PDA

View Full Version : Asiata/McKinnon



BadlandsVikings
11-04-2014, 11:44 AM
Would there be anything wrong with the Vikings going with running back by committee and completely forgetting about what's his name? Asiata reminds me of Leroy Hoard, if you need 3 yards he'll get you 3 yards

tastywaves
11-04-2014, 11:50 AM
Would there be anything wrong with the Vikings going with running back by committee and completely forgetting about what's his name? Asiata reminds me of Leroy Hoard, if you need 3 yards he'll get you 3 yards

If you don't value the running game and buy into the philosophy that it's strictly a passing league, they are fine. At least for the handful of teams that have figured out how to throw the ball effectively week after week. Which MN is not.

AD is a difference maker, McKinnon and Asiata are JAG's.

C Mac D
11-04-2014, 12:01 PM
If you don't value the running game and buy into the philosophy that it's strictly a passing league, they are fine. At least for the handful of teams that have figured out how to throw the ball effectively week after week. Which MN is not.

AD is a difference maker, McKinnon and Asiata are JAG's.

Problem is, it's a different league. 10-15 years ago, Peterson would help us get to a SB... but the changes in rules and concerns about concussions have made the RB position less important to an offensive gameplan.

Even with a 2,000 yard rusher, we barely made the playoffs in 2012... then got laughed out in the first round against Green Bay. Hell, the only reason we even made the playoffs is because Green Bay was resting their defense in week 17.

Having Peterson does not make us a SB contender.

BadlandsVikings
11-04-2014, 12:07 PM
Having Peterson does not make us a SB contender.

They also have nothing else that makes them even closely looking like a playoff contender

tastywaves
11-04-2014, 12:52 PM
Problem is, it's a different league. 10-15 years ago, Peterson would help us get to a SB... but the changes in rules and concerns about concussions have made the RB position less important to an offensive gameplan.

Even with a 2,000 yard rusher, we barely made the playoffs in 2012... then got laughed out in the first round against Green Bay. Hell, the only reason we even made the playoffs is because Green Bay was resting their defense in week 17.

Having Peterson does not make us a SB contender.

The RB position is just a piece, but it is still an important piece. AD is not required to win a SB, but it is naive to think he doesn't help to achieve that goal.

Now if you are saying that his $12M salary or whatever would be better served on getting in a number of other players, then maybe I could go down that path depending on who the players end up being. Same could be said with the likes of Megatron, Mike Wallace, Andre Johson, Larry Fitzgerald,... It is a team sport in the end, but it is the stars that make a difference in key games.

kingpin9995
11-04-2014, 01:12 PM
You guys have lost your marbles.. How soon we forget what Peterson meant to the VIkings. The O line was exposed for what it is without the threat of Peterson on every defenders mind. Peterson opens up the passing game like no other back can do. Peterson is a threat to take it to the house on every single carry. Peterson in the backfield running the read option with Bridgewater would be a night mare for defenses. Peterson is a horse in the likes of the guy in Seattle .. Opps did they win a Superbowl with average receivers and a very good defense like the VIkings are starting to build? The running game is becoming more important as defenses are finding ways to work around all the rules to make the passing games more successful. With Peterson the VIkings are at least 6-3 at the break... and there really is not a team to fear in the NFC right now.. You bunch of JUDAS'S

BadlandsVikings
11-04-2014, 01:19 PM
Nobody has lost their marbles..if he would just be injuried people would feel differently

tastywaves
11-04-2014, 01:25 PM
Here is what happened to teams who got 100 yard games out of their top RB's last week:


As a result, Week 9 had only three backs with 100-yard games. Mark Ingram had 100 yards for the New Orleans Saints on Thursday. The Cincinnati Bengals' Jeremy Hill had 154 in a 33-23 win over the Jacksonville Jaguars. LeSean McCoy had 117 for Philadelphia.

