PDA

View Full Version : A look at Peterson's production



VikingMike
05-13-2010, 09:02 AM
A look at Peterson's production (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/blogs/93452144.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUz33Dii_9PmP:Qi_17cQiU4)


According to ProFootballFocus, Peterson had 87 rushing attempts (out of 365 in the regular season and playoffs) on which he gained no yards or lost yardage. That meant 23.8 percent of the time Peterson had these types of runs, the ninth most (or worst) in the NFL.

Interestingly, the player who had the fourth-most carries for no yards or a loss of yards was Peterson's backup, former Viking Chester Taylor. Taylor gained no yards or lost yards on 26.2 percent of his attempts. ProFootballFocus has Taylor with 27 such carries on 103 carries.


Our runners aren't patient enough, or our O-line isn't doing the job?

Mr Anderson
05-13-2010, 11:09 AM
Two guys, one productive veteran, and one brilliant young player having the same problem... sounds like the offensive line to me.

When those kind of runs start to happen early in the season, they'll happen all season, as guys don't wanna wait around for blocks they don't think will be there.

tastywaves
05-13-2010, 11:18 AM
VikingMike wrote:

A look at Peterson's production (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/blogs/93452144.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUz33Dii_9PmP:Qi_17cQiU4)


According to ProFootballFocus, Peterson had 87 rushing attempts (out of 365 in the regular season and playoffs) on which he gained no yards or lost yardage. That meant 23.8 percent of the time Peterson had these types of runs, the ninth most (or worst) in the NFL.

Interestingly, the player who had the fourth-most carries for no yards or a loss of yards was Peterson's backup, former Viking Chester Taylor. Taylor gained no yards or lost yards on 26.2 percent of his attempts. ProFootballFocus has Taylor with 27 such carries on 103 carries.


Our runners aren't patient enough, or our O-line isn't doing the job?

Last year, I would say it was the latter. Add to that, that opposing teams still play us as a run first team, even though we showed an effective passing game. I tribute that to AD and the respect he gets. It doesn't show in his stats, but it is very real.

I don't expect that to change next year even with Favre, especially with the Toby pick. Hopefully the line can do a better job of creating some seams. Addition of Toby should help soften up the defenses.

Caine
05-13-2010, 11:36 AM
tastywaves wrote:

VikingMike wrote:

A look at Peterson's production (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/blogs/93452144.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUz33Dii_9PmP:Qi_17cQiU4)


According to ProFootballFocus, Peterson had 87 rushing attempts (out of 365 in the regular season and playoffs) on which he gained no yards or lost yardage. That meant 23.8 percent of the time Peterson had these types of runs, the ninth most (or worst) in the NFL.

Interestingly, the player who had the fourth-most carries for no yards or a loss of yards was Peterson's backup, former Viking Chester Taylor. Taylor gained no yards or lost yards on 26.2 percent of his attempts. ProFootballFocus has Taylor with 27 such carries on 103 carries.


Our runners aren't patient enough, or our O-line isn't doing the job?

Last year, I would say it was the latter. Add to that, that opposing teams still play us as a run first team, even though we showed an effective passing game. I tribute that to AD and the respect he gets. It doesn't show in his stats, but it is very real.

I don't expect that to change next year even with Favre, especially with the Toby pick. Hopefully the line can do a better job of creating some seams. Addition of Toby should help soften up the defenses.

I agree that this is more of a line problem than anything else. The line really wasn't spectacular last season in run blocking, and they were a bit worse in pass protection.

Also, I think it goes to the predictability of our play calling. People KNOW we're going to run - a LOT. Even if it's not really working well, they keep calling it, waiting for that "Break Out" play.

And, finally, it's the fact that many of the runs called are right in the teeth of the Defense. Initially, the Defense can stop these - hence the high number of "non-productive" plays. But over time, they get tired of being assaulted, and wear down - or so the theory goes.

Caine

gagarr
05-13-2010, 12:57 PM
Caine wrote:

tastywaves wrote:

VikingMike wrote:

A look at Peterson's production (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/blogs/93452144.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUz33Dii_9PmP:Qi_17cQiU4)


According to ProFootballFocus, Peterson had 87 rushing attempts (out of 365 in the regular season and playoffs) on which he gained no yards or lost yardage. That meant 23.8 percent of the time Peterson had these types of runs, the ninth most (or worst) in the NFL.

Interestingly, the player who had the fourth-most carries for no yards or a loss of yards was Peterson's backup, former Viking Chester Taylor. Taylor gained no yards or lost yards on 26.2 percent of his attempts. ProFootballFocus has Taylor with 27 such carries on 103 carries.


Our runners aren't patient enough, or our O-line isn't doing the job?

Last year, I would say it was the latter. Add to that, that opposing teams still play us as a run first team, even though we showed an effective passing game. I tribute that to AD and the respect he gets. It doesn't show in his stats, but it is very real.

I don't expect that to change next year even with Favre, especially with the Toby pick. Hopefully the line can do a better job of creating some seams. Addition of Toby should help soften up the defenses.

I agree that this is more of a line problem than anything else. The line really wasn't spectacular last season in run blocking, and they were a bit worse in pass protection.

Also, I think it goes to the predictability of our play calling. People KNOW we're going to run - a LOT. Even if it's not really working well, they keep calling it, waiting for that "Break Out" play.

And, finally, it's the fact that many of the runs called are right in the teeth of the Defense. Initially, the Defense can stop these - hence the high number of "non-productive" plays. But over time, they get tired of being assaulted, and wear down - or so the theory goes.

Caine

I'm not going to make excuses for the less than stellar play of the Oline last year, but what were you expecting? It's only logical that a 6th round draft pick 2nd year center, replacing a pro-bowler, and a rookie right tackle would impact performance. Also, Oline is about chemistry which they obviously struggled with at times. I'm expecting much better play given a year's experience and added chemistry. I will be disappointed if I don't.

Caine
05-13-2010, 01:20 PM
gagarr wrote:

Caine wrote:

tastywaves wrote:

VikingMike wrote:

A look at Peterson's production (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/blogs/93452144.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUz33Dii_9PmP:Qi_17cQiU4)


According to ProFootballFocus, Peterson had 87 rushing attempts (out of 365 in the regular season and playoffs) on which he gained no yards or lost yardage. That meant 23.8 percent of the time Peterson had these types of runs, the ninth most (or worst) in the NFL.

Interestingly, the player who had the fourth-most carries for no yards or a loss of yards was Peterson's backup, former Viking Chester Taylor. Taylor gained no yards or lost yards on 26.2 percent of his attempts. ProFootballFocus has Taylor with 27 such carries on 103 carries.


Our runners aren't patient enough, or our O-line isn't doing the job?

Last year, I would say it was the latter. Add to that, that opposing teams still play us as a run first team, even though we showed an effective passing game. I tribute that to AD and the respect he gets. It doesn't show in his stats, but it is very real.

I don't expect that to change next year even with Favre, especially with the Toby pick. Hopefully the line can do a better job of creating some seams. Addition of Toby should help soften up the defenses.

I agree that this is more of a line problem than anything else. The line really wasn't spectacular last season in run blocking, and they were a bit worse in pass protection.

Also, I think it goes to the predictability of our play calling. People KNOW we're going to run - a LOT. Even if it's not really working well, they keep calling it, waiting for that "Break Out" play.

And, finally, it's the fact that many of the runs called are right in the teeth of the Defense. Initially, the Defense can stop these - hence the high number of "non-productive" plays. But over time, they get tired of being assaulted, and wear down - or so the theory goes.

Caine

I'm not going to make excuses for the less than stellar play of the Oline last year, but what were you expecting? It's only logical that a 6th round draft pick 2nd year center, replacing a pro-bowler, and a rookie right tackle would impact performance. Also, Oline is about chemistry which they obviously struggled with at times. I'm expecting much better play given a year's experience and added chemistry. I will be disappointed if I don't.

I absolutely agree - I thought that Loadholt and Sullivan showed great promise. The trouble is, the line as a whole under performed. And, IMO McKinnie was a large part of that (How he made the Pro Bowl I'll never know).

I too expect the line to be better this year...and if that happens, I expect Peterson's numbers to go up.

Caine

Formo
05-13-2010, 04:19 PM
Caine wrote:

gagarr wrote:

Caine wrote:

tastywaves wrote:

VikingMike wrote:

A look at Peterson's production (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/blogs/93452144.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUz33Dii_9PmP:Qi_17cQiU4)


According to ProFootballFocus, Peterson had 87 rushing attempts (out of 365 in the regular season and playoffs) on which he gained no yards or lost yardage. That meant 23.8 percent of the time Peterson had these types of runs, the ninth most (or worst) in the NFL.

Interestingly, the player who had the fourth-most carries for no yards or a loss of yards was Peterson's backup, former Viking Chester Taylor. Taylor gained no yards or lost yards on 26.2 percent of his attempts. ProFootballFocus has Taylor with 27 such carries on 103 carries.


Our runners aren't patient enough, or our O-line isn't doing the job?

Last year, I would say it was the latter. Add to that, that opposing teams still play us as a run first team, even though we showed an effective passing game. I tribute that to AD and the respect he gets. It doesn't show in his stats, but it is very real.

I don't expect that to change next year even with Favre, especially with the Toby pick. Hopefully the line can do a better job of creating some seams. Addition of Toby should help soften up the defenses.

I agree that this is more of a line problem than anything else. The line really wasn't spectacular last season in run blocking, and they were a bit worse in pass protection.

Also, I think it goes to the predictability of our play calling. People KNOW we're going to run - a LOT. Even if it's not really working well, they keep calling it, waiting for that "Break Out" play.

And, finally, it's the fact that many of the runs called are right in the teeth of the Defense. Initially, the Defense can stop these - hence the high number of "non-productive" plays. But over time, they get tired of being assaulted, and wear down - or so the theory goes.

Caine

I'm not going to make excuses for the less than stellar play of the Oline last year, but what were you expecting? It's only logical that a 6th round draft pick 2nd year center, replacing a pro-bowler, and a rookie right tackle would impact performance. Also, Oline is about chemistry which they obviously struggled with at times. I'm expecting much better play given a year's experience and added chemistry. I will be disappointed if I don't.

I absolutely agree - I thought that Loadholt and Sullivan showed great promise. The trouble is, the line as a whole under performed. And, IMO McKinnie was a large part of that (How he made the Pro Bowl I'll never know).

I too expect the line to be better this year...and if that happens, I expect Peterson's numbers to go up.

Caine

McKinney didn't make the Pro Bowl.. He was wrongly voted in. Hell, he didn't even make a PRACTICE for the Pro Bowl.

But otherwise, I agree 100% with you guys.

bsmithberkley
05-13-2010, 05:54 PM
Caine wrote:

tastywaves wrote:

VikingMike wrote:

A look at Peterson's production (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/blogs/93452144.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUz33Dii_9PmP:Qi_17cQiU4)


According to ProFootballFocus, Peterson had 87 rushing attempts (out of 365 in the regular season and playoffs) on which he gained no yards or lost yardage. That meant 23.8 percent of the time Peterson had these types of runs, the ninth most (or worst) in the NFL.

Interestingly, the player who had the fourth-most carries for no yards or a loss of yards was Peterson's backup, former Viking Chester Taylor. Taylor gained no yards or lost yards on 26.2 percent of his attempts. ProFootballFocus has Taylor with 27 such carries on 103 carries.


Our runners aren't patient enough, or our O-line isn't doing the job?

Last year, I would say it was the latter. Add to that, that opposing teams still play us as a run first team, even though we showed an effective passing game. I tribute that to AD and the respect he gets. It doesn't show in his stats, but it is very real.

I don't expect that to change next year even with Favre, especially with the Toby pick. Hopefully the line can do a better job of creating some seams. Addition of Toby should help soften up the defenses.

I agree that this is more of a line problem than anything else. The line really wasn't spectacular last season in run blocking, and they were a bit worse in pass protection.

Also, I think it goes to the predictability of our play calling. People KNOW we're going to run - a LOT. Even if it's not really working well, they keep calling it, waiting for that "Break Out" play.

And, finally, it's the fact that many of the runs called are right in the teeth of the Defense. Initially, the Defense can stop these - hence the high number of "non-productive" plays. But over time, they get tired of being assaulted, and wear down - or so the theory goes.

Caine

I think we ranked 28th back in 2007 for ratio of "stuffs against" as well. So, predictability probably plays a big role.

Also, Peterson was very hard on himself for a lot of these plays.

I doubt we see significant improvement here next year unless
Chilly takes full advantage of his skill players and opens up the play calling more.

I don't think it's a big deal really. Most of these plays are limited 1 yard loses or something close to that. AP is not getting blown-up consistently 3 and 4 yards deep in the backfield.

Our play calling is so conservative ,even the runs for a loss are for limited yardage ;) But, thats also part of a well executed WCO.

Marrdro
05-14-2010, 01:32 PM
Play calling.....
Sore shoulder on Hutch......
2nd year C.......
Rookie RT........
Tahi Sucks.......


AD crotchsniffers might want to ignore this next part of my post......

All of the above had a role in our OL's poor play last year, but AD didn't help any either. If he would learn to be just a bit more patient before he makes his first cut, I bet alot of those "Zero" gains would get yards.

We saw it time and time again last year were AD would get stoned at the line for no loss and CT would come right in on the next play and get huge yards.

OK, AD crotsniffers, I'm done hacking on your boy.
;)

i_bleed_purple
05-14-2010, 04:57 PM
Marrdro wrote:

Play calling.....
Sore shoulder on Hutch......
2nd year C.......
Rookie RT........
Tahi Sucks.......


AD crotchsniffers might want to ignore this next part of my post......

All of the above had a role in our OL's poor play last year, but AD didn't help any either. If he would learn to be just a bit more patient before he makes his first cut, I bet alot of those "Zero" gains would get yards.

We saw it time and time again last year were AD would get stoned at the line for no loss and CT would come right in on the next play and get huge yards.

OK, AD crotsniffers, I'm done hacking on your boy.
;)


interesting thoughts.

I'm curious as to why CT had a higher percentages of runs for a loss than Peterson did though...

