Thread: Adrian Peterson - not the most valuable running back???

Yes, it's true...



according to the NFL MVP votings.

I absolutely don't mind that Peyton Manning got it! He had far from one of his best seasons, statistically speaking, but it's no doupt that he's an outstanding player and is definitely worthy.
I think the same can be said about Minnesota Vikings' Adrian Peterson. He finished 4th in the MVP race (in his second year) and that's truly a great honor.

What bothers me is that Adrian Peterson was not even voted the league's most valuable running back.
Falcon's Michael Turner got one more vote than Adrian and finished tied with Miami quarterback Chad Pennington for second place with four votes.
How can a player widely considered to be the best back in the league finish behind another player at his own position in the voting?

For more, read article:
[size=14pt]Peterson finishes 4th in MVP race[/size]
By JON KRAWCZYNSKI, AP Sports Writer

EDEN PRAIRIE, Minn.—That Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson lost out to Indianapolis Colts quarterback Peyton Manning in the NFL MVP race did not come as a shock.
The big surprise out of the voting was that Peterson, the NFL's leading rusher, wasn't even voted MVRB—league's most valuable running back.

link: http://www.twincities.com/politics/c...topixheadlines

There is no running back in the NFL I would rather have than Peterson.
If Turner saw the same defenses AD did, it wouldn't have been close.

But that being said, the stats are pretty darn even except for Turner having 7 more touchdowns and 6 less fumbles. So I actually have no choice but to agree.

How much bonus money did AD miss out on not getting MVP?

Turner's cause is really helped by being on a resurgent team.
That, and having a QB who can seriously pass the ball.

Numbers play a huge part

Turner had better

Peterson lost his chance when he started to fumble the ball plain and simple. He was at the top of every list but those fumbles down the home stretch and especially the ones he had against Atlanta were the final nails in his coffin.

If Manning went on a streak where he threw several INT's that cost them a game or two he would not have been such an overwhelming choice either. But the team won their final 8 games and he played at a high level down the stretch, which is what gets you the MVP.

With or without fumbles, he still should have finished ahead of Turner, who has a lot more help from his quarterback than Peterson does - and STILL finished with less yardage.

"BBQ" wrote:

With or without fumbles, he still should have finished ahead of Turner, who has a lot more help from his quarterback than Peterson does - and STILL finished with less yardage.

But Turner doesn't have Childress or the KAO so it really isn't close.



I do find it interesting that anybody would say that a RB playing behind a rookie is at a better advantage than one playing behind someone who has been starting games over 3 seasons.

While rb's do catch passes, it is relatively rare. So, what does a good quarterback have to do with how good a running back is. The qb snaps the ball, waits for the rb, hands it off. Santa could hand it off to the easter bunny if he had decent speed.

If ap had as many or more touches then turner, but capitilized on fewer runs, turner has the advantage.
If the same was true for carries as a whole, and fumbled less, turner wins again.

Pro athletes will tell you then always want to improve, regardless if they are a rookie or 20 year vet.
AP will improve, and his fumble numbers will go down.

"STCLOUDSAYSGOVIKES" wrote:

While rb's do catch passes, it is relatively rare. So, what does a good quarterback have to do with how good a running back is. The qb snaps the ball, waits for the rb, hands it off. Santa could hand it off to the easter bunny if he had decent speed.

If ap had as many or more touches then turner, but capitilized on fewer runs, turner has the advantage.
If the same was true for carries as a whole, and fumbled less, turner wins again.

Pro athletes will tell you then always want to improve, regardless if they are a rookie or 20 year vet.
AP will improve, and his fumble numbers will go down.

The quarterback has PLENTY to do with how successful a running back is.
A running back on a team with a good passing game has an easier job than a back on a team that does not, because opposing defenses are not able to key in on the run.
Duh.

This also leads to more scoring opportunities (due to a better and more balanced offense), and as a result, more touchdowns.
THIS is why Turner has more touchdowns than AD.
It is NOT because he's a better back, which he most certainly isn't.


If you plugged in Turner into this system, he'd be less successful.
He certainly wouldn't account for a third of our offense (unless our offense suffered as a result of not having Peterson, which it definitely might).
If you plugged AD into the Falcons system, on the other hand, he would score a lot more touchdowns.

Sorry, but Turner isn't even the most valuable player on the FALCONS.
Matt Ryan is.
Without Ryan, they would not have a balanced offense.
Granted, having a running game helps a quarterback as well.
However, seeing as how their passing game is more successful than ours, we can conclude that the quarterback (surprise, surprise) has something to do with their success.


This is elementary, basic football stuff - I'm surprised you managed to miss the point I was trying to make.

I voted for Deangelo.
Every time I saw the Panthers highlights, he was scoring a TD, which, I believe, is kinda the point of carrying the ball.

=Z=