PDA

View Full Version : Adrian Peterson's running style.


MetSox17
09-09-2008, 03:25 PM
Thread title says it all. AD's running style. And in a nutshell; i don't like it.

I've never seen someone throw a stiff arm less than Adrian Peterson. Sometimes i feel like he runs faster than he thinks. Which is not necessarily a bad thing sometimes, there are some who think too long and then are screwed in the backfield. Another thing that i noticed he does a lot is that he holds the ball opposite hand of where he's running to. For example, if he's running to the left, he'll hold it with his right arm, vice versa. Since pee-wee, that's something that's always lectured to the kids, you hold the ball on the hand which side you're running to (R,R;L,L) .

I think that minimizes some of his effectiveness. I went back and i looked at a lot of videos of him in college and high school, and i guess it was a habit that was formed then. Not having a stiff arm when you're running is like going to war without your knife. Should you need to use it, you're screwed.

All of this came to me when i was watching yesterday's game and i saw where he did like a shuffle step to try to lose Al Harris, and Harris just climbed on top of him and dragged him down. Why was he holding the ball on his right hand? That's exactly where Harris was coming from!

Maybe he'd fumble less if he learned to switch the ball around.

Bruce Banner
09-09-2008, 03:28 PM
He craves contact and runs upright. It will shorten his career but it's what makes him the best in the business.

The other stuff is correctable, look at Tiki.

slightlyaraiderfan
09-09-2008, 03:28 PM
It sort of works.

Addict
09-09-2008, 03:30 PM
It sort of works.

exactly. even without stiff arms the kid ran wild on the NFL, so until he fails miserably no argument from me.

MetSox17
09-09-2008, 03:32 PM
Never said it was a horrible thing, just said it minimizes his effectiveness. Imagine if he corrected it.

Bruce Banner
09-09-2008, 03:33 PM
I don't know if we will ever see him utilize the stiff arm. He'd rather deal out punishment.

Addict
09-09-2008, 03:34 PM
I don't know if we will ever see him utilize the stiff arm. He'd rather deal out punishment.

like, in a fight, instead of jerking around trying to wear out the other guy, just knee him in je groin and DANG, you're done.

Bruce Banner
09-09-2008, 03:36 PM
like, in a fight, instead of jerking around trying to wear out the other guy, just knee him in je groin and DANG, you're done.

In other words, yeah.

Saints-Tigers
09-09-2008, 03:36 PM
See, thing is, I think if you start trying to critique and make him changes things, you'll have him thinking to much on the field and not reacting quickly, which is one of his big strengths. He doesn't have a fumbling issue, and his YPC is outrageous, so as a coach, I wouldn't change anything until I ran into issues.

MetSox17
09-09-2008, 03:41 PM
See, thing is, I think if you start trying to critique and make him changes things, you'll have him thinking to much on the field and not reacting quickly, which is one of his big strengths. He doesn't have a fumbling issue, and his YPC is outrageous, so as a coach, I wouldn't change anything until I ran into issues.

Four fumbles last season isn't an issue?

How hard must it be to learn to run with the ball on the side you're running to though?

Addict
09-09-2008, 03:44 PM
Four fumbles last season isn't an issue?

How hard must it be to learn to run with the ball on the side you're running to though?

four fumbles is NOTHING compared to 12 touchdowns and 1,300+ yards. I'd take that any day of the week.

Sniper
09-09-2008, 03:46 PM
Four fumbles last season isn't an issue?

How hard must it be to learn to run with the ball on the side you're running to though?

Darren McFadden fumbled 23 times in 3 years of college. Why aren't you bitching about his running style?

MetSox17
09-09-2008, 03:46 PM
four fumbles is NOTHING compared to 12 touchdowns and 1,300+ yards. I'd take that any day of the week.

But we're not talking about touchdowns or yards.

Four fumbles = four times that you risk a 50/50 chance of giving your opponent the ball at any given moment.

Saints-Tigers
09-09-2008, 03:47 PM
Four fumbles last season isn't an issue?

How hard must it be to learn to run with the ball on the side you're running to though?

Not really, no, we really don't have enough attempts from him to know if it's an issue, or just 4 really well delivered hits.... sometimes a fumble is inevitable. Hell, Tomlinson had 8 fumbles as a rookie.

MetSox17
09-09-2008, 03:47 PM
Darren McFadden fumbled 23 times in 3 years of college. Why aren't you bitching about his running style?

Because he plays in Oakland, and we all know Oakland is irrelevant.

This thread wasn't even about the fumbling initially, so why are you getting all rowdy?

Sniper
09-09-2008, 03:48 PM
Because he plays in Oakland, and we all know Oakland is irrelevant.

This thread wasn't even about the fumbling initially, so why are you getting all rowdy?

You brought up fumbling twice.

PANTHERS!

scottyboy
09-09-2008, 03:49 PM
Because he plays in Oakland, and we all know Oakland is irrelevant.

This thread wasn't even about the fumbling initially, so why are you getting all rowdy?

so the thread's about how AD doesn't throw stiff arms, and had four fumbles. holy bejezus, we've got a problem. thank goodness the vikes have chester taylor

MetSox17
09-09-2008, 03:52 PM
so the thread's about how AD doesn't throw stiff arms, and had four fumbles. holy bejezus, we've got a problem. thank goodness the vikes have chester taylor

I wouldn't expect you to write anything productive in return, but i'll respond to your stupid post anyway.

The thread is about how Peterson never switches the ball around after he takes it, and how it might minimize his effectiveness. If more fools like you can't understand that, i'll change the title of the thread.

Bruce Banner
09-09-2008, 03:53 PM
I wouldn't expect you to write anything productive in return, but i'll respond to your stupid post anyway.

The thread is about how Peterson never switches the ball around after he takes it, and how it might minimize his effectiveness. If more fools like you can't understand that, i'll change the title of the thread.

It might damper his effectiveness but it wouldn't minimize it.

scottyboy
09-09-2008, 03:54 PM
I wouldn't expect you to write anything productive in return, but i'll respond to your stupid post anyway.

