A Tale Of Two Running Backs: AD vs. Toby

by hoyaparanoia on Jan 13, 2012 6:10 PM CST

As the offseason starts, we have two running backs looking at some serious rehab to get back on the field next year. A lot has changed for the Vikings since the start of this season, not the least of which has been expectations about the running game - and in particular, Toby Gerhart.

Any posts in support of Toby upping his carries earlier this year were met with a resounding "anything Toby does, AD does better" or "why would you EVER let Toby get a single carry if AD is available". Despite some evidence that AD appeared to actually benefit when Toby got a few carries in a game, there was no real effort on the part of the Vikings coaching staff to try to develop a true multi-back game (or if any effort was made, it was to use Percy Harvin or Joe Webb as alternatives). In retrospect, the paucity of touches that Toby got in the first half of the year appears really hard to understand - particularly when the Vikings coaching staff repeatedly made statements about working him into the game plan more. During the first half of the year, Toby was statistically the most underutilized #2 back in the NFL.

So as the year ended, what do the numbers show? In a season where AD was generally viewed as having a really good year until he got hurt, Toby ended up gaining roughly similar yards per game when he started (or played significantly) and averaged more yards per carry than AD (4.9 to 4.7). Perhaps more surprisingly, Toby actually had a higher percentage of his runs going for 10 yards or more than AD (Toby = 15%; AD = 13%) . And Toby was a more prolific receiver (especially as adjusted for playing time).

                                                   Runs By Yardage                        Receiving

          Carries        Yards      YPC       10-20       20-40      40+         Catches       Yards      YPC

Toby        109          531        4.9        12          3           1            23          190        8.3

AD          208          970        4.7        17          7           3            18          139        7.7

So......the slow, lumbering fullback masquerading as a running back actually did a pretty good job of matching (or dare I say exceeding) what Purple Jesus put on the field this year. And did a better job blocking on pass protection as well.

Well folks, as hard as it is to accept, Toby is an athlete. Taking a look at respective NFL Combine performances is instructive and provides some explanation for what Toby accomplished this year. While combine performance is just that (not a substitute for or predictor of on field success), it does provide an objective benchmark of actual as opposed to perceived "athleticism". All data is from the NFL combine website.

     
                     AD       Toby

40 Yard Dash        4.40      4.50

20 Yard Dash        2.58      2.56

10 Yard Dash        1.53      1.55

Shuttle             4.40      4.25

3 Cones             7.09      6.94

Vertical Leap       38.5      38.0

Broad Jump          127       118

Bench Press          20        22

So............what does this tell us?? Mostly that they are both really good athletes. AD is faster over distance, and can leap a little bit higher and farther (but is also 15+ pounds lighter). Toby measures up to be just as quick over short distances, more agile and stronger.

Where is all of this going? Really just a wake up call to the Vikings coaching staff (and fans!) that Toby needs to play a lot more - and developing a strategy that uses both Toby and AD in games is important, particularly in a year when both players will be coming back from injury and may not be at 100% for a while (AD more than Toby here).

Wishing AD and Toby the best in getting ready for next year!

This FanPost was created by a registered user of The Daily Norseman, and does not necessarily reflect the views of the staff of the site. However, since this is a community, that view is no less important.

Tweet Comment 47 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I myself had firmly been standing in the "any touch Toby gets is a touch AP doesn't have"

But I still liked him as a player. I had hoped we could utilize both of them in the old pro formation. This formation was great for pitches, inside runs, traps, and even power running. With a creative offensive coordinator, which Musgrave has proven to be at times, we could find good ways to catch defenses off balance and build around. We could run 3 wide, a Twin WR set, a 2 TE set, and all could have similar or different plays for deep passes or just power running, and possibly get that terrible 8th man out of the box. I honestly got more and more excited as I thought about this last year with AP, Percy and Toby, the motions you could run to put either Percy or AP wide. This could even give Ponder the option to change to drop back into shotgun if he felt a fast rush was coming. I was very disappointed as the season went on to see that this hadn’t been adopted by our Beloved Vikes.

I feel both AP and Toby could coexist on the field, and both could benefit from the other being on the field at the same time. Both are great receiving targets, and both have proven to be effective runners. They’re both great athletes, and I hope we can find more ways to field an even greater running attack, with AP, Toby, and Percy, to take pressure off of our passing offense. If we heavily invest in our offensive line in the offseason through the draft and FA, and possibly add a WR piece, hopefully our offense can turn around quickly. However I disagreed with putting Gerhart in as a FB in the I Formation, as they were putting him in earlier in the year.

by nmatt71 on Jan 13, 2012 7:14 PM CST reply actions

I agree with the FB stance

Ryan D’Imperio is a solid but more importantly young player with room to improve. He made a few mistakes this year but he showed his potential to be the next People’s Champion – all respects due to the Sauce, there really is no need to have Gerhart line up in that position

