PDA

View Full Version : Daily Mailbag: Harvin as a RB?



Marrdro
03-08-2010, 02:41 PM
Every play that starts with him in the backfield is one less play where he is pressuring defenses downfield or at least taking attention away from somewhere else.

Daily Mailbag: Harvin as a RB? (http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/10593/daily-mailbag-harvin-as-a-rb)

I completely disagree with that statement. I think putting him back there at RB really would stress the defense. It would force them to either commit to thier run package or guess and roll out thier nickle package just in case he went into motion.

Regardless what each decides to do, it would cause the defense to hesitate just that little fraction of a second. In this day and age, thats all you need when it comes to matchups.

AngloVike
03-08-2010, 03:21 PM
given the issues Harvin has had with migraines then I'm not sure this is such a good idea. Getting dinged every play as a RB is not going to do him any favours on that front.

On the offensive scheming then it would get the defence guessing, then again wasn't that the idea of developing the Wildcat plays to take advantage of his skills?

Marrdro
03-08-2010, 03:30 PM
AngloVike wrote:

given the issues Harvin has had with migraines then I'm not sure this is such a good idea. Getting dinged every play as a RB is not going to do him any favours on that front.

On the offensive scheming then it would get the defence guessing, then again wasn't that the idea of developing the Wildcat plays to take advantage of his skills?
I think that getting laid out over the middle by a hard charging S or a MLB would cause more headaches that getting tackled by a big fat NT. Both would hurt though.

As to the Wildcat. I think the Wildcat was formed to overcome a deficiency in QB.

MaxVike
03-08-2010, 03:31 PM
I'm not sure if I like Harvin in the slot or as a RB on third down more. The beauty of the point though, is that either is definitely an option, at least IMO.

I agree with Marr, no matter where Harvin is lined up, he poses a serious problem for the defense.

El Vikingo
03-08-2010, 03:36 PM
AngloVike wrote:

given the issues Harvin has had with migraines

Ey married man ,donīt trust anyone who says to you "I have a terrible migraine" even if it is your wife

AngloVike
03-08-2010, 03:59 PM
El Vikingo wrote:

AngloVike wrote:

given the issues Harvin has had with migraines

Ey married man ,donīt trust anyone who says to you "I have a terrible migraine" even if it is your wife

she's not a subtle as that ..just get " not tonight " and a withering look that would put paid to any such inclination ..lol

V-Unit
03-08-2010, 04:34 PM
It's a cool idea, but I don't think it maximizes our talents in the offense.

Who are we going to put in the slot on 3rd downs if Harvin is in the backfield? Shank? Jaymar Johnson? Pssh. AD in the backfield and Harvin in the slot is by far a better option.

Now people will cry, "AD isn't good on 3rd downs!" and I say, even so, that is easily our best 3rd down package. That or we grab a real 3rd down back who can give us the same dynamic that Chester did.

-V-

Mr Anderson
03-08-2010, 06:12 PM
V-Unit wrote:

It's a cool idea, but I don't think it maximizes our talents in the offense.

Who are we going to put in the slot on 3rd downs if Harvin is in the backfield? Shank? Jaymar Johnson? Pssh. AD in the backfield and Harvin in the slot is by far a better option.

Now people will cry, "AD isn't good on 3rd downs!" and I say, even so, that is easily our best 3rd down package. That or we grab a real 3rd down back who can give us the same dynamic that Chester did.

-V-
I think that's our best package on every down.

If defenses are gonna stack the box, at least force them to spread out a little, and if they have the wrong package in, they're forced to cover that slot guy(Harvin) with a linebacker or safety.

Granted it gives us one less blocker, but which is worse blocking 7 or 8 in the box with 5, or blocking 8 or 9 in the box with 6? And let's be real here, most linebackers and safeties on the backside of a play aren't catching up with Peterson if there is a hole for him to hit. If our O-line steps up as a unit and stays healthy, I never want to see a heavy set. We've got too much speed, too much talent, and too much respect from defenses to run out of TE+FB sets.



BB Mac Hutch Sully Hererra Load Rice
Shank Favre pH
Peterson


or:



BB Mac Hutch Sully Herrerra Load Rice
Favre pH(both sides)

Someone Better than Tahi

Peterson

In both cases you have 3 burners on the field, Peterson, Berrian, and Harvin, guys who can flat out run. Move guys around and you have mismatches for certain.

No more:


Sauce Mac Hutch Sully Herrerra Load Rice
Favre Shank

Tahi

Peterson

You've got two TEs, a fullback, and a 6'4" receiver who moves well, but creates space with his length, leaping ability, and body control, not his speed. So what do they do? Load up, at least 8 in the box. Even if Kleinsasser or Shiancoe are running routes, it doesn't matter, their coverman, whether it's a backer or safety can be up in the box, putting him closer to runner than he'd normally be.


Since defenses don't give Peterson any room to move, we need to create some. Not to mention the gadgets we could pull with Harvin and Peterson on running downs.

There's so much we can do, I'd like to see the Chiller implement some tricky stuff this season.

HEY
03-08-2010, 07:16 PM
I like the idea of using Percy Harvin as the backup for Adrian Peterson after Chester Taylor is gone (it hurts everytime I say it :( ) but before the coaches make that decision, they need to answer two questions:

1. Can Percy Harvin play halfback?

My answer: I'm pretty confident that Percy can be as productive in the backfield as he is out wide. Perhaps even better... because in my eyes, Percy Harvin both looks and runs like great scat back who just happens to have a pair of solid hands and the mentality to go over the middle. Percy Harvin is perhaps the most versatile player on the Minnesota Vikings. I have no doubt in my mind that he can be a productive runningback. The only question is: can he block?

2. Who can take Harvin's place in the slot or out wide?

My answer: Our wide receiver group can be split in half.
The one half is Sidney Rice, Bernard Berrian, and Percy Harvin. They are the proven guys. Their place on the roster is a safe bet.

The other half is Jaymar Johnson, Darius Reynaud, and Greg Lewis (or whoever guy they decide to sign off the practice squad). This half is the unproven guys. These guys have not performed on a high level on a consistent basis, and they're always fighting for a roster spot.

I believe that the Vikings have a great group of wide receivers, better than the majority of other NFL teams. However, the biggest gap is between the 3rd stringer and the 4th stringer. I'm not sure who's the 3rd and 4th stringer, but it should be pretty obvious who the first three players are. Because of the huge gap, the Vikings might be better of using Adrian Peterson, Albert Young, or Ian Johnson on passing downs.

The young guys did a good job in both pass protection and as receivers out of the backfield in pre-season, but Adrian Peterson is being slightly underrated as a 3rd down back. His blocking skills has drastically improved, he has decent hands, and not to mention that he's ridiculous dangerous in the open field. Adrian is definitely not Chester Taylor, but he's still a good option because of his freakishly talent.

Conclusive, I think Harvin can be a great halfback, but I think it's a stupid idea to take the best offensive player (Peterson) off the field as long as we don't have a fourth receiver who can take Harvin's spot.
The problem is not Percy Harvin, but the depth behind him.

In other words, what would you rather prefer:
a. Peterson, Berrian, Sidney, Shiancoe, and Harvin?
or
b. Harvin, Sidney, Berrian, Shiancoe, and Jaymar Johnson?

It's really a simple math question in my opinion!

HEY
03-08-2010, 07:21 PM
Ops! I saw that both V-Unit and Mr. Anderson already posted the same stuff after I posted my post. Damn, I could have saved my self for a lot of typing haha :lol:

midgensa
03-08-2010, 07:33 PM
I personally really like the idea of Harvin getting more carries as I think he is a weapon there also, but it is more of a specialty type offense than a regular halfback.

He poses serious match-up problems all over the field. And hopefully he can stay healthy and be out there as much as possible.

HEY
03-08-2010, 07:49 PM
Of course, if Adrian Peterson needs a break then I'm all for placing Harvin in the backfield.

12purplepride28
03-08-2010, 08:13 PM
I'd be all for it, as long as we used him sparingly (sp?). I feel like he will have a few good runs and the coaches will start putting him in a lot. We can't use him on kickoffs and every offensive play, he does need rests, and thats when we put Greg Lewis in ;)

Tad7
03-08-2010, 09:14 PM
Harvin needs to put on 15 pounds at least if he's gonna spend a significant amount of time in the back field.

VikingMike
03-08-2010, 09:23 PM
Mr Anderson wrote:

V-Unit wrote:

It's a cool idea, but I don't think it maximizes our talents in the offense.

Who are we going to put in the slot on 3rd downs if Harvin is in the backfield? Shank? Jaymar Johnson? Pssh. AD in the backfield and Harvin in the slot is by far a better option.

Now people will cry, "AD isn't good on 3rd downs!" and I say, even so, that is easily our best 3rd down package. That or we grab a real 3rd down back who can give us the same dynamic that Chester did.