All W's.

tastywaves
11-04-2014, 01:26 PM
Nobody has lost their marbles..if he would just be injuried people would feel differently

Now, that is a whole different discussion. I thought this was about football. Now about our moral beliefs.

bleedpurple
11-04-2014, 01:27 PM
You guys have lost your marbles.. How soon we forget what Peterson meant to the VIkings. The O line was exposed for what it is without the threat of Peterson on every defenders mind. Peterson opens up the passing game like no other back can do. Peterson is a threat to take it to the house on every single carry. Peterson in the backfield running the read option with Bridgewater would be a night mare for defenses. Peterson is a horse in the likes of the guy in Seattle .. Opps did they win a Superbowl with average receivers and a very good defense like the VIkings are starting to build? The running game is becoming more important as defenses are finding ways to work around all the rules to make the passing games more successful. With Peterson the VIkings are at least 6-3 at the break... and there really is not a team to fear in the NFC right now.. You bunch of JUDAS'S

totally agree

bleedpurple
11-04-2014, 01:28 PM
Now, that is a whole different discussion. I thought this was about football. Now about our moral beliefs.

but he's not injured... he's sitting at home collecting dust. and if he comes back for the stretch we will be a better team for it... plus he has fresh legs.... imagine what he could do for Teddy and the passing game...

BadlandsVikings
11-04-2014, 01:40 PM
Now, that is a whole different discussion. I thought this was about football. Now about our moral beliefs.


True... I don't give a crap what people do in their personal lives but with him being out for so long he's a waste of roster space

purplehelmut
11-04-2014, 01:59 PM
Having a top two or three player at any position cannot but help a team's chances of winning games. Having arguably the best RB in the league still makes defenses respect the run thus opening up passing opportunities. The NFL may have evolved into a pass friendly league, but a tough running game is still important. Versatility on offense is definitely a plus.

C Mac D
11-04-2014, 02:15 PM
You guys have lost your marbles.. How soon we forget what Peterson meant to the VIkings. The O line was exposed for what it is without the threat of Peterson on every defenders mind. Peterson opens up the passing game like no other back can do. Peterson is a threat to take it to the house on every single carry. Peterson in the backfield running the read option with Bridgewater would be a night mare for defenses. Peterson is a horse in the likes of the guy in Seattle .. Opps did they win a Superbowl with average receivers and a very good defense like the VIkings are starting to build? The running game is becoming more important as defenses are finding ways to work around all the rules to make the passing games more successful. With Peterson the VIkings are at least 6-3 at the break... and there really is not a team to fear in the NFC right now.. You bunch of JUDAS'Stotally agree

Really? We were 5-10-1 last year with Peterson... ranked 23rd in passing offense.

Saying we're automatically 6-3 with Peterson is completely myopic.

BadlandsVikings
11-04-2014, 02:25 PM
2007-2013. The Vikings are 54-48-1 and 1-3 in the playoffs.....the way some you talk about Peterson you act like they should be 7-0 in the Super Bowl. He did help the team look ok but it's a team sport and you cant depend on one person

C Mac D
11-04-2014, 02:32 PM
I'm looking for the coaching staff to get Jarius Wright more involved... that would at least guarantee us 3-4 Super Bowl rings.

tastywaves
11-04-2014, 02:41 PM
Really? We were 5-10-1 last year with Peterson... ranked 23rd in passing offense.

Saying we're automatically 6-3 with Peterson is completely myopic.

Whenever I see the word myopic, I think of CMac. Thanks for introducing that word to my vocabulary, but I think it's time for another one, that one is starting to lose its effect.

BadlandsVikings
11-04-2014, 02:43 PM
I'm looking for the coaching staff to get Jarius Wright more involved... that would at least guarantee us 3-4 Super Bowl rings.

The only way that will happen is if they try the Kick Ass Offense again

vikesrgreat2
11-04-2014, 02:55 PM
The only way that will happen is if they try the Kick Ass Offense again

:rofl:

digital420
11-04-2014, 03:09 PM
Really? We were 5-10-1 last year with Peterson... ranked 23rd in passing offense.

Saying we're automatically 6-3 with Peterson is completely myopic.

i seem to remember that with an above avg qb + AP we were a supposed SB team.. 1 play away if i remember right.

no this isn't a 1 player game, but as mentioned before, game changing players change games! there's no questions that AP > then any RB combo we're trying to run. sure Mck is quick and good. Assiata gets short yrds. that's great. AP can do both. him in the backfield would make the entire O better. and that's something you can't argue.