The thread is about how Peterson never switches the ball around after he takes it, and how it might minimize his effectiveness. If more fools like you can't understand that, i'll change the title of the thread.

i don't think it's minimized his effectiveness thus far has it? onme fumble every 4 games is soooooo terrible, right? I think he knows a bit more about how he's comfortable and how to be effective than you. But he thanks you for your concern

Addict
09-09-2008, 03:54 PM
But we're not talking about touchdowns or yards.

Four fumbles = four times that you risk a 50/50 chance of giving your opponent the ball at any given moment.

You don't change something that works.

Besides, it's not 50/50, since the ball can go out of bounds and go back to the Vikes. Sure, it's a risk, but an affordable one.

4 fumbles, assuming 50% go to the other team mean 2 turnovers. Even assuming that both those turnovers become points (which is still also on the defense for not stopping the opposing offense as well, but whatever, for argument's sake we'll keep going). So let's say those two turnovers lead to points, and that we can hold AD personally responsible for those 14 points on a season. AD played 14 games last year, so that's 1 point every game. He scored 12 touchdowns so that's 12 x 6 (I won't count the extra point) = 72 points on the season also directly on AD, or 72 devided by 14 = 5 points per game.

So, in short, AD costs the vikes 1 point a game, but brings in 5. So those four fumbles I'll gladly accept.

Bruce
09-09-2008, 03:54 PM
AP had 4 fumbles last year, lost 3.

Of the top 5 rushers last year

Willie Parker had 4. Lost 3

Brian Westbrook had 2 fumbles, lost 1.

Jamal Lewis had 4 fumbles and lost 2.

Only LT didn't fumble because, well, he's LT.

I can see how AP's running style could cause a lot of fumbles but he didn't even fumble once in college.

MetSox17
09-09-2008, 03:55 PM
It might damper his effectiveness but it wouldn't minimize it.

Well here's where you're fumbling your words. If he dampers it, then he's minimizing it.

As in, he's not reaching his full potential as a runner because of it. Whether that be .2 more YPC, or whatever, it might bring it down a little. Do you understand what i'm saying?

Sniper
09-09-2008, 03:56 PM
Nonsense Bruce. Brian Westbrook doesn't fumble. He was being generous and sharing the ball with everyone else.

Bruce
09-09-2008, 03:57 PM
Nonsense Bruce. Brian Westbrook doesn't fumble. He was being generous and sharing the ball with everyone else.I won't argue with you there he's probably THE most underrated player, not RB, player in the NFL.

MetSox17
09-09-2008, 03:57 PM
i don't think it's minimized his effectiveness thus far has it? onme fumble every 4 games is soooooo terrible, right? I think he knows a bit more about how he's comfortable and how to be effective than you. But he thanks you for your concern

Thanks for proving me right.

Bruce Banner
09-09-2008, 03:57 PM
Well here's where you're fumbling your words. If he dampers it, then he's minimizing it.

As in, he's not reaching his full potential as a runner because of it. Whether that be .2 more YPC, or whatever, it might bring it down a little. Do you understand what i'm saying?

min·i·mize (mn-mz)
tr.v. min·i·mized, min·i·miz·ing, min·i·miz·es
1.
a. To reduce to the smallest possible amount, extent, size, or degree.


I doubt it renders him useless.

yo123
09-09-2008, 03:59 PM
Well here's where you're fumbling your words. If he dampers it, then he's minimizing it.

As in, he's not reaching his full potential as a runner because of it. Whether that be .2 more YPC, or whatever, it might bring it down a little. Do you understand what i'm saying?


It's not like he has a bad fumbling problem, 4 fumbles isn't that many. We should be talking about how awesomely amazing he is instead of bashing him. Without him we would be a 4-12 team.

scottyboy
09-09-2008, 04:00 PM
Thanks for proving me right.

I actually proved it wrong. Obviously if it was such a big problem, he or the coaching staff would've fixed it.

AND you know, pros do hit a bit harder than college kids, don't they? so maybe, just MAYBE, he had to adapt to the change in play and the harder hits? and don't refute it, it's true.

Addict
09-09-2008, 04:00 PM
Thanks for proving me right.

I'm still waiting for you to react to my little math class back on page 1.

MetSox17
09-09-2008, 04:01 PM
min·i·mize (mn-mz)
tr.v. min·i·mized, min·i·miz·ing, min·i·miz·es
1.
a. To reduce to the smallest possible amount, extent, size, or degree.


I doubt it renders him useless.

I stand corrected, it dampers his productivity. Thanks Bruce.


BTW, this thread wasn't created to talk about fumbling. So stop with the fumbling stuff. I brought it up, because changing the way he holds the ball might.. er, minimize it..(the fumbling).. but i meant it more as far as his agility when running to the left side with the ball on the right.

Does anyone in here know what the hell i'm trying to say???

Bruce Banner
09-09-2008, 04:01 PM
Good job MS.

MetSox17
09-09-2008, 04:02 PM
You don't change something that works.

Besides, it's not 50/50, since the ball can go out of bounds and go back to the Vikes. Sure, it's a risk, but an affordable one.

4 fumbles, assuming 50% go to the other team mean 2 turnovers. Even assuming that both those turnovers become points (which is still also on the defense for not stopping the opposing offense as well, but whatever, for argument's sake we'll keep going). So let's say those two turnovers lead to points, and that we can hold AD personally responsible for those 14 points on a season. AD played 14 games last year, so that's 1 point every game. He scored 12 touchdowns so that's 12 x 6 (I won't count the extra point) = 72 points on the season also directly on AD, or 72 devided by 14 = 5 points per game.

So, in short, AD costs the vikes 1 point a game, but brings in 5. So those four fumbles I'll gladly accept.

Sorry, got lost in all the other replies.

Anyway, this argument is NOT about how many fumbles you'd be willing to trade off in exchange for points. This is about minimizing the fumbling and the yards lost by holding the ball on the wrong hand.

scottyboy
09-09-2008, 04:05 PM
I stand corrected, it dampers his productivity. Thanks Bruce.


