PDA

View Full Version : Reggie, Peterson, McFadden... Rate 'em


big daddy russ
09-12-2007, 03:02 PM
Great (possible) three-year run at running backs at the top of the draft, but how would they stack up against each other?

Reggie Bush '06
Adrian Peterson '07
Darren McFadden '08 -'09 (or, if he gets injured and cashes in on the Jason White clause, '08-'24)

d34ng3l021
09-12-2007, 03:09 PM
Adrian Peterson
Darren McFadden
Reggie Bush

Man_Of_Steel
09-12-2007, 03:10 PM
If they were all enetering the draft the same year after their last college seasons than the order of selection would likley be...

Bush, Outstanding rare ability.
McFadden, Big, fast, strong
Peterson, Injury problems.

d34ng3l021
09-12-2007, 03:12 PM
If they were all enetering the draft the same year after their last college seasons than the order of selection would likley be...

Bush, Outstanding rare ability.
McFadden, Big, fast, strong
Peterson, Injury problems.

No way. More like

Bush, inablity to run inside
McFadden, very upright running style
Peterson, beast.

Don Vito
09-12-2007, 03:12 PM
I'll take AP, McFadden, and Bush, in that order. Peterson and McFadden can do it all, they have size, speed, hands, strength, and the ability to make a play from anywhere on the fiels. Reggie is just behind both of them, he is a great playmaker but he doesn't have the body to carry the load of a traditional inside/outside RB (like AP/D-Mac). That is why Bush's situation in NO (and what he had at USC) is perfect for him.

Man_Of_Steel
09-12-2007, 03:13 PM
No way. More like

Bush, inablity to run inside
McFadden, very upright running style
Peterson, beast.

Your opinion. But I find it hard to believe that if these guys were all in the same draft class after their college seasons you would pass over Bush, one of the greatest prospects of all-time for Peterson.

d34ng3l021
09-12-2007, 03:16 PM
Your opinion. But I find it hard to believe that if these guys were all in the same draft class after their college seasons you would pass over Bush, one of the greatest prospects of all-time for Peterson.

Yeah, It would be hard for me to pass on Bush. If I am running a 2 back system though, it wouldnt be a bad idea. Saints landed in the perfect situation. Very injury prone tough runner to compliment Bush.

But if I had to pick, then I would pick either Peterson or McFadden to handle the load.

Mr. Stiller
09-12-2007, 03:17 PM
No way. More like

Bush, inablity to run inside
McFadden, very upright running style
Peterson, beast.

Ironically, the same reason your undercutting McFadden is also the exact same thing Peterson was criticized for.

Oft-injured because of his upright running style.

Yet McFadden is less injured.

bored of education
09-12-2007, 03:20 PM
Yeah mcFadden and Peterson have similar running styles.

d34ng3l021
09-12-2007, 03:21 PM
Ironically, the same reason your undercutting McFadden is also the exact same thing Peterson was criticized for.

Oft-injured because of his upright running style.

Yet McFadden is less injured.

lol. I realized that while I was writing it. I just hoped no one would notice.

But both of them do have a very upright running style, I agree. I think Peterson runs a bit lower to the ground though.

bored of education
09-12-2007, 03:22 PM
I'd take Marshawn !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

RaiderNation
09-12-2007, 03:29 PM
AD
Bush
McFadden

draftguru151
09-12-2007, 03:45 PM
As RBs.

1. Peterson
2. Bush
3. McFadden

If it's as prospects Bush gets the nod over Peterson because the other things he could do as well as Peterson's injuries. From a RB stand point it's definitely Peterson. I really don't see McFadden's talent level as a RB close to Peterson's.

Giantsfan1080
09-12-2007, 03:49 PM
As RBs.

1. Peterson
2. Bush
3. McFadden

If it's as prospects Bush gets the nod over Peterson because the other things he could do as well as Peterson's injuries. From a RB stand point it's definitely Peterson. I really don't see McFadden's talent level as a RB close to Peterson's.

Pretty much exactly what I was about to write. In terms of pro ability I'm not sure how well McFadden is going to do compared to the other two. I'm not as high on McFadden as most others.

big daddy russ
09-12-2007, 03:54 PM
It looks like with Peterson's first pro game, a lot of people are seeing him the way I saw him before the draft.

I actually always thought Bush was a little too gimmicky to have a particular spot in the NFL. Definitely a big-time athlete, but do you want him touching the ball with a yard-and-a-half to go and nine men in the box?

Also, McFadden and Peterson are pretty different in their running styles. AD hits the hole hard, is much quicker, and makes sharper cuts. McFadden, on the other hand, is a little like Vince Young in that he uses change of direction and that sixth gear to change the defense's pursuit angles and put them behind the play.

Now I'm not much of anything when it comes to scouting, I'm just some schmuck who used to play a little ball waaaay back in the day. On that note, just from what I've seen, I think AD is BY FAR the best football player out of them all, but that McFadden will have a helluva career, too.

And I've always thought that Bush is Ted Ginn with 40 extra pounds. I'm probably the only fan in the Texans' Nation that is happy we went with Mario over Reggie.

Anyways, here are my rankings:

1. Peterson
2. McFadden
3. Bush (too much of a 'tweener... not quite a RB, not quite a WR)

BuckNaked
09-12-2007, 03:54 PM
Your opinion. But I find it hard to believe that if these guys were all in the same draft class after their college seasons you would pass over Bush, one of the greatest prospects of all-time for Peterson.

You're making out to sound like Peterson is just your every day, run of the mill runningback though. I could easily see some teams passing up Bush for Peterson.

soybean
09-12-2007, 03:55 PM
sean payton is a dumbass, he gives the ball to reggie once out of every 8 or so times. How do you expect a runningback to get in his groove when he barely gets any opportunities.

Vikes99ej
09-12-2007, 03:58 PM
AD
McFadden
Lynch
Bush

Freddy G
09-12-2007, 03:58 PM
Yeah, Peterson is the best runningback (by quite a bit IMO) of the three. Adrian Peterson falls into that truly elite category (Brown, Walker, Dikerson, Allen, Sanders) as a runningback. Reggie Bush has more of a rarity factor that can transcend a position, and the ability to be extremely versatile. McFadden kind of combines both but to a lesser extent. Not as explosive and natural as Peterson, and not as versatile as Bush, but still a tremendous speciman.

It really depends on the team as to who would go first, but i think AD and Bush are both clearly above McFadden.

big daddy russ
09-12-2007, 03:59 PM
sean payton is a dumbass, he gives the ball to reggie once out of every 8 or so times. How do you expect a runningback to get in his groove when he barely gets any opportunities.
A dumbass with the number one offense in the NFL.

princefielder28
09-12-2007, 03:59 PM
1. Reggie Bush
2. Adrian Peterson
3. Darren McFadden

bored of education
09-12-2007, 04:03 PM
A dumbass with the number one offense in the NFL.

that was last year.

they got pwned by the colts FYI

P-L
09-12-2007, 04:42 PM
1. Adrian Peterson - The best running back I have seen at the collegiate level in almost 15 years of watching college football. I think his injury issues were overblown, especially since he didn't suffer a single injury due to his "upright" running style.

