Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26
  1. #11
    Caine's Avatar
    Caine is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    5,139

    Re: Why Vikings Should Decrease RBs (AD) Workload

    Quote Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093986
    Quote Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1093935
    Yes, I read it, and it's a garbage article form the Bleacher. Nothing mentioned is new or unique, or really even relevent.

    Yes, there's a dropoff when Gerhart comes on the field.

    Did you notice he combined December and January into one stat? Methinks perhaps either one of those months alone doesn't go with what he's trying to say, or he's only using last year's stats, in which case Peterson was hurt.
    Why does everyone consider bleacher report stuff garbage and believe their stuff on here is superior?
    Because the BR is quoted here almost like gospel. Too many treat it like a legit sports news site. fact is, the people writing those opinion pieces have no more access than we do, and often have far LESS insight...yet the authors aren't present to defend or qualify their opinions. If I post something here, I can be challenged directly.


    Quote Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093986
    Quote Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1093935
    The thing is, Peterson isn't a guy you can only run 15 times. He might have a 120+ yard day, or he might get 30. He's the guy that gets 2, 3, 1, 40, yard gains. You NEED to feed him the ball for him to be effective. He's the best athlete on the field, and to take the ball out of his hands takes away a serious threat.

    What's the use of having a healthy Peterson going into the playoffs if we don't make it in? Peterson will eventually wear out, it's inevitable since he's a runningback. in 4 years time, we'll replace him, but for now, he's still strong, and can outrun guys well into the fourth quarter.
    So your the type of guy that will run a horse till it dies and then just go get another one.

    Do you really think 5-10 Reps a game are going to make it so AD isn't effective cause he isn't going to get the ball enough.

    Gimme a break. Thats like saying AD won't break a long one on his first touch of the game cause he hasn't had enough touches.
    No, it's saying that, statistically, Peterson does far better the more opportunities he's given. He's not a "bust 'em out early" type of back, he's a "break your will, punish your stupid ass, then break a big one" runner typically.

    Does he have games where he simply kicks ass from the start? Sure he does...but those are the exception, not the rule. Especially with Defenses keying on him, and our inability to field an offensive line, quarterback, or legit receiver corps.

    Quote Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093986
    Quote Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1093935
    As well, this article doesn't take into account the fact that as the season wears on, our line gets more and more hurt. Our quarterback was a 6th round raw rookie, who didn't scare anybody. Teams focused on Peterson more and more, because with no blocking or threat to pass, they could.

    Even hurt, Favre can at least put up some yards and make some throws. Webb doesn't scare anybody that way. With Favre, yes they did pack the box, but they were keeping the pass in mind. I have absolutely no doubt when teams were playing against Webb, the run was their #1 priority. They're willing to take the chance on Webb torching them through the air if it means they keep Peterson in check.
    Heres a fact, not a cliche'......They have been stacking the box long before AD came and will continue to stack the box with AD around and it doesn't matter who is under QB.

    Go back and watch the games with the Noodle in them. Even when things clicked in 2009 they were still stacking the box my friend.
    Teams didn't start stacking on us until we lost Moss the first time. Once we got Peterson, our QB situation was so horrible that no one cared if we threw...they knew we likely wouldn't beat them in the air.

    Keep in mind as well that teams that stacked on us in '09 paid the price through the air as Favre threw for over 4000 yards. That's something that hadn't been done in Minnesota since the 2004 season...the last season Moss was on the roster before the (stupid) trade.

    Quote Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093986
    Quote Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1093935
    I'm also curious how they think we should split up the time.

    Who's our third down back? Peterson is much better suited for the job than Gerhart. I wouldn't mind seeing Booker out there splitting time as the #3 back. Mix in a bit of Gerhart every now and then as a change of pace. But with the game on the line in key situations, we need our most talented player out there.
    Exactly like they did each and every year AD has been here. Go back and look at his first year when he set all the records. People were beyyyyatching cause CT was taking to many reps.
    No, people were bitching because Chiller was inexplicably pulling Peterson out when games were still in question. It wasn't directed at Taylor.

