The Long and Short-term Football Impact of the Adrian Peterson Case
Arif Hasan
|
It’s been an exhausting day for those who have attempted to keep track of the Adrian Peterson case, one where the Vikings saw fit to deactivate Adrian Peterson from Sunday’s game (either as a PR move, a moral stance or to give time to let Adrian handle the case, depending on who you ask).
Over the course of the day, I’ve been peppered with football questions, and I don’t really mind that. It’s easy for me to answer questions about his cap status, his roster status, the NFL’s response, what the Vikings will do on Sunday, what the Vikings will do on the following Sundays, who will take his place, what this means for the 2015 draft and whether or not Matt Asiata is a better play in fantasy than Toby Gerhart.
I think maybe it’s insensitive to focus primarily on the personal impact of an external tragedy on the onset, but brains move quickly and I’m not confident it’s difficult to feel immense sympathy for the child involved in the case and also balance the broader implications of removing one of the biggest chess pieces from the board.
Your mileage may vary, and I respect that.
Still, I’m going to talk about football.
As it is, the Vikings will have to make some drastic adjustments in terms of what they expect they can do against the Patriots with one of their most critical pieces missing. In one sense, the Vikings have a plan. All teams have a plan for when any of their starters goes down, contingencies in place for who to step up and how the game changes in response.
But I mean, no one has a plan for this. There are plans and gamebooks and plays to go to. There’s a depth chart and a shift in usage patterns. How to handle it? How to talk to the team? How to manage the game? Stay focused? All of that is different. I’m a big critic of the kind of analysis that overemphasizes “passion” or “momentum,” and I’m pretty well-known as a stathead and more recently and Xs and Os guy. But the reason I tend to dismiss the “who wants it more” analysis is because I think “motivation” is pretty evenly distributed throughout the NFL, and that players who play “more motivated” tend to always be more motivated and perform better, so will already show up in statistics and on film as a better player, regardless of our perception of their motivation.
This is another beast entirely. And it is difficult to describe what the emotional impact of Adrian’s ignominious absence will mean to the team, except to say it will be significant. I cannot speak to the focus or mental state of any particular player on the team, much less the cohesive effect. I cannot speak to Mike Zimmer’s ability to refocus a team or remove distractions.
Instead I will speak to what I know of Xs and Os and the potential replacements.
The Patriots have an astoundingly complex defense at times, and my writeup of their defense I hope captures that. To that end, I recommended that the Vikings keep only two plays in their playbook in regards to the run game, the inside zone and outside zone in part to simplify the blocking schemes against unpredictable fronts and unusual looks.
That doesn’t mean they will follow my recommendations. One of the benefits to having the only offensive line to remain with the same starters for three consecutive years, one of the best offensive line coaches in the league and the smartest center in the league is that opponents don’t have to dictate your game plan to you when it comes to running the ball. If that is the case, then the Vikings will be particularly modular in their gameplan as they play through the day.
There are a couple of options when it comes to running the football. Primarily, Matt Asiata and Jerick McKinnon are backups. Wide receiver Cordarrelle Patterson has carried the ball. Fullbacks Jerome Felton and Zach Line have both carried the ball in camp, and Line has an extensive and impressive resume as a runner for Southern Methodist. It should also be noted that MarQueis Gray is a ballcarrier, too.
To get the marginal runners out of the way, I would expect one, perhaps two runs from Gray if active—which I could see, but doubt. I think even less of that could be the case if Line is active and I think Line’s likelihood of being active is even smaller than Gray’s.
I don’t expect Patterson’s run total to increase in any significant way that would deviate from the game plan as is. Aside from the fact that the jet sweeps Patterson ran were paired with fakes to Adrian, they are not foundational plays, which are the plays the Vikings need to replace with Peterson off the field. Any situation they would have used with Adrian, they will not use with Patterson. Your perception of Patterson’s use pattern should not change in a significant way (except insofar as there may be more passing plays).
As for the other three, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Felton taking the majority of short-yardage carries (perhaps acting the touchdown vulture). Norv Turner in Cleveland and San Diego in the past four years has had his fullbacks take just short of half of the carries on third and fourth down with 3 yards or fewer to go. I expect that to increase when the roster does not contain a true power back.
The issue is determining what happens with Asiata and McKinnon. I don’t consider Asiata as a power back, really, though the Vikings it seems do. My scouting report on Asiata:
An undrafted free agent out of Utah, Asiata signed with the UFL Omaha Nighthawks though didn’t take the field in order to accept an invitation from the Vikings to enter training camp. A brief period of time on the practice squad in 2011 was followed by a camp invite in 2012, where he won the third running back job. In 2013, he won the job once more, this time ahead of fan favorite Bradley Randle and preseason star Joe Banyard. Vikings fans finally got a chance to see him in the actual field of play and weren’t too impressed, though he remains a staff favorite. Despite his worrisome numbers against Philadelphia, Asiata rebounded with an impressive showing against Detroit in the final game
Strengths: Upon review, Asiata showed incredibly mature decisionmaking at the line, and had very good vision. His lateral movement is good, and is essential because that’s what enables him to make quick decisions as the play develops. A good pad level allows him to create power, and it’s how he sheds arm tackles. Good balance and a solid reputation for pass protection (one not backed up by tracking statistics—but two of the three sacks he’s credited with giving up are not his fault) might be what keeps him on the team.
