Thread: A look at Peterson's production

Marrdro wrote:

Can you imagine what his yards per carry after contact would be like without those big runs.

All I'm saying is that if he waits on the OL a bit longer to develop the hole, he might get a few more of the big ones.

Barry Sanders has one of the highest all-time career averages. And he did it mostly by himself, he had no blockers for the majority of his time in Detroit. Would you tell Sanders to slow down and wait for holes to develop? No, thats not his style, and its not Peterson's.

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.

Are you trying to tell me that all of his runs, especially his big ones, come from his effort and his effort alone.

Peterson is known as a powerful cutback runner. You don't get that label by hitting the hole and running straight ahead. You get that by running to your hole, then finding a gap and making a break for it. Alot of the time, yes, on the long runs there's some great blocking and he can run for 10 yards without being touched, but it seems just as often, he's breaking a tackle or two within the first five yards and then finds daylight.

Not sure I am ready to buy into that my friend. Look I like his efforts and really find him to be an exciting player, but he doesn't do it all alone.

Again, go back and read into the stat just a little bit, mix that with the 1400 yards and you can see that the OL is making him holes.

Sometimes. Are you seriously trying to argue.... sorry, you don't argue..... 'discuss' the fact that our OL is responsible for having a good running game? Or maybe its our backs. You use stats to try and claim that there are holes there, but we use our eyeballs. Its clear that our run blocking has suffered this year. There weren't as many holes, Tahi was in the way alot of the time (Thought I'd give that to bite on), and it was tough to get the constant yards we'd like to have. It was alot of all or nothing. Is that to say Peterson was perfect? Absolutely not. However, how many times have we seen Peterson run into a wall of defenders? Or be running outside and have literally nowhere to go? Seems to be more often this year than prior years.

On a side note next to that side note, AD can help in that area if he would allow things to develop a bit mostly because of the ZB scheme. Remember, the OLmen start out to double the guy at the point of attack with one of them disengaging and shifting to the next layer so they can get the LB/S out of the play.

Do you really think we have time for Peterson to wait for holes to develop? some games yes, sometimes no. Seems his recent struggles against the 3-4 exemplefies that.

Personally, I don't think we're doing a good job calling the run game. especially against 3-4 teams towards the end of the season when he seemed to struggle a bit. We were running alot of off tackle and outside runs, which are tough to do in the 3-4. We didn't take advantage of the 3 man line and pound it up the middle as much as I'd like. I think with Gerhart we might do that more often, but my point is we're not always putting either of our backs in a great position to succeed.

Marrdro wrote:

Prophet wrote:

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.

Most won't admit it, or simply choose to ignore it, but our team looked damn silly a few times last year when it came to stopping the run.

The Ravens fiasco comes immediately to mind for me.

I bet we have big issues in that area this year.

Seriously? That is a weak argument. That's like saying the #1 RB in the NFL sucks because he had a bunch of 1, 2, or -4 yd carries and ignoring the overall production. Every team gives up some yards on the ground sometime. The bottom-line is how many points are given up anyway.

But, yeah, you're correct. The run defense hasn't been stout in recent years.

2009: Vikings were #2 in least yds given up on the ground.

2008: #1 in least yds given up on the ground.

2007: #1 in least yds given up on the ground

2006: #1 in least yds given up on the ground

So, if your prediction is they are going to fall it isn't much of a prediction. When the team was #1 against the rush in 2006-2008 and #2 in 2009 the odds are in favor of them dropping some because there isn't much room for moving up the stat chart in that category.

If the Williams Wall gets the suspension it is a good bet that will slip a bit. Regardless, it is a safe prediction that doesn't warrant the bytes that it consumes on the Internet.

All I care about is the statistic that matters most on defense, points given up. In 2010 the Vikings were in the top 10 for least points given up. That is what matters.

Regarding the Bores and CT. I am about as worried about that as I am worried about the ballerina coming up and beating the shit out of me at the next tailgate. I love CT, but am not worried about his threat when the Vikings meet up with the Bores.

Prophet wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Prophet wrote:

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.

Most won't admit it, or simply choose to ignore it, but our team looked damn silly a few times last year when it came to stopping the run.

The Ravens fiasco comes immediately to mind for me.

I bet we have big issues in that area this year.

