PDA

View Full Version : Give Peterson more carries



singersp
09-20-2007, 06:33 AM
Commentary: Adrian Peterson (http://www.tulsaworld.com/sports/article.aspx?articleID=070920_2_B2_hGive73455)

By STEVE GREENBERG The Sporting News
9/20/2007

Give Peterson more carries


They were in a Friday night meeting before the Minnesota Vikings' season opener, the post-shower sweat still drying on their faces.......

vikingivan
09-20-2007, 07:08 AM
Great find Sing.
I have to agree.
We should keep giving him the ball.
It definately couldn't have hurt us the way the last game finished.

PurpleTide
09-20-2007, 07:12 AM
I think we are using AD perfectly, CT is coming back and with 14 games still ahead of us it's not time to use either guy like Christian Okeye was used or Earl Cambell. I like our approach and we have yet to have both guys healthy for a whole game. When we do our offense will be better for it. Having a fresh AD, or CT in the 4th Qtr will be a bonus from everything to opening the playbook, to clock management.

kspurplepride
09-20-2007, 01:46 PM
we have 2 feature backs and a 3rd thats not to shabby if they are healthy we need to hand the ball off no fewer than 40 times a game. Our big boys up front are built to runblock, so why not let them. If we run the ball more, it gives the opportunity for opponents to walk the safties up to stop the run, this leads to playaction and bam our recievers have single coverage down field, and T Jack would have a few options. The problems our offense is having is the same problem we had last year... poor play calling. Plain and simple, Childress is not running the offense efficiently. 200 carries should be the minimum for both chester and adrian for the season, I wouldn't mind seeing that number actually closer to 250, unless Moore has about 100. There is to much talent in that backfield, and to much nasty running blocking capability on that line to not run the ball. Shoot, I'd love to see five lineman, a tightend, and a fullback on almost every play. Rotate the backs, and you have yourself an efficient clock eating offense, which is exactly what this team is built to do

cajunvike
09-20-2007, 02:31 PM
We just need to put him in the best position to succeed...not overwork him...swing passes where he can run more in the open field, rather than always between the tackles.

snowinapril
09-20-2007, 02:33 PM
I don't like that article.

I think it was written by a OSU (Tulsa/Stillwater) fan with much AD hate.
LOL!

singersp
09-20-2007, 09:50 PM
"vikingivan" wrote:


Great find Sing.
I have to agree.
We should keep giving him the ball.
It definately couldn't have hurt us the way the last game finished.


We certainly need to get him the ball more often than we did last week.

I think we should send him outside with a quick short pass more often. Hit him while he's on the move.

sleepagent
09-20-2007, 09:52 PM
More carries . . . AND . . . somebody block for the guy!

Angel_Martin
09-20-2007, 09:55 PM
It won't do any good to give him more carries if the defenses are stacking the box, though. We need to spread out the field a bit and give him some room to operate.

We can't have defenses keying on him and cheating up on us - we have to make them pay by being able to go deep on them to get them back.

kspurplepride
09-20-2007, 09:57 PM
the idea would be to draw the safties up with the run, and then throw it over the top... that is essentially the idea of play action

Angel_Martin
09-20-2007, 10:45 PM
I would certainly agree on the play action comment. When you move safeties up like that, there should be some open space that the QB needs to read and exploit.

ItalianStallion
09-20-2007, 11:15 PM
The fact is, without first downs and decent drives, nobody is getting a lot of carries.
Peterson is the only playmaker on our offense so far this season.

ThorSPL
09-20-2007, 11:28 PM
"ItalianStallion" wrote:


The fact is, without first downs a decent drives, nobody is getting a lot of carries.
Peterson is the only playmaker on our offense so far this season.


Yup, dead on...

If we get those safeties up, that leaves a slant/post open for a receiver to make a quick catch and turn it....
We DO have receivers capable of THAT.... catch and run ... catch a nice short easy ball and run like hell....

singersp
09-21-2007, 06:14 AM
"ThorSPL" wrote:



If we get those safeties up, that leaves a slant/post open for a receiver to make a quick catch and turn it....
We DO have receivers capable of THAT.... catch and run ... catch a nice short easy ball and run like hell....



Just how often do we call those plays?

With RB's, FB's & WR's able to catch the ball, IMO we don't use quick slant routes enough.

digital420
09-21-2007, 08:44 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"ThorSPL" wrote:



If we get those safeties up, that leaves a slant/post open for a receiver to make a quick catch and turn it....
We DO have receivers capable of THAT.... catch and run ... catch a nice short easy ball and run like hell....



Just how often do we call those plays?

With RB's, FB's & WR's able to catch the ball, IMO we don't use quick slant routes enough.


I think this is one of the things Halcomb will do differently then Tjack.. and once he see's the success of it i'm sure he'll start jumping into the situations of the quick slants.

also.. say we have CT

AP lined up side by side..

one goes right.. the other left.. which does the lb follow?

DiGiTaL

V-Unit
09-21-2007, 08:59 AM
"digital420" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"ThorSPL" wrote:



If we get those safeties up, that leaves a slant/post open for a receiver to make a quick catch and turn it....
We DO have receivers capable of THAT.... catch and run ... catch a nice short easy ball and run like hell....



Just how often do we call those plays?

With RB's, FB's & WR's able to catch the ball, IMO we don't use quick slant routes enough.


