PDA

View Full Version : Vikings RBs



Prophet
09-06-2005, 10:23 PM
There has been quite a bit of disussion regarding picking up K. Robinson in the receiving corps. I think we agree that we have a reasonable amount of depth in the WR position.

I'm more concerned about the RB situation. We have an apparently injury-prone #1 and #2 followed by old Mr. Reliable Moe with Fason waiting in the wings, Echemandu waiting for technological advances so we can fit his name on his jersey, and the Whizzinator hanging low in the shadows. In summary:

1. M. Bennett: the glass man
2. M. Moore: the tempered glass man
3. M. Williams: Grandpa
4. C. Fason: Man of the future
Out: O. Smith: Whizzinator
Practice Squad: A. Echemandu: Practice Man

The chorus is split on whether Bennett or Moore should start, but Bennett gets the nod from Meathead. Hopefully Bennett and/or Moore will stay healthy. I don't think it will be too far fetched to see Fason as #1 with Moe helping carry the load and Echemandu brought back into the mix if Moore and Bennett are both out with injuries.

The RB corps makes me nervous. It sure would be nice to have Onterrio in the mix.

canadian_vikes_fan
09-06-2005, 10:29 PM
I think its too early to call Moore injury prone. He had one injury in his rookie year. The thing from this preseason was nothing, it was just precautionary, and he would've played if it had been regular season.

Del Rio
09-06-2005, 10:34 PM
I'm not sold on the idea that we need a new RB. What we need is a new idea, or a new game plan.

I think the run game is neglected. Offensive lineman love to run block, they love to bring the pain. On one level I think Tice and Co. were so paranoid that the loss of Moss would cripple what they had going for them that they decided to neglect the run game and try to salvage what offense they did have.

On the other hand, I pray it is just a ploy. A lot of good defensive teams have a great run game or a more solid run game then passing game. There is a reason for it. I think it will be a miracle if you can have the high flying finesse offense and a dominant physical defense.

I am of the opinion the lack of run game not only hurts our chances of making a deep playoff run, but it also hurts our defense.

michaelmazid
09-06-2005, 10:34 PM
This has to be the funniest poll I have ever seen. I say sacrifice Mike Tice on the Metrodome floor and get Brian Bilichick to coach the vikes.

canadian_vikes_fan
09-06-2005, 10:39 PM
"Del Rio" wrote:

I'm not sold on the idea that we need a new RB. What we need is a new idea, or a new game plan.

I think the run game is neglected. Offensive lineman love to run block, they love to bring the pain. On one level I think Tice and Co. were so paranoid that the loss of Moss would cripple what they had going for them that they decided to neglect the run game and try to salvage what offense they did have.

On the other hand, I pray it is just a ploy. A lot of good defensive teams have a great run game or a more solid run game then passing game. There is a reason for it. I think it will be a miracle if you can have the high flying finesse offense and a dominant physical defense.

I am of the opinion the lack of run game not only hurts our chances of making a deep playoff run, but it also hurts our defense.

IMO it hasn't been neglected (if you're reffering to the preseason games). I think they ran the ball just about as much as they could. Throughout all 4 games, we struggled with running the ball. When your #1 and #2 backs are both averaging about 3 yds per carry (and when Fason starting against the Hawks he avergaed pretty crappy too) its hard to keep establishing your run because you're constantly in 2nd and longs and 3rd and longs.

I think when the line gets used to each other, the run game will be much more effective.

Del Rio
09-06-2005, 10:49 PM
Neglected in practice. Neglected in film. Neglected in the playbook. Having a counter, a draw, a dive, and a sweep, and a very poorly executed reverse is not enough imo.

They run the ball far less then other teams in the reg season. Pre Season is different. After the first half they don't want the clock stopping, heck all game they want that bad boy rolling to get it over with.

Look at it this way. We start a game out great we put a lot of points on the board. Then we attempt to control the clock through the run and boom it's 3rd and 8. I think the offense is so unbalanced that the run has been neglected.

If a team passes all game the defense doesn't need to worry about the run they need to worry about the pass. That means they are doing a combination of stunts, blitzes, and even shifts to get pressure. Which means our O-line have to account for more packages of defense and looks then most other teams.