Lots of the time, there's simply nothing there.

jargomcfargo
05-14-2010, 05:06 PM
Marrdro wrote:

Play calling.....
Sore shoulder on Hutch......
2nd year C.......
Rookie RT........
Tahi Sucks.......


AD crotchsniffers might want to ignore this next part of my post......

All of the above had a role in our OL's poor play last year, but AD didn't help any either. If he would learn to be just a bit more patient before he makes his first cut, I bet alot of those "Zero" gains would get yards.

We saw it time and time again last year were AD would get stoned at the line for no loss and CT would come right in on the next play and get huge yards.

OK, AD crotsniffers, I'm done hacking on your boy.
;)

Peterson makes his decision so fast that sometimes the hole hasn't developed yet. He takes a quick look, if the hole isn't there he abandons it and freelances.
It's great when he busts a big one, but it's frustrating when he is repeatedly stifled.

I agree, he may do better if he were more patient.

On the other hand I would say alot of those "Zero" gains would get yards if the line would open more holes.
Many times there were no holes to run through last year.

I'm not as impressed with Sullivan as many here., I thought Herrera had a lousy year,and I can't figure out why MckKinney can't finish his blocks.

Line play needs to improve.

i_bleed_purple
05-14-2010, 05:09 PM
jargomcfargo wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Play calling.....
Sore shoulder on Hutch......
2nd year C.......
Rookie RT........
Tahi Sucks.......


AD crotchsniffers might want to ignore this next part of my post......

All of the above had a role in our OL's poor play last year, but AD didn't help any either. If he would learn to be just a bit more patient before he makes his first cut, I bet alot of those "Zero" gains would get yards.

We saw it time and time again last year were AD would get stoned at the line for no loss and CT would come right in on the next play and get huge yards.

OK, AD crotsniffers, I'm done hacking on your boy.
;)

Peterson makes his decision so fast that sometimes the hole hasn't developed yet. He takes a quick look, if the hole isn't there he abandons it and freelances.
It's great when he busts a big one, but it's frustrating when he is repeatedly stifled.

I agree, he may do better if he were more patient.

On the other hand I would say alot of those "Zero" gains would get yards if the line would open more holes.
Many times there were no holes to run through last year.

I'm not as impressed with Sullivan as many here., I thought Herrera had a lousy year,and I can't figure out why MckKinney can't finish his blocks.

Line play needs to improve.

I agree. I didn't think Sullivan was very good at all. He wasn't awful, and I'd be willing to give him a second shot, but its a tossup between him and Herrerra as the worst starting Lineman on our team.

jargomcfargo
05-14-2010, 05:34 PM
i_bleed_purple wrote:

jargomcfargo wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Play calling.....
Sore shoulder on Hutch......
2nd year C.......
Rookie RT........
Tahi Sucks.......


AD crotchsniffers might want to ignore this next part of my post......

All of the above had a role in our OL's poor play last year, but AD didn't help any either. If he would learn to be just a bit more patient before he makes his first cut, I bet alot of those "Zero" gains would get yards.

We saw it time and time again last year were AD would get stoned at the line for no loss and CT would come right in on the next play and get huge yards.

OK, AD crotsniffers, I'm done hacking on your boy.
;)

Peterson makes his decision so fast that sometimes the hole hasn't developed yet. He takes a quick look, if the hole isn't there he abandons it and freelances.
It's great when he busts a big one, but it's frustrating when he is repeatedly stifled.

I agree, he may do better if he were more patient.

On the other hand I would say alot of those "Zero" gains would get yards if the line would open more holes.
Many times there were no holes to run through last year.

I'm not as impressed with Sullivan as many here., I thought Herrera had a lousy year,and I can't figure out why MckKinney can't finish his blocks.

Line play needs to improve.

I agree. I didn't think Sullivan was very good at all. He wasn't awful, and I'd be willing to give him a second shot, but its a tossup between him and Herrerra as the worst starting Lineman on our team.

I'll even go a step further. I felt Birk played better the year before than Sullivan.
I know Marrdro harps on him for 3 times when he didn't pick up the delayed blitz up the middle, twice in one game.
But I felt that blitzer was the resonsibility of the running back, Peterson.

So I didn't see it quite the same as Marrdro. But I do agree Birk got manhandled and pushed around a fair share, but so did Sullivan.

I think Sullivan will improve.

I'm happy with Loadholdt. I blame Herreras play on Herrera and not being between two rookies.

And McKinnie seems to have the potential to be great.

i_bleed_purple
05-14-2010, 05:38 PM
jargomcfargo wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

jargomcfargo wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Play calling.....
Sore shoulder on Hutch......
2nd year C.......
Rookie RT........
Tahi Sucks.......


AD crotchsniffers might want to ignore this next part of my post......

All of the above had a role in our OL's poor play last year, but AD didn't help any either. If he would learn to be just a bit more patient before he makes his first cut, I bet alot of those "Zero" gains would get yards.

We saw it time and time again last year were AD would get stoned at the line for no loss and CT would come right in on the next play and get huge yards.

OK, AD crotsniffers, I'm done hacking on your boy.
;)

Peterson makes his decision so fast that sometimes the hole hasn't developed yet. He takes a quick look, if the hole isn't there he abandons it and freelances.
It's great when he busts a big one, but it's frustrating when he is repeatedly stifled.

I agree, he may do better if he were more patient.

On the other hand I would say alot of those "Zero" gains would get yards if the line would open more holes.
Many times there were no holes to run through last year.

I'm not as impressed with Sullivan as many here., I thought Herrera had a lousy year,and I can't figure out why MckKinney can't finish his blocks.

Line play needs to improve.

I agree. I didn't think Sullivan was very good at all. He wasn't awful, and I'd be willing to give him a second shot, but its a tossup between him and Herrerra as the worst starting Lineman on our team.

I'll even go a step further. I felt Birk played better the year before than Sullivan.
I know Marrdro harps on him for 3 times when he didn't pick up the delayed blitz up the middle, twice in one game.
But I felt that blitzer was the resonsibility of the running back, Peterson.

So I didn't see it quite the same as Marrdro. But I do agree Birk got manhandled and pushed around a fair share, but so did Sullivan.

I think Sullivan will improve.

I'm happy with Loadholdt. I blame Herreras play on Herrera and not being between two rookies.

And McKinnie seems to have the potential to be great.

Sullivan just seems to lack the strength to hold up against the bigger NT's and DT's. I mean the guy has a 32" inseam, small legs, relatively small frame, he doesn't generate as much power as a guy like Birk does.

vikinggreg
05-14-2010, 10:43 PM
i_bleed_purple wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Play calling.....
Sore shoulder on Hutch......
2nd year C.......
Rookie RT........
Tahi Sucks.......


AD crotchsniffers might want to ignore this next part of my post......

All of the above had a role in our OL's poor play last year, but AD didn't help any either. If he would learn to be just a bit more patient before he makes his first cut, I bet alot of those "Zero" gains would get yards.

We saw it time and time again last year were AD would get stoned at the line for no loss and CT would come right in on the next play and get huge yards.

OK, AD crotsniffers, I'm done hacking on your boy.
;)


interesting thoughts.

I'm curious as to why CT had a higher percentages of runs for a loss than Peterson did though...

Lots of the time, there's simply nothing there.

That was either Favre and/or Childress's fault

VikingMike
05-15-2010, 12:23 PM
Marrdro wrote:

Play calling.....
Sore shoulder on Hutch......
2nd year C.......
Rookie RT........
Tahi Sucks.......


AD crotchsniffers might want to ignore this next part of my post......

All of the above had a role in our OL's poor play last year, but AD didn't help any either. If he would learn to be just a bit more patient before he makes his first cut, I bet alot of those "Zero" gains would get yards.

We saw it time and time again last year were AD would get stoned at the line for no loss and CT would come right in on the next play and get huge yards.

OK, AD crotsniffers, I'm done hacking on your boy.
;)


Some very good points there, and I would tend to agree AD needs to be a little more patient as the ZBS is not going away. Also, I recall at one point last season Herrera calling out AD for leaving a lot of yards on the field.

But Chester also had a high percentage of runs with 0 or negative yards. This leads me to believe it has more to do with the O-line than the runners...however, I am not discounting the fact that Sullivan was in his first year making the calls...he has to really step up this year. And this line has to gel more as a unit...which tends to happen the more a group plays together.

Mr Anderson
05-15-2010, 12:24 PM
Marrdro wrote:

Play calling.....
Sore shoulder on Hutch......
2nd year C.......
Rookie RT........
Tahi Sucks.......


AD crotchsniffers might want to ignore this next part of my post......

All of the above had a role in our OL's poor play last year, but AD didn't help any either. If he would learn to be just a bit more patient before he makes his first cut, I bet alot of those "Zero" gains would get yards.

We saw it time and time again last year were AD would get stoned at the line for no loss and CT would come right in on the next play and get huge yards.

OK, AD crotsniffers, I'm done hacking on your boy.
;)
I don't think Taylor gaining yards after a Peterson no-gain has anything to due with his patience or vision.

I think that's simply the defense keying on the pass when Taylor comes in the game and keying on the run when Peterson is in the game. It's the tipping of our hand to pass or run and our offense and poor line play that's to blame.

The predictability isn't as bad as it was in the past. Shockingly, giving a QB the ability to make adjustments at the line can get an offense out of some bad situations.


I'm pumped for next season. Barring injury(knock on wood)I can't imagine our line play not improving.

Caine
05-15-2010, 04:22 PM
Marrdro wrote:

Play calling.....
Sore shoulder on Hutch......
2nd year C.......
Rookie RT........
Tahi Sucks.......


AD crotchsniffers might want to ignore this next part of my post......

All of the above had a role in our OL's poor play last year, but AD didn't help any either. If he would learn to be just a bit more patient before he makes his first cut, I bet alot of those "Zero" gains would get yards.

We saw it time and time again last year were AD would get stoned at the line for no loss and CT would come right in on the next play and get huge yards.

OK, AD crotsniffers, I'm done hacking on your boy.
;)

Might the fact that Peterson is a known running commodity and Taylor a known Receiving threat factor in as well?

My point is that when Peterson is in the backfield, Defenses KNOW he's going to run. With Chester, he came in in passing situations...defenses don't play as run heavy versus Chester...therefore a similar play against a different defensive scheme would result in a better result.

I'm not saying this ALWAYS happened...I'm just saying that this is a "Contributing factor"...

Caine

soonerbornNbred
05-16-2010, 01:49 AM
I would like to address AD and zoneblocking everyone enjoys talking about...first off everyone says AD needs to wait on his blocking...At OU he had the same problem "initially" because he hits lines so quick...but instead of saying Adrian be patient... they moved him 2 yards deeper in the backfield that year...he ripped off crazy numbers and he was 2nd in the heisman running having a great year, that little 2 yards allowed the Oline to make up for his quickness( instead of saying he lacks patients its more that the line doesn't compensate for his quickness)...Hes a great talent like Jim Brown Barry Sanders....dont tell a talent of these sorts how to run .....The coaches need to shape the running game to utilize his abilities Dont try to force a square peg into a round hole and you might come out with something better than you know

kevoncox
05-16-2010, 08:22 AM
soonerbornNbred wrote:

I would like to address AD and zoneblocking everyone enjoys talking about...first off everyone says AD needs to wait on his blocking...At OU he had the same problem "initially" because he hits lines so quick...but instead of saying Adrian be patient... they moved him 2 yards deeper in the backfield that year...he ripped off crazy numbers and he was 2nd in the heisman running having a great year, that little 2 yards allowed the Oline to make up for his quickness( instead of saying he lacks patients its more that the line doesn't compensate for his quickness)...Hes a great talent like Jim Brown Barry Sanders....dont tell a talent of these sorts how to run .....The coaches need to shape the running game to utilize his abilities Dont try to force a square peg into a round hole and you might come out with something better than you know

The only issue with that is
1) We are already doing it. Take a look at games and AD is atleast 8 yards off the ball.

2) Defenses tend to things like this on film.
6 yard splints...pass
9 yard splints run

ejmat
05-16-2010, 10:19 AM
kevoncox wrote:

soonerbornNbred wrote:

I would like to address AD and zoneblocking everyone enjoys talking about...first off everyone says AD needs to wait on his blocking...At OU he had the same problem "initially" because he hits lines so quick...but instead of saying Adrian be patient... they moved him 2 yards deeper in the backfield that year...he ripped off crazy numbers and he was 2nd in the heisman running having a great year, that little 2 yards allowed the Oline to make up for his quickness( instead of saying he lacks patients its more that the line doesn't compensate for his quickness)...Hes a great talent like Jim Brown Barry Sanders....dont tell a talent of these sorts how to run .....The coaches need to shape the running game to utilize his abilities Dont try to force a square peg into a round hole and you might come out with something better than you know

The only issue with that is
1) We are already doing it. Take a look at games and AD is atleast 8 yards off the ball.

2) Defenses tend to things like this on film.
6 yard splints...pass
9 yard splints run

Exactly. AP usually starts off 7 yards off the LOS. What should he be, 9 or 10?

V4L
05-16-2010, 12:28 PM
Yah we really can't move him back any farther

Play calling is just too vanilla in the running department.. I think that's due to the fact we have a very new gelling line

I hope Toby can come in and beat up on those DTs and ends and keep AD fresh to rip off some big ones in the end

soonerbornNbred
05-17-2010, 01:13 AM
ejmat wrote:

kevoncox wrote:

soonerbornNbred wrote:

I would like to address AD and zoneblocking everyone enjoys talking about...first off everyone says AD needs to wait on his blocking...At OU he had the same problem "initially" because he hits lines so quick...but instead of saying Adrian be patient... they moved him 2 yards deeper in the backfield that year...he ripped off crazy numbers and he was 2nd in the heisman running having a great year, that little 2 yards allowed the Oline to make up for his quickness( instead of saying he lacks patients its more that the line doesn't compensate for his quickness)...Hes a great talent like Jim Brown Barry Sanders....dont tell a talent of these sorts how to run .....The coaches need to shape the running game to utilize his abilities Dont try to force a square peg into a round hole and you might come out with something better than you know

The only issue with that is
1) We are already doing it. Take a look at games and AD is atleast 8 yards off the ball.

