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

now to the offseason...
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11 ... 88, 89, 90  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Minnesota Vikings
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
VikeManDan


Joined: 22 Dec 2010
Posts: 1166
Location: Minnesota
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2013 5:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is no reason for us to switch to a pass-oriented attack when we have Peterson even though it is a passing league. We have a GREAT running game and need a passing game that can compliment and take the pressure off of AD. We would be foolish to take the ball out of AD's hands.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vikingsrule


Moderator
Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 47470
Location: Land of 10,000 Lakes!
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2013 7:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

VikeManDan wrote:
There is no reason for us to switch to a pass-oriented attack when we have Peterson even though it is a passing league. We have a GREAT running game and need a passing game that can compliment and take the pressure off of AD. We would be foolish to take the ball out of AD's hands.


The team should run a balanced attack. The team needs to be able to pass the football in todays nfl, you cant get it done being a run heavy team.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
VikeManDan


Joined: 22 Dec 2010
Posts: 1166
Location: Minnesota
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2013 7:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

vikingsrule wrote:
VikeManDan wrote:
There is no reason for us to switch to a pass-oriented attack when we have Peterson even though it is a passing league. We have a GREAT running game and need a passing game that can compliment and take the pressure off of AD. We would be foolish to take the ball out of AD's hands.


The team should run a balanced attack. The team needs to be able to pass the football in todays nfl, you cant get it done being a run heavy team.


I agree about not being run heavy but we are a running team that is our strength on offense. We need a competent passing game to compliment that. How many truly balanced offenses are there? It seems more teams are pass heavy...while i do agree if a balanced offense is possible that is the best outcome.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CriminalMind


Joined: 25 Aug 2011
Posts: 4753
Location: Toronto, CA
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2013 7:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What made us successful this year was a) running the ball b/c with AP and going against LBs who are better rushing the passer instead of run support b) the O-Line run blocking more instead of pass blocking c) minimizing errors in the air

Most team pass attack, set up the run.
Based on our personel (and the mis-match-up), we should be the team that goes with a run attack, to set up the pass
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Uncle Buck


Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 14900
Location: Viking Country
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 9:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

vikingsrule wrote:
[UMN] wrote:
Percy Harvin, Antoine Winfield, Kevin Williams, Phil Loadholt, Jasper Brinkley, Erin Henderson, Jamarca Sanford, Jerome Simpson and Marcus Sherels are all starters who either have an expiring contract or other reason why their future with the team is in question.

The roster could look very differently once training camp rolls around.


I would guess most of those players are let go, nor really have a future as starters.

Brinkley, Simpson and Henderson are all poor starters who need to be replaced anyway.

Williams is an old declining starter, we can move on.

Sherels is garbage.

Sanford is a good backup and special teams player.

Winfield is still a good player but he is under contract and wont be going anywhere.

Harvin can yield the team one or two valuable draft picks to further improve the roster. With his replacement on the roster (Wright), its not really a loss.


Boy, I sure wouldn't go that far. While Wright has shown some promise this year, he is nowhere near being in Percy's league right now. He has a LONG way to go before we can say he's at that level.
_________________

Elisha Cuthbert - Yet another hottie who loves wearing purple and white. Very Happy Go Vikings!

Big props to gopherwrestler for this awesome sig!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
vikingsrule


Moderator
Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 47470
Location: Land of 10,000 Lakes!
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 10:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think my words are being twisted there. Of course going from Harvin to Wright is probably a downgrade. What I meant was that with a replacement for Harvin on the roster in Wright, who looks more than capable, losing Harvin to gain an upgrade elsewhere isnt a loss from a positional perspective. As in, trading Harvin doesnt create a void that has to be filled, rather, it adds to the resources to potentially fill other voids that need to be filled.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PrplChilPill


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 8942
Location: SLP, MN
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

VikeManDan wrote:
There is no reason for us to switch to a pass-oriented attack when we have Peterson even though it is a passing league. We have a GREAT running game and need a passing game that can compliment and take the pressure off of AD. We would be foolish to take the ball out of AD's hands.


The SF coaching staff disagrees with you. As does the Atlanta coaching staff.
_________________
Wins are a team stat, not a QB stat
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Klomp


Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Posts: 6371
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PrplChilPill wrote:
VikeManDan wrote:
There is no reason for us to switch to a pass-oriented attack when we have Peterson even though it is a passing league. We have a GREAT running game and need a passing game that can compliment and take the pressure off of AD. We would be foolish to take the ball out of AD's hands.