I think they spend more time on that and miss out on some serious run practice. It must come from fear, that the one thing we do very well will diminish to the point of being ineffective. IMO if they did have a good run game Culpepper would be breaking records.

PurplePeopleEaters
09-06-2005, 10:57 PM
I think that we are fine as of now. We have basically 4 backs that can start (dount count our Moe) and all we have to do is pray for no injury. I think picking up Clarett will be even more stupid than picking up Koren when you are looking at it from the side of troubled players. As of now IMO our backs will be fine. All we need to do is when we have found our REAL starter by around week 2 or 3 then we can stick with that person the entire season.

ShanePurpleBlood
09-06-2005, 11:02 PM
I think the Vikings will be fine this year, if we don't give up the gameplan to run. It is too early to say Moore is injury prone. I can't wait for Sunday to see what will happen with the running game.

tastywaves
09-06-2005, 11:34 PM
I agree that the bigger problem right now (preseason) is not with the guy running the ball but with the guys supposedly opening up lanes. If this doesn't improve, the vikes will continue to be a pass dominated team. Their idea of a running game will be screen dumps, 1 yd passes to the wideout and TE's blocking and releasing for catch and rumbles.

The Vikes will have a tough challenge going deep in the playoffs with this scheme. Even with a much improved defense, they lose control of the game if they can't run.

If DelRio is right in that the reason the Vikes have no running game at this point is because they are not committed to a running game then I see a lot of nervous games ahead for us.

[quote]IMO it hasn't been neglected (if you're reffering to the preseason games). I think they ran the ball just about as much as they could. Throughout all 4 games, we struggled with running the ball. When your #1 and #2 backs are both averaging about 3 yds per carry (and when Fason starting against the Hawks he avergaed pretty crappy too) its hard to keep establishing your run because you're constantly in 2nd and longs and 3rd and longs.
quote]

I think thats the point, the Vikes depend on the passing game to move the chains. With the current mentaility it seems that if they get decent yardage running the ball, thats a bonus, makes it easier for Daunte throwing the ball on 3rd and 2 vs 3rd and long, but they will throw on 3rd down regardless unless its a Daunte sneak. This shows me they have no dependency/confidence on the running game. Also, if Tice really wanted a running game he would go after a marquee every down back, instead he's focused on making sure he has a quality 6th receiver when his top 2 running backs have shown very limited durability. Okay, thats a different thread.

Del Rio
09-06-2005, 11:41 PM
We all have way more questions then we have answers. Luckily for us we are about to see the results of our teams labors and we can all make our own conclusions.

We have more questions then just the all to common can they do it without Moss. Because we all know our team better then the guys trying to sell magazines. They are focused on making the dollar and not neccisarily giving you the information you need/want.

I just want you all to know every opinion is valued. We all look at our team very critically and I appreciate all the different ideas, because more often then not someone will say something that really strikes me as a good idea and I will steal it and incorporate it into my own grand idea of things which is more then likely as far from the truth as T.O is from humble as an idea can get.

snowinapril
09-06-2005, 11:54 PM
I am really curious to know if we would have taken one of the big 3 Rbs from the draft if they would have fell to the 7th pick.

1 1 San Francisco Smith, Alex D. QB 6-4 212 Utah
2 2 Miami Brown, Ronnie RB 6-0 233 Auburn
3 3 Cleveland Edwards, Braylon WR 6-3 211 Michigan
4 4 Chicago Benson, Cedric RB 5-10 222 Texas
5 5 Tampa Bay Williams, Carnell RB 5-11 217 Auburn
6 6 Tennessee Jones, Adam 'Pacman' CB 5-11 187 West Virginia
7 7 Minnesota (from Oakland) Williamson, Troy WR 6-1 203 South Carolina
8 8 Arizona Rolle, Antrel CB 6-0 202 Miami (Fla.)
9 9 Washington Rogers, Carlos CB 6-0 199 Auburn
10 10 Detroit Williams, Mike WR 6-5 229 Southern California
11 11 Dallas Ware, Demarcus DE 6-4 247 Troy State
12 12 San Diego (from N.Y. Giants) Merriman, Shawne OLB 6-4 253 Maryland
13 13 New Orleans (from Houston) Brown, Jammal OT 6-6 313 Oklahoma
14 14 Carolina Davis, Thomas FS 6-1 231 Georgia
15 15 Kansas City Johnson, Derrick O. OLB 6-3 234 Texas
16 16 Houston (from New Orleans) Johnson, Travis DT 6-4 290 Florida State
17 17 Cincinnati Pollack, David DE 6-2 261 Georgia
18 18 Minnesota James, Erasmus DE 6-4 263 Wisconsin

We are going to see Williams this weekend and I hope we stuff him every time.