-V-
I think that's our best package on every down.

If defenses are gonna stack the box, at least force them to spread out a little, and if they have the wrong package in, they're forced to cover that slot guy(Harvin) with a linebacker or safety.

Granted it gives us one less blocker, but which is worse blocking 7 or 8 in the box with 5, or blocking 8 or 9 in the box with 6? And let's be real here, most linebackers and safeties on the backside of a play aren't catching up with Peterson if there is a hole for him to hit. If our O-line steps up as a unit and stays healthy, I never want to see a heavy set. We've got too much speed, too much talent, and too much respect from defenses to run out of TE+FB sets.



BB Mac Hutch Sully Hererra Load Rice
Shank Favre pH
Peterson


or:



BB Mac Hutch Sully Herrerra Load Rice
Favre pH(both sides)

Someone Better than Tahi

Peterson

In both cases you have 3 burners on the field, Peterson, Berrian, and Harvin, guys who can flat out run. Move guys around and you have mismatches for certain.

No more:


Sauce Mac Hutch Sully Herrerra Load Rice
Favre Shank

Tahi

Peterson

You've got two TEs, a fullback, and a 6'4" receiver who moves well, but creates space with his length, leaping ability, and body control, not his speed. So what do they do? Load up, at least 8 in the box. Even if Kleinsasser or Shiancoe are running routes, it doesn't matter, their coverman, whether it's a backer or safety can be up in the box, putting him closer to runner than he'd normally be.


Since defenses don't give Peterson any room to move, we need to create some. Not to mention the gadgets we could pull with Harvin and Peterson on running downs.

There's so much we can do, I'd like to see the Chiller implement some tricky stuff this season.


Damn good analyses. I agree one of the best ways to beat the "stacking of the box" is to spread out the receivers and force the D to account for other threats besides AD and the run. Very nice job Mr A.

Purple Floyd
03-08-2010, 10:59 PM
I am going to disagree and say that we would be better off with going to a 2 TE set and replacing Tahi with anyone who is competent. Peterson just needs a hole blown in the line to get him to the second level and nothing does that better than human battering rams. Have Rice and Harvin out wide and we can move the ball on anyone. Stretching out the defense requires our Tackles to cover more ground than the power 2 TE set does.

Mr Anderson
03-08-2010, 11:39 PM
Purple Floyd wrote:

I am going to disagree and say that we would be better off with going to a 2 TE set and replacing Tahi with anyone who is competent. Peterson just needs a hole blown in the line to get him to the second level and nothing does that better than human battering rams. Have Rice and Harvin out wide and we can move the ball on anyone. Stretching out the defense requires our Tackles to cover more ground than the power 2 TE set does.

Not when the second level consists of 5 players.

If we come out with a heavy set on a running down, there is no third level. If we open up a big hole, there are 3 guys there to fill it. With 8 guys in the box there's one for every interior gap.

Spread out we could see greater yards per carry, on fewer runs, with a greater potential for the home run. Not to mention the beating we can avoid putting on our stud RB. I don't care if Peterson gets less carries if we put him in space when he does get the ball. Meanwhile, I'd like to see the ball in his hands a lot, but if it's in the same predictable sense that it was last season, I do not.

A cohesive, experienced offensive line(especially if Big Mac and Loadholt drop a few pounds) will be able to handle run blocking duties 5 or (if there's one TE)6 on 7-8 enemies in the box, better than that same line plus a fullback and 2 TEs is going to be dealing with 9 guys in the box.

If a linebacker or safety is force to cover Percy Harvin in the slot on the backside, he will not be in the picture if Peterson gets the rock. If that same defender is on Shiancoe, Dugan, Kleinsasser, or Tahi, he's right there, ready to crash his gap on run responsibility.

It doesn't change the offense philosophically, we can run or pass out of these sets. We can run or pass out of heavy sets, all it does is force the defense to line up differently. And Harvin's a tough kid, if a safety or corner is covering him we could run strongside as well.

We should take advantage of the talent that we have, sitting that talent on the bench is backward IMO.

midgensa
03-08-2010, 11:39 PM
Tad7 wrote:

Harvin needs to put on 15 pounds at least if he's gonna spend a significant amount of time in the back field.

First ... great job there. I mean, everyone here is clearly talking about him spending "significant time" in the backfield ... except, actually, nobody is talking about "significant" time.

Oh, and I guess that means that Chris Johnson is too small also? Jerome Harrison clearly should be booted out of the league. I mean he clearly is too small to spend "significant" time in the backfield, I guess if you think that 30+ carries three games in a row is not significant.

I mean shit ... they clearly show that small guys can't do shit. I guess asking Percy for "significant" time spelling Adrian Peterson is ridiculous.

Marrdro
03-09-2010, 07:57 AM
VikingMike wrote:

Mr Anderson wrote:

V-Unit wrote:

It's a cool idea, but I don't think it maximizes our talents in the offense.

Who are we going to put in the slot on 3rd downs if Harvin is in the backfield? Shank? Jaymar Johnson? Pssh. AD in the backfield and Harvin in the slot is by far a better option.

Now people will cry, "AD isn't good on 3rd downs!" and I say, even so, that is easily our best 3rd down package. That or we grab a real 3rd down back who can give us the same dynamic that Chester did.

-V-
I think that's our best package on every down.

If defenses are gonna stack the box, at least force them to spread out a little, and if they have the wrong package in, they're forced to cover that slot guy(Harvin) with a linebacker or safety.

Granted it gives us one less blocker, but which is worse blocking 7 or 8 in the box with 5, or blocking 8 or 9 in the box with 6? And let's be real here, most linebackers and safeties on the backside of a play aren't catching up with Peterson if there is a hole for him to hit. If our O-line steps up as a unit and stays healthy, I never want to see a heavy set. We've got too much speed, too much talent, and too much respect from defenses to run out of TE+FB sets.



BB Mac Hutch Sully Hererra Load Rice
Shank Favre pH
Peterson


or:



BB Mac Hutch Sully Herrerra Load Rice
Favre pH(both sides)

Someone Better than Tahi

Peterson

In both cases you have 3 burners on the field, Peterson, Berrian, and Harvin, guys who can flat out run. Move guys around and you have mismatches for certain.

No more:


Sauce Mac Hutch Sully Herrerra Load Rice
Favre Shank

Tahi

Peterson

You've got two TEs, a fullback, and a 6'4" receiver who moves well, but creates space with his length, leaping ability, and body control, not his speed. So what do they do? Load up, at least 8 in the box. Even if Kleinsasser or Shiancoe are running routes, it doesn't matter, their coverman, whether it's a backer or safety can be up in the box, putting him closer to runner than he'd normally be.


Since defenses don't give Peterson any room to move, we need to create some. Not to mention the gadgets we could pull with Harvin and Peterson on running downs.

There's so much we can do, I'd like to see the Chiller implement some tricky stuff this season.


Damn good analyses. I agree one of the best ways to beat the "stacking of the box" is to spread out the receivers and force the D to account for other threats besides AD and the run. Very nice job Mr A.
He always breaks it down good. Now he has taken it to another level and added a new way to depict the "Package".

Damn him..... :cheer:

Marrdro
03-09-2010, 08:09 AM
Mr Anderson wrote:

BB Mac Hutch Sully Hererra Load Rice
Shank Favre pH
Peterson



I think the example above is what you are gonna see as our base set more than the one we are used to ....ala two TE set....


BB Mac Hutch Sully Hererra Load Rice
Sauce Favre Shanc
Peterson


For this discussion however, I would envision the set would look like this with PH in the BF.......


BB Mac Hutch Sully Hererra Load Rice
WR Favre Shank
PH

I don't think you will see the Vikes trying to stretch the field out of the play, unless of course the OL is dominating and the Noodle has time for it to develop. Rather, I think you would see something like a screen to Shanks side or PH coming out after Rice and Shanc cleared that side out.

Hell, you could even have the Noodle shift from under C and drop back into the shotgun with PH lined up on his left.

Regardless, it a lineup like that on a 3rd and short or 1rst and 10 would cause D-coords to shit thier pants.

Do I run out the nickle? Almost have to. Now they are subject to the run to the TE side. Do I stay with my heavy package? Now I am exposed across the middle by Shanc and PH if he comes out.

V-Unit
03-09-2010, 08:56 AM
Marrdro wrote:


Mr Anderson wrote:

BB Mac Hutch Sully Hererra Load Rice
Shank Favre pH
Peterson



I think the example above is what you are gonna see as our base set more than the one we are used to ....ala two TE set....


BB Mac Hutch Sully Hererra Load Rice
Sauce Favre Shanc
Peterson


For this discussion however, I would envision the set would look like this with PH in the BF.......


BB Mac Hutch Sully Hererra Load Rice
WR Favre Shank
PH

I don't think you will see the Vikes trying to stretch the field out of the play, unless of course the OL is dominating and the Noodle has time for it to develop. Rather, I think you would see something like a screen to Shanks side or PH coming out after Rice and Shanc cleared that side out.

