I think there's a certain amount of overthinking with respect to Adrian Peterson by people on this board... to me, it's rather simple; he'd definitely be the BPA at #8 and is a fantastic fit for this system and the team's needs. But since it doesn't seem to be so simple to others, let's break it down and provide a little context:
Last year, I was opposed to drafting Bush #1 due to concerns about
1) durability and fit as an every down back
2) value at the pick
3) value of the contract/production
As it turns out, Bush wasn't terribly productive as a RB, was an exceptional all around threat/playmaker, and likely not worth $60 million or his $26mm gtd. All the logic about marginal utility of Bush and the Denver system producing rushers was sound with respect to a #1 pick and corresponding contract was solid.
That logic fails when applied to Peterson and the #8 pick however. Peterson is a prototypical Denver style back, one cut, punishing, breakaway threat. He will carry the load and take it to the house. He is every bit the talent that Bush was, but some health issues have beaten his stock down to our range. He'll be available for roughly $15mm guaranteed. He'd be ours for 5 or 6 years and a max of about $30 mm. To pass on him with one of the weakest backfields in football would be almost as foolish as various other Casserly-era draft debacles. Take a look at the contracts in the 2006 draft.
2006 contracts, picks #6-9:
#6 Vernon Davis TE SF: 5 yrs. 23mm, 15 guaranteed (est.)
#7 Michael Huff S OAK: 7 yrs. 22.5mm, 15 guaranteed
#8 Donte Whitner CB Buf: 5 yrs. 29mm, 14 guaranteed (est.)
#9 Ernie Sims LB DET: 5 yrs, 20 mm, 12 guaranteed
In raw football terms, Peterson is the type of running back prospect that comes around every five years or so. The injuries are a legitimate concern, but the early entry/games missed limited him to 747 career carries. In college, Ricky Williams had about 1000 carries and Tomlinson had 900. If Peterson can be had at the #8 pick and a pretty reasonable contract... why in the world not? You'll never make a risk free decision, trying to do so will riddle your roster with average players.
Last year, I was opposed to drafting Bush #1 due to concerns about
1) durability and fit as an every down back
2) value at the pick
3) value of the contract/production
As it turns out, Bush wasn't terribly productive as a RB, was an exceptional all around threat/playmaker, and likely not worth $60 million or his $26mm gtd. All the logic about marginal utility of Bush and the Denver system producing rushers was sound with respect to a #1 pick and corresponding contract was solid.
That logic fails when applied to Peterson and the #8 pick however. Peterson is a prototypical Denver style back, one cut, punishing, breakaway threat. He will carry the load and take it to the house. He is every bit the talent that Bush was, but some health issues have beaten his stock down to our range. He'll be available for roughly $15mm guaranteed. He'd be ours for 5 or 6 years and a max of about $30 mm. To pass on him with one of the weakest backfields in football would be almost as foolish as various other Casserly-era draft debacles. Take a look at the contracts in the 2006 draft.
2006 contracts, picks #6-9:
#6 Vernon Davis TE SF: 5 yrs. 23mm, 15 guaranteed (est.)
#7 Michael Huff S OAK: 7 yrs. 22.5mm, 15 guaranteed
#8 Donte Whitner CB Buf: 5 yrs. 29mm, 14 guaranteed (est.)
#9 Ernie Sims LB DET: 5 yrs, 20 mm, 12 guaranteed
In raw football terms, Peterson is the type of running back prospect that comes around every five years or so. The injuries are a legitimate concern, but the early entry/games missed limited him to 747 career carries. In college, Ricky Williams had about 1000 carries and Tomlinson had 900. If Peterson can be had at the #8 pick and a pretty reasonable contract... why in the world not? You'll never make a risk free decision, trying to do so will riddle your roster with average players.
