PDA

View Full Version : How Vikings become dominant in 2010.



Prophet
02-01-2010, 01:49 PM
Coaches that need to be canned:

Brian Murphy, special teams coordinator
I am sick of the special teams giving up big gains at inopportune times. Screw Ferarro and now, screw Brian Murphy. Bring in Steve Crosby, the best in the business. Open up the checkbook, yet again, Zygi.

Pat Morris, offensive line and his assistant, Jim Hueber, time to walk the plank. I am also sick of an underachieving offensive line. They look great at times and mediocre at other times. A solid coach can shore things up. Fork out the coin for the best o-line coach, ever, Mike Munchak. He is known for bringing in ‘no-names’ and teaching them to perform at high levels.

Eric Bieniemy, running backs coach. I am also sick of the Adrian Peterson crotch sniffers. A good RB can run the ball, block, and catch out of the backfield. Up until this year Peterson could only do one of those things effectively, and , even not that so well if you factor in fumbles. If Adrian Peterson is going to be a solid asset on the team his last gasp will be at having a sound RB coach. Hire Ollie Wilson who is known for teaching people how to handle the ball and run the ball with attitude.

Players that need to turn in their colors:

Bryant McKinnie. Seriously, what an asshat. A holdover from the Meathead era that is known for the loveboat, a pole-pounding episode, and now disgracing the Vikings by getting kicked off the pro bowl team (not that he ever deserved to be on it). He had some street value and it just decreased again this past weekend, thanks McKinnie, you fat, lazy SOB. Fuck you McKinnie, you are a pussy. Who will replace him? See Mike Munchak, above. Even though McKinnie is a waste of flesh, he still has some street value, anything would be worth it as long as he no longer wears my team’s colors.

Naufahu Tahi. I cannot buy into him being a serviceable FB. Whiffer. FBs are relatively inexpensive and he is replaceable.

Adrian Peterson Adrian Peterson has street value. Package him up and go after a QB that has franchise possibilities. My belief is that if you have a good offensive line and QB then the WRs and RBs are a dime-a-dozen and stars will be made.

Get rid of those four coaches and those three players with accompanying transactions and the team is ready to roll in 2010.

Brazilian Rider
02-01-2010, 01:55 PM
@McKinnie: Maybe he got kicked out of the Pro Bowl on purpose so we WOULDN'T trade him? He might be pretty smart... :silly:

@Tahi: Get rid of him, no more 12 men.

@Peterson: He's at least gonna get another year, if not, can him. This is a lot coming from me considering Peterson is my favorite player... Starting to doubt him recently...

XTAP59
02-01-2010, 02:12 PM
And hire a guy who can remind Childress of the clock ticking away.

KevinK
02-01-2010, 03:46 PM
We are not gonna give up Peterson. He is still the best RB in the NFC. Not saying he doesnt need major improvements. But lets get real.

SharperImage
02-01-2010, 03:56 PM
LOL Can Peterson? g3t the fack outta here. He has the tiki barber syndrome. We will fix it and he and tjack will rip it up in 2010

HEY
02-01-2010, 04:06 PM
Interesting post, Prophet!

The special teams played much better this season than last season, but then again, it couldn't get any worse. Last season's special teams play was embarrassing, but it looked good this season.

Question is: What caused the special teams to improve this much? Was it the new special teams coordinator? Was it the maturing of young players like Frampton and Abdullah? Or perhaps the return of special teams leader, and recently Pro Bowler, Heath Farwell?

As for the offensive line, I'm impressed by the pass blocking (except from a few games) and very disappointed by the run blocking. The line seemed to get a much better push two seasons ago. Something is wrong and it needs to be fixed!

I honestly think that Adrian Peterson could also rush for 2000 yards with Titans running back Chris Johnson's linemen. I even think that A.D. could have rushed for 2000 yards in his rookie season if he started right away and got as many snaps as Johnson.

Rockmolder
02-01-2010, 04:24 PM
SharperImage wrote:

LOL Can Peterson? g3t the fack outta here. He has the tiki barber syndrome. We will fix it and he and tjack will rip it up in 2010

From what I'm getting, he doesn't want to can Peterson, he wants to trade him for a franchise QB. Maybe throw in a pick or two.

I can only agree with Prophet here. This league is about passing offense and defense.

A good RB is a great asset, but usually won't carry your franchise to greatness. A great defense and passing attack will.

If I where a Vikings fan and I saw that Peterson, a 2nd and a 3rd where traded for Schaub, I'd be thrilled. Especially since you have a very solid alternative on your bench and you can get a very decent back with the 30th pick this year.

mad-dog_six-eight
02-01-2010, 05:14 PM
Rockmolder wrote:

SharperImage wrote:

LOL Can Peterson? g3t the fack outta here. He has the tiki barber syndrome. We will fix it and he and tjack will rip it up in 2010

From what I'm getting, he doesn't want to can Peterson, he wants to trade him for a franchise QB. Maybe throw in a pick or two.

I can only agree with Prophet here. This league is about passing offense and defense.

A good RB is a great asset, but usually won't carry your franchise to greatness. A great defense and passing attack will.

If I where a Vikings fan and I saw that Peterson, a 2nd and a 3rd where traded for Schaub, I'd be thrilled. Especially since you have a very solid alternative on your bench and you can get a very decent back with the 30th pick this year.

Did you seriously say that we should trade away ADRIAN PETERSON plus a few picks for a guy like Matt Schaub???
Adrian Peterson is still the best running back in the National Football League and i dont care what you have to say about it.

i agree that the vikings need a franchise quarterback, but Adrian Peterson is the best player on the team.
Getting rid of him is not the solution. he wasnt the reason the vikings lost the NFC championship, i would say that percy's fumble and Brett's interception put the game in more jeopardy than adrian.

just because he had one "bad" year, 1,383 yards, 4.4 average, 18 rushing touchdowns. you guys are ready to drop him like a carton of rotten eggs.

this is just the alcohol talking cuz your still drunk from the NFC championship loss.

NodakPaul
02-01-2010, 05:59 PM
mad-dog_six-eight wrote:

Rockmolder wrote:

SharperImage wrote:

LOL Can Peterson? g3t the fack outta here. He has the tiki barber syndrome. We will fix it and he and tjack will rip it up in 2010

From what I'm getting, he doesn't want to can Peterson, he wants to trade him for a franchise QB. Maybe throw in a pick or two.

I can only agree with Prophet here. This league is about passing offense and defense.

A good RB is a great asset, but usually won't carry your franchise to greatness. A great defense and passing attack will.

If I where a Vikings fan and I saw that Peterson, a 2nd and a 3rd where traded for Schaub, I'd be thrilled. Especially since you have a very solid alternative on your bench and you can get a very decent back with the 30th pick this year.

Did you seriously say that we should trade away ADRIAN PETERSON plus a few picks for a guy like Matt Schaub???
Adrian Peterson is still the best running back in the National Football League and i dont care what you have to say about it.

i agree that the vikings need a franchise quarterback, but Adrian Peterson is the best player on the team.
Getting rid of him is not the solution. he wasnt the reason the vikings lost the NFC championship, i would say that percy's fumble and Brett's interception put the game in more jeopardy than adrian.

just because he had one "bad" year, 1,383 yards, 4.4 average, 18 rushing touchdowns. you guys are ready to drop him like a carton of rotten eggs.

this is just the alcohol talking cuz your still drunk from the NFC championship loss.

First, AD is not the best RB in the NFL. Sorry, but it is thr truth. One of the top five, sure. But he isn't the best, primarily because of his fumbling issues. If he can correct that, then he will once again be the best.

With that being said, if the powers that be decided to trade AD for a franchise QB and two day one picks - I would be fairly excited. Face it, we have a very good option in Chester Taylor, and Favre showed us this year that a decent QB can make this a pass first team.

I don't see it happening though. Not now, with the Vikings needing all the public support they can get during their stadium push.

ejmat
02-01-2010, 06:49 PM
I like what Prophet has to say here. Trading McKinnie is a good idea regardless of what they get. Hicks has filled in and does a decent job. I will tell you this. He is more consistent than McKinnie. Oh yeah, he can also block speed rushers better than McKinnie. He is not as good at run blocking however.

AP- I have said for a while now that trading AP would be a good move ONLY if they can sure up the QB position and another question. A QB like Schaub (who I wanted before he went to Houston) and two first day picks wouldn't be bad at all. I know CT can carry the load and when it comes down to it is more consistent than AP imo. He at least gets positive yards most of the time he touches the ball. If AP would stop dropping the ball I would never think of trading him but the fact he does and cannot seem to correct it is a problem. I do agree with NP that it will never happen especially if they are pushing for a new stadium.

I don't know if I agree with firing the ST coach. I think they did pretty good for the most part this year although they do need to tighten up in crucial times.

oaklandzoo24
02-01-2010, 07:33 PM
ejmat wrote:

I like what Prophet has to say here. Trading McKinnie is a good idea regardless of what they get. Hicks has filled in and does a decent job. I will tell you this. He is more consistent than McKinnie. Oh yeah, he can also block speed rushers better than McKinnie. He is not as good at run blocking however.

AP- I have said for a while now that trading AP would be a good move ONLY if they can sure up the QB position and another question. A QB like Schaub (who I wanted before he went to Houston) and two first day picks wouldn't be bad at all. I know CT can carry the load and when it comes down to it is more consistent than AP imo. He at least gets positive yards most of the time he touches the ball. If AP would stop dropping the ball I would never think of trading him but the fact he does and cannot seem to correct it is a problem. I do agree with NP that it will never happen especially if they are pushing for a new stadium.

I don't know if I agree with firing the ST coach. I think they did pretty good for the most part this year although they do need to tighten up in crucial times.

If we could get Schaub and 2 1st day picks I would be totally down for that. I highly doubt we would get that big of an offer though considering the value of a QB v. a RB. RBs tend to burnout very fast. Their best years are typically within the first 5 of their careers. Once they take a beating and breakdown a bit, their value diminishes rather quickly. Given ADs fumbilitis, I think his value already has dropped considerably. The RBs main job is to hang on to the ball and he has yet to show that he can consistently do that. I do think AD will improve next year though given the events in the playoffs. I think he knows that if we want to get over the hump, protecting the rock is a must and he does not want to let his teammates down anymore.

Not to mention there are plenty more RBs capable of facilitating a starting franchise RB position but there are few and far between possible franchise QBs.

jmcdon00
02-01-2010, 07:35 PM
I don't think getting rid of Peterson is a good idea. Chester Taylor is good at his role but he is not even close to the game breaker AD is. Look at the facts.

In 2007 Peterson averaged 5.6ypa. Taylor 5.4.
In 2008 Peterson averaged 4.8ypa. Taylor 4.0.
In 2009 Peterson averaged 4.4ypa. Taylro 3.6.

Over last 3 years:
Peterson fumbled 20 times on 915attempts. 1 in 45.75
Taylor fumbled 9 times on 352attempts. 1 in 39.11

Peterson had more recieving yards in 2009 than Taylor has had in any single year of his career.

Peterson had a higher yds per reception(10.1) in 09 than Taylor has had in any year of his career.

Petersons career yards per reception is 10.0, Taylor 7.9.

Peterson 24years old, Taylor 30 Years old.

If we were in a rebuilding year I would say shop Peterson, but we are in win now mode. Outside of a Hershal Walker type trade I say keep Peterson.

ejmat
02-01-2010, 08:08 PM
jmcdon00 wrote:

I don't think getting rid of Peterson is a good idea. Chester Taylor is good at his role but he is not even close to the game breaker AD is. Look at the facts.

In 2007 Peterson averaged 5.6ypa. Taylor 5.4.
In 2008 Peterson averaged 4.8ypa. Taylor 4.0.
In 2009 Peterson averaged 4.4ypa. Taylro 3.6.

Over last 3 years:
Peterson fumbled 20 times on 915attempts. 1 in 45.75
Taylor fumbled 9 times on 352attempts. 1 in 39.11

Peterson had more recieving yards in 2009 than Taylor has had in any single year of his career.

Peterson had a higher yds per reception(10.1) in 09 than Taylor has had in any year of his career.

Petersons career yards per reception is 10.0, Taylor 7.9.

Peterson 24years old, Taylor 30 Years old.

If we were in a rebuilding year I would say shop Peterson, but we are in win now mode. Outside of a Hershal Walker type trade I say keep Peterson.

You make some great points. Especially the one about win now mode. It would be difficult to get decent value for AP. Schaub, Slaton and a 4th maybe. It's hard to be unbiased thinking about what he is worth. The problem with AP is his fumbling. I could put up with the missed blocks some times. He definitely improved coming out of the backfield. Still not great but improved. Taylor ful time is a pretty good back but the fact he is 30 is an issue. I like CT and I still believe at their stages in their careers CT is the better all purpose back. But AP is a great runner but he just needs to stay focused. I would be totally okay with suring up the QB position and getting extra picks. But it really would have to be worth it.

NodakPaul
02-01-2010, 09:00 PM
jmcdon00 wrote:

I don't think getting rid of Peterson is a good idea. Chester Taylor is good at his role but he is not even close to the game breaker AD is. Look at the facts.

In 2007 Peterson averaged 5.6ypa. Taylor 5.4.
In 2008 Peterson averaged 4.8ypa. Taylor 4.0.
In 2009 Peterson averaged 4.4ypa. Taylro 3.6.

Over last 3 years:
Peterson fumbled 20 times on 915attempts. 1 in 45.75
Taylor fumbled 9 times on 352attempts. 1 in 39.11

Peterson had more recieving yards in 2009 than Taylor has had in any single year of his career.

Peterson had a higher yds per reception(10.1) in 09 than Taylor has had in any year of his career.

Petersons career yards per reception is 10.0, Taylor 7.9.

Peterson 24years old, Taylor 30 Years old.

If we were in a rebuilding year I would say shop Peterson, but we are in win now mode. Outside of a Hershal Walker type trade I say keep Peterson.

Those are very good points.

Don't get me wrong - I think AD is great. Not the best RB in the NFL, but still very good. I didn't realize the disparity in the stats between Taylor and Peterson until you posted them though.

jmcdon00
02-01-2010, 10:57 PM
ejmat wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:

I don't think getting rid of Peterson is a good idea. Chester Taylor is good at his role but he is not even close to the game breaker AD is. Look at the facts.

In 2007 Peterson averaged 5.6ypa. Taylor 5.4.
In 2008 Peterson averaged 4.8ypa. Taylor 4.0.
In 2009 Peterson averaged 4.4ypa. Taylro 3.6.

Over last 3 years:
Peterson fumbled 20 times on 915attempts. 1 in 45.75
Taylor fumbled 9 times on 352attempts. 1 in 39.11

Peterson had more recieving yards in 2009 than Taylor has had in any single year of his career.

Peterson had a higher yds per reception(10.1) in 09 than Taylor has had in any year of his career.

Petersons career yards per reception is 10.0, Taylor 7.9.

Peterson 24years old, Taylor 30 Years old.

If we were in a rebuilding year I would say shop Peterson, but we are in win now mode. Outside of a Hershal Walker type trade I say keep Peterson.

You make some great points. Especially the one about win now mode. It would be difficult to get decent value for AP. Schaub, Slaton and a 4th maybe. It's hard to be unbiased thinking about what he is worth. The problem with AP is his fumbling. I could put up with the missed blocks some times. He definitely improved coming out of the backfield. Still not great but improved. Taylor ful time is a pretty good back but the fact he is 30 is an issue. I like CT and I still believe at their stages in their careers CT is the better all purpose back. But AP is a great runner but he just needs to stay focused. I would be totally okay with suring up the QB position and getting extra picks. But it really would have to be worth it.
I did throw a stat in there about fumbles.
I'm really not that worried about Petersons fumbles. I'm guessing Peterson has fewer fumbles in 2010 than 2009. Just a gut feeling.

Midge Resurrected
02-02-2010, 12:45 AM
ejmat wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:

I don't think getting rid of Peterson is a good idea. Chester Taylor is good at his role but he is not even close to the game breaker AD is. Look at the facts.

In 2007 Peterson averaged 5.6ypa. Taylor 5.4.
In 2008 Peterson averaged 4.8ypa. Taylor 4.0.
In 2009 Peterson averaged 4.4ypa. Taylro 3.6.

Over last 3 years:
Peterson fumbled 20 times on 915attempts. 1 in 45.75
Taylor fumbled 9 times on 352attempts. 1 in 39.11

Peterson had more recieving yards in 2009 than Taylor has had in any single year of his career.

Peterson had a higher yds per reception(10.1) in 09 than Taylor has had in any year of his career.

Petersons career yards per reception is 10.0, Taylor 7.9.

Peterson 24years old, Taylor 30 Years old.

If we were in a rebuilding year I would say shop Peterson, but we are in win now mode. Outside of a Hershal Walker type trade I say keep Peterson.

You make some great points. Especially the one about win now mode. It would be difficult to get decent value for AP. Schaub, Slaton and a 4th maybe. It's hard to be unbiased thinking about what he is worth. The problem with AP is his fumbling. I could put up with the missed blocks some times. He definitely improved coming out of the backfield. Still not great but improved. Taylor ful time is a pretty good back but the fact he is 30 is an issue. I like CT and I still believe at their stages in their careers CT is the better all purpose back. But AP is a great runner but he just needs to stay focused. I would be totally okay with suring up the QB position and getting extra picks. But it really would have to be worth it.

The problem with AD is fumbling and you would be willing to bring Slaton aboard? Slaton fumbles WAY more often than AD.

Doh ...

ejmat
02-02-2010, 06:29 AM
Midge Resurrected wrote:

ejmat wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:

I don't think getting rid of Peterson is a good idea. Chester Taylor is good at his role but he is not even close to the game breaker AD is. Look at the facts.

In 2007 Peterson averaged 5.6ypa. Taylor 5.4.
In 2008 Peterson averaged 4.8ypa. Taylor 4.0.
In 2009 Peterson averaged 4.4ypa. Taylro 3.6.

Over last 3 years:
Peterson fumbled 20 times on 915attempts. 1 in 45.75
Taylor fumbled 9 times on 352attempts. 1 in 39.11

Peterson had more recieving yards in 2009 than Taylor has had in any single year of his career.

Peterson had a higher yds per reception(10.1) in 09 than Taylor has had in any year of his career.

Petersons career yards per reception is 10.0, Taylor 7.9.

Peterson 24years old, Taylor 30 Years old.

If we were in a rebuilding year I would say shop Peterson, but we are in win now mode. Outside of a Hershal Walker type trade I say keep Peterson.

You make some great points. Especially the one about win now mode. It would be difficult to get decent value for AP. Schaub, Slaton and a 4th maybe. It's hard to be unbiased thinking about what he is worth. The problem with AP is his fumbling. I could put up with the missed blocks some times. He definitely improved coming out of the backfield. Still not great but improved. Taylor ful time is a pretty good back but the fact he is 30 is an issue. I like CT and I still believe at their stages in their careers CT is the better all purpose back. But AP is a great runner but he just needs to stay focused. I would be totally okay with suring up the QB position and getting extra picks. But it really would have to be worth it.

The problem with AD is fumbling and you would be willing to bring Slaton aboard? Slaton fumbles WAY more often than AD.

Doh ...

That is true but Slaton wouldn't be the #1 back. It would be Chester. You have to make a trade fair. That is the only reason why I included him. I don't think anyone would give up a franchise QB and two 1st day picks.

ejmat
02-02-2010, 06:30 AM
jmcdon00 wrote:

ejmat wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:

I don't think getting rid of Peterson is a good idea. Chester Taylor is good at his role but he is not even close to the game breaker AD is. Look at the facts.

In 2007 Peterson averaged 5.6ypa. Taylor 5.4.
In 2008 Peterson averaged 4.8ypa. Taylor 4.0.
In 2009 Peterson averaged 4.4ypa. Taylro 3.6.

Over last 3 years:
Peterson fumbled 20 times on 915attempts. 1 in 45.75
Taylor fumbled 9 times on 352attempts. 1 in 39.11

Peterson had more recieving yards in 2009 than Taylor has had in any single year of his career.

Peterson had a higher yds per reception(10.1) in 09 than Taylor has had in any year of his career.

Petersons career yards per reception is 10.0, Taylor 7.9.

Peterson 24years old, Taylor 30 Years old.

If we were in a rebuilding year I would say shop Peterson, but we are in win now mode. Outside of a Hershal Walker type trade I say keep Peterson.

You make some great points. Especially the one about win now mode. It would be difficult to get decent value for AP. Schaub, Slaton and a 4th maybe. It's hard to be unbiased thinking about what he is worth. The problem with AP is his fumbling. I could put up with the missed blocks some times. He definitely improved coming out of the backfield. Still not great but improved. Taylor ful time is a pretty good back but the fact he is 30 is an issue. I like CT and I still believe at their stages in their careers CT is the better all purpose back. But AP is a great runner but he just needs to stay focused. I would be totally okay with suring up the QB position and getting extra picks. But it really would have to be worth it.
I did throw a stat in there about fumbles.
I'm really not that worried about Petersons fumbles. I'm guessing Peterson has fewer fumbles in 2010 than 2009. Just a gut feeling.

We can only hope. It is sick to know how good this kid could be if it weren't for the fumbling.

NodakPaul
02-02-2010, 07:49 AM
jmcdon00 wrote:

ejmat wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:

I don't think getting rid of Peterson is a good idea. Chester Taylor is good at his role but he is not even close to the game breaker AD is. Look at the facts.

In 2007 Peterson averaged 5.6ypa. Taylor 5.4.
In 2008 Peterson averaged 4.8ypa. Taylor 4.0.
In 2009 Peterson averaged 4.4ypa. Taylro 3.6.

Over last 3 years:
Peterson fumbled 20 times on 915attempts. 1 in 45.75
Taylor fumbled 9 times on 352attempts. 1 in 39.11

Peterson had more recieving yards in 2009 than Taylor has had in any single year of his career.

Peterson had a higher yds per reception(10.1) in 09 than Taylor has had in any year of his career.

Petersons career yards per reception is 10.0, Taylor 7.9.

Peterson 24years old, Taylor 30 Years old.

If we were in a rebuilding year I would say shop Peterson, but we are in win now mode. Outside of a Hershal Walker type trade I say keep Peterson.

You make some great points. Especially the one about win now mode. It would be difficult to get decent value for AP. Schaub, Slaton and a 4th maybe. It's hard to be unbiased thinking about what he is worth. The problem with AP is his fumbling. I could put up with the missed blocks some times. He definitely improved coming out of the backfield. Still not great but improved. Taylor ful time is a pretty good back but the fact he is 30 is an issue. I like CT and I still believe at their stages in their careers CT is the better all purpose back. But AP is a great runner but he just needs to stay focused. I would be totally okay with suring up the QB position and getting extra picks. But it really would have to be worth it.
I did throw a stat in there about fumbles.
I'm really not that worried about Petersons fumbles. I'm guessing Peterson has fewer fumbles in 2010 than 2009. Just a gut feeling.

Man I hope so.

Last year many said that he needed to work on his receiving and pass blocking skills in order to become a more complete back. He did, and I was very impressed with they way that he transitioned into a strong part of the passing game. The only major crutch that he has left is his fumbles, which were bad in 2008 and got worse in 2009. But that is also a very hard thing to fix. First, he has to alter the mechanics of his running, so that he carries the ball closer to his body. Second, and probably even harder, is he needs to shake the label of a fumbler. Every defender he encounters from this point out will be trying to strip the ball from him.

Mark_The_Viking
02-02-2010, 07:54 AM
I agree regarding fixing the fumbilitis but to talk about trading him is just stupid

VikingMike
02-02-2010, 08:13 AM
oaklandzoo24 wrote:

ejmat wrote:

I like what Prophet has to say here. Trading McKinnie is a good idea regardless of what they get. Hicks has filled in and does a decent job. I will tell you this. He is more consistent than McKinnie. Oh yeah, he can also block speed rushers better than McKinnie. He is not as good at run blocking however.

AP- I have said for a while now that trading AP would be a good move ONLY if they can sure up the QB position and another question. A QB like Schaub (who I wanted before he went to Houston) and two first day picks wouldn't be bad at all. I know CT can carry the load and when it comes down to it is more consistent than AP imo. He at least gets positive yards most of the time he touches the ball. If AP would stop dropping the ball I would never think of trading him but the fact he does and cannot seem to correct it is a problem. I do agree with NP that it will never happen especially if they are pushing for a new stadium.

I don't know if I agree with firing the ST coach. I think they did pretty good for the most part this year although they do need to tighten up in crucial times.

If we could get Schaub and 2 1st day picks I would be totally down for that. I highly doubt we would get that big of an offer though considering the value of a QB v. a RB. RBs tend to burnout very fast. Their best years are typically within the first 5 of their careers. Once they take a beating and breakdown a bit, their value diminishes rather quickly. Given ADs fumbilitis, I think his value already has dropped considerably. The RBs main job is to hang on to the ball and he has yet to show that he can consistently do that. I do think AD will improve next year though given the events in the playoffs. I think he knows that if we want to get over the hump, protecting the rock is a must and he does not want to let his teammates down anymore.

Not to mention there are plenty more RBs capable of facilitating a starting franchise RB position but there are few and far between possible franchise QBs.


That's correct...we will never get a quality QB and picks for AD. More like the other way around, we'd have to give AD and picks for a proven QB.

jmcdon00
02-02-2010, 09:09 AM
NodakPaul wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:

ejmat wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:

I don't think getting rid of Peterson is a good idea. Chester Taylor is good at his role but he is not even close to the game breaker AD is. Look at the facts.

In 2007 Peterson averaged 5.6ypa. Taylor 5.4.
In 2008 Peterson averaged 4.8ypa. Taylor 4.0.
In 2009 Peterson averaged 4.4ypa. Taylro 3.6.

Over last 3 years:
Peterson fumbled 20 times on 915attempts. 1 in 45.75
Taylor fumbled 9 times on 352attempts. 1 in 39.11

Peterson had more recieving yards in 2009 than Taylor has had in any single year of his career.

Peterson had a higher yds per reception(10.1) in 09 than Taylor has had in any year of his career.

Petersons career yards per reception is 10.0, Taylor 7.9.

Peterson 24years old, Taylor 30 Years old.

If we were in a rebuilding year I would say shop Peterson, but we are in win now mode. Outside of a Hershal Walker type trade I say keep Peterson.

You make some great points. Especially the one about win now mode. It would be difficult to get decent value for AP. Schaub, Slaton and a 4th maybe. It's hard to be unbiased thinking about what he is worth. The problem with AP is his fumbling. I could put up with the missed blocks some times. He definitely improved coming out of the backfield. Still not great but improved. Taylor ful time is a pretty good back but the fact he is 30 is an issue. I like CT and I still believe at their stages in their careers CT is the better all purpose back. But AP is a great runner but he just needs to stay focused. I would be totally okay with suring up the QB position and getting extra picks. But it really would have to be worth it.
I did throw a stat in there about fumbles.
I'm really not that worried about Petersons fumbles. I'm guessing Peterson has fewer fumbles in 2010 than 2009. Just a gut feeling.

