Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 65
  1. #31
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,899

    Re:A look at Peterson's production

    Overlord wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    Overlord wrote:
    I disagree with all this patience and predictability stuff. I'm thinking that if AD were any more patient a lot of those 0 yard losses would be 3 yard losses.

    The offensive line was terrible in the run game last year.

    I'm not alone in that view. The same site that provides the stats for the running back that started this conversation ranked the Vikings as the worst run blocking team in the NFL last year. I've knocked that sites rankings before for various reasons, but it's based on an actual play-by-play analysis and gives you at least an idea of how the team and individual players performed.

    There are a variety of reasons for this poor level of play from the line in the run game last year. I think back injuries to Hutchinson and McKinnie are likely excuses. Inexperience can always be thrown into the conversation.

    The big point is the offensive line was bad in this area and I hope it's better in 2010. Adrian Peterson is capable of averaging 5+ yards/carry behind a good line. I want to see the Vikes get back to that.
    Just one discussion point.....

    1394 yards/315 attemps/4.4 yards per carry......

    Someone is doing thier job someplace.....
    Yeah. That someone is Adrian Peterson.

    And honestly, those stats aren't that great. Not the kind of stats that a back as good as AD should be putting up.

    My quick count from NFL.com is 23 players that had 4.4 yards/carry or more on over 100 carries last season. And while total yards is nice, you have to focus on that yards/carry efficiency. Yeah, 5th in total yards, but 4th in number of carries.

    Peterson averaged 5.6 yards/carry his rookie year. In 2008 he averaged 4.8 yards/carry. He's capable. Last year the line held him back.
    I agree with you on almost all counts, except that the line and line alone held him back.

    Again, I pointed out the yards after contact stat. AD (and CT) didn't seem to fair real well in that catagory.

    The other thing that bares mentioning (hard to show a stat for it) is what happens to a OL when they pass alot, when it comes to degradation in the running game.

    We saw several teams that were stellar running the ball degrade in that stat a bit as they passed more often than they did the year before.

    In short, the "Bigs" don't do well when bouncing back and forth between the two blocking schemes.
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,206

    Re:A look at Peterson's production

    Marrdro wrote:
    I agree with you on almost all counts, except that the line and line alone held him back.

    Again, I pointed out the yards after contact stat. AD (and CT) didn't seem to fair real well in that catagory.
    AD averaged 2.9 yards after contact/carry according to that site. That's 17th in the league (among guys with a minimum number of snaps) and 0.7 yards back from the leader. If that number had been 3.0 yards after contact, that would have been 9th in the league. The point? There's a big jam of guys there, and 2.9 is not bad at all.

    Chester Taylor was at 2.2 yards after contact/carry. That's closer to the worst in the league (which was 1.9), ranking 47th out of 63 guys (snap minimum). It's still a pretty tight jam, but AD is closer to the front, and Chester is near the back.

    The other thing that bares mentioning (hard to show a stat for it) is what happens to a OL when they pass alot, when it comes to degradation in the running game.

    We saw several teams that were stellar running the ball degrade in that stat a bit as they passed more often than they did the year before.

    In short, the "Bigs" don't do well when bouncing back and forth between the two blocking schemes.
    This idea just doesn't hold up under scrutiny. The Saints, Cowboys, and Patriots all had better running games than the Vikings last year in terms of average per carry and total yards. They also were all ranked in the top 5 in the profootballfocus team run blocking stats. And all three teams can throw the football around a little bit, with each throwing for more yards than a Vikes team that was very good in the pass game itself last year.

    I did think that the pass blocking by the Vikes was better than in previous years. But several other teams have shown that you don't necessarily have to make a choice between one or the other.
    When the age of the Vikings came to a close, they must have sensed it. Probably, they gathered together one evening, slapped each other on the back and said, "Hey, good job." - Jack Handey [Deep Thoughts]

  3. #33
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,899

    Re:A look at Peterson's production

    Overlord wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    I agree with you on almost all counts, except that the line and line alone held him back.

    Again, I pointed out the yards after contact stat. AD (and CT) didn't seem to fair real well in that catagory.
    AD averaged 2.9 yards after contact/carry according to that site. That's 17th in the league (among guys with a minimum number of snaps) and 0.7 yards back from the leader. If that number had been 3.0 yards after contact, that would have been 9th in the league. The point? There's a big jam of guys there, and 2.9 is not bad at all.

