PDA

View Full Version : Peterson Vs. Lynch


Djjoeyv
01-21-2007, 01:32 PM
Who do you what and why?:drunk:

htownfoozball
01-21-2007, 02:13 PM
peterson. he's a north-south runner with power and speed and would fit the one cut system better than lynch who likes to dance around.

Sportsfan
01-21-2007, 02:15 PM
From the scouting reports i've read and videos i've watched of both, Lynch is faster, has better hands, and a better all around game than Peterson. Not that Peterson has too many flaws but i'd rather take Lynch. For one b/c he is well rounded and two, its more realistic to be hopefull for Lynch than Peterson b/c Peterson will be gone come the 8th pick.

Mr. White
01-21-2007, 02:16 PM
I think that Lynch could do more with the dump-off passes. He'd add another dimension to the offense. More importantly, he will still be on the board at 8.

Dr. Toro
01-21-2007, 02:40 PM
Don't know too much about Lynch. Peterson could be Jim Brown good, or he could be an injury prone bust. He's a beast, runs straight up and really likes a big, slow spin move breaking tackles. He could keep getting hurt and victimized by big hits... but I think he's more likely to be a stud. Watch the film and you'll see a guy who does a great job of picking up his feet and stepping out of tackles when he's not running people over. He's not terribly quick, but he is fast and fluid. He's somewhere between Fred Taylor and Eric Dickerson with respect to running style.

I think Peterson is a perfect one-cut back. His receiving skills aren't great, but that's really not a huge deal if you have a downhill running game, downfield passing attack, and are dealing with proper down and distance on 2nd and 3rd downs. He had a knack for the big play at big moments in college. Without knowing a terrible lot about Lynch, I don't see how Houston can pass on Peterson.

kiwitexansfan
01-21-2007, 03:57 PM
Lynch, he fits the playmaker bill Kubiak is after better with his pass catching versatility.

I wouldn't complain about Peterson either if he didn't break down.

keyfro
01-21-2007, 04:50 PM
you can't go wrong with either of these players...with the system that we run here as long as the runningback has a burst and can break a few tackles he will have success...that's why the system usually doesn't need a high profile young RB to have success...but given the situation we have it won't hurt to have either...that being said lynch might be the better option because we can trade down pick up a few picks and still have him

Texian
01-21-2007, 05:45 PM
I think Savage likes Peterson:

Early word

Many around the league think that the Browns are enamored with Peterson.

Peterson ran for 4,045 yards and scored 41 touchdowns in three seasons, and he gained 1,012 yards last season even though he played in just seven games.

``As far as size, speed and power, there's not too many like him,'' said receiver Travis Wilson, Peterson's teammate at Oklahoma.

Savage clearly likes Oklahoma players -- he has often said he'd like to have standout players from teams that play in front of 90,000 fans every Saturday -- and he has shown that by taking safety Brodney Pool and Wilson the past two years.

But taking Peterson would be as much a statement about running back Reuben Droughns as it is about Peterson.

Droughns was given a new contract before the 2006 season, then didn't gain 800 yards.

Savage attributed his season to off-field problems, injuries and not getting enough work in preseason but clearly hard questions are being asked about Droughns in the team's offices.

``It wasn't the kind of year that he was hoping to have,'' Savage said. ``I think he can bounce back from it, certainly. One of the real values of Reuben is that he is able to play special teams when called upon, and he is able to do some work at fullback.

``If we did get another back, I don't think that would say we are casting Reuben aside. We think he is a valuable part of our team.''

keyfro
01-21-2007, 05:48 PM
yeah i really do doubt that peterson will fall to the 8th overall pick...if he does then it's really a no brainer to pick him...but i don't think that's going to happen...if the texans go into the draft expecting peterson to be there when they draft they will be doing all of us a dis-service

David's Busted Carr
01-21-2007, 07:57 PM
I think Peterson is worth the #8 overall pick (if he's even there), but I don't think Lynch is. If Peterson is not available I think we should either go in another direction (defense) or possibly trade down a few spots pick up an extra pick and still get Lynch.

DMars87
01-21-2007, 09:55 PM
Im definetly with DBC on this one, im happy with either if they come at the right spot. AD at #8 would be AWESOME and i would love Lynch too but only if we traded down.

thetexanator
01-22-2007, 03:21 AM
hers my opinion, peterson is a better runner, better fit for the texans run system. lynch could be VERY beneficial in the passing game, more than AP anyway. both are really good prospects, but i think id rather have the stonger peterson.

Texans Horror
01-22-2007, 08:39 AM
I like them both. Either one will make a difference for the Texans.

Kaiser Toro
01-22-2007, 08:54 AM
Never take a Californian over a Texan. We have way to many Californian offensive skill position players as it is.

tulexan
01-22-2007, 11:54 AM
Never take a Californian over a Texan. We have way to many Californian offensive skill position players as it is.

Well we are about to have zero, so we might as well replace him with a better prospect at a different position.

dirty steve
01-22-2007, 12:15 PM
i like AP/AD but certainly wouldnt be disppointed if we get Lynch. AP's brutish running style, comparisons to Campbell, and Texas ties give him the edge in my eyes over Lynch, but Lynch's multi-faceted game gives the offense more options (i think?). i mean, we're going to get a stud no matter what, right?

but as much as i'd like peterson, i think he'll be gone. i dont think he goes top 3-4 but i think a team trades up with arizona at #5 (if joe thomas is gone) or minnesota at #7. that should leave lynch for the Texans even in a trade down scenario.