Thread: Time for Vikings & Peterson to Figure Out Peterson

Marrdro wrote:

Traveling_Vike wrote:

I would have liked to see a couple more touches by AD as well as anyone, but I will point out this one little detail.

We ran 20 total plays in the second half. Peterson was the target on 7 of them (6 runs, one pass). That's more than a third of the total plays run.

Just saying...

Love the numbers my friend. Thanks.

Quick question though.

If the goal is to get AD more involved as an everydown back, wouldn't you think that would mean that he would be in on (as the target/primary threat) at least half of those plays?

If we ran him 6 times and dumped it off to him 6 times (vice 6 r/1 p) as you mentioned, I would think the outcome would have been a bit different.

Of course, the wildcard in all of that is what would've the Aints shifted to. More of a 4-3 with a LB bitzing more instead of the 3-8 we saw alot of?

Even if they did shift more towards the front end, it would have helped the WR's (what few we saw on the field) get into the open zones as there would have been less back there.

I'd like to see just a bit more of AD in the passing game, but not too much. And as I said above, I wanted to see more of him i n the second half of the Saints game as well. The only thing is, if we see TOO MUCH more of him, that makes us leaning toward that evil term...

One-dimensional.

My thought is, you run him more early, until they start to shift and adjust, then test the deep waters with the WRs a few times once the coverage moves in tighter. Whether or not that works, it serves a purpose anyway. It forces the defenders out of their one set scheme, and makes them prepare for anything. Keeps them off-balance, not knowing what to expect at any given moment.

If that happens, then you CAN pass out of your heavy sets, because they'll be expecting run. And when they play back again, gash them with AD again.

What it boils down to (and this should be fairly obvioous) is you take what they give you. Most of the time, anyway. Surprise is a major weapon, too.

I think that may be some of what was running through Favre's mind: we're in a heavy run set, so we should pass because they'll be expecting a run. Problem is, you can't go to that well too often, or it stops working.

Anyway, I trust that we'll come away from this with a little bit better understanding of how we need to play while we're missing a couple of important cogs.

Marrdro wrote:

swardsooner wrote:

I know I'm a one-note ninny about Adrian, but the most fun watching him play at OU was his dominance in the fourth quarter...His biggest runs, his absolutely consistent ripping up of the defense came late in games. I've never seen a game so well set up for him as last Thursday night's...Minnesota has YET to see AD at his best. Crappy coaching.

Crappy audibles.

How many audibles were called during the game.....do you have a link :huh:

vikinggreg wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

swardsooner wrote:

I know I'm a one-note ninny about Adrian, but the most fun watching him play at OU was his dominance in the fourth quarter...His biggest runs, his absolutely consistent ripping up of the defense came late in games. I've never seen a game so well set up for him as last Thursday night's...Minnesota has YET to see AD at his best. Crappy coaching.

Crappy audibles.

How many audibles were called during the game.....do you have a link :huh:

Isn't it obvious? Everything bad that happens is Favre's fault.

BleedinPandG wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Glad to see you haven't given up all together my friend.

The more voices of reason we get back on here the better the site will be..... :laugh:

Just been a bad year... Selling two houses... buying two houses... moving the family 3 times... just been crazy and can't say my head has always been in the best state of mind to come here and read a lot of the nonsense that seems to overtake the various threads the majority of the time.

You have been busy. Almost sounds like your in the Navy and getting change of orders all the time. I sure don't miss that kindof stuff.

As to the nonsense. It does get a bit old, but the way I see it, its the last year (I hope). Maybe alot of the older cats who talked about the game will come back then.

Until then, I'm holding down the fort and fighting the good fight.

vikinggreg wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

swardsooner wrote:

I know I'm a one-note ninny about Adrian, but the most fun watching him play at OU was his dominance in the fourth quarter...His biggest runs, his absolutely consistent ripping up of the defense came late in games. I've never seen a game so well set up for him as last Thursday night's...Minnesota has YET to see AD at his best. Crappy coaching.

Crappy audibles.

