Vikings Message Board.Com

who is the man at RB?......NO ONE.......Once again the management has shown poor judgement of talent and an inability to develop young talent. Plan B...we don't have one. Maybe there is an alchoholic DUI fiend out there who has slightly less then average talent who we can invest millions in......

frosted21 wrote:Why are you putting words in my mouth? I never said I wanted to focus the game plan on Cassel thowing the ball 35+ times a game. I agree, it wouldn't make sense not to feature Adrian, when he is as I just said in my last post, the best non-quarterback in the NFL, IMO. I am not disagreeing with the idea that you need a strong running game in this league either. Yikes. Are you even reading and responding to my posts, or is this supposed to be directed at VikingLord? My point, which seems to be coming through in your post, is that an offense built around a player (its best player, obviously), is going to struggle without that player, regardless of what position that player plays, if that player is lost in the midst of the season. Plugging an inferior player into a position that a superior player usually occupies, is going to yield a negative result

Sorry, I interpreted what I thought you meant (not wanting to feature AD) that you wanted to feature the passing game. If that wasn't your point, my apologies. I'm not sure, then, what you meant.

I disagree with you. I think you are wrong about Johnson and Sullivan. I agree that Kalil is a pass blocking left tackle. Beyond him, I feel that Loadholt, Sullivan, Fusco, and Johnson are all superior at run blocking (than they are at pass blocking).

I think that's likely the case, but what I'm saying is that they weren't drafted specifically for their run-blocking, which I thought was what you were getting at. Sullivan is an all-around center. I don't know if his run-blocking is that much better than his pass-blocking, but YMMV. Fusco also seems, to me, to be in that mold. His run-blocking may be a bit better.

I think that we have locked up Sully, Fusco, and Loadholt to long term extensions, because they are solid offensive lineman, who are at their best when run blocking. I don't really pay much attention to what they're 'known' or noted for, I am just going off of what I have seen from these players on the field.

I agree with that.

This is neither here nor there, however. My point was, and remains, the offense is predicated on what Adrian brings to the table.

I would phrase it that the offense is built around trying to be balanced, but establishing the run is the foundation.

Again, the team was built around Adrian Peterson.

Perhaps we're just in a semantic argument. I take your meaning "the team was built around Adrian Peterson" to mean that, since Peterson was drafted, the focus has been primarily on drafting and acquiring high-round and talented run blockers. Aside from Loadholt, I just don't think a case to be made for that. With three sixth-rounders starting on the offensive line, perhaps only one or two of whom was drafted with the expectation of the potential for above-average run-blocking talent, I just don't think you could make a convincing case for that.

It is what it is, take any of those players away from their respective team and they would struggle, just as we are struggling without Adrian. When you install an offense to take advantage of a certain player and their talents, the team will struggle without said player. I don't think that takes away from Adrian at all, it's just common sense.

I guess I just don't see what the Vikings are doing/did that is any different than any other team? I think the goal has always been to build a balanced team.

chicagopurple wrote:who is the man at RB?......NO ONE.......Once again the management has shown poor judgement of talent and an inability to develop young talent. Plan B...we don't have one. Maybe there is an alchoholic DUI fiend out there who has slightly less then average talent who we can invest millions in......

I'm not sure that assessment is fair regarding the running back for a couple of reasons:

1) The Vikings have drafted running backs as backups/replacements to Peterson. The fact that we just happened to face a crisis at the position now is extremely unfortunate. Toby came in second in the Heisman voting and Gerhart's career NFL stats (even with his 'slow' start this season) is a pretty respectable 4.5 ypc. The fact was that his contract was up this year and the Vikings could have gave him a contract commensurate with his experience, or let him walk. How many people would have been happy if we had offered Gerhart a three-year, $10.5 million contract (The contract contains $4.5 million guaranteed, including a first-year roster bonus of $3 million) before we knew Peterson wouldn't have been able to play. Fans (who already were questioning Peterson's contract) would have been livid with the 'holes' we needed to fill. Frankly, this situation wasn't on anyone's radar.

2) They drafted McKinnon this year to keep 'addressing' a succession plan for the running back situation. Far from ignoring it, I think the Vikings have been pretty pro-active in addressing it. While I am not going to say that McKinnon will "be a good back" I acknowledge in my critique of McKinnon that he's only been in the NFL for a few games. I think it's a little premature to say we are not able to develop him, or shown poor judgment in evaluating talent.