Hell, you could even have the Noodle shift from under C and drop back into the shotgun with PH lined up on his left.

Regardless, it a lineup like that on a 3rd and short or 1rst and 10 would cause D-coords to shit thier pants.

Do I run out the nickle? Almost have to. Now they are subject to the run to the TE side. Do I stay with my heavy package? Now I am exposed across the middle by Shanc and PH if he comes out.

LMAO. You replace Sauce with "WR" in the second formation. Unless you think AD + Sauce < Harvin + "WR", the talent on the field is clearly worse.

A few questions need to be answered:
1. Is Harvin durable enough?
2. How is Harvin's stamina? If we put him in the backfield to spell AD, when is Harvin going to get a rest, and at what cost?
3. What can Harvin do out of the backfield that AD can't? We saw him do a lot of wildcat for some nice runs, but is he really the 3rd down scat back we all envision him to be? A lot of us are assuming that he is.

-V-

V-Unit
03-09-2010, 09:35 AM
V-Unit wrote:

Marrdro wrote:


Mr Anderson wrote:

BB Mac Hutch Sully Hererra Load Rice
Shank Favre pH
Peterson



I think the example above is what you are gonna see as our base set more than the one we are used to ....ala two TE set....


BB Mac Hutch Sully Hererra Load Rice
Sauce Favre Shanc
Peterson


For this discussion however, I would envision the set would look like this with PH in the BF.......


BB Mac Hutch Sully Hererra Load Rice
WR Favre Shank
PH

I don't think you will see the Vikes trying to stretch the field out of the play, unless of course the OL is dominating and the Noodle has time for it to develop. Rather, I think you would see something like a screen to Shanks side or PH coming out after Rice and Shanc cleared that side out.

Hell, you could even have the Noodle shift from under C and drop back into the shotgun with PH lined up on his left.

Regardless, it a lineup like that on a 3rd and short or 1rst and 10 would cause D-coords to shit thier pants.

Do I run out the nickle? Almost have to. Now they are subject to the run to the TE side. Do I stay with my heavy package? Now I am exposed across the middle by Shanc and PH if he comes out.

LMAO. You replace Sauce with "WR" in the second formation. Unless you think AD + Sauce < Harvin + "WR", the talent on the field is clearly worse.

A few questions need to be answered:
1. Is Harvin durable enough?

2. How is Harvin's stamina? If we put him in the backfield to spell AD, when is Harvin going to get a rest, and at what cost?

3. What can Harvin do out of the backfield that AD can't? We saw him do a lot of wildcat for some nice runs, but is he really the 3rd down scat back we all envision him to be? A lot of us are assuming that he is.

4. Harvin was a stud for us on 3rd downs last year. If he now is going to be in the backfield for those situations, does that make us better, or worse?

-V-

Tad7
03-09-2010, 12:41 PM
midgensa wrote:

Tad7 wrote:

Harvin needs to put on 15 pounds at least if he's gonna spend a significant amount of time in the back field.

First ... great job there. I mean, everyone here is clearly talking about him spending "significant time" in the backfield ... except, actually, nobody is talking about "significant" time.

Oh, and I guess that means that Chris Johnson is too small also? Jerome Harrison clearly should be booted out of the league. I mean he clearly is too small to spend "significant" time in the backfield, I guess if you think that 30+ carries three games in a row is not significant.

I mean shit ... they clearly show that small guys can't do shit. I guess asking Percy for "significant" time spelling Adrian Peterson is ridiculous.
Well I clicked the link in the first post and saw the question about Harvin being AD's backup. So that would mean Harvin replacing Taylor which to me is significant time between about 100 carries and the other duties.

And I believe the guys you listed do have 15 or more pounds on Harvin which was part of my point.

Marrdro
03-09-2010, 12:45 PM
V-Unit wrote:

Marrdro wrote:


Mr Anderson wrote:

BB Mac Hutch Sully Hererra Load Rice
Shank Favre pH
Peterson



I think the example above is what you are gonna see as our base set more than the one we are used to ....ala two TE set....


BB Mac Hutch Sully Hererra Load Rice
Sauce Favre Shanc
Peterson


For this discussion however, I would envision the set would look like this with PH in the BF.......


BB Mac Hutch Sully Hererra Load Rice
WR Favre Shank
PH

I don't think you will see the Vikes trying to stretch the field out of the play, unless of course the OL is dominating and the Noodle has time for it to develop. Rather, I think you would see something like a screen to Shanks side or PH coming out after Rice and Shanc cleared that side out.

Hell, you could even have the Noodle shift from under C and drop back into the shotgun with PH lined up on his left.

Regardless, it a lineup like that on a 3rd and short or 1rst and 10 would cause D-coords to shit thier pants.

Do I run out the nickle? Almost have to. Now they are subject to the run to the TE side. Do I stay with my heavy package? Now I am exposed across the middle by Shanc and PH if he comes out.

LMAO. You replace Sauce with "WR" in the second formation. Unless you think AD + Sauce < Harvin + "WR", the talent on the field is clearly worse.

A few questions need to be answered:
1. Is Harvin durable enough?
2. How is Harvin's stamina? If we put him in the backfield to spell AD, when is Harvin going to get a rest, and at what cost?
3. What can Harvin do out of the backfield that AD can't? We saw him do a lot of wildcat for some nice runs, but is he really the 3rd down scat back we all envision him to be? A lot of us are assuming that he is.

-V-

Wow, tough crowd today. First I didn't use the exact verbiage for Z so my post was understandable by him, now you are hacking on me for not moving my WR up on the line. Pretty soon I expect to see yellow flags thrown around here......LOL


1. Is Harvin durable enough?


Enough for what? To take 3 or 4 snaps out of the backfield? I would think that his performance at the collegiate level should be enough to answer that basic question. Just in case....YES. He is durable enough. As I said in another post, I think it is alot tougher on him catching a ball going over the middle when a LB'r or S hit him in full stride than getting tackled.

How is Harvin's stamina? If we put him in the backfield to spell AD, when is Harvin going to get a rest, and at what cost?

Again, not sure how many reps you envision we are talking about here. You do realize that he takes reps off at WR right? What is to say that the staff didn't manage a 3 down series with him on the bench and then bring him out for a snap at RB?


3. What can Harvin do out of the backfield that AD can't? We saw him do a lot of wildcat for some nice runs, but is he really the 3rd down scat back we all envision him to be? A lot of us are assuming that he is.

You saw that I mentioned more than just 3rd downs right? I envision them using him in that formation on first downs as well and nothing says he has to run out of that formation. If the defense played into our hands and ran a heavy package out (to stop the run), the Noodle could just audible and put him in motion.

Again, it isn't like I am saying we are gonna replace AD. I'm saying that we can get the ball in PH's hands in situations that could/would dictate to the defense instead of them dictating to us.

DiehardVikesFan
03-09-2010, 12:50 PM
Tad7 wrote:

Harvin needs to put on 15 pounds at least if he's gonna spend a significant amount of time in the back field.

he's already had ankle problems in the past, 15 pounds won't help that.

Tad7
03-09-2010, 01:39 PM
DiehardVikesFan wrote:

Tad7 wrote:

Harvin needs to put on 15 pounds at least if he's gonna spend a significant amount of time in the back field.

he's already had ankle problems in the past, 15 pounds won't help that.
yeah I personally don't want Harvin's role to change much from last year, if at all.

I was just saying if he's supposed to be the new Chester Taylor, blocking on 3rd down and stuff, 185 pounds isn't gonna cut it.

midgensa
03-09-2010, 01:44 PM
Tad7 wrote:

midgensa wrote:

Tad7 wrote:

Harvin needs to put on 15 pounds at least if he's gonna spend a significant amount of time in the back field.

First ... great job there. I mean, everyone here is clearly talking about him spending "significant time" in the backfield ... except, actually, nobody is talking about "significant" time.

Oh, and I guess that means that Chris Johnson is too small also? Jerome Harrison clearly should be booted out of the league. I mean he clearly is too small to spend "significant" time in the backfield, I guess if you think that 30+ carries three games in a row is not significant.

I mean shit ... they clearly show that small guys can't do shit. I guess asking Percy for "significant" time spelling Adrian Peterson is ridiculous.
Well I clicked the link in the first post and saw the question about Harvin being AD's backup. So that would mean Harvin replacing Taylor which to me is significant time between about 100 carries and the other duties.

And I believe the guys you listed do have 15 or more pounds on Harvin which was part of my point.

Actually ... they don't ... which is why I listed them. See, I know how to use Google. Not that difficult really.