BTW, this thread wasn't created to talk about fumbling. So stop with the fumbling stuff. I brought it up, because changing the way he holds the ball might.. er, minimize it..(the fumbling).. but i meant it more as far as his agility when running to the left side with the ball on the right.

Does anyone in here know what the hell i'm trying to say???

if he's comfortable holding it in "the wrong hand", who gives a flying ****? it obviously didn't hinder him last year did it? It obviously didn't cause a "fumbling problem"(and you brought up fumbling twice). What if he fears he'll fumble in the transfer of hands?

and going without a stiff arm is hardly going to war without a knife. If his what? 5.6 YPC and over 1,300 yards is going to war without my knife, then damn right I'm leaving that blade at home

Bruce Banner
09-09-2008, 04:06 PM
I'm starting to think we are missing MS17's point.

MetSox17
09-09-2008, 04:07 PM
I actually proved it wrong. Obviously if it was such a big problem, he or the coaching staff would've fixed it.

AND you know, pros do hit a bit harder than college kids, don't they? so maybe, just MAYBE, he had to adapt to the change in play and the harder hits? and don't refute it, it's true.

So because he still does it, does that mean that they HAVEN'T tried fixing it? Or let it be known? It's not as easy as saying, FIX IT.

The thing is, he's been doing this since HS. He hasn't done anything different. His talent has always gotten him by.

How can you say it hasn't hurt his production? Have you seen the absolute max of him, therefore you can effectively say that he will gain nothing by using the stiff arm more often and having a little more agility by switching the ball around?

I feel like he can be a little better. That's my opinion. You're trying to pass off your comments as fact.

MetSox17
09-09-2008, 04:10 PM
if he's comfortable holding it in "the wrong hand", who gives a flying ****? it obviously didn't hinder him last year did it? It obviously didn't cause a "fumbling problem"(and you brought up fumbling twice). What if he fears he'll fumble in the transfer of hands?

and going without a stiff arm is hardly going to war without a knife. If his what? 5.6 YPC and over 1,300 yards is going to war without my knife, then damn right I'm leaving that blade at home

Again, how can you say that it didn't hinder him??

So if 5.6 ypc is enough for you, you wouldn't want to better his production? Wow, that's about as dumb a claim as i've heard. Because you're already good, you won't try being better. Nice.

Addict
09-09-2008, 04:11 PM
Sorry, got lost in all the other replies.

Anyway, this argument is NOT about how many fumbles you'd be willing to trade off in exchange for points. This is about minimizing the fumbling and the yards lost by holding the ball on the wrong hand.

no biggie.

Either way, I do realise what you're trying to say but you're overlooking one major factor here: instinct.

Your argument is largely based on the thought that one can make a fair trade between altering AD's running style to be 'safer' and adding to his production. I just don't think it works that way. Running back is a position that has a great deal to do with instincts. Now if you make the position too cerebral, you'll lose some of that instinct and thus production. It's not an AD problem, it's just the nature of the position.

So if there would be a situation where they could make AD instinctively carry the ball in a safer way, there's absolutely no reason not to do it. However, it doesn't work that way. By making him fight his instincts, you're inevitably hurting his production.

For comparison, look at Brett Favre. What QB's are supposed to do is set their feet and throw, right? However, Favre usually throws from his back foot, which isn't the right way to do it, and may cause him to throw a few more interceptions that he would if he was to set his feet properly, but it's just the way he plays best. Could they teach him not to throw the way he does? Well not anymore obviously, but back in the day? Sure, they didn't because it would also limit Brett's natural ability as a passer. Now I gotta say Favre gets critisized a lot for those INT's, and to an extent it's justified, but as I said earlier, it's the nature of the beast.

scottyboy
09-09-2008, 04:12 PM
So because he still does it, does that mean that they HAVEN'T tried fixing it? Or let it be known? It's not as easy as saying, FIX IT.

The thing is, he's been doing this since HS. He hasn't done anything different. His talent has always gotten him by.

How can you say it hasn't hurt his production? Have you seen the absolute max of him, therefore you can effectively say that he will gain nothing by using the stiff arm more often and having a little more agility by switching the ball around?

I feel like he can be a little better. That's my opinion. You're trying to pass off your comments as fact.

yes, his lack of stiff arm clearly hurt his production when he set that single game rushing record. oh silly AD, with a stiff arm and holding the ball different, he gets 350, easy. How do you know for fact, these would help him? If he's, ya know, kinda comfortable with the way he runs, and obviously produces, why change?

have you heard the saying: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"?

MetSox17
09-09-2008, 04:16 PM
yes, his lack of stiff arm clearly hurt his production when he set that single game rushing record. oh silly AD, with a stiff arm and holding the ball different, he gets 350, easy. How do you know for fact, these would help him? If he's, ya know, kinda comfortable with the way he runs, and obviously produces, why change?

have you heard the saying: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"?

That saying is used when you risk making the situation worse instead of better. I seriously doubt changing the way he carries a ball, to reduce the open contact he receives there will hurt him. If a coach comes out and says it will, fine, but i doubt that.

I never said for a fact it would help him. Actually, i emphasized that at the end of my post. Did you not read that??

Here, let me quote it again for your reading pleasure.
I feel like he can be a little better. That's my opinion. You're trying to pass off your comments as fact.

Twiddler
09-09-2008, 04:16 PM
I get what you're saying. He's a great player now but if he ever gets to a point where he is equally comfortable holding the ball in the correct arm it could help him be a better RB, which is scary. Being concerned about his four fumbles may have been a little nitpicky but even though the number isn't sky high, doesn't mean that he can't work to improve that, and holding the ball in the correct arm could only help. Plus, if he held it in the correct arm I believe he would be more apt to use a stiff arm to get rid of guys like Al Harris last night. Bottom line, he's amazing and this year I don't think that he should mess around with too much but in the off season these are somethings that can be addressed to make him a better runner.

MetSox17
09-09-2008, 04:19 PM
no biggie.

Either way, I do realise what you're trying to say but you're overlooking one major factor here: instinct.

