I friggin HATE Brad Childress (1 Viewer)

[gianmarco]

Dallas has a good run defense as do the Packers for those claiming whatever they may claim about that game.

Don't know if you saw the Packers-Vikings game but Green Bay's defense could not stop Peterson at all. He ran all over them, dropping over 100 yards on them in the first half alone. The only way the Packers were going to stop Peterson in that game was if Childress took him out of the game plan - which fortunately for Green Bay is exactly what happened. I said after the game that victory for Green Bay was a gigantic gift from Childress. Had he used his top offensive option more intelligently the Vikings very well may have won that game. As a Peterson owner, I'll say it again - I don't have any problems with Taylor getting carries. I'm fine with Peterson not getting 30 carries a game given how he does have durability issues. But 13 touches in a close game is piss-poor coaching. There's no other way to describe it. If the Vikings are going to win, chances are it will be due to Peterson being involved in the offense. When he is removed from the offense, the advantage swings heavily to the defense and puts Minnesota in a gigantic hole. They already have serious talent issues at QB and WR so by removing Peterson from the game, Childress is gift-wrapping things for the defense and creating an even greater hole for his offense to try and climb out of. Not surprisingly, the offense has shown no indication whatsoever to this point in the season it is capable of doing that.

Why is that good posting? Green Bay's offense controlled the 2nd half of that game, holding the ball 11 of the 15 minutes in the 3rd quarter. It wasn't Childress pulling Peterson. During the 4 minutes and 10 plays they had the ball, Taylor had 2 carries for 40 yards and Peterson had 2 carries for 4 yards. They put up a FG, mostly because of a 37 yard run by Taylor, and were only down 13-9 entering the 4th. During the 1st 9 minutes of the 4th, Green Bay had it for 8 or those and quickly went up by 2 TD's. With 6 minutes left in the game and up by 2 TD's, I'm pretty sure the GB defense doesn't give a damn who the Minnesota RB is. But, AP did play in that 13 play TD drive, catching 1 pass for 6 yards. Taylor didn't get a carry or a target. So, the suggestion that Childress pulled AP in the 2nd half of that game is completely absurd.The other thing many aren't seeing is that on many of AP's rushes, he gets 1 yard or less. In the last 2 games, 15 of his 32 carries went for 1 yard or less. Drives are going to stall when that happens. Taylor, by comparison, only had 8 of his 32 carries go for 1 yard or less.

Another thing, and probably the easiest for people to see (if they want to open their eyes), is to just look at AP's YPC when Taylor plays (last 3 games) and AP gets a breather compared to when Taylor wasn't playing and AP was carrying the full load. It's fairly obvious that he's playing better with rest.

And for those who don't like him returning kicks, Minnesota doesn't win the Chicago game without AP returning kicks. You just can't pick 'the important' ones. You don't know when those will occur. After he ran that kick back 53 yards, Taylor obviously came in the game and got 5 yards on first down. AP got the carry on 3rd and 5, lost 4 yards, and almost took them out of FG range. Would you rather have him in the game on their own 20 and fresh or would you rather have Taylor in the game on Chicago's 38 yard line, with AP out of breath on the sideline? If you're a AP owner, you obviously want him on his own 20 having not run back the kickoff. If you're a Minnesota fan, you obviously want the latter.

By no means am I suggesting that Taylor is better than Peterson. But, it's fairly obvious for those with an unbiased mind, that Peterson is benefiting from the play of Taylor. It's funny, after 3 games, running solo, he was on pace for 1440 yards. Now, after Taylor returned, he's on pace for 1760 yards. And people are complaining!

Thanks for taking the time to review the game stats. You make some very good points, but as someone who watched that game, my issue is not with CT getting carries, it was with Childress THROWING THE BALL 39 TIMES. Childress hatred of AD doesn't merely display itself in his boneheaded desire to split carries between CT and AD, it has also shown itself in his unfounded faith in his passing game. In the first half of that GB game, AD ran all over the GB defense (108 yards on 10 carries I believe). Now go back and look at what Childress did on 3rd and short (2 yards or less): THREE times in the first half he threw the ball! With Kelly Holcomb at QB! With WRs of Wade, Rice, and Williamson. Absolutely stunning! The next week he wins a game on the back of APD and immediately announces that splitting carries worked (22 for APD, 20 for carries). Sure, this works AS LONG AS YOU ARE GETTING 40+ carries a game...but how often is that gonna happen for this team?