2. Reggie Bush - Just a rare talent. He was never a complete running back in college, but his skill set puts him near the top. If he could effectively run inside the tackles, he'd easily be #1.

3. Darren McFadden - I love Darren, but I think he is a tad overrated because he plays in the mighty SEC. Being #3 behind Adrian Peterson and Reggie Bush is no knock on McFadden at all.

Shiver
09-12-2007, 04:46 PM
I thought about this the other day and I would rate it like P-L did. Peterson on top for me, he's the best RB I've ever seen play in college football.

Caddy
09-12-2007, 04:49 PM
As prospects:
1) Reggie Bush
2) Darren McFadden
3) Adrian Peterson

bored of education
09-12-2007, 04:50 PM
Marshall Faulk was the best I ever seen at the college level.

Vikes99ej
09-12-2007, 04:51 PM
Marshall Faulk was the best I ever seen at the college level.

You must be damn near 30 or something.

Addict
09-12-2007, 05:19 PM
as prospects it's Bush, and by some margin, then AD and DMC are quite similar to me.

As running backs... well I'd say it's the other way around. Bush just has such an insane amount of upside and potential. Once he's ready to carry the load (and I believe that day will come within three years) he'll be amazing as a RB as well.

big daddy russ
09-12-2007, 05:47 PM
that was last year.

they got pwned by the colts FYI

That's 16 of his 17 games as a head coach. I'd say it's a pretty good measuring stick.

bored of education
09-12-2007, 07:37 PM
True

I'm 25 years old been watching cf for approx 13-16

TACKLE
09-12-2007, 07:52 PM
1) Reggie Bush - Extremely rare talent. You know your good when the only person people could compare you is Gale Sayers.

2) Adrian Peterson - A freakish combo of size/speed/power

3) Darren McFadden - Very complete player but not quite at the same level as the other two.

derza222
09-12-2007, 07:57 PM
Anybody that doesn't put AD at #1 forgets how amazing he was in college. He's at the top easy.

AD
McFadden
Bush

Chucky
09-12-2007, 08:09 PM
As prospects(disregarding completely what happened in the NFL), I think its a little weird that people are saying that they wouldnt take Bush first, coming out of USC Reggie Bush was slated as the next marshall faulk, but better, he was probably the top ranked prospect of the past ten years

Scotty D
09-12-2007, 08:10 PM
There were a lot of Bush doubters.

soybean
09-12-2007, 08:14 PM
EDIT: delete post.

draftguru151
09-12-2007, 08:49 PM
What does that have to do with anything?

princefielder28
09-12-2007, 08:55 PM
What does that have to do with anything?
no kidding....what a pointless statement

Seasonticketholder
09-12-2007, 08:59 PM
sean payton is a dumbass, he gives the ball to reggie once out of every 8 or so times. How do you expect a runningback to get in his groove when he barely gets any opportunities.

I do not think Payton is a dumbass but I do agree with you here. Bush has only carried the ball 15 times or more twice and, not surprisingly, he had his best rushing days. In the one game he carried the ball 20 times, he ran for 126 yards. And he did not have a run over 20 yards in that game. It was a lot of tough runs inside. I think the two-back system can be effective if you are a team like Tennessee that loves to run the ball. The Saints love to pass to set up the run and having two backs forces Payton to insure that both are getting their touches. When you have to insure both players are getting their touches, it is difficult for either back to actually get into a rhythm running the football. I think if Bush was given a chance to be the featured running back, he would do very well.

If I had to choose between the three prospects, I would take Bush first, Peterson second and McFadden third. By the way, watch out for Felix Jones.

soybean
09-12-2007, 09:16 PM
What does that have to do with anything?

it was a joke based on AD dominating the falcons.

HoopsDemon12
09-12-2007, 09:27 PM
1. Adrian Peterson - The best running back I have seen at the collegiate level in almost 15 years of watching college football. I think his injury issues were overblown, especially since he didn't suffer a single injury due to his "upright" running style.

2. Reggie Bush - Just a rare talent. He was never a complete running back in college, but his skill set puts him near the top. If he could effectively run inside the tackles, he'd easily be #1.

3. Darren McFadden - I love Darren, but I think he is a tad overrated because he plays in the mighty SEC. Being #3 behind Adrian Peterson and Reggie Bush is no knock on McFadden at all.

Thats exaclty how i see it.. perfectly worded P-L

Staubach12
09-12-2007, 10:48 PM
As overall prospects:
1. Reggie Bush
2. Darren McFadden
3. Adrian Peterson

Bush is a rare talent that comes around once in a decade. He's an incredible prospect. McFadden is the best RB prospect since Ricky Williams, and Peterson is a very good prospect, but not really on the level of the other two, especially when considering the injury concerns.

Flyboy
09-12-2007, 11:36 PM
As prospects:
1) Reggie Bush
2) Darren McFadden
3) Adrian Peterson

That's how I rate them as well.

Ewing
09-12-2007, 11:42 PM
Peterson on top for me, he's the best RB I've ever seen play in college football.

Which is why he has a Heisman trophy and Reggie Bush doesn't. Wait a minute...

Vikes99ej
09-12-2007, 11:48 PM
Which is why he has a Heisman trophy and Reggie Bush doesn't. Wait a minute...

Are you the guy that's saying Reggie Bush is a Hall-of-Famer? Just checking...

Ewing
09-12-2007, 11:53 PM
Are you the guy that's saying Reggie Bush is a Hall-of-Famer? Just checking...

He has a better chance of being a Hall-of-Famer than Peterson or McFadden. Based on potential alone not a single prospect at any position of the past decade has even come close to Bush's ceiling.

terribletowel39
09-13-2007, 12:19 AM
what about two decades?? an oklahoma state running back. best EVAR!!!

schmiddog
09-13-2007, 12:24 AM
As RBs.

1. Peterson
2. Bush
3. McFadden

If it's as prospects Bush gets the nod over Peterson because the other things he could do as well as Peterson's injuries. From a RB stand point it's definitely Peterson. I really don't see McFadden's talent level as a RB close to Peterson's.

On what grounds? McFadden's got better quicks, a better burst, and is definitely faster. AD is more physical by default but McFadden is an outstanding power runner and is going to take longer to wear down because he protects himself more.

big daddy russ
09-13-2007, 12:47 AM
He has a better chance of being a Hall-of-Famer than Peterson or McFadden. Based on potential alone not a single prospect at any position of the past decade has even come close to Bush's ceiling.

Sorry man, I gotta disagree. Not on potential, but on the Hall of Fame comment.

As far as pure athleticism, not a single prospect over the past decade has come close to Bush. But there hasn't been a cross like Peterson since Eric Dickerson himself. It's kind of funny, too, because I see a lot of Dickerson in Peterson. He's a football-playing-Jessie of the highest caliber mixed with a talent of that caliber.

Maybe if AJ Hawk, Junior Seau, and Cornelius Bennett were a little more athletic, they'd be in his league. Maybe if Juilius Peppers and Bo Jackson had a little more Jessie in 'em. (And I'm a huge Bo/Auburn fan).