Your argument is largely based on the thought that one can make a fair trade between altering AD's running style to be 'safer' and adding to his production. I just don't think it works that way. Running back is a position that has a great deal to do with instincts. Now if you make the position too cerebral, you'll lose some of that instinct and thus production. It's not an AD problem, it's just the nature of the position.

So if there would be a situation where they could make AD instinctively carry the ball in a safer way, there's absolutely no reason not to do it. However, it doesn't work that way. By making him fight his instincts, you're inevitably hurting his production.

For comparison, look at Brett Favre. What QB's are supposed to do is set their feet and throw, right? However, Favre usually throws from his back foot, which isn't the right way to do it, and may cause him to throw a few more interceptions that he would if he was to set his feet properly, but it's just the way he plays best. Could they teach him not to throw the way he does? Well not anymore obviously, but back in the day? Sure, they didn't because it would also limit Brett's natural ability as a passer. Now I gotta say Favre gets critisized a lot for those INT's, and to an extent it's justified, but as I said earlier, it's the nature of the beast.

Great argument addict, didn't think of it this way originally.

I'd still try to see if he can carry the ball the proper way. If the coaching staff and Peterson feel it makes him run robotic, then obviously, can it. But if it doesn't, why the heck not?

MetSox17
09-09-2008, 04:21 PM
I get what you're saying. He's a great player now but if he ever gets to a point where he is equally comfortable holding the ball in the correct arm it could help him be a better RB, which is scary. Being concerned about his four fumbles may have been a little nitpicky but even though the number isn't sky high, doesn't mean that he can't work to improve that, and holding the ball in the correct arm could only help. Plus, if he held it in the correct arm I believe he would be more apt to use a stiff arm to get rid of guys like Al Harris last night. Bottom line, he's amazing and this year I don't think that he should mess around with too much but in the off season these are somethings that can be addressed to make him a better runner.

That's exactly what i'm saying. I'm glad SOMEONE understood my original post.

The play on Al Harris last night was basically what made it stand out more to me. He basically ran right into his tackling vicinity, and tried to do a little jiggle to lose him, and all that did was give Harris leverage on his tackle.

scottyboy
09-09-2008, 04:22 PM
That saying is used when you risk making the situation worse instead of better. I seriously doubt changing the way he carries a ball, to reduce the open contact he receives there will hurt him. If a coach comes out and says it will, fine, but i doubt that.

I never said for a fact it would help him. Actually, i emphasized that at the end of my post. Did you not read that??

Here, let me quote it again for your reading pleasure.

so me saying my "facts" was when I said they would've changed his style already if they felt it was a problem. no **** they would. Pretty sure Coughlin did it with Tiki, didn't he?

And I seriously doubt him keeping everything the same will hurt him all too much.

And yes, changing a running style could make it worse. If it ain't broke don't fix it, does fit in here. Why change the style of the current single game rushing holder?

Twiddler
09-09-2008, 04:23 PM
That's exactly what i'm saying. I'm glad SOMEONE understood my original post.

The play on Al Harris last night was basically what made it stand out more to me. He basically ran right into his tackling vicinity, and tried to do a little jiggle to lose him, and all that did was give Harris leverage on his tackle.

Yeah, as much as I love Al Harris, I was pretty shocked that he was able to make that tackle. Honestly, after watching Al get destroyed by Adrian in the first quarter, this was quite the opposite end result.

MetSox17
09-09-2008, 04:27 PM
so me saying my "facts" was when I said they would've changed his style already if they felt it was a problem. no **** they would. Pretty sure Coughlin did it with Tiki, didn't he?

And I seriously doubt him keeping everything the same will hurt him all too much.

And yes, changing a running style could make it worse. If it ain't broke don't fix it, does fit in here. Why change the style of the current single game rushing holder?

No, here's what you're trying to pass off as fact. who gives a flying ****? it... didn't hinder him last year did it? It... didn't cause a "fumbling problem"(

You're saying it did not hinder him, and it did not cause a fumbling problem. Really? Sorry Scotty, i didn't know you knew exactly what Peterson's running potential is, and what he can and cannot do. Cause i mean, that's the only way you'd know if it didn't hinder him, right?

I explained why i thought it wouldn't hurt his running style. I'm not gonna explain it again.

The Great Jonathan Vilma
09-09-2008, 04:31 PM
I wouldn't expect you to write anything productive in return, but i'll respond to your stupid post anyway.

The thread is about how Peterson never switches the ball around after he takes it, and how it might minimize his effectiveness. If more fools like you can't understand that, i'll change the title of the thread.

Is this a thread just so you can state a point? What do you expect people to respond with. sure he could change it, why couldn't he. Would he be more effective? You can't honestly say that he would be, because for all we know it could make him less effective. Good in theory, no doubt. But at this point, fumbles aren't a big issue, and i'd let him keep doing his thing. Small corrections, but don't suddenly make him start using it before he gets comfortable with it. If he can't feel confident doing it, then i'd say don't do it at all. When he starts feeling bad about having lots of fumbles, then i'd push the point, but until then, i don't see the issue.

Your points are well taken, and good in theory, but there isn't really a point to this thread other than says, 'Way to go, you are spot on'. Its that or disagree, realistically, and i don't see a reason to go strongly to either side.

I personally, love his running style......

MetSox17
09-09-2008, 04:38 PM
Is this a thread just so you can state a point? What do you expect people to respond with. sure he could change it, why couldn't he. Would he be more effective? You can't honestly say that he would be, because for all we know it could make him less effective. Good in theory, no doubt. But at this point, fumbles aren't a big issue, and i'd let him keep doing his thing. Small corrections, but don't suddenly make him start using it before he gets comfortable with it. If he can't feel confident doing it, then i'd say don't do it at all. When he starts feeling bad about having lots of fumbles, then i'd push the point, but until then, i don't see the issue.

Your points are well taken, and good in theory, but there isn't really a point to this thread other than says, 'Way to go, you are spot on'. Its that or disagree, realistically, and i don't see a reason to go strongly to either side.

I personally, love his running style......

