PDA

View Full Version : Marshawn Lynch and Adrian Peterson


gtexan02
02-09-2007, 01:51 PM
Better Runner?
In his 2 years starting for UCLA, Marshawn Lynch never had a game where he averaged less than 4.0 ypc. Thats pretty awesome. His lowest yardage average was against UCLA, in which he carried 20 times for 81 yards, or 4.1 ypc.

Peterson never got close to going below 4.0 ypc this regular season, but since he only played a small percentage of the total games, I'm not sure how to read it. He only haveraged 3.9 against Boise St. once he came back.

And in his 2005 campaign, he got shut down by gameplanning defenes multiple times.
TCU (2.9 ypc), UCLA (2.5 ypc), Texas Tech (3.7 ypc), and Oregon (3.7 ypc). ANd its not like he wasn't getting the ball. In each of those contests, he was handed to at least 22 times.

What does this mean? Both players were centerpieces for their respective franchises. Its nice to know that, no matter how much gameplanning a defense did for him, Lynch was able to real off a nice steady yard per carry. Peterson definiately has more upside if his 2006 numbers are any indication, but since he only played a few games its tough to make that call.

Durability?
Everyone complains about Peterson's durability, and praises Lynch for not being busted up. But could it be a result of the number of times they carried the ball?

On average, Lynch carried the ball (when he was starting):
2005 - 19.6 carries per game
2006 - 17.2 carries per game
Total - 18.2 carries per game

Peterson carried the ball:
2004 - 26 carries per game
2005 - 19.7 carries per game
2006 - 26 carries per game
Total - 24 carries per game

So on average, per game, Peterson was carrying the ball a total of 6 times more per game. Thats a 30% increase in workload over Lynch.

So what does this mean?

Well, first off, Lynch has never been a workhorse, 30 carry a game back. So we wwon't really know what his durability is until he comes in and racks up the carries.

Secondly, it is very concerning that Peterson has played in fewer and fewer games each year he has been in college. He is a proven workhorse who can carry the ball 30 times a game, but apparently it beats him up. Sure none of those injuries are really long time injuries, but the fact that when he carries the ball that much he seems to end up sitting on the medical table is a little worrysome.


I'm definiately not one for drafting Lynch. And I love Peterson's upside. But maybe RB isn't as sure a spot as people are thinking.

kastofsna
02-09-2007, 01:57 PM
lynch went to Cal. peterson's most recent injury has nothing to do with his running style. i'm not concerned with it. you won't find too many backs that stay 100% healthy that run as much as he does. he'll be fine.

Ole Miss Texan
02-09-2007, 02:04 PM
Lynch seems more of a RB to get for a two back system. Peterson seems to be more of the franchise back type guy...which i like better.

great analysis g

Dr. Toro
02-09-2007, 03:59 PM
What does this mean? Both players were centerpieces for their respective franchises. Its nice to know that, no matter how much gameplanning a defense did for him, Lynch was able to real off a nice steady yard per carry.

Cal always had a proficient passing attack. Oklahoma's was subpar Peterson's sophomore and junior years. Peterson really was the "centerpiece", Lynch didn't have that kind of target on his chest or burden on his back.

Battle Red Flash
02-09-2007, 04:12 PM
Better Runner?
Peterson never got close to going below 4.0 ypc this regular season, but since he only played a small percentage of the total games, I'm not sure how to read it. He only haveraged 3.9 against Boise St. once he came back.

And in his 2005 campaign, he got shut down by gameplanning defenes multiple times.
TCU (2.9 ypc), UCLA (2.5 ypc), Texas Tech (3.7 ypc), and Oregon (3.7 ypc). ANd its not like he wasn't getting the ball. In each of those contests, he was handed to at least 22 times.

I did not know Pete's yards per carry were that low. Interesting.
If Lynch turns in a 4.4 at his workout, I'd be fine with him or Peterson.

DocBar
02-09-2007, 04:28 PM
That was a very good post, G. I don't know enough about Lynch to make a judgement, but I generally don't like RB's who need to platoon to be productive(I.E. Reggie Bush). Peterson breaking a collarbone is a freak accident. Some promising players have had those kind of freak injuries plague their career, though. Detroit had a 1st rd. receiver have those kind several years in a row. Heck, look at Seth Payne. I guess all in all, if we HAD to pick a RB, I'd rather it be Peterson.

htownfoozball
02-09-2007, 05:42 PM
what about level of competition differences? big 12 and pac 10?

bah007
02-09-2007, 05:57 PM
what about level of competition differences? big 12 and pac 10?