    Quote Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093986
    Quote Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1093935
    One thing that I found interesting:
    "All Day" has averaged nearly 300 carries per season. He has also caught nearly 30 passes per year. While he has been relatively injury-free since coming into the league, all of those touches begin to take a toll on a physical runner like Peterson.
    300 carries isn't very much. that's only 18.75 carries a game. IMO Peterson NEEDS to touch the ball at least that many times.
    Makes no sense. He's been damn productive with 18.75 carries a game so now you want to add more?
    Peterson averages 19.6 carries per game...

    Caine

  2. #12
    Mr Anderson's Avatar
    Mr Anderson is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    7,692

    Re: Why Vikings Should Decrease RBs (AD) Workload

    Quote Originally Posted by "Caine" #1094002
    Quote Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093986
    Quote Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1093935
    Yes, I read it, and it's a garbage article form the Bleacher. Nothing mentioned is new or unique, or really even relevent.

    Yes, there's a dropoff when Gerhart comes on the field.

    Did you notice he combined December and January into one stat? Methinks perhaps either one of those months alone doesn't go with what he's trying to say, or he's only using last year's stats, in which case Peterson was hurt.
    Why does everyone consider bleacher report stuff garbage and believe their stuff on here is superior?
    Because the BR is quoted here almost like gospel. Too many treat it like a legit sports news site. fact is, the people writing those opinion pieces have no more access than we do, and often have far LESS insight...yet the authors aren't present to defend or qualify their opinions. If I post something here, I can be challenged directly.


    Quote Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093986
    Quote Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1093935
    The thing is, Peterson isn't a guy you can only run 15 times. He might have a 120+ yard day, or he might get 30. He's the guy that gets 2, 3, 1, 40, yard gains. You NEED to feed him the ball for him to be effective. He's the best athlete on the field, and to take the ball out of his hands takes away a serious threat.

    What's the use of having a healthy Peterson going into the playoffs if we don't make it in? Peterson will eventually wear out, it's inevitable since he's a runningback. in 4 years time, we'll replace him, but for now, he's still strong, and can outrun guys well into the fourth quarter.
    So your the type of guy that will run a horse till it dies and then just go get another one.

    Do you really think 5-10 Reps a game are going to make it so AD isn't effective cause he isn't going to get the ball enough.

    Gimme a break. Thats like saying AD won't break a long one on his first touch of the game cause he hasn't had enough touches.
    No, it's saying that, statistically, Peterson does far better the more opportunities he's given. He's not a "bust 'em out early" type of back, he's a "break your will, punish your stupid ass, then break a big one" runner typically.

    Does he have games where he simply kicks ass from the start? Sure he does...but those are the exception, not the rule. Especially with Defenses keying on him, and our inability to field an offensive line, quarterback, or legit receiver corps.

    Quote Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093986
    Quote Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1093935
    As well, this article doesn't take into account the fact that as the season wears on, our line gets more and more hurt. Our quarterback was a 6th round raw rookie, who didn't scare anybody. Teams focused on Peterson more and more, because with no blocking or threat to pass, they could.

    Even hurt, Favre can at least put up some yards and make some throws. Webb doesn't scare anybody that way. With Favre, yes they did pack the box, but they were keeping the pass in mind. I have absolutely no doubt when teams were playing against Webb, the run was their #1 priority. They're willing to take the chance on Webb torching them through the air if it means they keep Peterson in check.
    Heres a fact, not a cliche'......They have been stacking the box long before AD came and will continue to stack the box with AD around and it doesn't matter who is under QB.

    Go back and watch the games with the Noodle in them. Even when things clicked in 2009 they were still stacking the box my friend.
    Teams didn't start stacking on us until we lost Moss the first time. Once we got Peterson, our QB situation was so horrible that no one cared if we threw...they knew we likely wouldn't beat them in the air.

    Keep in mind as well that teams that stacked on us in '09 paid the price through the air as Favre threw for over 4000 yards. That's something that hadn't been done in Minnesota since the 2004 season...the last season Moss was on the roster before the (stupid) trade.

