Which came first: the Bernard or the Adrian?

Even before Bernard Berrian inked his huge deal with the Vikings, people were already picking Adrian Peterson to have a 2008 to put his rookie year to shame. The excitement reached a fever pitch after Berrian was signed, as people believed he would open a passing game that was largely ineffective in Peterson's rookie year. With Berrian and an improved passing game in 2008, Peterson won't face eight defenders in the box and will run wild through opposing defenses all year long; 2,000 yards is a distinct possibility. If you play fantasy football and wind up with the fourth pick or lower -- or in some drafts, the second pick -- you likely won't even sniff Peterson.

But here's the thing: If Peterson is going to have such a phenomenal year because of the improved passing game, how will the passing game actually be improved if Peterson is rushing for 2,000 yards? An offense can only run so many plays, and if the bulk of them are going to Peterson (and maybe Chester Taylor), that won't leave much for Bernard Berrian and company. Going back again to fantasy drafts, I've heard two reasons why a player, especially a running back, might be poised for a breakout year:

Situation A: The team has a good passing game.
"That'll open up lots of holes for him! He'll have a huge year!"

Situation B: The team has a poor passing game.
"He's all they've got! He'll get tons of carries and have a huge year!"

Well, they can't both be true, can they? So, which is it? How does having a good passing game impact the running game (and vice versa)?

On the surface, it seems to make sense. But if you think about it, does one beget the other? Consider these questions:

Q: How do you have a good running game?
A: Have a good passing game to open holes for the running back.

Q: How do you have a good passing game?
A: Have a good running game so your receivers are single covered.

Er...OK. Chicken, meet egg.

Nobody would dispute that it's easier to run against seven in the box than it is against eight (or, in some cases against the Vikings last year, nine). But if the defense is stacking up to stop the run, shouldn't that mean the pass is wide open? But why are they stacking up to stop the run? Probably because the running game is very good, clearly better than the passing game. And if you're an offensive coordinator, shouldn't you be using what works? Do good running teams abandon or minimize the run just because the defense tries really hard to stop it. Of course not.

But when the offense does pass (or run against a team defending primarily against the pass), they should meet with some success, better than would be normally expected, right? They'll probably still pass fairly infrequently, but the results should be pretty good.

So maybe that's the key. A team that accumulates a lot of rushing yards should pass relatively infrequently but should be rather successful when they do pass. And a team that racks up the passing yardage runs infrequently but should be successful when they do run. In other words, high accumulation (raw yardage) in one stat should lead to a high rate (yards per carry or pass) in the other.

That's the theory, at least. This post is long enough, so I'll run the numbers and see what I come up with sometime this weekend. For now, just think about it and realize that if Bernard Berrian does somehow rack up 1,160 yards, it'll be more likely to come on 60 catches than on 80.

How good is your team's top receiver?

When I wrote my post last week about Bernard Berrian's expectations, I found that the Vikings haven't had a single receiver top the 700-yard mark (much less the 1,000-yard mark) for three straight seasons. Clearly, lack of production from the team's #1 wideout contributed to the Berrian signing, but it got me to thinking: Were the Vikings the team most in need of a true #1 receiver this offseason? Or was there another team that needed that deep threat more?

My method of figuring this out was simple. I took each team's top receiver and divided his yardage total by his team's total passing yards, discounting sacks to determine the percentage of his team's yards each "top" receiver accumulated. The smaller that percentage, the "worse" that team's #1 receiver. Thus, a receiver who caught 1,200 yards worth team that threw for 3,600 yards would have accounted for 33.3% of his team's passing yards. That would have made him a "better" #1 receiver than a player who caught 1,400 yards for a team that threw for 4,500 (31.1%) but "worse" than a 1,000-yard receiver on a team that threw for 2,500 (40%). After all, it should be harder to have a 1,000-yard season on a crappy team than it is to get 1,500 yards on a good passing team, right?