Just Me wrote: I'm not sure that assessment is fair regarding the running back for a couple of reasons:

1) The Vikings have drafted running backs as backups/replacements to Peterson. The fact that we just happened to face a crisis at the position now is extremely unfortunate. Toby came in second in the Heisman voting and Gerhart's career NFL stats (even with his 'slow' start this season) is a pretty respectable 4.5 ypc. The fact was that his contract was up this year and the Vikings could have gave him a contract commensurate with his experience, or let him walk. How many people would have been happy if we had offered Gerhart a three-year, $10.5 million contract (The contract contains $4.5 million guaranteed, including a first-year roster bonus of $3 million) before we knew Peterson wouldn't have been able to play. Fans (who already were questioning Peterson's contract) would have been livid with the 'holes' we needed to fill. Frankly, this situation wasn't on anyone's radar.

2) They drafted McKinnon this year to keep 'addressing' a succession plan for the running back situation. Far from ignoring it, I think the Vikings have been pretty pro-active in addressing it. While I am not going to say that McKinnon will "be a good back" I acknowledge in my critique of McKinnon that he's only been in the NFL for a few games. I think it's a little premature to say we are not able to develop him, or shown poor judgment in evaluating talent.

Excellent post.

LEAFMAN THE PURPLE FAN

Just Me wrote: I'm not sure that assessment is fair regarding the running back for a couple of reasons:

1) The Vikings have drafted running backs as backups/replacements to Peterson. The fact that we just happened to face a crisis at the position now is extremely unfortunate. Toby came in second in the Heisman voting and Gerhart's career NFL stats (even with his 'slow' start this season) is a pretty respectable 4.5 ypc. The fact was that his contract was up this year and the Vikings could have gave him a contract commensurate with his experience, or let him walk. How many people would have been happy if we had offered Gerhart a three-year, $10.5 million contract (The contract contains $4.5 million guaranteed, including a first-year roster bonus of $3 million) before we knew Peterson wouldn't have been able to play. Fans (who already were questioning Peterson's contract) would have been livid with the 'holes' we needed to fill. Frankly, this situation wasn't on anyone's radar.

2) They drafted McKinnon this year to keep 'addressing' a succession plan for the running back situation. Far from ignoring it, I think the Vikings have been pretty pro-active in addressing it. While I am not going to say that McKinnon will "be a good back" I acknowledge in my critique of McKinnon that he's only been in the NFL for a few games. I think it's a little premature to say we are not able to develop him, or shown poor judgment in evaluating talent.

Going to have to disagree on your 2nd point Dan.
Mckinnon Wasn't a pure RB. They just wanted a 3rd down back, they wearnt thinking of depth, or replacing AD when the time came. He was an option QB type, more then a pure RB. And there were some good RBs out there, as a better 3rd round choice. They got him because of the way Norv used Sporels. So far McK has shown me nothing.

I think Zach Line should get a serious look.

The Breeze wrote:I think Zach Line should get a serious look.

Bring up off the practice squad! Why not?

PurpleKoolaid wrote:Going to have to disagree on your 2nd point Dan.
Mckinnon Wasn't a pure RB. They just wanted a 3rd down back, they wearnt thinking of depth, or replacing AD when the time came. He was an option QB type, more then a pure RB. And there were some good RBs out there, as a better 3rd round choice. They got him because of the way Norv used Sporels. So far McK has shown me nothing.

I can respect that. And I agree, thus far, McKinnon is leaving a little to be desired. But remember: He's a Rookie with very few games under his belt, which is why I think even my Michael Bennett comparison might be unfair. (But that is who I am reminded of right now). And while I think you're primarily correct (in that Turner's primary plan was to utilize McKinnon as a Sporels clone) I don't know how that precludes the Vikings from developing him further as a "fully functional" (my term) running back, especially when we consider that almost all of us, at the beginning of the season, figured Peterson had at least "a few years left" before we'd have to replace him. I still think the Vikings have addressed this position pretty well. (Especially when considering how poorly they've handled other positions in the past.)

thas my take on it...granted its only been a few games....but He really doesnt strike me as a back that was meant to be the heir to AP. I just REALLY hope they can find a good back to grind things our and passblock, otherwise Teddy is gonna become a gun-shy race horse with multiple injuries. Heck I would be thrilled with a great Fullback......

frosted21 wrote:I never said I wanted to focus the game plan on Cassel thowing the ball 35+ times a game. I agree, it wouldn't make sense not to feature Adrian, when he is as I just said in my last post, the best non-quarterback in the NFL, IMO. I am not disagreeing with the idea that you need a strong running game in this league either. Yikes. Are you even reading and responding to my posts, or is this supposed to be directed at VikingLord?