"You can write articles and do whatever you want, you can break down every player. Good, bad or ugly. But we just aren't good enough as a team, as a group. Offensively, defensively and special teams, from the No. 1 on the roster to the last man on the roster. We just aren't good enough. It's as simple as that." - Chad Greenway

by Grape Drank on Jan 13, 2012 10:02 PM CST up reply actions

i think th point of making toby a fb is to get him on the field more, and doing it with adrian.

i also think that it is a shame that adrian is not a complete back. that doesn’t seem to get much play here. he does not pass block for beans and he is not a solid receiver out of the backfield (see matt forte for an example of a complete back). so, we end up taking him out on third down. also, toby is not really suited to being a third down back. so. i think the pick of gerhart was not a good fit for thhe team.

that being said, i think a combination of toby and adrian could make defenses very uncomfortable. toby can be like a mike alstott. the way that musgrave tried to rotate toby into the game seemed to kill the momentum and tip off the defense as to what was going to happen. having both in there at the same time as a significant formation would at least keep the defense guessing more often.

well then who the hell are you talkin' to...are you talkin' to me?

by krinkle on Jan 15, 2012 1:16 PM CST up reply actions

I'll second bringing back some of the old Pro-Set.

I too found myself wondering why we didn’t see some of this, especially given the OL problems. Even in passing situations it provides extra personnel to preserve a pocket for the QB.

With all the problems we had in that area I kept waiting to see AP & TG alongside each other behind Ponder with Percy to the near left side, Rudolph or Shiancoe on the right end and anyone fast set wide right. I thought it actually fit the strengths of the personnel we had available.

I’m not sure whether that just won’t work in today’s NFL, or maybe the OCs of today aren’t familiar with it. I know it may appear a bit old fashioned, a throwback scheme of sorts.

But doing the same thing time after time with no success, simply hoping it will start to work? That just seems nuts. I wonder what Jerry Burns is up to…

by Lars in SLP on Jan 14, 2012 11:22 AM CST via mobile up reply actions

I really like it cuz it brings up the possibility of so many different personnel variations

All of them playing to our strengths. I mean the first thing it says when you pull up the pro formation is it prevents defenses from keying off of one running back, hence spreading out the D and creating more lanes for AP, Toby and Harvin. I love the idea of it. AP and Percy in the backfield. AP and Toby in the backfield. Toby and Percy in the backfield. Motions out of the backfield. You can still run multiple TE sets out of this formation.

Imo DA proved he could be a good deep threat and could drag a safety out of the box. Put Percy in the backfield and motion him out next to DA and watch the running lanes open up to that side for AP or Toby.

The main thing I like is you can have essentially the same look but run so many different plays out of it. To me it would simplify things for Ponder and open it up for him. Solid running attack with a balanced passing attack. We could just call the formation and let him call the play. Send in players to keep them fresh and to switch up the look. And with a solid base formation it could theoretically be a no huddle offense that is incredibly versatile. In the NFL we have seen how the no huddle has forced defenses to go more vanilla, play back on their heels and wears them down because they cannot swap out like the offense can. We saw this run essentially played to perfection with Matt Ryan of the Falcons because they would let him run a slow no huddle that prevents D’s from swapping personnel.

by nmatt71 on Jan 14, 2012 12:38 PM CST up reply actions

This one's tricky, but a great point

I’m probly going to come off as an idiot on this one, but I’m going more from impressions than your “so-called facts”

The Vikes like to run, but they’re not anywhere close to dedicating their team to do it. (mostly I think their defense gives up too many points and that gameplan is out the window down by 14 or so anyway)

It seems like our offense wants to be like Philly, or maybe New Orleans with some sweet passing action, but with our personnel on offense, we’re really a hell of a lot like Tampa back in the Alstott era, only with a colandar of a secondary, and a worse O-line.
(And yeah, I dig, we gots Harvin and a couple better tight ends – it’s not a great comparison, they also had Grammatica :) )

But it seems like whenever the Vikes run Peterson, they don’t ever run behind a power formation, they like to spread some wideouts out as if to make it seem as if they’re going to throw – then handoff. Which, when it works, it’s pretty damn awesome, and time and time again makes a cynical bastard go “dang, that kid is a beast,” and “what a great call” (Their other plan is to throw from said formation, and hope the QB can stay upright long enough to throw)

But it doesn’t exactly work for moving the chains. Lots of teams, (and having rung up 3 wins this year, means almost every team we play) have figured out that containing Peterson is pretty much all you have to do, and when you do that, you get a lot of 1 and 2 yard carries before he cranks a 20+ yarder. Do that 3 more times, and it’s “hi mr. Kluwe.”

