11-08-2011, 07:46 AM #31
11-08-2011, 07:50 AM #32
11-08-2011, 09:49 AM #33
To call someone the best back in the league over Adrian Peterson you have to look at their skillset.
LeSean McCoy? Sure, he's explosive. As explosive as Peterson? He's never had a season with a long run greater than Peterson's season long. Runs of 20+ and 40+ yards? Peterson's got the edge. What about long receptions? There have been seasons where Peterson had longer receptions and seasons where McCoy had longer. But Peterson has the longer career reception of the two. Which is not to claim Peterson is a better receiver than McCoy, I don't think he is, but it's a matter of usage. Peterson can catch the ball, we just don't utilize him as frequently as a receiver as the Eagles do McCoy. While I'm unsure of the receiver debate, I do know Peterson has the longer receptions. Why? He's just better with the ball in his hands, and no one can deny that.
Read through some Eagles play-by-plays. "L.McCoy right tackle to PHI 46 for X yards" "-L.McCoy right end to CHI 22 for X yards" rarely will you see "L.McCoy up middle to PHI 33 for 8 yards" or "3-1 PHI 21 L.McCoy up middle for X yards. First down." McCoy has trouble running between the tackles. He is not a power back. He doesn't score goal line TDs as a rusher. He's more likely to convert a short yardage play as a receiver than he is a runner.
The Eagles have the ultimate threat to run at QB in Mike Vick and deep threats at receiver. That makes it a lot harder to defend against the run. They get McCoy the ball creatively. Slower developing runs up the middle, putting him in space with Vick faking the run the other way. Every team commits a spy to Vick, he has to be accounted for every play. Someone follows him no matter where he goes on the field. They'd rather take the chance at moving one defender out of the box as insurance against a big play by Vick. They run DeSean Jackson deep and Celek on a post or in and clear the flat for a late releasing McCoy. They direct snap to McCoy on occasion.
If you put McCoy in Peterson's shoes, he wouldn't be averaging 5ypc. Peterson can catch the ball, he's proven that now. He can do everything McCoy does. McCoy hasn't proven his value as a short yardage and goal line back.
What can McCoy do better than Peterson? Not "how is McCoy used more effectively than Peterson" or "how are McCoy's stats better than Peterson's?" What makes McCoy a better player than Adrian Peterson in terms of ability?
Last edited by Mr Anderson; 11-08-2011 at 09:52 AM.
11-08-2011, 11:19 AM #34
Those of you from the Barry Sanders years may recall how often the RB conversation of those times would shift to other RBs' being "The Best". Fact is, Barry was, but because he carried a crap ass Detroit team, other backs on glitzier teams would appear to overshadow him.
Fact is, AP is the best back in football right now. Hands down. No other back could do what he does facing the same level of adversity. If he played for a team with a legit passing attack, he's absolutely DESTROY opponents. Too bad our FO/HC can't seem to figure that out.
11-08-2011, 12:28 PM #35
11-09-2011, 06:37 AM #36
The preseason storyline that Peterson would thrive as a pass-catcher in Musgrave's new offense faded through the first seven games as the all-pro running back's receiving production dipped from previous seasons.
To be sure, Peterson does not have the best hands on the team, and he dropped several passes in preseason workouts.
"If at first you don't succeed, parachuting is not for you"
11-09-2011, 07:00 AM #37
I think we need a legit deep passing attack to get AD's production up. A lot of Favre's passes weren't deep & were in the zone that allowed teams to keep 8 men in the box more often. The key is to stretch them wide & deep & successfully complete passes to pull some of those players out of the box even more.
Lets also not forget that AD does not see 8 men in the box on all his carries like some here believe. Not 95% like MM is trying to sell. He doesn't even face 8 men in the box on the majority of his carries. So far this year he's faced 8 men in the box on 59 of 166 rushing attempts, which is 36% of his carries.
Last edited by singersp; 11-09-2011 at 07:09 AM.
"If at first you don't succeed, parachuting is not for you"
11-09-2011, 11:40 AM #38
Subjective argument and is up to the individual to decide who he thinks is best. Some folks relish a jack of all trade back that feeds their logical brain functions of more abilities is better. Others would like to see a back truly dominate as a rusher and then give some bonus points for catching and blocking (this would be me). Some would look at stats as being their benchmarks for their greatness scale and others like to use what their eyes see on the field and the impact he has on the game (this would be me).
If you want to have an argument and try to lay down "facts", then stats can be used to help your cause, even though most likely flawed (as are most stats in football). Doesn't make that person any more right than the guy that just simply states "AD is the best back in the NFL", if that's the way he feels. You can use polls, expert opinions or any other bullshit that you want. At the end of the day, it's about whatever you feel about a particular running back.
With that preamble, I think AD is the best back in football and I would take him over any other RB currently in the league and I don't care to lay down some stat filled, rationally perceived argument as to why that statement is fact. It's simply what my eyes see and my brain interprets when I watch that guy carry the rock.
11-09-2011, 01:54 PM #39
Chris Johnson had his best year with Vince Young at QB. Now with a Hasselback on his way to 4,000 yards he is having a bad year.
The Patriots averaged 4.4ypc in 08, without Tom Brady.
Not exactly sure how one effects the other, but it is not as simply as a great passing attack opens up the running game. If that were the case backs for the Colts, Patriots, Saints would be dominating the league.
11-09-2011, 03:05 PM #40
We had a long discussion on this before in an OL thread. For whatever reason, it seems very hard for teams that are effective in pass blocking to also be effective in run blocking and the same in reverse. I am clearly no expert, but it seems to me that they are very different techniques. With run blocking, you are firing off the snap and trying to move your opponent backwards or sideways. With pass blocking you are trying to hold your position and keep the guy in front of you. You practice one more than the other, you probably get better at it. With the fine line between good and bad in the NFL on any given play, I think it could be as simple as that. You can also throw the personnel involved, but just from watching the Vikings it seems we have been able to do well (at times) at one, but very seldom at both.
All that being said, a run oriented offense such as the Vikings, should certainly be able to benefit from an offense that stretches the field whether vertically or horizontally. As long as the Vikings stay focused on the run they should continue to excel in this area with a guy like AD in the backfield. Ponder's play appears to be helping AD, we'll see as the season unfolds if that continues to hold true.