You act like they weren't successful. They made the 1st down on 2 of those. The week before, they ran on both 3rd and 1's, AP making it on one and fumbling on the other. So he doesn't ALWAYS throw on 3rd and short. It obviously depends upon the situation and team they are facing.To be fair, once they were down by 14, they had to throw. So 12 of those passes came at the end of the game (and they did result in one TD). But, that may also be the reason Taylor was in the game so much. Maybe, he's better at the passing game. It wouldn't be uncommon for a rookie to struggle at first in that area. My guess is Childress and the coaches are far more aware of their respective abilities in that area than any announcers or ex-coaches.

Throwing the ball the other 27 times prior to that is probably too much. But, unless he throws the ball some, there won't be any running room.

The bolded statement above is just being results-oriented. Just because it worked, doesn't make it the correct call. My opinion given the talent level at QB, WR, and RB on that team, they should be running on 3rd and short far more often than they should be passing. Just because they converted on 2 out of 3 of those in one game (very small sample size) doesn't make it right.As far as throwing the ball some to allow for running room, it's going to be the exact opposite in Minn. The passing game will NEVER open up the running game for the Vikings any time in the immediate future. They just aren't a threat and will be just as successful running the ball without those feeble attempts. And even if that were the case, those 27 other passing attempts are a little extreme, no? It should be the other way around. Minn should be establishing the run often and early to open up the passing game. I have actually been watching almost every Minn game so far this year (yes, because of AP) and their offense doesn't seem to get into any type of rhythm or flow UNLESS they run the ball consistently. I am actually going to go back and look at some play-by-plays and see if this is an incorrect perception or actually supported, but that's just been my impression from what I've seen so far.

I agreed that 27 was probably too much. I wasn't suggesting that they should come out passing to open up the run. But they do need to pass some on 1st and 2nd down (and yes, even 3rd and 2) so that they don't become too predictable. Someone else earlier didn't like my stat that Peterson gained 1 yard or less on almost half his carries the last 2 games. Well, that gets worse if they know you always run. As for them getting into a flow when they run, the problem is that Peterson isn't consistent when he runs. He gets his yards in chunks. I'm not saying that's bad but it's not going to lead to consistency and sustained drives.

I agree that you need some passing to mix it up. Even on 3rd and short, as you said. But it seems they are passing more than they are running on 3rd and short. Just in that above situation, that's 3 times they passed on a third a short and coverted 2 of them. That's not mixing it up and that's not playing to your strength. I also understand your point about Peterson being "inconsistent". I don't know if I'd go that far as there are very few runners that consistently churn out positive yards, and the ones that do just aren't usually homerun hitters like he is. Just a different style. However, with that kind of style, it just isn't conducive to 1 carry here and 1 carry there and intermittent plugging in on a series. You need to give a guy like that a few more carries so that he will eventually bust the longer run. Yes, they may have a few more stalled drives, but you will also hit a few more big ones as evidenced in the Chicago game. Again, I don't think that game was a fluke by any means. But the way they are using him and the type of runner he is just doesn't make any sense. I'm not saying this as an AP owner or from a fantasy perspective or as a Viking's fan. I'm saying this as an NFL fan and just watching the game and feeling frustrated that a guy with this kind of talent isn't on the field, especially when he has a very legitimate chance to carry his team to a win, not just to make a highlight reel.

 

[packersfan]

I'm pretty sure the GB defense doesn't give a damn who the Minnesota RB is.

You honestly believe the Packers (or any other NFL defense) believes there's no difference between Peterson and Taylor? Is that really what you want us to believe?

But, AP did play in that 13 play TD drive, catching 1 pass for 6 yards. Taylor didn't get a carry or a target. So, the suggestion that Childress pulled AP in the 2nd half of that game is completely absurd.

So the best offensive player on the team had one touch on a 13-play drive and you believe that's making the best use of his talent? The bottom line is Childress removed Peterson from the offense in a close game and that was a huge reason why his team lost. The Packers could not stop Peterson. In addition to his huge run, he was getting good production on most of his other runs as well. That was a game that begged for Peterson to get 20-25 touches. Instead, he had 3 total touches - including a kickoff return - in the second half. I have no idea how anyone can defend that in good conscience. Even if I wasn't a Peterson owner I'd be shocked at how poorly he was used by his head coach and what a significant impact that had on the outcome of the game.