But they don't. At least not like Peterson. That kid loves football, he loves contact, and he's on the Sweetness/Dickerson/Emmitt/LT-level of breaking tackles. Combine that with the fact that he's as fast and quick as any RB playing the game right now (well, this side of Bush anyways), he does one thing and does it better than Bush (you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone say that Bush is a better runner than AD), and throw in the fact that he's a physical runner who can still break ankles whenever he wants, that's a Hall of Fame recipe if I've ever heard one.



FYI: "Football-playing-Jessie" was an old Spike Dykesism. Dykes used to call a lot of his kids "Jessies" because they supposedly weren't strong enough and weren't fast enough to play in the SWC, but they were just football players plain and simple. Used to say he'd always have a spot for them on his team. He recruited those kids hard (think Bam Morris, Byron Hanspard, Anthony McDowell, Zach Thomas, Eric Everett, etc.) because it was tough going up against RC Slocum and the McWilliams/Mackovic mess at UT (they were great recruiters, though) on the recruiting trail.

big daddy russ
09-13-2007, 01:06 AM
what about two decades?? an oklahoma state running back. best EVAR!!!

Best Oklahoma native RB? Peterson's from Texas. Barry Sanders was from Kansas, but played at Okie Lite. Billy Sims, Thurman Thomas, Steve Owens, Tommy McDonals, and Billy Vessels weren't bad, either, but definitely weren't on AD's level. Not even close.

Yeah, I could see how he may be the best Oklahoma college RB of all-time, but it's close between Sanders and AD. Sanders had that one phenomenal year ("the greatest season ever") but backed up Thurman his first two years. Peterson had that one great year, then two injury-plagued ones, but he still managed to crank out 1,000 yards a season.

joercky
09-13-2007, 07:20 AM
Peterson strong fast beast.
McFadden only back that can throw as well as LT.
Bush overrated will have more durability problems than AP because of his size and has know idea of how to run at NFL level.

draftguru151
09-13-2007, 08:53 AM
Which is why he has a Heisman trophy and Reggie Bush doesn't. Wait a minute...

Peterson should have won his FRESHMAN year and you'll find few people that will argue against that. But they weren't going to give it to a freshman, and since he was hurt the next 2 years he didn't get the chance again.

Woody56
09-13-2007, 10:18 AM
Adrian Peterson
Darren McFadden
Reggie Bush

OSUGiants17
09-13-2007, 11:29 AM
1. Bush
2. McFadden
3. Peterson

terribletowel39
09-13-2007, 12:03 PM
Best Oklahoma native RB? Peterson's from Texas. Barry Sanders was from Kansas, but played at Okie Lite. Billy Sims, Thurman Thomas, Steve Owens, Tommy McDonals, and Billy Vessels weren't bad, either, but definitely weren't on AD's level. Not even close.

Yeah, I could see how he may be the best Oklahoma college RB of all-time, but it's close between Sanders and AD. Sanders had that one phenomenal year ("the greatest season ever") but backed up Thurman his first two years. Peterson had that one great year, then two injury-plagued ones, but he still managed to crank out 1,000 yards a season.
well i meant oklahoma state university running back. and no it isn't close. barry sanders should have started his freshman year. he was better than thurman even then. obviously from what he did when he did get the chance.

those other guys you named weren't close to AD, no. but AD wasn't and won't be on the same level as sanders. it doesn't happen often that two potentials GOATS play at the same time. especially at running back and thats what AD would have to run like. LT is already here so it doesn't seem likely.

big daddy russ
09-13-2007, 12:20 PM
well i meant oklahoma state university running back. and no it isn't close. barry sanders should have started his freshman year. he was better than thurman even then. obviously from what he did when he did get the chance.

those other guys you named weren't close to AD, no. but AD wasn't and won't be on the same level as sanders. it doesn't happen often that two potentials GOATS play at the same time. especially at running back and thats what AD would have to run like. LT is already here so it doesn't seem likely.

I agree with you on everything except the GOAT comment.

Red Grange/Ernie Nevers
Emmitt Smith/Barry Sanders
Dickerson/Sweetness
OJ/Gale Sayers
Jim Brown/Paul Hornung/Jim Taylor

terribletowel39
09-13-2007, 12:31 PM
I agree with you on everything except the GOAT comment.

Red Grange/Ernie Nevers
Emmitt Smith/Barry Sanders
Dickerson/Sweetness
OJ/Gale Sayers
Jim Brown/Paul Hornung/Jim Taylor

in all honesty though only three of those guys are in the conversation of GOAT. Brown, Sweetness, and Sanders. Smith is in it from statistical standpoint but Amos Zereoue could have led the league in rushing all those years with the line that Dallas had in the 90's. so i don't really consider him in the same class as the other 3 mentioned.

maybe thats just opinion but i think you would hard pressed to find someone that said someone other than Brown, Sweetness, Sanders, and Smith as the greatest evers.

big daddy russ
09-13-2007, 03:15 PM
in all honesty though only three of those guys are in the conversation of GOAT. Brown, Sweetness, and Sanders. Smith is in it from statistical standpoint but Amos Zereoue could have led the league in rushing all those years with the line that Dallas had in the 90's. so i don't really consider him in the same class as the other 3 mentioned.

maybe thats just opinion but i think you would hard pressed to find someone that said someone other than Brown, Sweetness, Sanders, and Smith as the greatest evers.

Warning: I'm pirating my own thread.

I actually had this conversation on another football don't even rank Sanders in the top five. Not because he wasn't one of the greatest runners of all time, but because he wasn't the all-around threat that guys like Emmitt, Sweetness, and Dickerson were.

Here were my ratings...

1. Jim Brown (The gold standard. He was running for 1,500 yards every year in an era when number two-- usually Jim Taylor or Frank Gifford-- was struggling to reach 1,000.)
2. Jim Thorpe
3. Sweetness
4a. Eric Dickerson
4b. Emmitt Smith (Wasn't the most gifted athlete of all-time, but did so many things well that he's quite possibly the most well-rounded back outside of the top two. Oh, and his outstanding vision and balance didn't hurt, either.)
6. Barry Sanders (What makes it even tougher to put him this is the incredible yardage numbers he put up... If only he would've been effective inside the 20's.)
7. OJ Simpson
Gale Sayers (best pure runner of all-time... if he could've stuck around longer, he'd be number three)
8. Red Grange (A little overrated because he single-handedly saved the NFL, but still one of the ten greatest runners of all time)
9. OJ Simpson
10a. Earl Campbell
10b. Ernie Nevers

Others that just missed the cut include Marshall Faulk, Jim Taylor, Paul Hornung, Frank Gifford, Sid Luckman (he was a QB, but he ran the old T-Formation and barely threw the ball), Tony Dorsett, Franco Harris, and Larry Csonka.

I definitely don't see Sanders as the clear-cut GOAT when it comes to all-time running backs. At the college level, it's a different argument, though.