    Quote Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093986
    Quote Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1093935
    I'm also curious how they think we should split up the time.

    Who's our third down back? Peterson is much better suited for the job than Gerhart. I wouldn't mind seeing Booker out there splitting time as the #3 back. Mix in a bit of Gerhart every now and then as a change of pace. But with the game on the line in key situations, we need our most talented player out there.
    Exactly like they did each and every year AD has been here. Go back and look at his first year when he set all the records. People were beyyyyatching cause CT was taking to many reps.
    No, people were bitching because Chiller was inexplicably pulling Peterson out when games were still in question. It wasn't directed at Taylor.

    Quote Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093986
    Quote Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1093935
    One thing that I found interesting:
    "All Day" has averaged nearly 300 carries per season. He has also caught nearly 30 passes per year. While he has been relatively injury-free since coming into the league, all of those touches begin to take a toll on a physical runner like Peterson.
    300 carries isn't very much. that's only 18.75 carries a game. IMO Peterson NEEDS to touch the ball at least that many times.
    Makes no sense. He's been damn productive with 18.75 carries a game so now you want to add more?
    Peterson averages 19.6 carries per game...

    Caine
    Yes.

  3. #13
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,935

    Re: Why Vikings Should Decrease RBs (AD) Workload

    Quote Originally Posted by "Caine" #1094002
    Because the BR is quoted here almost like gospel. Too many treat it like a legit sports news site. fact is, the people writing those opinion pieces have no more access than we do, and often have far LESS insight...yet the authors aren't present to defend or qualify their opinions. If I post something here, I can be challenged directly.
    Who on here treats it like gospel? Its a source of possible football discussion points just like any other rag.

    By the way, yes it does have "Fan" authors but it also has several "Reporters" that write for it as well. Most of them do alot better than some of the local yutzs trying to cover the team.

    No, it's saying that, statistically, Peterson does far better the more opportunities he's given. He's not a "bust 'em out early" type of back, he's a "break your will, punish your stupid ass, then break a big one" runner typically.

    Does he have games where he simply kicks ass from the start? Sure he does...but those are the exception, not the rule. Especially with Defenses keying on him, and our inability to field an offensive line, quarterback, or legit receiver corps.
    And yet his best year was when he had 280ish attempts.


    Teams didn't start stacking on us until we lost Moss the first time. Once we got Peterson, our QB situation was so horrible that no one cared if we threw...they knew we likely wouldn't beat them in the air.

    Keep in mind as well that teams that stacked on us in '09 paid the price through the air as Favre threw for over 4000 yards. That's something that hadn't been done in Minnesota since the 2004 season...the last season Moss was on the roster before the (stupid) trade.
    Are you saying Robert Smith didn't command 8 man fronts? Hell even CT was seeing 8 man fronts his first year here.

    Again, all teams stack the box. All teams regardless of who is under center or who the RB is. Is a prime piece of the defensive strategy. Stop the run, make the team one dimensional and then kill the QB.

    Having AD in the backfield didn't start that strategy. It was here long before he was here and will be here long after he is gone.


    No, people were bitching because Chiller was inexplicably pulling Peterson out when games were still in question. It wasn't directed at Taylor.
    Didn't say it was directed at Taylor. I think I said "Staff".


    Peterson averages 19.6 carries per game...

    Caine
    Could be. I didn't question Bleeds stat. Again, its a discussion site. Why quibble over a yard?

    By the way, good to see you back around again. B)
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  4. #14
    i_bleed_purple's Avatar
    i_bleed_purple is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Canadialand
    Posts
    16,778
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Why Vikings Should Decrease RBs (AD) Workload

    Quote Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1094010
    Quote Originally Posted by "Caine" #1094002
    Because the BR is quoted here almost like gospel. Too many treat it like a legit sports news site. fact is, the people writing those opinion pieces have no more access than we do, and often have far LESS insight...yet the authors aren't present to defend or qualify their opinions. If I post something here, I can be challenged directly.
    Who on here treats it like gospel? Its a source of possible football discussion points just like any other rag.