2) Defenses tend to things like this on film.
6 yard splints...pass
9 yard splints run

Exactly. AP usually starts off 7 yards off the LOS. What should he be, 9 or 10?



as long as he starts every play the same it doesnt give a clue as to run or pass....its when they telegraph it thats a problem....stay the same every play....but please dont whine about him hittin hole to soon if you dont accomodate for his initial burst, go ahead handcuff him, he will sill be a stand out ....but Rbs are a short shelve life...if his career last as long as Walters that would be great but odds are it wont You may have already seen his best

ejmat
05-17-2010, 07:20 AM
soonerbornNbred wrote:

ejmat wrote:

kevoncox wrote:

soonerbornNbred wrote:

I would like to address AD and zoneblocking everyone enjoys talking about...first off everyone says AD needs to wait on his blocking...At OU he had the same problem "initially" because he hits lines so quick...but instead of saying Adrian be patient... they moved him 2 yards deeper in the backfield that year...he ripped off crazy numbers and he was 2nd in the heisman running having a great year, that little 2 yards allowed the Oline to make up for his quickness( instead of saying he lacks patients its more that the line doesn't compensate for his quickness)...Hes a great talent like Jim Brown Barry Sanders....dont tell a talent of these sorts how to run .....The coaches need to shape the running game to utilize his abilities Dont try to force a square peg into a round hole and you might come out with something better than you know

The only issue with that is
1) We are already doing it. Take a look at games and AD is atleast 8 yards off the ball.

2) Defenses tend to things like this on film.
6 yard splints...pass
9 yard splints run

Exactly. AP usually starts off 7 yards off the LOS. What should he be, 9 or 10?



as long as he starts every play the same it doesnt give a clue as to run or pass....its when they telegraph it thats a problem....stay the same every play....but please dont whine about him hittin hole to soon if you dont accomodate for his initial burst, go ahead handcuff him, he will sill be a stand out ....but Rbs are a short shelve life...if his career last as long as Walters that would be great but odds are it wont You may have already seen his best

Again, like I said, he already starts off 7 yards behind the LOS. If you move him back another 2 like you are suggesting all that would do is give him more runs where he is tackled behind the LOS. College and the NFL are two different breeds. The players are too fast and too good to start a RB 9 yards off the LOS.

Marrdro
05-17-2010, 08:26 AM
Mr Anderson wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Play calling.....
Sore shoulder on Hutch......
2nd year C.......
Rookie RT........
Tahi Sucks.......


AD crotchsniffers might want to ignore this next part of my post......

All of the above had a role in our OL's poor play last year, but AD didn't help any either. If he would learn to be just a bit more patient before he makes his first cut, I bet alot of those "Zero" gains would get yards.

We saw it time and time again last year were AD would get stoned at the line for no loss and CT would come right in on the next play and get huge yards.

OK, AD crotsniffers, I'm done hacking on your boy.
;)
I don't think Taylor gaining yards after a Peterson no-gain has anything to due with his patience or vision.

I think that's simply the defense keying on the pass when Taylor comes in the game and keying on the run when Peterson is in the game. It's the tipping of our hand to pass or run and our offense and poor line play that's to blame.

The predictability isn't as bad as it was in the past. Shockingly, giving a QB the ability to make adjustments at the line can get an offense out of some bad situations.


I'm pumped for next season. Barring injury(knock on wood)I can't imagine our line play not improving.
Good point on the predictability issue.

Marrdro
05-17-2010, 08:43 AM
i_bleed_purple wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Play calling.....
Sore shoulder on Hutch......
2nd year C.......
Rookie RT........
Tahi Sucks.......


AD crotchsniffers might want to ignore this next part of my post......

All of the above had a role in our OL's poor play last year, but AD didn't help any either. If he would learn to be just a bit more patient before he makes his first cut, I bet alot of those "Zero" gains would get yards.

We saw it time and time again last year were AD would get stoned at the line for no loss and CT would come right in on the next play and get huge yards.

OK, AD crotsniffers, I'm done hacking on your boy.
;)


interesting thoughts.

I'm curious as to why CT had a higher percentages of runs for a loss than Peterson did though...

Lots of the time, there's simply nothing there.
I started tracking some stuff on what CT did vs what AD did when I was looking at RB's the Vikes might draft this year.

A few eye opening numbers.....

AD had 315 (1394 yards) rushing attemps, CT had 93 (332). Rough numbers, a bit under 1/3 the attempts..... If CT would have been the starting back I suspect he would have had another 1,000-1,200 yard season. Again, someone has to be doing something for AD to get almost 1,400 yards rushing and CT put up pretty decent numbers in a limited role. (Fault - No one. Someone is making holes and someone is hitting them).

Now for all of you who are gonna come back with the cliche' "AD is a beast in breaking tackles and is getting all those yards on his own".....I throw the next little tidbit out there.....

Yards after contact per attempt.....AD 2.9/CT 2.2 = Doesn't matter were they are hit, both of them don't fair well with respect to getting extra yards after getting hit.

This also means that there are holes for them to hit if they are just patient and wait on them. (Fault - RB Coaching Staff, not OL)

Profootballfocus - RB stats (http://www.profootballfocus.com/by_position.php?tab=by_position&season=2009&pos=HB&stype=r&runpass=&teamid=-1&numsnaps=25&numgames=1)

In the end, both AD and CT had a "Great" year running the rock, however, they (our RB's) could even do better if would wait just a bit and let some things develop in front of them.

Marrdro
05-17-2010, 08:49 AM
ejmat wrote:

soonerbornNbred wrote:

ejmat wrote:

kevoncox wrote:

soonerbornNbred wrote:

I would like to address AD and zoneblocking everyone enjoys talking about...first off everyone says AD needs to wait on his blocking...At OU he had the same problem "initially" because he hits lines so quick...but instead of saying Adrian be patient... they moved him 2 yards deeper in the backfield that year...he ripped off crazy numbers and he was 2nd in the heisman running having a great year, that little 2 yards allowed the Oline to make up for his quickness( instead of saying he lacks patients its more that the line doesn't compensate for his quickness)...Hes a great talent like Jim Brown Barry Sanders....dont tell a talent of these sorts how to run .....The coaches need to shape the running game to utilize his abilities Dont try to force a square peg into a round hole and you might come out with something better than you know

The only issue with that is
1) We are already doing it. Take a look at games and AD is atleast 8 yards off the ball.

2) Defenses tend to things like this on film.
6 yard splints...pass
9 yard splints run

Exactly. AP usually starts off 7 yards off the LOS. What should he be, 9 or 10?



as long as he starts every play the same it doesnt give a clue as to run or pass....its when they telegraph it thats a problem....stay the same every play....but please dont whine about him hittin hole to soon if you dont accomodate for his initial burst, go ahead handcuff him, he will sill be a stand out ....but Rbs are a short shelve life...if his career last as long as Walters that would be great but odds are it wont You may have already seen his best

Again, like I said, he already starts off 7 yards behind the LOS. If you move him back another 2 like you are suggesting all that would do is give him more runs where he is tackled behind the LOS. College and the NFL are two different breeds. The players are too fast and too good to start a RB 9 yards off the LOS.
The "He lines up deep on runs/short on passes" discussion started a couple of years ago so I actually started watching this, not only for AD and the Vikes, but for all teams.

Truth of the matter is, I could say this about almost every team.

What fails to be mentioned about RB alignment and how deep he is and if it is tipping something off, is from a side camera angle/view that fans are presented.

If you were looking at if from a S/CB/MLB perspective, I bet it isn't even recognized what with all the shifts (WR's/TE's etc) going on related to reading formations.

In the end, its a good discussion point, but probably not real relevant with respect to what is going on during the limited time players have to make thier reads.

Overlord
05-17-2010, 09:01 AM
I disagree with all this patience and predictability stuff. I'm thinking that if AD were any more patient a lot of those 0 yard losses would be 3 yard losses.

The offensive line was terrible in the run game last year.

I'm not alone in that view. The same site that provides the stats for the running back that started this conversation ranked the Vikings as the worst run blocking team in the NFL last year (http://profootballfocus.com/by_team.php?tab=by_team). I've knocked that sites rankings before for various reasons, but it's based on an actual play-by-play analysis and gives you at least an idea of how the team and individual players performed.

There are a variety of reasons for this poor level of play from the line in the run game last year. I think back injuries to Hutchinson and McKinnie are likely excuses. Inexperience can always be thrown into the conversation.

The big point is the offensive line was bad in this area and I hope it's better in 2010. Adrian Peterson is capable of averaging 5+ yards/carry behind a good line. I want to see the Vikes get back to that.

Marrdro
05-17-2010, 09:18 AM
Overlord wrote:

I disagree with all this patience and predictability stuff. I'm thinking that if AD were any more patient a lot of those 0 yard losses would be 3 yard losses.

The offensive line was terrible in the run game last year.

I'm not alone in that view. The same site that provides the stats for the running back that started this conversation ranked the Vikings as the worst run blocking team in the NFL last year (http://profootballfocus.com/by_team.php?tab=by_team). I've knocked that sites rankings before for various reasons, but it's based on an actual play-by-play analysis and gives you at least an idea of how the team and individual players performed.

There are a variety of reasons for this poor level of play from the line in the run game last year. I think back injuries to Hutchinson and McKinnie are likely excuses. Inexperience can always be thrown into the conversation.

The big point is the offensive line was bad in this area and I hope it's better in 2010. Adrian Peterson is capable of averaging 5+ yards/carry behind a good line. I want to see the Vikes get back to that.
Just one discussion point.....

1394 yards/315 attemps/4.4 yards per carry......

Someone is doing thier job someplace..... ;)

Overlord
05-17-2010, 09:33 AM
Marrdro wrote:

Overlord wrote:

I disagree with all this patience and predictability stuff. I'm thinking that if AD were any more patient a lot of those 0 yard losses would be 3 yard losses.

The offensive line was terrible in the run game last year.

I'm not alone in that view. The same site that provides the stats for the running back that started this conversation ranked the Vikings as the worst run blocking team in the NFL last year (http://profootballfocus.com/by_team.php?tab=by_team). I've knocked that sites rankings before for various reasons, but it's based on an actual play-by-play analysis and gives you at least an idea of how the team and individual players performed.

There are a variety of reasons for this poor level of play from the line in the run game last year. I think back injuries to Hutchinson and McKinnie are likely excuses. Inexperience can always be thrown into the conversation.

The big point is the offensive line was bad in this area and I hope it's better in 2010. Adrian Peterson is capable of averaging 5+ yards/carry behind a good line. I want to see the Vikes get back to that.
Just one discussion point.....

1394 yards/315 attemps/4.4 yards per carry......

Someone is doing thier job someplace..... ;)

Yeah. That someone is Adrian Peterson.

And honestly, those stats aren't that great. Not the kind of stats that a back as good as AD should be putting up.

My quick count from NFL.com is 23 players that had 4.4 yards/carry or more on over 100 carries last season. And while total yards is nice, you have to focus on that yards/carry efficiency. Yeah, 5th in total yards, but 4th in number of carries.

Peterson averaged 5.6 yards/carry his rookie year. In 2008 he averaged 4.8 yards/carry. He's capable. Last year the line held him back.

Marrdro
05-17-2010, 10:27 AM
Overlord wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Overlord wrote:

I disagree with all this patience and predictability stuff. I'm thinking that if AD were any more patient a lot of those 0 yard losses would be 3 yard losses.

The offensive line was terrible in the run game last year.

I'm not alone in that view. The same site that provides the stats for the running back that started this conversation ranked the Vikings as the worst run blocking team in the NFL last year (http://profootballfocus.com/by_team.php?tab=by_team). I've knocked that sites rankings before for various reasons, but it's based on an actual play-by-play analysis and gives you at least an idea of how the team and individual players performed.

There are a variety of reasons for this poor level of play from the line in the run game last year. I think back injuries to Hutchinson and McKinnie are likely excuses. Inexperience can always be thrown into the conversation.

The big point is the offensive line was bad in this area and I hope it's better in 2010. Adrian Peterson is capable of averaging 5+ yards/carry behind a good line. I want to see the Vikes get back to that.
Just one discussion point.....

1394 yards/315 attemps/4.4 yards per carry......

Someone is doing thier job someplace..... ;)

Yeah. That someone is Adrian Peterson.

And honestly, those stats aren't that great. Not the kind of stats that a back as good as AD should be putting up.

My quick count from NFL.com is 23 players that had 4.4 yards/carry or more on over 100 carries last season. And while total yards is nice, you have to focus on that yards/carry efficiency. Yeah, 5th in total yards, but 4th in number of carries.

Peterson averaged 5.6 yards/carry his rookie year. In 2008 he averaged 4.8 yards/carry. He's capable. Last year the line held him back.
I agree with you on almost all counts, except that the line and line alone held him back.

Again, I pointed out the yards after contact stat. AD (and CT) didn't seem to fair real well in that catagory.

The other thing that bares mentioning (hard to show a stat for it) is what happens to a OL when they pass alot, when it comes to degradation in the running game.

We saw several teams that were stellar running the ball degrade in that stat a bit as they passed more often than they did the year before.

In short, the "Bigs" don't do well when bouncing back and forth between the two blocking schemes.

Overlord
05-17-2010, 11:07 AM
Marrdro wrote:

I agree with you on almost all counts, except that the line and line alone held him back.

Again, I pointed out the yards after contact stat. AD (and CT) didn't seem to fair real well in that catagory.

AD averaged 2.9 yards after contact/carry according to that site. That's 17th in the league (among guys with a minimum number of snaps) and 0.7 yards back from the leader. If that number had been 3.0 yards after contact, that would have been 9th in the league. The point? There's a big jam of guys there, and 2.9 is not bad at all.

Chester Taylor was at 2.2 yards after contact/carry. That's closer to the worst in the league (which was 1.9), ranking 47th out of 63 guys (snap minimum). It's still a pretty tight jam, but AD is closer to the front, and Chester is near the back.


The other thing that bares mentioning (hard to show a stat for it) is what happens to a OL when they pass alot, when it comes to degradation in the running game.

We saw several teams that were stellar running the ball degrade in that stat a bit as they passed more often than they did the year before.

