Vikings RB Adrian Peterson wants to return, open to pay cut

[fiestavike]

One thing frequently left out of the conversation about the Vikes playing more from the shotgun and moving away from Peterson is their relative lack of success with that strategy. That doesn't mean it can't be successful but they failed to put together a winning season leaning on that approach in 2014 and again in 2016. Even in 2015, when teams were able to get up on the Vikes and they got away from running Peterson and went to more shotgun, they tended to get blown out. Is a move toward a shotgun-oriented, pass-heavy approach actually a good fit for the Vikings and a good match with Zimmer's defense? The general consensus around here was that the offense improved after Turner left this season and while the numbers were a little better, the team ran less and their record was much worse.

If they're going to move forward without Peterson (and sooner or later, that will be necessary) they'd better figure out how to win without him. Thus far, running the offense primarily from the shotgun hasn't worked out very well at all for Zimmer's Vikes.

But going to the shotgun was never 'the plan', it was a reaction, both last season and the seasons before. They never created a roster capable of running Turner's offense and had to adapt on the fly. I expect the Shurmur Bradford combo to be able to get the Vikings to around 20th in offensive production next season with a short passing, dink and dunk offense that they won't be implementing in week 2, but before the season even starts.

I'm hugely disappointed with the direction of the team...they've sold out all the promise I saw them developing in 2014 and 2015, but oh well. That's how it goes in the NFL. They'll probably make the playoffs next year, but they won't be a contender without an historic defense.

[mosscarter]

i honestly think we are a few offensive linemen away from being a legitimate team. i knew the wheels were falling off in the first quarter of that philly game when the line totally imploded. the season was downhill from there and we lost two games to detriot and one to dallas that all 3 could have gone either way. get some protection up front and get peterson back in gear and we'll be fine.

[Mothman]

But going to the shotgun was never 'the plan', it was a reaction, both last season and the seasons before. They never created a roster capable of running Turner's offense and had to adapt on the fly

That's true.

I expect the Shurmur Bradford combo to be able to get the Vikings to around 20th in offensive production next season with a short passing, dink and dunk offense that they won't be implementing in week 2, but before the season even starts.

I'm hugely disappointed with the direction of the team...they've sold out all the promise I saw them developing in 2014 and 2015, but oh well. That's how it goes in the NFL. They'll probably make the playoffs next year, but they won't be a contender without an historic defense.

I doubt they'll even make the playoffs but who knows? I don't expect much more from the offense next year than we saw later this season, partly because I don't expect to see them build much more logically and effectively on that side of the ball than they have for the last 3 years. I didn't think Shurmur's offense was very good with the Rams or Browns so I have little confidence in his ability to lift the Vikes offense even as high as 20 next year. I like quite a bit about Bradford's game but he's too easily coerced into checking down on 3rd down, too willing to settle for those safe plays short of the marker. I don't know if that's a habit he can break at this point in his career. He'll probably be good for similar production to this year but I suspect this offense will struggle to put enough points on the board.

[Banquo]

One thing frequently left out of the conversation about the Vikes playing more from the shotgun and moving away from Peterson is their relative lack of success with that strategy. That doesn't mean it can't be successful but they failed to put together a winning season leaning on that approach in 2014 and again in 2016. Even in 2015, when teams were able to get up on the Vikes and they got away from running Peterson and went to more shotgun, they tended to get blown out. Is a move toward a shotgun-oriented, pass-heavy approach actually a good fit for the Vikings and a good match with Zimmer's defense? The general consensus around here was that the offense improved after Turner left this season and while the numbers were a little better, the team ran less and their record was much worse.

If they're going to move forward without Peterson (and sooner or later, that will be necessary) they'd better figure out how to win without him. Thus far, running the offense primarily from the shotgun hasn't worked out very well at all for Zimmer's Vikes.

Ultimately, they need to match personnel and scheme. I think they ought to move away from Peterson towards a scheme that is more shotgun heavy (I'm not talking extremes-- the league is pretty shotgun heavy) because the QB('s), best WR, offensive coaching staff, and issues in protection seem to point that direction. And in keeping with that scheme/personnel match they should go get a back who can thrive in both traditional and shotgun sets (Tennessee's Alvin Kamara comes to mind). Get all the personnel on the same page and give it a real shot.

I am in no way opposed to a run heavy offense. I just think they're much further away, in terms of players, from being able to do that well.

@fiestavike: why does the move towards an offense that incorporates more shotgun/passing mean they are wasting their promise?

[Banquo]

BTW, moving into a more west coast style doesn't mean excessive pass happy game plans necessarily. They just need a runner who is suited to that style.

[Mothman]

Ultimately, they need to match personnel and scheme.

Agreed.

I think they ought to move away from Peterson towards a scheme that is more shotgun heavy (I'm not talking extremes-- the league is pretty shotgun heavy) because the QB('s), best WR, offensive coaching staff, and issues in protection seem to point that direction. And in keeping with that scheme/personnel match they should go get a back who can thrive in both traditional and shotgun sets (Tennessee's Alvin Kamara comes to mind). Get all the personnel on the same page and give it a real shot.

