PDA

View Full Version : For those who are against Peterson


Toro
01-23-2007, 08:20 PM
There was a little snippet in the latest Sporting News magazine that named off the 5 people who will bring immediate improvement to whatever team they wind up on.

The 5th name on that list was Peterson. In this snippet, Shaun Alexander gave rousing endorsements to Peterson saying that he envisions Peterson as the next HB to reach the 2,000 yard plateau.

Take this for what it's worth, however LaDanian Tomlinson said something very similar to this, saying that he thinks Peterson will be on his level. I'd certainly take those reccomendations any day of the week.

Mr. White
01-23-2007, 08:25 PM
That's why I don't think that 7 other teams will pass on him before we can get him.

Hulk75
01-23-2007, 08:25 PM
All day, why would anyone be against this pick, I personally would trade up to make sure I got him.

http://espn-att.starwave.com/media/ncf/2004/1009/photo/r_peterson_i.jpg

Toro
01-23-2007, 08:28 PM
That's why I don't think that 7 other teams will pass on him before we can get him.

I don't think it happens either, but noone would have predicted Matt Leinart would fall to 10 either.

Trenches
01-23-2007, 08:31 PM
I wouldnt be sad about that pick at all. My ONLY gripe would be that the shelf life of a RB is way less than that of a QB. We are better off a RB (wow, thats not saying much) than we are at QB. If I were to trade up, it would be to get JaMarcus.

1-3
01-23-2007, 08:40 PM
We are better off a RB (wow, thats not saying much) than we are at QB. If I were to trade up, it would be to get JaMarcus.

I think Sage very well could be a better QB than Dayne and company are running backs. Now, of course QB is a more important position, but we have to be damn near dead last in the league at RB. As for Peterson.. If he would have had a better bowl game, I think he would be a whole lot higher regarded right now.

Ole Miss Texan
01-23-2007, 09:01 PM
I think AP would play real well here and think he'd be a 1000 yard rusher easy. In San Diego or Seattle....yes 2000 is possible but not here...for a while at least

TEXANRED
01-23-2007, 09:10 PM
All day, why would anyone be against this pick, I personally would trade up to make sure I got him.

http://espn-att.starwave.com/media/ncf/2004/1009/photo/r_peterson_i.jpg

As nice as it would be to have a great running back, we need defense.

If you are going to win in the AFC with all the offensive talent that is loaded throughout, if it is mandatory that you win at least 10 games to make a wild card birth, if you have Manning, Harrison, Wayne, VY, Jones-Drew in your division, you had better have a great defense.

Just my thought on the whole matter.

kastofsna
01-24-2007, 07:54 AM
if peterson is there, you draft him, no questions asked.

real
01-24-2007, 07:58 AM
if peterson is there, you draft him, no questions asked.

I agree with this man.

Thats too much value to pass up at that eight spot. Had Peterson stayed healthy he had number 1 overall potential. I don't see how you pass up that much value.

noxiousdog
01-24-2007, 08:02 AM
Doesn't the injury risk scare you guys? This team can't afford picking Dominick Williams at 8 overall.

But there's no doubt he's a talent when healthy.

yourfavoritetexan42
01-24-2007, 08:12 AM
The health isn't a concern...he broke his collarbone. It's not like we should be concerned beause he has "weak" collarbones, thats not the case. It was a freak accident. It would be different if it was a knee, or something else.

If he is available at #8, take him. He is a much better player than bush ever will be. I just don't think he will be available, even though I have seen a few mocks having him available.

Imagine this, Adrian Peterson our starting back, use him as a reggie bush though also, so we can put williams at back with him at slot for example. Bring in Dayne for power situations. Chris Taylor and Lundy can spell Williams/Peterson if needed.