619
09-13-2007, 03:20 PM
1. reggie bush
2. darren mcfadden
3. adrian peterson

soybean
09-13-2007, 03:29 PM
Peterson strong fast beast.
McFadden only back that can throw as well as LT.
Bush overrated will have more durability problems than AP because of his size and has know idea of how to run at NFL level.

this is faulty logic. You're jumping to conclusions.

terribletowel39
09-13-2007, 03:36 PM
eh....i just don't see it like that. it seems like you like a lot of old schoolers. so it may just be philosophies that are setting our differences apart. i mean red grange. lord. you going back to the 20's and beyond. and he (as most did back then) played defense and quarterback as well.

and Nevers...haha he played for the Cardinals if i remember correctly.....the chicago cardinals. and he was the coach at the same time as he was running back.

i would put all of those ahead of emmitt smith. i don't think he deserves to be in the convo. i don't know, just don't like him.

to me you go too far back. you can't compare those two and Jim Thorpe with the 80's-00's guys.

don't know if i have covered everything but i'm at work and am having a hard time concentrating on both things haha.

619
09-13-2007, 03:43 PM
remember adrian peterson ran for 100+ yards in his debut against the falcons and in the long term he will not be as good as the other two

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
09-13-2007, 04:29 PM
Without reading most of the thread:

In terms of all the things he can do on a field, Reggie gets the nod. If I was starting a team from scratch, I'll take AD. Him and McFadden have a lot in common, difference is Peterson is nastier and McFadden is a better receiver and maybe a hair quicker. I like the nastiness, so I take AD.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
09-13-2007, 04:35 PM
On what grounds? McFadden's got better quicks, a better burst, and is definitely faster. AD is more physical by default but McFadden is an outstanding power runner and is going to take longer to wear down because he protects himself more.

AD ran a 4.4 at the combine. So in order for McFadden to be "definitely faster" as you put it, he'd need to run 4.36(any smaller a margin and it's pretty much pointless). At the combine. Do you feel, with confidence, that he can do that? And I'll give you he has better quicks, I dunno about the burst though. AD's strength is in his burst. He just runs at you so fast and hard you can't stop him.

SenorGato
09-13-2007, 05:04 PM
As RBs.

1. Peterson
2. Bush
3. McFadden

If it's as prospects Bush gets the nod over Peterson because the other things he could do as well as Peterson's injuries. From a RB stand point it's definitely Peterson. I really don't see McFadden's talent level as a RB close to Peterson's.

QFT.

Peterson is stronger than all 3 of them, he runs with the most power, and he's just as fast.

I like McFadden...but he's not as good as Peterson.

I liked Bush in college...but he was always overrated as a pro RB prospect. His build is just...all wrong for a RB...and he never had to take a full load in college.

Peterson may not have the burst in and out of cuts McFadden and Bush have...but the power and speed he runs with isn't even human.

d34ng3l021
09-13-2007, 05:24 PM
this is faulty logic. You're jumping to conclusions.

Its ironic cause Peterson and McFadden are the ones with injury concerns.

ATLDirtyBirds
09-13-2007, 05:55 PM
1. All Day
2. DMac
3. Reginald

big daddy russ
09-13-2007, 06:40 PM
eh....i just don't see it like that. it seems like you like a lot of old schoolers. so it may just be philosophies that are setting our differences apart. i mean red grange. lord. you going back to the 20's and beyond. and he (as most did back then) played defense and quarterback as well.

and Nevers...haha he played for the Cardinals if i remember correctly.....the chicago cardinals. and he was the coach at the same time as he was running back.

i would put all of those ahead of emmitt smith. i don't think he deserves to be in the convo. i don't know, just don't like him.

to me you go too far back. you can't compare those two and Jim Thorpe with the 80's-00's guys.

don't know if i have covered everything but i'm at work and am having a hard time concentrating on both things haha.
I'll give you that. Don Hutson and the Packers completely changed the game back in the 40's with the forward pass, so we'll just start there.

1. Jim Brown
2. Sweetness
3a. Eric Dickerson
3b. Emmitt Smith
5. Barry Sanders
6. OJ Simpson
7. Gale Sayers
8. Earl Campbell
9. Marshall Faulk
10. Jim Taylor

You couldn't catch Sanders, but he wasn't very hard to stuff. Was the only guy in the past 25 years who could consistently run on the outside, but wasn't worth much inside the tackles.

He was just a big play waiting to happen and had some amazing runs. Was football's Human Highlight Reel, but along with those highlights, he had more carries for losses than anyone in history.

Smith wasn't nearly as fast, quick, and didn't have as good of balance, but his vision, ability to break tackles, and knack for taking it both inside and outside were what set him apart from the other running backs. People talk about how good Emmitt's line was, but they don't realize how good he made that line. That line was built for a running back like Emmitt. Someone who could hit the hole hard and put a Mike, a Ted, or a Sam on his butt. He was also probably the most patient runner I've ever seen. He'd let his line work for him, and eventually he'd find a sliver of daylight and bust straight through it. Or, if there was a traffic jam up the middle, he'd change direction downhill and bounce outside.

It just depends on what you want on your team. Emmitt did everything well, but couldn't get out of a jam the way Barry could. Barry was uncatchable, but had his weaknesses on the inside and the fact that you never knew if you'd go three and out, would be on the field two plays before he broke one, or if you'd string together a good drive.

Emmitt always got positive yardage, and that's honestly what separates him from Barry for me. But in the long run, it's all a matter of opinion. Barry did things that nobody... not Jim Brown, not Reggie Bush... will ever be able to do.

schmiddog
09-13-2007, 09:43 PM
AD ran a 4.4 at the combine. So in order for McFadden to be "definitely faster" as you put it, he'd need to run 4.36(any smaller a margin and it's pretty much pointless). At the combine. Do you feel, with confidence, that he can do that? And I'll give you he has better quicks, I dunno about the burst though. AD's strength is in his burst. He just runs at you so fast and hard you can't stop him.

Yes, I'm completely confident he'll do that. It's quite obvious, watching tape of the two, that McFadden is faster.

Could Peterson run away from a D and split defenders like this?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bhTzdYPFLDs

Could he have blasted through an extremely small seam against LSU for an 80 yard run like McFadden did last year (couldn't find a highlight video)?

The answer is no. I really don't see how anyone could possibly entertain the notion that Peterson has an equal burst or top gear.

Flyboy
09-13-2007, 09:45 PM
I think AD has an similar burst but not the same breakaway speed the D-Mac possesses.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
09-13-2007, 09:48 PM
A 4.36 would be amazing. I'll believe it when I see it. Let's not forget AD did this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUuo2kGdewQ

and this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VX06qX4hH0
(interesting to note on the second video that the guy who BARELY caught him is Mike Huff, who ran a 4.34)

schmiddog
09-13-2007, 09:55 PM
A 4.36 would be amazing. I'll believe it when I see it. Let's not forget AD did this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUuo2kGdewQ

and this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VX06qX4hH0
(interesting to note on the second video that the guy who BARELY caught him is Mike Huff, who ran a 4.34)

I'm quite impressed with Peterson's speed, particularly given his frame. All I'm saying is that it's readily obvious that McFadden is faster when watching the tape.

draftguru151
09-13-2007, 10:13 PM
I haven't seen anything from McFadden that he has more explosion, better acceleration or that he is definitely faster. He may have slightly better top end speed, but it's not significant enough to make it a positive for McFadden. I'm with PL and Shiver, AD is the best college back I've seen. McFadden isn't close.

schmiddog
09-13-2007, 11:06 PM
I haven't seen anything from McFadden that he has more explosion, better acceleration or that he is definitely faster. He may have slightly better top end speed, but it's not significant enough to make it a positive for McFadden. I'm with PL and Shiver, AD is the best college back I've seen. McFadden isn't close.