Man I hope so.

Last year many said that he needed to work on his receiving and pass blocking skills in order to become a more complete back. He did, and I was very impressed with they way that he transitioned into a strong part of the passing game. The only major crutch that he has left is his fumbles, which were bad in 2008 and got worse in 2009. But that is also a very hard thing to fix. First, he has to alter the mechanics of his running, so that he carries the ball closer to his body. Second, and probably even harder, is he needs to shake the label of a fumbler. Every defender he encounters from this point out will be trying to strip the ball from him.
The facts say he improved his fumbling in 09. He had 9 in 08 7 in 09. The difference was that he only lost 4 of 9 in 08 and he lost 6 of 7 in 09. That tells me that in 08 he got more lucky bounces.
It's definetly an area to work on, but it's not the collossal problem it is being made out to be. Did you see the stat that points out Tayler actually fumbles more frequently?

jmcdon00
02-02-2010, 09:10 AM
ejmat wrote:

Midge Resurrected wrote:

ejmat wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:

I don't think getting rid of Peterson is a good idea. Chester Taylor is good at his role but he is not even close to the game breaker AD is. Look at the facts.

In 2007 Peterson averaged 5.6ypa. Taylor 5.4.
In 2008 Peterson averaged 4.8ypa. Taylor 4.0.
In 2009 Peterson averaged 4.4ypa. Taylro 3.6.

Over last 3 years:
Peterson fumbled 20 times on 915attempts. 1 in 45.75
Taylor fumbled 9 times on 352attempts. 1 in 39.11

Peterson had more recieving yards in 2009 than Taylor has had in any single year of his career.

Peterson had a higher yds per reception(10.1) in 09 than Taylor has had in any year of his career.

Petersons career yards per reception is 10.0, Taylor 7.9.

Peterson 24years old, Taylor 30 Years old.

If we were in a rebuilding year I would say shop Peterson, but we are in win now mode. Outside of a Hershal Walker type trade I say keep Peterson.

You make some great points. Especially the one about win now mode. It would be difficult to get decent value for AP. Schaub, Slaton and a 4th maybe. It's hard to be unbiased thinking about what he is worth. The problem with AP is his fumbling. I could put up with the missed blocks some times. He definitely improved coming out of the backfield. Still not great but improved. Taylor ful time is a pretty good back but the fact he is 30 is an issue. I like CT and I still believe at their stages in their careers CT is the better all purpose back. But AP is a great runner but he just needs to stay focused. I would be totally okay with suring up the QB position and getting extra picks. But it really would have to be worth it.

The problem with AD is fumbling and you would be willing to bring Slaton aboard? Slaton fumbles WAY more often than AD.

Doh ...

That is true but Slaton wouldn't be the #1 back. It would be Chester. You have to make a trade fair. That is the only reason why I included him. I don't think anyone would give up a franchise QB and two 1st day picks.
Except Taylor fumbles more often than Peterson too.

ejmat
02-02-2010, 09:46 AM
jmcdon00 wrote:

ejmat wrote:

Midge Resurrected wrote:

ejmat wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:

I don't think getting rid of Peterson is a good idea. Chester Taylor is good at his role but he is not even close to the game breaker AD is. Look at the facts.

In 2007 Peterson averaged 5.6ypa. Taylor 5.4.
In 2008 Peterson averaged 4.8ypa. Taylor 4.0.
In 2009 Peterson averaged 4.4ypa. Taylro 3.6.

Over last 3 years:
Peterson fumbled 20 times on 915attempts. 1 in 45.75
Taylor fumbled 9 times on 352attempts. 1 in 39.11

Peterson had more recieving yards in 2009 than Taylor has had in any single year of his career.

Peterson had a higher yds per reception(10.1) in 09 than Taylor has had in any year of his career.

Petersons career yards per reception is 10.0, Taylor 7.9.

Peterson 24years old, Taylor 30 Years old.

If we were in a rebuilding year I would say shop Peterson, but we are in win now mode. Outside of a Hershal Walker type trade I say keep Peterson.

You make some great points. Especially the one about win now mode. It would be difficult to get decent value for AP. Schaub, Slaton and a 4th maybe. It's hard to be unbiased thinking about what he is worth. The problem with AP is his fumbling. I could put up with the missed blocks some times. He definitely improved coming out of the backfield. Still not great but improved. Taylor ful time is a pretty good back but the fact he is 30 is an issue. I like CT and I still believe at their stages in their careers CT is the better all purpose back. But AP is a great runner but he just needs to stay focused. I would be totally okay with suring up the QB position and getting extra picks. But it really would have to be worth it.

The problem with AD is fumbling and you would be willing to bring Slaton aboard? Slaton fumbles WAY more often than AD.

Doh ...

That is true but Slaton wouldn't be the #1 back. It would be Chester. You have to make a trade fair. That is the only reason why I included him. I don't think anyone would give up a franchise QB and two 1st day picks.
Except Taylor fumbles more often than Peterson too.

It all depends how you look at it. He does on a percentage basis but before this year Taylor fumbled at a lessor rate than AP. After this year APs carries have gone up significantly whereas CTs hasn't. But the fact remains AP does fumble at a lessor rate now. I still believe (hard to prove either way) that CT is more consistent than AP. I think CT provides a more consistent yard per carry (median instead of mean) (ex: 3,4,5,2,15, etc...) where AP isn't so consistent (ex: 1,2,0,4,-2,5,40,etc...). Of course I could be wrong though.

IMO there are other factors.
1) How many TDs does CT have receiving compared to AP? CT has 6 to APs 1.
2) CT is also just as capable of busting one to the house. Just for kicks CT has a 95 yard and an 84 yard run. AP's longest is 73. Not to take away APs two games of 200 yard rushing games that are simply phenominal.
3) AP definitely scores more TDs than Chester however 18 (almost half were this year) and most were for less than 3 yards. A TD is a TD though.

Fact is they are both darn good backs. CT is just as capable of doing well and truth be told never had the opportunity to play as a starter with a great QB. So I think that can be factored in too. AP is a beast. I love his tenacity. Unfortunately his tenacity in fighting for the extra (not needed) yard is what gets him in trouble and causes most of his fumbling.

AP still has problems blocking. Even though he has improved coming out of the backfield he still isn't as smooth as CT is imo. CT looks natural wheare AP struggles. Just my observation though. I totally give AP the credit of being the better runner but again CT is just as capable of taking the ball to the house at any given time.

Prophet
02-02-2010, 09:48 AM
I probably did not express my point succinctly or coherently enough. The bottom-line:

Get a new o-line coaching staff, get rid of the cancer on the line, shop an RB with street value for a potential franchise QB. My underlying philosophy and belief is that if you have a good 0-line and QB then the WRs and RBs will be successful, regardless of their current name recognition. It's as simple as that.

ejmat
02-02-2010, 09:52 AM
Prophet wrote:

I probably did not express my point succinctly or coherently enough. The bottom-line:

Get a new o-line coaching staff, get rid of the cancer on the line, shop an RB with street value for a potential franchise QB. My underlying philosophy and belief is that if you have a good 0-line and QB then the WRs and RBs will be successful, regardless of their current name recognition. It's as simple as that.

I got that from your post. It makes total sense to me.

Zeus
02-02-2010, 09:55 AM
Prophet wrote:

I probably did not express my point succinctly or coherently enough. The bottom-line:

Get a new o-line coaching staff, get rid of the cancer on the line, shop an RB with street value for a potential franchise QB. My underlying philosophy and belief is that if you have a good 0-line and QB then the WRs and RBs will be successful, regardless of their current name recognition. It's as simple as that.

Outside of firing the O-line coaches, all of your wants require that there be a willing partner in another team that wants what we're selling.

Who's going to trade us their "potential franchise QB" for AD? Toss out a team or two who you think has that asset and would be willing to trade it. I don't think there are any. QB careers last 10+ years. RB careers are (typically) much shorter.

And who the hell is going to want McKinnie?

=Z=

Prophet
02-02-2010, 10:04 AM
Zeus wrote:

Prophet wrote:

I probably did not express my point succinctly or coherently enough. The bottom-line:

Get a new o-line coaching staff, get rid of the cancer on the line, shop an RB with street value for a potential franchise QB. My underlying philosophy and belief is that if you have a good 0-line and QB then the WRs and RBs will be successful, regardless of their current name recognition. It's as simple as that.

Outside of firing the O-line coaches, all of your wants require that there be a willing partner in another team that wants what we're selling.

Who's going to trade us their "potential franchise QB" for AD? Toss out a team or two who you think has that asset and would be willing to trade it. I don't think there are any. QB careers last 10+ years. RB careers are (typically) much shorter.

And who the hell is going to want McKinnie?

=Z=

I like my recommendation for the new o-line coach, a lot. You can't know the possibilities unless you look. I'm sure there are mutually beneficial situations where they could get a decent QB for the "best" RB in the game. I'm not talking a Herschel Walker trade (unless it's in our favor...which I doubt will ever happen again), just a reasonable shopping around. Contrary to the average fanatic's delusions, the coaching staff throws ideas around all the time that make the team better. It's always about the team and not an individual player in the NFL. Yes, RBs life spans in the NFL are short, that's why the bargaining power is high now, and, you will need some bargaining power if you want a chance at getting a decent QB when the pickings are slim. Sure, you will risk losing some of the crotch-sniffer fans that can't look past the individual, but, who cares. The fans that are able to think critically, which usually have a much larger bank roll than those that don't anyway, will be on-board if the team is improved.

Who would want Ron Mexico? McKinnie is an ass with skills and there would be a team that would want him if the price is right. In his case if the team gets any picks and compensation with young talent it is worth it. People like him are a cancer on the team.

Zeus
02-02-2010, 10:12 AM
Prophet wrote:

Zeus wrote:

Prophet wrote:

I probably did not express my point succinctly or coherently enough. The bottom-line:

Get a new o-line coaching staff, get rid of the cancer on the line, shop an RB with street value for a potential franchise QB. My underlying philosophy and belief is that if you have a good 0-line and QB then the WRs and RBs will be successful, regardless of their current name recognition. It's as simple as that.

Outside of firing the O-line coaches, all of your wants require that there be a willing partner in another team that wants what we're selling.

Who's going to trade us their "potential franchise QB" for AD? Toss out a team or two who you think has that asset and would be willing to trade it. I don't think there are any. QB careers last 10+ years. RB careers are (typically) much shorter.

And who the hell is going to want McKinnie?

=Z=

I like my recommendation for the new o-line coach, a lot. You can't know the possibilities unless you look. I'm sure there are mutually beneficial situations where they could get a decent QB for the "best" RB in the game. I'm not talking a Herschel Walker trade (unless it's in our favor...which I doubt will ever happen again), just a reasonable shopping around. Contrary to the average fanatic's delusions, the coaching staff throws ideas around all the time that make the team better. It's always about the team and not an individual player in the NFL. Yes, RBs life spans in the NFL are short, that's why the bargaining power is high now, and, you will need some bargaining power if you want a chance at getting a decent QB when the pickings are slim. Sure, you will risk losing some of the crotch-sniffer fans that can't look past the individual, but, who cares. The fans that are able to think critically, which usually have a much larger bank roll than those that don't anyway, will be on-board if the team is improved.

Who would want Ron Mexico? McKinnie is an ass with skills and there would be a team that would want him if the price is right. In his case if the team gets any picks and compensation with young talent it is worth it. People like him are a cancer on the team.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. That's what I just read. If I had a spreadsheet, I'd blank out your column after that load of drivel.

You're Rick Spielman. Zygi Wilf has come to you and said "Trade Peterson for a franchise QB."

Who do you call?

=Z=

Prophet
02-02-2010, 10:17 AM
Zeus wrote:

Prophet wrote:

Zeus wrote:

Prophet wrote:

I probably did not express my point succinctly or coherently enough. The bottom-line:

Get a new o-line coaching staff, get rid of the cancer on the line, shop an RB with street value for a potential franchise QB. My underlying philosophy and belief is that if you have a good 0-line and QB then the WRs and RBs will be successful, regardless of their current name recognition. It's as simple as that.

Outside of firing the O-line coaches, all of your wants require that there be a willing partner in another team that wants what we're selling.

Who's going to trade us their "potential franchise QB" for AD? Toss out a team or two who you think has that asset and would be willing to trade it. I don't think there are any. QB careers last 10+ years. RB careers are (typically) much shorter.

And who the hell is going to want McKinnie?

=Z=

I like my recommendation for the new o-line coach, a lot. You can't know the possibilities unless you look. I'm sure there are mutually beneficial situations where they could get a decent QB for the "best" RB in the game. I'm not talking a Herschel Walker trade (unless it's in our favor...which I doubt will ever happen again), just a reasonable shopping around. Contrary to the average fanatic's delusions, the coaching staff throws ideas around all the time that make the team better. It's always about the team and not an individual player in the NFL. Yes, RBs life spans in the NFL are short, that's why the bargaining power is high now, and, you will need some bargaining power if you want a chance at getting a decent QB when the pickings are slim. Sure, you will risk losing some of the crotch-sniffer fans that can't look past the individual, but, who cares. The fans that are able to think critically, which usually have a much larger bank roll than those that don't anyway, will be on-board if the team is improved.

Who would want Ron Mexico? McKinnie is an ass with skills and there would be a team that would want him if the price is right. In his case if the team gets any picks and compensation with young talent it is worth it. People like him are a cancer on the team.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. That's what I just read. If I had a spreadsheet, I'd blank out your column after that load of drivel.

You're Rick Spielman. Zygi Wilf has come to you and said "Trade Peterson for a franchise QB."

Who do you call?

=Z=

I would ignore him and ask Studwell et al. to look into it and get Brzezinski to start thinking about ways to make it happen. I let the professionals deal with the specifics of how to look into the potential of the idea.

Of course, you could just do the alternative and go into the future with Tarvaris Jackson, Sage Rosenfels, questionable o-line coaching, a cancerous left tackle and an RB with street value and see what happens with no plans for improvement of an obvious hole.

Again. A good QB, good o-line, and RBs and WRs are a dime-a-dozen.

Zeus
02-02-2010, 10:22 AM
Prophet wrote:

Zeus wrote:

Prophet wrote:

Zeus wrote:

Prophet wrote:

I probably did not express my point succinctly or coherently enough. The bottom-line:

Get a new o-line coaching staff, get rid of the cancer on the line, shop an RB with street value for a potential franchise QB. My underlying philosophy and belief is that if you have a good 0-line and QB then the WRs and RBs will be successful, regardless of their current name recognition. It's as simple as that.

Outside of firing the O-line coaches, all of your wants require that there be a willing partner in another team that wants what we're selling.

Who's going to trade us their "potential franchise QB" for AD? Toss out a team or two who you think has that asset and would be willing to trade it. I don't think there are any. QB careers last 10+ years. RB careers are (typically) much shorter.

And who the hell is going to want McKinnie?

=Z=

I like my recommendation for the new o-line coach, a lot. You can't know the possibilities unless you look. I'm sure there are mutually beneficial situations where they could get a decent QB for the "best" RB in the game. I'm not talking a Herschel Walker trade (unless it's in our favor...which I doubt will ever happen again), just a reasonable shopping around. Contrary to the average fanatic's delusions, the coaching staff throws ideas around all the time that make the team better. It's always about the team and not an individual player in the NFL. Yes, RBs life spans in the NFL are short, that's why the bargaining power is high now, and, you will need some bargaining power if you want a chance at getting a decent QB when the pickings are slim. Sure, you will risk losing some of the crotch-sniffer fans that can't look past the individual, but, who cares. The fans that are able to think critically, which usually have a much larger bank roll than those that don't anyway, will be on-board if the team is improved.

Who would want Ron Mexico? McKinnie is an ass with skills and there would be a team that would want him if the price is right. In his case if the team gets any picks and compensation with young talent it is worth it. People like him are a cancer on the team.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. That's what I just read. If I had a spreadsheet, I'd blank out your column after that load of drivel.

You're Rick Spielman. Zygi Wilf has come to you and said "Trade Peterson for a franchise QB."

Who do you call?

I would ignore him and ask Studwell et al. to look into it and get Brzezinski to start thinking about ways to make it happen. I let the professionals deal with the specifics of how to look into the potential of the idea.

Of course, you could just do the alternative and go into the future with Tarvaris Jackson, Sage Rosenfels, questionable o-line coaching, a cancerous left tackle and an RB with street value and see what happens with no plans for improvement of an obvious hole.

Again. A good QB, good o-line, and RBs and WRs are a dime-a-dozen.

Now, I've deleted the spreadsheet entirely, printed out a picture of your avatar and lined the cat box with it.

Who do you call? Look at the 31 other teams and tell me who you call. Why is that so frakking hard for you to do?

You have proposed a reasonable idea. I'm not arguing that. But 99% of the idjuts who propose ideas think that the mere act of wanting to make a trade means it will happen and if it doesn't happen, it's because our management is incompetent. You're not part of that 99%. You have a brain. On occasion, you use it. I'm asking you to do that now.

Don't be the guy who says "We should trade for Tom Brady!"

=Z=

marstc09
02-02-2010, 10:24 AM
Zeus wrote:

Prophet wrote:

Zeus wrote:

Prophet wrote:

I probably did not express my point succinctly or coherently enough. The bottom-line:

Get a new o-line coaching staff, get rid of the cancer on the line, shop an RB with street value for a potential franchise QB. My underlying philosophy and belief is that if you have a good 0-line and QB then the WRs and RBs will be successful, regardless of their current name recognition. It's as simple as that.

Outside of firing the O-line coaches, all of your wants require that there be a willing partner in another team that wants what we're selling.

Who's going to trade us their "potential franchise QB" for AD? Toss out a team or two who you think has that asset and would be willing to trade it. I don't think there are any. QB careers last 10+ years. RB careers are (typically) much shorter.

And who the hell is going to want McKinnie?

=Z=

I like my recommendation for the new o-line coach, a lot. You can't know the possibilities unless you look. I'm sure there are mutually beneficial situations where they could get a decent QB for the "best" RB in the game. I'm not talking a Herschel Walker trade (unless it's in our favor...which I doubt will ever happen again), just a reasonable shopping around. Contrary to the average fanatic's delusions, the coaching staff throws ideas around all the time that make the team better. It's always about the team and not an individual player in the NFL. Yes, RBs life spans in the NFL are short, that's why the bargaining power is high now, and, you will need some bargaining power if you want a chance at getting a decent QB when the pickings are slim. Sure, you will risk losing some of the crotch-sniffer fans that can't look past the individual, but, who cares. The fans that are able to think critically, which usually have a much larger bank roll than those that don't anyway, will be on-board if the team is improved.

Who would want Ron Mexico? McKinnie is an ass with skills and there would be a team that would want him if the price is right. In his case if the team gets any picks and compensation with young talent it is worth it. People like him are a cancer on the team.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. That's what I just read. If I had a spreadsheet, I'd blank out your column after that load of drivel.

You're Rick Spielman. Zygi Wilf has come to you and said "Trade Peterson for a franchise QB."

Who do you call?

=Z=

Chicago?

Peterson/Sage for Cutler?

Prophet
02-02-2010, 10:26 AM
Zeus wrote:

Prophet wrote:

Zeus wrote:

Prophet wrote:

Zeus wrote:

Prophet wrote:

I probably did not express my point succinctly or coherently enough. The bottom-line:

Get a new o-line coaching staff, get rid of the cancer on the line, shop an RB with street value for a potential franchise QB. My underlying philosophy and belief is that if you have a good 0-line and QB then the WRs and RBs will be successful, regardless of their current name recognition. It's as simple as that.

Outside of firing the O-line coaches, all of your wants require that there be a willing partner in another team that wants what we're selling.

Who's going to trade us their "potential franchise QB" for AD? Toss out a team or two who you think has that asset and would be willing to trade it. I don't think there are any. QB careers last 10+ years. RB careers are (typically) much shorter.

And who the hell is going to want McKinnie?

=Z=

I like my recommendation for the new o-line coach, a lot. You can't know the possibilities unless you look. I'm sure there are mutually beneficial situations where they could get a decent QB for the "best" RB in the game. I'm not talking a Herschel Walker trade (unless it's in our favor...which I doubt will ever happen again), just a reasonable shopping around. Contrary to the average fanatic's delusions, the coaching staff throws ideas around all the time that make the team better. It's always about the team and not an individual player in the NFL. Yes, RBs life spans in the NFL are short, that's why the bargaining power is high now, and, you will need some bargaining power if you want a chance at getting a decent QB when the pickings are slim. Sure, you will risk losing some of the crotch-sniffer fans that can't look past the individual, but, who cares. The fans that are able to think critically, which usually have a much larger bank roll than those that don't anyway, will be on-board if the team is improved.

Who would want Ron Mexico? McKinnie is an ass with skills and there would be a team that would want him if the price is right. In his case if the team gets any picks and compensation with young talent it is worth it. People like him are a cancer on the team.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. That's what I just read. If I had a spreadsheet, I'd blank out your column after that load of drivel.

You're Rick Spielman. Zygi Wilf has come to you and said "Trade Peterson for a franchise QB."

Who do you call?

I would ignore him and ask Studwell et al. to look into it and get Brzezinski to start thinking about ways to make it happen. I let the professionals deal with the specifics of how to look into the potential of the idea.

Of course, you could just do the alternative and go into the future with Tarvaris Jackson, Sage Rosenfels, questionable o-line coaching, a cancerous left tackle and an RB with street value and see what happens with no plans for improvement of an obvious hole.

Again. A good QB, good o-line, and RBs and WRs are a dime-a-dozen.

Now, I've deleted the spreadsheet entirely, printed out a picture of your avatar and lined the cat box with it.

Who do you call? Look at the 31 other teams and tell me who you call. Why is that so frakking hard for you to do?

You have proposed a reasonable idea. I'm not arguing that. But 99% of the idjuts who propose ideas think that the mere act of wanting to make a trade means it will happen and if it doesn't happen, it's because our management is incompetent. You're not part of that 99%. You have a brain. On occasion, you use it. I'm asking you to do that now.

Don't be the guy who says "We should trade for Tom Brady!"

=Z=

Since you are incapable of reading and comprehending written text, there is nothing I can do for you.

Why would I waste my time with my speculation in a mock draft sort of way that is meaniningless when the answer to your question has already been put before your eyes. The professional staff that is already on board and the best cap manager in the league would be at my disposal and I defer to them. Since your logic is irrational, all you have is degrading comments that make you look like an ass, not me. But, that is your expertise and you do it well.

Zeus
02-02-2010, 10:28 AM
marstc09 wrote:

Zeus wrote:

You're Rick Spielman. Zygi Wilf has come to you and said "Trade Peterson for a franchise QB."

Who do you call?

Chicago?

Peterson/Sage for Cutler?

The Bears haven't had a franchise QB since Bobby Douglass. They finally think they have one and aren't likely to trade him for a RB.

Also - I'm not a real fan of giving an angry AD two shots at the Vikings each year.

I do, however, like the idea of trading him (in this scenario) to a team that plays outdoors on grass.

=Z=

Midge Resurrected
02-02-2010, 10:32 AM
ejmat wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:

ejmat wrote:

Midge Resurrected wrote:

ejmat wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:

I don't think getting rid of Peterson is a good idea. Chester Taylor is good at his role but he is not even close to the game breaker AD is. Look at the facts.

In 2007 Peterson averaged 5.6ypa. Taylor 5.4.
In 2008 Peterson averaged 4.8ypa. Taylor 4.0.
In 2009 Peterson averaged 4.4ypa. Taylro 3.6.

Over last 3 years:
Peterson fumbled 20 times on 915attempts. 1 in 45.75
Taylor fumbled 9 times on 352attempts. 1 in 39.11

Peterson had more recieving yards in 2009 than Taylor has had in any single year of his career.

Peterson had a higher yds per reception(10.1) in 09 than Taylor has had in any year of his career.

Petersons career yards per reception is 10.0, Taylor 7.9.

Peterson 24years old, Taylor 30 Years old.

If we were in a rebuilding year I would say shop Peterson, but we are in win now mode. Outside of a Hershal Walker type trade I say keep Peterson.

You make some great points. Especially the one about win now mode. It would be difficult to get decent value for AP. Schaub, Slaton and a 4th maybe. It's hard to be unbiased thinking about what he is worth. The problem with AP is his fumbling. I could put up with the missed blocks some times. He definitely improved coming out of the backfield. Still not great but improved. Taylor ful time is a pretty good back but the fact he is 30 is an issue. I like CT and I still believe at their stages in their careers CT is the better all purpose back. But AP is a great runner but he just needs to stay focused. I would be totally okay with suring up the QB position and getting extra picks. But it really would have to be worth it.

The problem with AD is fumbling and you would be willing to bring Slaton aboard? Slaton fumbles WAY more often than AD.

Doh ...

That is true but Slaton wouldn't be the #1 back. It would be Chester. You have to make a trade fair. That is the only reason why I included him. I don't think anyone would give up a franchise QB and two 1st day picks.
Except Taylor fumbles more often than Peterson too.

It all depends how you look at it. He does on a percentage basis but before this year Taylor fumbled at a lessor rate than AP. After this year APs carries have gone up significantly whereas CTs hasn't. But the fact remains AP does fumble at a lessor rate now. I still believe (hard to prove either way) that CT is more consistent than AP. I think CT provides a more consistent yard per carry (median instead of mean) (ex: 3,4,5,2,15, etc...) where AP isn't so consistent (ex: 1,2,0,4,-2,5,40,etc...). Of course I could be wrong though.

IMO there are other factors.
1) How many TDs does CT have receiving compared to AP? CT has 6 to APs 1.
2) CT is also just as capable of busting one to the house. Just for kicks CT has a 95 yard and an 84 yard run. AP's longest is 73. Not to take away APs two games of 200 yard rushing games that are simply phenominal.
3) AP definitely scores more TDs than Chester however 18 (almost half were this year) and most were for less than 3 yards. A TD is a TD though.

Fact is they are both darn good backs. CT is just as capable of doing well and truth be told never had the opportunity to play as a starter with a great QB. So I think that can be factored in too. AP is a beast. I love his tenacity. Unfortunately his tenacity in fighting for the extra (not needed) yard is what gets him in trouble and causes most of his fumbling.

AP still has problems blocking. Even though he has improved coming out of the backfield he still isn't as smooth as CT is imo. CT looks natural wheare AP struggles. Just my observation though. I totally give AP the credit of being the better runner but again CT is just as capable of taking the ball to the house at any given time.

