PDA

View Full Version : Peterson compared to NFL's greatest



singersp
10-12-2011, 07:00 AM
Peterson compared to NFL's greatest

Paul Wiggin went up to Adrian Peterson on Monday morning, shook his hand, congratulated him on Sunday's performance and compared him to the man he still considers the greatest running back in NFL history.

Peterson compared to NFL's greatest | StarTribune.com (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/131564473.html)

singersp
10-12-2011, 07:02 AM
Some people here will never consider him to be one of the greatest, until he gets a ring.

C Mac D
10-12-2011, 08:07 AM
Some people here will never consider him to be one of the greatest, until he gets a ring.

I remember a couple years ago you tried to argue that Deangelo Williams was the best RB in the league. Ha.

singersp
10-12-2011, 08:46 AM
I remember a couple years ago you tried to argue that Deangelo Williams was the best RB in the league. Ha.

Yup. It was 2008 as a matter of fact. At the time of that discussion DeAngelo was better. You're going to have a hard time convincing me otherwise.

In 2008, AD had a couple of hundred more yards, but that was it. DeAngelo had almost twice as many TD's as AD & had 0 fumbles while AD had 9 fumbles. Count them 9.

DeAngelo also had 2 receiving TD's to AD's 0.

That year AD couldn't hang on to the ball, he also couldn't block worth a shit & had trouble catching a ball. I lost track of how many ducks he dropped that year.

A good RB has to be able to do all 4 of those things well, in 2008 he only did one well & that was run.

There was no trying to argue about it. It was fact.

Good luck trying to prove otherwise. HA!

shockzilla
10-12-2011, 09:02 AM
Boy you guys argue and bicker over the stupidest things sometimes.

C Mac D
10-12-2011, 09:35 AM
I'm not arguing anything... and Singer, that opinion is laughable.

singersp
10-12-2011, 06:49 PM
I'm not arguing anything... and Singer, that opinion is laughable.

How do you figure? You have absolutely nothing to back your statement up.

What's laughable is thinking all a RB job is to do is to run & the RB with the most yards at the end of a season is the best. That's what's laughable.

Do you feel scoring 10 TD's is better than scoring 20?

Do you feel fumbling 9 times is better than not fumbling at all?

Do you feel that averaging 4.8YPC is better than averaging 5.5YPC?

Do you believe getting 1st downs on 22.1% of your carries is better than getting 1st downs on 24.2% of your carries?

LOL! You must, if you feel AD was a better RB in 2008 than Williams.

The only thing AD had more of was more total yards & that's only because he had 90 more carries than DW.

Still waiting on how you feel AD was the better back.

midgensa
10-12-2011, 08:40 PM
Some people here will never consider him to be one of the greatest, until he gets a ring.

Really? In a sport with rosters full of 54 players, you would say that? So, Barry Sanders is not one of the greatest? Eric Dickerson not one of the greatest? O.J. Simpson? Ladanian Tomlinson? You're right ... none of them are as good as Roger Craig because he has three rings!

How did you consider DeAngelo Williams the best back in the league without a ring?

You just like to bash on AD for whatever reason. Fantastic. Keep doing it and looking silly. You clearly never have a problem with looking silly.

And just because DeAngelo Williams was better statistically than AD in 2008 does not make him a better running back, it makes him statistically better for that season. Daunte Culpepper was NEVER a better quarterback than Tom Brady, but he statistically had some better seasons. It is completely silly to say someone is better because they were better that season, it simply means they had better numbers for a season.

Mr Anderson
10-12-2011, 09:32 PM
How do you figure? You have absolutely nothing to back your statement up.

What's laughable is thinking all a RB job is to do is to run & the RB with the most yards at the end of a season is the best. That's what's laughable.

Do you feel scoring 10 TD's is better than scoring 20?

Do you feel fumbling 9 times is better than not fumbling at all?

Do you feel that averaging 4.8YPC is better than averaging 5.5YPC?

Do you believe getting 1st downs on 22.1% of your carries is better than getting 1st downs on 24.2% of your carries?

LOL! You must, if you feel AD was a better RB in 2008 than Williams.

The only thing AD had more of was more total yards & that's only because he had 90 more carries than DW.

