- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
"AD isn't a good fit for our offense"
Posted on 4/7/17 at 1:09 am
Posted on 4/7/17 at 1:09 am
JMHO but to me this is flawed reasoning. It assumes that payton would not know exactly in what situations and how to use him. I don't think they would be bringing him on to replace ingram. Payton and Mickey's free agent acquisitions and draft decisions have by no means been above criticism, but once payton knows what he has, he usually knows how to use it with regard to in game personnel decisions and strategy.
I think bringing him on (and hopefully going by AD's tweet at a decent price), payton would want to use him as a punishing game finisher/clock runner, which, combined with an at least average defense and a high powered passing offense to build an early lead, is a recipe for a championship caliber team, and would limit Peterson's carries and keep him fresh.
Acting like because AD is a fairly one dimensional style back would somehow make our offense one dimensional any time he's on the field is nonsense. With brees in charge of pre snap audibles, having AD in the backfield does not make our offense one dimensional. I have complete faith that we can line up in multiple formations with a pass catching fullback in the backfield in late game situations with the lead, and brees will still more often than not, by presnap alignment, exploit whatever element the defense commits to trying to stop.
Just my two cents
ETA: Don't really get why my post is downvoted and the posts agreeing with my points are upvoted
Also Adrian Peterson has been known as AD (all day) as a nationally known high school recruit since anthony davis was about 6 years old. And pretty sure he got the nickname several years before that. But I'm a texas transplant so I probably should have clarified on a Nola board
I think bringing him on (and hopefully going by AD's tweet at a decent price), payton would want to use him as a punishing game finisher/clock runner, which, combined with an at least average defense and a high powered passing offense to build an early lead, is a recipe for a championship caliber team, and would limit Peterson's carries and keep him fresh.
Acting like because AD is a fairly one dimensional style back would somehow make our offense one dimensional any time he's on the field is nonsense. With brees in charge of pre snap audibles, having AD in the backfield does not make our offense one dimensional. I have complete faith that we can line up in multiple formations with a pass catching fullback in the backfield in late game situations with the lead, and brees will still more often than not, by presnap alignment, exploit whatever element the defense commits to trying to stop.
Just my two cents
ETA: Don't really get why my post is downvoted and the posts agreeing with my points are upvoted
Also Adrian Peterson has been known as AD (all day) as a nationally known high school recruit since anthony davis was about 6 years old. And pretty sure he got the nickname several years before that. But I'm a texas transplant so I probably should have clarified on a Nola board
This post was edited on 4/7/17 at 8:42 pm
14
Posted on 4/7/17 at 1:18 am to el duderino III
Peterson has rarely ever played on third down situations in his career because he can't block or run routes.
He would play a very similar role to Hightower last year with about 120 carries and 20 catches. If he is OK with that and for a decent price, I am more than OK with it.
He would play a very similar role to Hightower last year with about 120 carries and 20 catches. If he is OK with that and for a decent price, I am more than OK with it.
Posted on 4/7/17 at 1:43 am to el duderino III
Absolutely and the guy who said he'd play the hightower role is absolute jokes. Ingram instantly and rightfully so becomes the backup.
Posted on 4/7/17 at 2:31 am to Brandincookem
I partially agree and disagree with both of you. Ingram should not instantly become the backup, and AD should not fill the hightower role, both for the same reason. AD is not good enough in pass blocking or receiving out of the backfield to be the primary option in early game/close score game situations.
I think he should be brought on, if at the right price, to be the late game punishing runner to close out leads, and to also keep both ingram and peterson fresh by splitting the more physical carries between them throughout the season. It could also make ingram's yards per touch numbers even more efficient, which might give us considerable trade value for him before the last year of his relatively cheap contract. And I'm sorry, Ingram's a solid back, probably top ten in the league, but he is just not a required component for a championship run for us in brees' last few years. Outside of sproles, no back we've ever had in this system even comes close to being fitting that bill
Put it this way, if he was playing for the patriots and put up similar numbers to what he did last year, there is no doubt they'd be shopping him in the last year of his contract
I think he should be brought on, if at the right price, to be the late game punishing runner to close out leads, and to also keep both ingram and peterson fresh by splitting the more physical carries between them throughout the season. It could also make ingram's yards per touch numbers even more efficient, which might give us considerable trade value for him before the last year of his relatively cheap contract. And I'm sorry, Ingram's a solid back, probably top ten in the league, but he is just not a required component for a championship run for us in brees' last few years. Outside of sproles, no back we've ever had in this system even comes close to being fitting that bill
Put it this way, if he was playing for the patriots and put up similar numbers to what he did last year, there is no doubt they'd be shopping him in the last year of his contract
This post was edited on 4/7/17 at 2:42 am
Posted on 4/7/17 at 3:32 am to el duderino III
Mark Ingram is more than capable of being an every down back. What people are failing to realize is that AD in the backfield demands respect, especially behind our OL. So yeah, Peterson might not be something in the passing game but you can be damn sure he'll open up our passing game for Brees & co. This also works vice versa, Peterson has never had a QB like Brees to take pressure off him and the line. As long as he comes in for the right price, sign me up.