Here are the results for 2007:

Team	PassYds	#1Rec	#1RecYds	Percent
Indianapolis	4172	Wayne	1510	36.2%
Denver	3759	Marshall	1325	35.2%
Cincinnati	4131	Johnson	1440	34.9%
Carolina	2941	Smith	1002	34.1%
NY Jets	3330	Cotchery	1130	33.9%
Atlanta	3573	White	1202	33.6%
St. Louis	3561	Holt	1189	33.4%
Cleveland	3866	Edwards	1289	33.3%
Arizona	4228	Fitzgerald	1409	33.3%
Kansas City	3525	Gonzalez	1172	33.2%
Baltimore	3308	Mason	1087	32.9%
Dallas	4290	Owens	1355	31.6%
San Diego	3175	Gates	984	31.0%
New England	4859	Moss	1493	30.7%
NY Giants	3376	Burress	1025	30.4%
Buffalo	2842	Evans	849	29.9%
Tampa Bay	3579	Galloway	1014	28.3%
Philadelphia	4005	Curtis	1110	27.7%
Pittsburgh	3418	Holmes	942	27.6%
Seattle	4181	Engram	1147	27.4%
New Orleans	4423	Colston	1202	27.2%
Chicago	3701	Berrian	951	25.7%
Oakland	2893	Curry	717	24.8%
Tennessee	3077	Gage	750	24.4%
Green Bay	4461	Driver	1048	23.5%
Detroit	4216	McDonald	943	22.4%
San Francisco	2685	Battle	600	22.3%
Washington	3622	Moss	808	22.3%
Minnesota	2938	Wade	647	22.0%
Houston	3925	Johnson	851	21.7%
Jacksonville	3495	Williams	629	18.0%
Miami	3319	Booker	556	16.8%

Looks like Minnesota wasn't the worst at getting top production from its top receiver. Houston, Jacksonville, and Miami did worse, though two of those teams have excuses. Houston can at least point to the injury to Andre Johnson that kept him out for nearly half the season. His 94.6 average yards per game actually led the league last year, though he only suited up for nine games. Miami, meanwhile, traded Chris Chambers after six games; he had accumulated 415 yards up until that game and added 555 in San Diego, finishing with 970. If he'd gained all that yardage with Miami, he would have accounted for 29.2% of the team's production in the passing game, and even with lesser success, it's likely he would have kept the team out of the bottom spot. Meanwhile, espite David Garrard's breakthrough year, Jacksonville is probably the only team in the league consistently referred to as having worse wide receivers than Minnesota. Hey, good luck with Troy Williamson and 30-year-old Jerry Porter, guys!

It's both a little surprising and unsurprising to see Indianapolis at the top of this list. On the one hand, as much as the team is known for passing, you'd think there'd be enough yards to go around. Then again, Peyton Manning has been known to throw a lot (to the tune of 143 catches for Marvin Harrison in 2002) to his favorite receiver Reggie Wayne led the team this year, but from 1999 to 2006, Manning threw for 33,847 yards while Harrison caught 11,219, the vast majority of them coming from the arm of Manning. That would make for a 33.1% rate for virtually their entire career together, which would put them at #11 on this list. Wow.

In reality, this chart is just a fun way of looking at how much each team got out of its "top" receiver. For Berrian to manage 1,160 yards, as WhatIfSports thinks, though, Vikings passers would have to manage just over 3,200 yards in the air to get to Indy's 36.1% rate from last year -- possible, but unlikely. With the running game as good as it is and the potential emergence of Sidney Rice, Berrian probably won't put up those kind of numbers, but he should be good enough to get us out of the bottom five.

Dry and dry again: Jared Allen

Almost as common as the "Bernard Berrian couldn't catch a cold even if the Vikings played outdoors in December" talk that's gone on since the Vikings signed the receiver has been the dire predictions of what will happen if the team's other major off-season acquisition, Jared Allen, "falls off the wagon." Allen, you'll recall (and how could you forget?) was suspended four games (later reduced to two) in 2007 for violating the NFL's substance-abuse policy after being arrested for a DUI in 2006. If he violates the league policy again, he could be slammed with a full-season suspension, and that likely played some part in the Kansas City Chiefs' willingness to let go of last year's NFL sacks leader.

Truthfully, I didn't know much about Allen prior to his eight-tackle, two-sack game against the Vikings in 2007, his first game back after serving his suspension. Since rumors of a trade surfaced in mid-April, I've dug into his history a little more, to get an idea of his future. Every story I've read paints him as a guy who partied hard right out of college, made some mistakes, and has now cleaned up his act.

Great. That's what Koren Robinson said, too. And we know how that turned out.

But Allen seems different. Yeah, I know, there's some homer-ness to that, since he's one of "our guys" now. And, unless his drinking habits led to a tragedy, stories about him are going to be of an unfailingly positive nature. I really believed Allen had turned the corner, but I always thought there was at least some small, fraction-of-one-percent chance he might surrender once again to his demons and, like too many athletes who had come before him, wreck what should be an outstanding career.