C'mon now ... You are really trying to stretch it that CT is "more consistent" and pretty close to AD. The fact is they are not even close.
1) 6 receiving TDs over 8 years vs. 1 receiving TD over 3 years is a non-factor. Neither one of them is even contributing one a year. So, it really comes down to luck. Or the fact that when we get inside the 15 with Adrian he RUNS it in. I mean Adrian's 40 rushing in 3 years to CTs 22 in 6 years is a much more fair comparison
2) Chester is not CLOSE to Adrian in "busting one to the house." He never was, but certainly is not now. He has not had a run of longer than 25 yards in the last two seasons. Sure he had the 84-yarder and 95-yarder, but that does not make him "just as capable". For his entire career he only has three TD runs over 50 yards. Adrian has 6 already ... on 100 less carries. He has five career TDs from 20+ yards out, Adrian already has 13 (14 if you count playoffs).
His career average is 4.3 per carry. Adrian's is 4.9. Don't know how else to spell out who is more explosive.
3) Adrian has 18 career touchdowns from 3 yards and in (pretty common from a workhorse back), Chester has 12 of his 22 career TDs from inside that ... so don't figure how you can bag on Adrian for that.

As for "other" things ... there is no stat right now to show that Chester is a better receiver out of the backfield. Just a common thing spouted in these parts by the anti-Adrian's (not you per say). Chester played almost universally on passing downs this season, yet Adrian still produced more receptions and yards receiving. He has 47 more yards receiving despite having one less catch ... yet again showing how much more explosive he is than Chester. He also already has two career receptions over 60 yards, something Chester has not done.
Blocking is also fairly similar here. Something people just spout, but for the most part are just spouting. Chester is probably a little better, but he definitely is not far superior. And I can tell you this much, no other fan base talks as much about "blocking" for their premier back. The entire blocking argument comes from the anti-Adrian crowd (once again not saying you are part of that, but you definitely take from them). Adrian has improved ten-fold in this area in the last year and a half ... and if someone thinks Chester's advantage in this is even twice Adrian's , they would still be a fool if they thought it was valid in bringing up Chester over Adrian. Just like the idiots who used to say Hines Ward was the best receiver in football because he can block.
The only thing even worth being discussed is the fumbles. And it is a valid point. Chester fumbled once per 69 touches this season and Adrian once per 51. For their career ... Chester puts the ball on the ground once very 58.78 touches and Adrian does it once every 49.9. A decent difference, and definitely something that needs to be worked on. But, Chester is still "fumble prone" because that is too often as well. For example, Chris Johnson fumbled once every 136 touches this season.
Chester started at RB with Brad Johnson in 2006 and Adrian had Tarvaris and Gus and Brooks, etc. in 2007 and 2008. Lets not talk about Adrian having the "better" quarterbacks. Chester is NOT just as capable as Adrian. This is evidenced by his one year as starter with 1200 yards, a mediocre 6 TDs and a very pedestrian 4.0 average. Numbers that have been eclipsed by Adrian EVERY year he has been in the league. And apparently since short ones don't count ... FIVE of Chester's six TDs that season were from 4 yards or shorter. Clearly busting the big one on a regular basis there.
Outside of the fumbles ... there is nothing to indicate Chester is "more consistent" and there is nothing to indicate that CT is even close to Adrian Peterson's level. And Adrian is not the only one with a fumbling problem.

Midge Resurrected
02-02-2010, 10:33 AM
ejmat wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:

ejmat wrote:

Midge Resurrected wrote:

ejmat wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:

I don't think getting rid of Peterson is a good idea. Chester Taylor is good at his role but he is not even close to the game breaker AD is. Look at the facts.

In 2007 Peterson averaged 5.6ypa. Taylor 5.4.
In 2008 Peterson averaged 4.8ypa. Taylor 4.0.
In 2009 Peterson averaged 4.4ypa. Taylro 3.6.

Over last 3 years:
Peterson fumbled 20 times on 915attempts. 1 in 45.75
Taylor fumbled 9 times on 352attempts. 1 in 39.11

Peterson had more recieving yards in 2009 than Taylor has had in any single year of his career.

Peterson had a higher yds per reception(10.1) in 09 than Taylor has had in any year of his career.

Petersons career yards per reception is 10.0, Taylor 7.9.

Peterson 24years old, Taylor 30 Years old.

If we were in a rebuilding year I would say shop Peterson, but we are in win now mode. Outside of a Hershal Walker type trade I say keep Peterson.

You make some great points. Especially the one about win now mode. It would be difficult to get decent value for AP. Schaub, Slaton and a 4th maybe. It's hard to be unbiased thinking about what he is worth. The problem with AP is his fumbling. I could put up with the missed blocks some times. He definitely improved coming out of the backfield. Still not great but improved. Taylor ful time is a pretty good back but the fact he is 30 is an issue. I like CT and I still believe at their stages in their careers CT is the better all purpose back. But AP is a great runner but he just needs to stay focused. I would be totally okay with suring up the QB position and getting extra picks. But it really would have to be worth it.

The problem with AD is fumbling and you would be willing to bring Slaton aboard? Slaton fumbles WAY more often than AD.

Doh ...

That is true but Slaton wouldn't be the #1 back. It would be Chester. You have to make a trade fair. That is the only reason why I included him. I don't think anyone would give up a franchise QB and two 1st day picks.
Except Taylor fumbles more often than Peterson too.

It all depends how you look at it. He does on a percentage basis but before this year Taylor fumbled at a lessor rate than AP. After this year APs carries have gone up significantly whereas CTs hasn't. But the fact remains AP does fumble at a lessor rate now. I still believe (hard to prove either way) that CT is more consistent than AP. I think CT provides a more consistent yard per carry (median instead of mean) (ex: 3,4,5,2,15, etc...) where AP isn't so consistent (ex: 1,2,0,4,-2,5,40,etc...). Of course I could be wrong though.

IMO there are other factors.
1) How many TDs does CT have receiving compared to AP? CT has 6 to APs 1.
2) CT is also just as capable of busting one to the house. Just for kicks CT has a 95 yard and an 84 yard run. AP's longest is 73. Not to take away APs two games of 200 yard rushing games that are simply phenominal.
3) AP definitely scores more TDs than Chester however 18 (almost half were this year) and most were for less than 3 yards. A TD is a TD though.

Fact is they are both darn good backs. CT is just as capable of doing well and truth be told never had the opportunity to play as a starter with a great QB. So I think that can be factored in too. AP is a beast. I love his tenacity. Unfortunately his tenacity in fighting for the extra (not needed) yard is what gets him in trouble and causes most of his fumbling.

AP still has problems blocking. Even though he has improved coming out of the backfield he still isn't as smooth as CT is imo. CT looks natural wheare AP struggles. Just my observation though. I totally give AP the credit of being the better runner but again CT is just as capable of taking the ball to the house at any given time.

C'mon now ... You are really trying to stretch it that CT is "more consistent" and pretty close to AD. The fact is they are not even close.
1) 6 receiving TDs over 8 years vs. 1 receiving TD over 3 years is a non-factor. Neither one of them is even contributing one a year. So, it really comes down to luck. Or the fact that when we get inside the 15 with Adrian he RUNS it in. I mean Adrian's 40 rushing in 3 years to CTs 22 in 6 years is a much more fair comparison
2) Chester is not CLOSE to Adrian in "busting one to the house." He never was, but certainly is not now. He has not had a run of longer than 25 yards in the last two seasons. Sure he had the 84-yarder and 95-yarder, but that does not make him "just as capable". For his entire career he only has three TD runs over 50 yards. Adrian has 6 already ... on 100 less carries. He has five career TDs from 20+ yards out, Adrian already has 13 (14 if you count playoffs).
His career average is 4.3 per carry. Adrian's is 4.9. Don't know how else to spell out who is more explosive.
3) Adrian has 18 career touchdowns from 3 yards and in (pretty common from a workhorse back), Chester has 12 of his 22 career TDs from inside that ... so don't figure how you can bag on Adrian for that.

As for "other" things ... there is no stat right now to show that Chester is a better receiver out of the backfield. Just a common thing spouted in these parts by the anti-Adrian's (not you per say). Chester played almost universally on passing downs this season, yet Adrian still produced more receptions and yards receiving. He has 47 more yards receiving despite having one less catch ... yet again showing how much more explosive he is than Chester. He also already has two career receptions over 60 yards, something Chester has not done.
Blocking is also fairly similar here. Something people just spout, but for the most part are just spouting. Chester is probably a little better, but he definitely is not far superior. And I can tell you this much, no other fan base talks as much about "blocking" for their premier back. The entire blocking argument comes from the anti-Adrian crowd (once again not saying you are part of that, but you definitely take from them). Adrian has improved ten-fold in this area in the last year and a half ... and if someone thinks Chester's advantage in this is even twice Adrian's , they would still be a fool if they thought it was valid in bringing up Chester over Adrian. Just like the idiots who used to say Hines Ward was the best receiver in football because he can block.
The only thing even worth being discussed is the fumbles. And it is a valid point. Chester fumbled once per 69 touches this season and Adrian once per 51. For their career ... Chester puts the ball on the ground once very 58.78 touches and Adrian does it once every 49.9. A decent difference, and definitely something that needs to be worked on. But, Chester is still "fumble prone" because that is too often as well. For example, Chris Johnson fumbled once every 136 touches this season.
Chester started at RB with Brad Johnson in 2006 and Adrian had Tarvaris and Gus and Brooks, etc. in 2007 and 2008. Lets not talk about Adrian having the "better" quarterbacks. Chester is NOT just as capable as Adrian. This is evidenced by his one year as starter with 1200 yards, a mediocre 6 TDs and a very pedestrian 4.0 average. Numbers that have been eclipsed by Adrian EVERY year he has been in the league. And apparently since short ones don't count ... FIVE of Chester's six TDs that season were from 4 yards or shorter. Clearly busting the big one on a regular basis there.
Outside of the fumbles ... there is nothing to indicate Chester is "more consistent" and there is nothing to indicate that CT is even close to Adrian Peterson's level. And Adrian is not the only one with a fumbling problem.

Midge Resurrected
02-02-2010, 10:33 AM
ejmat wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:

ejmat wrote:

Midge Resurrected wrote:

ejmat wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:

I don't think getting rid of Peterson is a good idea. Chester Taylor is good at his role but he is not even close to the game breaker AD is. Look at the facts.

In 2007 Peterson averaged 5.6ypa. Taylor 5.4.
In 2008 Peterson averaged 4.8ypa. Taylor 4.0.
In 2009 Peterson averaged 4.4ypa. Taylro 3.6.

Over last 3 years:
Peterson fumbled 20 times on 915attempts. 1 in 45.75
Taylor fumbled 9 times on 352attempts. 1 in 39.11

Peterson had more recieving yards in 2009 than Taylor has had in any single year of his career.

Peterson had a higher yds per reception(10.1) in 09 than Taylor has had in any year of his career.

Petersons career yards per reception is 10.0, Taylor 7.9.

Peterson 24years old, Taylor 30 Years old.

If we were in a rebuilding year I would say shop Peterson, but we are in win now mode. Outside of a Hershal Walker type trade I say keep Peterson.

You make some great points. Especially the one about win now mode. It would be difficult to get decent value for AP. Schaub, Slaton and a 4th maybe. It's hard to be unbiased thinking about what he is worth. The problem with AP is his fumbling. I could put up with the missed blocks some times. He definitely improved coming out of the backfield. Still not great but improved. Taylor ful time is a pretty good back but the fact he is 30 is an issue. I like CT and I still believe at their stages in their careers CT is the better all purpose back. But AP is a great runner but he just needs to stay focused. I would be totally okay with suring up the QB position and getting extra picks. But it really would have to be worth it.

The problem with AD is fumbling and you would be willing to bring Slaton aboard? Slaton fumbles WAY more often than AD.

Doh ...

That is true but Slaton wouldn't be the #1 back. It would be Chester. You have to make a trade fair. That is the only reason why I included him. I don't think anyone would give up a franchise QB and two 1st day picks.
Except Taylor fumbles more often than Peterson too.

It all depends how you look at it. He does on a percentage basis but before this year Taylor fumbled at a lessor rate than AP. After this year APs carries have gone up significantly whereas CTs hasn't. But the fact remains AP does fumble at a lessor rate now. I still believe (hard to prove either way) that CT is more consistent than AP. I think CT provides a more consistent yard per carry (median instead of mean) (ex: 3,4,5,2,15, etc...) where AP isn't so consistent (ex: 1,2,0,4,-2,5,40,etc...). Of course I could be wrong though.

IMO there are other factors.
1) How many TDs does CT have receiving compared to AP? CT has 6 to APs 1.
2) CT is also just as capable of busting one to the house. Just for kicks CT has a 95 yard and an 84 yard run. AP's longest is 73. Not to take away APs two games of 200 yard rushing games that are simply phenominal.
3) AP definitely scores more TDs than Chester however 18 (almost half were this year) and most were for less than 3 yards. A TD is a TD though.

Fact is they are both darn good backs. CT is just as capable of doing well and truth be told never had the opportunity to play as a starter with a great QB. So I think that can be factored in too. AP is a beast. I love his tenacity. Unfortunately his tenacity in fighting for the extra (not needed) yard is what gets him in trouble and causes most of his fumbling.

AP still has problems blocking. Even though he has improved coming out of the backfield he still isn't as smooth as CT is imo. CT looks natural wheare AP struggles. Just my observation though. I totally give AP the credit of being the better runner but again CT is just as capable of taking the ball to the house at any given time.

C'mon now ... You are really trying to stretch it that CT is "more consistent" and pretty close to AD. The fact is they are not even close.
1) 6 receiving TDs over 8 years vs. 1 receiving TD over 3 years is a non-factor. Neither one of them is even contributing one a year. So, it really comes down to luck. Or the fact that when we get inside the 15 with Adrian he RUNS it in. I mean Adrian's 40 rushing in 3 years to CTs 22 in 6 years is a much more fair comparison
2) Chester is not CLOSE to Adrian in "busting one to the house." He never was, but certainly is not now. He has not had a run of longer than 25 yards in the last two seasons. Sure he had the 84-yarder and 95-yarder, but that does not make him "just as capable". For his entire career he only has three TD runs over 50 yards. Adrian has 6 already ... on 100 less carries. He has five career TDs from 20+ yards out, Adrian already has 13 (14 if you count playoffs).
His career average is 4.3 per carry. Adrian's is 4.9. Don't know how else to spell out who is more explosive.
3) Adrian has 18 career touchdowns from 3 yards and in (pretty common from a workhorse back), Chester has 12 of his 22 career TDs from inside that ... so don't figure how you can bag on Adrian for that.

As for "other" things ... there is no stat right now to show that Chester is a better receiver out of the backfield. Just a common thing spouted in these parts by the anti-Adrian's (not you per say). Chester played almost universally on passing downs this season, yet Adrian still produced more receptions and yards receiving. He has 47 more yards receiving despite having one less catch ... yet again showing how much more explosive he is than Chester. He also already has two career receptions over 60 yards, something Chester has not done.
Blocking is also fairly similar here. Something people just spout, but for the most part are just spouting. Chester is probably a little better, but he definitely is not far superior. And I can tell you this much, no other fan base talks as much about "blocking" for their premier back. The entire blocking argument comes from the anti-Adrian crowd (once again not saying you are part of that, but you definitely take from them). Adrian has improved ten-fold in this area in the last year and a half ... and if someone thinks Chester's advantage in this is even twice Adrian's , they would still be a fool if they thought it was valid in bringing up Chester over Adrian. Just like the idiots who used to say Hines Ward was the best receiver in football because he can block.
The only thing even worth being discussed is the fumbles. And it is a valid point. Chester fumbled once per 69 touches this season and Adrian once per 51. For their career ... Chester puts the ball on the ground once very 58.78 touches and Adrian does it once every 49.9. A decent difference, and definitely something that needs to be worked on. But, Chester is still "fumble prone" because that is too often as well. For example, Chris Johnson fumbled once every 136 touches this season.
Chester started at RB with Brad Johnson in 2006 and Adrian had Tarvaris and Gus and Brooks, etc. in 2007 and 2008. Lets not talk about Adrian having the "better" quarterbacks. Chester is NOT just as capable as Adrian. This is evidenced by his one year as starter with 1200 yards, a mediocre 6 TDs and a very pedestrian 4.0 average. Numbers that have been eclipsed by Adrian EVERY year he has been in the league. And apparently since short ones don't count ... FIVE of Chester's six TDs that season were from 4 yards or shorter. Clearly busting the big one on a regular basis there.
Outside of the fumbles ... there is nothing to indicate Chester is "more consistent" and there is nothing to indicate that CT is even close to Adrian Peterson's level. And Adrian is not the only one with a fumbling problem.

Zeus
02-02-2010, 10:34 AM
Prophet wrote:

Zeus wrote:

Prophet wrote:

Zeus wrote:

Prophet wrote:

Zeus wrote:

Prophet wrote:

I probably did not express my point succinctly or coherently enough. The bottom-line:

Get a new o-line coaching staff, get rid of the cancer on the line, shop an RB with street value for a potential franchise QB. My underlying philosophy and belief is that if you have a good 0-line and QB then the WRs and RBs will be successful, regardless of their current name recognition. It's as simple as that.

Outside of firing the O-line coaches, all of your wants require that there be a willing partner in another team that wants what we're selling.

Who's going to trade us their "potential franchise QB" for AD? Toss out a team or two who you think has that asset and would be willing to trade it. I don't think there are any. QB careers last 10+ years. RB careers are (typically) much shorter.

And who the hell is going to want McKinnie?

I like my recommendation for the new o-line coach, a lot. You can't know the possibilities unless you look. I'm sure there are mutually beneficial situations where they could get a decent QB for the "best" RB in the game. I'm not talking a Herschel Walker trade (unless it's in our favor...which I doubt will ever happen again), just a reasonable shopping around. Contrary to the average fanatic's delusions, the coaching staff throws ideas around all the time that make the team better. It's always about the team and not an individual player in the NFL. Yes, RBs life spans in the NFL are short, that's why the bargaining power is high now, and, you will need some bargaining power if you want a chance at getting a decent QB when the pickings are slim. Sure, you will risk losing some of the crotch-sniffer fans that can't look past the individual, but, who cares. The fans that are able to think critically, which usually have a much larger bank roll than those that don't anyway, will be on-board if the team is improved.

Who would want Ron Mexico? McKinnie is an ass with skills and there would be a team that would want him if the price is right. In his case if the team gets any picks and compensation with young talent it is worth it. People like him are a cancer on the team.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. That's what I just read. If I had a spreadsheet, I'd blank out your column after that load of drivel.

You're Rick Spielman. Zygi Wilf has come to you and said "Trade Peterson for a franchise QB."

Who do you call?

I would ignore him and ask Studwell et al. to look into it and get Brzezinski to start thinking about ways to make it happen. I let the professionals deal with the specifics of how to look into the potential of the idea.

Of course, you could just do the alternative and go into the future with Tarvaris Jackson, Sage Rosenfels, questionable o-line coaching, a cancerous left tackle and an RB with street value and see what happens with no plans for improvement of an obvious hole.

Again. A good QB, good o-line, and RBs and WRs are a dime-a-dozen.

Now, I've deleted the spreadsheet entirely, printed out a picture of your avatar and lined the cat box with it.

Who do you call? Look at the 31 other teams and tell me who you call. Why is that so frakking hard for you to do?

You have proposed a reasonable idea. I'm not arguing that. But 99% of the idjuts who propose ideas think that the mere act of wanting to make a trade means it will happen and if it doesn't happen, it's because our management is incompetent. You're not part of that 99%. You have a brain. On occasion, you use it. I'm asking you to do that now.

Don't be the guy who says "We should trade for Tom Brady!"

Since you are incapable of reading and comprehending written text, there is nothing I can do for you.

Why would I waste my time with my speculation in a mock draft sort of way that is meaniningless when the answer to your question has already been put before your eyes. The professional staff that is already on board and the best cap manager in the league would be at my disposal and I defer to them. Since your logic is irrational, all you have is degrading comments that make you look like an ass, not me. But, that is your expertise and you do it well.

I am capable of reading it and I have.

You should be in management in the professional world, since you, apparently, have neither a clue how things actually work nor the ability to make things happen, but, rather, possess only the skills to toss out wild solutions with a mandate to "make it so".

The answer to my question is "I don't have any real idea, so I'll just say 'Those guys will do it.'"

Well done! You've captured the essence of the dumbass fan in three paragraphs or less! Time for a celebratory cocktail.

=Z=

marstc09
02-02-2010, 10:35 AM
Zeus wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

Zeus wrote:

You're Rick Spielman. Zygi Wilf has come to you and said "Trade Peterson for a franchise QB."

Who do you call?

Chicago?

Peterson/Sage for Cutler?

The Bears haven't had a franchise QB since Bobby Douglass. They finally think they have one and aren't likely to trade him for a RB.

Also - I'm not a real fan of giving an angry AD two shots at the Vikings each year.

I do, however, like the idea of trading him (in this scenario) to a team that plays outdoors on grass.

=Z=

You just asked who would you call. You said nothing about what their response would be.

Houston?

Peterson for Schaub? They do have Rex.

Zeus
02-02-2010, 10:36 AM
Midge Resurrected wrote:

*snip*

Was it really necessary to interrupt the fascinating back-and-forth that Prophet and I are having with the same wall o' text three times?

=Z=

Prophet
02-02-2010, 10:37 AM
Zeus wrote:

Prophet wrote:

Zeus wrote:

Prophet wrote:

Zeus wrote:

Prophet wrote:

Zeus wrote:

Prophet wrote:

I probably did not express my point succinctly or coherently enough. The bottom-line:

Get a new o-line coaching staff, get rid of the cancer on the line, shop an RB with street value for a potential franchise QB. My underlying philosophy and belief is that if you have a good 0-line and QB then the WRs and RBs will be successful, regardless of their current name recognition. It's as simple as that.

Outside of firing the O-line coaches, all of your wants require that there be a willing partner in another team that wants what we're selling.

Who's going to trade us their "potential franchise QB" for AD? Toss out a team or two who you think has that asset and would be willing to trade it. I don't think there are any. QB careers last 10+ years. RB careers are (typically) much shorter.

And who the hell is going to want McKinnie?

I like my recommendation for the new o-line coach, a lot. You can't know the possibilities unless you look. I'm sure there are mutually beneficial situations where they could get a decent QB for the "best" RB in the game. I'm not talking a Herschel Walker trade (unless it's in our favor...which I doubt will ever happen again), just a reasonable shopping around. Contrary to the average fanatic's delusions, the coaching staff throws ideas around all the time that make the team better. It's always about the team and not an individual player in the NFL. Yes, RBs life spans in the NFL are short, that's why the bargaining power is high now, and, you will need some bargaining power if you want a chance at getting a decent QB when the pickings are slim. Sure, you will risk losing some of the crotch-sniffer fans that can't look past the individual, but, who cares. The fans that are able to think critically, which usually have a much larger bank roll than those that don't anyway, will be on-board if the team is improved.

Who would want Ron Mexico? McKinnie is an ass with skills and there would be a team that would want him if the price is right. In his case if the team gets any picks and compensation with young talent it is worth it. People like him are a cancer on the team.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. That's what I just read. If I had a spreadsheet, I'd blank out your column after that load of drivel.

You're Rick Spielman. Zygi Wilf has come to you and said "Trade Peterson for a franchise QB."

Who do you call?

I would ignore him and ask Studwell et al. to look into it and get Brzezinski to start thinking about ways to make it happen. I let the professionals deal with the specifics of how to look into the potential of the idea.

Of course, you could just do the alternative and go into the future with Tarvaris Jackson, Sage Rosenfels, questionable o-line coaching, a cancerous left tackle and an RB with street value and see what happens with no plans for improvement of an obvious hole.

Again. A good QB, good o-line, and RBs and WRs are a dime-a-dozen.

Now, I've deleted the spreadsheet entirely, printed out a picture of your avatar and lined the cat box with it.

Who do you call? Look at the 31 other teams and tell me who you call. Why is that so frakking hard for you to do?

You have proposed a reasonable idea. I'm not arguing that. But 99% of the idjuts who propose ideas think that the mere act of wanting to make a trade means it will happen and if it doesn't happen, it's because our management is incompetent. You're not part of that 99%. You have a brain. On occasion, you use it. I'm asking you to do that now.

Don't be the guy who says "We should trade for Tom Brady!"

Since you are incapable of reading and comprehending written text, there is nothing I can do for you.

Why would I waste my time with my speculation in a mock draft sort of way that is meaniningless when the answer to your question has already been put before your eyes. The professional staff that is already on board and the best cap manager in the league would be at my disposal and I defer to them. Since your logic is irrational, all you have is degrading comments that make you look like an ass, not me. But, that is your expertise and you do it well.

I am capable of reading it and I have.

You should be in management in the professional world, since you, apparently, have neither a clue how things actually work nor the ability to make things happen, but, rather, possess only the skills to toss out wild solutions with a mandate to "make it so".

The answer to my question is "I don't have any real idea, so I'll just say 'Those guys will do it.'"

Well done! You've captured the essence of the dumbass fan in three paragraphs or less! Time for a celebratory cocktail.

=Z=

The funny thing about discussing something with you is that it is effortless to win an argument. You make yourself look like a dumbass without any baiting.

I stand behind everything I write and there is nothing unrealistic in anything that I have said. It is you that looks like a moron, and it is all done to yourself by yourself. Congratulations, your true idiocy is now transparent to all.

Zeus
02-02-2010, 10:43 AM
marstc09 wrote:

Zeus wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

Zeus wrote:

You're Rick Spielman. Zygi Wilf has come to you and said "Trade Peterson for a franchise QB."

Who do you call?

Chicago?

Peterson/Sage for Cutler?

The Bears haven't had a franchise QB since Bobby Douglass. They finally think they have one and aren't likely to trade him for a RB.

Also - I'm not a real fan of giving an angry AD two shots at the Vikings each year.

I do, however, like the idea of trading him (in this scenario) to a team that plays outdoors on grass.

You just asked who would you call. You said nothing about what their response would be.

Houston?

Peterson for Schaub? They do have Rex.

I think i was fairly clear in noting that I was hoping for a real discussion of trade possibilities where one side is not assumed to be a deaf-mute from Liechtenstein who is impressed by the feel of velvet undergarments.

My point is that trading Peterson for a franchise QB is not at all likely. I, personally, cannot think of any trading partner who has what we want AND who would be willing to trade it.

Now - as to Houston: they are on the cusp of becoming a playoff team. Just coming off the first winning season in franchise history. They also have Steve Slaton who, while also a fumbler, has had two fairly successful seasons. I doubt they would be willing to trade Schaub for AD (given that they have Slaton) and leave only the Sex Cannon as their QB.

I don't see it. Even if it's repackaged as AD/TJack and a 1st for Schaub/Slaton.

If there's one thing we've seen in the Childress era it's how hard it is to find franchise QBs.

=Z=

Zeus
02-02-2010, 10:45 AM
Prophet wrote:

The funny thing about discussing something with you is that it is effortless to win an argument. You make yourself look like a dumbass without any baiting.

I stand behind everything I write and there is nothing unrealistic in anything that I have said. It is you that looks like a moron, and it is all done to yourself by yourself. Congratulations, your true idiocy is now transparent to all.

It's easy to stand behind a pile of shit because no one else wants to come near it.