The point of the thread was to point out something that i saw, that could be corrected, and might improve his production, even better than what we're already seeing. I was just wondering if anyone else noticed that as well.

I responded in an earlier post saying that if it makes him uncomfortable, then can it, but if it doesn't, it can't hurt.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
09-09-2008, 04:45 PM
Never said it was a horrible thing, just said it minimizes his effectiveness. Imagine if he corrected it.

Imagine if Brett Favre corrected his "Favre being Favre" thing. He wouldn't be as great. Maybe if AD lost his "bat **** insane" running style, he'd end up like Reggie Bush.

scottyboy
09-09-2008, 04:46 PM
Imagine if Brett Favre corrected his "Favre being Favre" thing. He wouldn't be as great. Maybe if AD lost his "bat **** insane" running style, he'd end up like Reggie Bush.

but how do we know that for fact? ZOMGZ! WRONG!!!!!

MetSox17
09-09-2008, 04:48 PM
but how do we know that for fact? ZOMGZ! WRONG!!!!!

Well i'm glad you finally realized how much of an idiotic point you were making and gave up trying to defend it.

scottyboy
09-09-2008, 04:49 PM
Well i'm glad you finally realized how much of an idiotic point you were making and gave up trying to defend it.

no, I just realized you're quite stubborn and have yet to realize nobody gives a flying **** about your point or opinion and that if this problem AD has had since high school, perhaps a coach over the past 10 years would have tried to change it.

Bruce Banner
09-09-2008, 04:51 PM
no, I just realized you're quite stubborn and have yet to realize nobody gives a flying **** about your point or opinion and that if this problem AD has had since high school, perhaps a coach over the past 10 years would have tried to change it.

No one cares about Rutgers either.

Just sayin'

:p

MetSox17
09-09-2008, 04:54 PM
no, I just realized you're quite stubborn and have yet to realize nobody gives a flying **** about your point or opinion and that if this problem AD has had since high school, perhaps a coach over the past 10 years would have tried to change it.

Lol, you don't find it the least bit ironic that you claim no one cares about my point or opinion, yet you've been here for three pages arguing with me about it?

Menardo75
09-09-2008, 04:55 PM
"if it ain't broke, don't fix it"?

That quote should be about the end of this

scottyboy
09-09-2008, 05:00 PM
Lol, you don't find it the least bit ironic that you claim no one cares about my point or opinion, yet you've been here for three pages arguing with me about it?

It's pointless to argue with you now, I've realized that. I disputed your point, and the poster below me is 100% right.

Addict
09-09-2008, 05:04 PM
It's pointless to argue with you now, I've realized that. I disputed your point, and the poster below me is 100% right.

Addict is awesome.

MetSox17
09-09-2008, 05:06 PM
It's pointless to argue with you now, I've realized that. I disputed your point, and the poster below me is 100% right.

You've disputed my point illogically. That you cannot deny. Out of the blue you felt it was pointless to argue with me, coincidentally after i pointed out who incorrect your basis of argument was.

I've replied to nearly every post in this thread and i've found TWO posters who offered something productive (Addict, Twiddler) and actually understood what i was saying (plus bruce banner).

"if it aint broke dont fix it" should NOT be the end of it. Let me try explaining it to you and try your very best to understand. I know it's a little harder for you than most of us.

If there's a possibility to improve, why wouldn't you want to? Yes, he's a great runner now, but why would you wanna limit him?

If someone has a link to a story saying they've already tried this and he just feels uncomfortable, FINE. End of argument. The only reason i'm talking about this is because no one has said anything about having tried fixing it already.

Addict
09-09-2008, 05:11 PM
If someone has a link to a story saying they've already tried this and he just feels uncomfortable, FINE. End of argument. The only reason i'm talking about this is because no one has said anything about having tried fixing it already.

my guess would be the vikes have already tried. On the other hand, Peterson's 5.6 season ypc average was the stuff of legends, I believe only Barry Sanders and OJ had higher season averages then he did (it was on some ESPN ticker monday night), so I tend to think it's maxed out. IF they have already tried it, and it failed, they won't tell us, by virtue of the fact they're not (entirely) stupid.

Menardo75
09-09-2008, 05:11 PM
You've disputed my point illogically. That you cannot deny. Out of the blue you felt it was pointless to argue with me, coincidentally after i pointed out who incorrect your basis of argument was.

I've replied to nearly every post in this thread and i've found TWO posters who offered something productive (Addict, Twiddler) and actually understood what i was saying (plus bruce banner).

"if it aint broke dont fix it" should NOT be the end of it. Let me try explaining it to you and try your very best to understand. I know it's a little harder for you than most of us.

If there's a possibility to improve, why wouldn't you want to? Yes, he's a great runner now, but why would you wanna limit him?

If someone has a link to a story saying they've already tried this and he just feels uncomfortable, FINE. End of argument. The only reason i'm talking about this is because no one has said anything about having tried fixing it already.

Why does it matter you could ask a question like that about almost every NFL player it's a waste of time.

MetSox17
09-09-2008, 05:22 PM
Why does it matter you could ask a question like that about almost every NFL player it's a waste of time.

Because Peterson was the one on MNF that ran straight into a cornerback and got dragged down like if he was 40 lbs lighter.

Gay Ork Wang
09-09-2008, 05:23 PM
The fact is that no one knows how that change would make him run. it could make him better or worse. Atm the coaches and everyone is and should be satisfied what he is producing, so why gamble and potentially destroy it?

Menardo75
09-09-2008, 05:26 PM
Because Peterson was the one on MNF that ran straight into a cornerback and got dragged down like if he was 40 lbs lighter.

What if Alex Smith had proper coaching and had a good supporting cast? Maybe ill start a thread about that

MetSox17
09-09-2008, 05:35 PM
What if Alex Smith had proper coaching and had a good supporting cast? Maybe ill start a thread about that

State your points properly and support them with some decent evidence and i'd love to reply to it.

Menardo75
09-09-2008, 05:36 PM
State your points properly and support them with some decent evidence and i'd love to reply to it.

