Vikings' decision in '07 to look past Peterson's injury looks genius now
[size=13pt]Vikings' decision in '07 to look past Peterson's injury looks genius now[/size]
Steve Aschburner
sportsillustrated.cnn.com
Posted: Friday April 24, 2009 2:26PM; Updated: Friday April 24, 2009 4:10PM
Given the likelihood that Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson would be selected No. 1 overall, were the 2007 NFL draft rerun tomorrow, it hardly seems like much of a nail-biting, big-boy decision to grab him up with the seventh pick that year.....
Re: Vikings' decision in '07 to look past Peterson's injury looks genius now
Imagine if the lions would have got him. Then got crabtree this year that would be a scary tatum. I was sicced when we got Peterson regardless of his injuries
Re: Vikings' decision in '07 to look past Peterson's injury looks genius now
"duvaldomo" wrote:
Quote:
Imagine if the lions would have got him. Then got crabtree this year that would be a scary tatum. I was sicced when we got Peterson regardless of his injuries
If the Lions had Peterson, then they would most likely not be in position to draft Crabtree this year.
=Z=
Re: Vikings' decision in '07 to look past Peterson's injury looks genius now
Why? It as a collarbone injury. It wasn't a knee, back, elbow. Not a doctor but I never thought it was a career threatening
injury. The teams a head of us did not skip AD because he was injuried. All of the picks made were logical.
Jamarcus - Needed a QB
Johnson - Got the WR version of Peterson in the draft
Thomas - Took the Top OL in the draft ( the Peterson of the Oline)
Landry - Dominating safter and they already had Portist and Betts.
ETC
Re: Vikings' decision in '07 to look past Peterson's injury looks genius now
Draft days can really set up a team for years to come... whether it be good or bad
Re: Vikings' decision in '07 to look past Peterson's injury looks genius now
"kevoncox" wrote:
Quote:
Why? It as a collarbone injury. It wasn't a knee, back, elbow. Not a doctor but I never thought it was a career threatening
injury. The teams a head of us did not skip AD because he was injuried. All of the picks made were logical.
Jamarcus - Needed a QB
Johnson - Got the WR version of Peterson in the draft
Thomas - Took the Top OL in the draft ( the Peterson of the Oline)
Landry - Dominating safter and they already had Portist and Betts.
ETC
Comeon, the going in stance by most pundints were that we had CT. No way would they go RB especially one that was projected to miss a considerable amount of his rookie season IF the injury needed to be addressed (ala the plate).
Lest we forget. ::)
Re: Vikings' decision in '07 to look past Peterson's injury looks genius now
"Zeus" wrote:
Quote:
"duvaldomo" wrote:
Quote:
Imagine if the lions would have got him. Then got crabtree this year that would be a scary tatum. I was sicced when we got Peterson regardless of his injuries
If the Lions had Peterson, then they would most likely not be in position to draft Crabtree this year.
=Z=
True, I know they wouldnt have the 1st but I think crabtree will drop to about 8 and thats where i was thinking they would be. Little did we know peterson injuries was just saving our franchise. If he never got hurt I doubt he would have fell to 6 and I doubt we would be picking 22nd right now
Re: Vikings' decision in '07 to look past Peterson's injury looks genius now
"Marrdro" wrote:
Quote:
"kevoncox" wrote:
Quote:
Why? It as a collarbone injury. It wasn't a knee, back, elbow. Not a doctor but I never thought it was a career threatening
injury. The teams a head of us did not skip AD because he was injuried. All of the picks made were logical.
Jamarcus - Needed a QB
Johnson - Got the WR version of Peterson in the draft
Thomas - Took the Top OL in the draft ( the Peterson of the Oline)
Landry - Dominating safter and they already had Portist and Betts.
ETC
Comeon, the going in stance by most pundints were that we had CT. No way would they go RB especially one that was projected to miss a considerable amount of his rookie season IF the injury needed to be addressed (ala the plate).
Lest we forget. ::)
I wasn't on the site then and as we all know I'm not all pundints. If we didn't take him where did you expect him to go? He was a top ten talent and the number one talent in some people's mocks. His injury concerns were overstated and were trumpted up in the hopes that he slid to someone later in the first round.
Re: Vikings' decision in '07 to look past Peterson's injury looks genius now
"kevoncox" wrote:
Quote:
"Marrdro" wrote:
Quote:
"kevoncox" wrote:
Quote:
Why? It as a collarbone injury. It wasn't a knee, back, elbow. Not a doctor but I never thought it was a career threatening
injury. The teams a head of us did not skip AD because he was injuried. All of the picks made were logical.
Jamarcus - Needed a QB
Johnson - Got the WR version of Peterson in the draft
Thomas - Took the Top OL in the draft ( the Peterson of the Oline)
Landry - Dominating safter and they already had Portist and Betts.
ETC
Comeon, the going in stance by most pundints were that we had CT. No way would they go RB especially one that was projected to miss a considerable amount of his rookie season IF the injury needed to be addressed (ala the plate).
Lest we forget. ::)
I wasn't on the site then and as we all know I'm not all pundints. If we didn't take him where did you expect him to go? He was a top ten talent and the number one talent in some people's mocks. His injury concerns were overstated and were trumpted up in the hopes that he slid to someone later in the first round.
Not true.
Several doctors thought his collarbone wouldn't heal fully without putting a plate in it.
It was enough a concern that we had our own specialist check him out pre-draft.
Re: Vikings' decision in '07 to look past Peterson's injury looks genius now
Quote:
Vikings' decision in '09 to look past Harvin's smoking looks genius now
Next headline.