VKG4LFE
09-06-2005, 11:58 PM
I doubt we would have taken one of the three RBs. I would like to think that if we didn't draft Williamson we would have drafted Derrick Johnson, LB Texas.

tastywaves
09-07-2005, 12:06 AM
Its a good question. I think Tice was locked on a deep threat receiver, so Braylon may have been the only one considered above Troy.

The top 3 RB's went to teams committed to running the ball (in the case of Miami, Chicago and Tampa they don't have much choice).

douginc
09-07-2005, 12:06 AM
I thought I read on an interview with Bryzinski that we were actually trying to trade up so we could get one of those big RBs. He also stated that we asked the Jaguars to swap first round picks for Donovin Darius, and they declined, asking for additional round picks, like second round and/or third round, and we weren't willing to give up that much. Then they denied ever having the conversation about trading him.

RK.
09-07-2005, 12:13 AM
"tastywaves" wrote:

Its a good question. I think Tice was locked on a deep threat receiver, so Braylon may have been the only one considered above Troy.

The top 3 RB's went to teams committed to running the ball (in the case of Miami, Chicago and Tampa they don't have much choice).
Also during the draft we still had O Smith on the roster.
BTW I liked the choices in this poll.. :lol: Nicely worded. :thumbleft:

mnvikes61
09-07-2005, 02:07 AM
well alright, i think most of us agree that our lack of a running game has to do with our o-line. i've got a question, if it doesn't get better and we're still averaging a 2.5 yards/carry, what do we do? Draft offensive line men next draft, try and pick them up in the offseason, or wait and see if our line gels? i personally think Moore should be starting, if you would have asked me before Smith got suspended this season i would have said smith.

PurplePeopleEaters
09-07-2005, 02:12 AM
"mnvikes61" wrote:

well alright, i think most of us agree that our lack of a running game has to do with our o-line. i've got a question, if it doesn't get better and we're still averaging a 2.5 yards/carry, what do we do? Draft offensive line men next draft, try and pick them up in the offseason, or wait and see if our line gels? i personally think Moore should be starting, if you would have asked me before Smith got suspended this season i would have said smith.

personally I would hate to draft o-line first round. Speaking of O-lineman in the draft... Has anyone heard anything about that Robert Gallery in Oakland? I haven't... :???:

I would have to say that if our running game problems continue then we should look for a good running back in FA (Bennett and Moore will be gone because they are FA's after the season...?) and pick up o-line in Free Agency or god forbid the draft.. There is not much else we can do if the problem persists.

mnvikes61
09-07-2005, 02:16 AM
well i don't think we'll be letting both Bennett and Moore go. i think the only way we'd do that is if we had an oppurtunity to grab a stud RB, the only ones that might be available that i can think of is Alexander, but if that was the case we should have pulled trigger on that deal this off season. next year he'll be another year older and that much closer to retirement. so i'm sad to say but we might need to draft o-lineman, or get some experienced lineman over the offseason if our running game still blows at the end of the season.

V4L
09-07-2005, 02:21 AM
It is poor game plan.. Like Del said earlier its all the same thing and we barley run them.. And also I remember Del saying along time ago that it's ALWAYS on first down that we run.. It's really predictable.. I think our line will play better in the regular season.. We need to find a true back and get a better game plan.. Thank god we have a great passing game!

mnvikes61
09-07-2005, 02:22 AM
as for Robert Gallery you ask? he started in 15 games last year at RT. Gallery and the rest of the line gave up the 5th least amount sacks last year. so obviously Gallery didn't really flop.

Ltrey33
09-07-2005, 02:25 AM
Anyone else think Fason could be a long term answer? IMO, he's looked really good in the preseason.

mnvikes61
09-07-2005, 02:31 AM
yah i think Fason will be great next year. i'm just really concerned about our line. we'll get Birk back next season but who knows how he will play, and i'd be disappointed if we couldn't find a way to run the ball even if our best o-lineman is down. it all starts up front, we've been spoiled by a QB who can scramble and break out of potential tackles. we difinately have to worry about this sooner than later while we have all this talent on both sides of the ball.