    By the way, yes it does have "Fan" authors but it also has several "Reporters" that write for it as well. Most of them do alot better than some of the local yutzs trying to cover the team.
    You put far more faith in them than they deserve. If you recall I wrote a couple things for the bleacher a year ago. They asked me to be a Vikings 'reporter' after only like 4 articles. Bleacher reporters aren't paid, they're just regular guys.
    No, it's saying that, statistically, Peterson does far better the more opportunities he's given. He's not a "bust 'em out early" type of back, he's a "break your will, punish your stupid ass, then break a big one" runner typically.

    Does he have games where he simply kicks ass from the start? Sure he does...but those are the exception, not the rule. Especially with Defenses keying on him, and our inability to field an offensive line, quarterback, or legit receiver corps.
    And yet his best year was when he had 280ish attempts.
    You must be referring to the year when we had a really good offensive line right? Funny how those things just happen to line up.

    Ever since our rookie year, if you notice, our line has gotten progressively worse, and Peterson seems to be getting fewer and fewer carries.

    Oh, ps. how many carries did he have on his best game ever?
    There's two that could count

    San diego: 30 carries, 296 yards, 3 TD - 9.866 ypc
    Chicago: 20 carries, 224 yards, 3 TD - 11.2 ypc.

    He needs touches. There are so many variables to take into account, you can't possibly say that as Peterson gets more touches his averages go down because of it.

    Teams didn't start stacking on us until we lost Moss the first time. Once we got Peterson, our QB situation was so horrible that no one cared if we threw...they knew we likely wouldn't beat them in the air.

    Keep in mind as well that teams that stacked on us in '09 paid the price through the air as Favre threw for over 4000 yards. That's something that hadn't been done in Minnesota since the 2004 season...the last season Moss was on the roster before the (stupid) trade.
    Are you saying Robert Smith didn't command 8 man fronts? Hell even CT was seeing 8 man fronts his first year here.
    What does that have to do with anything. Smith was gone before 2004.. CT had 8 man fronts because we didn't have a QB worth a damn. We had a broken Brad Johnson and a rookie TJ.

    As for Smith specifically, it's hard to find Robert Smith highlights on youtube, but here's a Cris Carter highlight.

    OT, at our own 35 yard line... notice how many guys are in the box? Notice the safeties?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNQHGAWV4Vw

    Yeah, that looks like a textbook 4-3 formation.
    Again, all teams stack the box. All teams regardless of who is under center or who the RB is. Is a prime piece of the defensive strategy. Stop the run, make the team one dimensional and then kill the QB.
    Yes, but not all teams sell out to stack the box on every play the way they do against us.
    Having AD in the backfield didn't start that strategy. It was here long before he was here and will be here long after he is gone.
    Nobody is saying it does. We're saying other teams force defenses out of that. We can't, so they stack the box.

    No, people were bitching because Chiller was inexplicably pulling Peterson out when games were still in question. It wasn't directed at Taylor.
    Didn't say it was directed at Taylor. I think I said "Staff".
    You said:
    People were beyyyyatching cause CT was taking to many reps.
    Like Caine is trying to explain, we weren't 'beyyyyatching' because a different back was in there. We were 'beyyyyatching' because they take AD out in key situations. While CT had the skillset to be a third down back, it makes even less sense to use Gerhart in that situation.

    Peterson averages 19.6 carries per game...

    Caine
    Could be. I didn't question Bleeds stat. Again, its a discussion site. Why quibble over a yard?
    Its a carry, but I'll let that go. That one carry makes 16 carries a season. That would have put AP at 299 carries this season. dangerously close to the 300 carry mark which apparantly our powerful runningback can't handle.

  5. #15
    Mr Anderson's Avatar
    Mr Anderson is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    7,692

    Re: Why Vikings Should Decrease RBs (AD) Workload

    I don't have a problem with him getting a lot of carries.

    I do have a problem with him getting too many inside carries.


    He has elite speed for a RB, people seem to forget that. Is he a step slower than Chris Johnson? Yes, but there's no reason he can't run outside just as frequently.