That is one crowded, competitive backfield. Behind a healthy offensive line, I guarantee our rushing attack will be top 5 in the league.

threetoedpete
01-24-2007, 08:13 AM
Well if he's there at 3 and the brownies are not enamored with the two offensive guys Quin and Petterson, they feel they can very good value with a defensive guy, or they can get Petterson with the eight, THAT opens the door for a move up and get Joe Thomas. OLT is the need on the ball club. Has been for five years. If they take All Day I'll be on board. Plenty of OLT prospects on the board in '08. I just don't feel he is quite the lock at Elite some of you are making out to be. Me I fix the o-line once and for all. Five years of mediocrity is enough for my tastes. Those three, Winston , Thomas and Spencer , if he makes it back, would lock down their o-line for ten years. Then you guys can have your pretty skill guys all you want. I won't gripe. The bobbles , so far, haven't moved this club up the nfl food chain yet. The common thread in this medicrity has been the o-line. Wanna argue chicken before the egg fine. Pick the guy at the eight. I just don't wanna see no griping on the board if the injuries are more than just a fluke. You knew what you were getting when you took the guy.

kastofsna
01-24-2007, 08:53 AM
Doesn't the injury risk scare you guys?
nope.

real
01-24-2007, 08:56 AM
Imagine this, Adrian Peterson our starting back, use him as a reggie bush though also, so we can put williams at back with him at slot for example.


Peterson is not that kind of player...

Huge
01-24-2007, 09:28 AM
Well if the Sporting News said it...

nunusguy
01-24-2007, 09:45 AM
I don't think it happens either, but noone would have predicted Matt Leinart would fall to 10 either.

Good point. I thought the first 3 picks in last years Draft should have been
VY, Leinert, and Jay Cutler with one or 2 teams trading up to be in the top
3 to get those guys. But surprise, surprise Leinert & Cutler fall to 10 and 11.
So if teams wanting QBs won't move up, why would teams wanting RBs do so ?

Ole Miss Texan
01-24-2007, 10:00 AM
I'm open up to the idea of having peterson. the injuries concern me a little bit though. not that the ones he has had will hinder him in the future or reoccur...they arent knee injuries or anything. But yes they do concern me. If you look at it as black and white, I'm looking at if he continues to have 'freak' injuries every year in the pros. what's the difference if he misses 6 games because of a broken hand on a tackle vs. 6 games at the end of the season with a acl tear. Then the following year, say something else freak happens and he's out more games....If he misses games thats what concerns me especially if its consistantly missing games.

I do not like the idea of moving up to get Thomas. Yea I would love to have him but we need ALL the picks we have. I'd be more inclined to trade down..and ge levi brown than trade up to get thomas. i know brown is 'no where near thomas level'.

If we don't get Peterson I hope we pick an elite DE,DT or FS with the first pick, whatever is the best value. I'm also hoping we address the oline through the draft like we did last year in the 3rd. Next years LT class will be a lot better in the 1st than this years, so I'm hoping we select one with our 1st next year. Thats very dangerous looking that far ahead though...plus we have been saying that about our oline the entire time....maybe next year...maybe next year. its caught up to us.

dbspi
01-24-2007, 11:14 AM
At #8, AD will provide the best value as well as the need

Heywood
01-24-2007, 11:21 AM
not that it matters this year, but allan patrick is a better fit than peterson.

gtexan02
01-24-2007, 11:23 AM
I'm open up to the idea of having peterson. the injuries concern me a little bit though. not that the ones he has had will hinder him in the future or reoccur...they arent knee injuries or anything. But yes they do concern me. If you look at it as black and white, I'm looking at if he continues to have 'freak' injuries every year in the pros. what's the difference if he misses 6 games because of a broken hand on a tackle vs. 6 games at the end of the season with a acl tear. Then the following year, say something else freak happens and he's out more games....If he misses games thats what concerns me especially if its consistantly missing games.

I do not like the idea of moving up to get Thomas. Yea I would love to have him but we need ALL the picks we have. I'd be more inclined to trade down..and ge levi brown than trade up to get thomas. i know brown is 'no where near thomas level'.

If we don't get Peterson I hope we pick an elite DE,DT or FS with the first pick, whatever is the best value. I'm also hoping we address the oline through the draft like we did last year in the 3rd. Next years LT class will be a lot better in the 1st than this years, so I'm hoping we select one with our 1st next year. Thats very dangerous looking that far ahead though...plus we have been saying that about our oline the entire time....maybe next year...maybe next year. its caught up to us.

lol thats so true. Every single year I've been on this board, the phrase "next year's draft will be a great time to pick OL" comes out. Picking OL is an ugly pick. They don't make a noticeable difference like picking skill position players make. If they do their job, no one even notices them. So its not really fun to project them highly.