I'm honestly laughing right now. Not even close? You've completely lost it.

I'll gladly hear an argument in slight favor of AD, but to say it's not even close just doesn't fly.

soybean
09-13-2007, 11:10 PM
I really can't tell you whose faster but it's not like many people can catch either in the open field. same goes for bush.

joercky
09-13-2007, 11:30 PM
this is faulty logic. You're jumping to conclusions.

Your right there I am just saying what I think is going to happen but for all of the hype Bush had he sure hasn't done much in the NFL compared to Maurice Jones-Drew or even Lawrence Maroney. Bush dances around holes to much and doesn't hit em thus leading to negative yardage. The back who successfully danced around alot is Barry Saunders and he leads the league with most negative runs in history. Reggie Bush is no Barry Saunders.

big daddy russ
09-13-2007, 11:35 PM
I haven't seen anything from McFadden that he has more explosion, better acceleration or that he is definitely faster. He may have slightly better top end speed, but it's not significant enough to make it a positive for McFadden. I'm with PL and Shiver, AD is the best college back I've seen. McFadden isn't close.

I'm with you, guru.
Also, McFadden and Peterson are pretty different in their running styles. AD hits the hole hard, is much quicker, and makes sharper cuts. McFadden, on the other hand, is a little like Vince Young in that he uses change of direction and that sixth gear to change the defense's pursuit angles and put them behind the play.

Adrian Peterson
http://youtube.com/watch?v=3u29GM3vtRA&mode=related&search=

Watch the second run. That's why I compare him to Eric Dickerson so much. He's in the middle of the mess at the LOS quicker than you can blink and he cuts to the only open window so quick that it doesn't have time to close. He even plants and changes direction, but keeps moving downhill. That's another impressive thing about him... he's a downhill runner who's as agile as they come. Walter Payton and Dickerson were very similar runners. Payton may have been a little more physical while Peterson and Dickerson use their jets, but it's that same quick, downhill style that breaks tackles just because of the momentum they carry through their cuts.


Darren McFadden
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XcssslTgHBQ
Watch the run at the 29-second mark. That's what I see as a typical McFadden run. Runs straight to the gap, changes directions without losing momentum (but can't cut like Peterson), drops it into fifth gear when he gets to second level (watch the LBs when he changes directions and accelerates.... if you look at the holes, the only LB out of position is the Mike, and it's only by a hair... that little change of direction combined with that acceleration suddenly puts the guard in position to catch the Mike off-balance and DMC runs through a wide-open hole) and then, after the missed tackle by the safety, he puts his head down and drops it into sixth. Watch the pursuit angles by the other two DBs suddenly disappear as he puts it in that last gear.


And just for fun...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6qkx3d_NrVU
McFadden vs. Peterson


Some extras so ya'll can see what the old school looked like.

This was the only Payton video I could find.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xlhajYRya8c

The only Dickerson video I could find
http://youtube.com/watch?v=b55Tn_YbLK8
SMU vs. BYU, 1980 Holiday Bowl (ED was #19 in this video)

Notice any similarities?


Back to the point, here's my personal breakdown of the two backs...

Darren McFadden will not run a significantly faster 40 than AD unless he has a phenomenal day at the combine. His top end is up there with guys like Devin Hester and Laveraneus Coles and he has deceptive speed because of those long legs, but his acceleration isn't even close to AD's.

When I, personally, talk about "burst," I'm talking about the granny gears. How he explodes through a hole or past a line of defenders. When he decides where he's going, AD explodes through the hole and is focused on getting through the hole. McFadden's not bad by any stretch of the imagination, but he plays with pursuit angles more than AD. Peterson never slows down, though. He could be going full-throttle to the left, then go back to the right and never lose speed. If you blink, you'll miss his plant.

Both run downhill and are very physical, and that makes them tough to bring down. If I was to compare DMC's running style to anyone, it'd be a mix of Emmitt Smith and Vince Young. Young has that acceleration on the top end and the full-speed change of direction that McFadden uses so much, but McFadden also has that Emmitt mentality of letting his line work for him and setting up his blocks.

Right here, I'm already leaning towards Peterson, but where he really separates himself from McFadden in my book is his ability to break tackles. It's a trade-off with those two: with McFadden you're getting a stud, downhill runner who's athletic and versatile enough to play in the slot or under center. Peterson, on the other hand, is tougher to bring down even if you put a hat on him and wrap him up.

Again, this is all opinion so there's no right or wrong answer. Also, different offenses need different types of personnel, so Peterson may be the wrong choice for five teams and the right one for everyone else and vice versa with DMC.

On that note, guru hit the nail on the head when he said that DMC isn't even in the same league as Peterson when it comes to burst.

big daddy russ
09-13-2007, 11:43 PM
I'm honestly laughing right now. Not even close? You've completely lost it.

I'll gladly hear an argument in slight favor of AD, but to say it's not even close just doesn't fly.

I'm sorry they don't offer cable TV up in New Hampshire.

But don't worry, I posted some YouTube videos (right above this post) so that you could finally watch the best college back since the days of Bo and Herschel. Enjoy.

And no, it's not close.

San Diego Chicken
09-14-2007, 12:18 AM
I like McFadden alot. He is an incredibly smooth athlete, with fluid hips to sidestep defenders. When he gets past the first wave of defenders, he'll try to get the correct angle to the outside and use his stiff arm to fend off DB's, and he breaks alot of really big runs this way. He's almost Tomlinson-good in his ability to do that, it's remarkable, and that's how he'll break off the long runs in the NFL, by going inside/outside. The only thing wrong with him is his lankiness, he doesn't have that low center of gravity, but he's such a good athlete that it doesn't matter that much. He doesn't have the ferocious mentality of a Peterson, and he's not close to as elusive as Bush, but he's the most technically sound, smartest runner of the three.

LonghornsLegend
09-14-2007, 12:27 AM
man first off i dont think mcfadden is as good of a prospect as peterson, really not in the same class IMO...peterson had 1900 yds as a freshman, and had he not got nicked up a few times he would of gotten drafted alot higher, like PL said it was overblown with the whole injury prone thing, but just based off talent, potential, athletic ability, and production peterson was alot further along then mcfadden...and i compare those 2 first because they are alot more similiar...


now i think its down to bush and peterson, lets say for the hell of it they came out the same yr and peterson had never been injured so both were being drafted on potential and ability, i think it comes down to the team picking, the saints would take bush all day, the texans on the other hand would of drafted peterson that year, if you wanna look at the prospects grade, i believe bush would of been graded higher, because of his catching ability, and of course he ran through the pac-10 effortlessly...


but i think people knew peterson would be a better NFL back, i dont wanna hear that crap about Bush's ceiling etc...he's good at what he does, and he will always be lightning to a thunder in the NFL especially with this 2 back thing being evolutionized, so i dont think we should expect the 25 carry bush to come...

peterson on the other hand is built to carry the ball that many times a game, and wears a defense down...runs through tackles, shows his pass catching ability was under rated, and just the quickness and agility that you dont see stronger big backs possess...what more can you ask for out of a rb then what peterson gives you?


were about to see his potential here sooner then thought if taylor doesnt come back, and everyone will hop back on the bandwagon where they were at when he was a freshman and everyone said back then that he would be an incredible NFL back...i still remember reading an article about him during his freshman yr that said then he was big enough, strong enough, and fast enough to make an NFL team that yr as a back and run between the tackles...