When Gerhart is in the game (apart from the occasional screen pass) he’s gunning up the gut and getting 3-4 yards. If you want the run to be your thing, then you gotta use that. 3 in a row and you’ve got a first, hell, with just one of those – you’re looking at a 2nd down you could do other stuff with, and still be looking okay if it doesn’t work. (um, no more webcat…you dinks)

Okay, the cervezas are starting to take hold, so I’ll wrap this up with my run-first-team ideas.
1) Peterson 1st quarter*
2)Gerhart 2nd quarter*
3)Gerhart 3rd quarter for 9 minutes – then Peterson*
4)Peterson 4th quarter*

*Spell with appropriate player if necessary.

We’re really in a sweet spot for running, if that’ll be our thing. I’m pretty sure though, that we’ll stay a hybrid of a West coast offense with a super sick running game, which everyone will know about and stop…until we blow it by spreading out and tying to pass too much, with a not-so-good pass-blocking line, and not-really-so-good recievers. Which will leave it on the shoulders of a porous defense.

Hey, I still like our guys! Told ya in the beginning this one was tricky.

- Are you tired of paying full price for robots? -

by U don't have a Kluwe on Jan 13, 2012 9:22 PM CST reply actions

There is another side to the story

Toby Gerhart does not see 8,9 or 10 men in the box typically. I think both are excellent running backs, it’s a great problem to have (handoff to AP or TG)

by Grape Drank on Jan 13, 2012 9:57 PM CST reply actions

Yup agreed

Not trying to compare the two – it’s just a different type of game, and one that the vikes seem to have been forced into playing with Gerhart. But it does move the chains, so that’s all good, and, I’d like to see it work a bit more into the scheme with both.

- Are you tired of paying full price for robots? -

by U don't have a Kluwe on Jan 13, 2012 10:07 PM CST up reply actions

This is not correct.

Gerhart had his best game against the Redskins and ran for 99 yars on 11 carries. I took notes on that game after he replaced Peterson (due to injury) to specifically to see how the defense would react. Here it is.

On Gerhart’s first carry there were 8 (a 9th entered the fringes of the box) guys in the box. Gerhart went for 67 yards.
On his 8 yard carry there were 8 in the box.
On his 14 yard carry there were 9 in the box.
He had 0 yards on the next carry; I don’t know what the defensive alignment was on this play.
On the next carry he got 8 yards with 8 in the box.
On a 5 yard carry there were 8 in the box.
On a -2 yard carry there were 9 in the box.
In the final series, when the Vikings were looking to run out the clock, Gerhart got 4 yards with 10 men in the box.
On the next carry, he got 1 yard with 10 men in the box.

That’s all I had in my notes (which didn’t include his first two carries as a brief sub for Peterson prior to Peterson’s injury). Anyway, I think it is a fiction that Peterson faces a tougher defense than Gerhart.

Here’s what I prefer about Gerhart over Peterson. Gerhart has better vision when approaching the line of scrimmage. When a hole is there he takes it. Peterson often misses opportunities in part, I think, because he approaches the line of scrimmage faster than Gerhart. This sometimes causes Peterson to slow down at the line of scrimmage to cut left or right in search of other places to run. When that happens, he ends up moving a lot slower than Gerhart.

Gerhart is also better out of the backfield in the passing game. He’s also better at picking up the blitz. Gerhart is 240 pounds and uses it in keeping his momentum heading forward. After contact he continues to move forward. Peterson is often stopped, because he has slowed himself down with a series of jukes and stutter stops.

Peterson has been a freakishly gifted athlete at the position, but I think Gerhart is the better all around running back.

In summary, I think Gerhart is better for our offense than Peterson. He also doesn’t carry the huge albatrose of a contract that Peterson carries.

"Man invented language to satisfy his deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin

by kcskol on Jan 14, 2012 3:12 PM CST up reply actions

I won't argue your notes on that one particular game as you've been pretty spot on in the past with your breakdowns.

I will say that in the majority of games where Peterson was healthy you’d routinely see defenses go to 7 men in the box when Toby would check in. Maybe this is due to the fact that Toby checking in to games usually tips the defense off that a passing play is coming but I’d be interested in seeing your notes on the fronts Toby faced in games where Peterson was active. I’m also curious if Webb’s presence at QB in the Washington game accounted for the extra men in the box rather than Toby because in the past teams rarely stacked the box when Toby was in the game.

Gerhart is a better blocker in the passing game and he tends to be a little more consistent than Peterson in his carries but I can’t agree with your opinion that Gerhart is a better all around back or the better back for our offense. I’ll take AD’s explosive boom or bust style all day over Gerhart’s consistency. I’ll also dispute that Toby has better vision than AD as well. Toby follows the play where it’s called and if it’s blocked well he gets good yardage and he doesn’t when the blocking is poor. AD cuts against the flow of the play often regardless of whether the blocking is good or bad. Sometimes this turns a surefire 3-4 yard gain that Gerhart would pick up by staying playside into no gain or a 2 yard loss, but other times this vision leads to a 40 yard TD run. Basically I think Toby just follows the play whereas AD uses his vision and ability to look for the home run, and for that reason I think Peterson has the better vision but maybe lacks the discipline to use it for maximum effect consistently. I guess it’s a matter of opinion as to which style is better but I prefer the constant threat of the big play from Peterson over Gerhart’s consistency. I just wish our passing game took better advantage of the fronts that Peterson’s unique style invites.