I am in no way opposed to a run heavy offense. I just think they're much further away, in terms of players, from being able to do that well.[/quote]

I understand but I don't think their approach to this should involve too much short term thinking.

[fiestavike]

@fiestavike: why does the move towards an offense that incorporates more shotgun/passing mean they are wasting their promise?

I thought they were developing a culture and personality in the coaching staff and among the players that had a lot of promise. It never manifested statistically and they never got the right pieces, especially up front, but they were aiming for excellence. Now it feels like they just want to make the most of whatever pieces they have and improve. They gave up the edge of demanding excellence. Maybe this is what happens when your leadership goes from trying to win championships to trying to save their jobs.

[IrishViking]

I thought they were developing a culture and personality in the coaching staff and among the players that had a lot of promise. It never manifested statistically and they never got the right pieces, especially up front, but they were aiming for excellence. Now it feels like they just want to make the most of whatever pieces they have and improve. They gave up the edge of demanding excellence. Maybe this is what happens when your leadership goes from trying to win championships to trying to save their jobs.

That seems a little harsh, nothing they have said indicates to me that they are giving up their expectation of excellence on defense. Possibly on Offense but that seems more a result of the utter and complete lack of an identity. Peterson came back and put to rest any doubts about whether we are a run powerhouse. We aren't. We are a team that doesn't excel at anything on offense and apart from our QB, and parts of our Receiving Core, every other position on Offense could be rated as a detriment. To me its less, "we have no identity just go wherever" and more "we have no identity, lets see what pieces develop and whats available and plan accordingly."

To use an extreme example, it would be the height of stupidity for a team this offensively inept to go into the offseason and trading and drafting to say "We are going X style and X style only" and pass on a several key pieces of affordable and available Y style because you "Boxed" yourself in.

[Demi]

I understand but I don't think their approach to this should involve too much short term thinking.

To use an extreme example, it would be the height of stupidity for a team this offensively inept to go into the offseason and trading and drafting to say "We are going X style and X style only" and pass on a several key pieces of affordable and available Y style because you "Boxed" yourself in.

Exactly. Which is what I think they've been doing.

You draft/sign players based on their skill. Not based on a system or style. If you have an established coaching staff for half a decade. Fine. You can cherry pick for that type of team.

If we had Belichick, you can sign/draft for belichick. We don't, and haven't. So we just need good players. Hopefully Spielman doesn't sign/draft for Shurmur. Or it will go as well as drafting/signing for Norv.....

[Pondering Her Percy]

Exactly. Which is what I think they've been doing.

You draft/sign players based on their skill. Not based on a system or style. If you have an established coaching staff for half a decade. Fine. You can cherry pick for that type of team.

If we had Belichick, you can sign/draft for belichick. We don't, and haven't. So we just need good players. Hopefully Spielman doesn't sign/draft for Shurmur. Or it will go as well as drafting/signing for Norv.....

Well I would want Spielman to draft a RB that fits Shurmurs style of offense. Not a guy that can't run from the shotgun like AP. Outside of that I agree with the bottom statement

[720pete]

Just in case we don't, Adrian wants everyone to know he would prefer to play for the Giants, Buccaneers, or Texans.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... uccaneers/

Cut him.

[Pondering Her Percy]

Just in case we don't, Adrian wants everyone to know he would prefer to play for the Giants, Buccaneers, or Texans.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... uccaneers/

Cut him.

I've been saying that before he brought this up. Great teams he picked None of them are any better than we are. We're stupid to keep him. Even if he takes a pay cut I just don't want him anymore. I love the guy but I just don't want him. If he takes a pay cut and we keep him AND we don't draft a RB, I'll snap. The only way I'm ok with keeping him is if he takes a pay cut AND we drafted a RB. If we don't do that, I don't want him anymore

[losperros]

I've been saying that before he brought this up. Great teams he picked None of them are any better than we are. We're stupid to keep him. Even if he takes a pay cut I just don't want him anymore. I love the guy but I just don't want him. If he takes a pay cut and we keep him AND we don't draft a RB, I'll snap. The only way I'm ok with keeping him is if he takes a pay cut AND we drafted a RB. If we don't do that, I don't want him anymore

Just watched an interview with Peterson and it doesn't sound as if he'll take a *big* pay cut.

I think it's a moot point. The Vikings can't afford him so AD will be gone and they'll draft a RB.

[Thaumaturgist]

Just watched an interview with Peterson and it doesn't sound as if he'll take a *big* pay cut.

I think it's a moot point. The Vikings can't afford him so AD will be gone and they'll draft a RB.

Oh, he'll take a pay cut, just not with the vikings. I can't see anyone else paying him that much.

[TSonn]

Just in case we don't, Adrian wants everyone to know he would prefer to play for the Giants, Buccaneers, or Texans.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... uccaneers/

Cut him.

When I first saw the news about this interview I had a similar reaction. After watching the full interview, though, he spent about 80% of the time explaining why he wants to return to the Vikings and 20% talking about the other teams because he was badgered by the First Take crew.