Seriously? That is a weak argument. That's like saying the #1 RB in the NFL sucks because he had a bunch of 1, 2, or -4 yd carries and ignoring the overall production. Every team gives up some yards on the ground sometime. The bottom-line is how many points are given up anyway.

But, yeah, you're correct. The run defense hasn't been stout in recent years.

2009: Vikings were #2 in least yds given up on the ground.

2008: #1 in least yds given up on the ground.

2007: #1 in least yds given up on the ground

2006: #1 in least yds given up on the ground

So, if your prediction is they are going to fall it isn't much of a prediction. When the team was #1 against the rush in 2006-2008 and #2 in 2009 the odds are in favor of them dropping some because there isn't much room for moving up the stat chart in that category.

If the Williams Wall gets the suspension it is a good bet that will slip a bit. Regardless, it is a safe prediction that doesn't warrant the bytes that it consumes on the Internet.

All I care about is the statistic that matters most on defense, points given up. In 2010 the Vikings were in the top 10 for least points given up. That is what matters.

Regarding the Bores and CT. I am about as worried about that as I am worried about the ballerina coming up and beating the shit out of me at the next tailgate. I love CT, but am not worried about his threat when the Vikings meet up with the Bores.

'
Its always fun to look back at history and use it as a sounding board for an opinion.

In short, have we been stellar the past few years? Yes and its been fun to watch, but when I watch games like the Ravens game last year, I didn't see a defense ranked #1 or even #2 for that matter.

Like it or not, Rice ate up JA and Kdubb late in that game as he gouged us for huge yards, basically bringing them right back into a game that was basically over.

Absolutely embarrasssssing to watch a team, down so much that they should be in a "Pass first to catch up" mode do the exact opposite and run it up our ass.

By the way, if points are the only thing that matters, how many points did the Ravens put up late in that game? Glad it wasn't at least 3 more.

Marrdro wrote:

Prophet wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Prophet wrote:

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.

Most won't admit it, or simply choose to ignore it, but our team looked damn silly a few times last year when it came to stopping the run.

The Ravens fiasco comes immediately to mind for me.

I bet we have big issues in that area this year.

Seriously? That is a weak argument. That's like saying the #1 RB in the NFL sucks because he had a bunch of 1, 2, or -4 yd carries and ignoring the overall production. Every team gives up some yards on the ground sometime. The bottom-line is how many points are given up anyway.

But, yeah, you're correct. The run defense hasn't been stout in recent years.

2009: Vikings were #2 in least yds given up on the ground.

2008: #1 in least yds given up on the ground.

2007: #1 in least yds given up on the ground

2006: #1 in least yds given up on the ground

So, if your prediction is they are going to fall it isn't much of a prediction. When the team was #1 against the rush in 2006-2008 and #2 in 2009 the odds are in favor of them dropping some because there isn't much room for moving up the stat chart in that category.

If the Williams Wall gets the suspension it is a good bet that will slip a bit. Regardless, it is a safe prediction that doesn't warrant the bytes that it consumes on the Internet.

All I care about is the statistic that matters most on defense, points given up. In 2010 the Vikings were in the top 10 for least points given up. That is what matters.

Regarding the Bores and CT. I am about as worried about that as I am worried about the ballerina coming up and beating the shit out of me at the next tailgate. I love CT, but am not worried about his threat when the Vikings meet up with the Bores.

'
Its always fun to look back at history and use it as a sounding board for an opinion.

In short, have we been stellar the past few years? Yes and its been fun to watch, but when I watch games like the Ravens game last year, I didn't see a defense ranked #1 or even #2 for that matter.

Like it or not, Rice ate up JA and Kdubb late in that game as he gouged us for huge yards, basically bringing them right back into a game that was basically over.

Absolutely embarrasssssing to watch a team, down so much that they should be in a "Pass first to catch up" mode do the exact opposite and run it up our ass.

By the way, if points are the only thing that matters, how many points did the Ravens put up late in that game? Glad it wasn't at least 3 more.

N=1. My point stands, you don't come in as #2 against the run in a 16 game season because your run defense sucks. There are always anomalies in football, but, you have to look at the bigger picture to see if the anomaly is a trend.

Your prediction of the run defense sliding is like me predicting that we will get rain in the next month sometime. It is a safe bet and worthless, especially when you look at the full season(s). I'm not worried about the run defense on a relative basis to other concerns on the team. I am definitely not worried about the run defense in the context of CT and the Bores.

iMarrdro wrote:

Prophet wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Prophet wrote:

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.