One last point I’ll make is one I made in an above comment about how our passing game doesn’t complement ADs running style and fails to take advantage of the fronts he faces. Actually this kind of strengthens your argument about Toby fitting our offense better than Peterson but I think it’s worth discussing anyway. A short passing game against 8-9 men fronts is a recipe for failure because our receivers are running into an area that’s already full of defenders. Why the team doesn’t run a vertical play-action game to take advantage of these fronts is beyond me. Maybe the answer is that it doesn’t play to Ponder’s strengths which lie in the aforementioned short-passing game. Probably shouldn’t open this can of worms but a certain QB(Webb) with a stronger arm that likes to take more deep shots would be a better complement to Peterson while Toby’s consistent style fits better with Ponder. Have fun with that last sentence as those 30+ words basically translate to Brains….Brains…. Brains : )

by CanadianViking on Jan 14, 2012 4:57 PM CST up reply actions

We want different things from our running game

I want a running game that consistently moves the chains. I want it to avoid, as much as possible, putting our QB in the position of having to deal with 2 and 10, 3 and long, etc. Banging out the occaisonal 20+ yard run is very exciting, but it’s the low yardage and negative yardage plays that contribute to short drives that end in punts.

I like the question you asked about the defensive alignment in the Redskins game and whether that was due to Gerhart or Webb being in the game. I wondered the same myself, and I don’t know the answer. It certainly could be, after the Lions game, that the Redskins figured that the key to stopping Webb was to force him to pass. However whether the reason for the alignment was Webb, Gerhart or even the lack of WR threats in the view of the Redskins, the only point I would make is that this was Gerhart’s most successful game, and every run came against the sort of defensive alignments that Grape Drank suggests Toby doesn’t see when he’s on the field.

You raise another very good point. Our passing game with Ponder has failed to put the ball down the field, and I think that’s put more pressure on our running game, and on our pass attack as well. Next year needs to be different. We need receivers and a QB that can successfully stretch the field from time to time.

"Man invented language to satisfy his deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin

by kcskol on Jan 15, 2012 1:54 PM CST up reply actions

KC....

Peterson has been a freakishly gifted athlete at the position, but I think Gerhart is the better all around running back.

Wow…..just wow.

I have respected your opinion in the past (although often disagreeing)….but this is ridiculous.

Even though some stats can be thrown for comparison, there is not anywhere near enough body of work to say Toby is a better running back than AP. Seriously? Toby had less than 200 snaps in his NFL career, and AP owns records and awards to the hilt.

You making a split decision that Toby Gerhart is a better overall back then Peterson is incredibly short sighted in my opinion. This usurps the “making a decision on whom our QBOTF is” between Ponder and Webb when neither has yet to put a full season in.

I know this will piss you off…..but let’s come back to earth on this; nobody fears Gerhart like they do AP. Maybe they should, but we need a little bit more than 3-4 games during a losing season to justify this type of talk.

I will not be PONDERing anything, ever again....I'm so tired of this pun. Maybe we could use antonyms to be different, like: "FORGET about last season, as we COGITATE about winning in 2011!"...Whatever, SKOL VIKES!!!

by J.RO on Jan 14, 2012 5:27 PM CST up reply actions

i dunno, i agree with his statement.

toby is a better “all around running back”. he is better at more aspects of the position than adrian peterson is. he runs through the line better, he uses his blockers better, and he blocks better too. there is a reason the vikings take peterson out on third downs, and it is not because of what adrian can do, it’s because of what adrian can’t do very well.

granted, adrian is a freak who is a “violent runner” and he had crazy quickness and lateral cutting ability (before he got his knee shredded). so, he is able to rip off some big punishing runs, but he also gets stopped behind the line of scrimmage a lot because he lacks patience and often doesn’t pick the correct path through the line. toby seems to do those things with more discipline (patience, using blockers and picking the right holes). peterson gets by on his athleticism, not his running back savvy.

well then who the hell are you talkin' to...are you talkin' to me?

by krinkle on Jan 15, 2012 1:22 PM CST up reply actions

No sense in my repeating krinkle's reply below, because he said what I was going to say...

…and probably said it better than I would have as well. His last statement is spot on in my view.

And as for the other thing:

This usurps the "making a decision on whom our QBOTF is" between Ponder and Webb when neither has yet to put a full season in.