Pac 10 is an offense conference. For the most part, defenses in the Pac 10 are pathetic. There are a few that aren't, but overall, Pac 10 has probably the worst defenses of the BCS conferences.

Big 12 is more of a power conference. The SEC is by far the best defensive conference, but after that I would have to put the Big 10 a very close 2nd place ahead of the Big 12.

Offensive players in the Pac 10 generally put up better numbers than players in other conferences because of the lack of defense.

The talent level is about the same, if not, then I would give a slight edge to the Pac 10.

But all of their talent is on the offensive side of the ball, where as the Big 12 has pretty equal talent on both sides.

gtexan02
02-09-2007, 06:10 PM
I did not know Pete's yards per carry were that low. Interesting.
If Lynch turns in a 4.4 at his workout, I'd be fine with him or Peterson.

Just to clarify, Pete's ypc for the year, and career has always been over 5 ypc. I just like to look at individual games, because a 8.0 ypc followed by a 2.5 looks worse to me than two consitent 5.0 ypc games

infantrycak
02-09-2007, 06:41 PM
Pac 10 is an offense conference. For the most part, defenses in the Pac 10 are pathetic. There are a few that aren't, but overall, Pac 10 has probably the worst defenses of the BCS conferences.

Big 12 is more of a power conference. The SEC is by far the best defensive conference, but after that I would have to put the Big 10 a very close 2nd place ahead of the Big 12.

Offensive players in the Pac 10 generally put up better numbers than players in other conferences because of the lack of defense.

While that might be an accurate general statement the specifics don't bear it out in this instance:

2004
Texas Tech Lynch 5.2 ypc Peterson 6.6 ypc
Oregon Lynch 3.6 ypc Peterson 7.6 ypc
USC Lynch 4.5 ypc Peterson 3.3 ypc

2005
UCLA Lynch 6.1 ypc Peterson 2.5 ypc
Oregon Lynch 7.6 ypc Peterson 3.7 ypc

2006
Oregon Lynch 7.1 ypc Peterson 6.2 ypc
Washington Lynch 7.1 ypc Peterson 5.2 ypc

Facing the same team in the same year Lynch had higher averages in 5 of 7 instances and the only two times where he didn't was in their 1st years in college.

GanadoUHCoog
02-09-2007, 06:42 PM
say all you want about lynch but it would be another HUGE mistake by the texans to pass on adrian peterson if he is availible

bah007
02-09-2007, 06:47 PM
While that might be an accurate general statement the specifics don't bear it out in this instance:

2004
Texas Tech Lynch 5.2 ypc Peterson 6.6 ypc
Oregon Lynch 3.6 ypc Peterson 7.6 ypc
USC Lynch 4.5 ypc Peterson 3.3 ypc

2005
UCLA Lynch 6.1 ypc Peterson 2.5 ypc
Oregon Lynch 7.6 ypc Peterson 3.7 ypc

2006
Oregon Lynch 7.1 ypc Peterson 6.2 ypc
Washington Lynch 7.1 ypc Peterson 5.2 ypc

Facing the same team in the same year Lynch had higher averages in 5 of 7 instances and the only two times where he didn't was in their 1st years in college.

Peterson is also the only talented player on OU's offense besides Patrick (who was never on the field at the same times anyway) & Lynch has Forsett & Jackson.

As Peterson goes, so goes OU. Lynch and Cal are not the same way.

infantrycak
02-09-2007, 07:00 PM
Peterson is also the only talented player on OU's offense besides Patrick (who was never on the field at the same times anyway) & Lynch has Forsett & Jackson.

As Peterson goes, so goes OU. Lynch and Cal are not the same way.

Well against the weaker Pac-10 D's, Cal put less points on the board thru the air than Oklahoma did against the Big-12 even if Cal did have more yards thru the air.

gtexan02
02-09-2007, 11:49 PM
Peterson is also the only talented player on OU's offense besides Patrick (who was never on the field at the same times anyway) & Lynch has Forsett & Jackson.

As Peterson goes, so goes OU. Lynch and Cal are not the same way.