    Chester Taylor was at 2.2 yards after contact/carry. That's closer to the worst in the league (which was 1.9), ranking 47th out of 63 guys (snap minimum). It's still a pretty tight jam, but AD is closer to the front, and Chester is near the back.
    I think you missed that I was trying to use that stat as evidence that both of them are pretty bad when it comes to how many yards they get after they are hit the first time.

    I wonder how poor AD's would really be if he wasn't the type of back he is.


    The other thing that bares mentioning (hard to show a stat for it) is what happens to a OL when they pass alot, when it comes to degradation in the running game.

    We saw several teams that were stellar running the ball degrade in that stat a bit as they passed more often than they did the year before.

    In short, the "Bigs" don't do well when bouncing back and forth between the two blocking schemes.
    This idea just doesn't hold up under scrutiny. The Saints, Cowboys, and Patriots all had better running games than the Vikings last year in terms of average per carry and total yards. They also were all ranked in the top 5 in the profootballfocus team run blocking stats. And all three teams can throw the football around a little bit, with each throwing for more yards than a Vikes team that was very good in the pass game itself last year.

    I did think that the pass blocking by the Vikes was better than in previous years. But several other teams have shown that you don't necessarily have to make a choice between one or the other.
    I said it was hard to prove......

    I think the difference between those teams and the Vikes is those teams use a man up/hat on hat scheme were the Vikes bounce back and forth between ZB and man up depending on the play.

    On a side note, let me go and see if I can find a few articles that talk about how one affects the other. There were several out there this year on teams like the Steelers.
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  4. #34
    bsmithberkley is offline Pro-Bowler
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    333

    Re:A look at Peterson's production

    Marrdro wrote:
    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    Play calling.....
    Sore shoulder on Hutch......
    2nd year C.......
    Rookie RT........
    Tahi Sucks.......


    AD crotchsniffers might want to ignore this next part of my post......

    All of the above had a role in our OL's poor play last year, but AD didn't help any either. If he would learn to be just a bit more patient before he makes his first cut, I bet alot of those "Zero" gains would get yards.

    We saw it time and time again last year were AD would get stoned at the line for no loss and CT would come right in on the next play and get huge yards.

    OK, AD crotsniffers, I'm done hacking on your boy.

    interesting thoughts.

    I'm curious as to why CT had a higher percentages of runs for a loss than Peterson did though...

    Lots of the time, there's simply nothing there.
    I started tracking some stuff on what CT did vs what AD did when I was looking at RB's the Vikes might draft this year.

    A few eye opening numbers.....

    AD had 315 (1394 yards) rushing attemps, CT had 93 (332). Rough numbers, a bit under 1/3 the attempts..... If CT would have been the starting back I suspect he would have had another 1,000-1,200 yard season. Again, someone has to be doing something for AD to get almost 1,400 yards rushing and CT put up pretty decent numbers in a limited role. (Fault - No one. Someone is making holes and someone is hitting them).

    Now for all of you who are gonna come back with the cliche' "AD is a beast in breaking tackles and is getting all those yards on his own".....I throw the next little tidbit out there.....

    Yards after contact per attempt.....AD 2.9/CT 2.2 = Doesn't matter were they are hit, both of them don't fair well with respect to getting extra yards after getting hit.

    This also means that there are holes for them to hit if they are just patient and wait on them. (Fault - RB Coaching Staff, not OL)

    Profootballfocus - RB stats

    In the end, both AD and CT had a "Great" year running the rock, however, they (our RB's) could even do better if would wait just a bit and let some things develop in front of them.
    IMHO I think Taylor was a weak link last year. When looking at the 72 RBs who had more than 50 carries last year CT ranked...

    59/72 for Yard/carry
    60/72 for yard after contact

    The line did not help him, but, there are a lot of other much worse o-lines in the NFL.

    Best wishes for CT ,except for when he plays us every year...but...he really was on decline running the ball the last two years.
    None

  5. #35
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,899

    Re:A look at Peterson's production

    bsmithberkley wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    Play calling.....
    Sore shoulder on Hutch......
    2nd year C.......
    Rookie RT........
    Tahi Sucks.......


    AD crotchsniffers might want to ignore this next part of my post......