Still waiting on how you feel AD was the better back.
I agree Williams had a better season statistically in 2008. But that means very little. Last year 4 or 5 guys arguably had statistically better seasons than Peterson, but you and I watched Peterson run. He was awesome last season. More times than I can count he made something out of nothing. Sheer force of will and amazing talent gained him a large portion of his yardage. How many backs can you say that about?

Peterson has unrivaled talent at RB. In 08 he was playing in an offense that garnered zero respect from defenses. He was all we had that year.

Williams was one of two very good running backs. The #2 back ran for over 800 yards on a team that had a respectable QB(at the time Delhomme was solid) and two 1,000 yard receivers in Muhsin Muhammad and Steve Smith.

DeAngelo Williams was never a better back than Adrian Peterson. Not in high school, not in college, not in the NFL. I don't know about pre-high school ball, but I wouldn't wager against Peterson then either.

Purple Floyd
10-12-2011, 09:54 PM
That season was an anomaly.

singersp
10-13-2011, 06:59 AM
Really? In a sport with rosters full of 54 players, you would say that? So, Barry Sanders is not one of the greatest? Eric Dickerson not one of the greatest? O.J. Simpson? Ladanian Tomlinson? You're right ... none of them are as good as Roger Craig because he has three rings!

How did you consider DeAngelo Williams the best back in the league without a ring?

You just like to bash on AD for whatever reason. Fantastic. Keep doing it and looking silly. You clearly never have a problem with looking silly.

And just because DeAngelo Williams was better statistically than AD in 2008 does not make him a better running back, it makes him statistically better for that season. Daunte Culpepper was NEVER a better quarterback than Tom Brady, but he statistically had some better seasons. It is completely silly to say someone is better because they were better that season, it simply means they had better numbers for a season.

1. What the fuck are you talking about? The only one looking silly here is you. Get your facts straight. I said SOME PEOPLE HERE wouldn't consider him great because he didn't have a ring. I DIDN"T say I FEEL that way, I'm exactly the opposite. How the fuck did you deduce that to include me?

I was referring to those fans who, when I mentioned the great Bud Grant or great Fran Tarkenton, barked back & said they didn't consider them to be great because they didn't have a ring.

2. Thank you for agreeing with me that Williams was a better back that season. That is after all, what the discussion was about. We were talking about a thread back in 2008. It wasn't about who was would be the best back in the league in 2009, 2010 or 2011 or who was the best back in the league in 2007 or earlier.

It was about who was the best back in the league during the 2008 season at that particular time.

3. Where do you come off that's bashing on AD? If AD scores 10 TD's to Williams 20, that's stating a fact. That's one hell of a statistical difference & any one would look silly thinking otherwise.

It is what it is. At the time of that discussion, Williams was outperforming AD, thus making him greater.

4. If you're referring to my comments that AD only averaged 2.2 yards in the 2nd half of last weeks game as bashing AD, you're way off base yet again.

What I was trying to say is if it isn't working, quit doing it. If the defense is gunning for him & stopping him cold, giving him the ball even more isn't going to change it. It will be just more of the same.

Until they fix the second half problem & get a QB in here that can make plays down field & pull men out of the box, defenses will continue to stuff AD. That's not a knock on AD, that's a knock on the HC, OC & McNabb.

Purple Floyd
10-13-2011, 07:08 AM
Daunte Culpepper was NEVER a better quarterback than Tom Brady, but he statistically had some better seasons. It is completely silly to say someone is better because they were better that season, it simply means they had better numbers for a season.

Perfect analogy.

singersp
10-13-2011, 07:26 AM
That season was an anomaly.

I agree.

But that was not the discussion back then. AD was a fumble machine that year & because of it his production suffered. He was also first starting to catch the ball better. Have people forgotten how atrocious his receiving skills & blocking skills used to be?

Have they forgotten why we had to put C-Taylor in there on 3rd downs?

No doubt AD was the had the best moves & could run, but that alone doesn't make you a great RB. He couldn't block, had trouble catching the ball, had a big problem hanging on to the ball & other RB's were not only scoring more points than he was , but averaging more yards per carry than he was. With that said, how is it possible to say he was better than everyone else?

singersp
10-13-2011, 07:36 AM
Perfect analogy.

Again, we were talking about a single season. 2008. 2009, 2010 & 2011 hadn't even occurred yet, yet you are using his years since then in his evaluation.