I don’t quite know how to respond to that without dredging up mountains of prior text. I’ll let it suffice with this: I don’t know if we have a QBotF on this team at the moment. I have concerns about the current #1 (which I think are very reasonable concerns), and I’d like to see more from the #2 (who has some challenges as well) before making a decision one way or the other. The point I have consistently made is that I’d like to see a fair competition rather than the QBotF coronation ceremony that occurred this past pre-season. And that has been my opinion throughout.

"Man invented language to satisfy his deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin

by kcskol on Jan 15, 2012 2:08 PM CST up reply actions

I recall quite a few times

When Peterson was hit just as he got the ball, because defenders know how dangerous he has been. There is a difference between putting your safety in the box because of the offense is running, or based on having to account for a single player. Peterson is a game changer, Toby has got some skills but come on, you can’t take a sample of one game and say that he consistently faces 8 men in the box. Peterson has run many times for more than 99 yards facing 8 man fronts, as long as he can return back to full strength he will remain the primary back.

Like I said, I think both are well above average running backs and my comment wasn’t meant in to say Toby can’t run in 8-man fronts, it was more along the lines of Peterson always runs against 8-man

by Grape Drank on Jan 16, 2012 12:54 AM CST up reply actions

I see quite a few problems with the Vikings run-heavy approach and getting both Toby and AD involved enough.

1)The first problem is that both Gerhart and Peterson get better and stronger the more touches they receive but unless there’s a blowout it’s unrealistic to give them both the 15-25 touches they need to be most effective. At best we’re looking at AD getting 20 and Toby getting 10.

2)They’re both good solid backs but since they’re both power backs the change of pace between the two is minimal and defenses aren’t as surprised when they rotate unlike teams that have very different backs like NO with Sproles and Thomas/Ivory or SD with Tolbert/Matthews. Also Percy is effectively our change of pace back which makes it even harder to get Gerhart involved. Toby’s a good back but unless Peterson is injured he’ll never be used to his full potential. Good player bad fit.

3)A short West-Coast based passing game combined with AD and a power run game is schematically stupid to begin with. AD faces more 8-9 man fronts than any other back in football and a short quick passing game doesn’t back off the safeties at all. Power running with AD against the fronts he faces calls for a heavy dose of deep play-action passes to best exploit the respect defenses show him. As it stands now 8-9 players are in the box to stop the run but because the majority of our passing game is short-middle stuff our receivers are just running into areas already congested with extra defenders. This doesn’t make any sense to me and seems to put AD, Ponder/Webb, and our receivers in a position to fail.

4)Our defense sucks so the Vikings are constantly playing from behind and have to abandon the run-game early so often AD doesn’t even get enough touches and there aren’t even any crumbs left over for Gerhart to pick up. Also, for some reason Musgrave and Chilly/Bevell before him seem to compound the problem by abandoning the run game even when the team is ahead.

Wow, that turned into a bit of a rant. Basically both backs are quite good but for a variety of reasons Toby will never get enough touches on a team that struggles to even get Peterson 20-25 touches a game.

by CanadianViking on Jan 13, 2012 10:03 PM CST reply actions

You are right

But the Vikings for all of 2010 and 2011 tried (and failed) to run AD 25 times a game and throw to Toby in space 3 or 4 times a game. Which is insane because they should be throwing it to AD in space a few times a games and using toby to bash into the defensive tackles.

They are a running team without the line and run defense, a passing team without the QB and interceptions. A Bi-polar red-headed stepchild. Hopefully Ziggy’s genius idea of hiring a GM to give focus to his organization pays dividends

by dirtyplay on Jan 14, 2012 3:20 AM CST up reply actions

A Bi-polar red-headed stepchild is one of the better lines I've read in a while!

You’re right that a GM should help fix some of these ill-matched marriages between personnel and schemes that the VIkings have come up with the last few years. I’m not real confident in Spielman but at least fixing the structure is a start. One other pet-peeve of mine is that for some reason the Vikings keep getting run-stuffing LBs when the Tampa-2 calls for smaller faster LBs that can cover. Maybe Frazier/Chilly subscribe to the Costanza theory that doing the opposite of what you’re supposed to do with players and schemes will work somehow : )

by CanadianViking on Jan 14, 2012 6:04 AM CST up reply actions

Yer #3 was pretty spot on...I mean, really nailed it.

A short West-Coast based passing game combined with AD and a power run game is schematically stupid to begin with…

agreed, (it only got better from there, I just didn’t want to re-post the whole thing) but over the last little bit, we’ve typically had trouble picking up short yardage on runs when we need it, which is super frustrating with the personnel we have, and the way the coaches seem to think we can just jam in a power run when we need it, and it’ll work.

I hate to be using the comparison of Gerhart being a (our) “power runner” when it’s clearly obvious that Peterson can knock the hell outta people. But he does scamper around more, which has both super amazingly good results, and some slightly bad ones.