You: trade AD for a franchise QB.
Me: with whom do you propose that trade is made?
You: I don't have to answer that, it's enough that I said it should be done.

Who again is being the dumbass?

=Z=

Dekay
02-02-2010, 10:46 AM
Prophet for HC!!!

C Mac D
02-02-2010, 10:49 AM
Midge Resurrected wrote:

ejmat wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:

ejmat wrote:

Midge Resurrected wrote:

ejmat wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:

I don't think getting rid of Peterson is a good idea. Chester Taylor is good at his role but he is not even close to the game breaker AD is. Look at the facts.

In 2007 Peterson averaged 5.6ypa. Taylor 5.4.
In 2008 Peterson averaged 4.8ypa. Taylor 4.0.
In 2009 Peterson averaged 4.4ypa. Taylro 3.6.

Over last 3 years:
Peterson fumbled 20 times on 915attempts. 1 in 45.75
Taylor fumbled 9 times on 352attempts. 1 in 39.11

Peterson had more recieving yards in 2009 than Taylor has had in any single year of his career.

Peterson had a higher yds per reception(10.1) in 09 than Taylor has had in any year of his career.

Petersons career yards per reception is 10.0, Taylor 7.9.

Peterson 24years old, Taylor 30 Years old.

If we were in a rebuilding year I would say shop Peterson, but we are in win now mode. Outside of a Hershal Walker type trade I say keep Peterson.

You make some great points. Especially the one about win now mode. It would be difficult to get decent value for AP. Schaub, Slaton and a 4th maybe. It's hard to be unbiased thinking about what he is worth. The problem with AP is his fumbling. I could put up with the missed blocks some times. He definitely improved coming out of the backfield. Still not great but improved. Taylor ful time is a pretty good back but the fact he is 30 is an issue. I like CT and I still believe at their stages in their careers CT is the better all purpose back. But AP is a great runner but he just needs to stay focused. I would be totally okay with suring up the QB position and getting extra picks. But it really would have to be worth it.

The problem with AD is fumbling and you would be willing to bring Slaton aboard? Slaton fumbles WAY more often than AD.

Doh ...

That is true but Slaton wouldn't be the #1 back. It would be Chester. You have to make a trade fair. That is the only reason why I included him. I don't think anyone would give up a franchise QB and two 1st day picks.
Except Taylor fumbles more often than Peterson too.

It all depends how you look at it. He does on a percentage basis but before this year Taylor fumbled at a lessor rate than AP. After this year APs carries have gone up significantly whereas CTs hasn't. But the fact remains AP does fumble at a lessor rate now. I still believe (hard to prove either way) that CT is more consistent than AP. I think CT provides a more consistent yard per carry (median instead of mean) (ex: 3,4,5,2,15, etc...) where AP isn't so consistent (ex: 1,2,0,4,-2,5,40,etc...). Of course I could be wrong though.

IMO there are other factors.
1) How many TDs does CT have receiving compared to AP? CT has 6 to APs 1.
2) CT is also just as capable of busting one to the house. Just for kicks CT has a 95 yard and an 84 yard run. AP's longest is 73. Not to take away APs two games of 200 yard rushing games that are simply phenominal.
3) AP definitely scores more TDs than Chester however 18 (almost half were this year) and most were for less than 3 yards. A TD is a TD though.

Fact is they are both darn good backs. CT is just as capable of doing well and truth be told never had the opportunity to play as a starter with a great QB. So I think that can be factored in too. AP is a beast. I love his tenacity. Unfortunately his tenacity in fighting for the extra (not needed) yard is what gets him in trouble and causes most of his fumbling.

AP still has problems blocking. Even though he has improved coming out of the backfield he still isn't as smooth as CT is imo. CT looks natural wheare AP struggles. Just my observation though. I totally give AP the credit of being the better runner but again CT is just as capable of taking the ball to the house at any given time.

C'mon now ... You are really trying to stretch it that CT is "more consistent" and pretty close to AD. The fact is they are not even close.
1) 6 receiving TDs over 8 years vs. 1 receiving TD over 3 years is a non-factor. Neither one of them is even contributing one a year. So, it really comes down to luck. Or the fact that when we get inside the 15 with Adrian he RUNS it in. I mean Adrian's 40 rushing in 3 years to CTs 22 in 6 years is a much more fair comparison
2) Chester is not CLOSE to Adrian in "busting one to the house." He never was, but certainly is not now. He has not had a run of longer than 25 yards in the last two seasons. Sure he had the 84-yarder and 95-yarder, but that does not make him "just as capable". For his entire career he only has three TD runs over 50 yards. Adrian has 6 already ... on 100 less carries. He has five career TDs from 20+ yards out, Adrian already has 13 (14 if you count playoffs).
His career average is 4.3 per carry. Adrian's is 4.9. Don't know how else to spell out who is more explosive.
3) Adrian has 18 career touchdowns from 3 yards and in (pretty common from a workhorse back), Chester has 12 of his 22 career TDs from inside that ... so don't figure how you can bag on Adrian for that.

As for "other" things ... there is no stat right now to show that Chester is a better receiver out of the backfield. Just a common thing spouted in these parts by the anti-Adrian's (not you per say). Chester played almost universally on passing downs this season, yet Adrian still produced more receptions and yards receiving. He has 47 more yards receiving despite having one less catch ... yet again showing how much more explosive he is than Chester. He also already has two career receptions over 60 yards, something Chester has not done.
Blocking is also fairly similar here. Something people just spout, but for the most part are just spouting. Chester is probably a little better, but he definitely is not far superior. And I can tell you this much, no other fan base talks as much about "blocking" for their premier back. The entire blocking argument comes from the anti-Adrian crowd (once again not saying you are part of that, but you definitely take from them). Adrian has improved ten-fold in this area in the last year and a half ... and if someone thinks Chester's advantage in this is even twice Adrian's , they would still be a fool if they thought it was valid in bringing up Chester over Adrian. Just like the idiots who used to say Hines Ward was the best receiver in football because he can block.
The only thing even worth being discussed is the fumbles. And it is a valid point. Chester fumbled once per 69 touches this season and Adrian once per 51. For their career ... Chester puts the ball on the ground once very 58.78 touches and Adrian does it once every 49.9. A decent difference, and definitely something that needs to be worked on. But, Chester is still "fumble prone" because that is too often as well. For example, Chris Johnson fumbled once every 136 touches this season.
Chester started at RB with Brad Johnson in 2006 and Adrian had Tarvaris and Gus and Brooks, etc. in 2007 and 2008. Lets not talk about Adrian having the "better" quarterbacks. Chester is NOT just as capable as Adrian. This is evidenced by his one year as starter with 1200 yards, a mediocre 6 TDs and a very pedestrian 4.0 average. Numbers that have been eclipsed by Adrian EVERY year he has been in the league. And apparently since short ones don't count ... FIVE of Chester's six TDs that season were from 4 yards or shorter. Clearly busting the big one on a regular basis there.
Outside of the fumbles ... there is nothing to indicate Chester is "more consistent" and there is nothing to indicate that CT is even close to Adrian Peterson's level. And Adrian is not the only one with a fumbling problem.

+1, nice post. Hear hear!

marstc09
02-02-2010, 10:49 AM
Zeus wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

Zeus wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

Zeus wrote:

You're Rick Spielman. Zygi Wilf has come to you and said "Trade Peterson for a franchise QB."

Who do you call?

Chicago?

Peterson/Sage for Cutler?

The Bears haven't had a franchise QB since Bobby Douglass. They finally think they have one and aren't likely to trade him for a RB.

Also - I'm not a real fan of giving an angry AD two shots at the Vikings each year.

I do, however, like the idea of trading him (in this scenario) to a team that plays outdoors on grass.

You just asked who would you call. You said nothing about what their response would be.

Houston?

Peterson for Schaub? They do have Rex.

I think i was fairly clear in noting that I was hoping for a real discussion of trade possibilities where one side is not assumed to be a deaf-mute from Liechtenstein who is impressed by the feel of velvet undergarments.

My point is that trading Peterson for a franchise QB is not at all likely. I, personally, cannot think of any trading partner who has what we want AND who would be willing to trade it.

Now - as to Houston: they are on the cusp of becoming a playoff team. Just coming off the first winning season in franchise history. They also have Steve Slaton who, while also a fumbler, has had two fairly successful seasons. I doubt they would be willing to trade Schaub for AD (given that they have Slaton) and leave only the Sex Cannon as their QB.

I don't see it. Even if it's repackaged as AD/TJack and a 1st for Schaub/Slaton.

If there's one thing we've seen in the Childress era it's how hard it is to find franchise QBs.

=Z=

Who do you know Chicago or Houston would not be interested? You don't. That is why you call.

Midge Resurrected
02-02-2010, 10:50 AM
I by no means am a Zeus defender on a regular basis here.

But for the sake of discussion ... if someone is going to say we "should trade AD for a franchise QB" they should at least throw out some ideas as to how this could happen.

I personally do not see any team out there that would trade their "franchise" QB for a running back. It is not like we are the first people to realize that running backs and wide receivers are a dime a dozen (or a dime a half dozen in the case of Adrian Peterson).

Prophet
02-02-2010, 10:50 AM
Zeus wrote:

Prophet wrote:

The funny thing about discussing something with you is that it is effortless to win an argument. You make yourself look like a dumbass without any baiting.

I stand behind everything I write and there is nothing unrealistic in anything that I have said. It is you that looks like a moron, and it is all done to yourself by yourself. Congratulations, your true idiocy is now transparent to all.

It's easy to stand behind a pile of shit because no one else wants to come near it.

You: trade AD for a franchise QB.
Me: with whom do you propose that trade is made?
You: I don't have to answer that, it's enough that I said it should be done.

Who again is being the dumbass?

=Z=

I answered your questions and you didn't like the answers. That's your problem. Anyone can go back and read through the thread and readily see that you are the asshat that started with the name calling and degrading comments. Why? Because you didn't like my answer. My answer remains the same and it is more solid than some fanatics speculation. Anyone that wants to speculate on the specifics of the theoretical transaction is free to do so, nobody is stopping them.

Prophet
02-02-2010, 10:56 AM
Midge Resurrected wrote:

I by no means am a Zeus defender on a regular basis here.

But for the sake of discussion ... if someone is going to say we "should trade AD for a franchise QB" they should at least throw out some ideas as to how this could happen.

I personally do not see any team out there that would trade their "franchise" QB for a running back. It is not like we are the first people to realize that running backs and wide receivers are a dime a dozen (or a dime a half dozen in the case of Adrian Peterson).

I developed it as much as I care to. It's a message board and there are people that like to speculate on the potential of such a trade. Since developing the thread my only intention was to toss out the idea and spout my philosophy of the game, for whatever that's worth. I believe that in a theoretical game you play the theory within the confines of what your belief is. Mine is that the person spouting off the potential idea, a theoretical GM, comes up with the idea and then lets the scouting staff and capologist go from there to see if there is a scenario that makes it worthwhile. Nothing more.

If you think it's a retarded idea, who cares. I would say that most ideas tossed out there on pp.o are questionable at best. I like the idea, therefor I posted it. If you want to speculate further than I am willing to, then go for it. If you don't, then don't. I don't care either way.

Zeus
02-02-2010, 10:57 AM
marstc09 wrote:

Zeus wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

Zeus wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

Zeus wrote:

You're Rick Spielman. Zygi Wilf has come to you and said "Trade Peterson for a franchise QB."

Who do you call?

Chicago?

Peterson/Sage for Cutler?

The Bears haven't had a franchise QB since Bobby Douglass. They finally think they have one and aren't likely to trade him for a RB.

Also - I'm not a real fan of giving an angry AD two shots at the Vikings each year.

I do, however, like the idea of trading him (in this scenario) to a team that plays outdoors on grass.

You just asked who would you call. You said nothing about what their response would be.

Houston?

Peterson for Schaub? They do have Rex.

I think i was fairly clear in noting that I was hoping for a real discussion of trade possibilities where one side is not assumed to be a deaf-mute from Liechtenstein who is impressed by the feel of velvet undergarments.

My point is that trading Peterson for a franchise QB is not at all likely. I, personally, cannot think of any trading partner who has what we want AND who would be willing to trade it.

Now - as to Houston: they are on the cusp of becoming a playoff team. Just coming off the first winning season in franchise history. They also have Steve Slaton who, while also a fumbler, has had two fairly successful seasons. I doubt they would be willing to trade Schaub for AD (given that they have Slaton) and leave only the Sex Cannon as their QB.

I don't see it. Even if it's repackaged as AD/TJack and a 1st for Schaub/Slaton.

If there's one thing we've seen in the Childress era it's how hard it is to find franchise QBs.

Who do you know Chicago or Houston would not be interested? You don't. That is why you call.

In both of those cases, you proposed a trade. I then put on the hat of the management of that team and decided why that didn't seem like a good deal for that team. I don't think anything I have posted as an answer for those two proposals is unreasonable. Both sides need to gain something in a trade, unless, of course, Mike Lynn is on one side of the deal (speaking of asshats).

I think it's more likely to find a QB-in-waiting as a franchise option than the #1 guy for a team. Are there any of those that you fancy?

=Z=

Zeus
02-02-2010, 10:59 AM
Prophet wrote:

Zeus wrote:

Prophet wrote:

The funny thing about discussing something with you is that it is effortless to win an argument. You make yourself look like a dumbass without any baiting.

I stand behind everything I write and there is nothing unrealistic in anything that I have said. It is you that looks like a moron, and it is all done to yourself by yourself. Congratulations, your true idiocy is now transparent to all.

It's easy to stand behind a pile of shit because no one else wants to come near it.

You: trade AD for a franchise QB.
Me: with whom do you propose that trade is made?
You: I don't have to answer that, it's enough that I said it should be done.

Who again is being the dumbass?

I answered your questions and you didn't like the answers. That's your problem. Anyone can go back and read through the thread and readily see that you are the asshat that started with the name calling and degrading comments. Why? Because you didn't like my answer. My answer remains the same and it is more solid than some fanatics speculation. Anyone that wants to speculate on the specifics of the theoretical transaction is free to do so, nobody is stopping them.

You'd fail anyone who followed up a direct question with that kind of answer and you know it.

=Z=

Zeus
02-02-2010, 11:01 AM
Prophet wrote:

Zeus wrote:

Prophet wrote:

The funny thing about discussing something with you is that it is effortless to win an argument. You make yourself look like a dumbass without any baiting.

I stand behind everything I write and there is nothing unrealistic in anything that I have said. It is you that looks like a moron, and it is all done to yourself by yourself. Congratulations, your true idiocy is now transparent to all.

It's easy to stand behind a pile of shit because no one else wants to come near it.

You: trade AD for a franchise QB.
Me: with whom do you propose that trade is made?
You: I don't have to answer that, it's enough that I said it should be done.

Who again is being the dumbass?

I answered your questions and you didn't like the answers. That's your problem. Anyone can go back and read through the thread and readily see that you are the asshat that started with the name calling and degrading comments. Why? Because you didn't like my answer. My answer remains the same and it is more solid than some fanatics speculation. Anyone that wants to speculate on the specifics of the theoretical transaction is free to do so, nobody is stopping them.

You'd fail anyone who followed up a direct question with that kind of answer and you know it.

=Z=

Prophet
02-02-2010, 11:03 AM
Zeus wrote:

Prophet wrote:

Zeus wrote:

Prophet wrote:

The funny thing about discussing something with you is that it is effortless to win an argument. You make yourself look like a dumbass without any baiting.

I stand behind everything I write and there is nothing unrealistic in anything that I have said. It is you that looks like a moron, and it is all done to yourself by yourself. Congratulations, your true idiocy is now transparent to all.

It's easy to stand behind a pile of shit because no one else wants to come near it.

You: trade AD for a franchise QB.
Me: with whom do you propose that trade is made?
You: I don't have to answer that, it's enough that I said it should be done.

Who again is being the dumbass?

I answered your questions and you didn't like the answers. That's your problem. Anyone can go back and read through the thread and readily see that you are the asshat that started with the name calling and degrading comments. Why? Because you didn't like my answer. My answer remains the same and it is more solid than some fanatics speculation. Anyone that wants to speculate on the specifics of the theoretical transaction is free to do so, nobody is stopping them.

You'd fail anyone who followed up a direct question with that kind of answer and you know it.

=Z=

True. Unless I was wise enough to look back in the thread and see the answer that was originally provided and realized that it was brilliant and required no further discussion.

marstc09
02-02-2010, 11:04 AM
Zeus wrote:

Prophet wrote:

Zeus wrote:

Prophet wrote:

The funny thing about discussing something with you is that it is effortless to win an argument. You make yourself look like a dumbass without any baiting.

I stand behind everything I write and there is nothing unrealistic in anything that I have said. It is you that looks like a moron, and it is all done to yourself by yourself. Congratulations, your true idiocy is now transparent to all.

It's easy to stand behind a pile of shit because no one else wants to come near it.

You: trade AD for a franchise QB.
Me: with whom do you propose that trade is made?
You: I don't have to answer that, it's enough that I said it should be done.

Who again is being the dumbass?

I answered your questions and you didn't like the answers. That's your problem. Anyone can go back and read through the thread and readily see that you are the asshat that started with the name calling and degrading comments. Why? Because you didn't like my answer. My answer remains the same and it is more solid than some fanatics speculation. Anyone that wants to speculate on the specifics of the theoretical transaction is free to do so, nobody is stopping them.

You'd fail anyone who followed up a direct question with that kind of answer and you know it.

=Z=

I read it the first time. No need to double post. :P

Zeus
02-02-2010, 11:05 AM
marstc09 wrote:

Zeus wrote:

Prophet wrote:

Zeus wrote:

Prophet wrote:

The funny thing about discussing something with you is that it is effortless to win an argument. You make yourself look like a dumbass without any baiting.

I stand behind everything I write and there is nothing unrealistic in anything that I have said. It is you that looks like a moron, and it is all done to yourself by yourself. Congratulations, your true idiocy is now transparent to all.

It's easy to stand behind a pile of shit because no one else wants to come near it.

You: trade AD for a franchise QB.
Me: with whom do you propose that trade is made?
You: I don't have to answer that, it's enough that I said it should be done.

Who again is being the dumbass?

I answered your questions and you didn't like the answers. That's your problem. Anyone can go back and read through the thread and readily see that you are the asshat that started with the name calling and degrading comments. Why? Because you didn't like my answer. My answer remains the same and it is more solid than some fanatics speculation. Anyone that wants to speculate on the specifics of the theoretical transaction is free to do so, nobody is stopping them.

You'd fail anyone who followed up a direct question with that kind of answer and you know it.

I read it the first time. No need to double post. :P

G-damn "No suitable nodes" error fucked me on that one. Can't delete one of them, so I'm just a post whore, I guess.

=Z=

marstc09
02-02-2010, 11:07 AM
Zeus wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

Zeus wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

Zeus wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

Zeus wrote:

You're Rick Spielman. Zygi Wilf has come to you and said "Trade Peterson for a franchise QB."

Who do you call?

Chicago?

Peterson/Sage for Cutler?

The Bears haven't had a franchise QB since Bobby Douglass. They finally think they have one and aren't likely to trade him for a RB.

Also - I'm not a real fan of giving an angry AD two shots at the Vikings each year.

I do, however, like the idea of trading him (in this scenario) to a team that plays outdoors on grass.

You just asked who would you call. You said nothing about what their response would be.

Houston?

Peterson for Schaub? They do have Rex.

I think i was fairly clear in noting that I was hoping for a real discussion of trade possibilities where one side is not assumed to be a deaf-mute from Liechtenstein who is impressed by the feel of velvet undergarments.

My point is that trading Peterson for a franchise QB is not at all likely. I, personally, cannot think of any trading partner who has what we want AND who would be willing to trade it.

Now - as to Houston: they are on the cusp of becoming a playoff team. Just coming off the first winning season in franchise history. They also have Steve Slaton who, while also a fumbler, has had two fairly successful seasons. I doubt they would be willing to trade Schaub for AD (given that they have Slaton) and leave only the Sex Cannon as their QB.

I don't see it. Even if it's repackaged as AD/TJack and a 1st for Schaub/Slaton.

If there's one thing we've seen in the Childress era it's how hard it is to find franchise QBs.

Who do you know Chicago or Houston would not be interested? You don't. That is why you call.

In both of those cases, you proposed a trade. I then put on the hat of the management of that team and decided why that didn't seem like a good deal for that team. I don't think anything I have posted as an answer for those two proposals is unreasonable. Both sides need to gain something in a trade, unless, of course, Mike Lynn is on one side of the deal (speaking of asshats).

I think it's more likely to find a QB-in-waiting as a franchise option than the #1 guy for a team. Are there any of those that you fancy?

=Z=

Yup they were reasonable.

You might as well stick with Sage or TJ. Why would you give up Peterson for a backup or an unknown?

mountainviking
02-02-2010, 11:11 AM
WOW!! Some good and some pretty crazy thoughts here! First off, I don't like the idea of trading away Peterson at all!!! :angry:

I can't think of a single RB in the league who runs with his combo of power, speed, moves and balance! We wanted more receptions, we got it: 43 for 436 yards or 10.1 avg. Sure, fumbling is a problem, but lets look at the big picture here: 1 fumble every 45.75 carries isn't terrible, and figuring in the lost balls its one lost every 70+ carries! And, I dont' buy into the reputation leads to defenses going after the ball more idea...Defenses worth a spit are always going after the ball no matter who you are...and, sometimes, it leads to bigger gains as he rips away from them.

I'd rather have Thigpen for a 4th than Shaub for AP, and fat chance in hell anybody with a "Franchise QB" wants to trade him away anyway. First, you'd have to find a team with 2 QBs...like Philly. And, IMO, none of Kolb, McNabb, or VIck are worth AP by a long shot.

Really, I think the whole idea of a "Franchise QB," is overrated. Its still a TEAM game despite all the rules leaning toward the pass. Sure, a guy like Peyton Manning (or BF) makes everyone around him better, but how many PMs are out there? And, even he has a ton of first round talent around him every year. Secondly, look at the success of Flacco and Sanchez and Ryan...if you have the right team around them, even a rookie can be very successful. Lastly, I don't think we need to be all that worried about QB. If we fix the OL and STs as suggested, (and boost Defense a bit, as I've suggested ;) ) Jackson and Rosenfels could be very successful with this TEAM. Jackson could be next year's Garrard...or Rosenfels could be the next Warner. We won't know, till it happens, but I do like the TEAM around them!! :cheer:


Have to admit, STs were better this year. Farwell going to the probowl is awesome! And I think Onatalu helped too (I though Bush's fumble was a TD...KO was touched before he had the ball!) . Frampton seems to show up a lot as well. And, of course, Harvin don't hurt on returns! ;)

The OL was freakin wierd this year. We've got the two biggest tackles in the business and often can't get a run block rolling? WTF? Yet, our undersized C and RG combined with our big slow guys outside gives better pass protection!?!??? Unfortunately, I'm not sure changing the coaches would help tho...maybe, its the system.


http://www.nfl.com/players/profile?id=00-0025394

Zeus
02-02-2010, 11:13 AM
marstc09 wrote:

Zeus wrote:

In both of those cases, you proposed a trade. I then put on the hat of the management of that team and decided why that didn't seem like a good deal for that team. I don't think anything I have posted as an answer for those two proposals is unreasonable. Both sides need to gain something in a trade, unless, of course, Mike Lynn is on one side of the deal (speaking of asshats).

I think it's more likely to find a QB-in-waiting as a franchise option than the #1 guy for a team. Are there any of those that you fancy?

Yup they were reasonable.

You might as well stick with Sage or TJ. Why would you give up Peterson for a backup or an unknown?

Hey - I think trading Peterson is a stupid idea, too. Not the point of this discussion.

But since we are struggling to come up with a valid scenario, I think that does show that Prophet is best left running his lawn mower rather than our beloved football team.

=Z=

ejmat
02-02-2010, 11:14 AM
[/quote] C'mon now ... You are really trying to stretch it that CT is "more consistent" and pretty close to AD. The fact is they are not even close.
1) 6 receiving TDs over 8 years vs. 1 receiving TD over 3 years is a non-factor. Neither one of them is even contributing one a year. So, it really comes down to luck. Or the fact that when we get inside the 15 with Adrian he RUNS it in. I mean Adrian's 40 rushing in 3 years to CTs 22 in 6 years is a much more fair comparison
2) Chester is not CLOSE to Adrian in "busting one to the house." He never was, but certainly is not now. He has not had a run of longer than 25 yards in the last two seasons. Sure he had the 84-yarder and 95-yarder, but that does not make him "just as capable". For his entire career he only has three TD runs over 50 yards. Adrian has 6 already ... on 100 less carries. He has five career TDs from 20+ yards out, Adrian already has 13 (14 if you count playoffs).
His career average is 4.3 per carry. Adrian's is 4.9. Don't know how else to spell out who is more explosive.
3) Adrian has 18 career touchdowns from 3 yards and in (pretty common from a workhorse back), Chester has 12 of his 22 career TDs from inside that ... so don't figure how you can bag on Adrian for that.

As for "other" things ... there is no stat right now to show that Chester is a better receiver out of the backfield. Just a common thing spouted in these parts by the anti-Adrian's (not you per say). Chester played almost universally on passing downs this season, yet Adrian still produced more receptions and yards receiving. He has 47 more yards receiving despite having one less catch ... yet again showing how much more explosive he is than Chester. He also already has two career receptions over 60 yards, something Chester has not done.
Blocking is also fairly similar here. Something people just spout, but for the most part are just spouting. Chester is probably a little better, but he definitely is not far superior. And I can tell you this much, no other fan base talks as much about "blocking" for their premier back. The entire blocking argument comes from the anti-Adrian crowd (once again not saying you are part of that, but you definitely take from them). Adrian has improved ten-fold in this area in the last year and a half ... and if someone thinks Chester's advantage in this is even twice Adrian's , they would still be a fool if they thought it was valid in bringing up Chester over Adrian. Just like the idiots who used to say Hines Ward was the best receiver in football because he can block.
The only thing even worth being discussed is the fumbles. And it is a valid point. Chester fumbled once per 69 touches this season and Adrian once per 51. For their career ... Chester puts the ball on the ground once very 58.78 touches and Adrian does it once every 49.9. A decent difference, and definitely something that needs to be worked on. But, Chester is still "fumble prone" because that is too often as well. For example, Chris Johnson fumbled once every 136 touches this season.
Chester started at RB with Brad Johnson in 2006 and Adrian had Tarvaris and Gus and Brooks, etc. in 2007 and 2008. Lets not talk about Adrian having the "better" quarterbacks. Chester is NOT just as capable as Adrian. This is evidenced by his one year as starter with 1200 yards, a mediocre 6 TDs and a very pedestrian 4.0 average. Numbers that have been eclipsed by Adrian EVERY year he has been in the league. And apparently since short ones don't count ... FIVE of Chester's six TDs that season were from 4 yards or shorter. Clearly busting the big one on a regular basis there.
Outside of the fumbles ... there is nothing to indicate Chester is "more consistent" and there is nothing to indicate that CT is even close to Adrian Peterson's level. And Adrian is not the only one with a fumbling problem.[/quote]

Not sure why you had to post this 3 times but that's besides the point.