Well not really

2006:
With Peterson: 4-3
Without Peterson: 7-0

2005:
With Peterson: 7-4
Without Peterson: 1-0

2004:
No games without Peterson

bah007
02-10-2007, 12:04 AM
Well not really

2006:
With Peterson: 4-3
Without Peterson: 7-0

2005:
With Peterson: 7-4
Without Peterson: 1-0

2004:
No games without Peterson

2006:
The three losses were against #18 Oregon, #7 Texas, & #5 Boise St.

2005:
The four losses were against TCU (very good defense), UCLA (who kicked Bomar's ass), #2 Texas, & #21 Texas Tech.

2004:
The only loss was against #1 USC.

You didnt really tell the whole story. The games they lost with Peterson were against good teams & Peterson struggled against some of them, hence the statement, as Peterson goes so goes OU.

GuerillaBlack
02-10-2007, 12:15 AM
I think Lynch is better. He is more versatyle and reminds me of Maroney.

Ole Miss Texan
02-10-2007, 12:19 AM
I like looking at stats because the give you a general picture. but dont normally tell the whole story...try this one out

2006:
NYG vs Indy (Sept. 7)
---Tiki Barber 18 rushes 110 yds 6.11 ypc 0 TD Loss

Hou vs Indy (Dec. 24)
---Ron Dayne 32 rushes 153 yds 4.78 ypc 2 TD Win!!

Does this mean Dayne is a better running back than Tiki? I don't think so. Does it mean the texans were a better team than the giants....i don't think so. stats can be very deceiving...esp. to non-sports enthusiast...but no one here is like that...!

bah007
02-10-2007, 12:29 AM
I think Lynch is better. He is more versatyle and reminds me of Maroney.

He may remind you of Maroney but he is nowhere near the talent that Maroney is.

Dr. Toro
02-10-2007, 12:41 AM
Their performances aren't terribly comparable. Cal had a top 15 passing attack in 2006, while Oklahoma's was in the bottom half, around 75th or so. AP's QBs were an immature freshman and a converted WR in 2005 and 2006, Lynch was playing with a Tedford QB. Lynch didn't have to carry the same load either, Forsett was a nice change of pace.

Just watch Peterson play and make an argument on why he shouldn't be our pick, if available. Splice whatever stats you want, Peterson is a beast and will instantly help whatever team drafts him. And he won't be there at 8, so this is all academic.

Ole Miss Texan
02-10-2007, 01:20 AM
I would love to have Peterson on this team. He's the only RB I would want us to take 1st rd. I'm gettin this feeling that in order to have him we're going to have to trade up to get him. and that is something this team cannot handle.

dbspi
02-10-2007, 02:38 AM
AD is one those player who comes along once every 10 yrs or so (true franchise RB) where as you can always find RB like Lynch just about every year.

bah007
02-10-2007, 02:42 AM
AD is one those player who comes along once every 10 yrs or so (true franchise RB) where as you can always find RB like Lynch just about every year.

I'm not so sure about that.

IMO, Maroney is better than Peterson. I'm still shocked that he fell so far last year.

beerlover
02-10-2007, 04:46 AM
I'm not so sure about that.

IMO, Maroney is better than Peterson. I'm still shocked that he fell so far last year.

I was surprised Steven Jackson fell as far as he did too a couple of years ago but that does'nt mean anyone of them is better than Peterson will be in the NFL. plus they can be the greatest RB ever but if they don't have a line that can block, or some vertical threat to take 8 men out of the box I don't care how good they are its gonna be tough making it to work :drive:

infantrycak
02-10-2007, 09:09 AM
I like looking at stats because the give you a general picture. but dont normally tell the whole story...try this one out

2006:
NYG vs Indy (Sept. 7)
---Tiki Barber 18 rushes 110 yds 6.11 ypc 0 TD Loss

Hou vs Indy (Dec. 24)
---Ron Dayne 32 rushes 153 yds 4.78 ypc 2 TD Win!!

Does this mean Dayne is a better running back than Tiki? I don't think so. Does it mean the texans were a better team than the giants....i don't think so. stats can be very deceiving...esp. to non-sports enthusiast...but no one here is like that...!

Very good point. Stats are one reference point. Watching is another. The Colts had personnel return and schemed their D differently after the Texans loss.

He may remind you of Maroney but he is nowhere near the talent that Maroney is.

