Marshawn Lynch and Adrian Peterson

[gtexan02]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by gtexan02

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]

Originally Posted by gtexan02

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]

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]

what about level of competition differences? big 12 and pac 10?

[bah007]

Originally Posted by htownfoozball

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]

Originally Posted by Battle Red Flash

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]

Originally Posted by bah007

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]

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]

Originally Posted by infantrycak

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]

Originally Posted by bah007

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]

Originally Posted by bah007

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]

Originally Posted by gtexan02

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]

I think Lynch is better. He is more versatyle and reminds me of Maroney.

[Ole Miss Texan]

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]

Originally Posted by GuerillaBlack

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]

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]

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.