And both of those guys got "significant" playing time. But I guess they should be kicked to the curb because they are too small.

midgensa
03-09-2010, 01:46 PM
Tad7 wrote:

DiehardVikesFan wrote:

Tad7 wrote:

Harvin needs to put on 15 pounds at least if he's gonna spend a significant amount of time in the back field.

he's already had ankle problems in the past, 15 pounds won't help that.
yeah I personally don't want Harvin's role to change much from last year, if at all.

I was just saying if he's supposed to be the new Chester Taylor, blocking on 3rd down and stuff, 185 pounds isn't gonna cut it.

There is a big difference in 185 and 192 ... so since he is actually 192 ... Google again ... then do you actually only want 8 pounds?

V-Unit
03-09-2010, 02:08 PM
Marrdro wrote:

V-Unit wrote:

Marrdro wrote:


Mr Anderson wrote:

BB Mac Hutch Sully Hererra Load Rice
Shank Favre pH
Peterson



I think the example above is what you are gonna see as our base set more than the one we are used to ....ala two TE set....


BB Mac Hutch Sully Hererra Load Rice
Sauce Favre Shanc
Peterson


For this discussion however, I would envision the set would look like this with PH in the BF.......


BB Mac Hutch Sully Hererra Load Rice
WR Favre Shank
PH

I don't think you will see the Vikes trying to stretch the field out of the play, unless of course the OL is dominating and the Noodle has time for it to develop. Rather, I think you would see something like a screen to Shanks side or PH coming out after Rice and Shanc cleared that side out.

Hell, you could even have the Noodle shift from under C and drop back into the shotgun with PH lined up on his left.

Regardless, it a lineup like that on a 3rd and short or 1rst and 10 would cause D-coords to shit thier pants.

Do I run out the nickle? Almost have to. Now they are subject to the run to the TE side. Do I stay with my heavy package? Now I am exposed across the middle by Shanc and PH if he comes out.

LMAO. You replace Sauce with "WR" in the second formation. Unless you think AD + Sauce < Harvin + "WR", the talent on the field is clearly worse.

A few questions need to be answered:
1. Is Harvin durable enough?
2. How is Harvin's stamina? If we put him in the backfield to spell AD, when is Harvin going to get a rest, and at what cost?
3. What can Harvin do out of the backfield that AD can't? We saw him do a lot of wildcat for some nice runs, but is he really the 3rd down scat back we all envision him to be? A lot of us are assuming that he is.

-V-

Wow, tough crowd today. First I didn't use the exact verbiage for Z so my post was understandable by him, now you are hacking on me for not moving my WR up on the line. Pretty soon I expect to see yellow flags thrown around here......LOL


1. Is Harvin durable enough?


Enough for what? To take 3 or 4 snaps out of the backfield? I would think that his performance at the collegiate level should be enough to answer that basic question. Just in case....YES. He is durable enough. As I said in another post, I think it is alot tougher on him catching a ball going over the middle when a LB'r or S hit him in full stride than getting tackled.

How is Harvin's stamina? If we put him in the backfield to spell AD, when is Harvin going to get a rest, and at what cost?

Again, not sure how many reps you envision we are talking about here. You do realize that he takes reps off at WR right? What is to say that the staff didn't manage a 3 down series with him on the bench and then bring him out for a snap at RB?


3. What can Harvin do out of the backfield that AD can't? We saw him do a lot of wildcat for some nice runs, but is he really the 3rd down scat back we all envision him to be? A lot of us are assuming that he is.

You saw that I mentioned more than just 3rd downs right? I envision them using him in that formation on first downs as well and nothing says he has to run out of that formation. If the defense played into our hands and ran a heavy package out (to stop the run), the Noodle could just audible and put him in motion.

Again, it isn't like I am saying we are gonna replace AD. I'm saying that we can get the ball in PH's hands in situations that could/would dictate to the defense instead of them dictating to us.

1. I'm not hacking you for not moving your WR onto the line. I'm hacking you because you don't even name which receiver would be in the slot in that formation. Mr. No-name at WR means a downgrade when it comes to the talent on the field. Outside of Favre, AD and Harvin are 2 of our best 3 offensive weapons. We should have both of them on the field as much as possible.

2. Yes, he takes off reps at WR, so he can be a better WR when he's on the field. Thus, our only options would be to:
A) Play him at RB instead of taking reps off, which could decrease his performance

or

B) Play him at RB instead of WR, which would decrease reps taken at his most effective position.

3. You can go ahead and delete "3rd down" from my 3rd item and my point still remains. People want to put Harvin in the backfield just because he is short. That BS draw play that worked in college isn't going to translate well, mainly because Tebow isn't the QB (yet...). I think he has the skill set of a WR and so WR is what he should play.

If you want to invent ways to get the ball into his playmaking hands, I can understand that, but having to take AD off of the field to do that seems like the lamest of all possible options if you ask me. At the very least, sign a better spell back so that Harvin can remain at his natural position.

-V-

Mr Anderson
03-09-2010, 03:02 PM
Marrdro wrote:

VikingMike wrote:

Mr Anderson wrote:

V-Unit wrote:

It's a cool idea, but I don't think it maximizes our talents in the offense.

Who are we going to put in the slot on 3rd downs if Harvin is in the backfield? Shank? Jaymar Johnson? Pssh. AD in the backfield and Harvin in the slot is by far a better option.

Now people will cry, "AD isn't good on 3rd downs!" and I say, even so, that is easily our best 3rd down package. That or we grab a real 3rd down back who can give us the same dynamic that Chester did.

-V-
I think that's our best package on every down.

If defenses are gonna stack the box, at least force them to spread out a little, and if they have the wrong package in, they're forced to cover that slot guy(Harvin) with a linebacker or safety.

*snip*
Since defenses don't give Peterson any room to move, we need to create some. Not to mention the gadgets we could pull with Harvin and Peterson on running downs.

There's so much we can do, I'd like to see the Chiller implement some tricky stuff this season.


Damn good analyses. I agree one of the best ways to beat the "stacking of the box" is to spread out the receivers and force the D to account for other threats besides AD and the run. Very nice job Mr A.
He always breaks it down good. Now he has taken it to another level and added a new way to depict the "Package".

Damn him..... :cheer:
lol, thanks guys.

The site automatically deleted my spaces between players, so I figured the display code function would work, and voila, there's my formations.

Marrdro wrote:


Mr Anderson wrote:

BB Mac Hutch Sully Hererra Load Rice
Shank Favre pH
Peterson



I think the example above is what you are gonna see as our base set more than the one we are used to ....ala two TE set....


BB Mac Hutch Sully Hererra Load Rice
Sauce Favre Shanc
Peterson


For this discussion however, I would envision the set would look like this with PH in the BF.......


BB Mac Hutch Sully Hererra Load Rice
WR Favre Shank
PH

I don't think you will see the Vikes trying to stretch the field out of the play, unless of course the OL is dominating and the Noodle has time for it to develop. Rather, I think you would see something like a screen to Shanks side or PH coming out after Rice and Shanc cleared that side out.

I don't know how I feel about the second formation, is the WR in the slot?, or in the backfield along with Harvin? Which makes me think, I'd really like to see something like this once in a while:


BB Mac Hutch Sully Hererra Load Rice
(Shank) Shank
pH Favre (pH)

AP

Parenthesis represents that they could be lined up on either side, it is not a 13 man formation lol.

Think of Rice or Berrian running a fly route, clearing out the corner, play-action to Peterson and Harvin on a wheel route.

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh181/eja642/phbackfieldwheel.jpg

Tad7
03-09-2010, 05:55 PM
midgensa wrote:

Tad7 wrote:

DiehardVikesFan wrote:

Tad7 wrote:

Harvin needs to put on 15 pounds at least if he's gonna spend a significant amount of time in the back field.

he's already had ankle problems in the past, 15 pounds won't help that.
yeah I personally don't want Harvin's role to change much from last year, if at all.

I was just saying if he's supposed to be the new Chester Taylor, blocking on 3rd down and stuff, 185 pounds isn't gonna cut it.

There is a big difference in 185 and 192 ... so since he is actually 192 ... Google again ... then do you actually only want 8 pounds?
Look man, I can't do much about NFL.com and ESPN being inaccurate. http://www.nfl.com/players/percyharvin/profile?id=HAR829482
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=12569

To me, he does look smaller than the other guys you mentioned. If I'm wrong about what Harvin can and can't do if he gets the role, so be it. We'll see.

Mr Anderson
03-09-2010, 06:40 PM
Tad7 wrote:

midgensa wrote:

Tad7 wrote:

DiehardVikesFan wrote:

Tad7 wrote:

Harvin needs to put on 15 pounds at least if he's gonna spend a significant amount of time in the back field.

he's already had ankle problems in the past, 15 pounds won't help that.
yeah I personally don't want Harvin's role to change much from last year, if at all.

I was just saying if he's supposed to be the new Chester Taylor, blocking on 3rd down and stuff, 185 pounds isn't gonna cut it.

