480 date=1193275984]
    [quote author=ItalianStallion link=topic=39095.msg661470#msg661470 date=1193275419]
    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.
    Ah, but it is! Even though we are not having a lot of success throwing the ball, the fact of the matter is, we are still throwing those passes. As long as we do, the defense has to protect for it.

    If you resort only to the run, the defense will weigh heavly on it, bringing more men up front in the box.
    [/quote]

    I think the point is being missed here...

    The reason the Vikes lead the league in rushing is not because of defensive looks. It is because we have two really good backs and a bunch of blockers for them.

    Whether the "box" is stacked or not, both Chester and (to a greater extent) AD hit the hole and explode through it. On the big plays that have created the status of league-leaders, the ball-carrier is in to the second level of the defense before they know what hit them. At that point, whatever "look" they had set up is fricken crumbling, and its every man for himself.

    Chester and AD are the reason.
    8)
    [/quote]

    Exactly what was AD average yard per carry last Sunday when they stacked the box a lot, compared to the Bears game when according to Marrdro, they didn't.


    Dallas: 5.25 ypc

    Chicago: 11.2 ypc

    [/quote]

    If you include # of carries in that stat you see that he never had a chance to figure the Dallas D out and far fewer opportunities to break a big one. The law of averages, man. The more touches he gets, the more likely he is to score.

    And the injury risk argument is not a factor.

    If they don't want him injured, take him off of kick returns.
    [/quote]

    Why should that matter. You said yourself, "AD & C-Tay are in to the second level of the defense before they know what hit them. At that point, whatever "look" they had set up is fricken crumbling, and its every man for himself."


    [/quote]

    I never said it would be instant. I was merely saying he should have had more of a chance to help win that game. And every game.
    [/quote]

    Right.
    Childress was comparing number of carries... this and that.
    The fact is if you give AD the ball more, he will hammer 1 yard gain, 8 yard gain, then a 56 yard gain for a td.
    That's what he's taking out of his deduction and reasoning.
    The fact that AD can take it to the house where other players on the team can't.
    He expects the same possibilities from all the offensive players, whereas he shouldn't.
    Remember his quote, " 'Taylor' is just as explosive as Peterson."
    I'm starting to believe that this wasn't about good PR, but rather some twisted thoughts he really has.
    I don't think he wanted to draft Peterson, but was top office decision.

  9. #29
    ItalianStallion's Avatar
    ItalianStallion is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,615

    Re: Childress on Peterson

    "hx38596" wrote:
    Right.
    Childress was comparing number of carries... this and that.
    The fact is if you give AD the ball more, he will hammer 1 yard gain, 8 yard gain, then a 56 yard gain for a td.
    That's what he's taking out of his deduction and reasoning.
    The fact that AD can take it to the house where other players on the team can't.
    He expects the same possibilities from all the offensive players, whereas he shouldn't.
    Remember his quote, " 'Taylor' is just as explosive as Peterson."
    I'm starting to believe that this wasn't about good PR, but rather some twisted thoughts he really has.
    I don't think he wanted to draft Peterson, but was top office decision.
    Who else would he draft?
    The only other logical answer would be Quinn, and that would prove to everyone he was an idiot for trading two 3rd rounders for Jackson.


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

  10. #30
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,266

    Re: Childress on Peterson

    "SnoBumMN" wrote:

    If you include # of carries in that stat you see that he never had a chance to figure the Dallas D out and far fewer opportunities to break a big one. The law of averages, man. The more touches he gets, the more likely he is to score.
    AD Week 2:
    20 carries,
    66 yards, 0 TD's

    "If at first you don't succeed, parachuting is not for you"

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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
  •