Page 1 of 16 123 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 159
  1. #1
    cajunvike's Avatar
    cajunvike is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    32,063

    Peterson should be used more?

    Ya THINK???

    http://www.startribune.com/souhan/story/1455983.html
    BANNED OR DEAD...I'LL TAKE EITHER ONE

  2. #2
    Purplemania is offline Asst. Coach
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    501

    Re: Peterson should be used more?

    Reasons why Peterson isn't being used more:

    1. Don't want to overcook the rook. (Vikes need him to last the whole season)
    2. Pass protection.
    3. Chester Taylor (I'm still the only one who says to trade him).
    Because I'm a Vikings fan, they are that much sexier.

  3. #3
    cajunvike's Avatar
    cajunvike is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    32,063

    Re: Peterson should be used more?

    "Purplemania" wrote:
    Reasons why Peterson isn't being used more:

    1. Don't want to overcook the rook. (Vikes need him to last the whole season)
    2. Pass protection.
    3. Chester Taylor (I'm still the only one who says to trade him).
    I can agree with #1 to some extent...#2, is a wash, he can't learn if he isn't out there...and #3, if we trade Taylor (not quite as easy as you make it sound), we end up "overcooking the rookie", as you so aptly put it.
    Kind of a contradiction, don't you think?
    BANNED OR DEAD...I'LL TAKE EITHER ONE

  4. #4
    Purplemania is offline Asst. Coach
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    501

    Re: Peterson should be used more?

    "cajunvike" wrote:
    "Purplemania" wrote:
    Reasons why Peterson isn't being used more:

    1. Don't want to overcook the rook. (Vikes need him to last the whole season)
    2. Pass protection.
    3. Chester Taylor (I'm still the only one who says to trade him).
    I can agree with #1 to some extent...#2, is a wash, he can't learn if he isn't out there...and #3, if we trade Taylor (not quite as easy as you make it sound), we end up "overcooking the rookie", as you so aptly put it.
    Kind of a contradiction, don't you think?
    #2 can be learned through tapes but yeah, I kind of agree too. I'm should be more specific and say that these aren't my reasons but what I think the reasons behind Childress and Co. are.

    #3 Yeah, trades in the NFL hardly happen. Taylor is a solid back though, and I'm sure we can get good value in return (speaking of the DeAngelo Hall trade...). Plus we can still rotate Mewelde Moore in when Peterson needs air.
    Because I'm a Vikings fan, they are that much sexier.

  5. #5
    kevoncox's Avatar
    kevoncox is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,916

    Re: Peterson should be used more?

    "Purplemania" wrote:
    Reasons why Peterson isn't being used more:

    1. Don't want to overcook the rook. (Vikes need him to last the whole season)
    2. Pass protection.
    3. Chester Taylor (I'm still the only one who says to trade him).
    Sorry but your answers are terrible...

    1) Why worry about over cooking if we are loosing. I'm sure he wasn't over cooked with 2 carries in the 2nd half.
    2) He is our best weapon, why have him block...he is weapon..use him( even if it's a decoy)
    3) 3 words....3rd down back

  6. #6
    Purplemania is offline Asst. Coach
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    501

    Re: Peterson should be used more?

    "kevoncox" wrote:
    "Purplemania" wrote:
    Reasons why Peterson isn't being used more:

    1. Don't want to overcook the rook. (Vikes need him to last the whole season)
    2. Pass protection.
    3. Chester Taylor (I'm still the only one who says to trade him).
    Sorry but your answers are terrible...

    1) Why worry about over cooking if we are loosing. I'm sure he wasn't over cooked with 2 carries in the 2nd half.
    2) He is our best weapon, why have him block...he is weapon..use him( even if it's a decoy)
    3) 3 words....3rd down back
    Agian, I should be more clear. These are the reasons I think are behind the coaching.

    1. Childress is really an escaped patient from the mental institution.
    2. We need him to block because they're blitzing more then the Germaines were in WW2.
    3. What about 3rd down back?
    Because I'm a Vikings fan, they are that much sexier.

  7. #7
    jkjuggalo's Avatar
    jkjuggalo is offline Star Spokesman
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    2,131

    Re: Peterson should be used more?

    1.
    Moore and Tahi could easily spell AD if Taylor were traded.

    2.
    Moore and Tahi are good pass protectors and AD is learning.

    3.
    Moore is a great 3rd down back and CT has trade value, so ship him out for an Olineman/WR.
    Rock out with your cock out!!!

  8. #8
    Purplemania is offline Asst. Coach
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    501

    Re: Peterson should be used more?