There is a big difference in 185 and 192 ... so since he is actually 192 ... Google again ... then do you actually only want 8 pounds?
Look man, I can't do much about NFL.com and ESPN being inaccurate. http://www.nfl.com/players/percyharvin/profile?id=HAR829482
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=12569

To me, he does look smaller than the other guys you mentioned. If I'm wrong about what Harvin can and can't do if he gets the role, so be it. We'll see.
That may have something to do with him being smaller than the rest of them.

At 5'11" 185, he was 192 at the combine, but smaller guys try to come in heavier. I'm going with the 185 measurement, considering it says that on NFL.com, which has him 1 pound heavier than the Vikings official site.

He's taller than Jamaal Charles, who is 5'9, and the same height as Johnson.

Chris Johnson weighs 200 pounds.
Jamaal Charles weighs 199 pounds.

Take some other small guys for example:
Maurice Jones-Drew: He's a thick 208 at 5'7.
Darren Sproles: 185, Harvin's weight, at 5'6.
Leon Washington: 195 at 5'8.

He's a great athlete, and a tough kid. But built like an NFL running back he is not. He's got the balance, power, and speed to take some snaps, but he can't take 100 handoffs and be a slot receiver. I'd say 25-30 rushing attempts per year. I don't think anyone in this thread realistically expects him to take over for Taylor, just to line up in the backfield once in a while, take a few snaps, or a few handoffs... not to be our #2 running back.

Purple Floyd
03-09-2010, 07:39 PM
Mr Anderson wrote:

Purple Floyd wrote:

I am going to disagree and say that we would be better off with going to a 2 TE set and replacing Tahi with anyone who is competent. Peterson just needs a hole blown in the line to get him to the second level and nothing does that better than human battering rams. Have Rice and Harvin out wide and we can move the ball on anyone. Stretching out the defense requires our Tackles to cover more ground than the power 2 TE set does.

Not when the second level consists of 5 players.

If we come out with a heavy set on a running down, there is no third level. If we open up a big hole, there are 3 guys there to fill it. With 8 guys in the box there's one for every interior gap.

Spread out we could see greater yards per carry, on fewer runs, with a greater potential for the home run. Not to mention the beating we can avoid putting on our stud RB. I don't care if Peterson gets less carries if we put him in space when he does get the ball. Meanwhile, I'd like to see the ball in his hands a lot, but if it's in the same predictable sense that it was last season, I do not.

A cohesive, experienced offensive line(especially if Big Mac and Loadholt drop a few pounds) will be able to handle run blocking duties 5 or (if there's one TE)6 on 7-8 enemies in the box, better than that same line plus a fullback and 2 TEs is going to be dealing with 9 guys in the box.

If a linebacker or safety is force to cover Percy Harvin in the slot on the backside, he will not be in the picture if Peterson gets the rock. If that same defender is on Shiancoe, Dugan, Kleinsasser, or Tahi, he's right there, ready to crash his gap on run responsibility.

It doesn't change the offense philosophically, we can run or pass out of these sets. We can run or pass out of heavy sets, all it does is force the defense to line up differently. And Harvin's a tough kid, if a safety or corner is covering him we could run strongside as well.

We should take advantage of the talent that we have, sitting that talent on the bench is backward IMO.


I understand what you are saying in theory but that just doesn't happen in the NFL. If it did Mouse Davis would have brought Detroit a SB in the early 90's with his run and shoot. He had a pretty good back too.

The reason why spread offenses work in college and not the NFL is that the defenses in the NFL have too much speed and can cover those gaps. And when you spread your offense out, then you leave the QB more exposed to defenders taking shots at them.

Yes, Mac and Holt could drop a few pounds, but they probably won't so until it happens I will contend they are too slow in space.

Peterson is not built to be a great spread back. He is much better suited to the I formation, straight ahead behind the fullback runs. As long as he can hold on to the damn ball.

midgensa
03-09-2010, 07:53 PM
Mr Anderson wrote:

Tad7 wrote:

midgensa wrote:

Tad7 wrote:

DiehardVikesFan wrote:

Tad7 wrote:

Harvin needs to put on 15 pounds at least if he's gonna spend a significant amount of time in the back field.

he's already had ankle problems in the past, 15 pounds won't help that.
yeah I personally don't want Harvin's role to change much from last year, if at all.

I was just saying if he's supposed to be the new Chester Taylor, blocking on 3rd down and stuff, 185 pounds isn't gonna cut it.

There is a big difference in 185 and 192 ... so since he is actually 192 ... Google again ... then do you actually only want 8 pounds?
Look man, I can't do much about NFL.com and ESPN being inaccurate. http://www.nfl.com/players/percyharvin/profile?id=HAR829482
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=12569

To me, he does look smaller than the other guys you mentioned. If I'm wrong about what Harvin can and can't do if he gets the role, so be it. We'll see.
That may have something to do with him being smaller than the rest of them.

At 5'11" 185, he was 192 at the combine, but smaller guys try to come in heavier. I'm going with the 185 measurement, considering it says that on NFL.com, which has him 1 pound heavier than the Vikings official site.

He's taller than Jamaal Charles, who is 5'9, and the same height as Johnson.

Chris Johnson weighs 200 pounds.
Jamaal Charles weighs 199 pounds.

Take some other small guys for example:
Maurice Jones-Drew: He's a thick 208 at 5'7.
Darren Sproles: 185, Harvin's weight, at 5'6.
Leon Washington: 195 at 5'8.

He's a great athlete, and a tough kid. But built like an NFL running back he is not. He's got the balance, power, and speed to take some snaps, but he can't take 100 handoffs and be a slot receiver. I'd say 25-30 rushing attempts per year. I don't think anyone in this thread realistically expects him to take over for Taylor, just to line up in the backfield once in a while, take a few snaps, or a few handoffs... not to be our #2 running back.
My point was that all of these guys are pretty close in size. Hell ... Johnson was listed at 195 coming into the season ... so a whole three pounds different. You can't go by Johnson's NFL.com weight and then shrug off Harvin's ... that is awfully convenient.

And they are all similar in height and weight and definitely not 15 pounds off.

I would agree that he can't take 100 handoffs and be a slot receiver.

Hell ... I don't even really think that he should be in the backfield at all except for specialty situations like this season.

But to act like he is so small compared to all the other running backs in the league is not accurate. He is almost identical to Chris Johnson's size as a rookie, and almost identical with Jamaal Charles.

midgensa
03-09-2010, 08:01 PM
I do see the different weight listings on the combine page and the actualy player profile and definitely was confused a little by that.

I still think it is way off to say he would have to put on 15 pounds to be effective ... we would not be asking him to be a full time back.

That said ... I do not, nor have I ever, want Percy as the No. 2 guy on our RB depth chart.

ThorSPL
03-09-2010, 10:01 PM
V-Unit wrote:

Marrdro wrote:


Mr Anderson wrote:

BB Mac Hutch Sully Hererra Load Rice
Shank Favre pH
Peterson



I think the example above is what you are gonna see as our base set more than the one we are used to ....ala two TE set....


BB Mac Hutch Sully Hererra Load Rice
Sauce Favre Shanc
Peterson


For this discussion however, I would envision the set would look like this with PH in the BF.......


BB Mac Hutch Sully Hererra Load Rice
WR Favre Shank
PH

I don't think you will see the Vikes trying to stretch the field out of the play, unless of course the OL is dominating and the Noodle has time for it to develop. Rather, I think you would see something like a screen to Shanks side or PH coming out after Rice and Shanc cleared that side out.

Hell, you could even have the Noodle shift from under C and drop back into the shotgun with PH lined up on his left.

Regardless, it a lineup like that on a 3rd and short or 1rst and 10 would cause D-coords to shit thier pants.

Do I run out the nickle? Almost have to. Now they are subject to the run to the TE side. Do I stay with my heavy package? Now I am exposed across the middle by Shanc and PH if he comes out.

LMAO. You replace Sauce with "WR" in the second formation. Unless you think AD + Sauce < Harvin + "WR", the talent on the field is clearly worse.

A few questions need to be answered:
1. Is Harvin durable enough?
2. How is Harvin's stamina? If we put him in the backfield to spell AD, when is Harvin going to get a rest, and at what cost?
3. What can Harvin do out of the backfield that AD can't? We saw him do a lot of wildcat for some nice runs, but is he really the 3rd down scat back we all envision him to be? A lot of us are assuming that he is.