Most won't admit it, or simply choose to ignore it, but our team looked damn silly a few times last year when it came to stopping the run.

The Ravens fiasco comes immediately to mind for me.

I bet we have big issues in that area this year.

Seriously? That is a weak argument. That's like saying the #1 RB in the NFL sucks because he had a bunch of 1, 2, or -4 yd carries and ignoring the overall production. Every team gives up some yards on the ground sometime. The bottom-line is how many points are given up anyway.

But, yeah, you're correct. The run defense hasn't been stout in recent years.

2009: Vikings were #2 in least yds given up on the ground.

2008: #1 in least yds given up on the ground.

2007: #1 in least yds given up on the ground

2006: #1 in least yds given up on the ground

So, if your prediction is they are going to fall it isn't much of a prediction. When the team was #1 against the rush in 2006-2008 and #2 in 2009 the odds are in favor of them dropping some because there isn't much room for moving up the stat chart in that category.

If the Williams Wall gets the suspension it is a good bet that will slip a bit. Regardless, it is a safe prediction that doesn't warrant the bytes that it consumes on the Internet.

All I care about is the statistic that matters most on defense, points given up. In 2010 the Vikings were in the top 10 for least points given up. That is what matters.

Regarding the Bores and CT. I am about as worried about that as I am worried about the ballerina coming up and beating the shit out of me at the next tailgate. I love CT, but am not worried about his threat when the Vikings meet up with the Bores.

'
Its always fun to look back at history and use it as a sounding board for an opinion.

In short, have we been stellar the past few years? Yes and its been fun to watch, but when I watch games like the Ravens game last year, I didn't see a defense ranked #1 or even #2 for that matter.

Like it or not, Rice ate up JA and Kdubb late in that game as he gouged us for huge yards, basically bringing them right back into a game that was basically over.

Absolutely embarrasssssing to watch a team, down so much that they should be in a "Pass first to catch up" mode do the exact opposite and run it up our ass.

By the way, if points are the only thing that matters, how many points did the Ravens put up late in that game? Glad it wasn't at least 3 more.

if we're only going to bring up one game, can I bring up the one tackle Madieu and TJ2 missed, or the one block Tahi missed? How about the one time Cook got flagged? Or possibly the one block that Richardson and Birk did make?

Since we're judging the play of players or entire units by only one game, Jerome Harrison is one of the best backs ever, the 49ers defense has without a doubt the best run defense in the league, and Madieu Williams hits like a truck

Prophet wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Prophet wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Prophet wrote:

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.

Most won't admit it, or simply choose to ignore it, but our team looked damn silly a few times last year when it came to stopping the run.

The Ravens fiasco comes immediately to mind for me.

I bet we have big issues in that area this year.

Seriously? That is a weak argument. That's like saying the #1 RB in the NFL sucks because he had a bunch of 1, 2, or -4 yd carries and ignoring the overall production. Every team gives up some yards on the ground sometime. The bottom-line is how many points are given up anyway.

But, yeah, you're correct. The run defense hasn't been stout in recent years.

2009: Vikings were #2 in least yds given up on the ground.

2008: #1 in least yds given up on the ground.

2007: #1 in least yds given up on the ground

2006: #1 in least yds given up on the ground

So, if your prediction is they are going to fall it isn't much of a prediction. When the team was #1 against the rush in 2006-2008 and #2 in 2009 the odds are in favor of them dropping some because there isn't much room for moving up the stat chart in that category.

If the Williams Wall gets the suspension it is a good bet that will slip a bit. Regardless, it is a safe prediction that doesn't warrant the bytes that it consumes on the Internet.

All I care about is the statistic that matters most on defense, points given up. In 2010 the Vikings were in the top 10 for least points given up. That is what matters.

Regarding the Bores and CT. I am about as worried about that as I am worried about the ballerina coming up and beating the shit out of me at the next tailgate. I love CT, but am not worried about his threat when the Vikings meet up with the Bores.

'
Its always fun to look back at history and use it as a sounding board for an opinion.

In short, have we been stellar the past few years? Yes and its been fun to watch, but when I watch games like the Ravens game last year, I didn't see a defense ranked #1 or even #2 for that matter.