We weren't talking about achievements over the course of several seasons. We were talking about a snapshot in time. 2008.

Using your logic, you would be saying Favre was one of the greatest QB's in 2010.

shockzilla
10-13-2011, 03:22 PM
I'll say it again...

Boy you guys argue and bicker over the stupidest things sometimes.

Mr Anderson
10-13-2011, 03:42 PM
Again, we were talking about a single season. 2008. 2009, 2010 & 2011 hadn't even occurred yet, yet you are using his years since then in his evaluation.

We weren't talking about achievements over the course of several seasons. We were talking about a snapshot in time. 2008.

Using your logic, you would be saying Favre was one of the greatest QB's in 2010.
What you seemingly do not understand is that no one else is saying that the stats make Peterson a better back. I don't think anyone cares that he had better seasons statistically since then.

His analogy was perfect. Culpepper had some better seasons, statistically, but Brady was always a better player. Same goes for Peterson and anyone else in the league right now, aside of LaDainian Tomlinson in 2007.

C Mac D
10-13-2011, 03:52 PM
How do you figure? You have absolutely nothing to back your statement up.

What's laughable is thinking all a RB job is to do is to run & the RB with the most yards at the end of a season is the best. That's what's laughable.

Do you feel scoring 10 TD's is better than scoring 20?

Do you feel fumbling 9 times is better than not fumbling at all?

Do you feel that averaging 4.8YPC is better than averaging 5.5YPC?

Do you believe getting 1st downs on 22.1% of your carries is better than getting 1st downs on 24.2% of your carries?

LOL! You must, if you feel AD was a better RB in 2008 than Williams.

The only thing AD had more of was more total yards & that's only because he had 90 more carries than DW.

Still waiting on how you feel AD was the better back.

Never said he didn't have a better year, but he still wasn't the better running back. I told you the same thing back then, one of the most important aspects of a great running back is CONSISTENTCY.... something Williams clearly lacks. Some of us saw that, some of us didn't. That's all. I am able to see the nuances beyond stats, whereas you rely on stats.

One year does not make a better running back.

3-4 years later, Peterson is still the best back in the league. He was in 2008 and he still is today. End of discussion.

Formo
10-13-2011, 04:03 PM
I'll say it again...

Boy you guys argue and bicker over the stupidest things sometimes.

PPO quote of the year!!

Traveling_Vike
10-13-2011, 06:08 PM
I always cringe when I see an article or piece like this. Two main reasons, really. First, you really can't do a viable comparison when one of the players named is still in mid-career, especially relatively early. Wait until they are all done playing, and then make your comparison.

Second, and perhaps more important, is that those kinds of statement are always intensely divisive. There is no real purpose behind them except to fire up contention. I realize that it's the journalist's (and I use that term very loosely) job to stir up the readers and get them talking, but this is worse even than normal sensationalism. It's deliberately pitting fans against one another.

Who is better? Who is the best? Everyone will have their own opinions, because the question is by nature subjective. It's not worth getting upset over someone else's opinion.

singersp
10-13-2011, 07:00 PM
Never said he didn't have a better year, but he still wasn't the better running back. I told you the same thing back then, one of the most important aspects of a great running back is CONSISTENTCY.... something Williams clearly lacks. Some of us saw that, some of us didn't. That's all. I am able to see the nuances beyond stats, whereas you rely on stats.

One year does not make a better running back.

3-4 years later, Peterson is still the best back in the league. He was in 2008 and he still is today. End of discussion.


Yep you're right. In 2008 he consistently fumbled the ball, consistently couldn't block and consistently had a worse average per carry than several others RB's.

You only looked at one aspect of his game & ignored the other important roles.

singersp
10-13-2011, 07:06 PM
What you seemingly do not understand is that no one else is saying that the stats make Peterson a better back. I don't think anyone cares that he had better seasons statistically since then.

His analogy was perfect. Culpepper had some better seasons, statistically, but Brady was always a better player. Same goes for Peterson and anyone else in the league right now, aside of LaDainian Tomlinson in 2007.

Comparing QB's & Comparing RB's are apples and oranges. QB's rely on receiver's catching their passes for one.


And for the last time, we aren't talking about now & we aren't talking about over the course of several seasons. We were talking about 2008.