First of all after all your ranting you do realize that AP has been the starter for 2 2/3 years while CT has only been a starter for 1 1/3 years of his career, right? Don't you think that makes a difference in any stat you post? It's not just a black and white "he's been in the league 8 years vs 3 for AP".

If you don't think they are close that is your opinion. The way you talk about it CT is terrible and can't handle a starting job.

Unfortunately throughout his career he has been behind great backs. AP being one of them. So he always has to be in the shadow. You give CT a good OL and a QB that is respected around the league and he can prove he is a capable starting RB in the league. What hurts him at this point in his career is his age. Nothing more.

Now please show me where I said CT is more explosive than AP. As a matter of fact I clearly pointed out in my post AP is the better runner. Just because I think CT is capable of taking to the house from anywhere on the field doesn't mean I think he is more explosive than AP. The fact he has taken it from 95 and 84 yards prove that he IS capable of taking it from anywhere on the field so I'm not sure why you think he isn't.

As far as the QB thing, didn't AP have Brett Favre as a QB this past year? So yeah I can use that as a factor. As to your point about TJ and Gus that is totally valid and never have I disagreed that AP did a great job. My issues with AP are his fumbling issues and his blocking issues. If you don't think that is a problem it is again, your opinion. I look at things from the big picture. A RB consists of several factors. Not just who runs better or quicker. I give AP can break tackles better than CT and that is a big reason why his ypc are more. But can you honestly say that Ap is better at finding the holes than CT? That is different and it goes unmentioned in stats. That would also have a bearing on ypc. My opinion that CT is more consistent than AP is just that. An opinion. It';s because of what I see. CT is always pretty consistent in getting you those 3,4 or 5 yard runs. I cannot say the same about AP. I have seen on many occasions AP get stopped behind the line or at the LOS. Do you have a stat on that? That would be pretty interesting now wouldn't it? How many times did AP get stopped on 4th and 1 compared to CT? I can remember 3 times just this past year AP being stopped on 3rd or 4th and very short. But I guess since people don't really keep those stats they don't count right?

You can have your opinions. I am glad you can back them up with statistics. I won't and can't argue that. What I will bring to the table are the intabgeables you don't see from statistics alone. The difference is you use blanket statistics that don't entirely tell the whole story. I can see why CMac likes your post.

C Mac D
02-02-2010, 11:24 AM
ejmat wrote:


C'mon now ... You are really trying to stretch it that CT is "more consistent" and pretty close to AD. The fact is they are not even close.
1) 6 receiving TDs over 8 years vs. 1 receiving TD over 3 years is a non-factor. Neither one of them is even contributing one a year. So, it really comes down to luck. Or the fact that when we get inside the 15 with Adrian he RUNS it in. I mean Adrian's 40 rushing in 3 years to CTs 22 in 6 years is a much more fair comparison
2) Chester is not CLOSE to Adrian in "busting one to the house." He never was, but certainly is not now. He has not had a run of longer than 25 yards in the last two seasons. Sure he had the 84-yarder and 95-yarder, but that does not make him "just as capable". For his entire career he only has three TD runs over 50 yards. Adrian has 6 already ... on 100 less carries. He has five career TDs from 20+ yards out, Adrian already has 13 (14 if you count playoffs).
His career average is 4.3 per carry. Adrian's is 4.9. Don't know how else to spell out who is more explosive.
3) Adrian has 18 career touchdowns from 3 yards and in (pretty common from a workhorse back), Chester has 12 of his 22 career TDs from inside that ... so don't figure how you can bag on Adrian for that.

As for "other" things ... there is no stat right now to show that Chester is a better receiver out of the backfield. Just a common thing spouted in these parts by the anti-Adrian's (not you per say). Chester played almost universally on passing downs this season, yet Adrian still produced more receptions and yards receiving. He has 47 more yards receiving despite having one less catch ... yet again showing how much more explosive he is than Chester. He also already has two career receptions over 60 yards, something Chester has not done.
Blocking is also fairly similar here. Something people just spout, but for the most part are just spouting. Chester is probably a little better, but he definitely is not far superior. And I can tell you this much, no other fan base talks as much about "blocking" for their premier back. The entire blocking argument comes from the anti-Adrian crowd (once again not saying you are part of that, but you definitely take from them). Adrian has improved ten-fold in this area in the last year and a half ... and if someone thinks Chester's advantage in this is even twice Adrian's , they would still be a fool if they thought it was valid in bringing up Chester over Adrian. Just like the idiots who used to say Hines Ward was the best receiver in football because he can block.
The only thing even worth being discussed is the fumbles. And it is a valid point. Chester fumbled once per 69 touches this season and Adrian once per 51. For their career ... Chester puts the ball on the ground once very 58.78 touches and Adrian does it once every 49.9. A decent difference, and definitely something that needs to be worked on. But, Chester is still "fumble prone" because that is too often as well. For example, Chris Johnson fumbled once every 136 touches this season.
Chester started at RB with Brad Johnson in 2006 and Adrian had Tarvaris and Gus and Brooks, etc. in 2007 and 2008. Lets not talk about Adrian having the "better" quarterbacks. Chester is NOT just as capable as Adrian. This is evidenced by his one year as starter with 1200 yards, a mediocre 6 TDs and a very pedestrian 4.0 average. Numbers that have been eclipsed by Adrian EVERY year he has been in the league. And apparently since short ones don't count ... FIVE of Chester's six TDs that season were from 4 yards or shorter. Clearly busting the big one on a regular basis there.
Outside of the fumbles ... there is nothing to indicate Chester is "more consistent" and there is nothing to indicate that CT is even close to Adrian Peterson's level. And Adrian is not the only one with a fumbling problem.

Not sure why you had to post this 3 times but that's besides the point.

First of all after all your ranting you do realize that AP has been the starter for 2 2/3 years while CT has only been a starter for 1 1/3 years of his career, right? Don't you think that makes a difference in any stat you post? It's not just a black and white "he's been in the league 8 years vs 3 for AP".

If you don't think they are close that is your opinion. The way you talk about it CT is terrible and can't handle a starting job.

Unfortunately throughout his career he has been behind great backs. AP being one of them. So he always has to be in the shadow. You give CT a good OL and a QB that is respected around the league and he can prove he is a capable starting RB in the league. What hurts him at this point in his career is his age. Nothing more.

Now please show me where I said CT is more explosive than AP. As a matter of fact I clearly pointed out in my post AP is the better runner. Just because I think CT is capable of taking to the house from anywhere on the field doesn't mean I think he is more explosive than AP. The fact he has taken it from 95 and 84 yards prove that he IS capable of taking it from anywhere on the field so I'm not sure why you think he isn't.

As far as the QB thing, didn't AP have Brett Favre as a QB this past year? So yeah I can use that as a factor. As to your point about TJ and Gus that is totally valid and never have I disagreed that AP did a great job. My issues with AP are his fumbling issues and his blocking issues. If you don't think that is a problem it is again, your opinion. I look at things from the big picture. A RB consists of several factors. Not just who runs better or quicker. I give AP can break tackles better than CT and that is a big reason why his ypc are more. But can you honestly say that Ap is better at finding the holes than CT? That is different and it goes unmentioned in stats. That would also have a bearing on ypc. My opinion that CT is more consistent than AP is just that. An opinion. It';s because of what I see. CT is always pretty consistent in getting you those 3,4 or 5 yard runs. I cannot say the same about AP. I have seen on many occasions AP get stopped behind the line or at the LOS. Do you have a stat on that? That would be pretty interesting now wouldn't it? How many times did AP get stopped on 4th and 1 compared to CT? I can remember 3 times just this past year AP being stopped on 3rd or 4th and very short. But I guess since people don't really keep those stats they don't count right?

You can have your opinions. I am glad you can back them up with statistics. I won't and can't argue that. What I will bring to the table are the intabgeables you don't see from statistics alone. The difference is you use blanket statistics that don't entirely tell the whole story. I can see why CMac likes your post.

Oh really? You bring "intabgeables" to the table? So... something you can never prove so you can never be wrong is what you bring to the table?

It's funny... if all those "intabgeables" don't make someone a more productive player, then what do they do?

And if Taylor is the better all around back, as you suggest, do you get upset that Childress starts Peterson every game and uses him drastically more than Taylor?

And I fixed your Quoting error too.

mountainviking
02-02-2010, 11:25 AM
Chicago?

Peterson/Sage for Cutler?




Eeeeeewwww! Ick! You're sick!!!

Worst Idea Ever


That guy might actually pass the BF for the INT record!?!?

Prophet
02-02-2010, 11:28 AM
mountainviking wrote:

WOW!! Some good and some pretty crazy thoughts here! First off, I don't like the idea of trading away Peterson at all!!! :angry:

I can't think of a single RB in the league who runs with his combo of power, speed, moves and balance! We wanted more receptions, we got it: 43 for 436 yards or 10.1 avg. Sure, fumbling is a problem, but lets look at the big picture here: 1 fumble every 45.75 carries isn't terrible, and figuring in the lost balls its one lost every 70+ carries! And, I dont' buy into the reputation leads to defenses going after the ball more idea...Defenses worth a spit are always going after the ball no matter who you are...and, sometimes, it leads to bigger gains as he rips away from them.

I'd rather have Thigpen for a 4th than Shaub for AP, and fat chance in hell anybody with a "Franchise QB" wants to trade him away anyway. First, you'd have to find a team with 2 QBs...like Philly. And, IMO, none of Kolb, McNabb, or VIck are worth AP by a long shot.

Really, I think the whole idea of a "Franchise QB," is overrated. Its still a TEAM game despite all the rules leaning toward the pass. Sure, a guy like Peyton Manning (or BF) makes everyone around him better, but how many PMs are out there? And, even he has a ton of first round talent around him every year. Secondly, look at the success of Flacco and Sanchez and Ryan...if you have the right team around them, even a rookie can be very successful. Lastly, I don't think we need to be all that worried about QB. If we fix the OL and STs as suggested, (and boost Defense a bit, as I've suggested ;) ) Jackson and Rosenfels could be very successful with this TEAM. Jackson could be next year's Garrard...or Rosenfels could be the next Warner. We won't know, till it happens, but I do like the TEAM around them!! :cheer:


Have to admit, STs were better this year. Farwell going to the probowl is awesome! And I think Onatalu helped too (I though Bush's fumble was a TD...KO was touched before he had the ball!) . Frampton seems to show up a lot as well. And, of course, Harvin don't hurt on returns! ;)

The OL was freakin wierd this year. We've got the two biggest tackles in the business and often can't get a run block rolling? WTF? Yet, our undersized C and RG combined with our big slow guys outside gives better pass protection!?!??? Unfortunately, I'm not sure changing the coaches would help tho...maybe, its the system.


http://www.nfl.com/players/profile?id=00-0025394

...and that, is the biggest flaw in the theory. QBs, more than any other position, are not easy to grab from the heap and say they will be successful in the NFL. They are all at different stages of development at the NFL-level and more times than not their collegiate success does not translate into NFL success or their collegiate questionableness does not translate into NFL bust.

I still do not buy into AD not being potential trade bait for the right price. He is worth a lot and there are needs on the team. I really believe that if Munchak was hired to run the o-line the team would be better off. I also believe that in today's NFL when you get a 'star' that is a non-QB on offense that it is wise to consider shopping him to patch up holes. I take a solid team every time over a non-QB star that is selling jerseys.

The team is always thinking stuff like this and discussing possibilites, regardless of whether a fanatic thinks they are or not. Brainstorming in a multi-millionaire dollar corporation in order to improve the franchise is always done and ideas are built on or shot down as mindless. But, they will also use their resources (scouts, capologist, etc.) to look into ideas and see their possiblities. I know, most know that already, but, to think that ideas are dead in the water because they are perceived as stupid, by some, is ridiculous. The first guy to bottle water in the U.S and sell something that is readily available and free was thought of as a moron, now the moron is a billionaire.

Prophet
02-02-2010, 11:32 AM
Zeus wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

Zeus wrote:

In both of those cases, you proposed a trade. I then put on the hat of the management of that team and decided why that didn't seem like a good deal for that team. I don't think anything I have posted as an answer for those two proposals is unreasonable. Both sides need to gain something in a trade, unless, of course, Mike Lynn is on one side of the deal (speaking of asshats).

I think it's more likely to find a QB-in-waiting as a franchise option than the #1 guy for a team. Are there any of those that you fancy?

Yup they were reasonable.

You might as well stick with Sage or TJ. Why would you give up Peterson for a backup or an unknown?

Hey - I think trading Peterson is a stupid idea, too. Not the point of this discussion.

But since we are struggling to come up with a valid scenario, I think that does show that Prophet is best left running his lawn mower rather than our beloved football team.

=Z=

The difference between me and you is that I know where my weaknesses lie, so, I default to the team of professionals that is already hired, the scouts and capologist, some of the best in the league. Let them sort out what could potentially happen, and then make my decision off of reality...rather than what some fake greek god writes off the cuff.

marstc09
02-02-2010, 11:33 AM
C Mac D wrote:

ejmat wrote:

Midge Resurrected wrote:
C'mon now ... You are really trying to stretch it that CT is "more consistent" and pretty close to AD. The fact is they are not even close.
1) 6 receiving TDs over 8 years vs. 1 receiving TD over 3 years is a non-factor. Neither one of them is even contributing one a year. So, it really comes down to luck. Or the fact that when we get inside the 15 with Adrian he RUNS it in. I mean Adrian's 40 rushing in 3 years to CTs 22 in 6 years is a much more fair comparison
2) Chester is not CLOSE to Adrian in "busting one to the house." He never was, but certainly is not now. He has not had a run of longer than 25 yards in the last two seasons. Sure he had the 84-yarder and 95-yarder, but that does not make him "just as capable". For his entire career he only has three TD runs over 50 yards. Adrian has 6 already ... on 100 less carries. He has five career TDs from 20+ yards out, Adrian already has 13 (14 if you count playoffs).
His career average is 4.3 per carry. Adrian's is 4.9. Don't know how else to spell out who is more explosive.
3) Adrian has 18 career touchdowns from 3 yards and in (pretty common from a workhorse back), Chester has 12 of his 22 career TDs from inside that ... so don't figure how you can bag on Adrian for that.

As for "other" things ... there is no stat right now to show that Chester is a better receiver out of the backfield. Just a common thing spouted in these parts by the anti-Adrian's (not you per say). Chester played almost universally on passing downs this season, yet Adrian still produced more receptions and yards receiving. He has 47 more yards receiving despite having one less catch ... yet again showing how much more explosive he is than Chester. He also already has two career receptions over 60 yards, something Chester has not done.
Blocking is also fairly similar here. Something people just spout, but for the most part are just spouting. Chester is probably a little better, but he definitely is not far superior. And I can tell you this much, no other fan base talks as much about "blocking" for their premier back. The entire blocking argument comes from the anti-Adrian crowd (once again not saying you are part of that, but you definitely take from them). Adrian has improved ten-fold in this area in the last year and a half ... and if someone thinks Chester's advantage in this is even twice Adrian's , they would still be a fool if they thought it was valid in bringing up Chester over Adrian. Just like the idiots who used to say Hines Ward was the best receiver in football because he can block.
The only thing even worth being discussed is the fumbles. And it is a valid point. Chester fumbled once per 69 touches this season and Adrian once per 51. For their career ... Chester puts the ball on the ground once very 58.78 touches and Adrian does it once every 49.9. A decent difference, and definitely something that needs to be worked on. But, Chester is still "fumble prone" because that is too often as well. For example, Chris Johnson fumbled once every 136 touches this season.
Chester started at RB with Brad Johnson in 2006 and Adrian had Tarvaris and Gus and Brooks, etc. in 2007 and 2008. Lets not talk about Adrian having the "better" quarterbacks. Chester is NOT just as capable as Adrian. This is evidenced by his one year as starter with 1200 yards, a mediocre 6 TDs and a very pedestrian 4.0 average. Numbers that have been eclipsed by Adrian EVERY year he has been in the league. And apparently since short ones don't count ... FIVE of Chester's six TDs that season were from 4 yards or shorter. Clearly busting the big one on a regular basis there.
Outside of the fumbles ... there is nothing to indicate Chester is "more consistent" and there is nothing to indicate that CT is even close to Adrian Peterson's level. And Adrian is not the only one with a fumbling problem.

Not sure why you had to post this 3 times but that's besides the point.

First of all after all your ranting you do realize that AP has been the starter for 2 2/3 years while CT has only been a starter for 1 1/3 years of his career, right? Don't you think that makes a difference in any stat you post? It's not just a black and white "he's been in the league 8 years vs 3 for AP".

If you don't think they are close that is your opinion. The way you talk about it CT is terrible and can't handle a starting job.

Unfortunately throughout his career he has been behind great backs. AP being one of them. So he always has to be in the shadow. You give CT a good OL and a QB that is respected around the league and he can prove he is a capable starting RB in the league. What hurts him at this point in his career is his age. Nothing more.

Now please show me where I said CT is more explosive than AP. As a matter of fact I clearly pointed out in my post AP is the better runner. Just because I think CT is capable of taking to the house from anywhere on the field doesn't mean I think he is more explosive than AP. The fact he has taken it from 95 and 84 yards prove that he IS capable of taking it from anywhere on the field so I'm not sure why you think he isn't.

As far as the QB thing, didn't AP have Brett Favre as a QB this past year? So yeah I can use that as a factor. As to your point about TJ and Gus that is totally valid and never have I disagreed that AP did a great job. My issues with AP are his fumbling issues and his blocking issues. If you don't think that is a problem it is again, your opinion. I look at things from the big picture. A RB consists of several factors. Not just who runs better or quicker. I give AP can break tackles better than CT and that is a big reason why his ypc are more. But can you honestly say that Ap is better at finding the holes than CT? That is different and it goes unmentioned in stats. That would also have a bearing on ypc. My opinion that CT is more consistent than AP is just that. An opinion. It';s because of what I see. CT is always pretty consistent in getting you those 3,4 or 5 yard runs. I cannot say the same about AP. I have seen on many occasions AP get stopped behind the line or at the LOS. Do you have a stat on that? That would be pretty interesting now wouldn't it? How many times did AP get stopped on 4th and 1 compared to CT? I can remember 3 times just this past year AP being stopped on 3rd or 4th and very short. But I guess since people don't really keep those stats they don't count right?

You can have your opinions. I am glad you can back them up with statistics. I won't and can't argue that. What I will bring to the table are the intabgeables you don't see from statistics alone. The difference is you use blanket statistics that don't entirely tell the whole story. I can see why CMac likes your post.

Oh really? You bring "intabgeables" to the table? So... something you can never prove so you can never be wrong is what you bring to the table?

It's funny... if all those "intabgeables" don't make someone a more productive player, then what do they do?

And if Taylor is the better all around back, as you suggest, do you get upset that Childress starts Peterson every game and uses him drastically more than Taylor?

And I fixed your Quoting error too.

Actually I fixed it for you.

jmcdon00
02-02-2010, 11:35 AM
ejmat wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:

ejmat wrote:

Midge Resurrected wrote:

ejmat wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:

I don't think getting rid of Peterson is a good idea. Chester Taylor is good at his role but he is not even close to the game breaker AD is. Look at the facts.

In 2007 Peterson averaged 5.6ypa. Taylor 5.4.
In 2008 Peterson averaged 4.8ypa. Taylor 4.0.
In 2009 Peterson averaged 4.4ypa. Taylro 3.6.

Over last 3 years:
Peterson fumbled 20 times on 915attempts. 1 in 45.75
Taylor fumbled 9 times on 352attempts. 1 in 39.11

Peterson had more recieving yards in 2009 than Taylor has had in any single year of his career.

Peterson had a higher yds per reception(10.1) in 09 than Taylor has had in any year of his career.

Petersons career yards per reception is 10.0, Taylor 7.9.

Peterson 24years old, Taylor 30 Years old.

If we were in a rebuilding year I would say shop Peterson, but we are in win now mode. Outside of a Hershal Walker type trade I say keep Peterson.

You make some great points. Especially the one about win now mode. It would be difficult to get decent value for AP. Schaub, Slaton and a 4th maybe. It's hard to be unbiased thinking about what he is worth. The problem with AP is his fumbling. I could put up with the missed blocks some times. He definitely improved coming out of the backfield. Still not great but improved. Taylor ful time is a pretty good back but the fact he is 30 is an issue. I like CT and I still believe at their stages in their careers CT is the better all purpose back. But AP is a great runner but he just needs to stay focused. I would be totally okay with suring up the QB position and getting extra picks. But it really would have to be worth it.

The problem with AD is fumbling and you would be willing to bring Slaton aboard? Slaton fumbles WAY more often than AD.

Doh ...

That is true but Slaton wouldn't be the #1 back. It would be Chester. You have to make a trade fair. That is the only reason why I included him. I don't think anyone would give up a franchise QB and two 1st day picks.
Except Taylor fumbles more often than Peterson too.

It all depends how you look at it. He does on a percentage basis but before this year Taylor fumbled at a lessor rate than AP. After this year APs carries have gone up significantly whereas CTs hasn't. But the fact remains AP does fumble at a lessor rate now. I still believe (hard to prove either way) that CT is more consistent than AP. I think CT provides a more consistent yard per carry (median instead of mean) (ex: 3,4,5,2,15, etc...) where AP isn't so consistent (ex: 1,2,0,4,-2,5,40,etc...). Of course I could be wrong though.

IMO there are other factors.
1) How many TDs does CT have receiving compared to AP? CT has 6 to APs 1.
2) CT is also just as capable of busting one to the house. Just for kicks CT has a 95 yard and an 84 yard run. AP's longest is 73. Not to take away APs two games of 200 yard rushing games that are simply phenominal.
3) AP definitely scores more TDs than Chester however 18 (almost half were this year) and most were for less than 3 yards. A TD is a TD though.

Fact is they are both darn good backs. CT is just as capable of doing well and truth be told never had the opportunity to play as a starter with a great QB. So I think that can be factored in too. AP is a beast. I love his tenacity. Unfortunately his tenacity in fighting for the extra (not needed) yard is what gets him in trouble and causes most of his fumbling.

AP still has problems blocking. Even though he has improved coming out of the backfield he still isn't as smooth as CT is imo. CT looks natural wheare AP struggles. Just my observation though. I totally give AP the credit of being the better runner but again CT is just as capable of taking the ball to the house at any given time.
Since Tayler and peterson have been on the same team Tayler has fumbled more per carry. This year Peterson fumbled more but I think that is more of an anomaly based on Taylers limited carries. Had Taylor fumbled 1 more time he would have had a higher fumble rate this year(he fumbled 2 of 94 carries).

1)Comparing 8 years to 4 is a tad unfair. Still Peterson only has 1 to Taylers 3 in the last 4 years. 3 is not that many though over 4 years with the vikings. This year Tayler had 1 to Petersons 0, that doesn't prove anything.

2)Peterson has 40td on 915carries. 1 in 22.875
Taylor has 22td on 1028carries. 1 in 46.727

Peterson has 43 20+ yard carries on 915carries. 1in 21.279
Taylor has 24 20+ yard carries on 1028 carries. 1 in 42.83

Peterson has 12 40+ yard carries on 915carries. 1 in 76.25.
Taylor has 5 40+ yard carris on 1028carries. 1 in 205.6.

For 2009 the numbers are even more in favor of Peterson.

3) See number 2. And a TD is a TD. I'm sure Tayler has gotten a few short yardage TD, yet still has a career high of 7. Petersons 21 this year is only 1 shy of Taylers career total 22.

Blocking probably does favor CT, and that's why he is a good 3rd down back. If he became the starter he would likely be on the bench much more on passing downs. Then you need to find another back that can pass block.

I think if you step back and look at the facts you will see that Peterson is a much greater threat to take it to the house.

The most important thing is that AD is 24, his best years are ahead of him, IMHO.

Also Tayler is an unrestricted free agent this year. Keeping him will probably cost alot of money and multiple years. Historically backs slow down after 30, he knows this and will be looking for a longer deal. I'm no confident in anyback at 32, 33, 34.

mountainviking
02-02-2010, 11:57 AM
I take a solid team every time over a non-QB star that is selling jerseys.


But, don't we have a pretty solid team already? And, from a business standpoint, its pretty hard to even consider losing that piece of the pie. ;)

I see you're thinking outside the box, and I like that. I am down with an upgrade at OL and ST coach for sure! Possibly RB coach too...I do see a lot of APs "fumbling problem" being coachable. But trading AP just doesn't seem very feasible to me. We'd need to get a really impressive stack of players and/or picks, or we'd look like fools for trading away a potential HOF RB. Sure, at the right price, but who is going to give that much up?

That is the thing with QBs...the developmental curve, where are they are on it and how far can they go? Thing is, once a team finds something good, they're usually not trading it away. And, I'm betting that TJack and Sage both learned at least a lil watching BF run the show. Both could be better than they were...AND the BF might come back. All in all, I think theres a real good chance we've got a QB that can win with this team aleady (at least for next year.)

Zeus
02-02-2010, 11:57 AM
Prophet wrote:

Zeus wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

Zeus wrote:

In both of those cases, you proposed a trade. I then put on the hat of the management of that team and decided why that didn't seem like a good deal for that team. I don't think anything I have posted as an answer for those two proposals is unreasonable. Both sides need to gain something in a trade, unless, of course, Mike Lynn is on one side of the deal (speaking of asshats).

I think it's more likely to find a QB-in-waiting as a franchise option than the #1 guy for a team. Are there any of those that you fancy?

Yup they were reasonable.

You might as well stick with Sage or TJ. Why would you give up Peterson for a backup or an unknown?

Hey - I think trading Peterson is a stupid idea, too. Not the point of this discussion.

But since we are struggling to come up with a valid scenario, I think that does show that Prophet is best left running his lawn mower rather than our beloved football team.


The difference between me and you is that I know where my weaknesses lie, so, I default to the team of professionals that is already hired, the scouts and capologist, some of the best in the league. Let them sort out what could potentially happen, and then make my decision off of reality...rather than what some fake greek god writes off the cuff.

Shit, dawg! I've been posting here for years that I don't know a damn thing, when compared to people that actually work in football for a living. I accept that reality.

Move along. Nothing to see here.

=Z=

ejmat
02-02-2010, 12:01 PM
C Mac D wrote:

ejmat wrote:


C'mon now ... You are really trying to stretch it that CT is "more consistent" and pretty close to AD. The fact is they are not even close.
1) 6 receiving TDs over 8 years vs. 1 receiving TD over 3 years is a non-factor. Neither one of them is even contributing one a year. So, it really comes down to luck. Or the fact that when we get inside the 15 with Adrian he RUNS it in. I mean Adrian's 40 rushing in 3 years to CTs 22 in 6 years is a much more fair comparison
2) Chester is not CLOSE to Adrian in "busting one to the house." He never was, but certainly is not now. He has not had a run of longer than 25 yards in the last two seasons. Sure he had the 84-yarder and 95-yarder, but that does not make him "just as capable". For his entire career he only has three TD runs over 50 yards. Adrian has 6 already ... on 100 less carries. He has five career TDs from 20+ yards out, Adrian already has 13 (14 if you count playoffs).
His career average is 4.3 per carry. Adrian's is 4.9. Don't know how else to spell out who is more explosive.
3) Adrian has 18 career touchdowns from 3 yards and in (pretty common from a workhorse back), Chester has 12 of his 22 career TDs from inside that ... so don't figure how you can bag on Adrian for that.