Like it or not, Rice ate up JA and Kdubb late in that game as he gouged us for huge yards, basically bringing them right back into a game that was basically over.

Absolutely embarrasssssing to watch a team, down so much that they should be in a "Pass first to catch up" mode do the exact opposite and run it up our ass.

By the way, if points are the only thing that matters, how many points did the Ravens put up late in that game? Glad it wasn't at least 3 more.

N=1. My point stands, you don't come in as #2 against the run in a 16 game season because your run defense sucks. There are always anomalies in football, but, you have to look at the bigger picture to see if the anomaly is a trend.

Your prediction of the run defense sliding is like me predicting that we will get rain in the next month sometime. It is a safe bet and worthless, especially when you look at the full season(s). I'm not worried about the run defense on a relative basis to other concerns on the team. I am definitely not worried about the run defense in the context of CT and the Bores.

keep in mind this is also the Bores. the same team that couldn't block for one of the 'top backs in the league*'

Wait, I thought CT and AD didn't do everything by themselves? If thats true, then CT would have next to no chance of succeeding as a bear.

i_bleed_purple wrote:

Barry Sanders has one of the highest all-time career averages. And he did it mostly by himself, he had no blockers for the majority of his time in Detroit. Would you tell Sanders to slow down and wait for holes to develop? No, thats not his style, and its not Peterson's.

Are you really going to try to use Barry and a OL that blocked Hat on Hat as a discussion point here?

Barry was fun to watch. I loved to watch him dance around, however, the reason why he could dance around was because the OL engaged and stayed engaged in that scheme. In a ZB scheme, the concept is to double at the point of attack and then one of the doubles disengages and goes to the next level so that a one cut back, can hit that hole.

Barry wasn't that style of runner.

Peterson is known as a powerful cutback runner. You don't get that label by hitting the hole and running straight ahead. You get that by running to your hole, then finding a gap and making a break for it. Alot of the time, yes, on the long runs there's some great blocking and he can run for 10 yards without being touched, but it seems just as often, he's breaking a tackle or two within the first five yards and then finds daylight.

But you don't find that hole in a ZB scheme if you don't allow the linemen to do thier job.

Again, scheme wise you need to let things develop and be ready to hit it when it does.

Sometimes. Are you seriously trying to argue.... sorry, you don't argue..... 'discuss' the fact that our OL is responsible for having a good running game? Or maybe its our backs. You use stats to try and claim that there are holes there, but we use our eyeballs. Its clear that our run blocking has suffered this year.

But you see, I am laying the blame at the whole offenses feet, starting with the play calling, moving down to the OL and then the backs.

No were do I say that our OL doesn't have issues and have pointed out why I think our RB's degraded last year (Sully/PL new/Injury Hutch/Big Mac being Big Mac).

There weren't as many holes, Tahi was in the way alot of the time (Thought I'd give that to bite on), and it was tough to get the constant yards we'd like to have.

How many yards would you like? Most backs are happy to get a grand. AD had 1400.

Your point about Tahi being in the way can also be said about our OLmen. How many times did you see AD hit the hole only to run into the back of one of our OLmen. Again, a bit of patience might have allowed the blocker to dissengage and get to the next level. And yes, that even means your boy Tahi.

It was alot of all or nothing. Is that to say Peterson was perfect? Absolutely not. However, how many times have we seen Peterson run into a wall of defenders? Or be running outside and have literally nowhere to go? Seems to be more often this year than prior years.

Not disagreeing. The outside comment is telling as well. You blame the OLmen, I blame the WRs for some of that as well.

Again, even though our WR's have been heralded as great run blockers, we show some CB's and S's making plays at the line. At some point, someone would count hats and find out that 2 T's/2 G's and 1 C = 5. Even the slowest of slow would admit that maybe just maybe it isn't only the OL having problems blocking.

Personally, I don't think we're doing a good job calling the run game. especially against 3-4 teams towards the end of the season when he seemed to struggle a bit. We were running alot of off tackle and outside runs, which are tough to do in the 3-4. We didn't take advantage of the 3 man line and pound it up the middle as much as I'd like. I think with Gerhart we might do that more often, but my point is we're not always putting either of our backs in a great position to succeed.