In short, the "Bigs" don't do well when bouncing back and forth between the two blocking schemes.
This idea just doesn't hold up under scrutiny. The Saints, Cowboys, and Patriots all had better running games than the Vikings last year in terms of average per carry and total yards. They also were all ranked in the top 5 in the profootballfocus team run blocking stats. And all three teams can throw the football around a little bit, with each throwing for more yards than a Vikes team that was very good in the pass game itself last year.

I did think that the pass blocking by the Vikes was better than in previous years. But several other teams have shown that you don't necessarily have to make a choice between one or the other.

Marrdro
05-17-2010, 11:21 AM
Overlord wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

I agree with you on almost all counts, except that the line and line alone held him back.

Again, I pointed out the yards after contact stat. AD (and CT) didn't seem to fair real well in that catagory.

AD averaged 2.9 yards after contact/carry according to that site. That's 17th in the league (among guys with a minimum number of snaps) and 0.7 yards back from the leader. If that number had been 3.0 yards after contact, that would have been 9th in the league. The point? There's a big jam of guys there, and 2.9 is not bad at all.

Chester Taylor was at 2.2 yards after contact/carry. That's closer to the worst in the league (which was 1.9), ranking 47th out of 63 guys (snap minimum). It's still a pretty tight jam, but AD is closer to the front, and Chester is near the back.

I think you missed that I was trying to use that stat as evidence that both of them are pretty bad when it comes to how many yards they get after they are hit the first time.

I wonder how poor AD's would really be if he wasn't the type of back he is.




The other thing that bares mentioning (hard to show a stat for it) is what happens to a OL when they pass alot, when it comes to degradation in the running game.

We saw several teams that were stellar running the ball degrade in that stat a bit as they passed more often than they did the year before.

In short, the "Bigs" don't do well when bouncing back and forth between the two blocking schemes.
This idea just doesn't hold up under scrutiny. The Saints, Cowboys, and Patriots all had better running games than the Vikings last year in terms of average per carry and total yards. They also were all ranked in the top 5 in the profootballfocus team run blocking stats. And all three teams can throw the football around a little bit, with each throwing for more yards than a Vikes team that was very good in the pass game itself last year.

I did think that the pass blocking by the Vikes was better than in previous years. But several other teams have shown that you don't necessarily have to make a choice between one or the other.
I said it was hard to prove......

I think the difference between those teams and the Vikes is those teams use a man up/hat on hat scheme were the Vikes bounce back and forth between ZB and man up depending on the play.

On a side note, let me go and see if I can find a few articles that talk about how one affects the other. There were several out there this year on teams like the Steelers.

bsmithberkley
05-17-2010, 12:23 PM
Marrdro wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Play calling.....
Sore shoulder on Hutch......
2nd year C.......
Rookie RT........
Tahi Sucks.......


AD crotchsniffers might want to ignore this next part of my post......

All of the above had a role in our OL's poor play last year, but AD didn't help any either. If he would learn to be just a bit more patient before he makes his first cut, I bet alot of those "Zero" gains would get yards.

We saw it time and time again last year were AD would get stoned at the line for no loss and CT would come right in on the next play and get huge yards.

OK, AD crotsniffers, I'm done hacking on your boy.
;)


interesting thoughts.

I'm curious as to why CT had a higher percentages of runs for a loss than Peterson did though...

Lots of the time, there's simply nothing there.
I started tracking some stuff on what CT did vs what AD did when I was looking at RB's the Vikes might draft this year.

A few eye opening numbers.....

AD had 315 (1394 yards) rushing attemps, CT had 93 (332). Rough numbers, a bit under 1/3 the attempts..... If CT would have been the starting back I suspect he would have had another 1,000-1,200 yard season. Again, someone has to be doing something for AD to get almost 1,400 yards rushing and CT put up pretty decent numbers in a limited role. (Fault - No one. Someone is making holes and someone is hitting them).

Now for all of you who are gonna come back with the cliche' "AD is a beast in breaking tackles and is getting all those yards on his own".....I throw the next little tidbit out there.....

Yards after contact per attempt.....AD 2.9/CT 2.2 = Doesn't matter were they are hit, both of them don't fair well with respect to getting extra yards after getting hit.

This also means that there are holes for them to hit if they are just patient and wait on them. (Fault - RB Coaching Staff, not OL)

Profootballfocus - RB stats (http://www.profootballfocus.com/by_position.php?tab=by_position&season=2009&pos=HB&stype=r&runpass=&teamid=-1&numsnaps=25&numgames=1)

In the end, both AD and CT had a "Great" year running the rock, however, they (our RB's) could even do better if would wait just a bit and let some things develop in front of them.

IMHO I think Taylor was a weak link last year. When looking at the 72 RBs who had more than 50 carries last year CT ranked...

59/72 for Yard/carry
60/72 for yard after contact

The line did not help him, but, there are a lot of other much worse o-lines in the NFL.

Best wishes for CT ,except for when he plays us every year...but...he really was on decline running the ball the last two years.

Marrdro
05-17-2010, 12:26 PM
bsmithberkley wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Play calling.....
Sore shoulder on Hutch......
2nd year C.......
Rookie RT........
Tahi Sucks.......


AD crotchsniffers might want to ignore this next part of my post......

All of the above had a role in our OL's poor play last year, but AD didn't help any either. If he would learn to be just a bit more patient before he makes his first cut, I bet alot of those "Zero" gains would get yards.

We saw it time and time again last year were AD would get stoned at the line for no loss and CT would come right in on the next play and get huge yards.

OK, AD crotsniffers, I'm done hacking on your boy.
;)


interesting thoughts.

I'm curious as to why CT had a higher percentages of runs for a loss than Peterson did though...

Lots of the time, there's simply nothing there.
I started tracking some stuff on what CT did vs what AD did when I was looking at RB's the Vikes might draft this year.

A few eye opening numbers.....

AD had 315 (1394 yards) rushing attemps, CT had 93 (332). Rough numbers, a bit under 1/3 the attempts..... If CT would have been the starting back I suspect he would have had another 1,000-1,200 yard season. Again, someone has to be doing something for AD to get almost 1,400 yards rushing and CT put up pretty decent numbers in a limited role. (Fault - No one. Someone is making holes and someone is hitting them).

Now for all of you who are gonna come back with the cliche' "AD is a beast in breaking tackles and is getting all those yards on his own".....I throw the next little tidbit out there.....

Yards after contact per attempt.....AD 2.9/CT 2.2 = Doesn't matter were they are hit, both of them don't fair well with respect to getting extra yards after getting hit.

This also means that there are holes for them to hit if they are just patient and wait on them. (Fault - RB Coaching Staff, not OL)

Profootballfocus - RB stats (http://www.profootballfocus.com/by_position.php?tab=by_position&season=2009&pos=HB&stype=r&runpass=&teamid=-1&numsnaps=25&numgames=1)

In the end, both AD and CT had a "Great" year running the rock, however, they (our RB's) could even do better if would wait just a bit and let some things develop in front of them.

IMHO I think Taylor was a weak link last year. When looking at the 72 RBs who had more than 50 carries last year CT ranked...

59/72 for Yard/carry
60/72 for yard after contact

The line did not help him, but, there are a lot of other much worse o-lines in the NFL.

Best wishes for CT ,except for when he plays us every year...but...he really was on decline running the ball the last two years.
Having the second best back in the league slated as the starter had something to do with it.

Old cliche' I cotton to a bit.....

Gotta give him the rock to get him going......I think if CT was the premier back, getting the reps/carries a starter normally gets, and his average would be right up there in the top 10, atleast.

Truth of the matter is, the main reason he was so attractive to most teams is that he has had very little "Starter" wear and tear over his career as he has been a backup all but one year.

I look to see CT being our nemisis this year.

Overlord
05-17-2010, 12:31 PM
Marrdro wrote:

Overlord wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

I agree with you on almost all counts, except that the line and line alone held him back.

Again, I pointed out the yards after contact stat. AD (and CT) didn't seem to fair real well in that catagory.

AD averaged 2.9 yards after contact/carry according to that site. That's 17th in the league (among guys with a minimum number of snaps) and 0.7 yards back from the leader. If that number had been 3.0 yards after contact, that would have been 9th in the league. The point? There's a big jam of guys there, and 2.9 is not bad at all.

Chester Taylor was at 2.2 yards after contact/carry. That's closer to the worst in the league (which was 1.9), ranking 47th out of 63 guys (snap minimum). It's still a pretty tight jam, but AD is closer to the front, and Chester is near the back.

I think you missed that I was trying to use that stat as evidence that both of them are pretty bad when it comes to how many yards they get after they are hit the first time.

I wonder how poor AD's would really be if he wasn't the type of back he is.
No, I got that.

But saying AD is bad when it comes to yards after contact is an interpretation of the statistic. One that probably isn't accurate when you get a picture of how that stat looks for running backs across the NFL. That's my interpretation. You are welcome to disagree. And anyone else that wants can go to this site (http://profootballfocus.com/by_position.php?tab=by_position&season=2009&pos=HB&stype=r&runpass=&teamid=-1&numsnaps=25&numgames=1) and click on the YCo/Att column to get a sorted list and see where AD fits in with everyone else and interpret the statistic for themselves.

And what's with that last comment? Are you asking how bad AD would be if he wasn't any good? Yeah, if AD was terrible he wouldn't be very good at all, and his stats would also be bad. I agree?




The other thing that bares mentioning (hard to show a stat for it) is what happens to a OL when they pass alot, when it comes to degradation in the running game.

We saw several teams that were stellar running the ball degrade in that stat a bit as they passed more often than they did the year before.

In short, the "Bigs" don't do well when bouncing back and forth between the two blocking schemes.
This idea just doesn't hold up under scrutiny. The Saints, Cowboys, and Patriots all had better running games than the Vikings last year in terms of average per carry and total yards. They also were all ranked in the top 5 in the profootballfocus team run blocking stats. And all three teams can throw the football around a little bit, with each throwing for more yards than a Vikes team that was very good in the pass game itself last year.

I did think that the pass blocking by the Vikes was better than in previous years. But several other teams have shown that you don't necessarily have to make a choice between one or the other.
I said it was hard to prove......

I think the difference between those teams and the Vikes is those teams use a man up/hat on hat scheme were the Vikes bounce back and forth between ZB and man up depending on the play.

On a side note, let me go and see if I can find a few articles that talk about how one affects the other. There were several out there this year on teams like the Steelers.
I think the few examples I gave previously are enough to show the general proposition that it is very possible to be good blocking run and pass, including for teams that pass a bunch. Whether you think it is different or impossible because of the Vikings' scheme is up to you.

In any event, it doesn't change the fact that the line played poorly in the run game. It's just a question of what reasoning are you going to use to explain it.

And I'm not trying to claim that I know the whole answer to that question myself. I would tend to go with injuries and inexperience, but who knows?

Marrdro
05-17-2010, 12:59 PM
Overlord wrote:

No, I got that.

But saying AD is bad when it comes to yards after contact is an interpretation of the statistic. One that probably isn't accurate when you get a picture of how that stat looks for running backs across the NFL. That's my interpretation. You are welcome to disagree. And anyone else that wants can go to this site (http://profootballfocus.com/by_position.php?tab=by_position&season=2009&pos=HB&stype=r&runpass=&teamid=-1&numsnaps=25&numgames=1) and click on the YCo/Att column to get a sorted list and see where AD fits in with everyone else and interpret the statistic for themselves.



And what's with that last comment? Are you asking how bad AD would be if he wasn't any good? Yeah, if AD was terrible he wouldn't be very good at all, and his stats would also be bad. I agree?
No, of course not.

Let me put it another way, even though he has a bad stat/number when it comes to yards after contact, imagine how bad that number would be if he didn't struggle/fight and get off a few long ones.

Something along that rationale.


I think the few examples I gave previously are enough to show the general proposition that it is very possible to be good blocking run and pass, including for teams that pass a bunch. Whether you think it is different or impossible because of the Vikings' scheme is up to you.
I'm tracking with that. I'm just saying that I think we can't be lumped into the same catagory as those teams based on our use of two blocking schemes.

More of a hack on scheme rather than player production. I still owe you a article or two that will help explain it better than I can.


In any event, it doesn't change the fact that the line played poorly in the run game. It's just a question of what reasoning are you going to use to explain it.
I agree, they had issues, but they had a 1400 yard back behind them who struggled to get yards after he was hit.

It means that at some point in time there was a hole opened by someone.



And I'm not trying to claim that I know the whole answer to that question myself. I would tend to go with injuries and inexperience, but who knows?
As I said when I entered this discussion, there were alot of contributing factors, but the one I wanted to highlight was the related to how fast AD (and even CT to a point) hit the hole.

If they were a bit more patient, maybe that production would even be better.

jmcdon00
05-18-2010, 05:05 PM
Marrdro wrote:

bsmithberkley wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Play calling.....
Sore shoulder on Hutch......
2nd year C.......
Rookie RT........
Tahi Sucks.......


AD crotchsniffers might want to ignore this next part of my post......

All of the above had a role in our OL's poor play last year, but AD didn't help any either. If he would learn to be just a bit more patient before he makes his first cut, I bet alot of those "Zero" gains would get yards.

We saw it time and time again last year were AD would get stoned at the line for no loss and CT would come right in on the next play and get huge yards.

OK, AD crotsniffers, I'm done hacking on your boy.
;)


interesting thoughts.

I'm curious as to why CT had a higher percentages of runs for a loss than Peterson did though...

Lots of the time, there's simply nothing there.
I started tracking some stuff on what CT did vs what AD did when I was looking at RB's the Vikes might draft this year.

A few eye opening numbers.....

AD had 315 (1394 yards) rushing attemps, CT had 93 (332). Rough numbers, a bit under 1/3 the attempts..... If CT would have been the starting back I suspect he would have had another 1,000-1,200 yard season. Again, someone has to be doing something for AD to get almost 1,400 yards rushing and CT put up pretty decent numbers in a limited role. (Fault - No one. Someone is making holes and someone is hitting them).

Now for all of you who are gonna come back with the cliche' "AD is a beast in breaking tackles and is getting all those yards on his own".....I throw the next little tidbit out there.....

Yards after contact per attempt.....AD 2.9/CT 2.2 = Doesn't matter were they are hit, both of them don't fair well with respect to getting extra yards after getting hit.

