Five ways Latavius Murray is an upgrade over Adrian Peterson

[Purp1eOne]

Five ways Latavius Murray is an upgrade over Adrian Peterson link

[SmokedPears]

Jayme in 3... 2... 1...

[Jayme96]

Can't read it. Anyone care to paraphrase?

[Purplemachine]

1) Murray has fewer negative plays. Let’s build this around the premise that the modern NFL running game is a secondary complement to the more essential passing game. It’s great to be able to run the ball because it keeps defenses off-balance. At the end of the day, though, most championships are won with good defense and elite quarterback play.

2) Murray is much better in pass protection. Vikings head coach Mike Zimmer talked about Murray on KFAN Tuesday and seemed particularly excited about his new running back’s blocking ability — noting that it means the Vikings won’t have to take Murray out on third downs as they often did with Peterson, who was not a good blocker.

3) Murray is better out of the shotgun. Murray has a career rushing average of 4.0 yards per carry out of the shotgun, compared to 4.3 yards per carry from snaps originating under center. So he’s slightly better under center, but the difference isn’t that great.

Peterson, on the other hand, has a wide disparity between shotgun runs (3.7 yards per carry) and under center carries (4.9 yards) in his career. It was even more dramatic in 2015 (1.6 yards in shotgun, 4.9 yards under center) when the Vikings had to scrap what they wanted to do in order to focus more on Peterson’s preference and strengths.

4) Murray has better ball security. Murray has averaged one fumble every 95 offensive touches in his career. Peterson has averaged one fumble ever 68 offensive touches.

5) Murray is five years younger — 27 compared to 32. This is not ageism. This is historical data. Running backs as old as Peterson don’t tend to fare well. In fact, as of two years ago there were exactly three running backs in NFL history who had rushed for more than 1,000 yards in a season at age 32 or older: Mike Anderson, Emmitt Smith and Ricky Williams, all of whom were 32. Murray is in the prime of his career. Peterson is not.

Not the entire article but more or less.

[VikingBob]

I didnt read the article, but here is my opinion.

1 he can block
2 he can catch
3 he can run out of the shotgun
4 he doesnt fumble very often
5 he cares more about winning than stats

[Jayme96]

Mar 22, 2017 14:13:58 GMT -6 Purplemachine said:

1) Murray has fewer negative plays. Let’s build this around the premise that the modern NFL running game is a secondary complement to the more essential passing game. It’s great to be able to run the ball because it keeps defenses off-balance. At the end of the day, though, most championships are won with good defense and elite quarterback play.

2) Murray is much better in pass protection. Vikings head coach Mike Zimmer talked about Murray on KFAN Tuesday and seemed particularly excited about his new running back’s blocking ability — noting that it means the Vikings won’t have to take Murray out on third downs as they often did with Peterson, who was not a good blocker.

3) Murray is better out of the shotgun. Murray has a career rushing average of 4.0 yards per carry out of the shotgun, compared to 4.3 yards per carry from snaps originating under center. So he’s slightly better under center, but the difference isn’t that great.

Peterson, on the other hand, has a wide disparity between shotgun runs (3.7 yards per carry) and under center carries (4.9 yards) in his career. It was even more dramatic in 2015 (1.6 yards in shotgun, 4.9 yards under center) when the Vikings had to scrap what they wanted to do in order to focus more on Peterson’s preference and strengths.

4) Murray has better ball security. Murray has averaged one fumble every 95 offensive touches in his career. Peterson has averaged one fumble ever 68 offensive touches.

5) Murray is five years younger — 27 compared to 32. This is not ageism. This is historical data. Running backs as old as Peterson don’t tend to fare well. In fact, as of two years ago there were exactly three running backs in NFL history who had rushed for more than 1,000 yards in a season at age 32 or older: Mike Anderson, Emmitt Smith and Ricky Williams, all of whom were 32. Murray is in the prime of his career. Peterson is not.

Not the entire article but more or less.

Thanks.  They ignored off field drama and salary cap space used for them, but their reasoning is sound.  I was guessing they'd talk about pass pro, ability to operate out of the gun and fumbling.  

[Purp1eOne]

Mar 22, 2017 14:17:25 GMT -6 Jayme96 said:

Mar 22, 2017 14:13:58 GMT -6 Purplemachine said:

1) Murray has fewer negative plays. Let’s build this around the premise that the modern NFL running game is a secondary complement to the more essential passing game. It’s great to be able to run the ball because it keeps defenses off-balance. At the end of the day, though, most championships are won with good defense and elite quarterback play.

2) Murray is much better in pass protection. Vikings head coach Mike Zimmer talked about Murray on KFAN Tuesday and seemed particularly excited about his new running back’s blocking ability — noting that it means the Vikings won’t have to take Murray out on third downs as they often did with Peterson, who was not a good blocker.

3) Murray is better out of the shotgun. Murray has a career rushing average of 4.0 yards per carry out of the shotgun, compared to 4.3 yards per carry from snaps originating under center. So he’s slightly better under center, but the difference isn’t that great.

Peterson, on the other hand, has a wide disparity between shotgun runs (3.7 yards per carry) and under center carries (4.9 yards) in his career. It was even more dramatic in 2015 (1.6 yards in shotgun, 4.9 yards under center) when the Vikings had to scrap what they wanted to do in order to focus more on Peterson’s preference and strengths.

4) Murray has better ball security. Murray has averaged one fumble every 95 offensive touches in his career. Peterson has averaged one fumble ever 68 offensive touches.

5) Murray is five years younger — 27 compared to 32. This is not ageism. This is historical data. Running backs as old as Peterson don’t tend to fare well. In fact, as of two years ago there were exactly three running backs in NFL history who had rushed for more than 1,000 yards in a season at age 32 or older: Mike Anderson, Emmitt Smith and Ricky Williams, all of whom were 32. Murray is in the prime of his career. Peterson is not.

Not the entire article but more or less.

Thanks.  They ignored off field drama and salary cap space used for them, but their reasoning is sound.  I was guessing they'd talk about pass pro, ability to operate out of the gun and fumbling.  

I am quite sure your list would be much longer than 5, but if they replaced AD with my dog it would be as well.....

[vikefever]

I am excited to have a 3 down back who can catch out of the backfield. We all know the elephant in the room (OL) If we gain 1 second, our O has a chance of being very versatile, if not dominant. Norv, ya left a year early

[nodakviking]

1) Murray has fewer negative plays. Let’s build this around the premise that the modern NFL running game is a secondary complement to the more essential passing game. It’s great to be able to run the ball because it keeps defenses off-balance. At the end of the day, though, most championships are won with good defense and elite quarterback play.

Read more: vikinghorn.proboards.com/thread/930/latavius-murray-upgrade-adrian-peterson#ixzz4c5o9fBdk


this to me was my biggest problem with AP. Negative runs on run first team is a QB/drive killer.