-V-

He tore up LSU many years while I was there... he's a different kind of talent than AD is... could he? Yes, I really do think he could.

mountainviking
03-10-2010, 01:55 PM
Harvin's best asset is his versatility. I'm all for giving him some more reps/oppurtunities wherever way we can. But I don't see him as a real No.2 behind AP...more of a part of the commitee that eases his load. We'll still want to use him on returns and to spread out the D more from the WR position as previously mentioned. But, we'd still need reps from another RB.

vike_mike
03-10-2010, 02:52 PM
I say if it isn't broke, then don't fix it. Use him exactly how we used him last year. Nothing should change. Not understanding all of the worry about our RB situation. We are playing things the smart right now. This is the perfect situation to be patient and weigh options. The draft is the best way to go for us.

jmcdon00
03-10-2010, 03:03 PM
vike_mike wrote:

I say if it isn't broke, then don't fix it. Use him exactly how we used him last year. Nothing should change. Not understanding all of the worry about our RB situation. We are playing things the smart right now. This is the perfect situation to be patient and weigh options. The draft is the best way to go for us.
+1

DiehardVikesFan
03-10-2010, 04:45 PM
midgensa wrote:

Tad7 wrote:

DiehardVikesFan wrote:

Tad7 wrote:

Harvin needs to put on 15 pounds at least if he's gonna spend a significant amount of time in the back field.

he's already had ankle problems in the past, 15 pounds won't help that.
yeah I personally don't want Harvin's role to change much from last year, if at all.

I was just saying if he's supposed to be the new Chester Taylor, blocking on 3rd down and stuff, 185 pounds isn't gonna cut it.

There is a big difference in 185 and 192 ... so since he is actually 192 ... Google again ... then do you actually only want 8 pounds?

For me it's about 5 minutes in the bathroom

C Mac D
03-10-2010, 04:49 PM
DiehardVikesFan wrote:

midgensa wrote:

Tad7 wrote:

DiehardVikesFan wrote:

Tad7 wrote:

Harvin needs to put on 15 pounds at least if he's gonna spend a significant amount of time in the back field.

he's already had ankle problems in the past, 15 pounds won't help that.
yeah I personally don't want Harvin's role to change much from last year, if at all.

I was just saying if he's supposed to be the new Chester Taylor, blocking on 3rd down and stuff, 185 pounds isn't gonna cut it.

There is a big difference in 185 and 192 ... so since he is actually 192 ... Google again ... then do you actually only want 8 pounds?

For me it's about 5 minutes in the bathroom

Bulimic?

Purple Floyd
03-10-2010, 07:06 PM
midgensa wrote:

Mr Anderson wrote:

Tad7 wrote:

midgensa wrote:

Tad7 wrote:

DiehardVikesFan wrote:

Tad7 wrote:

Harvin needs to put on 15 pounds at least if he's gonna spend a significant amount of time in the back field.

he's already had ankle problems in the past, 15 pounds won't help that.
yeah I personally don't want Harvin's role to change much from last year, if at all.

I was just saying if he's supposed to be the new Chester Taylor, blocking on 3rd down and stuff, 185 pounds isn't gonna cut it.

There is a big difference in 185 and 192 ... so since he is actually 192 ... Google again ... then do you actually only want 8 pounds?
Look man, I can't do much about NFL.com and ESPN being inaccurate. http://www.nfl.com/players/percyharvin/profile?id=HAR829482
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=12569

To me, he does look smaller than the other guys you mentioned. If I'm wrong about what Harvin can and can't do if he gets the role, so be it. We'll see.
That may have something to do with him being smaller than the rest of them.

At 5'11" 185, he was 192 at the combine, but smaller guys try to come in heavier. I'm going with the 185 measurement, considering it says that on NFL.com, which has him 1 pound heavier than the Vikings official site.

He's taller than Jamaal Charles, who is 5'9, and the same height as Johnson.

Chris Johnson weighs 200 pounds.
Jamaal Charles weighs 199 pounds.

Take some other small guys for example:
Maurice Jones-Drew: He's a thick 208 at 5'7.
Darren Sproles: 185, Harvin's weight, at 5'6.
Leon Washington: 195 at 5'8.

He's a great athlete, and a tough kid. But built like an NFL running back he is not. He's got the balance, power, and speed to take some snaps, but he can't take 100 handoffs and be a slot receiver. I'd say 25-30 rushing attempts per year. I don't think anyone in this thread realistically expects him to take over for Taylor, just to line up in the backfield once in a while, take a few snaps, or a few handoffs... not to be our #2 running back.
My point was that all of these guys are pretty close in size. Hell ... Johnson was listed at 195 coming into the season ... so a whole three pounds different. You can't go by Johnson's NFL.com weight and then shrug off Harvin's ... that is awfully convenient.

And they are all similar in height and weight and definitely not 15 pounds off.

I would agree that he can't take 100 handoffs and be a slot receiver.

Hell ... I don't even really think that he should be in the backfield at all except for specialty situations like this season.

But to act like he is so small compared to all the other running backs in the league is not accurate. He is almost identical to Chris Johnson's size as a rookie, and almost identical with Jamaal Charles.

You could also throw out there that Darrin Nelson tipped the scales at 5'9 and 184 and he seemed to be able to handle the position.

Mr Anderson
03-10-2010, 08:13 PM
Purple Floyd wrote:

midgensa wrote:

Mr Anderson wrote:

Tad7 wrote:

midgensa wrote:

Tad7 wrote:

DiehardVikesFan wrote:

Tad7 wrote:

Harvin needs to put on 15 pounds at least if he's gonna spend a significant amount of time in the back field.

he's already had ankle problems in the past, 15 pounds won't help that.
yeah I personally don't want Harvin's role to change much from last year, if at all.

I was just saying if he's supposed to be the new Chester Taylor, blocking on 3rd down and stuff, 185 pounds isn't gonna cut it.

There is a big difference in 185 and 192 ... so since he is actually 192 ... Google again ... then do you actually only want 8 pounds?
Look man, I can't do much about NFL.com and ESPN being inaccurate. http://www.nfl.com/players/percyharvin/profile?id=HAR829482
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=12569

To me, he does look smaller than the other guys you mentioned. If I'm wrong about what Harvin can and can't do if he gets the role, so be it. We'll see.
That may have something to do with him being smaller than the rest of them.

At 5'11" 185, he was 192 at the combine, but smaller guys try to come in heavier. I'm going with the 185 measurement, considering it says that on NFL.com, which has him 1 pound heavier than the Vikings official site.

He's taller than Jamaal Charles, who is 5'9, and the same height as Johnson.

Chris Johnson weighs 200 pounds.
Jamaal Charles weighs 199 pounds.

Take some other small guys for example:
Maurice Jones-Drew: He's a thick 208 at 5'7.
Darren Sproles: 185, Harvin's weight, at 5'6.
Leon Washington: 195 at 5'8.

He's a great athlete, and a tough kid. But built like an NFL running back he is not. He's got the balance, power, and speed to take some snaps, but he can't take 100 handoffs and be a slot receiver. I'd say 25-30 rushing attempts per year. I don't think anyone in this thread realistically expects him to take over for Taylor, just to line up in the backfield once in a while, take a few snaps, or a few handoffs... not to be our #2 running back.
My point was that all of these guys are pretty close in size. Hell ... Johnson was listed at 195 coming into the season ... so a whole three pounds different. You can't go by Johnson's NFL.com weight and then shrug off Harvin's ... that is awfully convenient.

And they are all similar in height and weight and definitely not 15 pounds off.

I would agree that he can't take 100 handoffs and be a slot receiver.

Hell ... I don't even really think that he should be in the backfield at all except for specialty situations like this season.

But to act like he is so small compared to all the other running backs in the league is not accurate. He is almost identical to Chris Johnson's size as a rookie, and almost identical with Jamaal Charles.

You could also throw out there that Darrin Nelson tipped the scales at 5'9 and 184 and he seemed to be able to handle the position.
Didn't he only play a few full seasons? And he never got that many carries.

Of course, I could be wrong, I just remember looking up his numbers a few years back and not being impressed.

Marrdro
03-11-2010, 11:32 AM
V-Unit wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

V-Unit wrote:

Marrdro wrote:


Mr Anderson wrote:

BB Mac Hutch Sully Hererra Load Rice
Shank Favre pH
Peterson



I think the example above is what you are gonna see as our base set more than the one we are used to ....ala two TE set....


BB Mac Hutch Sully Hererra Load Rice
Sauce Favre Shanc
Peterson


For this discussion however, I would envision the set would look like this with PH in the BF.......


BB Mac Hutch Sully Hererra Load Rice
WR Favre Shank
PH

I don't think you will see the Vikes trying to stretch the field out of the play, unless of course the OL is dominating and the Noodle has time for it to develop. Rather, I think you would see something like a screen to Shanks side or PH coming out after Rice and Shanc cleared that side out.

Hell, you could even have the Noodle shift from under C and drop back into the shotgun with PH lined up on his left.

Regardless, it a lineup like that on a 3rd and short or 1rst and 10 would cause D-coords to shit thier pants.

Do I run out the nickle? Almost have to. Now they are subject to the run to the TE side. Do I stay with my heavy package? Now I am exposed across the middle by Shanc and PH if he comes out.

LMAO. You replace Sauce with "WR" in the second formation. Unless you think AD + Sauce < Harvin + "WR", the talent on the field is clearly worse.