 

[mcjc4]

They're 2-4, but could easily be 4-2 and in line for a playoff spot in a brutal NFC if only Childress had half a clue as far as what he's doing. Not only that, but the fans are growing increasingly tired of a coach many perceive to be in over his head as a head coach and whose personality doesn't endear him to anyone who has remotely followed the team.You just watch. As rare as they are in the NFL, the Vikings will have more than one blackout in their remaining home games and it's not because they don't have the talent to remain competetive and win games. It's because their head coach is a bumbling idiot who is costing the team games at the expense of alienting and infuriating it's fanbase.

I would not confuse a playoff team in the 2007 NFC as an NFL championship caliber squad. Look at what New England did to Dallas at home. There will be quite few teams in the NFC in the playoffs that flat out suck. What is the point in using up Peterson as a rookie to win a crappy division title? The best teams in the NFL are in the AFC. Any team interested in winning a SB should be measuring themselves versus IND & NE.The other piece to the equation is who is responsible for personnel? If its Childress, then he should be canned b/c Jackson is awful. How this team went into the season depending on him was just stupid. Unless of course they just don't care about '07, which I believe is the case.

But this is just plain dumb logic. So if you don't think you can compete with New England for a Super Bowl, then you shouldn't try to win games and make the playoffs? Well then the Vikes may as well F around with Peterson for the rest of his career, because they're never going to be in the same realm as the Patriots. Not many teams are. And I agree with you about Jackson. He's just not shown anything that leads me to believe he's an NFL QB.

You have to try to win every season. Injuries in the NFL come out of the blue. Do we even know who Tom Brady is if Bledsoe doesn't get rocked? Manning has somehow survived all these games without getting dinged up. if either of these guys goes down for the season it is wide open for everyone. Jake Delohomes elbow injury looked minor at first, GONE FOR THE SEASON. Fluke injuries happen and it changes the landscape of the whole league on 1 play. i do not wish anything bad to happen to either guy, i am a Pats fan along with the Vikes. I actually like Manning as well. Hell, I am a Favre fan and lived in MN for over 30 years!Play to win every game and get in position to make the playoffs. Then you let the chips fall where they may fall. A fumble here, blown coverage there and all the sudden your underachieving team is in a positon to win a game they shouldn't win.

 

[LILB811]

I agreed that 27 was probably too much. I wasn't suggesting that they should come out passing to open up the run. But they do need to pass some on 1st and 2nd down (and yes, even 3rd and 2) so that they don't become too predictable. Someone else earlier didn't like my stat that Peterson gained 1 yard or less on almost half his carries the last 2 games. Well, that gets worse if they know you always run. As for them getting into a flow when they run, the problem is that Peterson isn't consistent when he runs. He gets his yards in chunks. I'm not saying that's bad but it's not going to lead to consistency and sustained drives.

Ok, what I was trying to point out was this:Yes, I agree that the Vikings do need to pass to be successful, and in certain games they have passed too much. How is this team supposed to pass with Tarvaris Jackson at QB? I see two options:1.) With Chester Taylor in the game, the defense does not have to stack the box because of a lacking home run threat. (Chester is good, but we all know his talent is not at the level of Peterson). This creates less opportunity for Jackson to pass as the defense is not solely focused on the run. This strategy does not seem to help with the improvement necessary in the passing game.2.) With Peterson in the game, the defense most likely will be expecting run, and they have to respect Peterson's ability to break the big one. This in turn could be responsible for more 1 yard runs that you pointed out Taylor doesn't have as many of. Maybe the difference is only one man in the box, but that one man could open up the pass for some nice play action plays or just an easier time for Jackson.Bottom line: Tarvaris Jackson is not a good QB either way, but the best chance for him to succeed is with the defense showing the passing game no respect at all. This is more likely to happen with Peterson in the game. Forcing the defense to respect the pass is probably the biggest problem holding back both Peterson and Taylor. To me it just seems like this goal would be best achieved with Peterson in the game.

 

[Challenge Everything]