Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 37
  1. #21
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is online now PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,207

    Re: The Peterson-Taylor combination

    "snowinapril" wrote:
    "tastywaves" wrote:
    "singersp" wrote:
    "UffDaVikes" wrote:
    "singersp" wrote:
    [quote author=UffDaVikes link=topic=45653.msg792273#msg792273 date=1213469843]
    I am not sold on how it will work. Peterson seems like a more effective runner when he lines up deep and has a full head of steam when he hits the hole behind a fullback. Taylor, on the other hand is shifty enough where I could see it benefiting him. It will be interesting to see.
    Ever hear of The wishbone formation?
    Yes I have. Have you watched AD play in one?
    I don't watch college ball so I can honestly say no. But that doesn't mean he can't play in one with a two back set.
    The Wishbone offense utilizes 3 running backs in the lineup.
    1 fullback, two halfbacks.
    It was common back in earlier college days (Oklahoma probably gave it the most fame back in the 70's, at least my lifespan).
    It is not being used much today outside of small high school's as it basically says we are lining up to run the ball down your throat, try to stop us.
    Good defenses can stop it or minimize it.

    the problem I see with lining both Chester and Adrian up in the backfield is that it will require them to be able to lead block to have any effectiveness.
    Do you really want to see Adrian used as a battering ram to free up lanes for Chester?
    That's the fullback's job.
    Just having two great running backs to keep the defense guessing would probably be outweighed by the probability that one of those guys will be getting the ball.

    We need to develop a respectable passing game if we want to have a consistent offense.
    Use it a few series a game.
    I want to see AD throw a pass to CT for a TD or the other way around.
    Get the D concentrating on stopping them and then run that play. If that set is able to get us some yards, I think the trick would work.

    You are right about the lead blocking, I don't want to see AD doing much of that.
    If the other back in the set wasn't blocking, then I would think it would make for some different blocking schemes which might screw up the scheme set in place last year.

    If it is used, it won't be the majority of the game. I think that in the NFL, you have to switch things up and give teams different looks.
    The more things you are good at, the better.

    [/quote]

    Exactly. I don't see AD or Taylor being the blocker in that formation. The fullback would be doing that job. What it does do is two things:

    1. If it is a run, you don't know which back is getting the ball. (The other one could simply go on a pass route to give the QB two options)

    2. It could open up the passing game. When AD was in there alone, you could count on it being a run almost always. With C-Tay in there, it would prompt defenses to set up for a pass. With them both in there & the Vikings switching up & mixing what they do, it will keep the defenses guessing.

    Like SIA said, you could weave a few trick plays in there to really stir things up as well. I could easily see them hitting Rice or Berrian on a bomb using that formation when the defense is thinking run.

    "If at first you don't succeed, parachuting is not for you"

  2. #22
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,899

    Re: The Peterson-Taylor combination

    "tastywaves" wrote:
    The Wishbone offense utilizes 3 running backs in the lineup.
    1 fullback, two halfbacks.
    It was common back in earlier college days (Oklahoma probably gave it the most fame back in the 70's, at least my lifespan).
    It is not being used much today outside of small high school's as it basically says we are lining up to run the ball down your throat, try to stop us.
    Good defenses can stop it or minimize it.

    the problem I see with lining both Chester and Adrian up in the backfield is that it will require them to be able to lead block to have any effectiveness.
    That's the fullback's job.
    Just having two great running backs to keep the defense guessing would probably be outweighed by the probability that one of those guys will be getting the ball. Do you really want to see Adrian used as a battering ram to free up lanes for Chester?

    We need to develop a respectable passing game if we want to have a consistent offense.
    Finally, someone with a clue.

    Will we see CT/AD in the backfield at the same time?
    Yes, just about as many times as we did last year which wasn't many.

    The whole concept of the two back attack is that you ROTATE backs in and out to keep them both fresh.
    Putting them both in at the same time defeats that purpose and really doesn't do anything that you can't to with a FB in the back field or an extra WR.