DiGiTAL

thejck
11-04-2014, 04:51 PM
you have to consider that not just having AP on the field is one thing. But if you didnt have to deal with the drama that would also put us slight ahead of where we were.

kingpin9995
11-04-2014, 04:58 PM
CHRISTIAN PONDER................................ REALLY? ..............YOU'RE KIDDING RIGHT... WITHOUT PETERSON THAT TEAM WINS 2 GAMES.... MAYBE....

kingpin9995
11-04-2014, 05:06 PM
Name me the qb's that started those years? Don't be foolish, everyone knows that one person does not win you a chamionship, BUT a lot of great players with a Christian Ponder WINS YOU NONE..... WAKE UP ...

I seem to remember one year in there when we actually had a quarterback to keep defenses honest... I seem to remember a 12-4 record ... I seem to remember going to the NFC CHampionship game and getting jobbed by a sympathetic zebra crew for those poor Katrina survivors. I seem to think you need to tell me how that happened that year. Was it coaching? New players? No it was a quarterback that could lead a team and one of the best running backs in our time clicking ..

kingpin9995
11-04-2014, 05:11 PM
These dummies like to argue. They know you are right but they just can't get that image of that switch out of Adrian's hand. It skews their whole image they used to have of him. They try and tell me this team would not be at least 6=3 with Peterson there..They want us to believe that Peterson would not have hid the o lines weakness that has been there for three years. They want us to believe AD would have been stonewalled all game and had no impact on the outcomes of games like Buffalo and Detroit.. They have been jaded by the criminal acts of Adrian and don't want him back on the field. They'd rather spend the money on bird nets to catch those poor birds before the whack into the new stadium wanting to catch a glimpse of the great AD back on the field...

snowinapril
11-05-2014, 01:25 AM
You guys have lost your marbles.. How soon we forget what Peterson meant to the VIkings. The O line was exposed for what it is without the threat of Peterson on every defenders mind. Peterson opens up the passing game like no other back can do. Peterson is a threat to take it to the house on every single carry. Peterson in the backfield running the read option with Bridgewater would be a night mare for defenses. Peterson is a horse in the likes of the guy in Seattle .. Opps did they win a Superbowl with average receivers and a very good defense like the VIkings are starting to build? The running game is becoming more important as defenses are finding ways to work around all the rules to make the passing games more successful. With Peterson the VIkings are at least 6-3 at the break... and there really is not a team to fear in the NFC right now.. You bunch of JUDAS'S

Demarco Murray is making Dallas a better team. Consistent running each week. You can't be a one threat team if you don't have a Manning, Brady, Brees or Rodgers oh and now Luck. Peterson would help Teddy develop. Teddy will be a better QB with Peterson in the backfield.

snowinapril
11-05-2014, 01:30 AM
Really? We were 5-10-1 last year with Peterson... ranked 23rd in passing offense.

Saying we're automatically 6-3 with Peterson is completely myopic.

Who picked up Peterson on Monday in our Fantasy football league?

BadlandsVikings
11-05-2014, 08:05 AM
Who picked up Peterson on Monday in our Fantasy football league?

Sounds like someone has inside information or is just anticipating something

Tad7
11-05-2014, 08:39 AM
I for sure want Peterson back on this team. He's not going to single-handedly take this team to the Super Bowl but neither is Calvin Johnson since '07 and I think the Lions should hold on to him because he puts them in a better situation on the field than they are without him.

If Peterson is gone from this team, I hope it's based on everything it would've been before the ugly legal happenings.

C Mac D
11-05-2014, 10:38 AM
Who picked up Peterson on Monday in our Fantasy football league?

http://weknowgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/black-kid-staring-gif.gif

C Mac D
11-05-2014, 10:39 AM
i seem to remember that with an above avg qb + AP we were a supposed SB team.. 1 play away if i remember right.

no this isn't a 1 player game, but as mentioned before, game changing players change games! there's no questions that AP > then any RB combo we're trying to run. sure Mck is quick and good. Assiata gets short yrds. that's great. AP can do both. him in the backfield would make the entire O better. and that's something you can't argue.

DiGiTAL

Sadly, Bridgewater is not Favre... not sure how else to put it.

BadlandsVikings
11-05-2014, 10:43 AM
Sadly, Bridgewater is not Favre... not sure how else to put it.

Favre wasnt even Favre in the end and he was still better than Teddy

Suick
11-05-2014, 12:58 PM
Peterson opens up the passing game like no other back can do.