I won't because it is a waste of time just like this thread. Anyone on here could pick out a player find a fault and say "What if he did this, what if he did that."

giantsfan
09-09-2008, 05:41 PM
When tiki changed his running style to limit his fumbles he lost a lot of his speed, he went from being a guy with the speed to break big runs to being a shifty smart back. Not saying that AD would suddenly be slow, but very rarely can you just change something about how a running back runs without having some sort of negative impact on his game.

MetSox17
09-09-2008, 05:43 PM
I won't because it is a waste of time just like this thread. Anyone on here could pick out a player find a fault and say "What if he did this, what if he did that."

LOL, this is a message board. EVERYTHING in here is meant to be a waste of time. You post and talk about things to kill time and be entertained. If you don't think this thread is worthy of your oh-so precious time, then don't post in it. You'd save me the trouble of seeing your senseless posts in my thread.

MetSox17
09-09-2008, 05:45 PM
When tiki changed his running style to limit his fumbles he lost a lot of his speed, he went from being a guy with the speed to break big runs to being a shifty smart back. Not saying that AD would suddenly be slow, but very rarely can you just change something about how a running back runs without having some sort of negative impact on his game.

I want someone to explain how he would lose speed/agility/elusiveness, anything, by changing the ball from his right hand to his left, and vice versa. Outside of the mental impact, which Addict already mentioned and i acknowledged.

Bruce Banner
09-09-2008, 05:46 PM
MS17, good to see the lap dogs in full force today, ankle biting as usual.

giantsfan
09-09-2008, 05:49 PM
I want someone to explain how he would lose speed/agility/elusiveness, anything, by changing the ball from his right hand to his left, and vice versa. Outside of the mental impact, which Addict already mentioned and i acknowledged.

Running back's don't change they're running style very much from HS to the pros, so they get used to doing things a certain way, if a runners focused on doing something differently he can't focus on running as effectively as he can so there's going to be a trade of as your diverting his attention from running the ball.

Menardo75
09-09-2008, 05:49 PM
LOL, this is a message board. EVERYTHING in here is meant to be a waste of time. You post and talk about things to kill time and be entertained. If you don't think this thread is worthy of your oh-so precious time, then don't post in it. You'd save me the trouble of seeing your senseless posts in my thread.

Well im glad you get joy out of topics this general guess ill commnet in the other threads that have meaning to them

MetSox17
09-09-2008, 05:57 PM
Well im glad you get joy out of topics this general guess ill commnet in the other threads that have meaning to them

LOL, this after you came in and got your kicks as well, huh. I'm not forcing you to post, so don't feel compelled to reply to anything i have to say.

MetSox17
09-09-2008, 05:58 PM
MS17, good to see the lap dogs in full force today, ankle biting as usual.

For sure. I'm gonna have to bring out the ankle braces.

BlindSite
09-09-2008, 06:03 PM
I think one of the most telling stats was mentioned by either Jaws or Tirico (yes one of the three morons had something good to say), when they mentioned he only runs for 4 or more yards 43% of the time.

Part of that might be the run blocking, but there's undoubtedly an issue with his style there. I can't imagine that every play there's 10 men in the box, especially since Tavaris Jackson is still a back up level player and struggles with the pitch and catch even when there's 8 in the box.

Don't get me wrong, I think AP will be in the mix for the MVP award, but for him to be the best RB in the league, his consistency needs to improve, I saw a lot of tiny gains in between long runs last night.

Prince 561
09-09-2008, 06:03 PM
I think one of the most telling stats was mentioned by either Jaws or Tirico (yes one of the three morons had something good to say), when they mentioned he only runs for 4 or more yards 43% of the time.

Part of that might be the run blocking, but there's undoubtedly an issue with his style there. I can't imagine that every play there's 10 men in the box, especially since Tavaris Jackson is still a back up level player and struggles with the pitch and catch even when there's 8 in the box.

Don't get me wrong, I think AP will be in the mix for the MVP award, but for him to be the best RB in the league, his consistency needs to improve, I saw a lot of tiny gains in between long runs last night.

He was basically a non-factor outside of that one he broke early in the game. He did nothing in the second quarter.

MetSox17
09-09-2008, 06:06 PM
I saw a lot of tiny gains in between long runs last night.

I saw that all of last year.

BlindSite
09-09-2008, 06:08 PM
You reckon part of it might be play calling? I know that the more effective rushing offenses of late have had massive variations on both blocking schemes and on play calls. I saw a lot of the same I or offset strong formations with up inside runs.

I can see a team like the packers (one of the better prepared teams week in and out) finding tendencies really easy if there's not a lot of variations.

MetSox17
09-09-2008, 06:18 PM
I think a lot of that has to do with the coaching. I swear, every single time the Vikings ran with Peterson yesterday, i wasn't surprised to see the play develop. There was more than a handful of times where you saw just how they lined up and knew they were gonna run. If a 21 year old college student can figure it out, how do they expect to beat teams that study a week of what they're doing? They're just so predictable. A lot of Peterson's long runs, are just him beasting it out there and breaking free.

BufFan71
09-09-2008, 06:23 PM
PEterson's running style is very similiar to Chris Brown's

MetSox17
09-09-2008, 06:26 PM
PEterson's running style is very similiar to Chris Brown's

Had it not been for Chris Brown having a body as fragile as an infant's, he'd be beasting it in the ligg right now.

BlindSite
09-09-2008, 06:31 PM
I think a lot of that has to do with the coaching. I swear, every single time the Vikings ran with Peterson yesterday, i wasn't surprised to see the play develop. There was more than a handful of times where you saw just how they lined up and knew they were gonna run. If a 21 year old college student can figure it out, how do they expect to beat teams that study a week of what they're doing? They're just so predictable. A lot of Peterson's long runs, are just him beasting it out there and breaking free.

I tend to agree, the first half was blindly predictable, but that's probably because they only threw 6 passes or something. I think Denver's play calling last night highlighted what variation can do the Oakland defense was bad, but they didn't have any idea at all of where the ball was going. Greenbay's defense seems to at times, have a tendency to over pursue but rarely did minnesota seek to exploit that.

awfullyquiet
09-09-2008, 06:35 PM
I think what's been said is:

Brad Childress looks formulaic and nothing to the genius that Andy Reid or Holmgren are.