Then I read Jeffri Chadiha's piece about Allen for ESPN The Magazine. And that fraction of a percent has evaporated to zero.

Most encouraging is Allen acknowledging that his going out to bars was due to a belief in the notion that he had to cultivate an image of a wild and crazy "party guy" to fit in with teammates and, he admits, "I was single and wanted to meet chicks." Since his arrest and suspension -- he's been dry since the arrest, 20 months and counting -- he "vanished from the nightlife" and has matured considerably: "Not drinking was part of my growth as a man." In essence, he sounds like someone who drank and partied to appear cool and attract the chicks, so to speak, and no longer needs that sort of stimulus to live a happy life.

And that's the difference between Allen and Koren Robinson. Robinson spouted all the usual platitudes about how he'd turned a new leaf and didn't need alcohol anymore, and so on, but I never got a sense of the underlying reason of why he would quit drinking. With Allen, it seems a very logical procession: He wanted to look cool and establish himself as a youngster, so he drank. Now, he is a well-established star, one of the highest-paid players in the NFL, and a focal point for his team's upcoming season. Why would he need alcohol? He's already got everything. I realize I'm no expert on the insidious nature of alcohol addiction, but it seems to me that Allen's achieved everything he wanted -- though it doesn't look like he's found that "chick" yet -- so why would he need alcohol? Yes, there's the case of Koren Robinson again, but he was still a marginal NFL player. Allen's far above "marginal," and looks to be smart enough to realize that alcohol will only bring him down, not prop him up.

There's also a little bit of on-the-field good news tucked away in the article. Take a look at this sentence:

By summer 2007, Allen had dropped 20 pounds, from 280 to 260, and reported to Chiefs camp in the best shape of his life.

Allen averaged about 9.0 sacks per season his first three years in the league before exploding for 15.5 in 2007. If his giving up drinking and re-dedicating himself to football led to that kind of improvement, maybe he can sustain that level of play for 2008 and beyond -- or even improve upon it.

What to expect from Bernard Berrian

Hopefully, it won't be a lot of drops, though that perceived flaw in his skills has probably been overexaggerated. Still, Vikings fans are expecting a lot of Bernard Berrian in 2008 and beyond, perhaps more than should be expected from a fifth-year player who has yet to notch his first 1,000-yard season. Granted, he moves from possibly the worst quarterback situation in the league (Chicago) to -- well, not a great QB situation, but one with at least an inkling of hope for improvement. (And, as much as I get on some people, Brad Childress included, for being too optimistic about the Vikings' passing game, there's a difference between being optimistic and being outright delusional.)

WhatIfSports predicts a very nice 1,160 yards and 8 TDs for 2008 for Berrian, but is that just wishful thinking? The Vikings haven't had a 1,000-yard receiver since Nate Burleson in 2004. In fact, no Viking has even caught 700 yards through the air in the past three years. Why will Berrian break the 1,000-yard plateau -- cruise by it, in fact, according to WhatIfSports -- while the Vikings still have a shaky QB situation and a world-class running game? And, even if his QB situation was poor in Chicago, what reason is there to believe that Berrian will step it up in Minnesota?

To answer that last question, I'll return again to the Historical Data Dominator and look for seasons by fourth-year receivers with stats similar to Berrian's 71 catches for 951 yards. Specifically, I'll look for fourth-year players with 66 to 76 catches (five in each direction) and 900 to 1,000 yards (almost exactly 50 in each direction -- you'll forgive me for wanting to keep things round).

In addition to Berrian's 2007, six players fell within these boundaries since 1978, and it's a decent mix. Two of the six players (T.J. Houshmandzadeh and Donte Stallworth) are still active. One (Andre Reed) should be in the Hall of Fame. Another (Sterling Sharpe) probably would be if not for a freak neck injury that ended his career. Then there's O.J. McDuffie and Jeff Graham. Meh.

Let's take a look at what these six players did in their first season after achieving their Berrian-like numbers:

Stallworth (2006): 38 catches, 725 yards, 5 TD
Houshmandzadeh (2005): 78 catches, 956 yards, 7 TD
McDuffie (1997): 76 catches, 943 yards, 1 TD
Graham (1995): 81 catches, 1,302 yards, 4 TD
Sharpe (1992): 108 catches, 1,461 yards, 13 TD
Reed (1989): 88 catches, 1,312 yards, 9 TD

That's rather promising. Stallworth regressed, but injuries played a part, and, while the window of opportunity is closing, he still has a chance to be considered something more than a mediocre first-round draft pick. Houshmandzadeh and McDuffie essentially repeated their fourth-year numbers, numbers we would probably be happy to get from a Vikings receiver these days. McDuffie actually had 90 catches and 1,050 yards in 1998, his sixth year, giving him a fairly consistent three-year stretch.