This also means that there are holes for them to hit if they are just patient and wait on them. (Fault - RB Coaching Staff, not OL)

Profootballfocus - RB stats (http://www.profootballfocus.com/by_position.php?tab=by_position&season=2009&pos=HB&stype=r&runpass=&teamid=-1&numsnaps=25&numgames=1)

In the end, both AD and CT had a "Great" year running the rock, however, they (our RB's) could even do better if would wait just a bit and let some things develop in front of them.

IMHO I think Taylor was a weak link last year. When looking at the 72 RBs who had more than 50 carries last year CT ranked...

59/72 for Yard/carry
60/72 for yard after contact

The line did not help him, but, there are a lot of other much worse o-lines in the NFL.

Best wishes for CT ,except for when he plays us every year...but...he really was on decline running the ball the last two years.
Having the second best back in the league slated as the starter had something to do with it.

Old cliche' I cotton to a bit.....

Gotta give him the rock to get him going......I think if CT was the premier back, getting the reps/carries a starter normally gets, and his average would be right up there in the top 10, atleast.

Truth of the matter is, the main reason he was so attractive to most teams is that he has had very little "Starter" wear and tear over his career as he has been a backup all but one year.

I look to see CT being our nemisis this year.
I disagree, being the back up to the best back in the league should only help. Peterson wears on the defense. Not to mention CT was playing mostly in passing situations. There were a bunch of guys right around 100 carries that had higher ypc.
Not to say that CT declined, I think like Peterson it was largely the change in scheme that hurt production. I believe the number 1 priority changed to protecting the QB and giving the QB more weapons. Previously the number 1 priority was to pound the rock.
CT will have success, and continue to be a hard nosed runner but I really don't see him being the focus of any offensive attack.
I think Gerhart will get a similar number of carries and have a higher ypc, quite possibly a higher ypc than Peterson.

Prophet
05-18-2010, 05:20 PM
Marrdro wrote:

...I look to see CT being our nemisis this year.

Yes, RBs always have such an easy time putting up yards against the Vikings in recent years.

i_bleed_purple
05-18-2010, 05:38 PM
I'm curious how you came up with this proof:


Yards after contact per attempt.....AD 2.9/CT 2.2 = Doesn't matter were they are hit, both of them don't fair well with respect to getting extra yards after getting hit.

This also means that there are holes for them to hit if they are just patient and wait on them. (Fault - RB Coaching Staff, not OL)

basically you say, since they have a low average after contact, that there must be holes?

You know as well as all of us here, those stats cannot possibly tell the story.

We all know peterson is a guy who has a bunch of short gains, and then a few monster ones.

On those short ones, he'll break a tackle and gain a yard, or get smacked for a loss, then he'll break a tackle and gain 50 yards.

If there were holes, then he could break an arm tackle and ACTUALLY HAVE SPACE TO MOVE instead of being immediately tackled by someone else.

bsmithberkley
05-18-2010, 06:10 PM
jmcdon00 wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

bsmithberkley wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Play calling.....
Sore shoulder on Hutch......
2nd year C.......
Rookie RT........
Tahi Sucks.......


AD crotchsniffers might want to ignore this next part of my post......

All of the above had a role in our OL's poor play last year, but AD didn't help any either. If he would learn to be just a bit more patient before he makes his first cut, I bet alot of those "Zero" gains would get yards.

We saw it time and time again last year were AD would get stoned at the line for no loss and CT would come right in on the next play and get huge yards.

OK, AD crotsniffers, I'm done hacking on your boy.
;)


interesting thoughts.

I'm curious as to why CT had a higher percentages of runs for a loss than Peterson did though...

Lots of the time, there's simply nothing there.
I started tracking some stuff on what CT did vs what AD did when I was looking at RB's the Vikes might draft this year.

A few eye opening numbers.....

AD had 315 (1394 yards) rushing attemps, CT had 93 (332). Rough numbers, a bit under 1/3 the attempts..... If CT would have been the starting back I suspect he would have had another 1,000-1,200 yard season. Again, someone has to be doing something for AD to get almost 1,400 yards rushing and CT put up pretty decent numbers in a limited role. (Fault - No one. Someone is making holes and someone is hitting them).

Now for all of you who are gonna come back with the cliche' "AD is a beast in breaking tackles and is getting all those yards on his own".....I throw the next little tidbit out there.....

Yards after contact per attempt.....AD 2.9/CT 2.2 = Doesn't matter were they are hit, both of them don't fair well with respect to getting extra yards after getting hit.

This also means that there are holes for them to hit if they are just patient and wait on them. (Fault - RB Coaching Staff, not OL)

Profootballfocus - RB stats (http://www.profootballfocus.com/by_position.php?tab=by_position&season=2009&pos=HB&stype=r&runpass=&teamid=-1&numsnaps=25&numgames=1)

In the end, both AD and CT had a "Great" year running the rock, however, they (our RB's) could even do better if would wait just a bit and let some things develop in front of them.

IMHO I think Taylor was a weak link last year. When looking at the 72 RBs who had more than 50 carries last year CT ranked...

59/72 for Yard/carry
60/72 for yard after contact

The line did not help him, but, there are a lot of other much worse o-lines in the NFL.

Best wishes for CT ,except for when he plays us every year...but...he really was on decline running the ball the last two years.
Having the second best back in the league slated as the starter had something to do with it.

Old cliche' I cotton to a bit.....

Gotta give him the rock to get him going......I think if CT was the premier back, getting the reps/carries a starter normally gets, and his average would be right up there in the top 10, atleast.

Truth of the matter is, the main reason he was so attractive to most teams is that he has had very little "Starter" wear and tear over his career as he has been a backup all but one year.

I look to see CT being our nemisis this year.
I disagree, being the back up to the best back in the league should only help. Peterson wears on the defense. Not to mention CT was playing mostly in passing situations. There were a bunch of guys right around 100 carries that had higher ypc.
Not to say that CT declined, I think like Peterson it was largely the change in scheme that hurt production. I believe the number 1 priority changed to protecting the QB and giving the QB more weapons. Previously the number 1 priority was to pound the rock.
CT will have success, and continue to be a hard nosed runner but I really don't see him being the focus of any offensive attack.
I think Gerhart will get a similar number of carries and have a higher ypc, quite possibly a higher ypc than Peterson.

Marrdro, CT as a Top 10 RB? I have to add that one to Favre has a "Noodle" arm? I see CT as the classic back whose production mirrors his blockers success. Nothing more, and nothing less. Not fast, not super shifty, but, smart and reliable.

Sign me up as a Gerhart fan, but, I doubt his rushing average beats out AP. I think Gerhart will help AP more than AP will help Gerhart for a few reasons.

1. As a second battering ram the defense should be softer in the second half, where Peterson will be better able to take advantage for long runs than Gerhart.

2. In a 2 RB set, the defense will have to spread its focus allowing AP a higher percentage of long runs and fewer stuffs.

3. I expect Gerhart to get more short yardage calls and lower his average disproportionately in comparison.

As for run splits, AP and CT combined for 19+7=26 carries a game last year. I see AP getting more touches in the passing game this year and the RB split should be nearer to 16AP 10TG, if not in week 1, by week 12 they should see a split like that after Toby shows he has a complete handle on picking up blitzes.

I do expect both of these guys to be very effective, and, if the Offensive line comes back around they should be the hands-down best running back duo in the NFL (effectivenes). Williams and Stewart will probably win out for total yards.

12purplepride28
05-18-2010, 08:25 PM
I don't think marrdro was saying that ct is a top 10 back, but if he were given the carries he could have an average in the top 10. Doesn't necessarily mean he is a top 10 back, he could have less yards, tds, etc., and I don't think teams would gameplan around him like he was a top 10 back.

marshallvike
05-18-2010, 08:37 PM
Marrdro wrote:

The loss of pro bowl center Matt Birk.....
Play calling.....
Sore shoulder on Hutch......
2nd year C.......
Rookie RT........
Tahi Sucks.......


AD crotchsniffers might want to ignore this next part of my post......

All of the above had a role in our OL's poor play last year, but AD didn't help any either. If he would learn to be just a bit more patient before he makes his first cut, I bet alot of those "Zero" gains would get yards.

We saw it time and time again last year were AD would get stoned at the line for no loss and CT would come right in on the next play and get huge yards.

OK, AD crotsniffers, I'm done hacking on your boy.
;)

at least you didn't blame this on my boy Winfield. ;)

i_bleed_purple
05-18-2010, 08:46 PM
marshallvike wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

The loss of pro bowl center Matt Birk.....
Play calling.....
Sore shoulder on Hutch......
2nd year C.......
Rookie RT........
Tahi Sucks.......


AD crotchsniffers might want to ignore this next part of my post......

All of the above had a role in our OL's poor play last year, but AD didn't help any either. If he would learn to be just a bit more patient before he makes his first cut, I bet alot of those "Zero" gains would get yards.

We saw it time and time again last year were AD would get stoned at the line for no loss and CT would come right in on the next play and get huge yards.

OK, AD crotsniffers, I'm done hacking on your boy.
;)

at least you didn't blame this on my boy Winfield. ;)

LMAO!!!!

In this post, Marrdro uses the loss of a 'pro bowl Center' Matt Birk as a reason, but in any other thread he'll be the first to say getting rid of him was a good move.

Flip-Flopping at its finest.

marshallvike
05-18-2010, 08:50 PM
i_bleed_purple wrote:

marshallvike wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

The loss of pro bowl center Matt Birk.....
Play calling.....
Sore shoulder on Hutch......
2nd year C.......
Rookie RT........
Tahi Sucks.......


AD crotchsniffers might want to ignore this next part of my post......

All of the above had a role in our OL's poor play last year, but AD didn't help any either. If he would learn to be just a bit more patient before he makes his first cut, I bet alot of those "Zero" gains would get yards.

We saw it time and time again last year were AD would get stoned at the line for no loss and CT would come right in on the next play and get huge yards.

OK, AD crotsniffers, I'm done hacking on your boy.
;)

at least you didn't blame this on my boy Winfield. ;)

LMAO!!!!

In this post, Marrdro uses the loss of a 'pro bowl Center' Matt Birk as a reason, but in any other thread he'll be the first to say getting rid of him was a good move.

Flip-Flopping at its finest.

that was my doing. I wanted to see what kind of reaction I get from him in the morning.

Marrdro
05-19-2010, 08:04 AM
Prophet wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

...I look to see CT being our nemisis this year.

Yes, RBs always have such an easy time putting up yards against the Vikings in recent years.
Most won't admit it, or simply choose to ignore it, but our team looked damn silly a few times last year when it came to stopping the run.

The Ravens fiasco comes immediately to mind for me.

I bet we have big issues in that area this year.

Marrdro
05-19-2010, 08:18 AM
jmcdon00 wrote:

I disagree, being the back up to the best back in the league should only help. Peterson wears on the defense. Not to mention CT was playing mostly in passing situations. There were a bunch of guys right around 100 carries that had higher ypc.

You disagree that he is the best back when I said the second best?.....or do you mean that AD softens them up for CT?

I agree with the second, but that isn't really what I meant. My discussion point was more along the lines of how many reps CT gets which really doesn't allow for him to get going the way a typical back gets going (Lots of reps early and often).

If CT was the starter for the Vikes and got the majority of the reps, he would have pushed the 1,000 yard mark, kindof rationale was my point.


Not to say that CT declined, I think like Peterson it was largely the change in scheme that hurt production. I believe the number 1 priority changed to protecting the QB and giving the QB more weapons. Previously the number 1 priority was to pound the rock.
Hmmmm, you might be on to something with that idea. I was pointing out to a couple of cats what impact a "Pass Heavy" team does to the run blocking of the OL.

I need to go dig those articles, up, but most were on the Steelers and how they declined in that area as Big Ben became more of a Pass first kindof QB.


CT will have success, and continue to be a hard nosed runner but I really don't see him being the focus of any offensive attack.
You might be right my friend, however, the Bores paid him starter money. For me that is a clear indicator that he will get alot of reps especially if you look at what thier starter did last season.
258 Carries/929 yards (Ranked 18th in the league)/3.6 ypc/4 TD's

Profootballfocus RB Stats (http://www.profootballfocus.com/by_position.php?tab=by_position&season=2009&pos=HB&stype=r&runpass=&teamid=-1&numsnaps=25&numgames=1)


I think Gerhart will get a similar number of carries and have a higher ypc, quite possibly a higher ypc than Peterson.
I have myself almost convinced (as I break down our RB's) that Toby will see the rock alot more than CT, especially when the team gets inside the redzone.

I am almost willing to go out on a limb and believe he might actually get more TD's this year that AD.

Regardless of who gets the carries, I am also convinced we are going to revert back to alot more runs that we saw last year in an effort to protect our defense, especially early on.

Marrdro
05-19-2010, 08:29 AM
i_bleed_purple wrote:

I'm curious how you came up with this proof:

Proof????? You been hanging around Z again? I offer up no proof. I offer up a stat that I used to come up what an idea/thought/concept/discussion point.


basically you say, since they have a low average after contact, that there must be holes?

You know as well as all of us here, those stats cannot possibly tell the story.
Of course it doesn't tell the whole story. As with all stats, one can interpret them the way one wants.

In this case, I don't think I am that far off with my analysis. Heck you even alude to it with your following comment.....


We all know peterson is a guy who has a bunch of short gains, and then a few monster ones.

On those short ones, he'll break a tackle and gain a yard, or get smacked for a loss, then he'll break a tackle and gain 50 yards.

Exactly.

Can you imagine what his yards per carry after contact would be like without those big runs.

All I'm saying is that if he waits on the OL a bit longer to develop the hole, he might get a few more of the big ones.


If there were holes, then he could break an arm tackle and ACTUALLY HAVE SPACE TO MOVE instead of being immediately tackled by someone else.
Are you trying to tell me that all of his runs, especially his big ones, come from his effort and his effort alone.

Not sure I am ready to buy into that my friend. Look I like his efforts and really find him to be an exciting player, but he doesn't do it all alone.

Again, go back and read into the stat just a little bit, mix that with the 1400 yards and you can see that the OL is making him holes.

On a side note, please don't think that I believe our OL doesn't have issues here. It does, both in run blocking as well as pass blocking.

On a side note next to that side note, AD can help in that area if he would allow things to develop a bit mostly because of the ZB scheme. Remember, the OLmen start out to double the guy at the point of attack with one of them disengaging and shifting to the next layer so they can get the LB/S out of the play.