Prince 561
09-09-2008, 06:37 PM
I tend to agree, the first half was blindly predictable, but that's probably because they only threw 6 passes or something. I think Denver's play calling last night highlighted what variation can do the Oakland defense was bad, but they didn't have any idea at all of where the ball was going. Greenbay's defense seems to at times, have a tendency to over pursue but rarely did minnesota seek to exploit that.

They did on the CB blitz when Peterson cut back and burned Woodson who didn't control his gap. You can't really call plays to exploit overpursuing in today's NFL because defensive linemen can get into the backfield so quickly.

BlindSite
09-09-2008, 06:44 PM
They did on the CB blitz when Peterson cut back and burned Woodson who didn't control his gap. You can't really call plays to exploit overpursuing in today's NFL because defensive linemen can get into the backfield so quickly.

Based on that logic the zone blocking system is useless.

Prince 561
09-09-2008, 06:47 PM
Based on that logic the zone blocking system is useless.

Why? Generally teams use counters and the like to stop teams from overpursuing. When you take that long to hand off the ball in today's NFL, you're likely going to get blown up in the backfield. The ZBS has nothing to do with how the ball is handed off.

BNad
09-09-2008, 06:51 PM
Didn't Emmitt Smith almost exclusively hold the ball in his left hand regardless of which way he was running?

MetSox17
09-09-2008, 06:55 PM
Didn't Emmitt Smith almost exclusively hold the ball in his left hand regardless of which way he was running?

That's because Smiff doesn't know right from left.

Seriously though, i don't know. I don't remember how he held the ball back when. I was still a kiddo.

BlindSite
09-09-2008, 06:56 PM
Why? Generally teams use counters and the like to stop teams from overpursuing. When you take that long to hand off the ball in today's NFL, you're likely going to get blown up in the backfield. The ZBS has nothing to do with how the ball is handed off.

No offensive unit calls a play to stop over pursuing, they call plays to exploit it. If the defensive line is thundering forward and the defensive ends aren't playing containment then they're going to run more off tackle, to get outside the ends, if the ends are going outside then you run more behind the guards to trap them outside. There's a myriad of run plays you can call to catch a D line out of position. This is where intelligent play calling comes into it, you call plays to keep the D line out of balance to a point where they don't know where the ball is going.

The Vikings don't seem to do that.

Prince 561
09-09-2008, 07:01 PM
No offensive unit calls a play to stop over pursuing, they call plays to exploit it. If the defensive line is thundering forward and the defensive ends aren't playing containment then they're going to run more off tackle, to get outside the ends, if the ends are going outside then you run more behind the guards to trap them outside. There's a myriad of run plays you can call to catch a D line out of position. This is where intelligent play calling comes into it, you call plays to keep the D line out of balance to a point where they don't know where the ball is going.

The Vikings don't seem to do that.

So the Vikings just run the ball to same spot everytime? Not sure what you're getting at here.

BufFan71
09-09-2008, 07:18 PM
Had it not been for Chris Brown having a body as fragile as an infant's, he'd be beasting it in the ligg right now.

this is tru

hopefully AD's bones arent as fragile

MetSox17
12-29-2009, 06:45 AM
This thread was fun.

Gay Ork Wang
12-29-2009, 06:57 AM
there is a difference to then and now and even know i dont think the stiffarm is that much of a problem

wogitalia
12-29-2009, 08:09 AM
there is a difference to then and now and even know i dont think the stiffarm is that much of a problem

Funniest thing is that I read the first post and all I could think was that the two main points(stiff arm/carrying hand) were directly related.

As someone who plays RB there are basically two reasons to use the outside/sideline hand(ie right when running right). The first is so the ball is protected from where the majority of the players will be coming from, making it far harder for them to put a helmet on the ball, the other is so that you will have the inside arm free for the stiff arm, a third minor one is so if you fumble there is a greater chance of it going out of bounds.

Funnily enough his fumbling finally cost us a game, that was just an awful fumble. AP needs to learn to go down when tacklers have good angles on him and the ball, not use his off arm to try and stay up longer, get it on the ball and protect it.

He just has a lot of tendencies that are destructive to him, both from an injury and ball protection side of things. Between that and the beyond vanilla playcalling and it goes a long way to explaining why he is struggling right now.

I also can't help but notice that since Childress started cracking the shits at Favre for audibling so much the offense has basically gone to pieces, about a month ago is when it appeared to me that Favre was breaking off plays less, I have absolutely no doubt that Favre has a better understanding of when to call what and against different fronts than Childress, who may be the worst playcaller in the NFL right now.

scottyboy
12-29-2009, 01:25 PM
This thread was fun.

http://www.draftcountdown.com/forum/...d.php?p=849297

so was this

CC.SD
12-29-2009, 01:28 PM
http://www.draftcountdown.com/forum/...d.php?p=849297

so was this

would bet anything that's the anti-Ray Rice thread. A 404 now though.

Saints-Tigers
12-29-2009, 01:37 PM
I honestly think teams stacking the box less hurt Peterson. His running average was living off of those long gains, and when the safety is back there deep, it doesn't happen quite as often.

going 2,3,2,3,75 as opposed to going 3,4,3,6,12.... etc

MetSox17
12-29-2009, 03:50 PM
I just think it's funny how many people thought his fumbling problem was a non issue.

Boston
12-29-2009, 05:04 PM
Wow. I just love when people pat themselves on the back...

Crazy_Chris
12-29-2009, 05:17 PM
I honestly think teams stacking the box less hurt Peterson. His running average was living off of those long gains, and when the safety is back there deep, it doesn't happen quite as often.

going 2,3,2,3,75 as opposed to going 3,4,3,6,12.... etc

Except teams actually aren't stacking the boxes less this year.

yo123
12-29-2009, 05:22 PM
It's not because of his running style, there have been plenty of running backs over the years with a similar style that don't have the fumbling problems.