These stats are highly skewed, but:
Jets took OL in 1st two rounds last year, and showed HUGE improvement

Marcus McNeil made an incredible difference for SD

Jamaal Brown (who we traded down from) made a huge difference for NO

Mr Shush
01-24-2007, 12:09 PM
Running backs are largely fungible, and tend to wear out quickly. A great back is a nice thing to have, but compared to a defense is a luxury item. Kubiak and Smith's background is with a team that had consistently outstanding rushing attacks for a decade without using a single first round pick on a running back. Davis and Anderson were 6th round picks; Droughns and Mike Bell were undrafted. Portis and Tatum Bell, in the second round, were the most highly drafted Denver RBs of that period. If we stand pat at 8, it will be to take Branch, a corner (most likely Hall) or conceivably Reggie Nelson. Any of those players should be expected to help us more and for longer than Peterson. I will be faintly surprised if we take an offensive player of any description on day 1; if we do, it will be a lineman. Running back will be addressed with a later round pick, or by acquiring Droughns if the Browns cut or seek to trade him.

real
01-24-2007, 12:26 PM
Kubiak and Smith's background is with a team that had consistently outstanding rushing attacks for a decade without using a single first round pick on a running back.


Is it possible for someone to come from a Christian background and turn out to be atheist ?

How much influence do you think the two of those guys combined had to do with (A) the effectiveness of Denver's O-line (B) the way they drafted ?


My answer to both of those questions would be: Not Much

gg no re
01-24-2007, 12:30 PM
Doesn't matter to me which route we go for this draft.

It's good to have a Ravens/Bears-caliber defense, but it's preferable that we don't suffer from a Ravens/Bears-caliber offense.

My only fear is the threat of a backlog at the RB position, and passing up defensive prospects.

noxiousdog
01-24-2007, 03:06 PM
The health isn't a concern...he broke his collarbone. It's not like we should be concerned beause he has "weak" collarbones, thats not the case. It was a freak accident. It would be different if it was a knee, or something else.

But it was a knee in 2005, wasn't it?

I'm not worried about the collarbone being an issue, but that in both of the last two years he missed significant amounts of playing time.

I wouldn't be upset with him, for sure, but it does make me nervous.

real
01-24-2007, 03:07 PM
But it was a knee in 2005, wasn't it?

I'm not worried about the collarbone being an issue, but that in both of the last two years he missed significant amounts of playing time.

He had an ankle sprain.

Ole Miss Texan
01-24-2007, 03:10 PM
my whole deal is...none of those are serious by any means...but they all made him miss games. I do care if we draft him and he gets a freak accident...say ankle sprain...or shoot a broken rib. yes they can happen to anybody but seem to happen to him...he will miss games for us and thats all that matters.

HomeBred_Texan
01-24-2007, 03:43 PM
Well if he's there at 3 and the brownies are not enamored with the two offensive guys Quin and Petterson, they feel they can very good value with a defensive guy, or they can get Petterson with the eight, THAT opens the door for a move up and get Joe Thomas. OLT is the need on the ball club. Has been for five years. If they take All Day I'll be on board. Plenty of OLT prospects on the board in '08. I just don't feel he is quite the lock at Elite some of you are making out to be. Me I fix the o-line once and for all. Five years of mediocrity is enough for my tastes. Those three, Winston , Thomas and Spencer , if he makes it back, would lock down their o-line for ten years. Then you guys can have your pretty skill guys all you want. I won't gripe. The bobbles , so far, haven't moved this club up the nfl food chain yet. The common thread in this medicrity has been the o-line. Wanna argue chicken before the egg fine. Pick the guy at the eight. I just don't wanna see no griping on the board if the injuries are more than just a fluke. You knew what you were getting when you took the guy.