If AD doesn't allow that to happen, well, he is then responsible for not only making the LB'r miss, but the S that is crashing down as well.

Marrdro
05-19-2010, 08:39 AM
12purplepride28 wrote:

I don't think marrdro was saying that ct is a top 10 back, but if he were given the carries he could have an average in the top 10. Doesn't necessarily mean he is a top 10 back, he could have less yards, tds, etc., and I don't think teams would gameplan around him like he was a top 10 back.
My good friend 12pp28 hit it on the head, atleast with his first statement.

Lets not forget my friends that CT doesn't have alot of wear and tear on those legs. Lets also remember that he had a 1,200 yard season the only season he was a starter.

In the end, I bet ole CT wears on us a bit this year. ;)

Marrdro
05-19-2010, 08:53 AM
bsmithberkley wrote:


Marrdro, CT as a Top 10 RB? I have to add that one to Favre has a "Noodle" arm? I see CT as the classic back whose production mirrors his blockers success. Nothing more, and nothing less. Not fast, not super shifty, but, smart and reliable.

I'm not going to address the Top Ten comment. 12pp28 did a fine job for me.


Sign me up as a Gerhart fan, but, I doubt his rushing average beats out AP.
I agree, not sure if you thought that was what I was saying.


I think Gerhart will help AP more than AP will help Gerhart for a few reasons.

1. As a second battering ram the defense should be softer in the second half, where Peterson will be better able to take advantage for long runs than Gerhart.
I don't think the staff will wait to use Toby until the second half. Infact I think we might even find that they use him to soften the defense up a bit for AD early on.

That doesn't mean he will be the starter, but rather a short yardage guy that is allowed to pound the middle (were AD seems to struggle with maintaining possesion of the rock at times) on 3rd and shorts.


2. In a 2 RB set, the defense will have to spread its focus allowing AP a higher percentage of long runs and fewer stuffs.
I am not sure what everyones fascination is with 2 RB's in the backfield. To what end I say? So you can put one in motion and move him out as a WR? Why not just put in a WR?


3. I expect Gerhart to get more short yardage calls and lower his average disproportionately in comparison.
Agree, see my earlier comments.


As for run splits, AP and CT combined for 19+7=26 carries a game last year. I see AP getting more touches in the passing game this year and the RB split should be nearer to 16AP 10TG, if not in week 1, by week 12 they should see a split like that after Toby shows he has a complete handle on picking up blitzes.
I am inclinded to be more along the lines of a few less reps for AD and a few more for Toby.

Rationale goes along the lines of the staff trying to lengthen AD's career a bit. When one looks at how long RB's last in this league who get close to 300 reps a season, it gets ugly.

With AD coming up on a contract extension (probably end of this year, early next year) the staff is going to want to help in that area a bit is my guess.


I do expect both of these guys to be very effective, and, if the Offensive line comes back around they should be the hands-down best running back duo in the NFL (effectivenes). Williams and Stewart will probably win out for total yards.
Again, I agree. Truth of the matter is, I think we are going to see the staff showcasing the run again this year, atleast early on.

The Noodle CSA'rs won't like to hear that and I think the Noodle and Chiller will get into it again (probably twice) this year if the Chiller thinks the Noodle is audibling out of runs to much this year.

For me, I believe it is a smart thing. If the OL does gel (again) this year, and our running game is better (than 1400 yards), then they will be able to chew up alot of clock, which will keep our D off the field/protected as we weather the loss of the Wall for four games.

i_bleed_purple
05-19-2010, 08:55 AM
Marrdro wrote:



Can you imagine what his yards per carry after contact would be like without those big runs.

All I'm saying is that if he waits on the OL a bit longer to develop the hole, he might get a few more of the big ones.
Barry Sanders has one of the highest all-time career averages. And he did it mostly by himself, he had no blockers for the majority of his time in Detroit. Would you tell Sanders to slow down and wait for holes to develop? No, thats not his style, and its not Peterson's.




If there were holes, then he could break an arm tackle and ACTUALLY HAVE SPACE TO MOVE instead of being immediately tackled by someone else.
Are you trying to tell me that all of his runs, especially his big ones, come from his effort and his effort alone. Peterson is known as a powerful cutback runner. You don't get that label by hitting the hole and running straight ahead. You get that by running to your hole, then finding a gap and making a break for it. Alot of the time, yes, on the long runs there's some great blocking and he can run for 10 yards without being touched, but it seems just as often, he's breaking a tackle or two within the first five yards and then finds daylight.


Not sure I am ready to buy into that my friend. Look I like his efforts and really find him to be an exciting player, but he doesn't do it all alone.

Again, go back and read into the stat just a little bit, mix that with the 1400 yards and you can see that the OL is making him holes. Sometimes. Are you seriously trying to argue.... sorry, you don't argue..... 'discuss' the fact that our OL is responsible for having a good running game? Or maybe its our backs. You use stats to try and claim that there are holes there, but we use our eyeballs. Its clear that our run blocking has suffered this year. There weren't as many holes, Tahi was in the way alot of the time (Thought I'd give that to bite on), and it was tough to get the constant yards we'd like to have. It was alot of all or nothing. Is that to say Peterson was perfect? Absolutely not. However, how many times have we seen Peterson run into a wall of defenders? Or be running outside and have literally nowhere to go? Seems to be more often this year than prior years.




On a side note next to that side note, AD can help in that area if he would allow things to develop a bit mostly because of the ZB scheme. Remember, the OLmen start out to double the guy at the point of attack with one of them disengaging and shifting to the next layer so they can get the LB/S out of the play. Do you really think we have time for Peterson to wait for holes to develop? some games yes, sometimes no. Seems his recent struggles against the 3-4 exemplefies that.

Personally, I don't think we're doing a good job calling the run game. especially against 3-4 teams towards the end of the season when he seemed to struggle a bit. We were running alot of off tackle and outside runs, which are tough to do in the 3-4. We didn't take advantage of the 3 man line and pound it up the middle as much as I'd like. I think with Gerhart we might do that more often, but my point is we're not always putting either of our backs in a great position to succeed.

Prophet
05-19-2010, 08:56 AM
Marrdro wrote:

Prophet wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

...I look to see CT being our nemisis this year.

Yes, RBs always have such an easy time putting up yards against the Vikings in recent years.
Most won't admit it, or simply choose to ignore it, but our team looked damn silly a few times last year when it came to stopping the run.

The Ravens fiasco comes immediately to mind for me.

I bet we have big issues in that area this year.

Seriously? That is a weak argument. That's like saying the #1 RB in the NFL sucks because he had a bunch of 1, 2, or -4 yd carries and ignoring the overall production. Every team gives up some yards on the ground sometime. The bottom-line is how many points are given up anyway.

But, yeah, you're correct. The run defense hasn't been stout in recent years.

2009: Vikings were #2 in least yds given up on the ground. (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=null&archive=false&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=RUSHING&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=RUSHING_YARDS&d-447263-n=1&season=2009&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&d-447263-p=1)

2008: #1 in least yds given up on the ground. (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=null&archive=true&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=RUSHING&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=RUSHING_YARDS&d-447263-n=1&season=2008&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&d-447263-p=1)

2007: #1 in least yds given up on the ground (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=null&archive=true&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=RUSHING&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=RUSHING_YARDS&d-447263-n=1&season=2007&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&d-447263-p=1)

2006: #1 in least yds given up on the ground (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=null&archive=true&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=RUSHING&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=RUSHING_YARDS&d-447263-n=1&season=2006&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&d-447263-p=1)

So, if your prediction is they are going to fall it isn't much of a prediction. When the team was #1 against the rush in 2006-2008 and #2 in 2009 the odds are in favor of them dropping some because there isn't much room for moving up the stat chart in that category.

If the Williams Wall gets the suspension it is a good bet that will slip a bit. Regardless, it is a safe prediction that doesn't warrant the bytes that it consumes on the Internet.

All I care about is the statistic that matters most on defense, points given up. In 2010 the Vikings were in the top 10 (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=null&archive=false&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=TOTAL_POINTS_SCORED&d-447263-n=1&season=2009&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&d-447263-p=1) for least points given up. That is what matters.

Regarding the Bores and CT. I am about as worried about that as I am worried about the ballerina coming up and beating the shit out of me at the next tailgate. I love CT, but am not worried about his threat when the Vikings meet up with the Bores.

Marrdro
05-19-2010, 09:06 AM
Prophet wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Prophet wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

...I look to see CT being our nemisis this year.

Yes, RBs always have such an easy time putting up yards against the Vikings in recent years.
Most won't admit it, or simply choose to ignore it, but our team looked damn silly a few times last year when it came to stopping the run.

The Ravens fiasco comes immediately to mind for me.

I bet we have big issues in that area this year.

Seriously? That is a weak argument. That's like saying the #1 RB in the NFL sucks because he had a bunch of 1, 2, or -4 yd carries and ignoring the overall production. Every team gives up some yards on the ground sometime. The bottom-line is how many points are given up anyway.

But, yeah, you're correct. The run defense hasn't been stout in recent years.

2009: Vikings were #2 in least yds given up on the ground. (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=null&archive=false&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=RUSHING&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=RUSHING_YARDS&d-447263-n=1&season=2009&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&d-447263-p=1)

2008: #1 in least yds given up on the ground. (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=null&archive=true&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=RUSHING&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=RUSHING_YARDS&d-447263-n=1&season=2008&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&d-447263-p=1)

2007: #1 in least yds given up on the ground (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=null&archive=true&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=RUSHING&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=RUSHING_YARDS&d-447263-n=1&season=2007&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&d-447263-p=1)

2006: #1 in least yds given up on the ground (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=null&archive=true&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=RUSHING&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=RUSHING_YARDS&d-447263-n=1&season=2006&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&d-447263-p=1)

So, if your prediction is they are going to fall it isn't much of a prediction. When the team was #1 against the rush in 2006-2008 and #2 in 2009 the odds are in favor of them dropping some because there isn't much room for moving up the stat chart in that category.

If the Williams Wall gets the suspension it is a good bet that will slip a bit. Regardless, it is a safe prediction that doesn't warrant the bytes that it consumes on the Internet.

All I care about is the statistic that matters most on defense, points given up. In 2010 the Vikings were in the top 10 (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=null&archive=false&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=TOTAL_POINTS_SCORED&d-447263-n=1&season=2009&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&d-447263-p=1) for least points given up. That is what matters.

Regarding the Bores and CT. I am about as worried about that as I am worried about the ballerina coming up and beating the shit out of me at the next tailgate. I love CT, but am not worried about his threat when the Vikings meet up with the Bores.'
Its always fun to look back at history and use it as a sounding board for an opinion.

In short, have we been stellar the past few years? Yes and its been fun to watch, but when I watch games like the Ravens game last year, I didn't see a defense ranked #1 or even #2 for that matter.

Like it or not, Rice ate up JA and Kdubb late in that game as he gouged us for huge yards, basically bringing them right back into a game that was basically over.

Absolutely embarrasssssing to watch a team, down so much that they should be in a "Pass first to catch up" mode do the exact opposite and run it up our ass.

By the way, if points are the only thing that matters, how many points did the Ravens put up late in that game? Glad it wasn't at least 3 more.

Prophet
05-19-2010, 09:11 AM
Marrdro wrote:

Prophet wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Prophet wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

...I look to see CT being our nemisis this year.

Yes, RBs always have such an easy time putting up yards against the Vikings in recent years.
Most won't admit it, or simply choose to ignore it, but our team looked damn silly a few times last year when it came to stopping the run.

The Ravens fiasco comes immediately to mind for me.

I bet we have big issues in that area this year.

Seriously? That is a weak argument. That's like saying the #1 RB in the NFL sucks because he had a bunch of 1, 2, or -4 yd carries and ignoring the overall production. Every team gives up some yards on the ground sometime. The bottom-line is how many points are given up anyway.

But, yeah, you're correct. The run defense hasn't been stout in recent years.

2009: Vikings were #2 in least yds given up on the ground. (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=null&archive=false&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=RUSHING&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=RUSHING_YARDS&d-447263-n=1&season=2009&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&d-447263-p=1)

2008: #1 in least yds given up on the ground. (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=null&archive=true&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=RUSHING&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=RUSHING_YARDS&d-447263-n=1&season=2008&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&d-447263-p=1)

2007: #1 in least yds given up on the ground (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=null&archive=true&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=RUSHING&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=RUSHING_YARDS&d-447263-n=1&season=2007&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&d-447263-p=1)

2006: #1 in least yds given up on the ground (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=null&archive=true&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=RUSHING&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=RUSHING_YARDS&d-447263-n=1&season=2006&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&d-447263-p=1)

So, if your prediction is they are going to fall it isn't much of a prediction. When the team was #1 against the rush in 2006-2008 and #2 in 2009 the odds are in favor of them dropping some because there isn't much room for moving up the stat chart in that category.

If the Williams Wall gets the suspension it is a good bet that will slip a bit. Regardless, it is a safe prediction that doesn't warrant the bytes that it consumes on the Internet.

All I care about is the statistic that matters most on defense, points given up. In 2010 the Vikings were in the top 10 (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=null&archive=false&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=TOTAL_POINTS_SCORED&d-447263-n=1&season=2009&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&d-447263-p=1) for least points given up. That is what matters.

Regarding the Bores and CT. I am about as worried about that as I am worried about the ballerina coming up and beating the shit out of me at the next tailgate. I love CT, but am not worried about his threat when the Vikings meet up with the Bores.'
Its always fun to look back at history and use it as a sounding board for an opinion.

In short, have we been stellar the past few years? Yes and its been fun to watch, but when I watch games like the Ravens game last year, I didn't see a defense ranked #1 or even #2 for that matter.

Like it or not, Rice ate up JA and Kdubb late in that game as he gouged us for huge yards, basically bringing them right back into a game that was basically over.

Absolutely embarrasssssing to watch a team, down so much that they should be in a "Pass first to catch up" mode do the exact opposite and run it up our ass.

By the way, if points are the only thing that matters, how many points did the Ravens put up late in that game? Glad it wasn't at least 3 more.