Mr Anderson
10-13-2011, 09:47 PM
Comparing QB's & Comparing RB's are apples and oranges. QB's rely on receiver's catching their passes for one.


And for the last time, we aren't talking about now & we aren't talking about over the course of several seasons. We were talking about 2008.
Wait. Are you serious?

I clearly state:

I don't think anyone cares that he had better seasons statistically since then.

And running backs don't rely on anyone else? They rely on the offensive line, tight ends and receivers to block for them. They rely on the passing game to keep extra defenders out of the box.

You are overly focusing on statistics. Watch the two play. Peterson is and was better. He was a workhorse that season. He was our offense. As good as Williams was that year, the same cannot be said for him.

singersp
10-14-2011, 05:55 AM
You are overly focusing on statistics. Watch the two play. Peterson is and was better. He was a workhorse that season. He was our offense. As good as Williams was that year, the same cannot be said for him.

I did watch AD in 2008. I watched him run really well & make great moves. I also watched him fumble 9 times & turn the ball over to our opponents.

I also watched him miss blocks or do a piss poor job of blocking & allow our QB to take hits.

I also watched the Vikings march Chester Taylor out there on 3rd down because they couldn't rely on AD on 3rd downs because of his poor tackling & mediocre pass catching skills.

AD may have been more consistent at the running game, but Williams consistent or not, still scored twice as many TD's as AD on 90 less carries & averaged more yards per carry. 20 to 10. That's 140 points. 140 points that undoubtedly that helped them win many games.

You can't just dismiss that & claim that the 70 point differential didn't matter at all, simply because AD was a workhorse when it came to running. Nor can you dismiss the fact that AD couldn't be relied on in 3rd down passing situations. Nor can you dismiss the fact that he had major fumbling issues that year.

I love AD, but In 2008, Williams had a greater year than AD. If you & others want to ignore all the stats & believe AD had a greater year based on consistency & that he was a workhorse alone, then that's your belief.

Purple Floyd
10-14-2011, 07:15 AM
Stats mean squat. There has never been a time when Williams was in the same league as Peterson.

C Mac D
10-14-2011, 08:19 AM
Yep you're right. In 2008 he consistently fumbled the ball, consistently couldn't block and consistently had a worse average per carry than several others RB's.

You only looked at one aspect of his game & ignored the other important roles.

You can believe that Deangelo Williams was the best running back in the NFL, but I choose to save that tag for players that can do that on a continuing basis, like Peterson. Even with 9 fumbles, Peterson was still a better running back, whether you agree or not is really inconsequential. Running backs have great 1-season careers all the time and Williams is on that list.

And I'm sure if Williams had Gus Frerotte and Jackson as QB, he would have seen 8 in the box all year too. Peterson was successful despite this. When teams started stacking the box against Williams, he caved. Again, you just have to understand the nuances of Football.

C Mac D
10-14-2011, 08:21 AM
Stats mean squat. There has never been a time when Williams was in the same league as Peterson.

Yeah, agreed. Pretty obvious to most football fans.

C Mac D
10-14-2011, 08:22 AM
I did watch AD in 2008. I watched him run really well & make great moves. I also watched him fumble 9 times & turn the ball over to our opponents.

I also watched him miss blocks or do a piss poor job of blocking & allow our QB to take hits.

I also watched the Vikings march Chester Taylor out there on 3rd down because they couldn't rely on AD on 3rd downs because of his poor tackling & mediocre pass catching skills.

AD may have been more consistent at the running game, but Williams consistent or not, still scored twice as many TD's as AD on 90 less carries & averaged more yards per carry. 20 to 10. That's 140 points. 140 points that undoubtedly that helped them win many games.

You can't just dismiss that & claim that the 70 point differential didn't matter at all, simply because AD was a workhorse when it came to running. Nor can you dismiss the fact that AD couldn't be relied on in 3rd down passing situations. Nor can you dismiss the fact that he had major fumbling issues that year.

I love AD, but In 2008, Williams had a greater year than AD. If you & others want to ignore all the stats & believe AD had a greater year based on consistency & that he was a workhorse alone, then that's your belief.

You harp on those fumbles, how about the fact that we won the division that year with Frerotte and Jackson at QB? Peterson was the offense, that's the only guy teams had to defend... nevermind, I don't think you'll ever understand.

i_bleed_purple
10-14-2011, 08:23 AM
You harp on those fumbles, how about the fact that we won the division that year with Frerotte and Jackson at QB? Peterson was the offense, that's the only guy teams had to defend... nevermind, I don't think you'll ever understand.