As long as we don't have to hear, "I knew he was going to be great", from all the naysayers after he hits the NFL... :hides:

ATX
01-24-2007, 05:17 PM
Peterson has had 2 significant injuries.....a broken collarbone and a twisted ankle basically. The collarbone was freak and a twisted ankle is not so uncommon for RB. The injuries really don't worry me much at all compared to how many times he touched the ball. It's part of the game and Dayne/Lundy/D. Williams/Gado/Taylor can fight it out for the 2nd and 3rd string positions.

Porky
01-24-2007, 05:45 PM
As nice as it would be to have a great running back, we need defense.

If you are going to win in the AFC with all the offensive talent that is loaded throughout, if it is mandatory that you win at least 10 games to make a wild card birth, if you have Manning, Harrison, Wayne, VY, Jones-Drew in your division, you had better have a great defense.

Just my thought on the whole matter.

Ask the 1978 Oiler defense what they thought about taking Earl Campbell #1. A defenses best friend is a pounding RB, who can also break the big one and put points on the board. Getting ahead of a team and then controlling the clock will do far more than any one defensive player available on the board.

threetoedpete
01-24-2007, 06:16 PM
As long as we don't have to hear, "I knew he was going to be great", from all the naysayers after he hits the NFL... :hides:

Agreed. I picked LT when no one knew who he was. I picked Urlacher when no one knew what postion he would play. I stand on my record.

bigcarlos
01-24-2007, 07:03 PM
A chance at a new QB and new RB. :marionaner:

Mr Shush
01-26-2007, 08:10 AM
"Is it possible for someone to come from a Christian background and turn out to be atheist ?

How much influence do you think the two of those guys combined had to do with (A) the effectiveness of Denver's O-line (B) the way they drafted ?"

Ok, but the evidence of last year, when they were prepared to go into a season with Dayne and Lundy as the options at half-back, suggests to me that Kubiak's philosophy does not differ too much from his mentor's when it comes to running back fungibility. This team's offense is currently much better than its defense. It's hard to find top corners outside the first round and we desperately need one. If the staff like Leon Hall or some other top CB prospect, that's who I'd expect to see us take at 8 (except possibly if Branch falls). Of course, they may simply not rate any of the CB prospects. I don't know.

tulexan
01-26-2007, 09:26 AM
Running backs are largely fungible, and tend to wear out quickly. A great back is a nice thing to have, but compared to a defense is a luxury item. Kubiak and Smith's background is with a team that had consistently outstanding rushing attacks for a decade without using a single first round pick on a running back. Davis and Anderson were 6th round picks; Droughns and Mike Bell were undrafted. Portis and Tatum Bell, in the second round, were the most highly drafted Denver RBs of that period. If we stand pat at 8, it will be to take Branch, a corner (most likely Hall) or conceivably Reggie Nelson. Any of those players should be expected to help us more and for longer than Peterson. I will be faintly surprised if we take an offensive player of any description on day 1; if we do, it will be a lineman. Running back will be addressed with a later round pick, or by acquiring Droughns if the Browns cut or seek to trade him.

They must have missed the memo about drafting strategies considering we were going to take a RB with the first pick a week before the draft and tried to trade back into the first round to pick DeAngelo Williams. I guess Kubiak and doesn't know the Denver strategy of drafting.

Second Honeymoon
01-26-2007, 10:52 AM
if peterson is there, you draft him, no questions asked.

signed, sealed, and delivered.

sadly, once he does his personal workout his stock is going to shoot up to the roof. I wouldn't be surprised if he is taken #3 after Calvin Johnson and Joe Thomas.

Mr teX
01-26-2007, 02:28 PM
you people, i just... :brickwall. Our system depends on the run alot & if we can't get a veteran stud in here to pound on the defense then it doesn't matter who we have at QB, we won't win many more games than we've been winning. Running the ball runs the clock, wears down the defense & opens things up in our passing game. At # 8, if that guy falls to us & we haven't already addressed our secondary in FA, that's who we take, Not Micheal Bush, not Lynch.

Toro
01-26-2007, 09:14 PM
Did Rick Smith or Gary Kubiak have any say on who the Broncos took? I know Shanahan wasn't one who took HBs in Round 1, but the sins of the father shouldn't be cast down on the son, to use the old analogy.

I honestly think if Peterson falls to 8, there's no way the Texans pass on him.