A few questions need to be answered:
1. Is Harvin durable enough?
2. How is Harvin's stamina? If we put him in the backfield to spell AD, when is Harvin going to get a rest, and at what cost?
3. What can Harvin do out of the backfield that AD can't? We saw him do a lot of wildcat for some nice runs, but is he really the 3rd down scat back we all envision him to be? A lot of us are assuming that he is.

-V-

Wow, tough crowd today. First I didn't use the exact verbiage for Z so my post was understandable by him, now you are hacking on me for not moving my WR up on the line. Pretty soon I expect to see yellow flags thrown around here......LOL


1. Is Harvin durable enough?


Enough for what? To take 3 or 4 snaps out of the backfield? I would think that his performance at the collegiate level should be enough to answer that basic question. Just in case....YES. He is durable enough. As I said in another post, I think it is alot tougher on him catching a ball going over the middle when a LB'r or S hit him in full stride than getting tackled.

How is Harvin's stamina? If we put him in the backfield to spell AD, when is Harvin going to get a rest, and at what cost?

Again, not sure how many reps you envision we are talking about here. You do realize that he takes reps off at WR right? What is to say that the staff didn't manage a 3 down series with him on the bench and then bring him out for a snap at RB?


3. What can Harvin do out of the backfield that AD can't? We saw him do a lot of wildcat for some nice runs, but is he really the 3rd down scat back we all envision him to be? A lot of us are assuming that he is.

You saw that I mentioned more than just 3rd downs right? I envision them using him in that formation on first downs as well and nothing says he has to run out of that formation. If the defense played into our hands and ran a heavy package out (to stop the run), the Noodle could just audible and put him in motion.

Again, it isn't like I am saying we are gonna replace AD. I'm saying that we can get the ball in PH's hands in situations that could/would dictate to the defense instead of them dictating to us.

1. I'm not hacking you for not moving your WR onto the line. I'm hacking you because you don't even name which receiver would be in the slot in that formation. Mr. No-name at WR means a downgrade when it comes to the talent on the field. Outside of Favre, AD and Harvin are 2 of our best 3 offensive weapons. We should have both of them on the field as much as possible.

2. Yes, he takes off reps at WR, so he can be a better WR when he's on the field. Thus, our only options would be to:
A) Play him at RB instead of taking reps off, which could decrease his performance

or

B) Play him at RB instead of WR, which would decrease reps taken at his most effective position.

3. You can go ahead and delete "3rd down" from my 3rd item and my point still remains. People want to put Harvin in the backfield just because he is short. That BS draw play that worked in college isn't going to translate well, mainly because Tebow isn't the QB (yet...). I think he has the skill set of a WR and so WR is what he should play.

If you want to invent ways to get the ball into his playmaking hands, I can understand that, but having to take AD off of the field to do that seems like the lamest of all possible options if you ask me. At the very least, sign a better spell back so that Harvin can remain at his natural position.

-V-
I am not saying we are taking AD out of the backfield. I am saying this is an option when they do.

Again, I am not advocating moving him to RB, I am just saying that lining him up back there a few times.

VKG4LFE
03-11-2010, 11:35 AM
I don't think he should be a RB perse, but I love seeing him in different sets and wouldn't mind him back there every once in a while. He could be used kind of how Palmer was used out of the backfield in 98.

Marrdro
03-11-2010, 11:38 AM
vike_mike wrote:

I say if it isn't broke, then don't fix it. Use him exactly how we used him last year. Nothing should change. Not understanding all of the worry about our RB situation. We are playing things the smart right now. This is the perfect situation to be patient and weigh options. The draft is the best way to go for us.
You do realize he lined up as a RB last year right?

Marrdro
03-11-2010, 11:39 AM
VKG4LFE wrote:

I don't think he should be a RB perse, but I love seeing him in different sets and wouldn't mind him back there every once in a while. He could be used kind of how Palmer was used out of the backfield in 98.
Bingo......This guy gets it.....

Excellent post my friend. Excellent indeed.

i_bleed_purple
03-11-2010, 11:50 AM
Marrdro wrote:

vike_mike wrote:

I say if it isn't broke, then don't fix it. Use him exactly how we used him last year. Nothing should change. Not understanding all of the worry about our RB situation. We are playing things the smart right now. This is the perfect situation to be patient and weigh options. The draft is the best way to go for us.
You do realize he lined up as a RB last year right?

Michael Bennett, Reggie Bush, Darren McFadden.... just three examples of guys who played RB successfully in college, had a similar build/skillset as Harvin. None have been very successful as a full-time back.

Not to mention, Harvin spent a good amount of time in a spread option set, not really taking handoffs in the traditional RB manner. When he was in the backfield last year, it wasn't in the I or singleback, it was usually in the shotgun, or some variation.

I'm all for having harvin line up at RB in certain sets, causing mismatches and whatnot, but IMO having him as our #2 guy is not a good idea.

Marrdro
03-11-2010, 11:57 AM
i_bleed_purple wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

vike_mike wrote:

I say if it isn't broke, then don't fix it. Use him exactly how we used him last year. Nothing should change. Not understanding all of the worry about our RB situation. We are playing things the smart right now. This is the perfect situation to be patient and weigh options. The draft is the best way to go for us.
You do realize he lined up as a RB last year right?

Michael Bennett, Reggie Bush, Darren McFadden.... just three examples of guys who played RB successfully in college, had a similar build/skillset as Harvin. None have been very successful as a full-time back.

Not to mention, Harvin spent a good amount of time in a spread option set, not really taking handoffs in the traditional RB manner. When he was in the backfield last year, it wasn't in the I or singleback, it was usually in the shotgun, or some variation.

I'm all for having harvin line up at RB in certain sets, causing mismatches and whatnot, but IMO having him as our #2 guy is not a good idea.
No one, again, no one is saying we want to move him to the #2 position.....

We are only talking about, atleast initially, about putting him back there for a few reps.

i_bleed_purple
03-11-2010, 12:02 PM
Marrdro wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

vike_mike wrote:

I say if it isn't broke, then don't fix it. Use him exactly how we used him last year. Nothing should change. Not understanding all of the worry about our RB situation. We are playing things the smart right now. This is the perfect situation to be patient and weigh options. The draft is the best way to go for us.
You do realize he lined up as a RB last year right?

Michael Bennett, Reggie Bush, Darren McFadden.... just three examples of guys who played RB successfully in college, had a similar build/skillset as Harvin. None have been very successful as a full-time back.

Not to mention, Harvin spent a good amount of time in a spread option set, not really taking handoffs in the traditional RB manner. When he was in the backfield last year, it wasn't in the I or singleback, it was usually in the shotgun, or some variation.

I'm all for having harvin line up at RB in certain sets, causing mismatches and whatnot, but IMO having him as our #2 guy is not a good idea.
No one, again, no one is saying we want to move him to the #2 position.....

We are only talking about, atleast initially, about putting him back there for a few reps.

There was a thread about that same concept. In fact, its this one.

I might direct youto the link YOU provided


Tim of Stoughton, Wis., gets credit for a question many of asked after tailback Chester Taylor jumped from Minnesota to Chicago:

Would the Vikings ever consider Percy Harvin as [Adrian] Petersonís backup? RB is his natural position and he would get more touches per game.

Marrdro
03-11-2010, 12:20 PM
i_bleed_purple wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

vike_mike wrote:

I say if it isn't broke, then don't fix it. Use him exactly how we used him last year. Nothing should change. Not understanding all of the worry about our RB situation. We are playing things the smart right now. This is the perfect situation to be patient and weigh options. The draft is the best way to go for us.
You do realize he lined up as a RB last year right?

Michael Bennett, Reggie Bush, Darren McFadden.... just three examples of guys who played RB successfully in college, had a similar build/skillset as Harvin. None have been very successful as a full-time back.

Not to mention, Harvin spent a good amount of time in a spread option set, not really taking handoffs in the traditional RB manner. When he was in the backfield last year, it wasn't in the I or singleback, it was usually in the shotgun, or some variation.

I'm all for having harvin line up at RB in certain sets, causing mismatches and whatnot, but IMO having him as our #2 guy is not a good idea.
No one, again, no one is saying we want to move him to the #2 position.....

We are only talking about, atleast initially, about putting him back there for a few reps.

There was a thread about that same concept. In fact, its this one.

I might direct youto the link YOU provided


Tim of Stoughton, Wis., gets credit for a question many of asked after tailback Chester Taylor jumped from Minnesota to Chicago:

Would the Vikings ever consider Percy Harvin as [Adrian] Petersonís backup? RB is his natural position and he would get more touches per game.
I said we are talking, not the writer is talking.

i_bleed_purple
03-11-2010, 12:29 PM
Marrdro wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

vike_mike wrote:

I say if it isn't broke, then don't fix it. Use him exactly how we used him last year. Nothing should change. Not understanding all of the worry about our RB situation. We are playing things the smart right now. This is the perfect situation to be patient and weigh options. The draft is the best way to go for us.
You do realize he lined up as a RB last year right?

