Adrian Peterson -- The elephant in the room

[losperros]

Games aren't won and lost on one play. They're won and lost over the course of all 4 quarters.

I hate to sound like a broken record but I'm surprised the Vikings offense not finishing drives with TDs isn't a bigger issue.

[Norv Zimmer]

Trade him to the Browns for joe thomas

[soflavike]

If it was my call, I would trade him.

Not that simple... who is going to pay that kind of money for a 32 year old RB?

[Mothman]

Good questions. Maybe all the above?

That's possible.

I don't know if it's because of Zimmer and Turner's overall philosophy (ie: if they would use the same strategy with different personnel) but it's a safe bet that the Vikings were a run first team this season because that's how the coaches wanted it. They make the choices. They formulate the game plans and call the plays.

I think they felt with the personnel they had, a 'run first" approach gave them the best chance to win.

[cmoss84]

Thanks to everyone on this site for giving interesting insights-it's been fun to read throughout the season.
After cooling off a bit and cleaning up the vomit around my living room from the disappointing ending, here are my two cents on this:

AP won the rushing title with a group of o-lineman who played their #### off all year, but aren't the most talented bunch. Doug Martin was really the only other back who was close. If we were to re-group and put a slightly above-average line in front of him for the 2016 season, wouldn't it be fun to watch him get another rushing title in the new stadium? He takes a lot of pressure off of Teddy, who is close to taking the reigns, but maybe not quite yet. A lot of you are saying Mckinnon is ready to take over, but I feel a lot more comfortable with the AP/McK duo then Mck/rookie/FA back.

If we were to trade him, I doubt we would get a high draft pick for him. Would it be like the McCoy trade last year for a solid defensive player? This would be a more intriguing offer than a 2nd or 3rd round pick (if that's what we would get). To me, I want to start the new stadium off WITH AP.

[Mothman]

I hate to sound like a broken record but I'm surprised the Vikings offense not finishing drives with TDs isn't a bigger issue.

I'm stunned it's not a bigger issue. It's borderline inexplicable to me.

[VikingLord]

Might as well address this right away.

Adrian Peterson is going to cost the team a LOT of money next year. We are getting close, but we have definite needs -- the O-line, safety, depth at linebacker and more. Jerick McKinnon has shown to be a very versatile back who runs very well out of the shotgun. Adrian isn't getting any younger -- he'll be 31 next year. He only gained 524 yards after the Oakland game. He's obviously prone to fumbles. He requires the QB to be under center. And he's not effective in the passing game.

On the other hand, AP has been the face of the franchise for 9 years. He's arguably the best RUNNER at running back in the NFL. He's a threat to score every time he touches the ball.

You're the GM. Do you bring him back? What tips the scales for you?

What tips the scales for me is something that already happened and that is the Vikings re-worked his contract. If Spielman didn't have him in the long-term plans I don't think he would have done that.

So while I believe AD will be here next year, I also hope that Zimmer and Turner will find a way to strike a better balance on offense. I think Turner had that intent at the start of the season, but then the Vikes punted the game against San Fran to start the season and that plan went right out the window. But I don't think that mentality will last going into next season, nor can it.

In short, AD will be a Viking next year, but the process of transitioning the offense towards greater overall balance has already begun and will accelerate next year, and that will be good for everyone, including AD.

[IrishViking]

Hardly... and I'm getting very tired of insinuations like that.

I've had the same take on this sort of play for years. It happened and everything that happened after that impacted the outcome of the game too. Anything that might have happened after that is 100% hypothetical, pure conjecture, which is not the same as looking at a play that occurred in a game and considering options that were actually available.

All Peterson's fumble did was create an opportunity for Seattle but every play is a new opportunity. The Seahawks weren't yet in scoring position when they took possession of the ball. Their score on that drive wasn't the last play of the game. If the defense had been able to come on the field and force a three and out, the Vikes still could have won. If the Vikes had scored on a subsequent possession, they could have won.

Games aren't won and lost on one play. They're won and lost over the course of all 4 quarters.

Fair enough, I apologize, let me put it a different way. Peterson did more to lose us this game then any other player on the field. Period. Teddy contributed more. Blair contributed more.

[Mothman]

Fair enough, I apologize, let me put it a different way. Peterson did more to lose us this game then any other player on the field. Period. Teddy contributed more. Blair contributed more.

If that's how you want to look at it...

I don't see it that way but I do agree with what Kapp said above. That fumble was an important turning point in the game.

Thank you for the apology. I mean it. I sincerely appreciate it.

[mansquatch]

What, someone was nice to JIM!?!!!??!!

Time for #4 Trolling

[mondry]

Here's my question.

Are we a run-first team because that's Zimmer and Turner's philosophy?

Or is it because we have Adrian Peterson?

They tried to be a balanced "spread them out" offense in the first 4 games passing and running out of the shotgun. I don't see any reason they would start the season doing that if they intended to be a power running team from the get go. It wasn't until Peterson was extremely ineffective in that role ( running out of the shotgun) and the blocking of the O-line left so much to be desired that they decided to come out of the BYE week as a power running, under center, multiple tight end offense.

It's pretty clear to me that they don't want to be a one dimensional power running team but given the blocking, they were left with little choice. If they think they upgraded the O-line enough this offseason I expect them to try the shotgun offense out again.

[IrishViking]

If that's how you want to look at it...

I don't see it that way but I do agree with what Kapp said above. That fumble was an important turning point in the game.

Thank you for the apology. I mean it. I sincerely appreciate it.

Not at all, no reason we cant be civil while you slowly come to the conclusion that I a right


But in all seriousness. I really believe that AP and the direction this team is trying to go Via Norv are just to different and it would be best for both parties to go separate ways. I think AP would benefit from playing for an established passing offense where he finally will face the long wished for 6 man box.

[Mothman]

They tried to be a balanced "spread them out" offense in the first 4 games passing and running out of the shotgun. I don't see any reason they would start the season doing that if they intended to be a power running team from the get go.

Maybe they thought it was the best way to attack the 49ers? It's always struck me as a pretty small sample size from which to conclude that was how they wanted to run their offense all season.

It wasn't until Peterson was extremely ineffective in that role ( running out of the shotgun) and the blocking of the O-line left so much to be desired that they decided to come out of the BYE week as a power running, under center, multiple tight end offense.

Peterson only had about 4 or 5 carries from the shotgun in week 1. They began running from under center more often well before the bye week. If I remember correctly, most of his carries against the Lions and Chargers in the following 2 games were from under center.

[losperros]

Not at all, no reason we cant be civil while you slowly come to the conclusion that I a right

But in all seriousness. I really believe that AP and the direction this team is trying to go Via Norv are just to different and it would be best for both parties to go separate ways. I think AP would benefit from playing for an established passing offense where he finally will face the long wished for 6 man box.

Maybe you're right (yeah, I know, you're always right ).

But seriously, even if AD does leave, I wouldn't mind at all seeing Norv leave as well. Sorry but I'm just not a fan of his right now. It's probably a moot point, since I believe we'll see both Peterson and Norv back next year.

[Mothman]

Not at all, no reason we cant be civil while you slowly come to the conclusion that I a right

But in all seriousness. I really believe that AP and the direction this team is trying to go Via Norv are just to different and it would be best for both parties to go separate ways.[/quote]

I'm just not sure why people keep reaching that conclusion when almost the entirety of turner's history as an OC and playcaller suggests he likes to run his offense with the QB under center and a power running game. In what direction are they trying to go?