As for "other" things ... there is no stat right now to show that Chester is a better receiver out of the backfield. Just a common thing spouted in these parts by the anti-Adrian's (not you per say). Chester played almost universally on passing downs this season, yet Adrian still produced more receptions and yards receiving. He has 47 more yards receiving despite having one less catch ... yet again showing how much more explosive he is than Chester. He also already has two career receptions over 60 yards, something Chester has not done.
Blocking is also fairly similar here. Something people just spout, but for the most part are just spouting. Chester is probably a little better, but he definitely is not far superior. And I can tell you this much, no other fan base talks as much about "blocking" for their premier back. The entire blocking argument comes from the anti-Adrian crowd (once again not saying you are part of that, but you definitely take from them). Adrian has improved ten-fold in this area in the last year and a half ... and if someone thinks Chester's advantage in this is even twice Adrian's , they would still be a fool if they thought it was valid in bringing up Chester over Adrian. Just like the idiots who used to say Hines Ward was the best receiver in football because he can block.
The only thing even worth being discussed is the fumbles. And it is a valid point. Chester fumbled once per 69 touches this season and Adrian once per 51. For their career ... Chester puts the ball on the ground once very 58.78 touches and Adrian does it once every 49.9. A decent difference, and definitely something that needs to be worked on. But, Chester is still "fumble prone" because that is too often as well. For example, Chris Johnson fumbled once every 136 touches this season.
Chester started at RB with Brad Johnson in 2006 and Adrian had Tarvaris and Gus and Brooks, etc. in 2007 and 2008. Lets not talk about Adrian having the "better" quarterbacks. Chester is NOT just as capable as Adrian. This is evidenced by his one year as starter with 1200 yards, a mediocre 6 TDs and a very pedestrian 4.0 average. Numbers that have been eclipsed by Adrian EVERY year he has been in the league. And apparently since short ones don't count ... FIVE of Chester's six TDs that season were from 4 yards or shorter. Clearly busting the big one on a regular basis there.
Outside of the fumbles ... there is nothing to indicate Chester is "more consistent" and there is nothing to indicate that CT is even close to Adrian Peterson's level. And Adrian is not the only one with a fumbling problem.

Not sure why you had to post this 3 times but that's besides the point.

First of all after all your ranting you do realize that AP has been the starter for 2 2/3 years while CT has only been a starter for 1 1/3 years of his career, right? Don't you think that makes a difference in any stat you post? It's not just a black and white "he's been in the league 8 years vs 3 for AP".

If you don't think they are close that is your opinion. The way you talk about it CT is terrible and can't handle a starting job.

Unfortunately throughout his career he has been behind great backs. AP being one of them. So he always has to be in the shadow. You give CT a good OL and a QB that is respected around the league and he can prove he is a capable starting RB in the league. What hurts him at this point in his career is his age. Nothing more.

Now please show me where I said CT is more explosive than AP. As a matter of fact I clearly pointed out in my post AP is the better runner. Just because I think CT is capable of taking to the house from anywhere on the field doesn't mean I think he is more explosive than AP. The fact he has taken it from 95 and 84 yards prove that he IS capable of taking it from anywhere on the field so I'm not sure why you think he isn't.

As far as the QB thing, didn't AP have Brett Favre as a QB this past year? So yeah I can use that as a factor. As to your point about TJ and Gus that is totally valid and never have I disagreed that AP did a great job. My issues with AP are his fumbling issues and his blocking issues. If you don't think that is a problem it is again, your opinion. I look at things from the big picture. A RB consists of several factors. Not just who runs better or quicker. I give AP can break tackles better than CT and that is a big reason why his ypc are more. But can you honestly say that Ap is better at finding the holes than CT? That is different and it goes unmentioned in stats. That would also have a bearing on ypc. My opinion that CT is more consistent than AP is just that. An opinion. It';s because of what I see. CT is always pretty consistent in getting you those 3,4 or 5 yard runs. I cannot say the same about AP. I have seen on many occasions AP get stopped behind the line or at the LOS. Do you have a stat on that? That would be pretty interesting now wouldn't it? How many times did AP get stopped on 4th and 1 compared to CT? I can remember 3 times just this past year AP being stopped on 3rd or 4th and very short. But I guess since people don't really keep those stats they don't count right?

You can have your opinions. I am glad you can back them up with statistics. I won't and can't argue that. What I will bring to the table are the intabgeables you don't see from statistics alone. The difference is you use blanket statistics that don't entirely tell the whole story. I can see why CMac likes your post.

Oh really? You bring "intabgeables" to the table? So... something you can never prove so you can never be wrong is what you bring to the table?

It's funny... if all those "intabgeables" don't make someone a more productive player, then what do they do?

And if Taylor is the better all around back, as you suggest, do you get upset that Childress starts Peterson every game and uses him drastically more than Taylor?

And I fixed your Quoting error too.

Thanks for fixing my quoting error. You are the man CMac!

First off, unlike you, my main goal is not to be right or wrong. Unlike you I bring more than just blanket statistics to the table and think that is a tell all. See when you actually play organized football you see more of the intangeables and don't worry too much about statistics because they do not win you games. What do intangeables do? Ask any QB if having a RB that can block well help their passing game. Ask any runner if finding the holes quicker helps a team move the chains. When you are inconsistent you will move the chains but not as much as you can with consistency. Answer that question?

Next, I don't get mad when AP starts over CT. As I mentioned several times already (which you always seem to leave out) is that AP is a great back so I have no reason to get mad that he starts. I do get mad when he fumbles three times in a game. Now tell me he only fumbled twice in the NFCCG and that is where I come back at you that the statistics don't tell the entire story. See one fumble that was blamed on Favre was clearly AP's fault but the stats don't show that now do they?

C Mac D
02-02-2010, 12:05 PM
ejmat wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

ejmat wrote:


C'mon now ... You are really trying to stretch it that CT is "more consistent" and pretty close to AD. The fact is they are not even close.
1) 6 receiving TDs over 8 years vs. 1 receiving TD over 3 years is a non-factor. Neither one of them is even contributing one a year. So, it really comes down to luck. Or the fact that when we get inside the 15 with Adrian he RUNS it in. I mean Adrian's 40 rushing in 3 years to CTs 22 in 6 years is a much more fair comparison
2) Chester is not CLOSE to Adrian in "busting one to the house." He never was, but certainly is not now. He has not had a run of longer than 25 yards in the last two seasons. Sure he had the 84-yarder and 95-yarder, but that does not make him "just as capable". For his entire career he only has three TD runs over 50 yards. Adrian has 6 already ... on 100 less carries. He has five career TDs from 20+ yards out, Adrian already has 13 (14 if you count playoffs).
His career average is 4.3 per carry. Adrian's is 4.9. Don't know how else to spell out who is more explosive.
3) Adrian has 18 career touchdowns from 3 yards and in (pretty common from a workhorse back), Chester has 12 of his 22 career TDs from inside that ... so don't figure how you can bag on Adrian for that.

As for "other" things ... there is no stat right now to show that Chester is a better receiver out of the backfield. Just a common thing spouted in these parts by the anti-Adrian's (not you per say). Chester played almost universally on passing downs this season, yet Adrian still produced more receptions and yards receiving. He has 47 more yards receiving despite having one less catch ... yet again showing how much more explosive he is than Chester. He also already has two career receptions over 60 yards, something Chester has not done.
Blocking is also fairly similar here. Something people just spout, but for the most part are just spouting. Chester is probably a little better, but he definitely is not far superior. And I can tell you this much, no other fan base talks as much about "blocking" for their premier back. The entire blocking argument comes from the anti-Adrian crowd (once again not saying you are part of that, but you definitely take from them). Adrian has improved ten-fold in this area in the last year and a half ... and if someone thinks Chester's advantage in this is even twice Adrian's , they would still be a fool if they thought it was valid in bringing up Chester over Adrian. Just like the idiots who used to say Hines Ward was the best receiver in football because he can block.
The only thing even worth being discussed is the fumbles. And it is a valid point. Chester fumbled once per 69 touches this season and Adrian once per 51. For their career ... Chester puts the ball on the ground once very 58.78 touches and Adrian does it once every 49.9. A decent difference, and definitely something that needs to be worked on. But, Chester is still "fumble prone" because that is too often as well. For example, Chris Johnson fumbled once every 136 touches this season.
Chester started at RB with Brad Johnson in 2006 and Adrian had Tarvaris and Gus and Brooks, etc. in 2007 and 2008. Lets not talk about Adrian having the "better" quarterbacks. Chester is NOT just as capable as Adrian. This is evidenced by his one year as starter with 1200 yards, a mediocre 6 TDs and a very pedestrian 4.0 average. Numbers that have been eclipsed by Adrian EVERY year he has been in the league. And apparently since short ones don't count ... FIVE of Chester's six TDs that season were from 4 yards or shorter. Clearly busting the big one on a regular basis there.
Outside of the fumbles ... there is nothing to indicate Chester is "more consistent" and there is nothing to indicate that CT is even close to Adrian Peterson's level. And Adrian is not the only one with a fumbling problem.

Not sure why you had to post this 3 times but that's besides the point.

First of all after all your ranting you do realize that AP has been the starter for 2 2/3 years while CT has only been a starter for 1 1/3 years of his career, right? Don't you think that makes a difference in any stat you post? It's not just a black and white "he's been in the league 8 years vs 3 for AP".

If you don't think they are close that is your opinion. The way you talk about it CT is terrible and can't handle a starting job.

Unfortunately throughout his career he has been behind great backs. AP being one of them. So he always has to be in the shadow. You give CT a good OL and a QB that is respected around the league and he can prove he is a capable starting RB in the league. What hurts him at this point in his career is his age. Nothing more.

Now please show me where I said CT is more explosive than AP. As a matter of fact I clearly pointed out in my post AP is the better runner. Just because I think CT is capable of taking to the house from anywhere on the field doesn't mean I think he is more explosive than AP. The fact he has taken it from 95 and 84 yards prove that he IS capable of taking it from anywhere on the field so I'm not sure why you think he isn't.

As far as the QB thing, didn't AP have Brett Favre as a QB this past year? So yeah I can use that as a factor. As to your point about TJ and Gus that is totally valid and never have I disagreed that AP did a great job. My issues with AP are his fumbling issues and his blocking issues. If you don't think that is a problem it is again, your opinion. I look at things from the big picture. A RB consists of several factors. Not just who runs better or quicker. I give AP can break tackles better than CT and that is a big reason why his ypc are more. But can you honestly say that Ap is better at finding the holes than CT? That is different and it goes unmentioned in stats. That would also have a bearing on ypc. My opinion that CT is more consistent than AP is just that. An opinion. It';s because of what I see. CT is always pretty consistent in getting you those 3,4 or 5 yard runs. I cannot say the same about AP. I have seen on many occasions AP get stopped behind the line or at the LOS. Do you have a stat on that? That would be pretty interesting now wouldn't it? How many times did AP get stopped on 4th and 1 compared to CT? I can remember 3 times just this past year AP being stopped on 3rd or 4th and very short. But I guess since people don't really keep those stats they don't count right?

You can have your opinions. I am glad you can back them up with statistics. I won't and can't argue that. What I will bring to the table are the intabgeables you don't see from statistics alone. The difference is you use blanket statistics that don't entirely tell the whole story. I can see why CMac likes your post.

Oh really? You bring "intabgeables" to the table? So... something you can never prove so you can never be wrong is what you bring to the table?

It's funny... if all those "intabgeables" don't make someone a more productive player, then what do they do?

And if Taylor is the better all around back, as you suggest, do you get upset that Childress starts Peterson every game and uses him drastically more than Taylor?

And I fixed your Quoting error too.

Thanks for fixing my quoting error. You are the man CMac!

First off, unlike you, my main goal is not to be right or wrong. Unlike you I bring more than just blanket statistics to the table and think that is a tell all. See when you actually play organized football you see more of the intangeables and don't worry too much about statistics because they do not win you games. What do intangeables do? Ask any QB if having a RB that can block well help their passing game. Ask any runner if finding the holes quicker helps a team move the chains. When you are inconsistent you will move the chains but not as much as you can with consistency. Answer that question?

Next, I don't get mad when AP starts over CT. As I mentioned several times already (which you always seem to leave out) is that AP is a great back so I have no reason to get mad that he starts. I do get mad when he fumbles three times in a game. Now tell me he only fumbled twice in the NFCCG and that is where I come back at you that the statistics don't tell the entire story. See one fumble that was blamed on Favre was clearly AP's fault but the stats don't show that now do they?

I think it has been shown that Peterson is, beyond a reasonable doubt, abetter running back that Taylor. It sure is nice having both though.

But do you have anything to back your opinion up? How many of Taylor's blocks went for big gains? How many did he wiff? How many did he pancake? Or are you just throwing out vague notions?

Zeus
02-02-2010, 12:07 PM
C Mac D wrote:

I have nothing left to add.

Doubtful.

=Z=

C Mac D
02-02-2010, 12:09 PM
Zeus wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

I have nothing left to add.

Doubtful.

=Z=

lol... yeah, already went back and took that out.

Prophet
02-02-2010, 12:18 PM
mountainviking wrote:


I take a solid team every time over a non-QB star that is selling jerseys.


But, don't we have a pretty solid team already? And, from a business standpoint, its pretty hard to even consider losing that piece of the pie. ;)

I see you're thinking outside the box, and I like that. I am down with an upgrade at OL and ST coach for sure! Possibly RB coach too...I do see a lot of APs "fumbling problem" being coachable. But trading AP just doesn't seem very feasible to me. We'd need to get a really impressive stack of players and/or picks, or we'd look like fools for trading away a potential HOF RB. Sure, at the right price, but who is going to give that much up?

That is the thing with QBs...the developmental curve, where are they are on it and how far can they go? Thing is, once a team finds something good, they're usually not trading it away. And, I'm betting that TJack and Sage both learned at least a lil watching BF run the show. Both could be better than they were...AND the BF might come back. All in all, I think theres a real good chance we've got a QB that can win with this team aleady (at least for next year.)

We can hope that Tarvaris Jackson is up for the challenge. Personally, I have seen too many close-up views of him on the field and too many of them have the look of a mindless cow rather than a field general. I just don't see him developing into a bonified starter and am concerned about the future of QB with the Vikings and know that the clock is ticking with our current talent and don't want to wait for another developmental QB. Maybe a Sanchez will surface, maybe TJack will surface, maybe, maybe, maybe. I just wish that there was a QB that was the future QB of the team. Maybe he is already on the team, I bet against that.

And, yes, the Vikings are a helluva team right now. If they want to use what they have to get what they need (QB), then, there has to be something other than a Tahi or McKinnie or some other hack on the trading block with some picks for the illustrious QB position.

I would rely on the scouts for the next Brett Favre sitting on the bench in Atlanta, someone that shows promise that is not a fresh draft pick. Someone that has learned on the bench on another team's time. There is someone like that out there, I'm sure of it. Who? I have no fucking idea.

ejmat
02-02-2010, 12:31 PM
C Mac D wrote:

ejmat wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

ejmat wrote:


C'mon now ... You are really trying to stretch it that CT is "more consistent" and pretty close to AD. The fact is they are not even close.
1) 6 receiving TDs over 8 years vs. 1 receiving TD over 3 years is a non-factor. Neither one of them is even contributing one a year. So, it really comes down to luck. Or the fact that when we get inside the 15 with Adrian he RUNS it in. I mean Adrian's 40 rushing in 3 years to CTs 22 in 6 years is a much more fair comparison
2) Chester is not CLOSE to Adrian in "busting one to the house." He never was, but certainly is not now. He has not had a run of longer than 25 yards in the last two seasons. Sure he had the 84-yarder and 95-yarder, but that does not make him "just as capable". For his entire career he only has three TD runs over 50 yards. Adrian has 6 already ... on 100 less carries. He has five career TDs from 20+ yards out, Adrian already has 13 (14 if you count playoffs).
His career average is 4.3 per carry. Adrian's is 4.9. Don't know how else to spell out who is more explosive.
3) Adrian has 18 career touchdowns from 3 yards and in (pretty common from a workhorse back), Chester has 12 of his 22 career TDs from inside that ... so don't figure how you can bag on Adrian for that.

As for "other" things ... there is no stat right now to show that Chester is a better receiver out of the backfield. Just a common thing spouted in these parts by the anti-Adrian's (not you per say). Chester played almost universally on passing downs this season, yet Adrian still produced more receptions and yards receiving. He has 47 more yards receiving despite having one less catch ... yet again showing how much more explosive he is than Chester. He also already has two career receptions over 60 yards, something Chester has not done.
Blocking is also fairly similar here. Something people just spout, but for the most part are just spouting. Chester is probably a little better, but he definitely is not far superior. And I can tell you this much, no other fan base talks as much about "blocking" for their premier back. The entire blocking argument comes from the anti-Adrian crowd (once again not saying you are part of that, but you definitely take from them). Adrian has improved ten-fold in this area in the last year and a half ... and if someone thinks Chester's advantage in this is even twice Adrian's , they would still be a fool if they thought it was valid in bringing up Chester over Adrian. Just like the idiots who used to say Hines Ward was the best receiver in football because he can block.
The only thing even worth being discussed is the fumbles. And it is a valid point. Chester fumbled once per 69 touches this season and Adrian once per 51. For their career ... Chester puts the ball on the ground once very 58.78 touches and Adrian does it once every 49.9. A decent difference, and definitely something that needs to be worked on. But, Chester is still "fumble prone" because that is too often as well. For example, Chris Johnson fumbled once every 136 touches this season.
Chester started at RB with Brad Johnson in 2006 and Adrian had Tarvaris and Gus and Brooks, etc. in 2007 and 2008. Lets not talk about Adrian having the "better" quarterbacks. Chester is NOT just as capable as Adrian. This is evidenced by his one year as starter with 1200 yards, a mediocre 6 TDs and a very pedestrian 4.0 average. Numbers that have been eclipsed by Adrian EVERY year he has been in the league. And apparently since short ones don't count ... FIVE of Chester's six TDs that season were from 4 yards or shorter. Clearly busting the big one on a regular basis there.
Outside of the fumbles ... there is nothing to indicate Chester is "more consistent" and there is nothing to indicate that CT is even close to Adrian Peterson's level. And Adrian is not the only one with a fumbling problem.

Not sure why you had to post this 3 times but that's besides the point.

First of all after all your ranting you do realize that AP has been the starter for 2 2/3 years while CT has only been a starter for 1 1/3 years of his career, right? Don't you think that makes a difference in any stat you post? It's not just a black and white "he's been in the league 8 years vs 3 for AP".

If you don't think they are close that is your opinion. The way you talk about it CT is terrible and can't handle a starting job.

Unfortunately throughout his career he has been behind great backs. AP being one of them. So he always has to be in the shadow. You give CT a good OL and a QB that is respected around the league and he can prove he is a capable starting RB in the league. What hurts him at this point in his career is his age. Nothing more.

Now please show me where I said CT is more explosive than AP. As a matter of fact I clearly pointed out in my post AP is the better runner. Just because I think CT is capable of taking to the house from anywhere on the field doesn't mean I think he is more explosive than AP. The fact he has taken it from 95 and 84 yards prove that he IS capable of taking it from anywhere on the field so I'm not sure why you think he isn't.

As far as the QB thing, didn't AP have Brett Favre as a QB this past year? So yeah I can use that as a factor. As to your point about TJ and Gus that is totally valid and never have I disagreed that AP did a great job. My issues with AP are his fumbling issues and his blocking issues. If you don't think that is a problem it is again, your opinion. I look at things from the big picture. A RB consists of several factors. Not just who runs better or quicker. I give AP can break tackles better than CT and that is a big reason why his ypc are more. But can you honestly say that Ap is better at finding the holes than CT? That is different and it goes unmentioned in stats. That would also have a bearing on ypc. My opinion that CT is more consistent than AP is just that. An opinion. It';s because of what I see. CT is always pretty consistent in getting you those 3,4 or 5 yard runs. I cannot say the same about AP. I have seen on many occasions AP get stopped behind the line or at the LOS. Do you have a stat on that? That would be pretty interesting now wouldn't it? How many times did AP get stopped on 4th and 1 compared to CT? I can remember 3 times just this past year AP being stopped on 3rd or 4th and very short. But I guess since people don't really keep those stats they don't count right?

You can have your opinions. I am glad you can back them up with statistics. I won't and can't argue that. What I will bring to the table are the intabgeables you don't see from statistics alone. The difference is you use blanket statistics that don't entirely tell the whole story. I can see why CMac likes your post.

Oh really? You bring "intabgeables" to the table? So... something you can never prove so you can never be wrong is what you bring to the table?

It's funny... if all those "intabgeables" don't make someone a more productive player, then what do they do?

And if Taylor is the better all around back, as you suggest, do you get upset that Childress starts Peterson every game and uses him drastically more than Taylor?

And I fixed your Quoting error too.

Thanks for fixing my quoting error. You are the man CMac!

First off, unlike you, my main goal is not to be right or wrong. Unlike you I bring more than just blanket statistics to the table and think that is a tell all. See when you actually play organized football you see more of the intangeables and don't worry too much about statistics because they do not win you games. What do intangeables do? Ask any QB if having a RB that can block well help their passing game. Ask any runner if finding the holes quicker helps a team move the chains. When you are inconsistent you will move the chains but not as much as you can with consistency. Answer that question?

Next, I don't get mad when AP starts over CT. As I mentioned several times already (which you always seem to leave out) is that AP is a great back so I have no reason to get mad that he starts. I do get mad when he fumbles three times in a game. Now tell me he only fumbled twice in the NFCCG and that is where I come back at you that the statistics don't tell the entire story. See one fumble that was blamed on Favre was clearly AP's fault but the stats don't show that now do they?

I think it has been shown that Peterson is, beyond a reasonable doubt, abetter running back that Taylor. It sure is nice having both though.

But do you have anything to back your opinion up? How many of Taylor's blocks went for big gains? How many did he wiff? How many did he pancake? Or are you just throwing out vague notions?

When it comes to intangeables I only go by what I see. Of course there is no documented proof because they are not kept statistically. I watch every game. I see blocks/blitzes that are missed and picked up. I see Taylor do pretty well on most plays where he has to block. I cannot say the same about AP. I would love to say he does great back there but he really doesn't. I think he improved a little from last year but not much. You can go back and watch the infamous Eagle playoff game last year if you want to see some missed blocks.

As far as who is better. AP is better at certain things such as running the ball. He is more explosive. There are no arguments from me there. However, catching out of the backfield, blocking and fumbling there are many questions about APs ability. I think he is much improved coming out of the backfield which the stats do show but as far as being as good as CT there I am not so sure. CT had the same amount of catches with a lot less plays. AP had more yardage in those catches but again CT get spied on coming out of hte backfield whereas AP really doesn't when the QB drops back. He has more open space from what I see. Now that is not a bad thing nor am I trying to take anything away from AP.

His blocking skills definitely need work. His ball control skills also need work. Again, stats don't show the fumbles that weren't called correctly by the refs nor does it show the two that were clearly his fault (1 with Favre and 1 with TJ) and weren't charged to him.

So to say AP is a better all around back there are questions whether you agree or not. If you ask me who the better runner is, it's AP without question. The better RB is a different story.

jmcdon00
02-02-2010, 12:45 PM
ejmat wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

ejmat wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

ejmat wrote:


C'mon now ... You are really trying to stretch it that CT is "more consistent" and pretty close to AD. The fact is they are not even close.
1) 6 receiving TDs over 8 years vs. 1 receiving TD over 3 years is a non-factor. Neither one of them is even contributing one a year. So, it really comes down to luck. Or the fact that when we get inside the 15 with Adrian he RUNS it in. I mean Adrian's 40 rushing in 3 years to CTs 22 in 6 years is a much more fair comparison
2) Chester is not CLOSE to Adrian in "busting one to the house." He never was, but certainly is not now. He has not had a run of longer than 25 yards in the last two seasons. Sure he had the 84-yarder and 95-yarder, but that does not make him "just as capable". For his entire career he only has three TD runs over 50 yards. Adrian has 6 already ... on 100 less carries. He has five career TDs from 20+ yards out, Adrian already has 13 (14 if you count playoffs).
His career average is 4.3 per carry. Adrian's is 4.9. Don't know how else to spell out who is more explosive.
3) Adrian has 18 career touchdowns from 3 yards and in (pretty common from a workhorse back), Chester has 12 of his 22 career TDs from inside that ... so don't figure how you can bag on Adrian for that.

As for "other" things ... there is no stat right now to show that Chester is a better receiver out of the backfield. Just a common thing spouted in these parts by the anti-Adrian's (not you per say). Chester played almost universally on passing downs this season, yet Adrian still produced more receptions and yards receiving. He has 47 more yards receiving despite having one less catch ... yet again showing how much more explosive he is than Chester. He also already has two career receptions over 60 yards, something Chester has not done.
Blocking is also fairly similar here. Something people just spout, but for the most part are just spouting. Chester is probably a little better, but he definitely is not far superior. And I can tell you this much, no other fan base talks as much about "blocking" for their premier back. The entire blocking argument comes from the anti-Adrian crowd (once again not saying you are part of that, but you definitely take from them). Adrian has improved ten-fold in this area in the last year and a half ... and if someone thinks Chester's advantage in this is even twice Adrian's , they would still be a fool if they thought it was valid in bringing up Chester over Adrian. Just like the idiots who used to say Hines Ward was the best receiver in football because he can block.
The only thing even worth being discussed is the fumbles. And it is a valid point. Chester fumbled once per 69 touches this season and Adrian once per 51. For their career ... Chester puts the ball on the ground once very 58.78 touches and Adrian does it once every 49.9. A decent difference, and definitely something that needs to be worked on. But, Chester is still "fumble prone" because that is too often as well. For example, Chris Johnson fumbled once every 136 touches this season.
Chester started at RB with Brad Johnson in 2006 and Adrian had Tarvaris and Gus and Brooks, etc. in 2007 and 2008. Lets not talk about Adrian having the "better" quarterbacks. Chester is NOT just as capable as Adrian. This is evidenced by his one year as starter with 1200 yards, a mediocre 6 TDs and a very pedestrian 4.0 average. Numbers that have been eclipsed by Adrian EVERY year he has been in the league. And apparently since short ones don't count ... FIVE of Chester's six TDs that season were from 4 yards or shorter. Clearly busting the big one on a regular basis there.
Outside of the fumbles ... there is nothing to indicate Chester is "more consistent" and there is nothing to indicate that CT is even close to Adrian Peterson's level. And Adrian is not the only one with a fumbling problem.