PurplePeopleEaters
09-07-2005, 02:34 AM
"ltrey33" wrote:

Anyone else think Fason could be a long term answer? IMO, he's looked really good in the preseason.

I think he is the answer for sure. I didn't know very much about him when he was drafted but after watching highlight reels over and over I think he could be our longterm back. Wouldn't that be a blessing. :shock:

midgensa
09-07-2005, 02:54 AM
"Del Rio" wrote:

Neglected in practice. Neglected in film. Neglected in the playbook. Having a counter, a draw, a dive, and a sweep, and a very poorly executed reverse is not enough imo.

They run the ball far less then other teams in the reg season. Pre Season is different. After the first half they don't want the clock stopping, heck all game they want that bad boy rolling to get it over with.

Look at it this way. We start a game out great we put a lot of points on the board. Then we attempt to control the clock through the run and boom it's 3rd and 8. I think the offense is so unbalanced that the run has been neglected.

If a team passes all game the defense doesn't need to worry about the run they need to worry about the pass. That means they are doing a combination of stunts, blitzes, and even shifts to get pressure. Which means our O-line have to account for more packages of defense and looks then most other teams.

I think they spend more time on that and miss out on some serious run practice. It must come from fear, that the one thing we do very well will diminish to the point of being ineffective. IMO if they did have a good run game Culpepper would be breaking records.

I think you are right on this one.
It seems they are scared of running the ball. I think in the preseason, Tice was really scared of losing any of his backs since they were nicked up. I think they just need to tweak their philosophy a little and have a little more faith in the running game instead of running away from it too quickly.
Running the ball is all about rythm (sp?) and I think that Bennett and Moore are both seriously better backs the more carries they get.
As for Fason, I definitely think he looks good for the future, but don't count out a Whizzinator return next year, and don't count out Smith wanting to make an impact if we open the door for him again.

canadian_vikes_fan
09-07-2005, 03:23 AM
"ltrey33" wrote:

Anyone else think Fason could be a long term answer? IMO, he's looked really good in the preseason.

I think its too early to tell. He looked pretty good in his college videos that I've seen, but they only show the 1% of the plays that he's in where he scores 60 yard tds. I haven't seen enough of him in college to tell how he does on an every down basis.

So far in preseason, he's probably been our best back. But most of the time he's been playing against 3rd stringers, so its hard to tell. When he started against the Hawks, he seemed a bit overwhelmed playing the starters, but he still showed a few flashes (like that play where he seemed to get tackled in front of the line, but then somehow got up and ran 3 more yards for the first down - anyone else remember that?)

mnvikes61
09-07-2005, 03:55 AM
anybody know what round we picked R. Smith up in, when we got him? i'm just wondering because Moore, Fason, Smith. They were all late round draft picks, i'm just wondering if we should ivest a higher draft pick in a better RB. i know that moore, smith have shown flashes of brillance but neither one of them i would say is ur protypical #1 back that can rush 25-30 a game and get you 3 to 4 yards a carry. i'm just wondering because that would be pretty sad if our running game went down the chute just because Birk went down, i know he's a pro bowl center but dang we have to be able to run the ball with some success.

canadian_vikes_fan
09-07-2005, 03:59 AM
"mnvikes61" wrote:

anybody know what round we picked R. Smith up in, when we got him? i'm just wondering because Moore, Fason, Smith. They were all late round draft picks, i'm just wondering if we should ivest a higher draft pick in a better RB. i know that moore, smith have shown flashes of brillance but neither one of them i would say is ur protypical #1 back that can rush 25-30 a game and get you 3 to 4 yards a carry. i'm just wondering because that would be pretty sad if our running game went down the chute just because Birk went down, i know he's a pro bowl center but dang we have to be able to run the ball with some success.He was drafted in the first round in either 92 or 93 (can't remember which) He went through a couple of years like Bennett where he was injured a ton, and then broke out and did really well for a few years. Then he suddenly retired. I think he was one of their biggest components to their 98 team. Everyone talked about Cunningham to Moss and Carter and Jake Reed, but the guy that kept defences honest was Smith.

