Page 3 of 16 FirstFirst 12345 13 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 159
  1. #21
    Ltrey33 is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    8,618

    Re: Peterson should be used more?

    I think we have used Peterson plenty over the first few weeks (with the exception of yesterday) but not in the right situations. He was on pace to break the carries record, so we were using him plenty, BUT we were using him at the wrong times.

    I would have loved to have seen more of Mewelde during weeks 2 and 3 during the first, second and third quarter and A LOT more of Peterson on the last few drives. Instead, Hutching touched the ball more than Peterson did on the final drive against the Chiefs. IMO, he has been utilized terribly.

  2. #22
    Purplemania is offline Asst. Coach
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    501

    Re: Peterson should be used more?

    "V" wrote:
    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.
    Moore has done well this year filling in for what would've been Taylor's spot (especially on 3rd down). What I'm most afraid is that Chester will demand to be traded after this season. Think about it...he mosdef didn't come to MN to be a backup. Hell, he could've stayed in Baltimore for that. And even so, he is an expensive backup. This situation is nothing like NO too, so I hope no one compares them. Adrian is more then capable of carrying the load while Bush needs a bruiser like Deuce (he could prove me wrong now that Deuce is out and he's the main guy). Seriously, Chester is a model citizen with a great attitude but I don't see him wanting to back up Adrian for the remainder of his career.
    Because I'm a Vikings fan, they are that much sexier.

  3. #23
    KRob18's Avatar
    KRob18 is offline Rookie
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    129

    Re: Peterson should be used more?

    i agree not using him too much. but we arent using him nearly enough. give him about 20 carries and chester can have the rest

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,206

    Re: Peterson should be used more?

    "Ltrey" wrote:
    I think we have used Peterson plenty over the first few weeks (with the exception of yesterday) but not in the right situations. He was on pace to break the carries record, so we were using him plenty, BUT we were using him at the wrong times.

    I would have loved to have seen more of Mewelde during weeks 2 and 3 during the first, second and third quarter and A LOT more of Peterson on the last few drives. Instead, Hutching touched the ball more than Peterson did on the final drive against the Chiefs. IMO, he has been utilized terribly.
    The NFL record for carries in a season was set by Larry Johnson last year and is 416, which works out to 26 carries/game.
    For AD, his stats for the first four games are:

    Game 1 (ATL) - 19 carries - 19 total carries - 19.0 carries/game
    Game 2 (DET) - 20 carries - 39 total carries - 19.5 carries/game
    Game 3 (KC) - 25 carries - 64 total carries - 21.3 carries/game
    Game 4 (GB) - 12 carries - 76 total carries - 19.0 carries/game

    That being said, it's okay if AD doesn't get 30 carries, if we are still running the ball 40 times a game with our entire stable.
    Chester and Moore are quite capable of picking up yards too, though clearly not as capable.
    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]

  5. #25
    PurplePackerEater is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,738

    Re: Run the Damn Ball

    Childress is a fool.

  6. #26
    Purplemania is offline Asst. Coach
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    501

    Re: Peterson should be used more?

    "Overlord" wrote:
    "Ltrey" wrote:
    I think we have used Peterson plenty over the first few weeks (with the exception of yesterday) but not in the right situations. He was on pace to break the carries record, so we were using him plenty, BUT we were using him at the wrong times.

    I would have loved to have seen more of Mewelde during weeks 2 and 3 during the first, second and third quarter and A LOT more of Peterson on the last few drives. Instead, Hutching touched the ball more than Peterson did on the final drive against the Chiefs. IMO, he has been utilized terribly.
    The NFL record for carries in a season was set by Larry Johnson last year and is 416, which works out to 26 carries/game.
    For AD, his stats for the first four games are:

    Game 1 (ATL) - 19 carries - 19 total carries - 19.0 carries/game
    Game 2 (DET) - 20 carries - 39 total carries - 19.5 carries/game
    Game 3 (KC) - 25 carries - 64 total carries - 21.3 carries/game
    Game 4 (GB) - 12 carries - 76 total carries - 19.0 carries/game

    That being said, it's okay if AD doesn't get 30 carries, if we are still running the ball 40 times a game with our entire stable.
    Chester and Moore are quite capable of picking up yards too, though clearly not as capable.
    It's kind of funny...watching AD the first 3 games, his explosion and power, then back to Taylor and his finese game was almost unbearable at times. lol not to downgrade Chester! He did have a nice long run too.
    Because I'm a Vikings fan, they are that much sexier.