LOL!

mentioning Jackson as if he had anything to do with the division win.

Purple Floyd
10-14-2011, 08:24 AM
You harp on those fumbles, how about the fact that we won the division that year with Frerotte and Jackson at QB? Peterson was the offense, that's the only guy teams had to defend... nevermind, I don't think you'll ever understand.

Berrian had a 99yd TD against the bears that year. He was the best WR in football.

i_bleed_purple
10-14-2011, 08:25 AM
I also watched the Vikings march Chester Taylor out there on 3rd down because they couldn't rely on AD on 3rd downs because of his poor tackling & mediocre pass catching skills.

That does sound like a Chilly maneuver.... pick what RB to play based on how well he can tackle...

Purple Floyd
10-14-2011, 08:27 AM
That does sound like a Chilly maneuver.... pick what RB to play based on how well he can tackle...

lol.

C Mac D
10-14-2011, 08:35 AM
LOL!

mentioning Jackson as if he had anything to do with the division win.

Actually, I say that meaning he was hampering us winning... but we won anyways because Peterson is a beast. You have to read the post fully to understand it, not skim over it.

shockzilla
10-14-2011, 08:43 AM
berrian had a 99yd td against the bears that year. He was the best wr in football.

lmaaaaaaao!!!!!

i_bleed_purple
10-14-2011, 08:47 AM
Actually, I say that meaning he was hampering us winning... but we won anyways because Peterson is a beast. You have to read the post fully to understand it, not skim over it.

I interpret how I want. I choose to believe you are an idiot, based on Prophet's thread, and will thus read your posts as such.

C Mac D
10-14-2011, 10:27 AM
I interpret how I want. I choose to believe you are an idiot, based on Prophet's thread, and will thus read your posts as such.

Sure, but I'm an idiot with reading comprehension skills.

singersp
10-15-2011, 10:17 AM
Stats mean squat. There has never been a time when Williams was in the same league as Peterson.

Typically said by someone when stats don't support his case. LOL!

When you're talking about who had a better season between two players, stats matter do matter.

You don't score 20 TD's unless your good. And unless you're into new math, 10>20.

singersp
10-15-2011, 10:21 AM
You can believe that Deangelo Williams was the best running back in the NFL, but I choose to save that tag for players that can do that on a continuing basis, like Peterson. Even with 9 fumbles, Peterson was still a better running back, whether you agree or not is really inconsequential. Running backs have great 1-season careers all the time and Williams is on that list.

And Williams did have that greater year. Case closed. After all, we were talking about that 1 year & 1 year only, which everyone outside of me keeps forgetting.

Ultrapurple
10-15-2011, 11:22 AM
Comparison to the greats past and present is what we all do, it is the only way to measure a given players skills and heart. Stats are offered as another measure, but can be misleading if you just look at raw numbers. People are going to weigh the catagories differently, thats human nature.

jargomcfargo
10-15-2011, 11:55 AM
I ask myself, 'How do the Vikings have the NFL sack leader, a running back second in the league in rushing, and a defense ranked 5th against the run, and still be 1-4" ?

Individual stats aren't so important in a team sport but it seems anything can spark a debate about ' I'm right you're wrong ' on PP.O.

Pretty obvious who the better running back is even he wasn't at a particular point in time.

singersp
10-15-2011, 12:19 PM
I ask myself, 'How do the Vikings have the NFL sack leader, a running back second in the league in rushing, and a defense ranked 5th against the run, and still be 1-4" ?

Individual stats aren't so important in a team sport but it seems anything can spark a debate about ' I'm right you're wrong ' on PP.O.

Pretty obvious who the better running back is even he wasn't at a particular point in time.

Again, it was about that one particular point in time. It isn't about now. You have to forget everything that happened in 2009, 2010 & 2011 & look at 2008 when the original discussion actually took place, but people just can't seem to do that.

Minniman
10-16-2011, 12:47 PM
Is Peterson good enough for his big cap eating contract?

Is he a Joe Mauer detriment to the team or worth it?

The best quarterback in the NFL may be good for the cash. The best running back? I am not so sure.