PDA

View Full Version : Adrian Peterson or Reggie Bush


Dr. Toro
01-13-2006, 04:02 PM
This is just a hypothetical: Who do you think is the better pro prospect?

I see Adrian Peterson and think of Terrell Davis. He hits the hole so hard and just runs through tackles. Peterson runs a little upright, but I think he's the closest thing to a can't miss RB in college right now. He lacks the receiving skills of Bush, however.

Bush seems like he'll be a superstar, but I can't figure out how he'll project. He's a unique player, but I'd feel better about him if he hit the hole a little harder and carved some yards between the tackles. To Bush's credit, he didn't get those opportunities because White was such a good inside runner.

Dr. Toro
01-13-2006, 04:16 PM
Sorry... the first message/thread got garbled in submission.

Who do you think is the better pro prospect? This is totally hypothetical.

Adrian Peterson reminds me of Terrell Davis. He hits the hole so hard and just sheds tacklers like they're nothing. I think he's the closest thing to a can't miss RB in college right now. He lacks the receiving skills of Bush, but he's a workhorse.

Reggie Bush has superstar talent, but I'm just not sure how he projects. I would feel better about him if he carved more yards between the tackles, hit the hole a little harder. He never got the opportunities to do this with LenDale White, to his credit.

vtech9
01-13-2006, 06:06 PM
Sorry... the first message/thread got garbled in submission.

Who do you think is the better pro prospect? This is totally hypothetical.

Adrian Peterson reminds me of Terrell Davis. He hits the hole so hard and just sheds tacklers like they're nothing. I think he's the closest thing to a can't miss RB in college right now. He lacks the receiving skills of Bush, but he's a workhorse.

Reggie Bush has superstar talent, but I'm just not sure how he projects. I would feel better about him if he carved more yards between the tackles, hit the hole a little harder. He never got the opportunities to do this with LenDale White, to his credit.
I would take LenDale White before I would take Reggie Bush, but I think Adrian Peterson will be better than both of them in the long run.

Peterson battled a High ankle sprain all year, so I would want to see a full year with him healthy, before I made my final decision.

Bush is not an every down back, and can't take it up the middle without a big hole, so I think the #1 pick is way too high for him.

LenDale White is prototypical NFL RB. He can pound it up the middle, and has enough speed to take it around the end if need be. He's not going to outrun everyone like Bush will, but he will have fewer negative yardage plays than Bush also.

Bubbajwp
01-13-2006, 06:37 PM
IMO it depends on the type of team you have.
If I had a ravens or steelers type team I would take AP.
If I had a Chiefs, Colts, Rams type team I would take Reggie Bush.

Huge
01-13-2006, 06:47 PM
I'd take Bush.

Some backs can have a lot of carries and not show much wear and tear (Cedric Benson, DeAngelo Williams, etc.). Peterson does not appear to be one of these backs.

And yeah, Reggie is way more advanced in the receiving game.

AustinJB
01-13-2006, 06:57 PM
I also think L. White will be a better pro RB than Bush. I've said it in other threads:
Bush=Brian Westbrook
White=C.Dillon/Larry Johnson

IMO A.Peterson will be better than both.

Kaiser Toro
01-13-2006, 09:17 PM
Peterson hands down.

Trap_Star
01-13-2006, 09:28 PM
peterson reminds me of a young eddie george...

tulexan
01-13-2006, 09:29 PM
This is a tough one. I am leaning towards Bush because I believe that he can beat you in so many ways. Remember how dominant Marshall Faulk was in his prime? I see Bush as a player like that only bigger and a better receiver. I'm not saying right now that he will be better than Faulk because he hasn't played a down in the NFL yet, but he is the most comparable.

Peterson is also going to be a great back. He is going to be your traditional work horse back who will get the ball 20-25 times per game. He may get more rushing yards than Bush, but he probably won't have as many total yards from scrimmage.