  7. #27
    V-Unit's Avatar
    V-Unit is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,317

    Re: Peterson should be used more?

    "Purplemania" wrote:
    "V" wrote:
    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.
    Moore has done well this year filling in for what would've been Taylor's spot (especially on 3rd down). What I'm most afraid is that Chester will demand to be traded after this season. Think about it...he mosdef didn't come to MN to be a backup. Hell, he could've stayed in Baltimore for that. And even so, he is an expensive backup. This situation is nothing like NO too, so I hope no one compares them. Adrian is more then capable of carrying the load while Bush needs a bruiser like Deuce (he could prove me wrong now that Deuce is out and he's the main guy). Seriously, Chester is a model citizen with a great attitude but I don't see him wanting to back up Adrian for the remainder of his career.
    It all depends on whether you consider Taylor to be part of a two man platoon or to be a backup, as you said. First, realize that Chester got just as many plays as AD in the last game. Also realize that Chester is a much better pass blocker than Peterson or Moore. I do not consider him a backup. I do not think he is being treated like a backup right now. He was simply injured.

    As far as Adrian carrying the load, I have to disagree with that. Last year we were all saying at this point in time that Taylor was more than capable of carrying the load. We ran him into the ground. Look what happened.

    That being said, if Taylor is thrown into a backup role, then yes it would be a good idea to trade him.

    I don't think thats the case though. We have a true platoon system, with two great backs. We just need to use BOTH of them more. Chester is not taking carries away from Peterson. Holcomb is taking carries away from Peterson, and that is a very bad thing.
    "I hate when threads are destroyed by facts and logic."
    - Prophet


    Thanks Josdin!

  8. #28
    soonerbornNbred is offline Pro-Bowler
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    357

    Re: Peterson should be used more?

    All this Talk about AD not being able to pass protect, seems a little iffy at best 2 me...At Oklahoma as a freshman he protected Jason White who had two reconstructed knees at the time, and both went on to finish 2nd and 3rd in the Hiesman in 2004...then he protected a freshman QB 2005, and a 1 yr QB in 2006...is record breaking value was apprecciated in those years, in fact I was worried they would run him in the ground...I know college is not the pro level, but it seems 1 area where you can play rookies is RB, Kick and Punt Return... He is the REALDEAL hope he plays a long long time

  9. #29
    MetalMike-LoudVike's Avatar
    MetalMike-LoudVike is offline Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,291

    Re: Peterson should be used more?

    Well I understand not wanting to over use this guy, against the biggest rival we have and he gets 12 touches he broke a 100 yards and also return'd a couple kicks. Point being we should have been trying to get him some touches he
    is what moving our offense, Until I see someone else show up to help this guy.
    IN THE PITS ON THE RIVER BEDS EVRY VIKING FAN WILL RISE & VAHALLA SHALL REJOICE WITH THE MOST GLORIOUS PRIZE LOMBARDI'S TROPHY

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,206

    Re: Run the gol 'darnit Ball

    "BBQ" wrote:
    "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.
    And I'm saying that:
    1) You're right, we didn't need to pass it.
    What is and what isn't a passing down reflects a coaching philosophy, not a rule.
    At some point it's based on good probabilities, but at 6 minutes left in the game it's not exactly black-and-white.
    2) You're simply confusing certain drives and the score at different times.
    The Packers had a nine minute drive to start the second half.
    After that drive, the score was 13-6, still a one score game.
    The last two drives that we passed on didn't come until several drives later, after the Packers were up 23-9 with under 6 minutes to go in the game.


    I understand what you're trying to say though.
    Personally, I still think that, when you have to choose between AD and Holcomb, you should go with AD.
    Even if there's only six minutes left in the game and you're down by two TDs.
    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]

Page 3 of 16 FirstFirst 12345 13 ... 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
  •