How many audibles were called during the game.....do you have a link :huh:

Of course I don't have a link. I do have a pair of eyes........Here are a few things to look for........

a. Package sent in.
0-0 (No RB/No TE) Obviously a pass is called.
1-0 (1 RB/ No TE) Could be a run, but probably a passing play because of how many recievers are on the field.
1-1 (1 RB/ 1 TE) Same as 1-0 but with our scheme is would anticipate a run.
1-2 (1 RB/2 TE) Probably a run, but could still pass out of it.
1-3 (1 RB/3 TE) Most likely a run, but still could pass based on defensive set.
2-0 (2 RB/0 TE) I have never seen this set from our team. Atleast for as long as I've been taking game notes. Probably a pass as the RB will usually go in motion and the FB will help block.
2-1 (2 RB/1 TE) Most likely a run, but still could pass based on defensive set.
2-2 (2 RB/2 TE) Considered a run heavy set. Usually gonna run out of it as you are limited with respect to WR's and how easy it is to take that away.
2-3 (2 RB/3 TE) Considered a run heavy set. Again, you sure aren't gonna get alot of options in the passing game here. Most likely a running play.

b. Line calls........
This isn't as complex as most think and you can hear it,especially when they are at home. Words like Kill/Alert/Check/Or a color code (I hear Blue alot out of the Noodle) usually mean something is changing in the play.

On a side note, I've got a new process for my game notes. Its called "Charting". Think of how you keep a game book in baseball. Tracks pitches, strikes, balls, base runners etc.

Actually works pretty good. You can really see trends based on down and distance, location on the field, time on the clock, score, and most importantly , the package that is sent in.

In the end, do I have a link, no. But honestly, does everything on here have to have a link? Do you bring along a list of urls to the coffee pot when you talk to your coworkers about the game?

Bet thats fun. :laugh:

In the end, the packages that were being sent in from the sideline mixed with the predominance of the 3-8 scheme the Aint's were using would cause anyone to say to themself, ...."Self, why in the hell did we throw out of a 2-3 set into a 3-8 defensive set?".......Must have been an audible.

As usual, a excellent post my friend. And, of course, I always have a few thoughts to run back at ya......

Traveling_Vike wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Traveling_Vike wrote:

I would have liked to see a couple more touches by AD as well as anyone, but I will point out this one little detail.

We ran 20 total plays in the second half. Peterson was the target on 7 of them (6 runs, one pass). That's more than a third of the total plays run.

Just saying...

Love the numbers my friend. Thanks.

Quick question though.

If the goal is to get AD more involved as an everydown back, wouldn't you think that would mean that he would be in on (as the target/primary threat) at least half of those plays?

If we ran him 6 times and dumped it off to him 6 times (vice 6 r/1 p) as you mentioned, I would think the outcome would have been a bit different.

Of course, the wildcard in all of that is what would've the Aints shifted to. More of a 4-3 with a LB bitzing more instead of the 3-8 we saw alot of?

Even if they did shift more towards the front end, it would have helped the WR's (what few we saw on the field) get into the open zones as there would have been less back there.

I'd like to see just a bit more of AD in the passing game, but not too much. And as I said above, I wanted to see more of him i n the second half of the Saints game as well. The only thing is, if we see TOO MUCH more of him, that makes us leaning toward that evil term...

One-dimensional.

I hear ya, but if we use him in both on running downs and passing downs, we become 2 dimensional.

When we had to bring him out and run CT in there, we seemed to get some decent yards, mostly cause CT could run with it or catch a pass.

Again, back to the little bit we saw in pre-season and the first half of the Aint's game, I think the defenses weren't sure what we were gonna do, cause AD looked good picking up the blitz as well as getting out and catching it.

2 dimensional.

My thought is, you run him more early, until they start to shift and adjust, then test the deep waters with the WRs a few times once the coverage moves in tighter. Whether or not that works, it serves a purpose anyway. It forces the defenders out of their one set scheme, and makes them prepare for anything. Keeps them off-balance, not knowing what to expect at any given moment.

If that happens, then you CAN pass out of your heavy sets, because they'll be expecting run. And when they play back again, gash them with AD again.

Again, good stuff, especially the last paragraph. It could almost explain why we were seeing the Noodle pass out of those heavy sets, but I doubt it cause of the looks the defense were giving them. They were staying back in the 3-8 alot.