    Seriously, you just don't get that much flexibility.
    Sure you can split AD out and keep AD but if you are gonna threaten with a RB in a passing play why not just but a WR out there that the QB is used to throwing to and a WR who is used to running routes.

    Comeon guys, quit thinking Madden football and think real NFL football.... ;D ;D ;D
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  3. #23
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is online now PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,207

    Re: The Peterson-Taylor combination

    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "tastywaves" wrote:
    The Wishbone offense utilizes 3 running backs in the lineup.
    1 fullback, two halfbacks.
    It was common back in earlier college days (Oklahoma probably gave it the most fame back in the 70's, at least my lifespan).
    It is not being used much today outside of small high school's as it basically says we are lining up to run the ball down your throat, try to stop us.
    Good defenses can stop it or minimize it.

    the problem I see with lining both Chester and Adrian up in the backfield is that it will require them to be able to lead block to have any effectiveness.
    That's the fullback's job.
    Just having two great running backs to keep the defense guessing would probably be outweighed by the probability that one of those guys will be getting the ball. Do you really want to see Adrian used as a battering ram to free up lanes for Chester?

    We need to develop a respectable passing game if we want to have a consistent offense.
    Finally, someone with a clue.

    Will we see CT/AD in the backfield at the same time?
    Yes, just about as many times as we did last year which wasn't many.

    The whole concept of the two back attack is that you ROTATE backs in and out to keep them both fresh.
    Putting them both in at the same time defeats that purpose and really doesn't do anything that you can't to with a FB in the back field or an extra WR.

    Seriously, you just don't get that much flexibility.
    Sure you can split AD out and keep AD but if you are gonna threaten with a RB in a passing play why not just but a WR out there that the QB is used to throwing to and a WR who is used to running routes.

    Comeon guys, quit thinking Madden football and think real NFL football.... ;D ;D ;D
    C'mon Marr, quit thinking predictability. It killed our run game last year. With only AD & a FB in the backfield, what are the chances of the play being a run?

    95%? 90%?

    With AD & C-Tay in there together, we become less predictable & it opens up our passing game. With both backs in there, you don't necessarily need to use one to pound a hole for the other.

    Cannot the wishbone also utilize a FB?


    "If at first you don't succeed, parachuting is not for you"

  4. #24
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,899

    Re: The Peterson-Taylor combination

    "singersp" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "tastywaves" wrote:
    The Wishbone offense utilizes 3 running backs in the lineup.
    1 fullback, two halfbacks.
    It was common back in earlier college days (Oklahoma probably gave it the most fame back in the 70's, at least my lifespan).
    It is not being used much today outside of small high school's as it basically says we are lining up to run the ball down your throat, try to stop us.
    Good defenses can stop it or minimize it.

    the problem I see with lining both Chester and Adrian up in the backfield is that it will require them to be able to lead block to have any effectiveness.
    That's the fullback's job.
    Just having two great running backs to keep the defense guessing would probably be outweighed by the probability that one of those guys will be getting the ball. Do you really want to see Adrian used as a battering ram to free up lanes for Chester?

    We need to develop a respectable passing game if we want to have a consistent offense.
    Finally, someone with a clue.

    Will we see CT/AD in the backfield at the same time?
    Yes, just about as many times as we did last year which wasn't many.

    The whole concept of the two back attack is that you ROTATE backs in and out to keep them both fresh.
    Putting them both in at the same time defeats that purpose and really doesn't do anything that you can't to with a FB in the back field or an extra WR.

    Seriously, you just don't get that much flexibility.
    Sure you can split AD out and keep AD but if you are gonna threaten with a RB in a passing play why not just but a WR out there that the QB is used to throwing to and a WR who is used to running routes.

    Comeon guys, quit thinking Madden football and think real NFL football.... ;D ;D ;D
    C'mon Marr, quit thinking predictability. It killed our run game last year. With only AD & a FB in the backfield, what are the chances of the play being a run?