    I want our best player touching the ball, frequently. However, I wouldn't mind decreasing the punishing carries to keep him around when(if) we finally get our act together at QB.


    Let Gerhart take some of those punishing inside runs, he's built like a brick shithouse.

    I'm curious to see what some flexibility in the offense will bring in regard to the running game. Hopefully we'll incorporate every athlete with the ability to carry the rock that we have-- Peterson, Harvin, Gerhart, and Webb-- and keep defenses guessing.

    Give me a bruiser fullback, a slimmer Mac and Load, a new center(even Cook will do for now) a healthy Hutch, and John Moffitt to play RG and you're looking at a nasty run blocking crew and hopefully one that's better at protecting off the edge.

  6. #16
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,935

    Re: Why Vikings Should Decrease RBs (AD) Workload

    Quote Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1094013
    You put far more faith in them than they deserve. If you recall I wrote a couple things for the bleacher a year ago. They asked me to be a Vikings 'reporter' after only like 4 articles. Bleacher reporters aren't paid, they're just regular guys.
    I put no faith in anything. I just post their articles just like I do the yutz local reporters stuff.

    Seriously, do you think I post their stuff cause I agree with it. Hell, if you do then you are off the wall whacko. LOL.

    Again, its a source of stuff for a possible discussion. I might agree or disagree with it but I still only post it to get the discussion going for cripes sake.

    Put faith in it. LOL.

    You must be referring to the year when we had a really good offensive line right? Funny how those things just happen to line up.

    Ever since our rookie year, if you notice, our line has gotten progressively worse, and Peterson seems to be getting fewer and fewer carries.

    Oh, ps. how many carries did he have on his best game ever?
    There's two that could count

    San diego: 30 carries, 296 yards, 3 TD - 9.866 ypc
    Chicago: 20 carries, 224 yards, 3 TD - 11.2 ypc.

    He needs touches. There are so many variables to take into account, you can't possibly say that as Peterson gets more touches his averages go down because of it.
    First, are you saying the line sucked in 2009?

    Second, I'm not possibly saying anything. I just pointed out that his best year was the year he had the least amount of reps. Read into that how you will.

    What does that have to do with anything. Smith was gone before 2004.. CT had 8 man fronts because we didn't have a QB worth a damn. We had a broken Brad Johnson and a rookie TJ.
    Who the hell cares when he was gone. Lets use Emmitt then. HOF QB, HOF WRs, HOF RB. They still stacked the box back then.

    Why, cause its the most basic of principles when it comes to defense.

    Well, atleast for the real game. Maybe not for Madden though. Maybe thats why I'm loosing you. (JK, couldn't resist that one) :laugh:

    As for Smith specifically, it's hard to find Robert Smith highlights on youtube, but here's a Cris Carter highlight.

    OT, at our own 35 yard line... notice how many guys are in the box? Notice the safeties?

    Yeah, that looks like a textbook 4-3 formation.
    One youtube vid. Thats what your going to counter with. LOL.

    Nobody is saying it does. We're saying other teams force defenses out of that. We can't, so they stack the box.
    Again, back to 2009. So why didn't we see stacked boxes going away then? You guys had your blessed Noodle. He was chucking it all over and yet, the boxes were still stacked each and every game to stop AD.

    Guess why, you stop the run first. Its almost a montra of the defense.

    People were beyyyyatching cause CT was taking to many reps.
    Like Caine is trying to explain, we weren't 'beyyyyatching' because a different back was in there. We were 'beyyyyatching' because they take AD out in key situations.
    [quote]
    Like I said, I didn't say they were beyatching at CT. Even though I didn't use the word staff, it was the intent of the sentence.

    While CT had the skillset to be a third down back, it makes even less sense to use Gerhart in that situation.
    What in the wild wild world of sports do you have against Toby. Holy crap. Your almost worse than I am about the Noodle. :lol:

    That would have put AP at 299 carries this season. dangerously close to the 300 carry mark which apparantly our powerful runningback can't handle.
    Were does the author, or I for that matter say he can't handle the load?