The man holds 110 dumbells in both hands and leaps onto a 40 in. box for training for christ' sake...complete beast in every sense of the word

Flyboy
09-14-2007, 12:30 AM
"peterson on the other hand is built to carry the ball that many times a game, and wears a defense down...runs through tackles, shows his pass catching ability was under rated, and just the quickness and agility that you dont see stronger big backs possess...what more can you ask for out of a rb then what peterson gives you?"

To consistently stay healthy.

Ewing
09-14-2007, 01:40 AM
I see videos of Peterson and McFadden but how come nobody has posted this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKjOnSpwOMM

In order to be the greatest college running back of all-time you actually have to stay healthy for more than one year. Sorry, that's just how I view things.

McBain
09-14-2007, 01:59 AM
I'll give you that. Don Hutson and the Packers completely changed the game back in the 40's with the forward pass, so we'll just start there.

1. Jim Brown
2. Sweetness
3a. Eric Dickerson
3b. Emmitt Smith
5. Barry Sanders
6. OJ Simpson
7. Gale Sayers
8. Earl Campbell
9. Marshall Faulk
10. Jim Taylor

You couldn't catch Sanders, but he wasn't very hard to stuff. Was the only guy in the past 25 years who could consistently run on the outside, but wasn't worth much inside the tackles.

He was just a big play waiting to happen and had some amazing runs. Was football's Human Highlight Reel, but along with those highlights, he had more carries for losses than anyone in history.

Smith wasn't nearly as fast, quick, and didn't have as good of balance, but his vision, ability to break tackles, and knack for taking it both inside and outside were what set him apart from the other running backs. People talk about how good Emmitt's line was, but they don't realize how good he made that line. That line was built for a running back like Emmitt. Someone who could hit the hole hard and put a Mike, a Ted, or a Sam on his butt. He was also probably the most patient runner I've ever seen. He'd let his line work for him, and eventually he'd find a sliver of daylight and bust straight through it. Or, if there was a traffic jam up the middle, he'd change direction downhill and bounce outside.

It just depends on what you want on your team. Emmitt did everything well, but couldn't get out of a jam the way Barry could. Barry was uncatchable, but had his weaknesses on the inside and the fact that you never knew if you'd go three and out, would be on the field two plays before he broke one, or if you'd string together a good drive.

Emmitt always got positive yardage, and that's honestly what separates him from Barry for me. But in the long run, it's all a matter of opinion. Barry did things that nobody... not Jim Brown, not Reggie Bush... will ever be able to do.

Bottomline, Barry Sanders ran behind a shoddy o-line.. Emmitt Smith Ran behind one of the best offensive lines ever. Emmitt Smith isn't near the back Barry Sanders was.

Sniper
09-14-2007, 08:00 AM
1. Reggie Bush
2. Adrian Peterson
3. Darren McFadden

Ok, so Reggie can't run in between the tackles...yet. I'll still take the guy with incredible wheels, the ability to cut on a dime, elusiveness, pass-catching ability etc... Peterson is just a pure man-beast. He needs to run lower though and stay healthy, and that's mainly the reason he's #2. Can't really go wrong with any of these guys

Sniper
09-14-2007, 08:04 AM
I see videos of Peterson and McFadden but how come nobody has posted this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKjOnSpwOMM

In order to be the greatest college running back of all-time you actually have to stay healthy for more than one year. Sorry, that's just how I view things.

Absolutely. I didn't get to see Barry Sanders play in college but Bush is the greatest college RB I've ever seen. Peterson is close, but Bush is the man

SenorGato
09-14-2007, 09:16 AM
Absolutely. I didn't get to see Barry Sanders play in college but Bush is the greatest college RB I've ever seen. Peterson is close, but Bush is the man


The thing I love/d about Bush is that he ALWAYS has avoided the big hit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKjOnSpwOMM

Check out 40 seconds into this video how he's wide open for a big hit, and could easily have taken one but he's so quick to react he was just able to turn away from being laid out.

That hit Brown laid on him last year probably had him so shook because he's never had to take one like that before.

Sniper
09-14-2007, 09:30 AM
The thing I love/d about Bush is that he ALWAYS has avoided the big hit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKjOnSpwOMM

Check out 40 seconds into this video how he's wide open for a big hit, and could easily have taken one but he's so quick to react he was just able to turn away from being laid out.

That hit Brown laid on him last year probably had him so shook because he's never had to take one like that before.

And the fact that Bush was a sitting duck waiting for the pass and Sheldon dropped his ass. But yes, I get your point

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
09-14-2007, 10:35 AM
I see videos of Peterson and McFadden but how come nobody has posted this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKjOnSpwOMM

In order to be the greatest college running back of all-time you actually have to stay healthy for more than one year. Sorry, that's just how I view things.

That comes down to your definition of best ever. He only played 2 and a half seasons, so he obviously doesn't have the best career ever. It's just like saying Peyton Manning is the best QB ever, it's certainly arguable if you mean you'd take him at one time over any other. But not arguable if you mean he's had the best career. Reggie had a better college career. Adrian might have been the better back.

drowe
09-14-2007, 10:51 AM
This discussion is very telling on how bad of a draft 2005 really was. there, we had 3 RBs go in the top 5 including the #2 overall pick and nobody would even DREAM of mentioning Brown, Benson or Williams in the same breath as Bush, Peterson or McFadden.

bored of education
09-14-2007, 10:53 AM
How does Steve Slaton's skill set translate to the NFL. Who does he rmeind peopoe of. (Id didnt want to make a new thread) This is about RBs lol

Kslice28
09-14-2007, 10:54 AM
Well Ill start this off by saying theres probably no bigger Adrian Peterson fan then myself. Having said that ill try to keep this as unbiased as possible.
1. Adrian Peterson- His combo of grind it out/explosive play ability is rare. You guys have covered most of his skills (speed, strength, explosion, ect.) but in my mind what really separates him from the other 2 is his endurance. He wears down defenses and can literally go all day. If you need proof just check out his 140+ yards in the 4th quarter against Oregon last year. Yes, he has had trouble with injuries but its not fair to call him "injury prone" seeing that none of his injuries have been caused by his upright running style that people like to talk about. I have a hard time believing his bones or tendons break easier then anyone elses.

2.Darren McFadden- I don't think it would be crazy to say that hes more explosive and fast then Peterson, however not by much. He has the size to be a feature back although not to the extent of AD. Right now he has the versatility advantage over Peterson and hasnt been as affected by injuries.

