Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Is regression or no progress acceptable.
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Minnesota Vikings
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Klomp


Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Posts: 6772
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

vikingsrule wrote:
Peterson can progress, but does that mean he has to rush for more yards to be progressing?.


Similarly, do we have to win 11 games to be progressing?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vikingsrule


Moderator
Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 47898
Location: Land of 10,000 Lakes!
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Klomp wrote:
vikingsrule wrote:
Peterson can progress, but does that mean he has to rush for more yards to be progressing?.


Similarly, do we have to win 11 games to be progressing?


No i dont think so. Too many variables to consider to simply say that the team must win more games than the previous year. I think becoming a consistent contender for the wild card, then a consistent contender for the division is the kind of progression we should hope for. That doesnt mean MN has to win the division title next year for there to be progression, rather, battling for a playoff spot at seasons end shows that this team has progressed to being a perennial playoff contender. That should be the goal, 9-7 or better.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vike daddy


Most Valuable Poster (2nd Ballot)

Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 73782
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

i guess a progression could be measured by ending up with better than the #6 seed....
_________________


Webmaster wrote:
Can we knock off all the nonsense and stick to football?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cckoonie


Joined: 09 Jan 2007
Posts: 286
Location: clara city
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

vikingsrule wrote:
cckoonie wrote:
The progress I'd like to see from AD and our offense. More swing passes and screens to AD.


I would rather not, personally. It will only add to his touches. The Vikings need to find receivers who can make plays in the passing game, not rely on Peterson for more touches. That is what killed Tomlinsons career. Being a workhorse back and catching 60+ passes per year.


I don't want to see 35+ touches a game. 20-24 rushes and 3 to 5 catches isn't all that much. Getting the ball in his hands gives us the best chance of winning. Fact is, he is a workhorse back and limiting his touches doesn't mean he's going to have a longer career. We all know the shelf life of an NFL runningback isn't all that long and holding him back likely won't make much difference. I do understand what you're saying and agree with adding some receiver help(Hunter please Very Happy ).

LT played 10+ years in the league. I don't think his career got killed at all. You don't see backs playing 12+ years at a high level. It's the nature of man and football. Younger, stronger and faster replace older weaker and slower.

Not in complete disagreement with you because I'd like to see AD play for 25 years. I don't think I'll see another back like him, in purple, in my lifetime.

There has to be a happy medium. Doesn't there? Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vikingsrule


Moderator
Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 47898
Location: Land of 10,000 Lakes!
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tomlinson did have a rapid decline, I hope that the Vikings can find a way to prevent that with Peterson. Looking at some of the recent RBs who had great longevity, like Curtis Martin and Emmitt Smith, they were never particularly featured in the passing game. I think that can be an underrated element to a RB's longevity. Catching 60+ balls and getting 320-330+ carries, that is a heck of a lot of touches and to do that over a long career like Tomlinson did, it had to have taken its toll. He handled the ball a ton in SD. I think if SD found a way to reduce his touches, even 30 touches per year, perhaps that could have added a season or two to his prime.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vikingsrule


Moderator
Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 47898
Location: Land of 10,000 Lakes!
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just to add to the argument of Peterson regressing, which clearly would impact the team, I thought i would look at Peterson vs Tomlinson's touches for the firt six years of each of their careers. I think touches are very telling of how much longevity a RB can potentially have.

Tomlinson's first six years = 95 games played

2050 carries
395 catches
2445 touches

21.58 carries per game
4.15 catches per game


Peterson's first six years = 89 games played

1754 carries
177 catches
1931 touches

19.70 carries per game
1.98 catches per game


Peterson has almost two seasons worth of touches less than Tomlinson six years into each of there careers. Granted, Peterson did play in 6 fewer games.

Peterson has 296 fewer carries than Tomlinson six years in, that is about a season's worth.

I guess my point is that since Peterson wasnt such a focal point in the Vikings offense over the years like Tomlinson was, I expect Peterson to have a longer career. I wouldnt want the Vikings to change anything. Keep Peterson to around 320 carries per year and 40 catches.

With Peterson playing good football, the Vikings are always going to be a dangerous team. The Vikings progressing over the long-term will be dependent on the Vikings passing game, particularly Ponder.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Klomp


Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Posts: 6772
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 2:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

vikingsrule wrote:
Tomlinson did have a rapid decline, I hope that the Vikings can find a way to prevent that with Peterson. Looking at some of the recent RBs who had great longevity, like Curtis Martin and Emmitt Smith, they were never particularly featured in the passing game. I think that can be an underrated element to a RB's longevity. Catching 60+ balls and getting 320-330+ carries, that is a heck of a lot of touches and to do that over a long career like Tomlinson did, it had to have taken its toll. He handled the ball a ton in SD. I think if SD found a way to reduce his touches, even 30 touches per year, perhaps that could have added a season or two to his prime.


As a side note, Emmitt averaged 20 carries per game his whole career, with his single season high being 24.5 per game. That year he also had 50 catches to go with his 368 rushes. That's in 15 games. The next season he had 377 carries and 62 catches. Those were his 5th and 6th NFL seasons.

This is only Adrian's third 300+ carry season in his 6th year. He had 40 catches to go along with his 348 carries.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Minnesota Vikings All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group