    I think the point the author, (I know its the one I am trying to make) is that if you keep AD fresh by giving him a few reps of a game, he will be more effective when the playoffs come around.

    You on the other hand want to run the shit out of him so that he is sitting on the sidelines like LT was 2 years running.

    By the way, staffs, just like the yutz BR reporter are still adding a second RB to the mix to take the work load off their stars. I wonder why if it takes so much away from the star.

    You haven't answered that question yet.
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    952

    Re: Why Vikings Should Decrease RBs (AD) Workload

    Quote Originally Posted by "Mr Anderson" #1094018
    I don't have a problem with him getting a lot of carries.

    I do have a problem with him getting too many inside carries.


    He has elite speed for a RB, people seem to forget that. Is he a step slower than Chris Johnson? Yes, but there's no reason he can't run outside just as frequently.

    I want our best player touching the ball, frequently. However, I wouldn't mind decreasing the punishing carries to keep him around when(if) we finally get our act together at QB.


    Let Gerhart take some of those punishing inside runs, he's built like a brick shithouse.

    I'm curious to see what some flexibility in the offense will bring in regard to the running game. Hopefully we'll incorporate every athlete with the ability to carry the rock that we have-- Peterson, Harvin, Gerhart, and Webb-- and keep defenses guessing.

    Give me a bruiser fullback, a slimmer Mac and Load, a new center(even Cook will do for now) a healthy Hutch, and John Moffitt to play RG and you're looking at a nasty run blocking crew and hopefully one that's better at protecting off the edge.
    +1 Well said sir........

  8. #18
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,935

    Re: Why Vikings Should Decrease RBs (AD) Workload

    Quote Originally Posted by "slavinator" #1094024
    Quote Originally Posted by "Mr Anderson" #1094018
    I don't have a problem with him getting a lot of carries.

    I do have a problem with him getting too many inside carries.


    He has elite speed for a RB, people seem to forget that. Is he a step slower than Chris Johnson? Yes, but there's no reason he can't run outside just as frequently.

    I want our best player touching the ball, frequently. However, I wouldn't mind decreasing the punishing carries to keep him around when(if) we finally get our act together at QB.


    Let Gerhart take some of those punishing inside runs, he's built like a brick shithouse.

    I'm curious to see what some flexibility in the offense will bring in regard to the running game. Hopefully we'll incorporate every athlete with the ability to carry the rock that we have-- Peterson, Harvin, Gerhart, and Webb-- and keep defenses guessing.

    Give me a bruiser fullback, a slimmer Mac and Load, a new center(even Cook will do for now) a healthy Hutch, and John Moffitt to play RG and you're looking at a nasty run blocking crew and hopefully one that's better at protecting off the edge.
    +1 Well said sir........
    Marrdro can be seen updating the spreadsheet to include his good (and smart) friends Mr. A and Slav. :laugh:
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  9. #19
    i_bleed_purple's Avatar
    i_bleed_purple is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Canadialand
    Posts
    16,778
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Why Vikings Should Decrease RBs (AD) Workload

    Quote Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1094023
    Quote Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1094013
    You put far more faith in them than they deserve. If you recall I wrote a couple things for the bleacher a year ago. They asked me to be a Vikings 'reporter' after only like 4 articles. Bleacher reporters aren't paid, they're just regular guys.
    I put no faith in anything. I just post their articles just like I do the yutz local reporters stuff.

    Seriously, do you think I post their stuff cause I agree with it. Hell, if you do then you are off the wall whacko. LOL.

    Again, its a source of stuff for a possible discussion. I might agree or disagree with it but I still only post it to get the discussion going for cripes sake.

    Put faith in it. LOL.

    You must be referring to the year when we had a really good offensive line right? Funny how those things just happen to line up.

    Ever since our rookie year, if you notice, our line has gotten progressively worse, and Peterson seems to be getting fewer and fewer carries.

    Oh, ps. how many carries did he have on his best game ever?
    There's two that could count

    San diego: 30 carries, 296 yards, 3 TD - 9.866 ypc
    Chicago: 20 carries, 224 yards, 3 TD - 11.2 ypc.