I think dirtyplay’s idea is closer to what I think would be a good tactic:

they should be throwing it to AD in space a few times a games and using toby to bash into the defensive tackles.

You’re probably right about both guys getting better with more touches, but I’d at least like to see a fresh(er) Peterson facing a line a little tired out from getting whacked by a big straight-ahead runner.

- Are you tired of paying full price for robots? -

by U don't have a Kluwe on Jan 14, 2012 1:19 PM CST up reply actions

Thanks for the compliment on #3.

I gotta agree with you and dirtyplay on getting AD in space more often in the receiving game. I know Toby’s a better blocker and does quite well in the passing game but rarely using AD in this role makes the offense predictable. AD’s on the field so most of the time it’s a run and when Toby checks in it’s likely a pass. For a team that runs a ton of screens to Percy and Toby it seems strange that I can’t even remember the last time AD was the target of a simple screen pass or flare.

by CanadianViking on Jan 14, 2012 4:13 PM CST up reply actions

It's a passing league right now.

It’s hard to call any running back “great” if he can’t be (or isn’t) utilized in the passing game. Giving AD 25 carries makes teams like the Packers salivate because they are capable of scoring 6 td’s in 25 plays with their passing game. Giving Toby 10-15 carries in addition makes it even worse. What good is running for 5 yards a carry when the worst passing team in the league (Jaguars) averages 5.4 yards per passing attempt? Green Bay averaged 9.4 yards per attempt.

by Are we cursed? on Jan 14, 2012 4:46 PM CST up reply actions

More stat checking

The best rushing team in the league (Carolina) averaged 5.4 yards per rush attempt, the same amount of yards that the worst passing team averaged per pass attempt. It’s no wonder that the top 3 rushing teams (Panthers, Vikings, and Eagles) didn’t make the playoffs. Bringing a running game to an NFL game is like bring a knife to a gun fight.

by Are we cursed? on Jan 14, 2012 4:54 PM CST up reply actions

The passing game is definitely King right now but a good running game isn't a bad thing to have.

The problem is that the Vikings have a terrible passing game. Green Bay, New England, and New Orleans routinely get their RB committees 25-30 carries a game so it’s not the number that’s a problem. The problem is that we get way less production from our 30-35 passing plays than those teams do.

by CanadianViking on Jan 14, 2012 5:11 PM CST up reply actions

I agree.

I think that a debate about how best to use Toby and AD isn’t as productive as a thinking about a way to improve our passing game. Worrying about how many carries they get isn’t nearly as big a deal as figuring out a way to get them involved in an improved passing attack.

by Are we cursed? on Jan 14, 2012 5:17 PM CST up reply actions

Yup, I completely agree.

My earlier point was just that they’re both the type of back that is most effective when getting a heavy load. Having both on one team leads to redundancy at the position. Toby’s a good RB but I never really understood why we traded up to pick a player that will always be a role-player/insurance with Peterson on the team. Good talented player but it was a lot of draft currency spent to fill a small role.

by CanadianViking on Jan 14, 2012 5:24 PM CST up reply actions

I totally agree with that.

I was befuddled by the trade to get Toby and it had very little to do with what I thought of Toby as a player. I wanted an offensive lineman in round 2.

by Are we cursed? on Jan 14, 2012 5:35 PM CST up reply actions

Agreed, no disrespect to Gerhart as he's a good player but the fit seemed like a poor idea from the get go.

O-line, S, WR, or LB would’ve all made more sense at the time.

by CanadianViking on Jan 14, 2012 5:41 PM CST up reply actions

I think it happened...

…because Peterson can’t be trusted in the 3rd down role – and perhaps because he’s such a violent runner that there was some expectation that an injury would some day occur and that a quality back up was needed. I don’t know. I’m pretty sure that Peterson’s challenges on 3rd down was part of the thinking though.

"Man invented language to satisfy his deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin

by kcskol on Jan 15, 2012 2:11 PM CST up reply actions

While I don't disagree that AP has his problems on third down

that still doesn’t justify taking a backup running back in the second round, much less trading up in the second round to take one. We had much greater needs elsewhere. As great a runner as AP is, he can’t be coddled. Running backs aren’t valuable enough to be coddled. You’ve got to get a coach in who can teach him to pass block and catch passes. If that doesn’t work, you can get a third down back for cheap in free agency.

by Are we cursed? on Jan 15, 2012 11:45 PM CST up reply actions

Oh, I don't disagree.