3.Reggie Bush- I feel bad putting him last because hes such a great talent, however I dont see him being the feature nfl back Peterson and Dmac have the potential to be and I never have. His versatility and play making ability and superior to the others but I think he will always be the 2 in a 1, 2 punch. While Peterson and McFadden are something every nfl team needs, Bush is a luxury, one that any team would love to have.

phunnypharm
09-14-2007, 11:09 AM
No way. More like

Bush, inablity to run inside
McFadden, very upright running style
Peterson, beast.

McFadden runs upright but Peterson doesn't???

That is the funniest thing I've read this week!!!!!

phunnypharm
09-14-2007, 11:11 AM
How does Steve Slaton's skill set translate to the NFL. Who does he rmeind peopoe of. (Id didnt want to make a new thread) This is about RBs lol

Reminds me a little of Clinton Portis or Edge.

Sniper
09-14-2007, 11:16 AM
Reminds me a little of Clinton Portis or Edge.

Except Edge and Portis have toughness between the tackles....Slaton is a tough comparison actually.....Maybe a Willie Parker?

Man_Of_Steel
09-14-2007, 12:05 PM
Except Edge and Portis have toughness between the tackles....Slaton is a tough comparison actually.....Maybe a Willie Parker?

Id say Brian Westbrook.

bored of education
09-14-2007, 12:26 PM
I'd say Fred Taylor/Warrick Dunn maybe Garrison Hearstesque

Ewing
09-14-2007, 12:34 PM
Slaton reminds of a faster Thomas Jones. I think he'll have a better career than Jones but he's very similar to him.

Sniper
09-14-2007, 12:57 PM
Id say Brian Westbrook.

Eh maybe. Slaton is straight-line faster but Westbrook has way more shimmy and moves.

schmiddog
09-15-2007, 07:33 PM
If anyone who has been watching the first half of the Arkansas-Bama game doesn't consider McFadden to be Peterson's level, he's blind.

Frankly, it's pretty obvious to me that he's better.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
09-15-2007, 08:21 PM
Are you an Arkansas fan?

schmiddog
09-15-2007, 08:28 PM
No-in the meantime, you should be asking guru if he's a closet Oklahoma fan for saying that McFadden is nowhere close to as good as Peterson.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
09-15-2007, 08:30 PM
DG is closet a lot of things.

draftguru151
09-15-2007, 08:30 PM
Me and all the other people that said it (including PL and Shiver who said Peterson is the best back they've seen) are closet Oklahoma fans. That's exactly it.

schmiddog
09-15-2007, 09:11 PM
Me and all the other people that said it (including PL and Shiver who said Peterson is the best back they've seen) are closet Oklahoma fans. That's exactly it.

Are you watching the Arkansas-Bama game dude?

Your claim is looking sillier and sillier.

draftguru151
09-15-2007, 09:14 PM
McFadden is having a great game, he's a fantastic player, but he is not doing anything that makes him on Peterson's level.

ATLDirtyBirds
09-15-2007, 09:19 PM
Are you an Arkansas fan?



I could see where someone says McFadden is on AD's level, because I think he's somewhat close. But to say he is obviously better, *stretch*

schmiddog
09-15-2007, 09:22 PM
I could see where someone says McFadden is on AD's level, because I think he's somewhat close. But to say he is obviously better, *stretch*

And saying Peterson is on a whole other level and "it's not even close" (Guru's take) isn't?

I mean give me a break.

ATLDirtyBirds
09-15-2007, 09:25 PM
And saying Peterson is on a whole other level and "it's not even close" isn't?

I mean give me a break.


It is. Neither RB is that far ahead of each other IMO. I think Peterson is better, but McFadden isn't all that far behind him.

d34ng3l021
12-04-2007, 11:51 AM
It is. Neither RB is that far ahead of each other IMO. I think Peterson is better, but McFadden isn't all that far behind him.

Agreed. I think people are really getting caught up in how Adrian Peterson is tearing the NFL a new one, and making that affect Adrian Peterson as a prospect.

They are very similar, IMO. If McFadden can land himself in a good situation (ZBS. Oakland. ****) I think he could have alot of success as well.

BamaFalcon59
12-04-2007, 08:07 PM
Peterson and McFadden are close, but IMO Bush is a distant 3rd. I just never really liked him, even as a prospect. JMO, but I want a dominator, and I doubt Bush is ever anything more than a Brian Westbrook (which is great at times, but isn't with Peterson or a workhorse...IMO anyway).

BamaFalcon59
12-04-2007, 08:08 PM
But if he lands in Atlanta he busts or leaves after his contract. That's just how it works.

OSUGiants17
12-04-2007, 08:10 PM
As prospects:
Bush
McFadden
AD

Now:
AD
McFadden
Bush

Future:
Bush
AD
McFadden

toonsterwu
12-04-2007, 08:14 PM
Well, I'll stick with what I've had ... McFadden, Peterson, Bush.

Gchu83
12-04-2007, 08:14 PM
As prospects:
Bush
McFadden
AD

Now:
AD
McFadden
Bush

Future:
Bush
AD
McFadden

I know he's only in his 2nd year, but I don't how you can have Bush as your #1 back for the future.

If I had to pick a back for my franchise (for now and the future):
AD
McFadden
Bush

619
12-04-2007, 08:21 PM
check it, bush top 10 in rec.

akvikefan89
12-04-2007, 08:32 PM
3 years from now, someone should bump this thread... it'd be hilarious... :)

ATLDirtyBirds
12-04-2007, 08:37 PM
check it, bush top 10 in rec.


Check it, Reggie Bush leads in fumbles.

d34ng3l021
12-04-2007, 11:17 PM
As prospects:
Bush
McFadden
AD

Now:
AD
McFadden
Bush

Future:
Bush
AD
McFadden

You really think Reggie Bush is going to become a better pro than Adrian Peterson? I have almost lost all hope for Reggie Bush as a runner between the tackles.

Their impact may be similar in the future though, but Bush would have to improve ALOT. Especially at the rate AD is going.

soybean
12-04-2007, 11:26 PM
You really think Reggie Bush is going to become a better pro than Adrian Peterson? I have almost lost all hope for Reggie Bush as a runner between the tackles.

Their impact may be similar in the future though, but Bush would have to improve ALOT. Especially at the rate AD is going.

i think bush landed in a bad situation. He needs to pull an OJ. OJ struggled his first 2 years and was on the verge of being a WR convert until a new coaching staff came in.

with that being said I like Mcfadden more as a prospect but it's hard to deny AD will/is the best NFL player.

when mcfadden runs, he just looks so quick. I'm not gonna say he's faster than AD until it is proven but when you watch him run his legs become a blur which just shows how explosive he is/can be.

Aceman
12-05-2007, 12:01 AM
i think bush landed in a bad situation. He needs to pull an OJ. OJ struggled his first 2 years and was on the verge of being a WR convert until a new coaching staff came in.

with that being said I like Mcfadden more as a prospect but it's hard to deny AD will/is the best NFL player.

when mcfadden runs, he just looks so quick. I'm not gonna say he's faster than AD until it is proven but when you watch him run his legs become a blur which just shows how explosive he is/can be.