    95%? 90%?

    With AD & C-Tay in there together, we become less predictable & it opens up our passing game. With both backs in there, you don't necessarily need to use one to pound a hole for the other.

    Cannot the wishbone also utilize a FB?

    We can be unpredictable with more traditional lineups like the following and still keep our RB's fresh, like the two RB approach most teams are taking is designed to do.....

    WR








    LT
    LG
    C
    RG
    RG


    WR




    WR


















    QB



































    FB


















    RB

    We running or passing in that scheme?
    a.
    Everyone blocks down and AD runs the ball.
    b.
    WR's run routes, FB and RB chip/help and then roll to the flat.
    c.
    QB drops back and then runs.

    WR








    LT
    LG
    C
    RG
    RG


    WR




    WR











    TE




    QB



































    RB
    We running or passing in that scheme?
    a.
    Everyone blocks down and AD runs the ball.
    b.
    WR's run routes, FB and RB chip/help and then roll to the flat.
    c.
    TE chips/helps or runs a route into the seam
    c.
    QB drops back and then runs.


    WR








    LT
    LG
    C
    RG
    RG







    WR











    TE




    QB



    TE



































    RB

    We running or passing in that scheme?

    WR








    LT
    LG
    C
    RG
    RG







    WR











    TE




    QB







































    FB


















    RB
    We running or passing in that scheme?

    Truth of the matter those base sets are what will be hard to game plan against as you can run a myriad of plays from them and they will be very effective as your base set players are well versed in the running of plays from those sets.

    Again, we will see CT and AD in the backfield at times this year, just like we did last year, but it isn't gonna be a thing that you will see alot.
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  5. #25
    digital420's Avatar
    digital420 is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Ancient Korinthia
    Posts
    2,539

    Re: The Peterson-Taylor combination

    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "singersp" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "tastywaves" wrote:
    The Wishbone offense utilizes 3 running backs in the lineup.
    1 fullback, two halfbacks.
    It was common back in earlier college days (Oklahoma probably gave it the most fame back in the 70's, at least my lifespan).
    It is not being used much today outside of small high school's as it basically says we are lining up to run the ball down your throat, try to stop us.
    Good defenses can stop it or minimize it.

    the problem I see with lining both Chester and Adrian up in the backfield is that it will require them to be able to lead block to have any effectiveness.
    That's the fullback's job.
    Just having two great running backs to keep the defense guessing would probably be outweighed by the probability that one of those guys will be getting the ball. Do you really want to see Adrian used as a battering ram to free up lanes for Chester?

    We need to develop a respectable passing game if we want to have a consistent offense.
    Finally, someone with a clue.

    Will we see CT/AD in the backfield at the same time?
    Yes, just about as many times as we did last year which wasn't many.

    The whole concept of the two back attack is that you ROTATE backs in and out to keep them both fresh.
    Putting them both in at the same time defeats that purpose and really doesn't do anything that you can't to with a FB in the back field or an extra WR.

    Seriously, you just don't get that much flexibility.
    Sure you can split AD out and keep AD but if you are gonna threaten with a RB in a passing play why not just but a WR out there that the QB is used to throwing to and a WR who is used to running routes.

    Comeon guys, quit thinking Madden football and think real NFL football.... ;D ;D ;D
    C'mon Marr, quit thinking predictability. It killed our run game last year. With only AD & a FB in the backfield, what are the chances of the play being a run?

    95%? 90%?

    With AD & C-Tay in there together, we become less predictable & it opens up our passing game. With both backs in there, you don't necessarily need to use one to pound a hole for the other.

    Cannot the wishbone also utilize a FB?

    We can be unpredictable with more traditional lineups like the following and still keep our RB's fresh, like the two RB approach most teams are taking is designed to do.....

    WR








    LT
    LG
    C
    RG
    RG


    WR




    WR


















    QB



































    FB


















    RB

    We running or passing in that scheme?
    a.
    Everyone blocks down and AD runs the ball.
    b.
    WR's run routes, FB and RB chip/help and then roll to the flat.
    c.
    QB drops back and then runs.