Weaknesses: Though he is a fine catcher, he lacks the speed or acceleration to be a real threat in the passing game. In general, his lack of burst will always hold him back. Without even average burst or speed he’s limited in his ability to take smart risks—when holes open up further away from his assigned gap, he doesn’t have the ability to exploit it. His excellent performance against Detroit involved some enormous running lanes at times, and needs to be counterbalanced with his performance against Philadelphia, where his margin of error (along with his typical running lane) was smaller and more indicative of his real talent. Without his final run of the year (39 yards), his average drops from 3.8 yards per attempt to 2.9. For a fullback/halfback hybrid, he has surprising low power in his legs. Despite good pad level and the ability to shake off arm tackles, he can’t create yards when hit straight-on, even by a bad tackle. Asiata has most of what you want in a backup running back, but it’s simply his acceleration and speed that hold him back, and they do so in a very significant way.
Chance to make roster: 75%
I think Asiata is unfairly maligned by the Vikings fanbase, but I think the characterization of him as a “power back” would be incorrect because of the power he provides on contact. Moving the line is not a talent he has (though his raw numbers after contact are very good—averaging 2.5 yards per carry after first contact—so I could be wrong). He wins with vision, and if the line opens up some holes for him, he’ll get some good yards to achieve a good success rate, but he won’t be a threat to hit the home run.
His superior vision should have him take the vast majority of carries if the Vikings stick with a zone game, as they will need creativity, decisionmaking and solid reading of blocks and lanes in the second level. Should the Vikings mix things up, then they will probably share time with McKinnon and Asiata based off of how well the Patriots defend the edge. McKinnon’s carries should rise in a situation where the Vikings can get off-tackle or create space on the outside or on screens.
In terms of how you would interpret all of that, I would say that Asiata gets the majority of the runs on Sunday unless a specific kind of situation arises, where the Patriots do a poor job defending outside runs and the Vikings choose to engage in more power blocking; McKinnon does a better job hitting the corner and should be given more runs as a result of in-game adjustments.
McKinnon’s experience and decisionmaking should limit him, however, and his play will likely be limited without significant proof he can make the most of his blocks. Further, Asiata’s excellent pass blocking will allow him to see the field more often on a given down. McKinnon’s history in a completely different style of blocking should also limit his ability to contribute in zone running situations.
If you want a more complete scouting report on McKinnon, check out what Darren Page had to say right after the draft and what Brent LaBathe said after training camp.
This may create issues on play action and the play fakes that helped open up Cordarrelle on the sweeps, but I’m not so sure running talent is as critical to executing play fakes as the offensive line and quarterback are. Freezing the linebackers shouldn’t be as difficult as you might expect, so I don’t see a significant amount of marginal loss when it comes to play fakes.
In terms of taking advantage of what may be there in the passing game, it’s important to see what the defense gives Cassel, but exploiting Jamie Collins in coverage might be a theme, while finding Dennard may help more than hurt. Tannehill did well with short passes to his left, sometimes with receivers clearing out space from the corners and taking what’s underneath and sometimes targeting Dennard.
Short passes seem to have done well against the Patriots (11/15 for 100 yards and a touchdown with no interceptions—passer rating 113.2) and maybe those holes will be there with effective route combinations, and those short passes will replace some of the runs, in the West Coast tradition, despite Norv Turner and Matt Cassel’s backgrounds (Coryell and Erhardt-Perkins, respectively).
As rough estimates, what we would have expected to have been 22 Adrian runs would be 12 runs from Asiata, 5 runs from McKinnon and 5 short passes in running situations that would have been Adrian runs (this is why I don’t think Asiata is a particularly smart play in fantasy). Keep in mind, two or three Asiata runs may be snatched by Felton, too.
In the long run, I see a different story, however. McKinnon’s improvement in pass protection and his ability to create big plays (and create something out of nothing) should see him getting on the field more often as the season progresses. In regards to fantasy football, I think McKinnon is a better addition unless the next game or three is the primary concern. Aside from his additional versatility, I think he’ll have better yardage numbers and that the touchdown numbers will be complicated by the fullbacks.
Creative play design will better serve McKinnon than Asiata and as his vision grows, so should his use. In the long run, I see a timeshare reminiscent of the McFadden/Bush backfield the Raiders fielded a few years ago (or at least the planned timeshare before McFadden was injured). Tolbert/Mathews is not a bad comparison in terms of usage amounts, but isn’t great in terms of usage patterns, given what I see of Asiata’s strengths against Tolbert’s.
Jonathan Stewart/DeAngelo Williams is also a decent carry comparison, but again not the kind of situational comparison that fits the movement going forward.