I find nothing to discuss in there as I agree, however, I would like to add, that a ZB'ng team, going against a 3-4, is a prime example of why a RB should wait on his blockers. If the double doesn't disgengage (say double on the nose by the LG/C shaded to the left) and get to the LB, the RB will have 2 LB'rs he has to make miss instead of one and there won't even be a sniff of a hole to hit, which might make him bounce to the outside a bit more often than not.

i_bleed_purple wrote:

Prophet wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Prophet wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Prophet wrote:

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.

Most won't admit it, or simply choose to ignore it, but our team looked damn silly a few times last year when it came to stopping the run.

The Ravens fiasco comes immediately to mind for me.

I bet we have big issues in that area this year.

Seriously? That is a weak argument. That's like saying the #1 RB in the NFL sucks because he had a bunch of 1, 2, or -4 yd carries and ignoring the overall production. Every team gives up some yards on the ground sometime. The bottom-line is how many points are given up anyway.

But, yeah, you're correct. The run defense hasn't been stout in recent years.

2009: Vikings were #2 in least yds given up on the ground.

2008: #1 in least yds given up on the ground.

2007: #1 in least yds given up on the ground

2006: #1 in least yds given up on the ground

So, if your prediction is they are going to fall it isn't much of a prediction. When the team was #1 against the rush in 2006-2008 and #2 in 2009 the odds are in favor of them dropping some because there isn't much room for moving up the stat chart in that category.

If the Williams Wall gets the suspension it is a good bet that will slip a bit. Regardless, it is a safe prediction that doesn't warrant the bytes that it consumes on the Internet.

All I care about is the statistic that matters most on defense, points given up. In 2010 the Vikings were in the top 10 for least points given up. That is what matters.

Regarding the Bores and CT. I am about as worried about that as I am worried about the ballerina coming up and beating the shit out of me at the next tailgate. I love CT, but am not worried about his threat when the Vikings meet up with the Bores.

'
Its always fun to look back at history and use it as a sounding board for an opinion.

In short, have we been stellar the past few years? Yes and its been fun to watch, but when I watch games like the Ravens game last year, I didn't see a defense ranked #1 or even #2 for that matter.

Like it or not, Rice ate up JA and Kdubb late in that game as he gouged us for huge yards, basically bringing them right back into a game that was basically over.

Absolutely embarrasssssing to watch a team, down so much that they should be in a "Pass first to catch up" mode do the exact opposite and run it up our ass.

By the way, if points are the only thing that matters, how many points did the Ravens put up late in that game? Glad it wasn't at least 3 more.

N=1. My point stands, you don't come in as #2 against the run in a 16 game season because your run defense sucks. There are always anomalies in football, but, you have to look at the bigger picture to see if the anomaly is a trend.

Your prediction of the run defense sliding is like me predicting that we will get rain in the next month sometime. It is a safe bet and worthless, especially when you look at the full season(s). I'm not worried about the run defense on a relative basis to other concerns on the team. I am definitely not worried about the run defense in the context of CT and the Bores.

keep in mind this is also the Bores. the same team that couldn't block for one of the 'top backs in the league*'

Wait, I thought CT and AD didn't do everything by themselves? If thats true, then CT would have next to no chance of succeeding as a bear.

You should go see what the Bores have done on the offensive side of the ball this year. I don't think they or the Lions will be a cakewalk this year.

Marrdro wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

Barry Sanders has one of the highest all-time career averages. And he did it mostly by himself, he had no blockers for the majority of his time in Detroit. Would you tell Sanders to slow down and wait for holes to develop? No, thats not his style, and its not Peterson's.

Are you really going to try to use Barry and a OL that blocked Hat on Hat as a discussion point here?

Barry was fun to watch. I loved to watch him dance around, however, the reason why he could dance around was because the OL engaged and stayed engaged in that scheme. In a ZB scheme, the concept is to double at the point of attack and then one of the doubles disengages and goes to the next level so that a one cut back, can hit that hole.

Barry wasn't that style of runner.

were you watching the same Barry? You make it sound like his blockers did a great job of staying on their man and taking him out of the play, letting Barry dance around motionless defenders. Not the case. Barry was CONSTANTLY hit in the backfield, more than Peterson, he could weasel away from them though, and get nice gains.

Peterson is known as a powerful cutback runner. You don't get that label by hitting the hole and running straight ahead. You get that by running to your hole, then finding a gap and making a break for it. Alot of the time, yes, on the long runs there's some great blocking and he can run for 10 yards without being touched, but it seems just as often, he's breaking a tackle or two within the first five yards and then finds daylight.