Graham, Sharpe, and Reed, meanwhile, blew away expectations in their fifth seasons. For Graham, it was his career year -- he would never again top 1,000 yards in a season -- and even Reed never topped 1,312 yards, though he played 11 more seasons. Sharpe, as Vikings fans are probably well aware, had two more great seasons with the Packers (totaling 206 receptions in 1993-94) before his injury.

Average those six seasons and you get 1,117 yards on 78 catches with 6.5 TDs, and that's with Stallworth missing some time. It's a small sample size, granted, but those numbers seem about in line with most predictions of Berrian's 2008 production. Is that about what we should expect from Berrian?

Well...Sharpe and Reed had Brett Favre and Jim Kelly throwing to them, and even Jeff Graham had Erik Kramer's crazy 1995 (29 TDs) backing him up. Stallworth had Donovan McNabb, Housh Carson Palmer, and McDuffie (an admittedly aging) Dan Marino. With the exception of Kramer, all of those men are or have a shot (or in Favre's case a lock) at being in the Hall of Fame; Tarvaris Jackson ain't quite on their level, to put it politely.

If I had to bet, I'd say Berrian will probably clock in with something right around 1,000 yards -- maybe 50 above or below -- and that's assuming the Vikings don't run it 40 times a game (which they probably should but probably won't). Still, he'll be an improvement over the Bobby Wades and Troy Williamsons that have suited up for the team in recent years.

And at the very least, he should break that 700-yard mark.

They told me to write this

They say success in life is all about networking. "They" also say you should only eat about 4 oz. of red meat per week and that success in the playoffs is all about running the ball and stopping the run, so what do "they" know, really? Well, I know that I've been looking at some more blogs over the past few weeks and I'm adding them to my reading list on the right. You should check them out, too.

* Twinkie Town is a nice Twins site, with frequent updates and lots of quality opinions. The next time you hear that the Twins are struggling because they're so young or that they need to add a veteran to provide guidance for all those fragile "kids," read this.

* I'll return a shout-out from The Ragnarok, a Vikings blog that's optimistic about the team's chances, even if Bryant McKinnie misses significant time due to a suspension. Still...Artis Hicks? *shiver*

* Here's another Twins blog, The Curse of the Big Papi -- hey, you know, it has been five years since the Twins gave away David Ortiz and we haven't won a title since! It's a curse!

* Skol Vikes isn't quite as frequently updated as the others, but I like his layout. He includes a picture with every post, a style I may copy. Oooh...pictures....

* Finally, not related to sports at all, but if you haven't discovered Hulu yet, you should. Free streaming movies and episodes of TV series (including the three unaired episodes of Journeyman, which I loved), with minimal commercial interruptions. Best of all, it's legal, unlike some other streaming-video venues.

Charles Rogers? Really?

Noted flop Charles Rogers has been in the news recently thanks to a rumor planted by, of all people, his former high school coach, who says that the Minnesota Vikings have been in contact with the wide receiver. The story's been picked up by several sources, but most people rate the chances of Rogers actually making it to training camp somewhere between slim and none.

Which is how it should be. As bad as the Vikings' receiving corps has been recently, there shouldn't be any interest in a player who hasn't even taken a snap in nearly three years and possesses a total of 36 receptions in 15 games as a pro. Most people (myself included) probably weren't even aware he was still in football, but he apparently tried out with the Dolphins, Patriots, Bucs, and Chiefs since his release by the Lions in September 2006. As if being rejected by four teams shouldn't be enough to put a team off signing a guy, Rogers also reportedly ran a lineman-like 4.8 40 in a 2007 workout with Kansas City. He's supposedly also received interest from the Montreal Alouettes of the Canadian Football League, so maybe he just got sidetracked and passed through Minnesota on his way north. Let's at least hope that's what it is.

(And speaking of the Alouettes, I think it's great that CFL teams have cheerleading squads. I wonder if they still wear the skirts when it's below zero in October? And you have to love some of those French-Canadian names, like Marie-Noelle, Andrée-Anne, Eve Lyne, and not one, but two Marie-Eves. My official favorite Alouette cheerleader is Nathalie. She builds airplanes for a living. Insert "Mile High Club" joke here.)

