Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 1234 12 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 159
  1. #11
    Purplemania is offline Asst. Coach
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    501

    Re: Run the gol 'darnit Ball

    What we need is good 'ol fashion Marty Ball!
    Because I'm a Vikings fan, they are that much sexier.

  2. #12
    V-Unit's Avatar
    V-Unit is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,317

    Re: Peterson should be used more?

    "jkjuggalo" wrote:
    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?
    Because Taylor is the second RB, and Dugan is the second FB.
    "I hate when threads are destroyed by facts and logic."
    - Prophet


    Thanks Josdin!

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,206

    Re: Run the Damn Ball

    "V" wrote:
    I know you're convinced.
    No need to convince me, I think it's pretty self-evident watching the games.
    40 runs to 20 passes is about right for this team.

    I'm convinced that the coaching staff doesn't care about the roster they actually have, they're calling plays for the roster they want to have.
    Maybe Childress and co. are just planning for the future and figure that's the way they're going to go, so they might as well get the QBs experience without wearing down the RBs.


    As a fan, I'm more impatient.
    I want to see our best players with the ball in their hands.
    I want to see us win some games.
    I want a lot of things, but I get so few...
    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]

  4. #14
    jkjuggalo's Avatar
    jkjuggalo is offline Star Spokesman
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    2,131

    Re: Peterson should be used more?

    Dugan is more of an H-back who Brad likes to carry on those 3rd and ones (oh, and catch the ball for a first down and fumble trying to gain a meaningless extra couple of yards, but I digress), but Tahi has shown he can be used as a RB.
    I'm surprised you all are hatin' on Tahi when he has done nothing but play solid football from what I've seen.
    Rock out with your cock out!!!

  5. #15
    BBQ Platypus's Avatar
    BBQ Platypus is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Saint Paul, MN
    Posts
    3,027

    Re: Run the gol 'darnit Ball

    "V" wrote:
    I'll stop here because we were down by 14 for the next drive, and passing was the right thing to do.
    You know, I actually bought that argument yesterday.
    But the more I've thought about it, the more ridiculous the whole notion seems.
    It wasn't even the fourth quarter yet, and another nine-minute drive by the Pack was HIGHLY unlikely (it's called "regression toward the mean," geniuses).
    A two-score game in the third quarter does NOT constitute a "pass-only" situation, ESPECIALLY when your running game is as clearly superior to your passing game (as ours is).
    We had ALREADY passed the ball considerably more often than running it.
    How well did that work out?


    "This is my timey-wimey detector. It goes ding when there's stuff."

  6. #16
    Purplemania is offline Asst. Coach
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    501

    Re: Run the gol 'darnit Ball

    "Overlord" wrote:
    "V" wrote:
    I know you're convinced.
    No need to convince me, I think it's pretty self-evident watching the games.
    40 runs to 20 passes is about right for this team.

    I'm convinced that the coaching staff doesn't care about the roster they actually have, they're calling plays for the roster they want to have.
    Maybe Childress and co. are just planning for the future and figure that's the way they're going to go, so they might as well get the QBs experience without wearing down the RBs.


    As a fan, I'm more impatient.
    I want to see our best players with the ball in their hands.
    I want to see us win some games.
    I want a lot of things, but I get so few...
    I agree on what you're saying somewhat...it seems as if the coaches know this year isn't going anywhere anyways so why not save AP for when we actually have a legit shot. However, it doesn't make any sense in getting the QB experience when it's Holcombe at the helm. lol
    Because I'm a Vikings fan, they are that much sexier.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,206

    Re: Run the gol 'darnit Ball

    "BBQ" wrote:
    "V" wrote:
    I'll stop here because we were down by 14 for the next drive, and passing was the right thing to do.
    You know, I actually bought that argument yesterday.
    But the more I've thought about it, the more ridiculous the whole notion seems.
    It wasn't even the fourth quarter yet, and another nine-minute drive by the Pack was HIGHLY unlikely (it's called "regression toward the mean," geniuses).
    A two-score game in the third quarter does NOT constitute a "pass-only" situation, ESPECIALLY when your running game is as clearly superior to your passing game (as ours is).
    We had ALREADY passed the ball considerably more often than running it.
    How well did that work out?
    As much as I agree with the sentiment, I need to correct you here.
    The Vikings didn't fall behind by two scores until 5:46 (remaining) in the fourth quarter.
    Those are the last two drives.
    So the situation was more urgent than the third quarter.

    However, I still think you can mix in some runs to get your playmakers the ball in that situation.
    We weren't exactly moving the ball up the field forty yards at a time, and our players weren't getting out of bounds after completions anyway.
    At that point, a ten yard draw is as good as a ten yard slant.
    And if the draw is to AD, maybe he busts it for a big gain.
    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]

  8. #18
    BBQ Platypus's Avatar
    BBQ Platypus is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Saint Paul, MN
    Posts
    3,027

    Re: Run the gol 'darnit Ball

    "Overlord" wrote:
    "BBQ" wrote:
    "V" wrote:
    I'll stop here because we were down by 14 for the next drive, and passing was the right thing to do.
    You know, I actually bought that argument yesterday.
    But the more I've thought about it, the more ridiculous the whole notion seems.
    It wasn't even the fourth quarter yet, and another nine-minute drive by the Pack was HIGHLY unlikely (it's called "regression toward the mean," geniuses).
    A two-score game in the third quarter does NOT constitute a "pass-only" situation, ESPECIALLY when your running game is as clearly superior to your passing game (as ours is).
    We had ALREADY passed the ball considerably more often than running it.
    How well did that work out?
    As much as I agree with the sentiment, I need to correct you here.
    The Vikings didn't fall behind by two scores until 5:46 (remaining) in the fourth quarter.
    Those are the last two drives.
    So the situation was more urgent than the third quarter.

    However, I still think you can mix in some runs to get your playmakers the ball in that situation.
    We weren't exactly moving the ball up the field forty yards at a time, and our players weren't getting out of bounds after completions anyway.
    At that point, a ten yard draw is as good as a ten yard slant.
    And if the draw is to AD, maybe he busts it for a big gain.
    I'm reacting to the sentiment that (if I'm not mistaken) I heard from someone on this board that we HAD to keep passing after the 9-minute drive because to run the ball would waste too much time.
    Perhaps I misread or misremembered what whoever-it-was wrote, but that's how I remember it, and that's what I'm arguing against.


    "This is my timey-wimey detector. It goes ding when there's stuff."

  9. #19
    V-Unit's Avatar
    V-Unit is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,317

    Re: Peterson should be used more?

    He has played solid football yes, but neither he or Moore have done anything to prove that they can replace Taylor if we trade him. Moore was in Taylor last year. We ended up going with Artose Pinner instead.

    Next year we will let Moore walk, keep Taylor, and have Tahi there for insurance. We will probably add another (hopefully a vet) RB to that as well. It's clear that Moore is no longer in the equation for Childress. As far as Tahi goes, I'm not going to trust a rookie FB who has had a total of 2 carries for 5 yards over Chester Taylor.
    "I hate when threads are destroyed by facts and logic."
    - Prophet


    Thanks Josdin!

  10. #20
    BBQ Platypus's Avatar
    BBQ Platypus is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Saint Paul, MN
    Posts
    3,027

    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)
    Why?
    What's the point in having him on the team if you're going to have him sit on the bench when the team needs him most?
    There are ways to BEAT the blitz without keeping an RB in to block.
    Like a swing pass.
    You know, the play we used to net our longest pass play so far this season?


    "This is my timey-wimey detector. It goes ding when there's stuff."

Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 1234 12 ... 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
  •