McKinnon has a lot more strength than a player like Danny Woodhead or Darren Sproles, and may be better compared to Pierre Thomas in terms of how he’ll be used by the end of the year than Sproles, even if the clichéd comparison to Sproles rings true in terms of his overall use framework. I think McKinnon does a better job running between than tackles in the long run than Woodhead or Sproles, which is the only reason I see him grabbing carries from Asiata in a meaningful way. While McKinnon’s size ultimately limits him in that context—he’s not a short-yardage back—I don’t think it prevents him from running inside on first-and-anything or on second down. His strength, durability and balance are far better than most scatback types, and he can shed tackles from big guys.
Asiata has a ceiling that McKinnon does not and I think he has come close to reaching it. He has underrated speed and agility, but that does not mean he is fast and quick, merely that people are overstating the nature of his limitations as a running back, and has shown much more explosiveness this year than last. That said, him being “acceptable” will not be enough to stave off the challenge from McKinnon.
I did not have an immediate need to upgrade or play a running back this week, so I selected McKinnon, because I don’t think there is a strong chance Asiata will ever produce more than my top three backs. But I do think there is the possibility McKinnon can.
My major concern is that Asiata displays a level of creativity in his vision that I’m not sure McKinnon has shown. We often confuse shifty and agile runners for creative runners, but I think the ability to create something out of nothing (or very little) is a skill more contingent on vision than athletic ability, though the second showcases the first. Asiata clearly has this capability, if not the physical skill set to fully exploit it.
That will limit McKinnon in inside zone runs and will also create issues on a number of power plays, too. He could be an excellent player when involved in trap blocking or misdirection, and should get some serious yardage with average vision at times, but that doesn’t make him a clearly superior back.
This all assumes Adrian will not play a heavy role with the Vikings over the course of the year.
If that is the case, should the Vikings release Peterson, there are some financial impacts to consider. Despite my tweets to the contrary, further clarification from people more familiar with capology than I have assured me that Adrian Peterson’s cap value this year is static, whether or not he is on the team. That’s fine, the Vikings will not likely need to make a move that heavily impacts their cap moving forward.
They have $5.5 million in cap space (which will be closer to $5 million when Simpson comes back). If Peterson is cut and the Vikings want to attract a new running back (BenJarvus Green-Ellis and Daniel Thomas, for example, are both available), they will not reach anything close to $5M. More likely, they would promote Joe Banyard from the practice squad, which would likely be just as cheap if we’re being honest. I would not expect to see Banyard on the field often, especially given his relative pass protection ability.
The cap hit for Peterson next year if cut is a mere $2.4 million because he no longer has guaranteed money. That would be the last year that his prorated signing bonus hit would hurt the Vikings. His net cap savings would therefore be $12 million.
Should the Vikings be concerned about running back competition, names to watch out for are of course Melvin Gordon (Wisconsin) and Todd Gurley (Georgia), but I don’t see a running back in the first two rounds, where they are projected to go. The Vikings are confident in McKinnon, and would likely at best force him to compete with a running back or find a power-type complement.
To me, the interesting backs to watch for are Ameer Abdullah (Nebraska), Jay Ajayi (Boise State) and Duke Johnson (Miami). Mike Davis (South Carolina) is certainly worth attention. Small schoolers to watch out for include Terrell Watson (Azusa Pacific), John Crockett (NDSU), David Johnson (Northern Iowa), Malcom Agnew (Southern Illinois, formerly Oregon State), Zach Zenner (South Dakota State) and Rob Holloman (Central Connecticut, formerly Kent State).
This is all moot, of course, if the Vikings do not find a way to offload Peterson.
I would not be surprised to see the Vikings accelerate the development of the passing game, create more diversity and find different ways to stretch the field horizontally and vertically. When running doesn’t work as a constraint play, screens can. Patterson, Wright and Jennings are all good screen receivers.
No one should be surprised to see this increase the volume of the passing game. Not only because the marginal advantage of running is far smaller, but because the Vikings may also be behind more often. From a fantasy perspective, expect Greg Jennings’ value to rise; I’m not sure Patterson’s can rise any more than it already has.
It’s difficult to dissect all of the interrelated impacts. Cassel passed short against the Rams, but that was to obviate the Rams defensive line. They may continue to increase the volume of short passes, but will see different looks with fewer players in the box. Instead of finding safeties consistently creeping down, they could see quarters coverage and Cover-2 more often. The Vikings may not trust their play-action as much, despite its dependence on keys instead of performance. They may see more man coverage than before. To counter those changes, empty sets as McKinnon splits wide could be more commonplace.
I expect Kyle Rudolph to be increasingly important as a checkdown option with Rhett Ellison reducing his importance marginally because of the significance of the running game. We’ll see more diverse offensive personnel decisions than before. I wouldn’t be surprised to see more MarQueis Gray earlier than we expected, Zach Line in the backfield and different receiver combinations. At the same time, Norv has almost never put four wide receivers on the field, and didn’t do so in Cleveland despite losing his starting running back to a trade before Week 3 and consistent injuries to the running corps (though the QB injuries may have washed that out).
This season will certainly be more experimental than before.
And from a football perspective, it will be an enormous test for Mike Zimmer. Not just this game, but for the year. I am still not sure about the overall head coaching acumen of Zimmer, but I am extraordinarily glad this group of coaches is so skilled at tactics. It’s more useful now than ever before.