    WR








    LT
    LG
    C
    RG
    RG


    WR




    WR











    TE




    QB



































    RB
    We running or passing in that scheme?
    a.
    Everyone blocks down and AD runs the ball.
    b.
    WR's run routes, FB and RB chip/help and then roll to the flat.
    c.
    TE chips/helps or runs a route into the seam
    c.
    QB drops back and then runs.


    WR








    LT
    LG
    C
    RG
    RG







    WR











    TE




    QB



    TE



































    RB

    We running or passing in that scheme?

    WR








    LT
    LG
    C
    RG
    RG







    WR











    TE




    QB







































    FB


















    RB
    We running or passing in that scheme?

    Truth of the matter those base sets are what will be hard to game plan against as you can run a myriad of plays from them and they will be very effective as your base set players are well versed in the running of plays from those sets.

    Again, we will see CT and AD in the backfield at times this year, just like we did last year, but it isn't gonna be a thing that you will see alot.
    in the bolded sets u have no FB.. so if it was a run.. it's behiend Klienny.. and if it's shianco.. u could say it's more of a passin play.

    really only the last one looks like pass. but prolly could be hidden run.
    I do agree keeping their legs fresh is good. But.. AD seems to always get better as the game goes on.

    DiGiTaL

    "We tried to stick with it, but there was a point where we were beating our head against a wall," Seattle Coach Mora talking about running at the Williams Wall

  6. #26
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,899

    Re: The Peterson-Taylor combination

    "digital420" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "singersp" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "tastywaves" wrote:
    The Wishbone offense utilizes 3 running backs in the lineup.
    1 fullback, two halfbacks.
    It was common back in earlier college days (Oklahoma probably gave it the most fame back in the 70's, at least my lifespan).
    It is not being used much today outside of small high school's as it basically says we are lining up to run the ball down your throat, try to stop us.
    Good defenses can stop it or minimize it.

    the problem I see with lining both Chester and Adrian up in the backfield is that it will require them to be able to lead block to have any effectiveness.
    That's the fullback's job.
    Just having two great running backs to keep the defense guessing would probably be outweighed by the probability that one of those guys will be getting the ball. Do you really want to see Adrian used as a battering ram to free up lanes for Chester?

    We need to develop a respectable passing game if we want to have a consistent offense.
    Finally, someone with a clue.

    Will we see CT/AD in the backfield at the same time?
    Yes, just about as many times as we did last year which wasn't many.

    The whole concept of the two back attack is that you ROTATE backs in and out to keep them both fresh.
    Putting them both in at the same time defeats that purpose and really doesn't do anything that you can't to with a FB in the back field or an extra WR.

    Seriously, you just don't get that much flexibility.
    Sure you can split AD out and keep AD but if you are gonna threaten with a RB in a passing play why not just but a WR out there that the QB is used to throwing to and a WR who is used to running routes.

    Comeon guys, quit thinking Madden football and think real NFL football.... ;D ;D ;D
    C'mon Marr, quit thinking predictability. It killed our run game last year. With only AD & a FB in the backfield, what are the chances of the play being a run?

    95%? 90%?

    With AD & C-Tay in there together, we become less predictable & it opens up our passing game. With both backs in there, you don't necessarily need to use one to pound a hole for the other.

    Cannot the wishbone also utilize a FB?

    We can be unpredictable with more traditional lineups like the following and still keep our RB's fresh, like the two RB approach most teams are taking is designed to do.....

    WR









    LT

    LG

    C
    RG
    RG


    WR




    WR


















    QB




































    FB



















    RB

    We running or passing in that scheme?
    a.
    Everyone blocks down and AD runs the ball.
    b.
    WR's run routes, FB and RB chip/help and then roll to the flat.
    c.
    QB drops back and then runs.