UPDATE: Looks like Rogers might have actually gotten lost on his way to Montreal, or at least his former coach was confused about it. It's understandable, I mean, how many football teams up north that start with "M" are there?

And yes, I still think the CFL should get more air time in the United States.

Power rankings compilation, June edition

Well, why not? Sure, it's not the regular season, but I'll still find a way to disagree with/mock the "experts" who like to rank all 32 NFL teams in May and June. I'm sure they're not just doing it as a way to fill space during the looooooooong off-season (unlike the NBA, which I'm pretty sure has a three-week off-season). To make things a little more interesting, though, I'll not only comment on the Vikings' position, but I'll also get on their case about anything else that seems amiss. Apologies in advance if I offend your team's sensibilities. (Unless you're an Atlanta fan. They're still going to be awful.) After all, just because these guys are paid to give half-educated opinions doesn't mean I can't dole out my half-educated opinions for free.

All rankings were issued from May 1 or later. So yes, they are taking Jared Allen and the draft into account. Here they are, in no particular order

AOL Sports John Schaefer says:

9. Minnesota will continue its upward trend and nose out the Pack in a tight NFC North race. The difference? The Vikings have the best player in the division -- Adrian Peterson.

You mean the best player in the division isn't Rex Grossman? (He ranks the Pack at #10.) My "boner" pick for him, though, is the Saints at #8. You know, the team that went 10-6 two years ago but OMG PRETTY OFFENSE. Yep, they're in the top 25% of NFL teams. Amazing what one slightly above-average year will do for your expectations.

ESPN.com says:

12. If they settle on a QB, the Vikes could become a playoff team. RB Adrian Peterson is at the top of the list for MVP candidates. (JW)

That prediction's turned in by James Walker; five guys in total handled ESPN.com's predictions, including Pat Yasinskas, who puts Seattle at #8. Yeah, I know, we've been predicting the downfall of the Seahawks for years, but nobody in the NFC West has stepped up. Me, I think winning a criminally weak division every year doesn't qualify you as the eighth-best team in the league.

CBS SportsLine's Pete Prisco says:

24. They have the makings of a deep playoff team with one exception: quarterback. Do you believe in Tarvaris Jackson?

Not really, but I believe in the rest of the team well enough not to put this team at #24. I mean, really? 24? Are you sure these aren't the 2007 pre-season rankings? That'd be enough to qualify as the ludicrous pick, but then he puts the Giants at #3. Yes, they won the Super Bowl, yes, they had some great games in the post-season. But they were only 10-6. They won their post-season games by an average of five points each. They're not going to do it again.

SportingNews.com's Vinnie Iyer says:

12. With that Fantastic Four on their defensive front and that Flash in their offensive backfield, watch out.

The D-line is the Fantastic Four? And here I thought Troy Williamson was The Thing, you know "hands of stone" and all. Apart from putting the Giants on top (ugh), Vinnie also has the Bills at #13, just below the Vikings. They were a nice story last year, but they were only second in their division by default.

SI.com's Peter King says:

7. I can hear you all out there saying, "Too soon." Well, here's my question: What year in recent NFL history hasn't a Green Bay (2007), New Orleans (2006), Chicago (2005) or Pittsburgh (2004) jumped from nowheresville to Super-Bowl contention?

The Vikings do have a totally unproven passing game, but they still outscored Philly, Washington and Denver last year with the best running game in the league for about half the season. Minnesota had the biggest (by far) edge in average rushing margin per team last year, rushing for 5.3 yards a tote while surrendering 3.1 yards per carry. And though I don't love the Jared Allen signing for the long haul (too dangerous), I love it for 2008. Allen's quickness on the turf of the Metrodome ... scary. Maybe 20-sack scary.

"Too soon." Probably. I just wouldn't have the guts to put the Vikings this high, not quite yet. And as much as I'd like to see it, there's no way Jared Allen is getting 20 sacks. Meanwhile, he puts the Jets, who I don't see above the #20 spot on anyone else's list so far, at #14, just behind good ol' Buffalo at #13. AFC East: powerhouse division?

There are oodles of other power rankings out there -- just Google "power rankings 2008 NFL" (without quotes, of course) -- but I try to stick to the "professional" sources. And hey, if anyone ever wants to pay me to do this sort of thing, I'm all ears.

And sadly, there's no Jason Cole to kick around just yet. That's almost as fun as the regular season itself.