Well that's interesting since he is most likely going to be taken higher in the draft. But as beerlover said, that really isn't the end of the examination. There was a stretch of years where RB's weren't being taken high. The last couple has had more with Benson, Williams, etc. getting up near the top.

HJam72
02-10-2007, 09:22 AM
Yay!!! Ron Dayne is even better than Tiki Barber! :marionaner: :drunk: :doot:

bah007
02-10-2007, 02:35 PM
Very good point. Stats are one reference point. Watching is another. The Colts had personnel return and schemed their D differently after the Texans loss.



Well that's interesting since he is most likely going to be taken higher in the draft. But as beerlover said, that really isn't the end of the examination. There was a stretch of years where RB's weren't being taken high. The last couple has had more with Benson, Williams, etc. getting up near the top.

We were talking about Lynch not Peterson.

vtech9
02-10-2007, 05:45 PM
I was all for getting Lynch until I saw him play. I don't remember who they played, but he really didn't look that great. He seemed to run with a style similar to Morency. Instead of hitting the hole, he stutter-stepped waiting for a hole to open. IMHO, he just doesn't fit Kubiak's style.

dat_boy_yec
02-10-2007, 06:03 PM
I like looking at stats because the give you a general picture. but dont normally tell the whole story...try this one out

2006:
NYG vs Indy (Sept. 7)
---Tiki Barber 18 rushes 110 yds 6.11 ypc 0 TD Loss

Hou vs Indy (Dec. 24)
---Ron Dayne 32 rushes 153 yds 4.78 ypc 2 TD Win!!

Does this mean Dayne is a better running back than Tiki? I don't think so. Does it mean the texans were a better team than the giants....i don't think so. stats can be very deceiving...esp. to non-sports enthusiast...but no one here is like that...!

How can you take those stats and make an argument that Dayne is better. Barber had a better YPC and that is a stat that reflects the individual RB's performance. If you take Barber's YPC and apply it to Dayne's attempts that would drastically change his stat's. For instance how many games has Barber had over 200 yds.? Now how many 200 yd. games has Dayne had?

dat_boy_yec
02-10-2007, 06:18 PM
Another thing is comparing the other backs on the same team. IMO. What was the fall off when in rushing production when Peterson was out. You can't really do that with Lynch because he didn't miss that much time, but I think it's also a factor.

CoogBull
02-11-2007, 01:47 AM
I slightly prefer Lynch, but will be happy with either one.

I want to see their Combine numbers first.

The Texans need two things: a playmaker, and a consistent runner.

Lynch is the latter, while Peterson is the former. If the Texans take either one it will prove one thing: they are willing to make this team better.

RB is gone, DW is probably never coming back, and Casserly should be severly beaten.

Both these young men would be great additions to the team.

Ole Miss Texan
02-11-2007, 04:25 AM
How can you take those stats and make an argument that Dayne is better. Barber had a better YPC and that is a stat that reflects the individual RB's performance. If you take Barber's YPC and apply it to Dayne's attempts that would drastically change his stat's. For instance how many games has Barber had over 200 yds.? Now how many 200 yd. games has Dayne had?

That is my exact point...and you're making it thank you very much. you are more worried about yards per carry. a stat...which while it is good isn't everything. and when i see those numbers...yes i think dayne did better...how you argue that tikis numbers were better in those two instances is rediculous!...dayne had almost 5ypc 150 yds and 2 TD. tiki had a little over 6 ypc 100 yds and no tds.....tikis team lost,...and daynes team won.

TD's reflect more on a running back than ypc carry imo. ypc are behind that and slightly ahead or behind of total yards. please don't say tiki has better stats out of this ONE situation....which doesn't even reflect the whole situation.

my point was from this information...stats....dayne looked better (apparently you don't think so...but i think 2 TD's is a lot better than0.) ...but that stats in the end...can only be taken as a generalization. you can use stats for someones adavantage or disadvantage...whenever/however you want...

dat_boy_yec
02-11-2007, 06:10 PM
That is my exact point...and you're making it thank you very much. you are more worried about yards per carry. a stat...which while it is good isn't everything. and when i see those numbers...yes i think dayne did better...how you argue that tikis numbers were better in those two instances is rediculous!...dayne had almost 5ypc 150 yds and 2 TD. tiki had a little over 6 ypc 100 yds and no tds.....tikis team lost,...and daynes team won.

