Vikings Message Board.Com

Mothman wrote:I don't know what the folks at Football Outsiders were watching all year but the run blocking was not "excellent". Watch Sunday's game again and see how many times Bennett and other Seahawks were in the backfield before Peterson had a chance to do anything. That dynamic wasn't unique to Sunday's game. We saw it quite a bit this season. There were games (like the game at Atlanta) were the o-line did a good job run-blocking but overall, running conditions for Peterson were FAR from ideal.

The folks at Football Outsiders weren't the only ones who described the Vikings run blocking as excellent. NBC carried the last three Vikings games, and they said the same thing every week. Obviously, they don't cover the Vikings on a daily or weekly basis, but they do have to conduct a ton of research for each game.

Sunday's game is actually a great example of what happened for most of the second half of the season. I don't think it was so much the line, especially in the second half of the season, but more the combination of predictability of playcalling and quality of opponent, which as we all know rose sharply in the second half (and was as good as it gets Sunday against Seattle). It's a chicken-or-egg thing, but the question remains ... was the offense predictable because they ran so much on running downs? Or did the offense run so much on running downs because AP was in the backfield? Either way, it's really hard for a line to block when the entire world is sitting in the box.

Don't get me wrong, Jim. I love what Adrian Peterson has brought to this franchise, and if he's still here in 2016, I'll be on the edge of my seat every time he carries the ball, just as I always have been. But I also won't be surprised if he's not wearing purple in 2016, and I don't think it's as sure a thing as you're making it out to be. So far, the only person who has said he'll be back is AP himself. And believe me, it's being discussed, if nowhere else but on the web and over the radio airwaves. Honestly, I'd love to be wrong. I'd love it if AP ran for another 1,400+ yards next year and the Vikings won the Super Bowl. I just have my doubts.

Still friends?

J. Kapp 11 wrote:The folks at Football Outsiders weren't the only ones who described the Vikings run blocking as excellent. NBC carried the last three Vikings games, and they said the same thing every week. Obviously, they don't cover the Vikings on a daily or weekly basis, but they do have to conduct a ton of research for each game.

I heard the comments. I've noticed Collinsworth loves to mention his little investment project, Pro Football Focus quite often too.

Would you characterize the Vikings run blocking over the course of this season as "excellent" or the circumstances under which Peterson ran all year as "ideal"?

Sunday's game is actually a great example of what happened for most of the second half of the season. I don't think it was so much the line, especially in the second half of the season, but more the combination of predictability of playcalling and quality of opponent, which as we all know rose sharply in the second half (and was as good as it gets Sunday against Seattle). It's a chicken-or-egg thing, but the question remains ... was the offense predictable because they ran so much on running downs? Or did the offense run so much on running downs because AP was in the backfield? Either way, it's really hard for a line to block when the entire world is sitting in the box.

It is but regardless of the reason for the quality of the blocking, I feel confident saying it wasn't excellent.

Don't get me wrong, Jim. I love what Adrian Peterson has brought to this franchise, and if he's still here in 2016, I'll be on the edge of my seat every time he carries the ball, just as I always have been. But I also won't be surprised if he's not wearing purple in 2016, and I don't think it's as sure a thing as you're making it out to be. So far, the only person who has said he'll be back is AP himself. And believe me, it's being discussed, if nowhere else but on the web and over the radio airwaves. Honestly, I'd love to be wrong. I'd love it if AP ran for another 1,400+ yards next year and the Vikings won the Super Bowl. I just have my doubts.

I understand your perspective on this and even though we don't see eye-to-eye on it, it's reasonable.

I see Peterson's return as a virtual lock because I'm convinced Zimmer wants him back and I think his contract is manageable for the Vikings. It looks to me like they set it up to have him for a two year window and to reassess it after that.

Still friends?

Of course. I'm not exasperated by the thread concept or your take on it.

2016. Peterson counts for $11 million in cap space. He will be back
2017. Peterson counts for $18 million in cap space. If he is back, it will be at a lower number than that.

That my fellow fans is the bottom line.

The vaunted Vikings offense, featuring two of the highest paid players in the game, Mike Wallace and Adrian Peterson.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

Raptorman wrote:2016. Peterson counts for $11 million in cap space. He will be back
2017. Peterson counts for $18 million in cap space. If he is back, it will be at a lower number than that.

That my fellow fans is the bottom line.

The average salary of an NFL running back is $2.89 million, according to NFL.com.

The average salary of an NFL punter is $2.91 million.

And you think AP at $11 million is a bargain?

We'll see if Rick Spielman agrees with you.

If our OL were excellent, why would Zimmer fire the OL coach immediately after the season ended?

Texas Vike wrote:If our OL were excellent, why would Zimmer fire the OL coach immediately after the season ended?

Because he wanted to.

Cliff wrote: Because he wanted to.

Well played, Cliff.

J. Kapp 11 wrote: The average salary of an NFL running back is $2.89 million, according to NFL.com.

The average salary of an NFL punter is $2.91 million.

And you think AP at $11 million is a bargain?

We'll see if Rick Spielman agrees with you.

Average time in the league of NFL RB's is 4.2 years. So most of them are on their rookie contracts.

Cliff wrote: Because he wanted to.

Exactly.

And he wanted to, because Zimmer rightly perceived incompetence on that coach's part. That's half of the problem. The other half is personnel, which I believe they will also improve.

I am still waiting to see what they do about the QB coach....Teddy obviously needs a better teacher.....but nepotism is a disease that is hard to cure.

chicagopurple wrote:I am still waiting to see what they do about the QB coach....Teddy obviously needs a better teacher.....but nepotism is a disease that is hard to cure.

what about pessimism?

I doubt this team is letting go of him. He essentially helped the team to an 11-5 record and NFC North Division title.

What I hope happens is that the staff commits to balance. Not run-first.

HardcoreVikesFan wrote:I doubt this team is letting go of him. He essentially helped the team to an 11-5 record and NFC North Division title.

What I hope happens is that the staff commits to balance. Not run-first.

As a point. the Vikings ran 20 more running plays than passing plays for the year. 49% passing, 51% running plays. NFL average was 57% passing, 43% running. With only the Vikings, Seattle, Carolina and Buffalo running more running plays than passing plays.

Texas Vike wrote:If our OL were excellent, why would Zimmer fire the OL coach immediately after the season ended?

Because he can't fire the entire offensive line?