But you don't find that hole in a ZB scheme if you don't allow the linemen to do thier job.

Again, scheme wise you need to let things develop and be ready to hit it when it does.

You succeeded in avoiding really answering my question. If Peterson has style a, and our scheme calls for b, maybe the scheme needs to be adjusted. Square pegs in round holes.

There weren't as many holes, Tahi was in the way alot of the time (Thought I'd give that to bite on), and it was tough to get the constant yards we'd like to have.

How many yards would you like? Most backs are happy to get a grand. AD had 1400.

by consistent yards, I don't mean lots of yards at the end of the day, I mean consistently getting 3-4 yards. If you take away the top 10% of Peterson's runs, I bet his average would be about 2-3 yards. Peterson gets yards and a high average by wearing out D's with short gains, then breaking off a couple big runs. He's not the kind of runner to get 3-5 yards on average per carry. Why? We don't have the blocking. He's being hit nearly immediately.

Your point about Tahi being in the way can also be said about our OLmen. How many times did you see AD hit the hole only to run into the back of one of our OLmen. Again, a bit of patience might have allowed the blocker to dissengage and get to the next level. And yes, that even means your boy Tahi.

Maybe, ,or perhaps some stronger blocking would avoid tha thole in the first place.

Watch the Titans and CJ run the ball. CJ really had it easy. They did a great job blocking, and CJ wasn't asked to dance around for 5 minutes in the backfield just to get back to the line. He'd take the handoff, the hole is there, then he'd use his incredible speed and accelleration to make defenses pay. He's no Barry Sanders. He doesn't have incredible moves, he had great blocking, and great burst.

If Peterson had the holes to hit full speed like CJ did, He'd be damn close to 2K this season too.

It was alot of all or nothing. Is that to say Peterson was perfect? Absolutely not. However, how many times have we seen Peterson run into a wall of defenders? Or be running outside and have literally nowhere to go? Seems to be more often this year than prior years.

Not disagreeing. The outside comment is telling as well. You blame the OLmen, I blame the WRs for some of that as well.

Again, even though our WR's have been heralded as great run blockers, we show some CB's and S's making plays at the line. At some point, someone would count hats and find out that 2 T's/2 G's and 1 C = 5. Even the slowest of slow would admit that maybe just maybe it isn't only the OL having problems blocking.

Yes, but WR's don't often block LB's unless they're doing a specific play that calls for them blocking in on a LB. For the most part they're lined up on corners and safeties. The LB's did a great job flowing to the ball and swarming Peterson.

Personally, I don't think we're doing a good job calling the run game. especially against 3-4 teams towards the end of the season when he seemed to struggle a bit. We were running alot of off tackle and outside runs, which are tough to do in the 3-4. We didn't take advantage of the 3 man line and pound it up the middle as much as I'd like. I think with Gerhart we might do that more often, but my point is we're not always putting either of our backs in a great position to succeed.

I find nothing to discuss in there as I agree, however, I would like to add, that a ZB'ng team, going against a 3-4, is a prime example of why a RB should wait on his blockers. If the double doesn't disgengage (say double on the nose by the LG/C shaded to the left) and get to the LB, the RB will have 2 LB'rs he has to make miss instead of one and there won't even be a sniff of a hole to hit, which might make him bounce to the outside a bit more often than not.

I disagree. based on what I see, and basic run philosophy vs. the 3-4, we need to just run up the gut. against a well executed 3-4, if you wait in the backfield for holes, LB's will get you. Running up the gut, against a 3 man line will soften up the D for you. There will be some short gains there, don't expect huge things, but it will take some of the focus off the outside. From there, counters, cutbacks, play action and misdirection can be very effective. We didn't do that, we'd run outside all day and wonder why Peterson only has 35 yards on 18 carries.

[quote]Marrdro wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:

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.

You disagree that he is the best back when I said the second best?.....or do you mean that AD softens them up for CT?

AD softens them up for CT. Running on pass situations should net a higher ypc than running on run situations. Fewer carries should also mean fresher legs.
Look at Willis McGahee, Willie Parker, felix jones. Guys that were 2nd string and got a similar number of carries as CT and had much more success.
I think CT could have 1,000yards this year, but I doubt he avereages more than 4ypc.