I’m not advocating that AD and Toby should get 35-40 carries a game combined because it’s not realistic. My point was that both backs are most effective when they get 20+ carries and because of the way the league is now Toby will never get the carries he needs to be most effective unless AD is not playing. Toby’s a good back but since day 1 I thought he was a bit redundant for a team that already has a feature back. Getting AD 25 carries is still a good thing as long as our passing game is productive. The problem isn’t AD it’s that our passing game blows and needs to improve a lot. Also, even the Packer’s and Saint’s don’t score 6 TDs in 25 plays. They’re miles ahead of us in the passing game but it takes them a good 50 offensive plays to score 43 points : )

by CanadianViking on Jan 14, 2012 5:05 PM CST up reply actions

Okay, so 6 td's in 25 plays was a bit of an exaggeration...

although if you have a really crummy defense, they could potentially give that number a shot. I’m saying that good passing beats good running just about every time.

by Are we cursed? on Jan 14, 2012 5:10 PM CST up reply actions

I agree.

Unfortunately we have a terrible passing game. Look at the success our offense had in 2009 when we had both a good passing game and a strong running game. I’m not arguing that we should be heavier on the run at the expense of the passing game I’m just saying that AD should get a lot of touches and Toby will probably never get enough carries while ADs around. I think a good passing game is necessary for AD to get his 20-25 carries and I’d love to see him getting 8-10 of those carries to close out games in the 4th quarter.

by CanadianViking on Jan 14, 2012 5:18 PM CST up reply actions

good take ^

@}-----You've been Touched-----{@

by Velvetouch on Jan 16, 2012 1:53 AM CST up reply actions

Having AD and Toby Is Both An Opportunity and a Challenge

Despite the fact that the Vikings appear relatively strong at the running back position, I am not a believer in trying to build a winning NFL franchise around a running back (or two backs) – particularly when there are so many more pressing needs. Running backs get injured (as we have seen), can have short careers and I personally do not think that having one of the best running backs in the game is worth that much more than just having a solid NFL back (at least as compared to the difference that having one of the best QBs or the best defense would bring). Many highly successful NFL teams get by with one or two solid but not spectacular running backs. I have even argued (without much popularity) that the smartest strategic football thing the Vikings could do is to trade AD for a bucketload of players or picks that they need. That probably doesn’t work now with his new contract and injury status.

As pointed out above, a run dominated game for the Vikings has additional problems as the Vikings defense (and offense when it throws picks) often has the team playing from behind early. But the run game has also often disappeared from the Vikings playbooks even when the Vikings are leading – as the team messes with questionable QB throws and wildcat crap. There is also a huge difference between the AD run game and the Toby run game in terms of what can move the chains consistently and sustain scoring drives.

The point of my post was merely to try to provide some data to address what I think are broadly held and incorrect stereotypes about the Vikvings running backs as the season comes to an end. AD has the history of on-field performance, the reputation, the style and moves (and the contract!!) but lost in that myopia is the fact the Toby Gerhart is doing the job every bit as well – if a bit differently. No…………..I do not think that Gerhart and AD can each get 15 – 20 carries per game. As noted, it was often tough to get AD 25 carries per game. So this is the conundrum for the Vikings coaching staff to figure out. But the answer is certainly giving AD 20 carries a game and Toby 2 carries or using Toby as a fullback. As I said, this is both an opportunity and a challenge. That is why they pay coaches.

by hoyaparanoia on Jan 14, 2012 11:48 AM CST reply actions

Correction

“The answer is certainly NOT giving AD 20 carries a game and Toby 2 carries or using Toby as a fullback.”

by hoyaparanoia on Jan 14, 2012 11:52 AM CST reply actions

The Vikings are blessed with top-notch RBs.... in a Passing League

For the most part, I agree with CanadianViking’s thoughts on the matter, but with an emphasis on this one point.

While I love seeing AD bash free and truck defenders en-route, unless the Vikings put in place a solid front line AND a credible passing game, it’s just a bad joke… and the joke’s on us. 3-13.

Ah, ah,
We come from the land of the ice and snow,
From the midnight sun where the hot springs blow.
The hammer of the gods will drive our ships to new lands,
To fight the horde, singing and crying: Valhalla, I am coming!
SKOL!

by DCPurple on Jan 14, 2012 5:17 PM CST reply actions

thank you, i was about to make this type of comment...

without a solid o-line, having stud running backs is almost futile.

well then who the hell are you talkin' to...are you talkin' to me?

by krinkle on Jan 15, 2012 1:25 PM CST up reply actions

Thanks KCSKOL For The Facts

I always knew that you had Toby’s back but it is nice to put to rest the old “AD runs against a 10 man box while Toby faces an open field” with your astute notes. THANKS!

Look…………….neither of these guys is the key to where the Vikings go from here (unfortunately). It is mostly about the rest of the team. Let’s hope a good draft yields some offensive linemen and some secondary help.

But………how the coaching staff deals with AD and Toby says a lot about the strategic leadership that exists (or does not exist) there.

3-13 does not say much.

by hoyaparanoia on Jan 14, 2012 11:52 PM CST reply actions

Anytime.