    He needs touches. There are so many variables to take into account, you can't possibly say that as Peterson gets more touches his averages go down because of it.
    First, are you saying the line sucked in 2009?
    Are you saying otherwise? The line wasn't good. Our Run blocking was awful, and our pass blocking was no better. Favre was getting killed out there, almost as bad as he was this year. Thing is, he was more mobile then, and could avoid pressure.
    Second, I'm not possibly saying anything. I just pointed out that his best year was the year he had the least amount of reps. Read into that how you will.
    As I did.
    What does that have to do with anything. Smith was gone before 2004.. CT had 8 man fronts because we didn't have a QB worth a damn. We had a broken Brad Johnson and a rookie TJ.
    Who the hell cares when he was gone. Lets use Emmitt then. HOF QB, HOF WRs, HOF RB. They still stacked the box back then.
    And they also played pass D on downs where there's a good shot of passing.

    On third and medium, with TJ or Webb, our best option was to get the ball to AP. Especially when Rice isn't 100% and Harvin's out with migranes.
    Why, cause its the most basic of principles when it comes to defense.
    You act as if I don't understand the concept of stacking the box.

    I do. You don't understand that teams seem to stack the box upwards of 80% of the time against us. I remember a couple games where the defense would put 9 in the box when we came out in a 2-wide formation. Everybody would stack the box, leaving the two WR's one on one. (San Fran game when AP was held to under 10 yards). You might also notice, when AP came out and CT came in, they switched out of that, and CT ripped off big gains. Care to explain that?
    As for Smith specifically, it's hard to find Robert Smith highlights on youtube, but here's a Cris Carter highlight.

    OT, at our own 35 yard line... notice how many guys are in the box? Notice the safeties?

    Yeah, that looks like a textbook 4-3 formation.
    One youtube vid. Thats what your going to counter with. LOL.
    All I can find. Still beats whatever evidence you produce for anything.
    Nobody is saying it does. We're saying other teams force defenses out of that. We can't, so they stack the box.
    Again, back to 2009. So why didn't we see stacked boxes going away then? You guys had your blessed Noodle. He was chucking it all over and yet, the boxes were still stacked each and every game to stop AD.
    Yeah, and we put up 4000+ yards and AD had a great season.
    [quote]
    [quote]
    People were beyyyyatching cause CT was taking to many reps.
    Like Caine is trying to explain, we weren't 'beyyyyatching' because a different back was in there. We were 'beyyyyatching' because they take AD out in key situations.
    Like I said, I didn't say they were beyatching at CT. Even though I didn't use the word staff, it was the intent of the sentence.
    Ah, I suppose one has to read into what you write to find the intent now? I thought you didn't like that?

    While CT had the skillset to be a third down back, it makes even less sense to use Gerhart in that situation.
    What in the wild wild world of sports do you have against Toby. Holy crap. Your almost worse than I am about the Noodle. :lol:
    Hmm...
    a) He's a rookie learning the system, in clutch situations, AP is bette rout there.
    b) he's a purely power runner, but smaller than I'd like to see a true powerback be.
    c) He's never been asked to play 3rd down back in college, I"m not sure why people think that would be a good spot for him
    d) both AP and BOoker are better suited to be 3rd down backs than he is. Gerhart is a good guy to have come in and spell AP on first and second, MAYBE 3rd and short. Nothing more at this point. With a year under his belt, maybe he gets a better grasp on the pro game and can play better. As it is now, he's not there.
    e) he fumbles more than AP

    That would have put AP at 299 carries this season. dangerously close to the 300 carry mark which apparantly our powerful runningback can't handle.
    Were does the author, or I for that matter say he can't handle the load?
    The author uses AP averaging over 300 carries as a sign that he's being overworked.


    By the way, staffs, just like the yutz BR reporter are still adding a second RB to the mix to take the work load off their stars. I wonder why if it takes so much away from the star.
    Depends on the back.

    Most teams don't have a player nearly as good as AP, so when they bring in a backup, the dropoff isn't that big.