Oh, and finally, Peterson has never had an offensive mind like Payton to work with him either.
Oh, and finally, Peterson has never had an offensive mind like Payton to work with him either.
This post was edited on 4/7/17 at 8:10 am
Posted on 4/7/17 at 5:57 am to knowingabyss
Peterson strikes me as the kinda guy that needs a fullback to block for him to be a bit more productive. I like the guy, I just don't think he is a fit for us.
we have all seen over the last few seasons how much we deviate from the running game, and paying AP decent money to essentially get limited carries would be silly - and everyone that is all for bringing him in will be lamenting Loomis and SP as fools for making another Free Agent bust and waste of money.
we have all seen over the last few seasons how much we deviate from the running game, and paying AP decent money to essentially get limited carries would be silly - and everyone that is all for bringing him in will be lamenting Loomis and SP as fools for making another Free Agent bust and waste of money.
Posted on 4/7/17 at 6:15 am to el duderino III
I thought this was going to be a Pelicans thread 
Posted on 4/7/17 at 6:35 am to Brandincookem
quote:
Ingram instantly and rightfully so becomes the backup.
Posted on 4/7/17 at 6:44 am to el duderino III
This all comes down to money. If he's willing to take something close to Hightower money, AP is a no-brainer. He's clearly an upgrade from Hightower unless he's hiding an injury. If he wants Ingram or CJ Spiller money, forget it. It's hard to have this discussion because we have no real idea how much he wants. If the Saints have to pay him 2 mill plus per year, I wouldn't do it.
Posted on 4/7/17 at 6:47 am to dcw7g
...and Ingram will not become the backup in any scenario. This is not 2012. AP is 32 years old
Posted on 4/7/17 at 6:48 am to Brandincookem
quote:
Absolutely and the guy who said he'd play the hightower role is absolute jokes. Ingram instantly and rightfully so becomes the backup.
AD was pretty damn bad last year.
Posted on 4/7/17 at 7:09 am to Jcorye1
its freaking A mfing P people..
Just like its OBJ not ODB
Just like its OBJ not ODB
Posted on 4/7/17 at 7:20 am to goatmilker
AP=AD
Posted on 4/7/17 at 7:26 am to Jcorye1
Limited sample size having only played in 3 games, touching the ball a grand 37 times.
Posted on 4/7/17 at 8:05 am to LSU1SLU
quote:
its freaking A mfing P people.
Lulz
Posted on 4/7/17 at 8:09 am to el duderino III
I assumed that those that say he is not a good fit were not only speaking about our pass heavy offensive scheme, but about our blocking/run scheme. Honestly idk much about the man vs zone blocking schemes, but I do know that certain backs fit better than others in each scheme based on how they read and react to running lanes and blocks. If I'm not mistaken didn't we switch to a zone blocking scheme which contributed to an uptick in Ingram's production. I believe the blocking scheme now is the same system he was in while at Bama. Also, what scheme do the Vikings run? Like I said, I don't know enough about this to speak with certainty about it. Can any back fit any scheme? Is it a difficult transition for a back or just plug and play? I assumed this was the reason they say he isn't a good fit, but maybe someone with more knowledge of this subject can weigh in.
Posted on 4/7/17 at 8:12 am to Lilpickles
quote:
AP=AD
His nickname is All Day
Posted on 4/7/17 at 8:15 am to Jcorye1
His QB was Sam Bradford, his OL ranked at the bottom of the barrel and he played some of the tougher run D's.
Posted on 4/7/17 at 8:21 am to txbd
I would love the signing from an insurance stand point.
Also I think it changes our draft slightly. I really think the Saints want Mixon in the 3rd. Now they can skip Cook and Fournette at 11 with no hesitation if Peterson looks to have 2+ years left.
Seems strange that after Peterson went to the Patriots then he came here. Almost like Belichick called Payton about him.
Also I think it changes our draft slightly. I really think the Saints want Mixon in the 3rd. Now they can skip Cook and Fournette at 11 with no hesitation if Peterson looks to have 2+ years left.
Seems strange that after Peterson went to the Patriots then he came here. Almost like Belichick called Payton about him.
Posted on 4/7/17 at 8:22 am to el duderino III
AD isn't a good fit for our offense because he still wants 8 million a year.. end of story
You don't sign one of the best back of all time for insurance
quote:
I would love the signing from an insurance stand point.
You don't sign one of the best back of all time for insurance
This post was edited on 4/7/17 at 8:23 am
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News