TD's reflect more on a running back than ypc carry imo. ypc are behind that and slightly ahead or behind of total yards. please don't say tiki has better stats out of this ONE situation....which doesn't even reflect the whole situation.

my point was from this information...stats....dayne looked better (apparently you don't think so...but i think 2 TD's is a lot better than0.) ...but that stats in the end...can only be taken as a generalization. you can use stats for someones adavantage or disadvantage...whenever/however you want...

Well, I have to disagree. See the thing about YPC is that you have a good estimate of how many yds a back will get you consistently. It's obvious that you have to factor in alot of other things such as injuries and o-line, but here's the thing. If you got a guy that has a career of 6 YPC and then you got a guy with a career 5 YPC which one is better? They are both good, but the 6 YPC guy got that extra yd. on a consistent basis, that is what makes it a telling stat. The TD thing is misleading why do I say that? Because different teams have different philosophies and may put in a FB or another RB on goal line situation. Also the team can pull of the screen pass or pass and while the RB may get the touchdown in that situation it doesn't reflect his rushing performance. Yards per carry directly reflect their performance, while it doesn't reflect how they get those yards it reflects the RB's production.

MorKnolle
02-11-2007, 06:32 PM
Well, I have to disagree. See the thing about YPC is that you have a good estimate of how many yds a back will get you consistently. It's obvious that you have to factor in alot of other things such as injuries and o-line, but here's the thing. If you got a guy that has a career of 6 YPC and then you got a guy with a career 5 YPC which one is better? They are both good, but the 6 YPC guy got that extra yd. on a consistent basis, that is what makes it a telling stat. The TD thing is misleading why do I say that? Because different teams have different philosophies and may put in a FB or another RB on goal line situation. Also the team can pull of the screen pass or pass and while the RB may get the touchdown in that situation it doesn't reflect his rushing performance. Yards per carry directly reflect their performance, while it doesn't reflect how they get those yards it reflects the RB's production.

Kind of like how Reggie Bush's 8.7 yards per carry last season translated to his 3.6 yards per carry this year?

Ole Miss Texan
02-11-2007, 06:33 PM
Well, I have to disagree. See the thing about YPC is that you have a good estimate of how many yds a back will get you consistently. It's obvious that you have to factor in alot of other things such as injuries and o-line, but here's the thing. If you got a guy that has a career of 6 YPC and then you got a guy with a career 5 YPC which one is better? They are both good, but the 6 YPC guy got that extra yd. on a consistent basis, that is what makes it a telling stat. The TD thing is misleading why do I say that? Because different teams have different philosophies and may put in a FB or another RB on goal line situation. Also the team can pull of the screen pass or pass and while the RB may get the touchdown in that situation it doesn't reflect his rushing performance. Yards per carry directly reflect their performance, while it doesn't reflect how they get those yards it reflects the RB's production.

Don't get me wrong I agree but. When looking at a running backs numbers the first thing reported is Touchdowns and Yards. YPC are very imp. i'm not trying to say they arent. Reggie Bush got a lot of his TD's from short passes, tiki's td's should have been higher but they put brandon jacobs in at the goal line who is a total beast...i wish we could get him.

My whole point/ arguement was about stats and how they can be misleading. Dayne is more of a short yardage guy anyways too and doesn't have a lot of break away speed or make a lot of long runs.

If you look at that same Giants Colts game ...Brandon jacobs had 8 rushed for 54 yards...or 6.75 ypc and 1 touchdown. you could argue when seeing that he had the better game.

but the whole thing is taking that one game and 'translating' to the season....or taking it out of context. which isn't good to do.

Again though...All i'm saying about ypc/td/yards is that the first thing anyone looks at with either a player or a team. is total yards, and total td's. you do that for every position too. receiver/qb as well. receiving td's versus rushing td's. etc. it's then after those initial stats that you look at yards per reception/carry. you might have a team that gets 4,000 yds passing but throw the ball 80% of the time...thats when yards per completion or attempt come in to tell the real picture.

dat_boy_yec
02-11-2007, 06:39 PM
Kind of like how Reggie Bush's 8.7 yards per carry last season translated to his 3.6 yards per carry this year?