mnvikes61
09-07-2005, 04:03 AM
do you think that we should go after a... not a higher quality back, that's not the right term, i guess somebody who was carrying the ball 25-30 times a year in college? i totally agree that Smith was one of the key success to us going 15-1, him and having a backup like hoard. so what does anybody think about that, go after somebody who is more known, like the top 3 rbs this year or go after lineman as a solution, or should the coaching staff just focus more on the run and practice more than a couple of different runs?

canadian_vikes_fan
09-07-2005, 04:08 AM
The thing is, to get a top 3 running back in the draft, we'd have to get a really high pick. And there are only two ways to get one.

a) you give up Daunte Culpepper/Kevin Williams/some other amazing star like Moss

b) you start Shaun Hill, Keenan Howry and Adam Goldberg for one year to ensure that your final record is worse than 3-13 :lol:

mnvikes61
09-07-2005, 04:11 AM
i know what you mean, but we can't keep putting this late round RBs in there and expect to be really good running the ball. i think the last time we had a running back that got over a 1000 yards was Michael Bennet and that was like 3 years ago or something. so would you seek a back like Alexander or James who are looking for long term contracts? i mean we could do that, but if we were going to do that we should have done that this season.

canadian_vikes_fan
09-07-2005, 04:15 AM
"mnvikes61" wrote:

i know what you mean, but we can't keep putting this late round RBs in there and expect to be really good running the ball. i think the last time we had a running back that got over a 1000 yards was Michael Bennet and that was like 3 years ago or something. so would you seek a back like Alexander or James who are looking for long term contracts? i mean we could do that, but if we were going to do that we should have done that this season.I would actually wait and see how our current crop works out. Onterrio Smith probably would have emerged as a 1000 yd rusher if he hadn't run into his, er... problems.

The reason we haven't had a 1000 yd rusher is because that last few years Tice has been very indesisive at choosing a #1 back. For the first 4 weeks last year, Onterrio Smith started and did pretty well. Then Bennett came back and started a few games and sucked it up. Then Moore played for 3 games and had the 3 best games in Vikings history. Then Bennett sucked up for a few more games, then Smith finished out the year. Catch my drift? :lol: Even though we haven't had a 1000 yd rusher, we have been pretty close to the top of the league in rushing.

I think Moore showed he at least has the potential to be a good back, Bennett had a 1200 yd season so he can do well, and I like Fason too.

mnvikes61
09-07-2005, 04:20 AM
yah Moore did awesome last year. i'm really concerned though because none of the RBs seperated themselves this preseason. Moore had the best game but that was against the crappy D of the chiefs, and i think he got most of it on one real long run. bennett has really been doing nothing and i'd hate to start a rookie at RB, not cuz i don't believe in his talent but because i doubt he understands all the blitz pick ups that are essential for RBs. so would you say that our lack of success is because our coaches haven't been focusing on the running game, they've been focusing more on the passing game since moss is gone? also if none of our running backs prove to be a stud #1 would you want a Edgerrin James or Shaun Alexander? like you said, hopefully, we won't have a really low draft pick in a long time, because that'd mean we sucked it up one season or traded one of marque players (i.e Pep, Burleson, Williams etc)

DaunteHOF
09-07-2005, 04:26 AM
moore can do it

mnvikes61
09-07-2005, 04:28 AM
i believe moore has the tools, i just have a hard time seeing him make his own holes all by himself all season. he lead the league in yards after intial contact, but it seemed like he was a slow healer. either that or he was in Tice's doghouse after that lame effort on that screen in one of the games last season, can't remeber which one.

NodakAttack
09-07-2005, 04:50 AM
I completely agree with a lot of you that we need to be better balanced with our offensive strategy. I think Bennett is marginal at best, we all know he can occassionally break the long one, but isn't very good at hitting a hole consistently. IMO Moore should be our first option... but what i really find interesting is that we actually had decent YPC averages last year...