He has to hold on to the damn ball, that's all there is to it. There's nothing more to say.

Crazy_Chris
12-29-2009, 05:43 PM
It's not because of his running style, there have been plenty of running backs over the years with a similar style that don't have the fumbling problems.

He has to hold on to the damn ball, that's all there is to it. There's nothing more to say.

I completely agree with bolded part. I do however think it has a lot to do with his running style, most of his fumbles come when he is fighting for extra yards. Some great RB's with a similar running style also had fumble issues early in their careers. Eric Dickerson, Jim Brown, Walter Payton, Earl Campbell, and OJ Simpson all had a high number of fumbles early in their career(sometimes throught).

Adrian needs to find a balance between being himself and fighting for every yard and sometimes just going out of bounds or getting down.

scottyboy
12-29-2009, 09:10 PM
I just think it's funny how many people thought his fumbling problem was a non issue.

And I think it's funny when you call Raymell Rice a short, slow midget, but hey, who's keeping track of ancient threads that make themselves look good?

Paranoidmoonduck
12-29-2009, 09:25 PM
I think, in general, Peterson's running style is what makes him so good. It may lead to a shorter career, and he definitely has taken step to take less contact (he'll run out of a bounds far more often than he used to), but he's not going to re-invent himself and he shouldn't have to.

But yeah, he needs to hold onto the ball. The fumbling is inexcusable.

MetSox17
12-29-2009, 09:36 PM
And I think it's funny when you call Raymell Rice a short, slow midget, but hey, who's keeping track of ancient threads that make themselves look good?

That's the price you pay when you make bold statements. You risk it coming back to hit you in the face, so when you're right, you deserve to gloat. Not everyone gets off on making stupid childish remarks on how hard you are about a player.

Boston
12-29-2009, 10:09 PM
That's the price you pay when you make bold statements. You risk it coming back to hit you in the face, so when you're right, you deserve to gloat. Not everyone gets off on making stupid childish remarks on hard you are about a player.

Bold statements? Really? Adrian Peterson was far and away the best back in the NFL last year without changing anything, but now that he's "struggling" you feel it's time to bring back your thread that foresaw the future? Good call.

MetSox17
12-29-2009, 10:15 PM
Bold statements? Really? Adrian Peterson was far and away the best back in the NFL last year without changing anything, but now that he's "struggling" you feel it's time to bring back your thread that foresaw the future? Good call.

I was referring to the thread about Ray Rice. And he has been "struggling" with fumbling all of his life. Not just this year.

wogitalia
12-30-2009, 02:05 AM
I honestly think teams stacking the box less hurt Peterson. His running average was living off of those long gains, and when the safety is back there deep, it doesn't happen quite as often.

In a way it does, he is better at beating guys with angles rather than running straight at them and actually tends to get in trouble when he has to(latest fumble for example).

The biggest problem right now is that Peterson is only using one arm, his second arm is not doing anything, either stiff arm and fight off guys or protect the ball, but dangling it out there is just asking for trouble, both injury and fumble wise.

There are really only minor things that he is doing wrong. He isnt as explosive this year and that is a concern. Another one is that he seems hesitant along the sideline, an indecisiveness whether to step out or keep running, I'd love to see a breakdown of how many of his fumbles have occurred outside the hashes. He is still in the leagues top 2 or 3 backs, even having this down year which is a credit to him but he has definitely taken a step back this year.

brat316
12-30-2009, 02:08 AM
Is his lack of explosion due to the extra 10 pounds he put on?

Hines
12-30-2009, 02:45 AM
Is his lack of explosion due to the extra 10 pounds he put on?

I think so. LT warned him, but AP didn't listen. I think AP and Mendenhall should go talk to Tiki about handling a football. Both are young and talented and can grow out of the fumbling problems.

wogitalia
12-30-2009, 02:51 AM
Is his lack of explosion due to the extra 10 pounds he put on?

You have to think that is part of it, I sort of hope that is the reason. It is also possible and I have heard rumours of an ankle sprain that is slowing him. Either way, he just doesn't look anywhere near as explosive, especially of late.

J-Mike88
01-08-2012, 08:47 AM
Is his lack of explosion due to the extra 10 pounds he put on?

Do you guys think Adrian Peterson's knee injury will keep him out of the Hall of Fame? He was a lock had he not had the devastating injury.

I was reading over Terrell Davis' career, and it certainly (ACL) ended Davis' sure-fire path to the Hall of Fame. I still believe what Davis did accomplish makes him very deserving of the HOF. http://www.gettheminthehall.com/2011/02/terrell-davis.html

Nobody can say that what Davis did for that 4-year stretch wasn't truly "great".... I personally think a guy who was pure greatness for a short period is more deserving than a guy who just racked up real nice statistics over a long period of time (Curtis Martin, Art Monk, etc.).

That got me to thinking about AP.

You can see the numbers Davis put up were fantastic, but as soon as he came back from the knee, he was just a guy.

Will it be the same for Adrian?
I'm afraid so.... of course I just traded for him in my keeper league midway thru this season.

Davis had 3 sensational years, including the 2000-yard season, and a Super Bowl MVP season. He ended his career with 7,600 yards, with only 1100 of them coming after the injury, over 3 seasons.

Peterson has had 4 great seasons. He didn't have one as great as TD's 2000-yard season, but he set the two big records, and he was the best RB in the game for sure those 3 or 4 seasons (CJ2K might argue).

Currently, AP has rushed for 6,752 yards, and a higher average per carry than Terrell. Granted, TD's was higher before the injury and we know AP's will go down too. Peterson has rushed for 64 touchdowns to Davis' 60.

Does Adrian have to miraculously come back and still be super good, to make it into the Hall of Fame?

Or do you think if he comes back as Davis did, and is just a shell of his former self for a few years before hanging it up, he has done enough great stuff to make it into Canton?

Talent & performance-wise, I think Peterson is the best RB in the league since Barry Sanders. Better than LT, Emmitt..... Faulk was better all-around, but as a pure runner, Peterson > Marshall.

I hate DB's who tackle by diving into runner's lower legs!
P*ssies.