College stat's don't translate to the NFL the same way. College wise though tell me who had a better YPC than Bush? Comparing two people in the same league is one thing projecting them from college to pros is another.

dat_boy_yec
02-11-2007, 06:41 PM
Don't get me wrong I agree but. When looking at a running backs numbers the first thing reported is Touchdowns and Yards. YPC are very imp. i'm not trying to say they arent. Reggie Bush got a lot of his TD's from short passes, tiki's td's should have been higher but they put brandon jacobs in at the goal line who is a total beast...i wish we could get him.

My whole point/ arguement was about stats and how they can be misleading. Dayne is more of a short yardage guy anyways too and doesn't have a lot of break away speed or make a lot of long runs.

If you look at that same Giants Colts game ...Brandon jacobs had 8 rushed for 54 yards...or 6.75 ypc and 1 touchdown. you could argue when seeing that he had the better game.

but the whole thing is taking that one game and 'translating' to the season....or taking it out of context. which isn't good to do.

Again though...All i'm saying about ypc/td/yards is that the first thing anyone looks at with either a player or a team. is total yards, and total td's. you do that for every position too. receiver/qb as well. receiving td's versus rushing td's. etc. it's then after those initial stats that you look at yards per reception/carry. you might have a team that gets 4,000 yds passing but throw the ball 80% of the time...thats when yards per completion or attempt come in to tell the real picture.

Oh, well then yeah. I'm in agreement. Stats can be very misleading.

Janus3
02-11-2007, 08:18 PM
i'd much rather prefer lynch over peterson. lynch can block and catch much better. i hope the texans for once trade down.

kastofsna
02-12-2007, 08:34 AM
peterson is infinitely better than laurence maroney coming out of college.

STEEL BLUE TEXANS
02-12-2007, 08:37 AM
i'd much rather prefer lynch over peterson. lynch can block and catch much better. i hope the texans for once trade down.


Like the year we traded down and ended up with Travis Johnson when we could have had Derrick Johnson or Jammal Brown?

Errant Hothy
02-12-2007, 10:54 AM
Like the year we traded down and ended up with Travis Johnson when we could have had Derrick Johnson or Jammal Brown?

I'm really sick of this, cause tell me what in the hell has Derrick Johnson done in KC? Pro-Bowls, Rookie awards, anything?

real
02-12-2007, 10:56 AM
I'm really sick of this, cause tell me what in the hell has Derrick Johnson done in KC? Pro-Bowls, Rookie awards, anything?

Derrick Johnson vs. Travis Johnson.


At this point, i'd rather have Derrick Johnson in our front seven than Travis Johnson.

It was a bad move, no matter how you slice it.

Errant Hothy
02-12-2007, 11:00 AM
Derrick Johnson vs. Travis Johnson.


At this point, i'd rather have Derrick Johnson in our front seven than Travis Johnson.

It was a bad move, no matter how you slice it.

Jamaal Brown v TJ, yeah that's the one that stings. But from what I've seen neither DJ or TJ has lived up to potential, the only thing DJ has going for him is the UT factor, which we all know is a huge factor here come this time of year. This year's recepient will be A. Ross.

gtexan02
02-12-2007, 11:01 AM
Jamaal Brown v TJ, yeah that's the one that stings. But from what I've seen neither DJ or TJ has lived up to potential, the only thing DJ has going for him is the UT factor, which we all know is a huge factor here come this time of year. This year's recepient will be A. Ross.

No one on this entire board had even mentioned Jamaal Brown before the Saints picked him. In fact, all draft analysts said NO missed with that one since he was projected to go much later

Errant Hothy
02-12-2007, 11:05 AM
No one on this entire board had even mentioned Jamaal Brown before the Saints picked him. In fact, all draft analysts said NO missed with that one since he was projected to go much later

Agree, but the whole idea is revisionist history, so why not make teh pick look all the more worse. It's the board's way isn't it?

Also if we had drafted DJ would we have still drafted Ryans? And at this point there is no doubt in my mind who is the better of those two.

gtexan02
02-12-2007, 11:14 AM
Another thing is comparing the other backs on the same team. IMO. What was the fall off when in rushing production when Peterson was out. You can't really do that with Lynch because he didn't miss that much time, but I think it's also a factor.