N=1. My point stands, you don't come in as #2 against the run in a 16 game season because your run defense sucks. There are always anomalies in football, but, you have to look at the bigger picture to see if the anomaly is a trend.

Your prediction of the run defense sliding is like me predicting that we will get rain in the next month sometime. It is a safe bet and worthless, especially when you look at the full season(s). I'm not worried about the run defense on a relative basis to other concerns on the team. I am definitely not worried about the run defense in the context of CT and the Bores.

i_bleed_purple
05-19-2010, 09:12 AM
iMarrdro wrote:

Prophet wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Prophet wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

...I look to see CT being our nemisis this year.

Yes, RBs always have such an easy time putting up yards against the Vikings in recent years.
Most won't admit it, or simply choose to ignore it, but our team looked damn silly a few times last year when it came to stopping the run.

The Ravens fiasco comes immediately to mind for me.

I bet we have big issues in that area this year.

Seriously? That is a weak argument. That's like saying the #1 RB in the NFL sucks because he had a bunch of 1, 2, or -4 yd carries and ignoring the overall production. Every team gives up some yards on the ground sometime. The bottom-line is how many points are given up anyway.

But, yeah, you're correct. The run defense hasn't been stout in recent years.

2009: Vikings were #2 in least yds given up on the ground. (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=null&archive=false&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=RUSHING&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=RUSHING_YARDS&d-447263-n=1&season=2009&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&d-447263-p=1)

2008: #1 in least yds given up on the ground. (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=null&archive=true&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=RUSHING&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=RUSHING_YARDS&d-447263-n=1&season=2008&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&d-447263-p=1)

2007: #1 in least yds given up on the ground (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=null&archive=true&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=RUSHING&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=RUSHING_YARDS&d-447263-n=1&season=2007&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&d-447263-p=1)

2006: #1 in least yds given up on the ground (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=null&archive=true&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=RUSHING&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=RUSHING_YARDS&d-447263-n=1&season=2006&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&d-447263-p=1)

So, if your prediction is they are going to fall it isn't much of a prediction. When the team was #1 against the rush in 2006-2008 and #2 in 2009 the odds are in favor of them dropping some because there isn't much room for moving up the stat chart in that category.

If the Williams Wall gets the suspension it is a good bet that will slip a bit. Regardless, it is a safe prediction that doesn't warrant the bytes that it consumes on the Internet.

All I care about is the statistic that matters most on defense, points given up. In 2010 the Vikings were in the top 10 (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=null&archive=false&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=TOTAL_POINTS_SCORED&d-447263-n=1&season=2009&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&d-447263-p=1) for least points given up. That is what matters.

Regarding the Bores and CT. I am about as worried about that as I am worried about the ballerina coming up and beating the shit out of me at the next tailgate. I love CT, but am not worried about his threat when the Vikings meet up with the Bores.'
Its always fun to look back at history and use it as a sounding board for an opinion.

In short, have we been stellar the past few years? Yes and its been fun to watch, but when I watch games like the Ravens game last year, I didn't see a defense ranked #1 or even #2 for that matter.

Like it or not, Rice ate up JA and Kdubb late in that game as he gouged us for huge yards, basically bringing them right back into a game that was basically over.

Absolutely embarrasssssing to watch a team, down so much that they should be in a "Pass first to catch up" mode do the exact opposite and run it up our ass.

By the way, if points are the only thing that matters, how many points did the Ravens put up late in that game? Glad it wasn't at least 3 more.

if we're only going to bring up one game, can I bring up the one tackle Madieu and TJ2 missed, or the one block Tahi missed? How about the one time Cook got flagged? Or possibly the one block that Richardson and Birk did make?

Since we're judging the play of players or entire units by only one game, Jerome Harrison is one of the best backs ever, the 49ers defense has without a doubt the best run defense in the league, and Madieu Williams hits like a truck

i_bleed_purple
05-19-2010, 09:14 AM
Prophet wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Prophet wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Prophet wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

...I look to see CT being our nemisis this year.

Yes, RBs always have such an easy time putting up yards against the Vikings in recent years.
Most won't admit it, or simply choose to ignore it, but our team looked damn silly a few times last year when it came to stopping the run.

The Ravens fiasco comes immediately to mind for me.

I bet we have big issues in that area this year.

Seriously? That is a weak argument. That's like saying the #1 RB in the NFL sucks because he had a bunch of 1, 2, or -4 yd carries and ignoring the overall production. Every team gives up some yards on the ground sometime. The bottom-line is how many points are given up anyway.

But, yeah, you're correct. The run defense hasn't been stout in recent years.

2009: Vikings were #2 in least yds given up on the ground. (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=null&archive=false&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=RUSHING&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=RUSHING_YARDS&d-447263-n=1&season=2009&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&d-447263-p=1)

2008: #1 in least yds given up on the ground. (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=null&archive=true&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=RUSHING&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=RUSHING_YARDS&d-447263-n=1&season=2008&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&d-447263-p=1)

2007: #1 in least yds given up on the ground (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=null&archive=true&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=RUSHING&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=RUSHING_YARDS&d-447263-n=1&season=2007&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&d-447263-p=1)

2006: #1 in least yds given up on the ground (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=null&archive=true&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=RUSHING&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=RUSHING_YARDS&d-447263-n=1&season=2006&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&d-447263-p=1)

So, if your prediction is they are going to fall it isn't much of a prediction. When the team was #1 against the rush in 2006-2008 and #2 in 2009 the odds are in favor of them dropping some because there isn't much room for moving up the stat chart in that category.

If the Williams Wall gets the suspension it is a good bet that will slip a bit. Regardless, it is a safe prediction that doesn't warrant the bytes that it consumes on the Internet.

All I care about is the statistic that matters most on defense, points given up. In 2010 the Vikings were in the top 10 (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=null&archive=false&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=TOTAL_POINTS_SCORED&d-447263-n=1&season=2009&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&d-447263-p=1) for least points given up. That is what matters.

Regarding the Bores and CT. I am about as worried about that as I am worried about the ballerina coming up and beating the shit out of me at the next tailgate. I love CT, but am not worried about his threat when the Vikings meet up with the Bores.'
Its always fun to look back at history and use it as a sounding board for an opinion.

In short, have we been stellar the past few years? Yes and its been fun to watch, but when I watch games like the Ravens game last year, I didn't see a defense ranked #1 or even #2 for that matter.

Like it or not, Rice ate up JA and Kdubb late in that game as he gouged us for huge yards, basically bringing them right back into a game that was basically over.

Absolutely embarrasssssing to watch a team, down so much that they should be in a "Pass first to catch up" mode do the exact opposite and run it up our ass.

By the way, if points are the only thing that matters, how many points did the Ravens put up late in that game? Glad it wasn't at least 3 more.

N=1. My point stands, you don't come in as #2 against the run in a 16 game season because your run defense sucks. There are always anomalies in football, but, you have to look at the bigger picture to see if the anomaly is a trend.

Your prediction of the run defense sliding is like me predicting that we will get rain in the next month sometime. It is a safe bet and worthless, especially when you look at the full season(s). I'm not worried about the run defense on a relative basis to other concerns on the team. I am definitely not worried about the run defense in the context of CT and the Bores.

keep in mind this is also the Bores. the same team that couldn't block for one of the 'top backs in the league*'

Wait, I thought CT and AD didn't do everything by themselves? If thats true, then CT would have next to no chance of succeeding as a bear.

Marrdro
05-19-2010, 09:20 AM
i_bleed_purple wrote:

Barry Sanders has one of the highest all-time career averages. And he did it mostly by himself, he had no blockers for the majority of his time in Detroit. Would you tell Sanders to slow down and wait for holes to develop? No, thats not his style, and its not Peterson's.

Are you really going to try to use Barry and a OL that blocked Hat on Hat as a discussion point here?

Barry was fun to watch. I loved to watch him dance around, however, the reason why he could dance around was because the OL engaged and stayed engaged in that scheme. In a ZB scheme, the concept is to double at the point of attack and then one of the doubles disengages and goes to the next level so that a one cut back, can hit that hole.

Barry wasn't that style of runner.


Peterson is known as a powerful cutback runner. You don't get that label by hitting the hole and running straight ahead. You get that by running to your hole, then finding a gap and making a break for it. Alot of the time, yes, on the long runs there's some great blocking and he can run for 10 yards without being touched, but it seems just as often, he's breaking a tackle or two within the first five yards and then finds daylight.
But you don't find that hole in a ZB scheme if you don't allow the linemen to do thier job.

Again, scheme wise you need to let things develop and be ready to hit it when it does.


Sometimes. Are you seriously trying to argue.... sorry, you don't argue..... 'discuss' the fact that our OL is responsible for having a good running game? Or maybe its our backs. You use stats to try and claim that there are holes there, but we use our eyeballs. Its clear that our run blocking has suffered this year.
But you see, I am laying the blame at the whole offenses feet, starting with the play calling, moving down to the OL and then the backs.

No were do I say that our OL doesn't have issues and have pointed out why I think our RB's degraded last year (Sully/PL new/Injury Hutch/Big Mac being Big Mac).


There weren't as many holes, Tahi was in the way alot of the time (Thought I'd give that to bite on), and it was tough to get the constant yards we'd like to have.
How many yards would you like? Most backs are happy to get a grand. AD had 1400.

Your point about Tahi being in the way can also be said about our OLmen. How many times did you see AD hit the hole only to run into the back of one of our OLmen. Again, a bit of patience might have allowed the blocker to dissengage and get to the next level. And yes, that even means your boy Tahi.


It was alot of all or nothing. Is that to say Peterson was perfect? Absolutely not. However, how many times have we seen Peterson run into a wall of defenders? Or be running outside and have literally nowhere to go? Seems to be more often this year than prior years.
Not disagreeing. The outside comment is telling as well. You blame the OLmen, I blame the WRs for some of that as well.

Again, even though our WR's have been heralded as great run blockers, we show some CB's and S's making plays at the line. At some point, someone would count hats and find out that 2 T's/2 G's and 1 C = 5. Even the slowest of slow would admit that maybe just maybe it isn't only the OL having problems blocking.


Personally, I don't think we're doing a good job calling the run game. especially against 3-4 teams towards the end of the season when he seemed to struggle a bit. We were running alot of off tackle and outside runs, which are tough to do in the 3-4. We didn't take advantage of the 3 man line and pound it up the middle as much as I'd like. I think with Gerhart we might do that more often, but my point is we're not always putting either of our backs in a great position to succeed.
I find nothing to discuss in there as I agree, however, I would like to add, that a ZB'ng team, going against a 3-4, is a prime example of why a RB should wait on his blockers. If the double doesn't disgengage (say double on the nose by the LG/C shaded to the left) and get to the LB, the RB will have 2 LB'rs he has to make miss instead of one and there won't even be a sniff of a hole to hit, which might make him bounce to the outside a bit more often than not. ;)

Marrdro
05-19-2010, 09:24 AM
i_bleed_purple wrote:

Prophet wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Prophet wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Prophet wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

...I look to see CT being our nemisis this year.

Yes, RBs always have such an easy time putting up yards against the Vikings in recent years.
Most won't admit it, or simply choose to ignore it, but our team looked damn silly a few times last year when it came to stopping the run.

The Ravens fiasco comes immediately to mind for me.

I bet we have big issues in that area this year.

Seriously? That is a weak argument. That's like saying the #1 RB in the NFL sucks because he had a bunch of 1, 2, or -4 yd carries and ignoring the overall production. Every team gives up some yards on the ground sometime. The bottom-line is how many points are given up anyway.

But, yeah, you're correct. The run defense hasn't been stout in recent years.

2009: Vikings were #2 in least yds given up on the ground. (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=null&archive=false&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=RUSHING&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=RUSHING_YARDS&d-447263-n=1&season=2009&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&d-447263-p=1)

2008: #1 in least yds given up on the ground. (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=null&archive=true&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=RUSHING&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=RUSHING_YARDS&d-447263-n=1&season=2008&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&d-447263-p=1)

2007: #1 in least yds given up on the ground (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=null&archive=true&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=RUSHING&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=RUSHING_YARDS&d-447263-n=1&season=2007&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&d-447263-p=1)

2006: #1 in least yds given up on the ground (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=null&archive=true&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=RUSHING&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=RUSHING_YARDS&d-447263-n=1&season=2006&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&d-447263-p=1)

So, if your prediction is they are going to fall it isn't much of a prediction. When the team was #1 against the rush in 2006-2008 and #2 in 2009 the odds are in favor of them dropping some because there isn't much room for moving up the stat chart in that category.

If the Williams Wall gets the suspension it is a good bet that will slip a bit. Regardless, it is a safe prediction that doesn't warrant the bytes that it consumes on the Internet.

All I care about is the statistic that matters most on defense, points given up. In 2010 the Vikings were in the top 10 (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=null&archive=false&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=TOTAL_POINTS_SCORED&d-447263-n=1&season=2009&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&d-447263-p=1) for least points given up. That is what matters.

Regarding the Bores and CT. I am about as worried about that as I am worried about the ballerina coming up and beating the shit out of me at the next tailgate. I love CT, but am not worried about his threat when the Vikings meet up with the Bores.'
Its always fun to look back at history and use it as a sounding board for an opinion.

In short, have we been stellar the past few years? Yes and its been fun to watch, but when I watch games like the Ravens game last year, I didn't see a defense ranked #1 or even #2 for that matter.

Like it or not, Rice ate up JA and Kdubb late in that game as he gouged us for huge yards, basically bringing them right back into a game that was basically over.

Absolutely embarrasssssing to watch a team, down so much that they should be in a "Pass first to catch up" mode do the exact opposite and run it up our ass.

By the way, if points are the only thing that matters, how many points did the Ravens put up late in that game? Glad it wasn't at least 3 more.

N=1. My point stands, you don't come in as #2 against the run in a 16 game season because your run defense sucks. There are always anomalies in football, but, you have to look at the bigger picture to see if the anomaly is a trend.