Rushing
Name G Rush Yds Y/G Avg Lng TD Fum FumL
Onterrio Smith 11 124 544 49.5 4.4 38 2 2 1
Daunte Culpepper 16 88 406 25.4 4.6 16 2 9 4
Mewelde Moore 10 65 379 37.9 5.8 33 0 0 0
Michael Bennett 11 70 276 25.1 3.9 25 1 1 0

Bennett was low at 3.9 but both Moore (5.8) and Smith (4.4) were very respectable... Culpepper really doesn't count. The interesting part is that we did this without Rosie and Jimmy K... the question really becomes, was Dixon really the glue??? Birk was never at 100% and even Withrow played some... I'm cheering for Marcus to be the new key with his agile feet and potential ability to be good at pulling... The other REALLY BIG issue is that we ranked 18th in Rushing Offense last year, but I don't think it was because of YPC, it was lack of attempts... This further seems to support many of your thoughts that we a) need more rhythm for our backs through repetition and more carries and b) we need to change it up... Don't just run on 1st... btw It did seem in preseason that we got a few more 2nd down rushes... I think patience and gelling are the big keys for the line... another thought, is look at the Pats (not last year b/c they had dillon) but the previous 3, especially the Super Bowl years, and they did decent rushing with not the best backs... and I believe a big part of that was because of their spread offense and unpredictable playcalling.. I'll go on the record in not supporting the KROB deal, but with or without him, a 3 or 4 wide offense should keep opposing secondaries a little more honest...

sorry for the rambling... but a few thoughts I thought I'd share

mnvikes61
09-07-2005, 04:55 AM
"NodakAttack" wrote:

I completely agree with a lot of you that we need to be better balanced with our offensive strategy. I think Bennett is marginal at best, we all know he can occassionally break the long one, but isn't very good at hitting a hole consistently. IMO Moore should be our first option... but what i really find interesting is that we actually had decent YPC averages last year...

Rushing
Name G Rush Yds Y/G Avg Lng TD Fum FumL
Onterrio Smith 11 124 544 49.5 4.4 38 2 2 1
Daunte Culpepper 16 88 406 25.4 4.6 16 2 9 4
Mewelde Moore 10 65 379 37.9 5.8 33 0 0 0
Michael Bennett 11 70 276 25.1 3.9 25 1 1 0

Bennett was low at 3.9 but both Moore (5.8) and Smith (4.4) were very respectable... Culpepper really doesn't count. The interesting part is that we did this without Rosie and Jimmy K... the question really becomes, was Dixon really the glue??? Birk was never at 100% and even Withrow played some... I'm cheering for Marcus to be the new key with his agile feet and potential ability to be good at pulling... The other REALLY BIG issue is that we ranked 18th in Rushing Offense last year, but I don't think it was because of YPC, it was lack of attempts... This further seems to support many of your thoughts that we a) need more rhythm for our backs through repetition and more carries and b) we need to change it up... Don't just run on 1st... btw It did seem in preseason that we got a few more 2nd down rushes... I think patience and gelling are the big keys for the line... another thought, is look at the Pats (not last year b/c they had dillon) but the previous 3, especially the Super Bowl years, and they did decent rushing with not the best backs... and I believe a big part of that was because of their spread offense and unpredictable playcalling.. I'll go on the record in not supporting the KROB deal, but with or without him, a 3 or 4 wide offense should keep opposing secondaries a little more honest...

sorry for the rambling... but a few thoughts I thought I'd share
thanks for sharing all your thoughts. i really do believe the lack of experience at RT is going to torture us all season, i hope MJ starts running over people on a more consistent basis, i really do. i just hope we do start focusing on our run a little more, yah we have great wide outs. even if, i like you nodakattack, disagree with the K-Rob signing. we still do need to be more balanced on O so the D can't just pin their ears back and rush after the QB.

FuadFan
09-07-2005, 05:06 AM
I think that a lot of people are being really paranoid about our running game because I'm not going to use the preseason to judge it if we did a lot of starting RB would be out of jobs from it.

DoraTheExplorer
09-07-2005, 05:15 AM
two words: Bennett Blows.

Otherwise, we got a runningback with huge potential in Moore, and a great goal line back in Moe Williams.

mnvikes61
09-07-2005, 05:18 AM
i think we should Moore as a starter and have Bennett be the Spell back. Moe Williams can clean up the 3rd and shorts and definately goal line. i've only seen him get stuffed a couple of times. Fason should be the change of pace back, i guess Bennett and Fason could become interchangeable depending on the situation. i hope these guys get it done, i want to be able to own the time of possession so our defense doesn't get tired.