Uhhhhhh..........when did that happen?

snowinapril
11-05-2014, 11:07 PM
http://weknowgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/black-kid-staring-gif.gif

Who me?

Ya you... stole AP.

Traveling_Vike
11-07-2014, 12:09 AM
Oddly enough, I find myself agreeing with Kingpin here. Simply put, the team is better with Peterson than they are without him. Although the league has evolved to feature the passing game (and make no mistake, it is to FEATURE because the viewers want to see exciting big plays, which come more often from the passing game) there is still significant value in having a top-tier rusher. You can't even try to tell me that opposing defenses fear McKinnon and Asiata the way they fear AP. And the biggest benefit to having a great RB? CLOSING OUT GAMES! Something which the Vikes have had trouble with this year, until just recently.

From a strictly football standpoint, the man is still a highly valued commodity. Why the Vikings are even talking about possibly not letting him play once the league exacts its punishment of him, I can't understand. Why the hell would you not want him once all punishments are overwith?

If you want to trade him for value because of his high contract, that's another matter, but I'd still rather have him on my team than on any other, especially if we would end up playing against him at some point.

I'm not sure I can go along with the "at least 6-3" thing, but I am pretty sure we'd have won the Buffalo game with Peterson in there. Maybe the Lions as well, but I'm not sure on that one. Ad the Packers game would have been somewhat more competitive instead of the blowout it was.

Well, we will never know for sure what might have been, but I still have hopes for what can be, and AP is a big part of that.

RK.
11-07-2014, 11:45 AM
Having AD in the game takes the pressure off the QB. You blitz and miss him he is gone. Its really that simple even if you are not giving him the ball just his being there requires two defenders to follow him. There are not a lot of backs that require that. Certainly not any of ours.

12purplepride28
11-07-2014, 01:59 PM
Uhhhhhh..........when did that happen?

That has always been the case. We just haven't had anyone that can take advantage of it.

12purplepride28
11-07-2014, 02:01 PM
Oddly enough, I find myself agreeing with Kingpin here. Simply put, the team is better with Peterson than they are without him. Although the league has evolved to feature the passing game (and make no mistake, it is to FEATURE because the viewers want to see exciting big plays, which come more often from the passing game) there is still significant value in having a top-tier rusher. You can't even try to tell me that opposing defenses fear McKinnon and Asiata the way they fear AP. And the biggest benefit to having a great RB? CLOSING OUT GAMES! Something which the Vikes have had trouble with this year, until just recently.

From a strictly football standpoint, the man is still a highly valued commodity. Why the Vikings are even talking about possibly not letting him play once the league exacts its punishment of him, I can't understand. Why the hell would you not want him once all punishments are overwith?

If you want to trade him for value because of his high contract, that's another matter, but I'd still rather have him on my team than on any other, especially if we would end up playing against him at some point.

I'm not sure I can go along with the "at least 6-3" thing, but I am pretty sure we'd have won the Buffalo game with Peterson in there. Maybe the Lions as well, but I'm not sure on that one. Ad the Packers game would have been somewhat more competitive instead of the blowout it was.

Well, we will never know for sure what might have been, but I still have hopes for what can be, and AP is a big part of that.

Thank you. I feel like I'm going crazy in here with people saying that AP barely makes us any better or that he doesn't open up the passing game. How do people not understand that a good running game and good passing game create opportunities for the other?

C Mac D
11-07-2014, 04:08 PM
Thank you. I feel like I'm going crazy in here with people saying that AP barely makes us any better or that he doesn't open up the passing game. How do people not understand that a good running game and good passing game create opportunities for the other?

The conversation was AP will help Bridgewater develop into a playoff-caliber starter... which he has never done with any QB the Vikes have drafted since 2007. When has he ever opened up the passing game?

The other argument is that we would automatically be 6-3 with Peterson in the lineup this year... which is also a rather silly notion, considering we were 3-6 at this point last season with him in the lineup.

Think people are jumping to conclusions here and swaying the narative. We're a better team with Peterson in the starting lineup, yes, but how much better has yet to be seen. One person does not make a team.

Personally, I think we're still 4-5 with Peterson in the mix.