    All of the above had a role in our OL's poor play last year, but AD didn't help any either. If he would learn to be just a bit more patient before he makes his first cut, I bet alot of those "Zero" gains would get yards.

    We saw it time and time again last year were AD would get stoned at the line for no loss and CT would come right in on the next play and get huge yards.

    OK, AD crotsniffers, I'm done hacking on your boy.

    interesting thoughts.

    I'm curious as to why CT had a higher percentages of runs for a loss than Peterson did though...

    Lots of the time, there's simply nothing there.
    I started tracking some stuff on what CT did vs what AD did when I was looking at RB's the Vikes might draft this year.

    A few eye opening numbers.....

    AD had 315 (1394 yards) rushing attemps, CT had 93 (332). Rough numbers, a bit under 1/3 the attempts..... If CT would have been the starting back I suspect he would have had another 1,000-1,200 yard season. Again, someone has to be doing something for AD to get almost 1,400 yards rushing and CT put up pretty decent numbers in a limited role. (Fault - No one. Someone is making holes and someone is hitting them).

    Now for all of you who are gonna come back with the cliche' "AD is a beast in breaking tackles and is getting all those yards on his own".....I throw the next little tidbit out there.....

    Yards after contact per attempt.....AD 2.9/CT 2.2 = Doesn't matter were they are hit, both of them don't fair well with respect to getting extra yards after getting hit.

    This also means that there are holes for them to hit if they are just patient and wait on them. (Fault - RB Coaching Staff, not OL)

    Profootballfocus - RB stats

    In the end, both AD and CT had a "Great" year running the rock, however, they (our RB's) could even do better if would wait just a bit and let some things develop in front of them.
    IMHO I think Taylor was a weak link last year. When looking at the 72 RBs who had more than 50 carries last year CT ranked...

    59/72 for Yard/carry
    60/72 for yard after contact

    The line did not help him, but, there are a lot of other much worse o-lines in the NFL.

    Best wishes for CT ,except for when he plays us every year...but...he really was on decline running the ball the last two years.
    Having the second best back in the league slated as the starter had something to do with it.

    Old cliche' I cotton to a bit.....

    Gotta give him the rock to get him going......I think if CT was the premier back, getting the reps/carries a starter normally gets, and his average would be right up there in the top 10, atleast.

    Truth of the matter is, the main reason he was so attractive to most teams is that he has had very little "Starter" wear and tear over his career as he has been a backup all but one year.

    I look to see CT being our nemisis this year.
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,206

    Re:A look at Peterson's production

    Marrdro wrote:
    Overlord wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    I agree with you on almost all counts, except that the line and line alone held him back.

    Again, I pointed out the yards after contact stat. AD (and CT) didn't seem to fair real well in that catagory.
    AD averaged 2.9 yards after contact/carry according to that site. That's 17th in the league (among guys with a minimum number of snaps) and 0.7 yards back from the leader. If that number had been 3.0 yards after contact, that would have been 9th in the league. The point? There's a big jam of guys there, and 2.9 is not bad at all.

    Chester Taylor was at 2.2 yards after contact/carry. That's closer to the worst in the league (which was 1.9), ranking 47th out of 63 guys (snap minimum). It's still a pretty tight jam, but AD is closer to the front, and Chester is near the back.
    I think you missed that I was trying to use that stat as evidence that both of them are pretty bad when it comes to how many yards they get after they are hit the first time.

    I wonder how poor AD's would really be if he wasn't the type of back he is.
    No, I got that.

    But saying AD is bad when it comes to yards after contact is an interpretation of the statistic. One that probably isn't accurate when you get a picture of how that stat looks for running backs across the NFL. That's my interpretation. You are welcome to disagree. And anyone else that wants can go to this site and click on the YCo/Att column to get a sorted list and see where AD fits in with everyone else and interpret the statistic for themselves.

    And what's with that last comment? Are you asking how bad AD would be if he wasn't any good? Yeah, if AD was terrible he wouldn't be very good at all, and his stats would also be bad. I agree?

    The other thing that bares mentioning (hard to show a stat for it) is what happens to a OL when they pass alot, when it comes to degradation in the running game.

    We saw several teams that were stellar running the ball degrade in that stat a bit as they passed more often than they did the year before.