    Jets for example. Last season they had LT and Shonn Greene. Shonn greene started out getting hte bulk of carries, then they relaized LT could still play, they gave him more and more. He's older, so maybe can't handle 320+ carries. Neither player approaches AD's talent right now.

    Giants, back in the day of Jacobs, Ward and Bradshaw. Each player had a unique skillset, and each player was played to their strengths. We don't have 3 above average backs, we have 1 superback, and 2 backups.

    Titans, first they used the two-back system with White taking the goal line/short yardage reps and Chris Johnson running the rest of the time. They switched that up pretty quickly when they realized just what they had with Chris Johnson.

    The 2-back system is a great thing to use when you don't have that stud runningback. Lets look at the top-5 runningbacks of last year. This is my list, based on yards, average, TD's, etc.

    In no particular order

    Peterson - 1298, 283 car, 4.6ypc, 12 TD, 341 recy, 36 rec, 1rtd
    Foster - 1616, 327 car, 4.9 ypc, 16TD, 605 recy, 66 rec, 2rtd
    MJD - 1324, 299 car, 4.4 ypc, 5 TD, 317 recy, 34 rec, 2rtd
    Turner - 1371, 334 car, 4.1ypc, 12 td,
    CJ - 1364, 316 car, 4.3ypc, 11TD, 245 recy, 44rec, 1rtd.

    All of those players had close to, or over 300 carries. Add in receptions, they get a significant workload.

    Those players are go-to backs, franchise players, they don't run the two-back system. Yes they have a backup who comes in every now and then, but they are the main guy. Why? Because they can handle it, and are good enough to deserve it.

    Packers are an interesting example. With Grant, they get about 1100+ yards a season. however, Grant isn't that great of a back, but they use him almost exclusively. When you put in the backup, as we saw last year in the playoffs with Starks, the dropoff isn't that huge. They're both decent, but not great players.

  10. #20
    Caine's Avatar
    Caine is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    5,139

    Re: Why Vikings Should Decrease RBs (AD) Workload

    Marrdro.

    1: In your CT vs Staff debate....you didn't say anything about the staff...you stated that we bitched because "Ct was taking too many reps"...the implication of what you wrote was that CT was the target of fan ire...he was not. Had you said, "People were bitching because the staff pulled Peterson for Taylor in non-3rd down situations and at inexplicable times", that would have been an accurate statement.

    2: BleacherReport stuff is opinion stuff...we agree on that. But too many people cite BR as some form of validation for their pet theories when it has no more validity than anything I might write. And, as I said, it often has LESS validity. Further, while this may be a discussion site, most of our discussions are fact based. Most opinions are also fact based.

    ...except most of yours, which are based upon who the hell knows what...

    When we post opinions or positions on issues, we are called out by those who disagree...BR isn't. there is no running commentary that allows readers to differentiate fact from fiction in BR.

    Actual news sources get it wrong, but they at least operate under the expectation of accuracy. When they report something, it has to be based in provable truth. BR does not.

    That is why I don't read BR crap, and I don't even bother to follow the links if they direct me there. I don't need another non-fact based, half-formed opinion to color my impressions of the team, the nFL, or anything else....



    ...I already have YOU for that.

    3: AP's best YPC season was his rookie season...which I discount because it's one of those "Who knew?" things. Like Arian Foster this year. Can he repeat it?

    Teams did not consistently stack the box EVERY DOWN back when Robert Smith was here...because we'd just start airing it out and torch them through the air. It wasn't until we traded Moss and were left with no legit WR corps that teams started to aggressively stack. And once AP arrived, teams almost entirely ignored the pass and played run heavy on almost every down...when AP was in.

    Yes, they would occasionally stack prior to that, but we never saw it like we do now.

    Otherwise, your statement indicates that Peterson is already breaking down...after all, he's needed more carries to get fewer yards...

    Might want to reassess that position...

    Caine

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-29-2008, 05:35 PM
  2. Workload won't be excessive for Taylor
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-17-2007, 01:49 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
  •