Not sure why you had to post this 3 times but that's besides the point.

First of all after all your ranting you do realize that AP has been the starter for 2 2/3 years while CT has only been a starter for 1 1/3 years of his career, right? Don't you think that makes a difference in any stat you post? It's not just a black and white "he's been in the league 8 years vs 3 for AP".

If you don't think they are close that is your opinion. The way you talk about it CT is terrible and can't handle a starting job.

Unfortunately throughout his career he has been behind great backs. AP being one of them. So he always has to be in the shadow. You give CT a good OL and a QB that is respected around the league and he can prove he is a capable starting RB in the league. What hurts him at this point in his career is his age. Nothing more.

Now please show me where I said CT is more explosive than AP. As a matter of fact I clearly pointed out in my post AP is the better runner. Just because I think CT is capable of taking to the house from anywhere on the field doesn't mean I think he is more explosive than AP. The fact he has taken it from 95 and 84 yards prove that he IS capable of taking it from anywhere on the field so I'm not sure why you think he isn't.

As far as the QB thing, didn't AP have Brett Favre as a QB this past year? So yeah I can use that as a factor. As to your point about TJ and Gus that is totally valid and never have I disagreed that AP did a great job. My issues with AP are his fumbling issues and his blocking issues. If you don't think that is a problem it is again, your opinion. I look at things from the big picture. A RB consists of several factors. Not just who runs better or quicker. I give AP can break tackles better than CT and that is a big reason why his ypc are more. But can you honestly say that Ap is better at finding the holes than CT? That is different and it goes unmentioned in stats. That would also have a bearing on ypc. My opinion that CT is more consistent than AP is just that. An opinion. It';s because of what I see. CT is always pretty consistent in getting you those 3,4 or 5 yard runs. I cannot say the same about AP. I have seen on many occasions AP get stopped behind the line or at the LOS. Do you have a stat on that? That would be pretty interesting now wouldn't it? How many times did AP get stopped on 4th and 1 compared to CT? I can remember 3 times just this past year AP being stopped on 3rd or 4th and very short. But I guess since people don't really keep those stats they don't count right?

You can have your opinions. I am glad you can back them up with statistics. I won't and can't argue that. What I will bring to the table are the intabgeables you don't see from statistics alone. The difference is you use blanket statistics that don't entirely tell the whole story. I can see why CMac likes your post.

Oh really? You bring "intabgeables" to the table? So... something you can never prove so you can never be wrong is what you bring to the table?

It's funny... if all those "intabgeables" don't make someone a more productive player, then what do they do?

And if Taylor is the better all around back, as you suggest, do you get upset that Childress starts Peterson every game and uses him drastically more than Taylor?

And I fixed your Quoting error too.

Thanks for fixing my quoting error. You are the man CMac!

First off, unlike you, my main goal is not to be right or wrong. Unlike you I bring more than just blanket statistics to the table and think that is a tell all. See when you actually play organized football you see more of the intangeables and don't worry too much about statistics because they do not win you games. What do intangeables do? Ask any QB if having a RB that can block well help their passing game. Ask any runner if finding the holes quicker helps a team move the chains. When you are inconsistent you will move the chains but not as much as you can with consistency. Answer that question?

Next, I don't get mad when AP starts over CT. As I mentioned several times already (which you always seem to leave out) is that AP is a great back so I have no reason to get mad that he starts. I do get mad when he fumbles three times in a game. Now tell me he only fumbled twice in the NFCCG and that is where I come back at you that the statistics don't tell the entire story. See one fumble that was blamed on Favre was clearly AP's fault but the stats don't show that now do they?

I think it has been shown that Peterson is, beyond a reasonable doubt, abetter running back that Taylor. It sure is nice having both though.

But do you have anything to back your opinion up? How many of Taylor's blocks went for big gains? How many did he wiff? How many did he pancake? Or are you just throwing out vague notions?

When it comes to intangeables I only go by what I see. Of course there is no documented proof because they are not kept statistically. I watch every game. I see blocks/blitzes that are missed and picked up. I see Taylor do pretty well on most plays where he has to block. I cannot say the same about AP. I would love to say he does great back there but he really doesn't. I think he improved a little from last year but not much. You can go back and watch the infamous Eagle playoff game last year if you want to see some missed blocks.

As far as who is better. AP is better at certain things such as running the ball. He is more explosive. There are no arguments from me there. However, catching out of the backfield, blocking and fumbling there are many questions about APs ability. I think he is much improved coming out of the backfield which the stats do show but as far as being as good as CT there I am not so sure. CT had the same amount of catches with a lot less plays. AP had more yardage in those catches but again CT get spied on coming out of hte backfield whereas AP really doesn't when the QB drops back. He has more open space from what I see. Now that is not a bad thing nor am I trying to take anything away from AP.

His blocking skills definitely need work. His ball control skills also need work. Again, stats don't show the fumbles that weren't called correctly by the refs nor does it show the two that were clearly his fault (1 with Favre and 1 with TJ) and weren't charged to him.

So to say AP is a better all around back there are questions whether you agree or not. If you ask me who the better runner is, it's AP without question. The better RB is a different story.
Sorry, your opinion is wrong. That's ok, you have the right to be wrong.

AD is a far superior RB, it's not even close. Saying otherwise is the equivalent of saying Tjack is better than Brett Favre.

Prophet
02-02-2010, 12:58 PM
jmcdon00 wrote:

ejmat wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

ejmat wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

ejmat wrote:


C'mon now ... You are really trying to stretch it that CT is "more consistent" and pretty close to AD. The fact is they are not even close.
1) 6 receiving TDs over 8 years vs. 1 receiving TD over 3 years is a non-factor. Neither one of them is even contributing one a year. So, it really comes down to luck. Or the fact that when we get inside the 15 with Adrian he RUNS it in. I mean Adrian's 40 rushing in 3 years to CTs 22 in 6 years is a much more fair comparison
2) Chester is not CLOSE to Adrian in "busting one to the house." He never was, but certainly is not now. He has not had a run of longer than 25 yards in the last two seasons. Sure he had the 84-yarder and 95-yarder, but that does not make him "just as capable". For his entire career he only has three TD runs over 50 yards. Adrian has 6 already ... on 100 less carries. He has five career TDs from 20+ yards out, Adrian already has 13 (14 if you count playoffs).
His career average is 4.3 per carry. Adrian's is 4.9. Don't know how else to spell out who is more explosive.
3) Adrian has 18 career touchdowns from 3 yards and in (pretty common from a workhorse back), Chester has 12 of his 22 career TDs from inside that ... so don't figure how you can bag on Adrian for that.

As for "other" things ... there is no stat right now to show that Chester is a better receiver out of the backfield. Just a common thing spouted in these parts by the anti-Adrian's (not you per say). Chester played almost universally on passing downs this season, yet Adrian still produced more receptions and yards receiving. He has 47 more yards receiving despite having one less catch ... yet again showing how much more explosive he is than Chester. He also already has two career receptions over 60 yards, something Chester has not done.
Blocking is also fairly similar here. Something people just spout, but for the most part are just spouting. Chester is probably a little better, but he definitely is not far superior. And I can tell you this much, no other fan base talks as much about "blocking" for their premier back. The entire blocking argument comes from the anti-Adrian crowd (once again not saying you are part of that, but you definitely take from them). Adrian has improved ten-fold in this area in the last year and a half ... and if someone thinks Chester's advantage in this is even twice Adrian's , they would still be a fool if they thought it was valid in bringing up Chester over Adrian. Just like the idiots who used to say Hines Ward was the best receiver in football because he can block.
The only thing even worth being discussed is the fumbles. And it is a valid point. Chester fumbled once per 69 touches this season and Adrian once per 51. For their career ... Chester puts the ball on the ground once very 58.78 touches and Adrian does it once every 49.9. A decent difference, and definitely something that needs to be worked on. But, Chester is still "fumble prone" because that is too often as well. For example, Chris Johnson fumbled once every 136 touches this season.
Chester started at RB with Brad Johnson in 2006 and Adrian had Tarvaris and Gus and Brooks, etc. in 2007 and 2008. Lets not talk about Adrian having the "better" quarterbacks. Chester is NOT just as capable as Adrian. This is evidenced by his one year as starter with 1200 yards, a mediocre 6 TDs and a very pedestrian 4.0 average. Numbers that have been eclipsed by Adrian EVERY year he has been in the league. And apparently since short ones don't count ... FIVE of Chester's six TDs that season were from 4 yards or shorter. Clearly busting the big one on a regular basis there.
Outside of the fumbles ... there is nothing to indicate Chester is "more consistent" and there is nothing to indicate that CT is even close to Adrian Peterson's level. And Adrian is not the only one with a fumbling problem.

Not sure why you had to post this 3 times but that's besides the point.

First of all after all your ranting you do realize that AP has been the starter for 2 2/3 years while CT has only been a starter for 1 1/3 years of his career, right? Don't you think that makes a difference in any stat you post? It's not just a black and white "he's been in the league 8 years vs 3 for AP".

If you don't think they are close that is your opinion. The way you talk about it CT is terrible and can't handle a starting job.

Unfortunately throughout his career he has been behind great backs. AP being one of them. So he always has to be in the shadow. You give CT a good OL and a QB that is respected around the league and he can prove he is a capable starting RB in the league. What hurts him at this point in his career is his age. Nothing more.

Now please show me where I said CT is more explosive than AP. As a matter of fact I clearly pointed out in my post AP is the better runner. Just because I think CT is capable of taking to the house from anywhere on the field doesn't mean I think he is more explosive than AP. The fact he has taken it from 95 and 84 yards prove that he IS capable of taking it from anywhere on the field so I'm not sure why you think he isn't.

As far as the QB thing, didn't AP have Brett Favre as a QB this past year? So yeah I can use that as a factor. As to your point about TJ and Gus that is totally valid and never have I disagreed that AP did a great job. My issues with AP are his fumbling issues and his blocking issues. If you don't think that is a problem it is again, your opinion. I look at things from the big picture. A RB consists of several factors. Not just who runs better or quicker. I give AP can break tackles better than CT and that is a big reason why his ypc are more. But can you honestly say that Ap is better at finding the holes than CT? That is different and it goes unmentioned in stats. That would also have a bearing on ypc. My opinion that CT is more consistent than AP is just that. An opinion. It';s because of what I see. CT is always pretty consistent in getting you those 3,4 or 5 yard runs. I cannot say the same about AP. I have seen on many occasions AP get stopped behind the line or at the LOS. Do you have a stat on that? That would be pretty interesting now wouldn't it? How many times did AP get stopped on 4th and 1 compared to CT? I can remember 3 times just this past year AP being stopped on 3rd or 4th and very short. But I guess since people don't really keep those stats they don't count right?

You can have your opinions. I am glad you can back them up with statistics. I won't and can't argue that. What I will bring to the table are the intabgeables you don't see from statistics alone. The difference is you use blanket statistics that don't entirely tell the whole story. I can see why CMac likes your post.

Oh really? You bring "intabgeables" to the table? So... something you can never prove so you can never be wrong is what you bring to the table?

It's funny... if all those "intabgeables" don't make someone a more productive player, then what do they do?

And if Taylor is the better all around back, as you suggest, do you get upset that Childress starts Peterson every game and uses him drastically more than Taylor?

And I fixed your Quoting error too.

Thanks for fixing my quoting error. You are the man CMac!

First off, unlike you, my main goal is not to be right or wrong. Unlike you I bring more than just blanket statistics to the table and think that is a tell all. See when you actually play organized football you see more of the intangeables and don't worry too much about statistics because they do not win you games. What do intangeables do? Ask any QB if having a RB that can block well help their passing game. Ask any runner if finding the holes quicker helps a team move the chains. When you are inconsistent you will move the chains but not as much as you can with consistency. Answer that question?

Next, I don't get mad when AP starts over CT. As I mentioned several times already (which you always seem to leave out) is that AP is a great back so I have no reason to get mad that he starts. I do get mad when he fumbles three times in a game. Now tell me he only fumbled twice in the NFCCG and that is where I come back at you that the statistics don't tell the entire story. See one fumble that was blamed on Favre was clearly AP's fault but the stats don't show that now do they?

I think it has been shown that Peterson is, beyond a reasonable doubt, abetter running back that Taylor. It sure is nice having both though.

But do you have anything to back your opinion up? How many of Taylor's blocks went for big gains? How many did he wiff? How many did he pancake? Or are you just throwing out vague notions?

When it comes to intangeables I only go by what I see. Of course there is no documented proof because they are not kept statistically. I watch every game. I see blocks/blitzes that are missed and picked up. I see Taylor do pretty well on most plays where he has to block. I cannot say the same about AP. I would love to say he does great back there but he really doesn't. I think he improved a little from last year but not much. You can go back and watch the infamous Eagle playoff game last year if you want to see some missed blocks.

As far as who is better. AP is better at certain things such as running the ball. He is more explosive. There are no arguments from me there. However, catching out of the backfield, blocking and fumbling there are many questions about APs ability. I think he is much improved coming out of the backfield which the stats do show but as far as being as good as CT there I am not so sure. CT had the same amount of catches with a lot less plays. AP had more yardage in those catches but again CT get spied on coming out of hte backfield whereas AP really doesn't when the QB drops back. He has more open space from what I see. Now that is not a bad thing nor am I trying to take anything away from AP.

His blocking skills definitely need work. His ball control skills also need work. Again, stats don't show the fumbles that weren't called correctly by the refs nor does it show the two that were clearly his fault (1 with Favre and 1 with TJ) and weren't charged to him.

So to say AP is a better all around back there are questions whether you agree or not. If you ask me who the better runner is, it's AP without question. The better RB is a different story.
Sorry, your opinion is wrong. That's ok, you have the right to be wrong.

AD is a far superior RB, it's not even close. Saying otherwise is the equivalent of saying Tjack is better than Brett Favre.

That whole argument is a moot point in the context of this thread. One of the points of the thread is that AD has street value and that could be capitalized on. The AD thread has this same discussion going on that you asshats like to go on about.

Carry on.

ConnecticutViking
02-02-2010, 01:00 PM
Sign a good free agent right guard
Sign Favre
Love to get Julius Peppers, but know this is a pipe dream.
Secure Fat Pat or sign Vince Wilfolk or Richard Seymour
Trade Chester Taylor for a corner
Draft a middle linebacker.

ejmat
02-02-2010, 01:20 PM
jmcdon00 wrote:

ejmat wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

ejmat wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

ejmat wrote:


C'mon now ... You are really trying to stretch it that CT is "more consistent" and pretty close to AD. The fact is they are not even close.
1) 6 receiving TDs over 8 years vs. 1 receiving TD over 3 years is a non-factor. Neither one of them is even contributing one a year. So, it really comes down to luck. Or the fact that when we get inside the 15 with Adrian he RUNS it in. I mean Adrian's 40 rushing in 3 years to CTs 22 in 6 years is a much more fair comparison
2) Chester is not CLOSE to Adrian in "busting one to the house." He never was, but certainly is not now. He has not had a run of longer than 25 yards in the last two seasons. Sure he had the 84-yarder and 95-yarder, but that does not make him "just as capable". For his entire career he only has three TD runs over 50 yards. Adrian has 6 already ... on 100 less carries. He has five career TDs from 20+ yards out, Adrian already has 13 (14 if you count playoffs).
His career average is 4.3 per carry. Adrian's is 4.9. Don't know how else to spell out who is more explosive.
3) Adrian has 18 career touchdowns from 3 yards and in (pretty common from a workhorse back), Chester has 12 of his 22 career TDs from inside that ... so don't figure how you can bag on Adrian for that.

As for "other" things ... there is no stat right now to show that Chester is a better receiver out of the backfield. Just a common thing spouted in these parts by the anti-Adrian's (not you per say). Chester played almost universally on passing downs this season, yet Adrian still produced more receptions and yards receiving. He has 47 more yards receiving despite having one less catch ... yet again showing how much more explosive he is than Chester. He also already has two career receptions over 60 yards, something Chester has not done.
Blocking is also fairly similar here. Something people just spout, but for the most part are just spouting. Chester is probably a little better, but he definitely is not far superior. And I can tell you this much, no other fan base talks as much about "blocking" for their premier back. The entire blocking argument comes from the anti-Adrian crowd (once again not saying you are part of that, but you definitely take from them). Adrian has improved ten-fold in this area in the last year and a half ... and if someone thinks Chester's advantage in this is even twice Adrian's , they would still be a fool if they thought it was valid in bringing up Chester over Adrian. Just like the idiots who used to say Hines Ward was the best receiver in football because he can block.
The only thing even worth being discussed is the fumbles. And it is a valid point. Chester fumbled once per 69 touches this season and Adrian once per 51. For their career ... Chester puts the ball on the ground once very 58.78 touches and Adrian does it once every 49.9. A decent difference, and definitely something that needs to be worked on. But, Chester is still "fumble prone" because that is too often as well. For example, Chris Johnson fumbled once every 136 touches this season.
Chester started at RB with Brad Johnson in 2006 and Adrian had Tarvaris and Gus and Brooks, etc. in 2007 and 2008. Lets not talk about Adrian having the "better" quarterbacks. Chester is NOT just as capable as Adrian. This is evidenced by his one year as starter with 1200 yards, a mediocre 6 TDs and a very pedestrian 4.0 average. Numbers that have been eclipsed by Adrian EVERY year he has been in the league. And apparently since short ones don't count ... FIVE of Chester's six TDs that season were from 4 yards or shorter. Clearly busting the big one on a regular basis there.
Outside of the fumbles ... there is nothing to indicate Chester is "more consistent" and there is nothing to indicate that CT is even close to Adrian Peterson's level. And Adrian is not the only one with a fumbling problem.

Not sure why you had to post this 3 times but that's besides the point.

First of all after all your ranting you do realize that AP has been the starter for 2 2/3 years while CT has only been a starter for 1 1/3 years of his career, right? Don't you think that makes a difference in any stat you post? It's not just a black and white "he's been in the league 8 years vs 3 for AP".

If you don't think they are close that is your opinion. The way you talk about it CT is terrible and can't handle a starting job.

Unfortunately throughout his career he has been behind great backs. AP being one of them. So he always has to be in the shadow. You give CT a good OL and a QB that is respected around the league and he can prove he is a capable starting RB in the league. What hurts him at this point in his career is his age. Nothing more.

Now please show me where I said CT is more explosive than AP. As a matter of fact I clearly pointed out in my post AP is the better runner. Just because I think CT is capable of taking to the house from anywhere on the field doesn't mean I think he is more explosive than AP. The fact he has taken it from 95 and 84 yards prove that he IS capable of taking it from anywhere on the field so I'm not sure why you think he isn't.

As far as the QB thing, didn't AP have Brett Favre as a QB this past year? So yeah I can use that as a factor. As to your point about TJ and Gus that is totally valid and never have I disagreed that AP did a great job. My issues with AP are his fumbling issues and his blocking issues. If you don't think that is a problem it is again, your opinion. I look at things from the big picture. A RB consists of several factors. Not just who runs better or quicker. I give AP can break tackles better than CT and that is a big reason why his ypc are more. But can you honestly say that Ap is better at finding the holes than CT? That is different and it goes unmentioned in stats. That would also have a bearing on ypc. My opinion that CT is more consistent than AP is just that. An opinion. It';s because of what I see. CT is always pretty consistent in getting you those 3,4 or 5 yard runs. I cannot say the same about AP. I have seen on many occasions AP get stopped behind the line or at the LOS. Do you have a stat on that? That would be pretty interesting now wouldn't it? How many times did AP get stopped on 4th and 1 compared to CT? I can remember 3 times just this past year AP being stopped on 3rd or 4th and very short. But I guess since people don't really keep those stats they don't count right?

You can have your opinions. I am glad you can back them up with statistics. I won't and can't argue that. What I will bring to the table are the intabgeables you don't see from statistics alone. The difference is you use blanket statistics that don't entirely tell the whole story. I can see why CMac likes your post.

Oh really? You bring "intabgeables" to the table? So... something you can never prove so you can never be wrong is what you bring to the table?

It's funny... if all those "intabgeables" don't make someone a more productive player, then what do they do?

And if Taylor is the better all around back, as you suggest, do you get upset that Childress starts Peterson every game and uses him drastically more than Taylor?

And I fixed your Quoting error too.

Thanks for fixing my quoting error. You are the man CMac!

First off, unlike you, my main goal is not to be right or wrong. Unlike you I bring more than just blanket statistics to the table and think that is a tell all. See when you actually play organized football you see more of the intangeables and don't worry too much about statistics because they do not win you games. What do intangeables do? Ask any QB if having a RB that can block well help their passing game. Ask any runner if finding the holes quicker helps a team move the chains. When you are inconsistent you will move the chains but not as much as you can with consistency. Answer that question?

Next, I don't get mad when AP starts over CT. As I mentioned several times already (which you always seem to leave out) is that AP is a great back so I have no reason to get mad that he starts. I do get mad when he fumbles three times in a game. Now tell me he only fumbled twice in the NFCCG and that is where I come back at you that the statistics don't tell the entire story. See one fumble that was blamed on Favre was clearly AP's fault but the stats don't show that now do they?

I think it has been shown that Peterson is, beyond a reasonable doubt, abetter running back that Taylor. It sure is nice having both though.

But do you have anything to back your opinion up? How many of Taylor's blocks went for big gains? How many did he wiff? How many did he pancake? Or are you just throwing out vague notions?

When it comes to intangeables I only go by what I see. Of course there is no documented proof because they are not kept statistically. I watch every game. I see blocks/blitzes that are missed and picked up. I see Taylor do pretty well on most plays where he has to block. I cannot say the same about AP. I would love to say he does great back there but he really doesn't. I think he improved a little from last year but not much. You can go back and watch the infamous Eagle playoff game last year if you want to see some missed blocks.

As far as who is better. AP is better at certain things such as running the ball. He is more explosive. There are no arguments from me there. However, catching out of the backfield, blocking and fumbling there are many questions about APs ability. I think he is much improved coming out of the backfield which the stats do show but as far as being as good as CT there I am not so sure. CT had the same amount of catches with a lot less plays. AP had more yardage in those catches but again CT get spied on coming out of hte backfield whereas AP really doesn't when the QB drops back. He has more open space from what I see. Now that is not a bad thing nor am I trying to take anything away from AP.

His blocking skills definitely need work. His ball control skills also need work. Again, stats don't show the fumbles that weren't called correctly by the refs nor does it show the two that were clearly his fault (1 with Favre and 1 with TJ) and weren't charged to him.

So to say AP is a better all around back there are questions whether you agree or not. If you ask me who the better runner is, it's AP without question. The better RB is a different story.
Sorry, your opinion is wrong. That's ok, you have the right to be wrong.

AD is a far superior RB, it's not even close. Saying otherwise is the equivalent of saying Tjack is better than Brett Favre.

Sorry my friend but that comparison is not the same. Everyone is very aware that Brett Favre is better in every aspect of QBing than TJ. AP is not better than CT in every aspect of the RB position.

I have been wrong about things before and I will be wrong again. However, my opinion is not just flat out wrong as you are saying. I know you don't agree and that's fine. However there are people out there that do agree with me. So to say "without doubt" or "without question" or even "far superior" is not accurate.

jmcdon00
02-02-2010, 01:29 PM
Prophet wrote:

I probably did not express my point succinctly or coherently enough. The bottom-line:

Get a new o-line coaching staff, get rid of the cancer on the line, shop an RB with street value for a potential franchise QB. My underlying philosophy and belief is that if you have a good 0-line and QB then the WRs and RBs will be successful, regardless of their current name recognition. It's as simple as that.
I bet Sid Rice has some value. Same with Percy Harvin. Should we shop those guys too?
I would say AD is far more valuable to our team than those guys, especially since Tayler is 30 and a free agent.
If Favre comes back a franchise QB will not help us in 2010. Our chances of winning the Superbowl in 2010 will be greater with Favre and AD than Favre and a Franchise QB.

Prophet
02-02-2010, 01:32 PM
jmcdon00 wrote:

Prophet wrote:

I probably did not express my point succinctly or coherently enough. The bottom-line:

Get a new o-line coaching staff, get rid of the cancer on the line, shop an RB with street value for a potential franchise QB. My underlying philosophy and belief is that if you have a good 0-line and QB then the WRs and RBs will be successful, regardless of their current name recognition. It's as simple as that.
I bet Sid Rice has some value. Same with Percy Harvin. Should we shop those guys too?
I would say AD is far more valuable to our team than those guys, especially since Tayler is 30 and a free agent.
If Favre comes back a franchise QB will not help us in 2010. Our chances of winning the Superbowl in 2010 will be greater with Favre and AD than Favre and a Franchise QB.

Not going to argue that, in fact I alluded to that in previous posts in the thread. I am thinking long-term. Favre is back, at best, for one more year. Then what? It doesn't change my position that WRs and RBs are a dime-a-dozen with a good o-line and QB.

jmcdon00
02-02-2010, 01:41 PM
ejmat wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:

ejmat wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

ejmat wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

ejmat wrote:


C'mon now ... You are really trying to stretch it that CT is "more consistent" and pretty close to AD. The fact is they are not even close.
1) 6 receiving TDs over 8 years vs. 1 receiving TD over 3 years is a non-factor. Neither one of them is even contributing one a year. So, it really comes down to luck. Or the fact that when we get inside the 15 with Adrian he RUNS it in. I mean Adrian's 40 rushing in 3 years to CTs 22 in 6 years is a much more fair comparison
2) Chester is not CLOSE to Adrian in "busting one to the house." He never was, but certainly is not now. He has not had a run of longer than 25 yards in the last two seasons. Sure he had the 84-yarder and 95-yarder, but that does not make him "just as capable". For his entire career he only has three TD runs over 50 yards. Adrian has 6 already ... on 100 less carries. He has five career TDs from 20+ yards out, Adrian already has 13 (14 if you count playoffs).
His career average is 4.3 per carry. Adrian's is 4.9. Don't know how else to spell out who is more explosive.
3) Adrian has 18 career touchdowns from 3 yards and in (pretty common from a workhorse back), Chester has 12 of his 22 career TDs from inside that ... so don't figure how you can bag on Adrian for that.