:-)

"Man invented language to satisfy his deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin

by kcskol on Jan 15, 2012 2:13 PM CST up reply actions

ugh

you folks on the Toby train are taking a pretty small sample. Also, are you not at all interested in how a team prepares to play the vikings when they play against AP? Do you not think the coaches say “we want 3 or 4 players on every play going where Adrian Peterson goes”..give me a break guys. I do like Toby a lot but its borderline ridiculous to throw AP under the bus because Toby had a good game against the Redskins where he say a little more than a handful of plays with the 9-10 in the box. I suppose you guys were the same people saying Jared was washed up last year because he didn’t have a stellar first 8 games.

by stuman55 on Jan 17, 2012 9:54 AM CST up reply actions

Nice little write up

But I for one would like to see all the numbers from the combine run again. AD came into the league as one of the best college running backs but OU had an outstanding offensive line. He is much stronger, faster, quicker now. I like Toby, but comparing the two and saying Toby is as good of an athlete and perhaps “exceeds purple jesus” (esspecially given the defensive looks each player see’s and how a team prepares for each respectively) is terrible.

by stuman55 on Jan 16, 2012 10:07 AM CST reply actions

Like the post

1. Gotta love the ‘hart Toby displays. He has been Patient behind AD and Productive when he gets enough touches to be involved in the game. Great Attitude!!!
2. He is not the caliber of athlete that AD is, but that is very different than on the field production, isn’t it.
3. Toby and AD will both benefit from a improved o-line next year (if healthy). Having two backs(3 with harvin) is a luxury that i will continue to enjoy.
4. If the vikes can find a way to make teams respect the deep ball, watch out! Go Vikes.

by chatter on Jan 16, 2012 10:54 AM CST reply actions

The Post is Just About Expectations vs. 2011 On Field Performance...Not Who Is "Better"!!!

Nobody is saying that Toby Gerhart is a “better” running back than Adrian Peterson or more “athletic”. These are subjective judgments. Just that based purely on measurable on field performance this year, Toby Gerhart produced every bit as solidly as AD – actually exceeding him in yards per carry, percentage of runs going for over 10 yards (which is truly surprising) and serving as a better receiving. Given the natural bias that goes with Adrian Peterson’s reputation and historical record, that is a VERY surprising result for many people. So instead of groping for explanations (Toby ran against a packed box too) or falling back on the “eye test” analsyis (which is just another way of saying that YOU KNOW that AD is faster, stronger, better, able to take it to the house as any time, etc.), present your case based on what AD did this year. What DID he do better than Toby this year? The NFL Combine data is really just to show that there may, in fact, be a basis for Toby Gerhart having the success he had this year – particularly in his ability to break longer runs. Heck, he “took it to the house – or at least a long ways toward the house” as often as AD whether looked as runs over 10 yards, 20 – 40 yards, or over 40 yards. I don’t know whether AD has gotten faster since his NFL Combine performance but I have a hard time believing that he runs UNDER 4.40 today over 40 yards.

Bottom line, going into 2012 the Vikings KNOW that they have two very capable feature backs on the team…….something that they did not know going into 2011. It is up to the coaching stafff to figure out how to take maximum advantage of this and win more football games.

by hoyaparanoia on Jan 16, 2012 7:37 PM CST reply actions

I know i'm gonna get slammed for this, but i'm gonna put it out there...

If Toby is cheaper that AD, needs carries to be effective, and as a change of pace back we could utilize percy harvin more to get him touches with his catching ability and ball skills, does that make AD expendable in trade for a first and third round pick this year to bolster the o-line and DB positions?

To be clear: I don’t advocate this, i’m just making an arguement for it. People seem to love the ’hart, and i do like his game myself.

by chatter on Jan 17, 2012 8:59 AM CST reply actions

I think its too late for that.

I suspect that Adrian was re-signed for beaucoup dollars for business reasons rather than football reasons. He is the face of the franchise and a very good player. He may be the best rushing back to come into the game in a long, long time. However, at the time he was signed, it was understood that he also had weaknesses in his game (e.g. blocking and catching on the run that limited his ability to be an every down back). It was also understood that the shelf life of a NFL running back is short relative to other positions on the field. And it was also understood that this is a passing league, etc. etc.

Spending this kind of money for a RB didn’t make sense to me. However, the Vikings were looking to get a stadium deal done and AD puts fans in the seats. Letting him go would have brought howls from fans across the state. My fear is that the Vikings have become prisoners to AD’s reputation (well deserved) and will never be able to get themselves in a position to think about letting him go even as his skills diminish.

With his contract, knee injury and the pounding a running back takes year in and year out, I’d be more than a little surprised if a team stepped up to take his contract from us AND gave us a first round pick. I think we could have traded him last year and received very good value for him. I don’t think that’s the case this year.