I think this is one of the things Halcomb will do differently then Tjack.. and once he see's the success of it i'm sure he'll start jumping into the situations of the quick slants.

also.. say we have CT

AP lined up side by side..

one goes right.. the other left.. which does the lb follow?
DiGiTaL



In man coverage, there would be an LB assigned to both. One LB would follow CT, another would follow AD.

Also, people are grossly overlooking the fact that we sorely missed Richardson vs. Detroit. Taking him out of the game to use our other RB as a measly decoy is unwise IMO.

digital420
09-21-2007, 09:03 AM
"V" wrote:


"digital420" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"ThorSPL" wrote:



If we get those safeties up, that leaves a slant/post open for a receiver to make a quick catch and turn it....
We DO have receivers capable of THAT.... catch and run ... catch a nice short easy ball and run like hell....



Just how often do we call those plays?

With RB's, FB's & WR's able to catch the ball, IMO we don't use quick slant routes enough.


I think this is one of the things Halcomb will do differently then Tjack.. and once he see's the success of it i'm sure he'll start jumping into the situations of the quick slants.

also.. say we have CT

AP lined up side by side..

one goes right.. the other left.. which does the lb follow?
DiGiTaL



In man coverage, there would be an LB assigned to both. One LB would follow CT, another would follow AD.

Also, people are grossly overlooking the fact that we sorely missed Richardson vs. Detroit. Taking him out of the game to use our other RB as a measly decoy is unwise IMO.


well.. with both in there, and the WR's set.. that would mean 2 less Lb's to pass rush.. and easier quick slants on the pass. I wouldn't see us running many times in that position.. unless osme REALLY good looks came our way.


DiGiTaL

Ranger
09-21-2007, 06:41 PM
We should split the load between CT and AP, in my opinion.
Like you guys have already said, having two really good backs share the load is going to provide us with fresh legs in the second half of the game, and fresher legs than the rest of the NFL in the second half of the season.
I can see CT grinding the defenses up in the first few quarters, wearing them down...and then AP taking it to the house.
Hell, I'd even give some carries to Memo when possible to keep everybody fresh and in the mix.
If you have the capable players, use them.

We've got excellent speed in our receivers and one of our tight ends, so the play action is a great idea.
Beat them up with the run game for a while, then get a foot race going between the secondary and our receivers.

Marrdro
09-21-2007, 06:43 PM
"V" wrote:


"digital420" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"ThorSPL" wrote:



If we get those safeties up, that leaves a slant/post open for a receiver to make a quick catch and turn it....
We DO have receivers capable of THAT.... catch and run ... catch a nice short easy ball and run like hell....



Just how often do we call those plays?

With RB's, FB's & WR's able to catch the ball, IMO we don't use quick slant routes enough.


I think this is one of the things Halcomb will do differently then Tjack.. and once he see's the success of it i'm sure he'll start jumping into the situations of the quick slants.

also.. say we have CT

AP lined up side by side..

one goes right.. the other left.. which does the lb follow?
DiGiTaL



In man coverage, there would be an LB assigned to both. One LB would follow CT, another would follow AD.

Also, people are grossly overlooking the fact that we sorely missed Richardson vs. Detroit. Taking him out of the game to use our other RB as a measly decoy is unwise IMO.

Great point my friend.

digital420
09-23-2007, 02:53 AM
here's a thought I had this mornin while on the throne.
was trying to see how it could be possible to best use our 2 headed rb threat.

this is my concept.

First off.. a few plays with both out there is warented.. but mostly it'll be a 1FB1RB deal. so.

First half we start CT, spell him with AP.. this gives both a chance to get into the game feel.. in the second half..
Start AP and spell him with CT.. this completely changes the looks the D will get from the RB, and with both having a feel for the game if one get sore.. (knock on wood) the other already has a rythem to move on with..

DiGiTaL

thevikingfan
09-23-2007, 02:56 AM
I think this game we need to give peterson the ball 200 times

singersp
09-23-2007, 09:56 AM
"digital420" wrote:



here's a thought I had this mornin while on the throne.....

DiGiTaL



??? I didn't know you were a Greek king?
:-

singersp
11-05-2007, 07:19 AM
Using Adrian Peterson, Brooks Bollinger correctly is key to the Minnesota Vikings' success (http://www.twincities.com/vikings/ci_7371634)

Pioneer Press

Article Last Updated: 11/04/2007 11:28:51 PM CST


Vikings coach Brad Childress finally has figured out how to use Adrian Peterson - early and often.

We've been saying for weeks - you, me, ex-NFL coaches turned talking heads - that Childress needs to take full advantage of Peterson's remarkable skills and feed him the ball again and again.

And again.

When Childress did that Sunday, the results were staggering..........

singersp
11-07-2007, 06:37 AM
Adrian Peterson's late show (http://www.twincities.com/vikings/ci_7389395?nclick_check=1)

Adrian Peterson totes a heavy load with astonishing ease. Statistics show that the Vikings rookie's productivity increases with his carries.

BY SEAN JENSEN
Pioneer Press
Article Last Updated: 11/07/2007 12:02:33 AM CST


The Vikings finally dismissed diplomacy and empowered rookie Adrian Peterson to be their featured running back...........

Marrdro
11-07-2007, 08:18 AM
And when he doesnt hit the rookie wall at week 12 and is still productive in week 16 will people realize that?

Probably not.

Hell, run him till he breaks.
Thats the ticket.
Jeeeezzzzzz.
:o ;D