Michael Bennett, Reggie Bush, Darren McFadden.... just three examples of guys who played RB successfully in college, had a similar build/skillset as Harvin. None have been very successful as a full-time back.

Not to mention, Harvin spent a good amount of time in a spread option set, not really taking handoffs in the traditional RB manner. When he was in the backfield last year, it wasn't in the I or singleback, it was usually in the shotgun, or some variation.

I'm all for having harvin line up at RB in certain sets, causing mismatches and whatnot, but IMO having him as our #2 guy is not a good idea.
No one, again, no one is saying we want to move him to the #2 position.....

We are only talking about, atleast initially, about putting him back there for a few reps.

There was a thread about that same concept. In fact, its this one.

I might direct youto the link YOU provided


Tim of Stoughton, Wis., gets credit for a question many of asked after tailback Chester Taylor jumped from Minnesota to Chicago:

Would the Vikings ever consider Percy Harvin as [Adrian] Petersonís backup? RB is his natural position and he would get more touches per game.
I said we are talking, not the writer is talking.
nope, you said no one is talking :P but I'll let that go ;)

Marrdro
03-11-2010, 12:31 PM
i_bleed_purple wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

vike_mike wrote:

I say if it isn't broke, then don't fix it. Use him exactly how we used him last year. Nothing should change. Not understanding all of the worry about our RB situation. We are playing things the smart right now. This is the perfect situation to be patient and weigh options. The draft is the best way to go for us.
You do realize he lined up as a RB last year right?

Michael Bennett, Reggie Bush, Darren McFadden.... just three examples of guys who played RB successfully in college, had a similar build/skillset as Harvin. None have been very successful as a full-time back.

Not to mention, Harvin spent a good amount of time in a spread option set, not really taking handoffs in the traditional RB manner. When he was in the backfield last year, it wasn't in the I or singleback, it was usually in the shotgun, or some variation.

I'm all for having harvin line up at RB in certain sets, causing mismatches and whatnot, but IMO having him as our #2 guy is not a good idea.
No one, again, no one is saying we want to move him to the #2 position.....

We are only talking about, atleast initially, about putting him back there for a few reps.

There was a thread about that same concept. In fact, its this one.

I might direct youto the link YOU provided


Tim of Stoughton, Wis., gets credit for a question many of asked after tailback Chester Taylor jumped from Minnesota to Chicago:

Would the Vikings ever consider Percy Harvin as [Adrian] Petersonís backup? RB is his natural position and he would get more touches per game.
I said we are talking, not the writer is talking.
nope, you said no one is talking :P but I'll let that go ;)
Well played. But you did see that my opening statement was I disagree'd with the author right?

i_bleed_purple
03-11-2010, 12:34 PM
Marrdro wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

vike_mike wrote:

I say if it isn't broke, then don't fix it. Use him exactly how we used him last year. Nothing should change. Not understanding all of the worry about our RB situation. We are playing things the smart right now. This is the perfect situation to be patient and weigh options. The draft is the best way to go for us.
You do realize he lined up as a RB last year right?

Michael Bennett, Reggie Bush, Darren McFadden.... just three examples of guys who played RB successfully in college, had a similar build/skillset as Harvin. None have been very successful as a full-time back.

Not to mention, Harvin spent a good amount of time in a spread option set, not really taking handoffs in the traditional RB manner. When he was in the backfield last year, it wasn't in the I or singleback, it was usually in the shotgun, or some variation.

I'm all for having harvin line up at RB in certain sets, causing mismatches and whatnot, but IMO having him as our #2 guy is not a good idea.
No one, again, no one is saying we want to move him to the #2 position.....

We are only talking about, atleast initially, about putting him back there for a few reps.

There was a thread about that same concept. In fact, its this one.

I might direct youto the link YOU provided


Tim of Stoughton, Wis., gets credit for a question many of asked after tailback Chester Taylor jumped from Minnesota to Chicago:

Would the Vikings ever consider Percy Harvin as [Adrian] Petersonís backup? RB is his natural position and he would get more touches per game.
I said we are talking, not the writer is talking.
nope, you said no one is talking :P but I'll let that go ;)
Well played. But you did see that my opening statement was I disagree'd with the author right?

bah.. that was pages ago. Its like when C Mac thought Favre would be a good addition. We can't bring that up anymore.

Marrdro
03-11-2010, 12:49 PM
i_bleed_purple wrote:
bah.. that was pages ago. Its like when C Mac thought Favre would be a good addition. We can't bring that up anymore.
Good enough. Just you and me (typical) again anyway. :cheer:

i_bleed_purple
03-11-2010, 02:12 PM
Marrdro wrote:


i_bleed_purple wrote:
bah.. that was pages ago. Its like when C Mac thought Favre would be a good addition. We can't bring that up anymore.
Good enough. Just you and me (typical) again anyway. :cheer:

mindless blabbering is the best kind! :)

Marrdro
03-11-2010, 03:54 PM
i_bleed_purple wrote:

Marrdro wrote:


i_bleed_purple wrote:
bah.. that was pages ago. Its like when C Mac thought Favre would be a good addition. We can't bring that up anymore.
Good enough. Just you and me (typical) again anyway. :cheer:

mindless blabbering is the best kind! :)
Passes the day my friend, passes the day. Gotta admit, I have been busy at work this week.

Cutting down on my PPO time. ;)

Purple Floyd
03-11-2010, 09:46 PM
Mr Anderson wrote:

Purple Floyd wrote:

midgensa wrote:

Mr Anderson wrote:

Tad7 wrote:

midgensa wrote:

Tad7 wrote:

DiehardVikesFan wrote:

Tad7 wrote:

Harvin needs to put on 15 pounds at least if he's gonna spend a significant amount of time in the back field.

he's already had ankle problems in the past, 15 pounds won't help that.
yeah I personally don't want Harvin's role to change much from last year, if at all.

I was just saying if he's supposed to be the new Chester Taylor, blocking on 3rd down and stuff, 185 pounds isn't gonna cut it.

There is a big difference in 185 and 192 ... so since he is actually 192 ... Google again ... then do you actually only want 8 pounds?
Look man, I can't do much about NFL.com and ESPN being inaccurate. http://www.nfl.com/players/percyharvin/profile?id=HAR829482
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=12569

To me, he does look smaller than the other guys you mentioned. If I'm wrong about what Harvin can and can't do if he gets the role, so be it. We'll see.
That may have something to do with him being smaller than the rest of them.

At 5'11" 185, he was 192 at the combine, but smaller guys try to come in heavier. I'm going with the 185 measurement, considering it says that on NFL.com, which has him 1 pound heavier than the Vikings official site.

He's taller than Jamaal Charles, who is 5'9, and the same height as Johnson.

Chris Johnson weighs 200 pounds.
Jamaal Charles weighs 199 pounds.

Take some other small guys for example:
Maurice Jones-Drew: He's a thick 208 at 5'7.
Darren Sproles: 185, Harvin's weight, at 5'6.
Leon Washington: 195 at 5'8.

He's a great athlete, and a tough kid. But built like an NFL running back he is not. He's got the balance, power, and speed to take some snaps, but he can't take 100 handoffs and be a slot receiver. I'd say 25-30 rushing attempts per year. I don't think anyone in this thread realistically expects him to take over for Taylor, just to line up in the backfield once in a while, take a few snaps, or a few handoffs... not to be our #2 running back.
My point was that all of these guys are pretty close in size. Hell ... Johnson was listed at 195 coming into the season ... so a whole three pounds different. You can't go by Johnson's NFL.com weight and then shrug off Harvin's ... that is awfully convenient.

And they are all similar in height and weight and definitely not 15 pounds off.

I would agree that he can't take 100 handoffs and be a slot receiver.

Hell ... I don't even really think that he should be in the backfield at all except for specialty situations like this season.

But to act like he is so small compared to all the other running backs in the league is not accurate. He is almost identical to Chris Johnson's size as a rookie, and almost identical with Jamaal Charles.

You could also throw out there that Darrin Nelson tipped the scales at 5'9 and 184 and he seemed to be able to handle the position.
Didn't he only play a few full seasons? And he never got that many carries.

Of course, I could be wrong, I just remember looking up his numbers a few years back and not being impressed.

Well,

He had over 11,000 all purpose yards in his career and played for about 11 seasons, so I don't think it is anything to sneeze at. I never liked him as a player because he actually probably had over 50,000 yards rushing if you count the lateral yards if you know what I mean. But he was no bigger than Harvin and he did have a fairly long career. Especially when you factor in the fact he played on the dome turf,which has not been kind to RB's knees,especially in the early metro turf days.

Oh yeah, one more thing to piss me off. We took him over Marcus Allen. DUH to the front office on that one.