Your prediction of the run defense sliding is like me predicting that we will get rain in the next month sometime. It is a safe bet and worthless, especially when you look at the full season(s). I'm not worried about the run defense on a relative basis to other concerns on the team. I am definitely not worried about the run defense in the context of CT and the Bores.

keep in mind this is also the Bores. the same team that couldn't block for one of the 'top backs in the league*'

Wait, I thought CT and AD didn't do everything by themselves? If thats true, then CT would have next to no chance of succeeding as a bear.
You should go see what the Bores have done on the offensive side of the ball this year. I don't think they or the Lions will be a cakewalk this year.

i_bleed_purple
05-19-2010, 09:32 AM
Marrdro wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

Barry Sanders has one of the highest all-time career averages. And he did it mostly by himself, he had no blockers for the majority of his time in Detroit. Would you tell Sanders to slow down and wait for holes to develop? No, thats not his style, and its not Peterson's.

Are you really going to try to use Barry and a OL that blocked Hat on Hat as a discussion point here?

Barry was fun to watch. I loved to watch him dance around, however, the reason why he could dance around was because the OL engaged and stayed engaged in that scheme. In a ZB scheme, the concept is to double at the point of attack and then one of the doubles disengages and goes to the next level so that a one cut back, can hit that hole.

Barry wasn't that style of runner.
were you watching the same Barry? You make it sound like his blockers did a great job of staying on their man and taking him out of the play, letting Barry dance around motionless defenders. Not the case. Barry was CONSTANTLY hit in the backfield, more than Peterson, he could weasel away from them though, and get nice gains.




Peterson is known as a powerful cutback runner. You don't get that label by hitting the hole and running straight ahead. You get that by running to your hole, then finding a gap and making a break for it. Alot of the time, yes, on the long runs there's some great blocking and he can run for 10 yards without being touched, but it seems just as often, he's breaking a tackle or two within the first five yards and then finds daylight.
But you don't find that hole in a ZB scheme if you don't allow the linemen to do thier job.

Again, scheme wise you need to let things develop and be ready to hit it when it does. You succeeded in avoiding really answering my question. If Peterson has style a, and our scheme calls for b, maybe the scheme needs to be adjusted. Square pegs in round holes.




There weren't as many holes, Tahi was in the way alot of the time (Thought I'd give that to bite on), and it was tough to get the constant yards we'd like to have.
How many yards would you like? Most backs are happy to get a grand. AD had 1400.by consistent yards, I don't mean lots of yards at the end of the day, I mean consistently getting 3-4 yards. If you take away the top 10% of Peterson's runs, I bet his average would be about 2-3 yards. Peterson gets yards and a high average by wearing out D's with short gains, then breaking off a couple big runs. He's not the kind of runner to get 3-5 yards on average per carry. Why? We don't have the blocking. He's being hit nearly immediately.



Your point about Tahi being in the way can also be said about our OLmen. How many times did you see AD hit the hole only to run into the back of one of our OLmen. Again, a bit of patience might have allowed the blocker to dissengage and get to the next level. And yes, that even means your boy Tahi. Maybe, ,or perhaps some stronger blocking would avoid tha thole in the first place.

Watch the Titans and CJ run the ball. CJ really had it easy. They did a great job blocking, and CJ wasn't asked to dance around for 5 minutes in the backfield just to get back to the line. He'd take the handoff, the hole is there, then he'd use his incredible speed and accelleration to make defenses pay. He's no Barry Sanders. He doesn't have incredible moves, he had great blocking, and great burst.

If Peterson had the holes to hit full speed like CJ did, He'd be damn close to 2K this season too.



It was alot of all or nothing. Is that to say Peterson was perfect? Absolutely not. However, how many times have we seen Peterson run into a wall of defenders? Or be running outside and have literally nowhere to go? Seems to be more often this year than prior years.
Not disagreeing. The outside comment is telling as well. You blame the OLmen, I blame the WRs for some of that as well.

Again, even though our WR's have been heralded as great run blockers, we show some CB's and S's making plays at the line. At some point, someone would count hats and find out that 2 T's/2 G's and 1 C = 5. Even the slowest of slow would admit that maybe just maybe it isn't only the OL having problems blocking. Yes, but WR's don't often block LB's unless they're doing a specific play that calls for them blocking in on a LB. For the most part they're lined up on corners and safeties. The LB's did a great job flowing to the ball and swarming Peterson.




Personally, I don't think we're doing a good job calling the run game. especially against 3-4 teams towards the end of the season when he seemed to struggle a bit. We were running alot of off tackle and outside runs, which are tough to do in the 3-4. We didn't take advantage of the 3 man line and pound it up the middle as much as I'd like. I think with Gerhart we might do that more often, but my point is we're not always putting either of our backs in a great position to succeed.
I find nothing to discuss in there as I agree, however, I would like to add, that a ZB'ng team, going against a 3-4, is a prime example of why a RB should wait on his blockers. If the double doesn't disgengage (say double on the nose by the LG/C shaded to the left) and get to the LB, the RB will have 2 LB'rs he has to make miss instead of one and there won't even be a sniff of a hole to hit, which might make him bounce to the outside a bit more often than not. ;)

I disagree. based on what I see, and basic run philosophy vs. the 3-4, we need to just run up the gut. against a well executed 3-4, if you wait in the backfield for holes, LB's will get you. Running up the gut, against a 3 man line will soften up the D for you. There will be some short gains there, don't expect huge things, but it will take some of the focus off the outside. From there, counters, cutbacks, play action and misdirection can be very effective. We didn't do that, we'd run outside all day and wonder why Peterson only has 35 yards on 18 carries.

jmcdon00
05-19-2010, 12:11 PM
Marrdro wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:
[quote]I disagree, being the back up to the best back in the league should only help. Peterson wears on the defense. Not to mention CT was playing mostly in passing situations. There were a bunch of guys right around 100 carries that had higher ypc.

You disagree that he is the best back when I said the second best?.....or do you mean that AD softens them up for CT?

AD softens them up for CT. Running on pass situations should net a higher ypc than running on run situations. Fewer carries should also mean fresher legs.
Look at Willis McGahee, Willie Parker, felix jones. Guys that were 2nd string and got a similar number of carries as CT and had much more success.
I think CT could have 1,000yards this year, but I doubt he avereages more than 4ypc.

marshallvike
05-19-2010, 01:42 PM
jmcdon00 wrote:


Marrdro wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:
[quote]I disagree, being the back up to the best back in the league should only help. Peterson wears on the defense. Not to mention CT was playing mostly in passing situations. There were a bunch of guys right around 100 carries that had higher ypc.

You disagree that he is the best back when I said the second best?.....or do you mean that AD softens them up for CT?

AD softens them up for CT. Running on pass situations should net a higher ypc than running on run situations. Fewer carries should also mean fresher legs.
Look at Willis McGahee, Willie Parker, felix jones. Guys that were 2nd string and got a similar number of carries as CT and had much more success.
I think CT could have 1,000yards this year, but I doubt he avereages more than 4ypc.

He is not likely to avg over 4 ypc this year. that is not because of his ability, it is because the bears have one of the worst o-lines in the league. Cutler is not as bad as he looked last year either. that line is horrid.

Marrdro
05-19-2010, 01:50 PM
marshallvike wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:


Marrdro wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:
[quote]I disagree, being the back up to the best back in the league should only help. Peterson wears on the defense. Not to mention CT was playing mostly in passing situations. There were a bunch of guys right around 100 carries that had higher ypc.

You disagree that he is the best back when I said the second best?.....or do you mean that AD softens them up for CT?

AD softens them up for CT. Running on pass situations should net a higher ypc than running on run situations. Fewer carries should also mean fresher legs.
Look at Willis McGahee, Willie Parker, felix jones. Guys that were 2nd string and got a similar number of carries as CT and had much more success.
I think CT could have 1,000yards this year, but I doubt he avereages more than 4ypc.

He is not likely to avg over 4 ypc this year. that is not because of his ability, it is because the bears have one of the worst o-lines in the league. Cutler is not as bad as he looked last year either. that line is horrid.

RT Kevin Shaffer James Marten
RG Roberto Garza
C Olin Kreutz
LG Frank Omiyale Josh Beekman
LT Chris Williams Lance Louis J'Marcus Webb

Center. I don't think Olin is that bad.
LT - I think Williams is a better fit at RT instead of LT because of his back issues.
T - I liked what I read about Webb. Even though he was still available in the 7th, he might suprise some of us.

My guess, they will find a mix in there that will give just enough protection for the QB as he start down the path of working in the Martz system.....

.....which by the way, doesn't need much of an OL to work as it is predicated on alot of short, fast release type of throws mixed in with a little running and a little deep stuff.

Prophet
05-19-2010, 01:54 PM
Marrdro wrote:

marshallvike wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:


Marrdro wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:
[quote]I disagree, being the back up to the best back in the league should only help. Peterson wears on the defense. Not to mention CT was playing mostly in passing situations. There were a bunch of guys right around 100 carries that had higher ypc.

You disagree that he is the best back when I said the second best?.....or do you mean that AD softens them up for CT?

AD softens them up for CT. Running on pass situations should net a higher ypc than running on run situations. Fewer carries should also mean fresher legs.
Look at Willis McGahee, Willie Parker, felix jones. Guys that were 2nd string and got a similar number of carries as CT and had much more success.
I think CT could have 1,000yards this year, but I doubt he avereages more than 4ypc.

He is not likely to avg over 4 ypc this year. that is not because of his ability, it is because the bears have one of the worst o-lines in the league. Cutler is not as bad as he looked last year either. that line is horrid.

RT Kevin Shaffer James Marten
RG Roberto Garza
C Olin Kreutz
LG Frank Omiyale Josh Beekman
LT Chris Williams Lance Louis J'Marcus Webb

Center. I don't think Olin is that bad.
LT - I think Williams is a better fit at RT instead of LT because of his back issues.
T - I liked what I read about Webb. Even though he was still available in the 7th, he might suprise some of us.

My guess, they will find a mix in there that will give just enough protection for the QB as he start down the path of working in the Martz system.....

.....which by the way, doesn't need much of an OL to work as it is predicated on alot of short, fast release type of throws mixed in with a little running and a little deep stuff.

You really pulled some stuff from your sphincter in that post. The only thing you can bank on for sure is that Martz will be looking for a job after this year. He is a joke and the best thing that happened in the NFCN was the Bores hiring a guy to run the show that has made his career off of riding the coattails of others. Martz alone is all you need to know about the Bores and you know they are going nowhere soon.

marshallvike
05-19-2010, 02:06 PM
Marrdro wrote:

marshallvike wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:


Marrdro wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:
[quote]I disagree, being the back up to the best back in the league should only help. Peterson wears on the defense. Not to mention CT was playing mostly in passing situations. There were a bunch of guys right around 100 carries that had higher ypc.

You disagree that he is the best back when I said the second best?.....or do you mean that AD softens them up for CT?

AD softens them up for CT. Running on pass situations should net a higher ypc than running on run situations. Fewer carries should also mean fresher legs.
Look at Willis McGahee, Willie Parker, felix jones. Guys that were 2nd string and got a similar number of carries as CT and had much more success.
I think CT could have 1,000yards this year, but I doubt he avereages more than 4ypc.

He is not likely to avg over 4 ypc this year. that is not because of his ability, it is because the bears have one of the worst o-lines in the league. Cutler is not as bad as he looked last year either. that line is horrid.

RT Kevin Shaffer James Marten
RG Roberto Garza
C Olin Kreutz
LG Frank Omiyale Josh Beekman
LT Chris Williams Lance Louis J'Marcus Webb

Center. I don't think Olin is that bad.
LT - I think Williams is a better fit at RT instead of LT because of his back issues.
T - I liked what I read about Webb. Even though he was still available in the 7th, he might suprise some of us.

My guess, they will find a mix in there that will give just enough protection for the QB as he start down the path of working in the Martz system.....

.....which by the way, doesn't need much of an OL to work as it is predicated on alot of short, fast release type of throws mixed in with a little running and a little deep stuff.
olin is not bad,and he has a nice mean streak, but he has been around a long while. he is not the player he once was.(do not say Birk).
short arms williams is a better right than left. unfortunately for the bores, he's their left.
webb is not likely to surprise us this year.
I do agree Martz will get Jay to get rid of the ball quicker, relieving some pressure on the line, but, they are also weak in the WR dept forcing him to hold onto it longer than martzy wants him to.

i_bleed_purple
05-19-2010, 02:25 PM
Marrdro wrote:

marshallvike wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:


Marrdro wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:
[quote]I disagree, being the back up to the best back in the league should only help. Peterson wears on the defense. Not to mention CT was playing mostly in passing situations. There were a bunch of guys right around 100 carries that had higher ypc.

You disagree that he is the best back when I said the second best?.....or do you mean that AD softens them up for CT?

AD softens them up for CT. Running on pass situations should net a higher ypc than running on run situations. Fewer carries should also mean fresher legs.
Look at Willis McGahee, Willie Parker, felix jones. Guys that were 2nd string and got a similar number of carries as CT and had much more success.
I think CT could have 1,000yards this year, but I doubt he avereages more than 4ypc.

He is not likely to avg over 4 ypc this year. that is not because of his ability, it is because the bears have one of the worst o-lines in the league. Cutler is not as bad as he looked last year either. that line is horrid.

RT Kevin Shaffer James Marten
RG Roberto Garza
C Olin Kreutz
LG Frank Omiyale Josh Beekman
LT Chris Williams Lance Louis J'Marcus Webb

Center. I don't think Olin is that bad.
LT - I think Williams is a better fit at RT instead of LT because of his back issues.
T - I liked what I read about Webb. Even though he was still available in the 7th, he might suprise some of us.

My guess, they will find a mix in there that will give just enough protection for the QB as he start down the path of working in the Martz system.....

.....which by the way, doesn't need much of an OL to work as it is predicated on alot of short, fast release type of throws mixed in with a little running and a little deep stuff.

no offense, but that post is pure bs. Sure, maybe with a couple fixes, and the right people playing to potential, they could be decent. Same is true for any team. Fact is, they aren't. The biggest knock against Lovie Smith from Bears fans is his inability to use players properly and to their strengths. As well, a lack of adjustments. They insist on throwing deep balls to receivers better suited as slot guys (Hester), They don't fix their OL at all, and rely on it just suddenly working.

Lovie's philosophy is "There's still alot of football left to play" meaning, lots of time to get it right, until week 17 rolls around and they're not in the playoffs, then its 'oh shit, maybe next year'.

I don't expect much from Taylor at all, I expect he'll have less production than Forte did by far.