Call me crazy, but I can't help but wonder if the Vikings run game gets a little more life without Adrian Peterson. I know, that's a ridiculous statement on the surface, but stay with me here. I promise I'm not trying to cultivate a hot take (that's what we have Brinson for, anyway).
At the time Adrian Peterson injured his knee Sunday night, the Vikings run game was basically going in reverse ... and had been for quite some time. It's hardly all on AP. The offensive line has been getting manhandled, there aren't a lot of holes and running between the tackles has been an exercise in futility. But, it's also worth noting that Peterson is 31, he's taken a lot of abuse over the years and when backs with his workload hit the wall, they tend to hit it hard and fast.
To expect him to make some Superman return from his meniscus injury is folly at this point. And, don't get me wrong, a season-ending injury is a huge blow if it turns out he misses that much time. However, I am intrigued by the team's s prospects to attack the run game different in his absence, at least in the short term. And possibly longer.
As long as Peterson is in the lineup, he's going to get fed a decent workload and there is going to be an onus on running plays that cater to his strength, but he's not as explosive and nimble as he was in his prime. Given the state of the offensive line, and the fact that Sam Bradford should be able to get the ball downfield more than Teddy Bridgewater (or Shaun Hill) could, having a back like Jerick McKinnon on the field more might not be the worst thing in the world.
Bradford can use the screen game as an extension/substitute for the run game, and McKinnon is good in space and can do more things outside the tackle. I kinda like the wrinkle, actually, and how coordinator Norv Turner might handle it.
Since Peterson's last monster game (29 rushes for 158 yards in Week 12 of last season against a toothless Atlanta defense), here is how he has fared:
| Opponent | Carries | Yards | Average | TDs |
| Seahawks | 8 | 18 | 2.25 | 0 |
| Cardinals | 23 | 69 | 3 | 1 |
| Bears | 18 | 63 | 3.5 | 0 |
| Giants | 22 | 104 | 4.7 | 1 |
| Packers | 19 | 67 | 3.5 | 1 |
| Seahawks* | 23 | 45 | 2 | 0 |
| Titans | 19 | 31 | 1.6 | 0 |
| Packers | 12 | 19 | 1.6 | 0 |
So in what amounts to his last half season, Peterson has run 144 times for just 416 yards, averaging a paltry 2.9 yards per carry. The league average in most years is 4.0 per carry and Peterson's lifetime average is a staggering 4.9 per rush. He has reached 70 yards in a game just once in that span with three total rushing touchdowns.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not espousing that McKinnon is better than Peterson and over the long haul, and having them both able to do different things is best for the Vikings. And I'm not saying that Peterson is done -- but I did predict a big drop-off for him this season in our preseason previews. I certainly had some reservations at this stage of his career and I can't see him making $18M for the Vikings in 2017 under any circumstances now. That contract is an extreme outlier given his age and his position and now this injury.
But if Peterson were to be out a few months (and again, an exact timetable won't be fully determined until after his surgery is performed on Thursday), given how bad things have been on the ground for Minnesota, having a different look and a speedier back on the field more may actually provide an odd boost. And depending on what this offense looks like without Peterson, it will be very interesting to gauge the feature back's usage down the stretch late in the season or in the playoffs, if he is able to make it back.