The SF coaching staff disagrees with you. As does the Atlanta coaching staff.


SF is still run-oriented, and Turner is nowhere near the caliber of Peterson.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SteelKing728


Joined: 23 Aug 2008
Posts: 13833
Location: Gibsonia, Pennsylvania
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Klomp wrote:
PrplChilPill wrote:
VikeManDan wrote:
There is no reason for us to switch to a pass-oriented attack when we have Peterson even though it is a passing league. We have a GREAT running game and need a passing game that can compliment and take the pressure off of AD. We would be foolish to take the ball out of AD's hands.


The SF coaching staff disagrees with you. As does the Atlanta coaching staff.


SF is still run-oriented, and Turner is nowhere near the caliber of Peterson.


doesn't change the fact.

We should move to a more pass oriented team. I love Adrian Peterson, and I'd love to see him get 2000 yards again, but our best chance to win is through the passing game.

Put more WR talent on the team, and hopefully Ponder can continue to progress as a QB. We take off pressure on Peterson. Teams have to think more than just "run, run, run" all the time. We keep him fresh through the game and through the season. Our offense gets better.

Yes, I think we need to do whatever we can to improve the passing game, as long as we believe we have our guy at QB.
_________________

Not your typical Vikings anymore.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
PrplChilPill


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 8942
Location: SLP, MN
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 5:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Klomp wrote:
PrplChilPill wrote:
VikeManDan wrote:
There is no reason for us to switch to a pass-oriented attack when we have Peterson even though it is a passing league. We have a GREAT running game and need a passing game that can compliment and take the pressure off of AD. We would be foolish to take the ball out of AD's hands.


The SF coaching staff disagrees with you. As does the Atlanta coaching staff.


SF is still run-oriented, and Turner is nowhere near the caliber of Peterson.


We'll just have to disagree. SF had the exact type of pass attack the OP was talking about, and switched QBs because they wanted a more dangerous offense, imo. That was not just about a running QB, that was about a vertical, passing attack. Atlanta, when they signed Gonzalez and traded multiple picks for a WR, was still a running team. They decided to transition to a passing team.
_________________
Wins are a team stat, not a QB stat
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vikingsrule


Moderator
Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 47470
Location: Land of 10,000 Lakes!
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 5:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Agreed. Run oriented teams like SF and Atlanta have transitioned away from it, realizing that you have to win with big plays in the passing game.

The Vikes must do the same thing if they ever hope to take the next step.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Klomp


Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Posts: 6371
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

vikingsrule wrote:
Agreed. Run oriented teams like SF and Atlanta have transitioned away from it, realizing that you have to win with big plays in the passing game.

The Vikes must do the same thing if they ever hope to take the next step.


True, but neither of said teams had RBs capable of making explosive plays on the ground.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vikingsrule


Moderator
Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 47470
Location: Land of 10,000 Lakes!
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Klomp wrote:
vikingsrule wrote:
Agreed. Run oriented teams like SF and Atlanta have transitioned away from it, realizing that you have to win with big plays in the passing game.

The Vikes must do the same thing if they ever hope to take the next step.


True, but neither of said teams had RBs capable of making explosive plays on the ground.


Agreed, which means the Vikes should get more out of there running game than those other teams.

However, MN needs to find an identity in the passing game and eventually that will need to be what carries this team.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rpmwr19


Moderator
Joined: 23 Dec 2006
Posts: 23956
Location: Stillwater, MN
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 7:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The passing identity of this team needs to be similar to the Manning Colts' teams in the sense that their best pass plays were off of stretch play action.
_________________
RPMs Viking Roster/Cap Tracker
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vikingsrule


Moderator
Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 47470
Location: Land of 10,000 Lakes!
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 7:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rpmwr19 wrote:
The passing identity of this team needs to be similar to the Manning Colts' teams in the sense that their best pass plays were off of stretch play action.


The Colts' Manning teams werent much for big, vertical receivers either. They liked shorter receivers, who were crafty route runners, good yac players and had good hands.

Of course, they made a lot of plays downfield. I always remember there offenses being 2 TE heavy, as well, with a TE (Dallas Clark) who could line up all over the formation.
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 ... 9, 10, 11 ... 88, 89, 90  Next
Page 10 of 90

 
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