    "jkjuggalo" wrote:
    1.
    Moore and Tahi could easily spell AD if Taylor were traded.

    2.
    Moore and Tahi are good pass protectors and AD is learning.

    3.
    Moore is a great 3rd down back and CT has trade value, so ship him out for an Olineman/WR.
    lol @ the Tahi comments
    Because I'm a Vikings fan, they are that much sexier.

  9. #9
    jkjuggalo's Avatar
    jkjuggalo is offline Star Spokesman
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    2,131

    Re: Peterson should be used more?

    Seriously, Tahi has been very serviceable as a RB and could easily spell AD for a series.
    Did you not see him run the ball in Week 1?
    Why do you think Brad is comfortable having only 2 "HB's" and 2 FB's active each week?
    Rock out with your cock out!!!

  10. #10
    V-Unit's Avatar
    V-Unit is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,317

    Run the Damn Ball

    1st Drive: 0-0
    3 Runs, 5 passes
    We pass on every first down during this drive.
    Result: Punt

    2nd Drive: 0-0
    3 runs, 3 passes
    I can't agree with us being in shotgun on 2nd and 2, and then again on 3rd and 2. I will say though that because we were running well at this point, the playaction pass was working great.
    Result: Fumble

    3rd drive: 0-7
    2 runs, 7 passes.
    Some will blame penalties for the pass heaviness on this drive. I don't. We were lined up in shotgun BEFORE the two penalties. It was 2nd and 7. That should be a running down for us. Then, we get the 1st down, and choose to pass again! Result? sack.
    Result: Punt

    4th Drive: 0-7
    3 runs, 2 passes.
    We come out passing, but a penalty saves us. Then we give it to Peterson 3 times in a row for an average of 6 yards per carry! The drive is looking good, then all of a sudden, on 3rd and 2, we pass. How does this make sense to anyone?
    Result: Punt

    5th Drive: 0-7
    4 runs, 1 pass.
    This was a 66 yard drive. Guess how many yards we got passing on it? ZERO. The one pass was on 3rd and 4, from the shotgun...sigh.
    Result: FG

    6th Drive: 3-7
    1 run, 3 passes.
    A play action pass set up by our effective running works for 40 yards. Also, why does Bevell refuse to run on 2nd and 8? I'm assuming because he will pass on 3rd and 3 anyways. A decent drive but I would like to see more running in the redzone.
    Result: FG

    7th Drive: 6-13
    3 runs, 4 passes.
    This was a 50 yard drive. We had net passing yardage of 8 yards on it.
    Result FG:

    8th Drive: 9-13
    1 run, 2 passes.
    We one for 2 yards, then "oh now! 2nd and 81 We must pass" I'll take this opportunity to state that we ran on 2nd and 5 or more 4 times. We got the first down 3 out of those 4 attempts.
    Result: Punt.

    9th Drive: 9-16
    1 run, 2 passes.
    I understand the passing on this one, because Taylor got stuffed on first down. Still, it shows how we struggle when we have to depend on the pass.
    Result: Punt.

    I'll stop here because we were down by 14 for the next drive, and passing was the right thing to do. 21 runs, 29 passes. That is not my main point though. My main point is that we were super effective when we ran the ball.

    As I said before, we were 3 for 4 when running on second and 5 or more. Peterson's 55 yarder came on 2nd and 5. Taylor's 37 yarder came on 2nd and 10. Hmmm.

    Also notice that in a scoreless 1st quarter, we ran 8 times and passed 15 times. Then in the 2nd quarter we ran 8 times and passed 6 times. Coming away with 2 FG. Hmmm.

    Taylor should see 15 touches a game, not 9. Peterson should see 20, if not 25 touches a game, not 13. Run the ball 40 times. Run it on 1st and 10. Run it on 2nd and 8. Run it on 3rd and 4.

    I know you're convinced.
    "I hate when threads are destroyed by facts and logic."
    - Prophet


    Thanks Josdin!

Page 1 of 16 123 11 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Time for Vikings & Peterson to Figure Out Peterson
    By Marrdro in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 09-16-2010, 05:09 PM
  2. Peterson preaches patience - Trying times for Peterson
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 11-07-2008, 12:26 PM
  3. Peterson ?
    By StillPurple in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 08-28-2008, 07:53 AM
  4. Peterson !
    By StillPurple in forum Fantasy Football Talk
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-25-2008, 05:42 AM
  5. thank you peterson
    By All Day in forum Fantasy Football Talk
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-08-2008, 05:31 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
  •