    WR









    LT

    LG

    C
    RG
    RG


    WR




    WR











    TE




    QB



































    RB
    We running or passing in that scheme?
    a.
    Everyone blocks down and AD runs the ball.
    b.
    WR's run routes, FB and RB chip/help and then roll to the flat.
    c.
    TE chips/helps or runs a route into the seam
    c.
    QB drops back and then runs.


    WR









    LT

    LG

    C
    RG
    RG








    WR











    TE




    QB




    TE



































    RB

    We running or passing in that scheme?

    WR









    LT

    LG

    C
    RG
    RG








    WR











    TE




    QB








































    FB


















    RB
    We running or passing in that scheme?

    Truth of the matter those base sets are what will be hard to game plan against as you can run a myriad of plays from them and they will be very effective as your base set players are well versed in the running of plays from those sets.

    Again, we will see CT and AD in the backfield at times this year, just like we did last year, but it isn't gonna be a thing that you will see alot.
    in the bolded sets u have no FB.. so if it was a run.. it's behiend Klienny.. and if it's shianco.. u could say it's more of a passin play.

    really only the last one looks like pass. but prolly could be hidden run.
    I do agree keeping their legs fresh is good. But.. AD seems to always get better as the game goes on.

    DiGiTaL
    Good catch Dig.
    I was cutting and pasting my answers and messed up on that one.
    ;D

    The point being that the more flexibility you have out of the same set (limited sets) causes D Cords fits and thats what the WCO gives you, at least the version I think we are trying to run (pun intended) here.


    Sure a 2 RB set gives you some flexibility but you are really putting the onus on the RB to fulfill roles that are kindof teatering on the edge of "Trick" play kindof stuff.
    When D-coords see that set run out they only have to game plan for a couple of options and could almost negate it with thier base D sets.

    3 WR's almost forces a nickle package which TJ/Birk could then recognize and audible to run.

    2 WR's and 2 TE's look run which forces the D to show S/LB help which could in turn be audibled to a pass to the WR alone on the outside or a 2nd read to the TE in the seam.

    etc etc etc.
    I for one want to see standard sets with multiple plays/shifts etc this season and not trick plays.
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  7. #27
    digital420's Avatar
    digital420 is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Ancient Korinthia
    Posts
    2,539

    Re: The Peterson-Taylor combination

    I think i'd like to see some of those trick plays.. some motion from right to left from either rb, the other holding a spot back more. maybe sending AD over to the left side from the right to get a mismatch with BB or Rice

    what i see form the 2 back set is more ways to get 1v1 with out deep threats.. and possibly forcin the D to stay honest by using that RB tandem in new ways.

    DiGiTaL

    "We tried to stick with it, but there was a point where we were beating our head against a wall," Seattle Coach Mora talking about running at the Williams Wall

  8. #28
    tastywaves's Avatar
    tastywaves is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,814

    Re: The Peterson-Taylor combination

    Trick plays are usually the sign of desperation, that is, ineffective offense.
    We may have to resort to this, but it is not what I want to depend on to be effective at moving the ball.

    On the wishbone thing.
    there is no more predictable offensive set out there than that.
    the only question is, who is running the ball... hb, hb, fb or qb.
    Since you have 4 players used in the backfield, that leaves you with 7 players left and 2 recievers (including the TE).
    This will always be an 8-9 in the box defensive set that will flow with the direction of the play.
    Today's defensive players are too athletic to leave gaping holes open on a consistent basis for this to be effective.
    You need to have an effective passing threat in today's game and that means lining receivers up on the line of scrimmage.

    What killed our running game last year was our lack of respect for the passing game not the fact that AD and Chester were not lined up next to each other.
    As Marr points out, having both of these guys in the game limits the plays we can run and increases the chances that it will be a run (or dump pass/screen to RB), accept now we lost a lead blocker to take out a LB.
    It does not help bring the defense off the line of scrimmage.
    For the running game to increase its effectiveness we have to get the guys to respect our receivers and back off, I don't see how AD and CT in the backfield accomplishes this.