    In short, the "Bigs" don't do well when bouncing back and forth between the two blocking schemes.
    This idea just doesn't hold up under scrutiny. The Saints, Cowboys, and Patriots all had better running games than the Vikings last year in terms of average per carry and total yards. They also were all ranked in the top 5 in the profootballfocus team run blocking stats. And all three teams can throw the football around a little bit, with each throwing for more yards than a Vikes team that was very good in the pass game itself last year.

    I did think that the pass blocking by the Vikes was better than in previous years. But several other teams have shown that you don't necessarily have to make a choice between one or the other.
    I said it was hard to prove......

    I think the difference between those teams and the Vikes is those teams use a man up/hat on hat scheme were the Vikes bounce back and forth between ZB and man up depending on the play.

    On a side note, let me go and see if I can find a few articles that talk about how one affects the other. There were several out there this year on teams like the Steelers.
    I think the few examples I gave previously are enough to show the general proposition that it is very possible to be good blocking run and pass, including for teams that pass a bunch. Whether you think it is different or impossible because of the Vikings' scheme is up to you.

    In any event, it doesn't change the fact that the line played poorly in the run game. It's just a question of what reasoning are you going to use to explain it.

    And I'm not trying to claim that I know the whole answer to that question myself. I would tend to go with injuries and inexperience, but who knows?
    When the age of the Vikings came to a close, they must have sensed it. Probably, they gathered together one evening, slapped each other on the back and said, "Hey, good job." - Jack Handey [Deep Thoughts]

  7. #37
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,899

    Re:A look at Peterson's production

    Overlord wrote:
    No, I got that.

    But saying AD is bad when it comes to yards after contact is an interpretation of the statistic. One that probably isn't accurate when you get a picture of how that stat looks for running backs across the NFL. That's my interpretation. You are welcome to disagree. And anyone else that wants can go to this site and click on the YCo/Att column to get a sorted list and see where AD fits in with everyone else and interpret the statistic for themselves.
    And what's with that last comment? Are you asking how bad AD would be if he wasn't any good? Yeah, if AD was terrible he wouldn't be very good at all, and his stats would also be bad. I agree?
    No, of course not.

    Let me put it another way, even though he has a bad stat/number when it comes to yards after contact, imagine how bad that number would be if he didn't struggle/fight and get off a few long ones.

    Something along that rationale.

    I think the few examples I gave previously are enough to show the general proposition that it is very possible to be good blocking run and pass, including for teams that pass a bunch. Whether you think it is different or impossible because of the Vikings' scheme is up to you.
    I'm tracking with that. I'm just saying that I think we can't be lumped into the same catagory as those teams based on our use of two blocking schemes.

    More of a hack on scheme rather than player production. I still owe you a article or two that will help explain it better than I can.

    In any event, it doesn't change the fact that the line played poorly in the run game. It's just a question of what reasoning are you going to use to explain it.
    I agree, they had issues, but they had a 1400 yard back behind them who struggled to get yards after he was hit.

    It means that at some point in time there was a hole opened by someone.


    And I'm not trying to claim that I know the whole answer to that question myself. I would tend to go with injuries and inexperience, but who knows?
    As I said when I entered this discussion, there were alot of contributing factors, but the one I wanted to highlight was the related to how fast AD (and even CT to a point) hit the hole.

    If they were a bit more patient, maybe that production would even be better.
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  8. #38
    jmcdon00's Avatar
    jmcdon00 is offline Jersey Retired Snake Champion, Moto Trial Fest 2: Mountain Pack Champion, LL City Truck 2 Champion, Arithmetic sequence Champion, Troops Tower Defense Champion
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,275

    Re:A look at Peterson's production

    Marrdro wrote:
    bsmithberkley wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    Play calling.....
    Sore shoulder on Hutch......
    2nd year C.......
    Rookie RT........
    Tahi Sucks.......


    AD crotchsniffers might want to ignore this next part of my post......

    All of the above had a role in our OL's poor play last year, but AD didn't help any either. If he would learn to be just a bit more patient before he makes his first cut, I bet alot of those "Zero" gains would get yards.

    We saw it time and time again last year were AD would get stoned at the line for no loss and CT would come right in on the next play and get huge yards.

    OK, AD crotsniffers, I'm done hacking on your boy.

    interesting thoughts.

    I'm curious as to why CT had a higher percentages of runs for a loss than Peterson did though...