C Mac D
11-07-2014, 04:10 PM
That has always been the case. We just haven't had anyone that can take advantage of it.

It's pure speculation then.

tastywaves
11-07-2014, 04:26 PM
It's pure speculation then.

Yes, on both sides. That's all there is to offer.

Your historical stats can be discounted as quickly as their projections. All we have is personal opinion in the end.

C Mac D
11-07-2014, 04:28 PM
Yes, on both sides. That's all there is to offer.

Your historical stats can be discounted as quickly as their projections. All we have is personal opinion in the end.

Not really on both sides... if having Peterson has never helped our passing game or helped our QB's develop into legitimate starters, then how can you claim that he does? Please... discount away.

That's like saying Bigfoot is real.

tastywaves
11-07-2014, 04:31 PM
Not really on both sides... if having Peterson has never helped our passing game or helped our QB's develop into legitimate starters, then how can you claim that he does?

That's like saying Bigfoot is real.

The QB's may not have become legitimate starters under any circumstance. Body of evidence too small to indicate that Peterson is the only factor. The poster is claiming that Peterson would help Teddy's performance. He may, we dont' know. Sometimes you just need the right mix to make magic.

johnkdbr
11-07-2014, 05:58 PM
Listen, you put AP in Norv Turner's backfield & Mckinney & Asiata as change of pace backs...Teddy Bidgewater becomes the QB we hoped he would be. AP makes the recievers better, TE's better, QB better, & the OL better. If we can get AP back after the bye week we finish above .500 & have a shot at the WC.
.

12purplepride28
11-07-2014, 06:23 PM
It's pure speculation then.

No it's not. Have you seen the 8 men in the box constantly? That means there are openings in the passing game. Just because Ponder couldn't hit the broad side of a barn doesn't mean that the opportunities weren't there. You can look at them on tape. You can find Arif's article last year about Greg Jennings always being open. This happens so often because we have a HOF RB and the defenses sell out to stop him. It's simple math. More people in the box means less people covering WRs.

snowinapril
11-08-2014, 09:04 PM
AD is fun to watch.... he needs to be a Viking..... I win!

The only downside is if he retards the team productivity and causes too much predictability.

Well there is also money and the ability to get the other pieces to the puzzle.

Back to my original statement, he is fun to watch, I win.

QuadoCox
11-09-2014, 01:35 PM
AD is fun to watch.... he needs to be a Viking..... I win!

The only downside is if he retards the team productivity and causes too much predictability.

Well there is also money and the ability to get the other pieces to the puzzle.

Back to my original statement, he is fun to watch, I win.

I think that had to do with QB play (predictability). In our Championship run in 09. I wouldn't say we were predictable. Get a better QB and we can do great things with him.

C Mac D
11-10-2014, 01:35 PM
No it's not. Have you seen the 8 men in the box constantly? That means there are openings in the passing game. Just because Ponder couldn't hit the broad side of a barn doesn't mean that the opportunities weren't there. You can look at them on tape. You can find Arif's article last year about Greg Jennings always being open. This happens so often because we have a HOF RB and the defenses sell out to stop him. It's simple math. More people in the box means less people covering WRs.

Well, Ponder... or Jackson... or any QB that has failed to develop into a legit starter with Peterson in the backfield.

It is surprising to think we made it to the playoffs with Frerotte and Jackson, but neither really played well that year.

mountainviking
11-15-2014, 02:44 PM
AP has had bad QBs and terrible OC/playcalling most of his career. I don't think we can blame him for our lack of superbowls.

I think AP increases our average rushing yards/game by at least 20 and makes our play action fake way more effective, but we will still need to see positive development and growth from Teddy, Flash Patterson, etc. to win games consistently and become a true contender.

AP has all of McKinnon's elusiveness and speed AND more power than Asiata...there just isn't any comparison and that combination is exactly what makes him so dangerous as a complete threat. Opposing defenses know what MA and JM's strengths and tendencies are, making them much easier to defend against.

I think we should keep AP, but, the other two's combined success does make you think a bit more about the possibilities of life without him. What if we got a first and a third this draft and a sliding 2-4 based on how many games won for the other team in the following draft? We could easily add RB depth in free agency and/or the middle rounds and also upgrade OL or Defense or maybe even finally add that one true number one WR we have not had since Moss.1!?!? ;)