As for "other" things ... there is no stat right now to show that Chester is a better receiver out of the backfield. Just a common thing spouted in these parts by the anti-Adrian's (not you per say). Chester played almost universally on passing downs this season, yet Adrian still produced more receptions and yards receiving. He has 47 more yards receiving despite having one less catch ... yet again showing how much more explosive he is than Chester. He also already has two career receptions over 60 yards, something Chester has not done.
Blocking is also fairly similar here. Something people just spout, but for the most part are just spouting. Chester is probably a little better, but he definitely is not far superior. And I can tell you this much, no other fan base talks as much about "blocking" for their premier back. The entire blocking argument comes from the anti-Adrian crowd (once again not saying you are part of that, but you definitely take from them). Adrian has improved ten-fold in this area in the last year and a half ... and if someone thinks Chester's advantage in this is even twice Adrian's , they would still be a fool if they thought it was valid in bringing up Chester over Adrian. Just like the idiots who used to say Hines Ward was the best receiver in football because he can block.
The only thing even worth being discussed is the fumbles. And it is a valid point. Chester fumbled once per 69 touches this season and Adrian once per 51. For their career ... Chester puts the ball on the ground once very 58.78 touches and Adrian does it once every 49.9. A decent difference, and definitely something that needs to be worked on. But, Chester is still "fumble prone" because that is too often as well. For example, Chris Johnson fumbled once every 136 touches this season.
Chester started at RB with Brad Johnson in 2006 and Adrian had Tarvaris and Gus and Brooks, etc. in 2007 and 2008. Lets not talk about Adrian having the "better" quarterbacks. Chester is NOT just as capable as Adrian. This is evidenced by his one year as starter with 1200 yards, a mediocre 6 TDs and a very pedestrian 4.0 average. Numbers that have been eclipsed by Adrian EVERY year he has been in the league. And apparently since short ones don't count ... FIVE of Chester's six TDs that season were from 4 yards or shorter. Clearly busting the big one on a regular basis there.
Outside of the fumbles ... there is nothing to indicate Chester is "more consistent" and there is nothing to indicate that CT is even close to Adrian Peterson's level. And Adrian is not the only one with a fumbling problem.

Not sure why you had to post this 3 times but that's besides the point.

First of all after all your ranting you do realize that AP has been the starter for 2 2/3 years while CT has only been a starter for 1 1/3 years of his career, right? Don't you think that makes a difference in any stat you post? It's not just a black and white "he's been in the league 8 years vs 3 for AP".

If you don't think they are close that is your opinion. The way you talk about it CT is terrible and can't handle a starting job.

Unfortunately throughout his career he has been behind great backs. AP being one of them. So he always has to be in the shadow. You give CT a good OL and a QB that is respected around the league and he can prove he is a capable starting RB in the league. What hurts him at this point in his career is his age. Nothing more.

Now please show me where I said CT is more explosive than AP. As a matter of fact I clearly pointed out in my post AP is the better runner. Just because I think CT is capable of taking to the house from anywhere on the field doesn't mean I think he is more explosive than AP. The fact he has taken it from 95 and 84 yards prove that he IS capable of taking it from anywhere on the field so I'm not sure why you think he isn't.

As far as the QB thing, didn't AP have Brett Favre as a QB this past year? So yeah I can use that as a factor. As to your point about TJ and Gus that is totally valid and never have I disagreed that AP did a great job. My issues with AP are his fumbling issues and his blocking issues. If you don't think that is a problem it is again, your opinion. I look at things from the big picture. A RB consists of several factors. Not just who runs better or quicker. I give AP can break tackles better than CT and that is a big reason why his ypc are more. But can you honestly say that Ap is better at finding the holes than CT? That is different and it goes unmentioned in stats. That would also have a bearing on ypc. My opinion that CT is more consistent than AP is just that. An opinion. It';s because of what I see. CT is always pretty consistent in getting you those 3,4 or 5 yard runs. I cannot say the same about AP. I have seen on many occasions AP get stopped behind the line or at the LOS. Do you have a stat on that? That would be pretty interesting now wouldn't it? How many times did AP get stopped on 4th and 1 compared to CT? I can remember 3 times just this past year AP being stopped on 3rd or 4th and very short. But I guess since people don't really keep those stats they don't count right?

You can have your opinions. I am glad you can back them up with statistics. I won't and can't argue that. What I will bring to the table are the intabgeables you don't see from statistics alone. The difference is you use blanket statistics that don't entirely tell the whole story. I can see why CMac likes your post.

Oh really? You bring "intabgeables" to the table? So... something you can never prove so you can never be wrong is what you bring to the table?

It's funny... if all those "intabgeables" don't make someone a more productive player, then what do they do?

And if Taylor is the better all around back, as you suggest, do you get upset that Childress starts Peterson every game and uses him drastically more than Taylor?

And I fixed your Quoting error too.

Thanks for fixing my quoting error. You are the man CMac!

First off, unlike you, my main goal is not to be right or wrong. Unlike you I bring more than just blanket statistics to the table and think that is a tell all. See when you actually play organized football you see more of the intangeables and don't worry too much about statistics because they do not win you games. What do intangeables do? Ask any QB if having a RB that can block well help their passing game. Ask any runner if finding the holes quicker helps a team move the chains. When you are inconsistent you will move the chains but not as much as you can with consistency. Answer that question?

Next, I don't get mad when AP starts over CT. As I mentioned several times already (which you always seem to leave out) is that AP is a great back so I have no reason to get mad that he starts. I do get mad when he fumbles three times in a game. Now tell me he only fumbled twice in the NFCCG and that is where I come back at you that the statistics don't tell the entire story. See one fumble that was blamed on Favre was clearly AP's fault but the stats don't show that now do they?

I think it has been shown that Peterson is, beyond a reasonable doubt, abetter running back that Taylor. It sure is nice having both though.

But do you have anything to back your opinion up? How many of Taylor's blocks went for big gains? How many did he wiff? How many did he pancake? Or are you just throwing out vague notions?

When it comes to intangeables I only go by what I see. Of course there is no documented proof because they are not kept statistically. I watch every game. I see blocks/blitzes that are missed and picked up. I see Taylor do pretty well on most plays where he has to block. I cannot say the same about AP. I would love to say he does great back there but he really doesn't. I think he improved a little from last year but not much. You can go back and watch the infamous Eagle playoff game last year if you want to see some missed blocks.

As far as who is better. AP is better at certain things such as running the ball. He is more explosive. There are no arguments from me there. However, catching out of the backfield, blocking and fumbling there are many questions about APs ability. I think he is much improved coming out of the backfield which the stats do show but as far as being as good as CT there I am not so sure. CT had the same amount of catches with a lot less plays. AP had more yardage in those catches but again CT get spied on coming out of hte backfield whereas AP really doesn't when the QB drops back. He has more open space from what I see. Now that is not a bad thing nor am I trying to take anything away from AP.

His blocking skills definitely need work. His ball control skills also need work. Again, stats don't show the fumbles that weren't called correctly by the refs nor does it show the two that were clearly his fault (1 with Favre and 1 with TJ) and weren't charged to him.

So to say AP is a better all around back there are questions whether you agree or not. If you ask me who the better runner is, it's AP without question. The better RB is a different story.
Sorry, your opinion is wrong. That's ok, you have the right to be wrong.

AD is a far superior RB, it's not even close. Saying otherwise is the equivalent of saying Tjack is better than Brett Favre.

Sorry my friend but that comparison is not the same. Everyone is very aware that Brett Favre is better in every aspect of QBing than TJ. AP is not better than CT in every aspect of the RB position.

I have been wrong about things before and I will be wrong again. However, my opinion is not just flat out wrong as you are saying. I know you don't agree and that's fine. However there are people out there that do agree with me. So to say "without doubt" or "without question" or even "far superior" is not accurate.
Tjack runs the ball better. Tjack throws fewer picks(1 in 20 pass attempts to Favre's 1 in 19, career).
How is that any different from what you are saying?

jmcdon00
02-02-2010, 01:43 PM
Prophet wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:

Prophet wrote:

I probably did not express my point succinctly or coherently enough. The bottom-line:

Get a new o-line coaching staff, get rid of the cancer on the line, shop an RB with street value for a potential franchise QB. My underlying philosophy and belief is that if you have a good 0-line and QB then the WRs and RBs will be successful, regardless of their current name recognition. It's as simple as that.
I bet Sid Rice has some value. Same with Percy Harvin. Should we shop those guys too?
I would say AD is far more valuable to our team than those guys, especially since Tayler is 30 and a free agent.
If Favre comes back a franchise QB will not help us in 2010. Our chances of winning the Superbowl in 2010 will be greater with Favre and AD than Favre and a Franchise QB.

Not going to argue that, in fact I alluded to that in previous posts in the thread. I am thinking long-term. Favre is back, at best, for one more year. Then what? It doesn't change my position that WRs and RBs are a dime-a-dozen with a good o-line and QB.
The world is going to end in 2012, we don't have the luxury of thinking long-term. :side:

Prophet
02-02-2010, 01:45 PM
jmcdon00 wrote:

Prophet wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:

Prophet wrote:

I probably did not express my point succinctly or coherently enough. The bottom-line:

Get a new o-line coaching staff, get rid of the cancer on the line, shop an RB with street value for a potential franchise QB. My underlying philosophy and belief is that if you have a good 0-line and QB then the WRs and RBs will be successful, regardless of their current name recognition. It's as simple as that.
I bet Sid Rice has some value. Same with Percy Harvin. Should we shop those guys too?
I would say AD is far more valuable to our team than those guys, especially since Tayler is 30 and a free agent.
If Favre comes back a franchise QB will not help us in 2010. Our chances of winning the Superbowl in 2010 will be greater with Favre and AD than Favre and a Franchise QB.

Not going to argue that, in fact I alluded to that in previous posts in the thread. I am thinking long-term. Favre is back, at best, for one more year. Then what? It doesn't change my position that WRs and RBs are a dime-a-dozen with a good o-line and QB.
The world is going to end in 2012, we don't have the luxury of thinking long-term. :side:

That does make things simpler, but, I thought TW said it was going to end last November? Wearing a pumpkin is getting old.

jmcdon00
02-02-2010, 01:56 PM
Prophet wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:

Prophet wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:

Prophet wrote:

I probably did not express my point succinctly or coherently enough. The bottom-line:

Get a new o-line coaching staff, get rid of the cancer on the line, shop an RB with street value for a potential franchise QB. My underlying philosophy and belief is that if you have a good 0-line and QB then the WRs and RBs will be successful, regardless of their current name recognition. It's as simple as that.
I bet Sid Rice has some value. Same with Percy Harvin. Should we shop those guys too?
I would say AD is far more valuable to our team than those guys, especially since Tayler is 30 and a free agent.
If Favre comes back a franchise QB will not help us in 2010. Our chances of winning the Superbowl in 2010 will be greater with Favre and AD than Favre and a Franchise QB.

Not going to argue that, in fact I alluded to that in previous posts in the thread. I am thinking long-term. Favre is back, at best, for one more year. Then what? It doesn't change my position that WRs and RBs are a dime-a-dozen with a good o-line and QB.
The world is going to end in 2012, we don't have the luxury of thinking long-term. :side:

That does make things simpler, but, I thought TW said it was going to end last November? Wearing a pumpkin is getting old.
If the infallable TW has been proven wrong then the world is already over and we are all just living on a plane of existance known as the internet.

marstc09
02-02-2010, 02:07 PM
ConnecticutViking wrote:

Sign a good free agent right guard
Sign Favre
Love to get Julius Peppers, but know this is a pipe dream.
Secure Fat Pat or sign Vince Wilfolk or Richard Seymour
Trade Chester Taylor for a corner
Draft a middle linebacker.

Favre is signed.

ConnecticutViking
02-02-2010, 02:27 PM
marstc09 wrote:

ConnecticutViking wrote:

Sign a good free agent right guard
Sign Favre
Love to get Julius Peppers, but know this is a pipe dream.
Secure Fat Pat or sign Vince Wilfolk or Richard Seymour
Trade Chester Taylor for a corner
Draft a middle linebacker.

Favre is signed.

Yes, but will he play???????

Midge Resurrected
02-02-2010, 02:31 PM
First off ... I have been around a while ... it is obvious that the "triple" post was a mistake ... but whatever ...

Well ... I guess to get back on topic ... the things I would really like to see done this offseason:

1. It all starts with Brett Favre coming back. I personally think he will. But it is a huge must for this team. It would be a major let down for the team to be told he was not coming back. They will all say the right the things and move forward, but they will feel let down. I think Tarvaris really may have learned something this season, but I would still prefer to find out in 2011.

2. Retain Chester Taylor and Ray Edwards. Both of these guys are valuable and neither one of them can be very easily replaced on the market. Peppers will be too pricey to trade for (I think the Panthers will still tag him) and while there are some RBs out there, Chester fits the role here perfectly.

3. Sign and draft LB, OT, CB and S depth. At least get some players in here to compete with the back end of those depth charts (the Brinkley's, Cook's, Hicks', Frampton's, Allen's and Paymah's for example). I know this seems like a lot, but there is definitely some talent out there to bring in at these positions, and maybe even some starters to replace some of our not-so-great guys (though I am happier with Williams and Johnson than most, but we need help at corner depthwise for sure.)

4. Convince Phat Pat to give us one more season. I am not as panicked about DT as most because I think Kennedy is very capable, but I know Pat means a ton to us, especially on first and second downs. I am comfy with Robison in the pass-rushing DT spot on third downs and with Kennedy filling in at other times. Also would not mind seeing us draft a DT to bring along since Guion seems not to be the answer.

5. Bring in another FB to at least compete with Tahi in camp. Of course if Richardson is all for coming back aboard, pony up for him.

6. BE ALL BUSINESS. I have been telling people that this loss reminds me of when the Patriots lost to the Colts in the 2006 playoffs. A game they definitely should have won. They came out the next season on a mission (of course we need to finish as they didn't). We need to do the same thing. We were all along for the ride this season. Smiles, patting each other, having fun. I am not against these things, but this team needs to come out next season as if they have unfinished business and play like it. Come into EVERY game prepared and fired up and don't just play and think you are going to win, but play and think you are going to DOMINATE.

If you cannot tell, I am very much looking forward to next season.

Zeus
02-02-2010, 02:47 PM
Midge Resurrected wrote:

First off ... I have been around a while ... it is obvious that the "triple" post was a mistake ... but whatever ...

164 posts is not "a while", newb.

=Z=
*poke*

Midge Resurrected
02-02-2010, 03:00 PM
Zeus wrote:

Midge Resurrected wrote:

First off ... I have been around a while ... it is obvious that the "triple" post was a mistake ... but whatever ...

164 posts is not "a while", newb.

=Z=
*poke*

I know dammit ... I still cannot see the True Hall of Fame thread for however many more posts now ...

I like my new alias though ... I will survive.

Zeus
02-02-2010, 03:16 PM
Midge Resurrected wrote:

Zeus wrote:

Midge Resurrected wrote:

First off ... I have been around a while ... it is obvious that the "triple" post was a mistake ... but whatever ...

164 posts is not "a while", newb.

=Z=
*poke*

I know dammit ... I still cannot see the True Hall of Fame thread for however many more posts now ...

I like my new alias though ... I will survive.

That forum no longer exists, so you're not missing anything.

=Z=

Mr Anderson
02-02-2010, 03:19 PM
ConnecticutViking wrote:

Sign a good free agent right guard - 1
Sign Favre - 2
Love to get Julius Peppers, but know this is a pipe dream. - 3
Secure Fat Pat or sign Vince Wilfolk or Richard Seymour - 4
Trade Chester Taylor for a corner - 5
Draft a middle linebacker. - 6
1 - Hererra played great the past few seasons, I think having a rookie(basically, Sullivan had no experience, but was a 2nd year guy) on either side of him hindered his play this past year. Look for his play to get back to a high level next season.
2 - Already signed, just a matter of him playing.
3 - As wild as it would be to have him, I don't think it's worth it. We would also have to first lose a free agent in order to pick him up, and the only guy who is not going to be restricted under the "Final League Year" Free agency rules is Chester Taylor. Ray Edwards had 8.5 sacks this season, and played really well in the playoffs, registering 4 sacks. He's also 25 years old and will cost probably half of what Julius Peppers will be asking for. I'd love to keep him around, he'll become a restricted free agent if no CBA is reached.
4 - Not a bad idea at all. I'd imagine Seymour would be a good 4-3 DT considering heh was excellent as a 3-4 DE, I never really considered him, good idea. Wilfork would also be a solid addition, but is kind of one-dimensional as a pure space eater. Pat is 37 years old, as much as I like him, "securing him isn't much of an option.
5 - Why? Brinkley played well, and we haven't heard anything new about EJ, so I assume it was just a bone break and he should be back at full speed by next season.
6 - He's an unrestricted free agent.

Zeus
02-02-2010, 03:22 PM
Mr Anderson wrote:

ConnecticutViking wrote:

Sign a good free agent right guard - 1
Sign Favre - 2
Love to get Julius Peppers, but know this is a pipe dream. - 3
Secure Fat Pat or sign Vince Wilfolk or Richard Seymour - 4
Trade Chester Taylor for a corner - 5
Draft a middle linebacker. - 6
1 - Hererra played great the past few seasons, I think having a rookie(basically, Sullivan had no experience, but was a 2nd year guy) on either side of him hindered his play this past year. Look for his play to get back to a high level next season.
2 - Already signed, just a matter of him playing.
3 - As wild as it would be to have him, I don't think it's worth it. We would also have to first lose a free agent in order to pick him up, and the only guy who is not going to be restricted under the "Final League Year" Free agency rules is Chester Taylor. Ray Edwards had 8.5 sacks this season, and played really well in the playoffs, registering 4 sacks. He's also 25 years old and will cost probably half of what Julius Peppers will be asking for. I'd love to keep him around, he'll become a restricted free agent if no CBA is reached.
4 - Not a bad idea at all. I'd imagine Seymour would be a good 4-3 DT considering heh was excellent as a 3-4 DE, I never really considered him, good idea. Wilfork would also be a solid addition, but is kind of one-dimensional as a pure space eater. Pat is 37 years old, as much as I like him, "securing him isn't much of an option.
5 - Why? Brinkley played well, and we haven't heard anything new about EJ, so I assume it was just a bone break and he should be back at full speed by next season.
6 - He's an unrestricted free agent.

You got 5 & 6 backward. And, I believe, Pat Williams is under contract for another year, so he doesn't need to be secured. He already is secured. It's just a matter of keeping him unretired.

Although, IMHO, Jimmy Kennedy is more than adequate as a replacement. Probably not as good as a run-stopper, but he's better as a pass rusher AND he doesn't come off on 3rd downs.

=Z=

Prophet
02-02-2010, 04:44 PM
Zeus wrote:

Mr Anderson wrote:

ConnecticutViking wrote:

Sign a good free agent right guard - 1
Sign Favre - 2
Love to get Julius Peppers, but know this is a pipe dream. - 3
Secure Fat Pat or sign Vince Wilfolk or Richard Seymour - 4
Trade Chester Taylor for a corner - 5
Draft a middle linebacker. - 6
1 - Hererra played great the past few seasons, I think having a rookie(basically, Sullivan had no experience, but was a 2nd year guy) on either side of him hindered his play this past year. Look for his play to get back to a high level next season.
2 - Already signed, just a matter of him playing.
3 - As wild as it would be to have him, I don't think it's worth it. We would also have to first lose a free agent in order to pick him up, and the only guy who is not going to be restricted under the "Final League Year" Free agency rules is Chester Taylor. Ray Edwards had 8.5 sacks this season, and played really well in the playoffs, registering 4 sacks. He's also 25 years old and will cost probably half of what Julius Peppers will be asking for. I'd love to keep him around, he'll become a restricted free agent if no CBA is reached.
4 - Not a bad idea at all. I'd imagine Seymour would be a good 4-3 DT considering heh was excellent as a 3-4 DE, I never really considered him, good idea. Wilfork would also be a solid addition, but is kind of one-dimensional as a pure space eater. Pat is 37 years old, as much as I like him, "securing him isn't much of an option.
5 - Why? Brinkley played well, and we haven't heard anything new about EJ, so I assume it was just a bone break and he should be back at full speed by next season.
6 - He's an unrestricted free agent.

You got 5 & 6 backward. And, I believe, Pat Williams is under contract for another year, so he doesn't need to be secured. He already is secured. It's just a matter of keeping him unretired.

Although, IMHO, Jimmy Kennedy is more than adequate as a replacement. Probably not as good as a run-stopper, but he's better as a pass rusher AND he doesn't come off on 3rd downs.

=Z=

Just say yes to Terrence Cody.

jmcdon00
02-02-2010, 04:54 PM
Let's trade Brett Favre for a franchise QB, quickly before he retires.

slavinator
02-02-2010, 04:56 PM
Prophet wrote:

Zeus wrote:

Mr Anderson wrote:

ConnecticutViking wrote:

Sign a good free agent right guard - 1
Sign Favre - 2
Love to get Julius Peppers, but know this is a pipe dream. - 3
Secure Fat Pat or sign Vince Wilfolk or Richard Seymour - 4
Trade Chester Taylor for a corner - 5
Draft a middle linebacker. - 6
1 - Hererra played great the past few seasons, I think having a rookie(basically, Sullivan had no experience, but was a 2nd year guy) on either side of him hindered his play this past year. Look for his play to get back to a high level next season.
2 - Already signed, just a matter of him playing.
3 - As wild as it would be to have him, I don't think it's worth it. We would also have to first lose a free agent in order to pick him up, and the only guy who is not going to be restricted under the "Final League Year" Free agency rules is Chester Taylor. Ray Edwards had 8.5 sacks this season, and played really well in the playoffs, registering 4 sacks. He's also 25 years old and will cost probably half of what Julius Peppers will be asking for. I'd love to keep him around, he'll become a restricted free agent if no CBA is reached.
4 - Not a bad idea at all. I'd imagine Seymour would be a good 4-3 DT considering heh was excellent as a 3-4 DE, I never really considered him, good idea. Wilfork would also be a solid addition, but is kind of one-dimensional as a pure space eater. Pat is 37 years old, as much as I like him, "securing him isn't much of an option.
5 - Why? Brinkley played well, and we haven't heard anything new about EJ, so I assume it was just a bone break and he should be back at full speed by next season.
6 - He's an unrestricted free agent.

You got 5 & 6 backward. And, I believe, Pat Williams is under contract for another year, so he doesn't need to be secured. He already is secured. It's just a matter of keeping him unretired.

Although, IMHO, Jimmy Kennedy is more than adequate as a replacement. Probably not as good as a run-stopper, but he's better as a pass rusher AND he doesn't come off on 3rd downs.

=Z=

Just say yes to Terrence Cody.

He has some Moobs a la Andre Smith. I hope that we address the DL in the draft as well. I like the Terrance Cody idea, but was a bit concerned when I saw him and the Moobs shirtless the other day. Thats not saying Pat W is a physical specimen either however.....

gregair13
02-02-2010, 05:23 PM
Sign lots of linebackers. That is the key. That is always the key.

AP can stay. Would never get the value he is worth in return.

Need at least two players for the o-line I believe.

CT can stay, but we need safeties, not corners. However, Winfield and Griffin are both hurt and if they cannot come back at 100%, then we need tons of corners. Sapp is find at #3, but is no where near good enough for be a #1

Vikes
02-02-2010, 06:24 PM
Give me Linemen and screw the rest!

Mr Anderson
02-02-2010, 06:58 PM
Prophet wrote:

Zeus wrote:

Mr Anderson wrote:

ConnecticutViking wrote:

Sign a good free agent right guard - 1
Sign Favre - 2
Love to get Julius Peppers, but know this is a pipe dream. - 3
Secure Fat Pat or sign Vince Wilfolk or Richard Seymour - 4
Trade Chester Taylor for a corner - 5
Draft a middle linebacker. - 6
1 - Hererra played great the past few seasons, I think having a rookie(basically, Sullivan had no experience, but was a 2nd year guy) on either side of him hindered his play this past year. Look for his play to get back to a high level next season.
2 - Already signed, just a matter of him playing.
3 - As wild as it would be to have him, I don't think it's worth it. We would also have to first lose a free agent in order to pick him up, and the only guy who is not going to be restricted under the "Final League Year" Free agency rules is Chester Taylor. Ray Edwards had 8.5 sacks this season, and played really well in the playoffs, registering 4 sacks. He's also 25 years old and will cost probably half of what Julius Peppers will be asking for. I'd love to keep him around, he'll become a restricted free agent if no CBA is reached.
4 - Not a bad idea at all. I'd imagine Seymour would be a good 4-3 DT considering heh was excellent as a 3-4 DE, I never really considered him, good idea. Wilfork would also be a solid addition, but is kind of one-dimensional as a pure space eater. Pat is 37 years old, as much as I like him, "securing him isn't much of an option.
5 - Why? Brinkley played well, and we haven't heard anything new about EJ, so I assume it was just a bone break and he should be back at full speed by next season.
6 - He's an unrestricted free agent.

You got 5 & 6 backward. And, I believe, Pat Williams is under contract for another year, so he doesn't need to be secured. He already is secured. It's just a matter of keeping him unretired.

Although, IMHO, Jimmy Kennedy is more than adequate as a replacement. Probably not as good as a run-stopper, but he's better as a pass rusher AND he doesn't come off on 3rd downs.

=Z=

Just say yes to Terrence Cody.
He's got a lot of taint sweat to bathe in.

Prophet
02-08-2010, 09:31 AM
Coaches that need to be canned:

Brian Murphy, special teams coordinator
I am sick of the special teams giving up big gains at inopportune times. Screw Ferarro and now, screw Brian Murphy. Bring in Steve Crosby, the best in the business. Open up the checkbook, yet again, Zygi...

After watching the ballsy onside kick to start off the second half of the SB, I'm willing to put Greg McMahon on the list of potential replacements for Murphy. Sure, that was one of those calls that could have been classified as boneheaded, but it worked.

Bkfldviking
02-08-2010, 09:48 AM
Everybody, from HC to waterboy, needs to develop an attitude. A mean streak that is a mile wide and a yard deep. Both sides of the ball. Eleven guys protecting the ball on offense, and everyone flying to the ball on defense and arriving angry.

12purplepride28
02-08-2010, 09:50 AM
jmcdon00 wrote:

Let's trade Brett Favre for a franchise QB, quickly before he retires.

LOL




I also don't think we need to get rid of Brian Murphy, our special teams is improved so much from last year. Its hard to coach a kicker to get a touchback ONCE in a while.

#4kicksA$$
02-08-2010, 10:58 AM
SharperImage wrote:

LOL Can Peterson? g3t the fack outta here. He has the tiki barber syndrome. We will fix it and he and tjack will rip it up in 2010

Tell me you were not serious when you typed that. Peterson could possibly get his fumblidous fixed,but T-Jack ain't rippin nothing up,in 2010 or any year.

ejmat
02-08-2010, 06:22 PM
Prophet wrote:


Coaches that need to be canned:

Brian Murphy, special teams coordinator
I am sick of the special teams giving up big gains at inopportune times. Screw Ferarro and now, screw Brian Murphy. Bring in Steve Crosby, the best in the business. Open up the checkbook, yet again, Zygi...

After watching the ballsy onside kick to start off the second half of the SB, I'm willing to put Greg McMahon on the list of potential replacements for Murphy. Sure, that was one of those calls that could have been classified as boneheaded, but it worked.

If Childress did something like that he would have been crucified if it didn't work. Even if it did work there would have been people criticizing the move.

marstc09
02-08-2010, 11:52 PM
One man......Brett Favre

8 out of 16 against playoff teams...ouch