    Lots of the time, there's simply nothing there.
    I started tracking some stuff on what CT did vs what AD did when I was looking at RB's the Vikes might draft this year.

    A few eye opening numbers.....

    AD had 315 (1394 yards) rushing attemps, CT had 93 (332). Rough numbers, a bit under 1/3 the attempts..... If CT would have been the starting back I suspect he would have had another 1,000-1,200 yard season. Again, someone has to be doing something for AD to get almost 1,400 yards rushing and CT put up pretty decent numbers in a limited role. (Fault - No one. Someone is making holes and someone is hitting them).

    Now for all of you who are gonna come back with the cliche' "AD is a beast in breaking tackles and is getting all those yards on his own".....I throw the next little tidbit out there.....

    Yards after contact per attempt.....AD 2.9/CT 2.2 = Doesn't matter were they are hit, both of them don't fair well with respect to getting extra yards after getting hit.

    This also means that there are holes for them to hit if they are just patient and wait on them. (Fault - RB Coaching Staff, not OL)

    Profootballfocus - RB stats

    In the end, both AD and CT had a "Great" year running the rock, however, they (our RB's) could even do better if would wait just a bit and let some things develop in front of them.
    IMHO I think Taylor was a weak link last year. When looking at the 72 RBs who had more than 50 carries last year CT ranked...

    59/72 for Yard/carry
    60/72 for yard after contact

    The line did not help him, but, there are a lot of other much worse o-lines in the NFL.

    Best wishes for CT ,except for when he plays us every year...but...he really was on decline running the ball the last two years.
    Having the second best back in the league slated as the starter had something to do with it.

    Old cliche' I cotton to a bit.....

    Gotta give him the rock to get him going......I think if CT was the premier back, getting the reps/carries a starter normally gets, and his average would be right up there in the top 10, atleast.

    Truth of the matter is, the main reason he was so attractive to most teams is that he has had very little "Starter" wear and tear over his career as he has been a backup all but one year.

    I look to see CT being our nemisis this year.
    I disagree, being the back up to the best back in the league should only help. Peterson wears on the defense. Not to mention CT was playing mostly in passing situations. There were a bunch of guys right around 100 carries that had higher ypc.
    Not to say that CT declined, I think like Peterson it was largely the change in scheme that hurt production. I believe the number 1 priority changed to protecting the QB and giving the QB more weapons. Previously the number 1 priority was to pound the rock.
    CT will have success, and continue to be a hard nosed runner but I really don't see him being the focus of any offensive attack.
    I think Gerhart will get a similar number of carries and have a higher ypc, quite possibly a higher ypc than Peterson.

  9. #39
    Prophet's Avatar
    Prophet is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    17,388

    Re:A look at Peterson's production

    Marrdro wrote:
    ...I look to see CT being our nemisis this year.
    Yes, RBs always have such an easy time putting up yards against the Vikings in recent years.
    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  10. #40
    i_bleed_purple's Avatar
    i_bleed_purple is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Canadialand
    Posts
    16,776
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re:A look at Peterson's production

    I'm curious how you came up with this proof:

    Yards after contact per attempt.....AD 2.9/CT 2.2 = Doesn't matter were they are hit, both of them don't fair well with respect to getting extra yards after getting hit.

    This also means that there are holes for them to hit if they are just patient and wait on them. (Fault - RB Coaching Staff, not OL)
    basically you say, since they have a low average after contact, that there must be holes?

    You know as well as all of us here, those stats cannot possibly tell the story.

    We all know peterson is a guy who has a bunch of short gains, and then a few monster ones.

    On those short ones, he'll break a tackle and gain a yard, or get smacked for a loss, then he'll break a tackle and gain 50 yards.

    If there were holes, then he could break an arm tackle and ACTUALLY HAVE SPACE TO MOVE instead of being immediately tackled by someone else.

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Peterson's gameplay
    By VikesFan787 in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-16-2007, 11:39 AM
  2. Vikings need more production from TEs in '07
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-09-2007, 11:34 AM
  3. Air-Car Ready for Mass Production
    By COJOMAY in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 05-31-2007, 11:46 AM
  4. Vikes look for production from $100M line
    By cajunvike in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-15-2006, 05:35 PM
  5. Rookie Production
    By viks_fan21 in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 11-19-2005, 08:24 PM

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
  •