In that instance, back you the first paragraph, you run AD and pass to AD, forcing them to move (adjust) from the 3-8 look into a more traditional 4-3 so that they can take the run away as well as keep him from being a target out in the flats.......Then and only then will you be able to exploit the softer zones on the backend with play action.

What it boils down to (and this should be fairly obvioous) is you take what they give you. Most of the time, anyway. Surprise is a major weapon, too.

I think that may be some of what was running through Favre's mind: we're in a heavy run set, so we should pass because they'll be expecting a run. Problem is, you can't go to that well too often, or it stops working.

Again, that makes sense, but truth of the matter is, we weren't taking what they were giving us (after the long drive). We were trying to force the balls to recievers with 8 men on the backside.

If we were taking what they were giving us, we would have been patient and dinked/dunked down the field like we did when we took over at 14:53 in the second quarter and didn't give the ball back until 5:32 left after Shortwell kicked the FG.

That defense was tired. We had them on the ropes and then came out chucking it all over the field in the 3rd QTR out of run heavy sets.

Makes absolutely no sense.

Anyway, I trust that we'll come away from this with a little bit better understanding of how we need to play while we're missing a couple of important cogs.

Agree.......I think the team learned alot about itself. I for one anticipate a whole different approach to the Phins even though we will probably see alot of those heavy sets along with alot of dinking and dunking to backs in the flats/underneath zones out of playaction just like we saw in the 2nd quarter of thurs game.

By the by. This is turning into a good thread. Thanks for your thoughts.

This thread would never exist if Favre was on target.
The right play was called, whether it came in or it was an audible. The protection was there. The receiver was open. Favre found the right receiver. But Favre didn't get the ball to where it needed to be for the receiver to catch it.

Whether it was:
* the ball not going where Favre wanted it to (mechanics)
* expecting the receiver to go somewhere else (play to PH where PH cut it off and Favre expected him to continue since he was covered by a LB.
* not being familar with the receiver (Cam having to layout for the ball)
* poorly run routes?
etc.

The end result was the Vikes were not able to move the sticks, which would have give AD more shots at touches.

I don't hate Favre, I'm just saying the pass plays were not being executed. Favre said it himself. Ball doesn't move (3rd and 10) AD doesn't get a touch.

gagarr wrote:

This thread would never exist if Favre was on target.
The right play was called, whether it came in or it was an audible. The protection was there. The receiver was open. Favre found the right receiver. But Favre didn't get the ball to where it needed to be for the receiver to catch it.

Whether it was:
* the ball not going where Favre wanted it to (mechanics)
* expecting the receiver to go somewhere else (play to PH where PH cut it off and Favre expected him to continue since he was covered by a LB.
* not being familar with the receiver (Cam having to layout for the ball)
* poorly run routes?
etc.

The end result was the Vikes were not able to move the sticks, which would have give AD more shots at touches.

I don't hate Favre, I'm just saying the pass plays were not being executed. Favre said it himself. Ball doesn't move (3rd and 10) AD doesn't get a touch.

Agreed.

They tried to run the ball but they could not sustain a drive. In the third quarter they ran 6 times passed 5.

Zeus wrote:

swardsooner wrote:

I know I'm a one-note ninny about Adrian, but the most fun watching him play at OU was his dominance in the fourth quarter...His biggest runs, his absolutely consistent ripping up of the defense came late in games. I've never seen a game so well set up for him as last Thursday night's...Minnesota has YET to see AD at his best. Crappy coaching.

Why do you think he's called All Day...

Well - except for that whole SINGLE-GAME RUSHING RECORD thing.

=Z=

Where he had over 230 of his yards in the second half.

I'm gonna be stubborn here, and say that I still think Favre is our best option at QB this year.

Having said that...

I'm glad this is his last year of the contract. Super Bowl or no SuperBowl, Favre needs to hang up the cleats for good after the last game. That game against the Saints was OURS if Favre had spent a little more time with the WRs and Peterson in TC and preseason.

I don't care how much of a lock he is for the HOF. If he's gonna be the QB, he needs those reps with his targets. This isn't baseball...every game counts! He can't be "shaking off the rust" in Week 1.

That's what all the preseason games are for.

JMO