I'm not saying a team shouldn't have balance and be able to run the ball. Nor am I saying the point is to throw it more.

How about just be able to run it effectively without throwing a huge portion of the team's cap at it? How about being able and willing to target the middle and deeper parts of the field in the passing game? How about just even friggin' *attempting* to throw it into the endzone from outside 20 yards more than 3 times a year?

VikingLord wrote: I'm not saying a team shouldn't have balance and be able to run the ball. Nor am I saying the point is to throw it more.

How about just be able to run it effectively without throwing a huge portion of the team's cap at it? How about being able and willing to target the middle and deeper parts of the field in the passing game? How about just even friggin' *attempting* to throw it into the endzone from outside 20 yards more than 3 times a year?

I think a lot of the stems from A) the guy taking snaps capable and willing to do that B) the receivers to get open and win contested balls and C) the protection to do it. There always seems to be some combination of this that prevents it from happening consistently effectively. From Ponder's gun-shy mentality, inconsistency and poor decision-making ability (especially under duress), to some really bad receivers to a history of inconsistent to bad pass protection...it's not a great recipe for downfield success.

I guess I just don't know what Peterson's contract has actually prevented the Vikings from doing, exactly.

dead_poet wrote:I guess I just don't see what the Vikings are doing/did that is any different than any other team? I think the goal has always been to build a balanced team.

You don't see how investing $11 million in a single RB when the league average for that position is $1.5 million is doing something differently?

How much success are they having with this strategy? Vikings haven't even been in the NFC North title conversation since 2009. That's now going on 5 seasons, and in 2009 they actually had legit QB play. They currently field a bottom-3 offense and were basically shut down by the Patriots and Saints who both had looked very shaky on defense.

This strategy is proving itself right out the door IMHO. This team has been built around the "contrarian" belief that a team can be competitive in the modern NFL with a run-first philosophy built around a star RB and a defense that stops the run and prevents big passing plays. The team was last competitive in it's own division in 2009, a year when Favre's outstanding performance somehow managed to eclipse the incompetence of Brad Childress.

If you don't see what the Vikings are doing differently, then just look at every other team in the NFC North and compare what we have to what they have. Defensively, the differences may be marginal, but offensively, they are striking. All of our divisional foes can throw it. None of them feature a running attack, and of the one (Chicago) that one could argue does feature a running game, they do almost as much damage passing to their backs as running them.

VikingLord wrote: I'm not saying a team shouldn't have balance and be able to run the ball. Nor am I saying the point is to throw it more.

How about just be able to run it effectively without throwing a huge portion of the team's cap at it? How about being able and willing to target the middle and deeper parts of the field in the passing game? How about just even friggin' *attempting* to throw it into the endzone from outside 20 yards more than 3 times a year?

I think the cap hit for Peterson was a non-issue. I know it bugs people but teams with a well-established QB pay salaries like that all the time. It's not as if the Vikes had a QB they needed to pay that kind of money to but they did have a superstar/elite player so why not pay him and keep him while in the process of drafting and developing a QB? It made sense. and I'm not sure why it bothers people so much. Who was Peterson's salary ever preventing them from signing that would have helped the team more than he did?

I feel your pain re: the downfield passing game. Being able to target the middle and deeper parts of the field and being willing to do so seem like different issues to me. To do it effectively, they need the right personnel. I think they've been a little timid about it this year but then again, they may be justifiably concerned about their o-line's ability to protect long enough on routes designed to go deep and when they have attempted to throw much further than 10 yards downfield, Cassel struggled to complete anything in the first two weeks. Maybe we'll see them do it a bit more with Bridgewater this week. I hope so.

I'd definitely like to see them throw to the end zone more, from inside and outside of the 20. That's been a problem for years and it sure seemed like a problem again on Sunday.

VikingLord wrote:You don't see how investing $11 million in a single RB when the league average for that position is $1.5 million is doing something differently?

Frankly, I don't care as long as it doesn't prevent them from doing something else. I fail to see them not spending on Drew Brees because their cap on Adrian Peterson is preventing it, as Jim points out.

How much success are they having with this strategy?

How can you possibly blame the team's failures lately largely on Peterson's contract? I really want to know.

This strategy is proving itself right out the door IMHO.

It's more complicated than one player's contract.

This team has been built around the "contrarian" belief that a team can be competitive in the modern NFL with a run-first philosophy built around a star RB and a defense that stops the run and prevents big passing plays.