Dr. Toro
01-14-2006, 12:21 AM
Peterson is like Eddie George, with a little better speed I think. Tall, runs upright, workhorse. Personally, I prefer the prototypical power back, especially when he has breakaway speed (that really is the rarest of combinations).

The team/running philosophy is important. Bush is definitely a Chiefs/Rams type guy. But he can help any passing game by lining up as a WR, like Faulk was used in St. Louis.

Kaiser Toro
01-14-2006, 07:21 AM
An Eddie George Eric Dickerson hybrid is a better comparision for Adrian Peterson in my opinion. Barring injury he will be the dominant back of his time. Much like Palmer is and will be better (after rehab) than Carr, Peterson will be better than Bush.

Huge
01-14-2006, 08:20 AM
Reggie Bush = Marshall Faulk
Adrian Peterson = Eric Dickerson

Barring injury, I think I'd still take Bush. He was cool enough to stay in-state. :mad:

Kaiser Toro
01-14-2006, 08:28 AM
Reggie Bush = Marshall Faulk
Adrian Peterson = Eric Dickerson

Barring injury, I think I'd still take Bush. He was cool enough to stay in-state. :mad:

Then give me AP quick. Dickerson had 1800 yards and 18 TD's his rookie year.

http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/member.jsp?player_id=55

I am a Longhorn fan, but I love watching AP run.

Long-Spurs-Texan
01-14-2006, 09:09 AM
The problem with Peterson is/will be injury. He runs with no regard to his body whatsoever. He puts his head down into LB's, and trys to run right through them. Some of the punishment he takes & dishes out is amazing. He needs to develop some moves other than straight ahead. He is fun to watch though, very exciting. That said, Bush is way better from what's been seen so far.

Kaiser Toro
01-14-2006, 09:13 AM
The problem with Peterson is/will be injury. He runs with no regard to his body whatsoever. He puts his head down into LB's, and trys to run right through them. Some of the punishment he takes & dishes out is amazing. He needs to develop some moves other than straight ahead. He is fun to watch though, very exciting. That said, Bush is way better from what's been seen so far.

The guy has come back from an injury already. Shows me he can overcome adversity. Can we say the same for Bush? I do not know if he has dealt with an injury yet.

Long-Spurs-Texan
01-14-2006, 09:29 AM
The guy has come back from an injury already. Shows me he can overcome adversity. Can we say the same for Bush? I do not know if he has dealt with an injury yet.

I'm not saying AP can't recover, of course he can. His running style won't enable him to have a long carreer, unless he really bulks up IMO. As far as Bush goes, he's injured now.

Dr. Toro
01-14-2006, 09:51 AM
I think Peterson's reckless abandon is a good thing. NFL running backs seldom last ten years anyway, why not leave it all out on the field. I wouldn't want anyone to end up like Earl Campbell, but I'd rather have a guy looking for a fight instead of skipping out of bounds. Let the quarterback be the smart one.

The way Bush catapults into the endzone also shows a level of disregard for his body. He's not necessarily a "tough runner" but that doesn't mean he's not a tough guy. Bush is just as likely to get hurt going Superman into the endzone over two defenders as Peterson is trying to run that LB over.

Huge
01-14-2006, 11:47 AM
Then give me AP quick. Dickerson had 1800 yards and 18 TD's his rookie year.

http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/member.jsp?player_id=55

I am a Longhorn fan, but I love watching AP run.
You can have Dickerson's rookie year. I'll take Marshall's career.

Faulk - 2836 carries, 12,279 yards, 100 TDs, 767 receptions, 6,875 yards, 36 TDs
Dickerson - 2996 carries, 13,259 yards, 90 TDs, 281 receptions, 2,137 yards, 6 TDs

MorKnolle
01-14-2006, 01:53 PM
I personally would rather build an offense around Adrian Peterson being my RB, I like his size and physical style of running better than trying to dance around everyone, plus he is more of the workhorse-type RB that can carry a heavier workload.