When Peterson was out:
Vs. Colorado - Allen Patrick (2nd string) - 35 attempts, 110 yards, 3.1 ypc, 1 td

Vs. Missouri - Allen Patrick (2nd string) - 35 attempts, 157 yards, 4.5 ypc

Vs. Texas A&M - Allen Patrick (2nd string) - 32 attempts, 173 yards, 5.4 ypc, 1 td

Vs. Texas Tech - Chris Brown (3rd string) - 16 attempts, 84 yards, 5.3 ypc, 2 tds

Vs. Baylor - Chris Brown (3rd string) - 24 attempts, 169 yards, 7.0 ypc, 1 td

Vs. Oklahoma State - Allen Patrick (2nd string) - 23 attempts, 163 yards, 7.1 ypc, 1 td
AND Chris Brown (3rd string) - 19 attempts, 64 yards, 3.9 ypc, 2 tds

Vs. Nebraska - Allen Patrick (2nd string) - 15 attempts, 35 yards, 2.3 ypc, 1 td

In the only 2 games they both played together this year and both received 10+ carries:

Vs. Middle Tennesee State: Adrian Peterson - 27 carries, 128 yards, 4.7 ypc, 3 tds
Vs. Middle Tennesee State: Allen Patrick - 13 carries, 52 yards, 4.0 ypc

AND

Vs. Boise State: Adrian Peterson - 20 carries, 77 yards, 3.9 ypc, 2 tds
Vs. Boise State: Allen Ptarick - 11 carries, 61 yards, 5.5 ypc

Kaiser Toro
02-12-2007, 11:28 AM
No one on this entire board had even mentioned Jamaal Brown before the Saints picked him. In fact, all draft analysts said NO missed with that one since he was projected to go much later

They escape me at the moment, but there was a contigent of members wanting Brown or at least BPA for OL. I was not part of that mix.

TheOgre
02-12-2007, 12:55 PM
Remember that stats led the Texans to take Hollings.

I personally want AP, but would be happy with Lynch too. If we get rid of Carr, AJ is the only 1st rounder we have offensively.

Ole Miss Texan
02-12-2007, 01:29 PM
Nice work getting all those numbers G. Looks like oklahoma just had a dominant o-line. doesn't really seem like their rushing dropped off when peterson was out.

I remember thinking a similar thing last season after watching a few louisville games without michael bush. they seemed to be just fine without him and that made me question how good bush was or if it was just the line.

Honoring Earl 34
02-12-2007, 02:03 PM
How about Peterson vs McFadden and Slaton .

Ole Miss Texan
02-12-2007, 02:40 PM
How about Peterson vs McFadden and Slaton .

Peterson was smart coming out this year. Even with missing all those games he's still most likely going to be a top 10 pick...possibly top 5...and 1st RB taken.

If he stayed and come out next season....that would be tough. McFadden is the real deal and probably is going to leave early??? That dude is going to be a stud. He's got the whole LT threat....i see him throwing a few TD's as well in the NFL.

Brandyon
02-21-2007, 05:38 PM
I was all for getting Lynch until I saw him play. I don't remember who they played, but he really didn't look that great. He seemed to run with a style similar to Morency. Instead of hitting the hole, he stutter-stepped waiting for a hole to open. IMHO, he just doesn't fit Kubiak's style.

Waiting for the hole IS Kubiaks style... one of the problems at times this years was backs not waiting for the zone blocking to open a hole.

I'm reviving this thread because I think Lynch is a great back and would rather draft him at 8 than trade up for AP, but thats a stretch. I think he's better at running the seam, and I prefer that over the open field back any day.

Also I dont think we need an every down back, so thats another reason I would rather have Lynch.

TexansSeminole
02-21-2007, 07:13 PM
Secondly, it is very concerning that Peterson has played in fewer and fewer games each year he has been in college. He is a proven workhorse who can carry the ball 30 times a game, but apparently it beats him up. Sure none of those injuries are really long time injuries, but the fact that when he carries the ball that much he seems to end up sitting on the medical table is a little worrysome.


I'm definiately not one for drafting Lynch. And I love Peterson's upside. But maybe RB isn't as sure a spot as people are thinking.

It is a bit concerning but once he gets in the NFL he will be in a 2 back system. I think most teams are learning that the 2 back system allows for healthier players for a longer amount of time. I think that's what Bob Stoops learned this year after he learned about Allen Patrick. Allen Patrick should have gotten alot of those Peterson carries. He was productive and could have given Peterson more time to rest, taking fewer hits.