That's not contrarian. As been pointed out previously, that's the formula of the last three Super Bowl champions (or 5 of the last 7) and others that have made the playoffs. Teams don't have to be the Saints or Packers to win it all.

The team was last competitive in it's own division in 2009, a year when Favre's outstanding performance somehow managed to eclipse the incompetence of Brad Childress.

Nobody is debating that it helps to have a Hall of Fame QB starting. Yet, recall that in 2009, the Vikings were also in the top-10 in rush attempts per game. They fielded a good rush offense as well as an above-average passing game. You can't run the same offense with lesser players and expect the same results.

If you don't see what the Vikings are doing differently, then just look at every other team in the NFC North and compare what we have to what they have. Defensively, the differences may be marginal, but offensively, they are striking. All of our divisional foes can throw it. None of them feature a running attack, and of the one (Chicago) that one could argue does feature a running game, they do almost as much damage passing to their backs as running them.

Last season the Vikings fielded a top-15 offense and were 14th in points scored/game. The Bengals, Chiefs, Seahawks and 49ers (run-first teams) also finished in the top-10. The Vikings are not doing anything that contrary to many other (successful) teams. They have deficiencies at QB and on defense (among other things), none of which have anything to do with Peterson or his contract.

Our divisional foes also have Aaron Rodgers, Matthew Stafford and Jay Cutler (not to mention Jordy Nelson, Randal Cobb, Brandon Marshall, Calvin Johnson and Alshon Jeffery). Personal influences offensive identity/ideology.

FWIW, the Packers were #12 last year in rush attempts/game, #7 in rushing yards, and #4 in YPC.

VikingLord wrote: You don't see how investing $11 million in a single RB when the league average for that position is $1.5 million is doing something differently?

How much success are they having with this strategy? Vikings haven't even been in the NFC North title conversation since 2009. That's now going on 5 seasons, and in 2009 they actually had legit QB play. They currently field a bottom-3 offense and were basically shut down by the Patriots and Saints who both had looked very shaky on defense.

This strategy is proving itself right out the door IMHO. This team has been built around the "contrarian" belief that a team can be competitive in the modern NFL with a run-first philosophy built around a star RB and a defense that stops the run and prevents big passing plays. The team was last competitive in it's own division in 2009, a year when Favre's outstanding performance somehow managed to eclipse the incompetence of Brad Childress.

If you don't see what the Vikings are doing differently, then just look at every other team in the NFC North and compare what we have to what they have. Defensively, the differences may be marginal, but offensively, they are striking. All of our divisional foes can throw it. None of them feature a running attack, and of the one (Chicago) that one could argue does feature a running game, they do almost as much damage passing to their backs as running them.

You're mistaken about that. Last year, Green Bay was 7th in the league in rushing, one spot ahead of the Vikings. They had more rushing yards and more rushing attempts than any other team in the division. Chicago was ranked 16th in rushing and Detroit 17th. The Lions also had more rushing attempts than the Vikes.

Thus far this season, of the 4 NFC North teams, only Detroit ranks in the upper half of the league in rushing attempts per game (at #15). The other 3 NFCN teams are near the bottom.

Here's what I don't understand about your complaint: salary follows personnel and performance. The Vikings aren't paying a QB the kind of money GB, Detroit and Chicago do because the Vikes don't have that player to pay. Strategy also follows personnel, at least to a considerable extent. The Vikings just invested their second first round pick in 4 years into the QB position. I seriously doubt they're doing that because they firmly believe in the contrarian philosophy you mentioned above. If they had a QB and receiving corps that could help them field a passing game like they did in 2009, they'd probably be doing so but they don't have that personnel. I think the idea behind drafting Ponder, Rudolph, Patterson, Wright and Childs and adding Simpson and jennings in free agency was probably to build what they had with Favre, Rice, Harvin, Berrian and Shiancoe in 2009 again but it hasn't worked out very well. Harvin wanted out, Ponder was a bust, Rudolph can't stay healthy, Childs pretty much never was healthy, Simpson has no self-control and can't stay out of trouble...

Now they're trying again with Bridgewater as the centerpiece and they don't need to pay him a huge salary because the rookie cap makes it unnecessary.

I think you may be perceiving failure to build a successful passing attack that would have made it less necessary to rely on Peterson for a contrarian philosophy of making RB a priority over QB. I think the Vikes have been a run-first team because that's what they could do best and if a team is going to establish an offensive identity, it usually begins with what they can do best.

Edit: oops! I see dead_poet made some of the same points while I was writing the post above.