    A lot of teams in the NFL have two good RB's, but you rarely see them in the game together.

  9. #29
    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: The Peterson-Taylor combination

    "singersp" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "tastywaves" wrote:
    The Wishbone offense utilizes 3 running backs in the lineup.
    1 fullback, two halfbacks.
    It was common back in earlier college days (Oklahoma probably gave it the most fame back in the 70's, at least my lifespan).
    It is not being used much today outside of small high school's as it basically says we are lining up to run the ball down your throat, try to stop us.
    Good defenses can stop it or minimize it.

    the problem I see with lining both Chester and Adrian up in the backfield is that it will require them to be able to lead block to have any effectiveness.
    That's the fullback's job.
    Just having two great running backs to keep the defense guessing would probably be outweighed by the probability that one of those guys will be getting the ball. Do you really want to see Adrian used as a battering ram to free up lanes for Chester?

    We need to develop a respectable passing game if we want to have a consistent offense.
    Finally, someone with a clue.

    Will we see CT/AD in the backfield at the same time?
    Yes, just about as many times as we did last year which wasn't many.

    The whole concept of the two back attack is that you ROTATE backs in and out to keep them both fresh.
    Putting them both in at the same time defeats that purpose and really doesn't do anything that you can't to with a FB in the back field or an extra WR.

    Seriously, you just don't get that much flexibility.
    Sure you can split AD out and keep AD but if you are gonna threaten with a RB in a passing play why not just but a WR out there that the QB is used to throwing to and a WR who is used to running routes.

    Comeon guys, quit thinking Madden football and think real NFL football.... ;D ;D ;D
    C'mon Marr, quit thinking predictability. It killed our run game last year. With only AD & a FB in the backfield, what are the chances of the play being a run?

    95%? 90%?

    With AD & C-Tay in there together, we become less predictable & it opens up our passing game. With both backs in there, you don't necessarily need to use one to pound a hole for the other.

    Cannot the wishbone also utilize a FB?

    Was this sarcasm? I don't think anything killed our run game last year, we lead the league in yards.

  10. #30
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,899

    Re: The Peterson-Taylor combination

    "tastywaves" wrote:
    Trick plays are usually the sign of desperation, that is, ineffective offense.
    We may have to resort to this, but it is not what I want to depend on to be effective at moving the ball.

    On the wishbone thing.
    there is no more predictable offensive set out there than that.
    the only question is, who is running the ball... hb, hb, fb or qb.
    Since you have 4 players used in the backfield, that leaves you with 7 players left and 2 recievers (including the TE).
    This will always be an 8-9 in the box defensive set that will flow with the direction of the play.
    Today's defensive players are too athletic to leave gaping holes open on a consistent basis for this to be effective.
    You need to have an effective passing threat in today's game and that means lining receivers up on the line of scrimmage.

    What killed our running game last year was our lack of respect for the passing game not the fact that AD and Chester were not lined up next to each other.
    As Marr points out, having both of these guys in the game limits the plays we can run and increases the chances that it will be a run (or dump pass/screen to RB), accept now we lost a lead blocker to take out a LB.
    It does not help bring the defense off the line of scrimmage.
    For the running game to increase its effectiveness we have to get the guys to respect our receivers and back off, I don't see how AD and CT in the backfield accomplishes this.

    A lot of teams in the NFL have two good RB's, but you rarely see them in the game together.
    Excellent post my friend. (As always) ;D
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Chilly on Both Taylor Peterson on MNF
    By purplepowered in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 12-20-2007, 10:18 AM
  2. Chester Taylor or Adrian Peterson?
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: 10-14-2007, 05:57 PM
  3. Can Peterson beat Taylor for starting job?
    By singersp in forum Fantasy Football Talk
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-18-2007, 05:28 AM
  4. Are Peterson & Taylor the new Maroney & Dillon
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 07-15-2007, 12:01 AM
  5. Taylor - Peterson together
    By singersp in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 05-26-2007, 12:17 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
  •