How exactly is Bush in a bad situation? His first year he was with a great team who had a bruising running back who could take the pressure off of him. Now, he should be more groomed and has been given the reins and has done nothing with them. I don't understand how "Ladanian Tomlinson with more speed" can't get 1 measly 100 yard game when he's the undisputed feature back. I don't understand how someone called "electrifying" averages 5.7 yards a reception.

What is a "good" situation for him? This is a serious question.

no love
12-05-2007, 01:35 AM
1. Adrian Peterson - All Day. Can't stop, won't stop cuz.
2. Marshawn Lynch - Go Bears! I will go ahead and eat some humble pie when I said that I though Marshawn Lynch would be a better and more durable back then AD. I still think he's going to be really good, but AD is out of this world.
3. DMC - Boom or bust with this guy. But I am more inclined to say boom.
4. MJD - He is more likely to be Westbrook good than Bush is.
5. Bush - Bush never ceases to disappoint me every time I watch him.

soybean
12-05-2007, 01:38 AM
How exactly is Bush in a bad situation? His first year he was with a great team who had a bruising running back who could take the pressure off of him. Now, he should be more groomed and has been given the reins and has done nothing with them. I don't understand how "Ladanian Tomlinson with more speed" can't get 1 measly 100 yard game when he's the undisputed feature back. I don't understand how someone called "electrifying" averages 5.7 yards a reception.

What is a "good" situation for him? This is a serious question.

I'd like to think that running back being used by a coach that likes to call trick plays in crunch time or air it out as much as they do is in a bad situation.

New Orleans doesn't even hand it off 20+ times a game. I'm not defending him in a sense that he doesn't deserve criticism because he does and he has been dissapointing this year but he isn't necessarily in a position he can/would thrive in.

Deuce wasn't exactly tearing up before he went down.

LonghornsLegend
12-05-2007, 02:13 AM
Agreed. I think people are really getting caught up in how Adrian Peterson is tearing the NFL a new one, and making that affect Adrian Peterson as a prospect.

They are very similar, IMO. If McFadden can land himself in a good situation (ZBS. Oakland. ****) I think he could have alot of success as well.

I hate when people say this because its not true at all...people were high on Peterson since his freshman year in college the same way they are now, its not like he just started showing how good he was...People knew he would be an incredible nfl back at 18 years old, and during draft time people still had the same beliefs, the type of season he is having isnt all that surprising for alot of people...But the fact is, most people arent basing their opinions of him off this nfl season, it goes back further then that

d34ng3l021
12-05-2007, 02:28 AM
I hate when people say this because its not true at all...people were high on Peterson since his freshman year in college the same way they are now, its not like he just started showing how good he was...People knew he would be an incredible nfl back at 18 years old, and during draft time people still had the same beliefs, the type of season he is having isnt all that surprising for alot of people...But the fact is, most people arent basing their opinions of him off this nfl season, it goes back further then that

I am not saying that everyone who thinks AD is an amazing prospect is fazed by his recent dominance in the NFL. I am pretty sure that there are ALOT of people would have liked AD over everyone else even before he started tearing up the NFL.

I am just saying there is a natural hindsight bias that everyone has that would lead them to put AD alot higher, as a prospect, then other RBs.

wogitalia
12-05-2007, 03:08 AM
I'll be honest, the injury concerns on both Bush(his build, not history) and Peterson(obvious) put me off both of them. I'd have gone DMC, Bush and AD in that order.

But AD has been a machine, the guy can flat out run. It is great to watch him for the Vikes. If I were to do it now I would rank Bush last, he has been really disappointing, you can only put that down to the coaching so much, eventually it's on him. He hasn't broken the big plays that everyone thought he would, it's funny that Peterson has been far better at doing it. Bush seems a bit wasted in that New Orleans team, they are so predictable on offense and the defense is forcing them into far too many passing situations.

DMC is special also. I see no reason he can't match the production of AD in the right situation but it is tough to see him landing in that given who is picking at the top. I'd really like to see him at Cleveland or Arizona because I think both are a great back away from being damn fun teams to watch and Edge is just about done and Jamal is 6 foot under.

Sniper
12-05-2007, 10:06 AM
I can't judge Bush yet. I try to usually give prospects 3-4 years before I truly grade them. I'm not giving on up on the fact that he could become what he's been hyped to be.

bigboiajhawk
12-05-2007, 11:29 AM
Reggie Bush was the most exciting player to watch in the last ten years, no one will ever come close to his game changing abilities. Next Darren McFadden, because not only is he a star running back, he is also plays as quarterback for a lot of snaps. Finally, Adrian Peterson, could have been great, too many injuries, could have been the best running back ever in college.

Texas Homer
12-05-2007, 02:45 PM
1)Adrian Peterson
2)Darren Mcfadden
3)Reggie Bush
4) Marshawn Lynch

DiG
12-05-2007, 02:48 PM
if they were all in the same draft class and we had no knowledge of their nfl careers i think itd be:

1. bush
2. mcfadden
3. apete

Seasonticketholder
12-05-2007, 03:08 PM
How exactly is Bush in a bad situation? His first year he was with a great team who had a bruising running back who could take the pressure off of him. Now, he should be more groomed and has been given the reins and has done nothing with them. I don't understand how "Ladanian Tomlinson with more speed" can't get 1 measly 100 yard game when he's the undisputed feature back. I don't understand how someone called "electrifying" averages 5.7 yards a reception.

What is a "good" situation for him? This is a serious question.

First of all, he's in a bad situation because 3/5 of his line is terrible. Faine and Nesbit get no push on the interior and Stinchcomb cannot seal off the right side to save his life. This line is more a pass-blocking line and they are not even that good at that. A lot of the credit the line gets for Brees being the least sacked QB in the league should go to Brees, himself, for constantly avoiding the rush and getting the ball out so quickly.

Jahri Evans is the team's best offensive lineman and one of the best in the league. He's a keeper. Jamaal Brown is superb as a tackle, although he sometimes has lapses, it seems, in concentration and effort. The team did a much better job running the football when Jonathan Goodwin was in at center and I think he deserves the opportunity to play next year. Other than that, they need to sign a guy like Alan Faneca. Faneca's a local guy who played at LSU and would do wonders for the running game. In terms of RT, they drafted Jermon Bushrod and also have Zach Strief, who is more able as a run blocker than Stinchcomb could ever be. They definitely will need an upgrade on the O-line and I think with that upgrade you will see marked improvement from Bush.

Bush never seems to have any holes to run through. When you combined that with the fact that he only touches the ball 11 times a game in terms of rushing and the carries are so spread out, it's difficult to imagine him being the back he should be. On last Sunday, he had 13 for 64 yards but just did not touch the ball enough rushing it. He did have the fumble, but it was a stupid call to begin with. Also, Brown got bullrushed, which forced Henderson to retreat further in the backfield and Bush was not able to execute the pass.

In terms of Bush only averaging 5.7 per pass, he only gets swing passes, which basically become runs. He does not catch screen passes. He does not get sent out on digs, skinny posts, fly routes, etc., like he did when he was at USC. He practices those plays and even executed them during the preseason. But Sean Payton never calls those type of plays for him. Thus, it is amazing that he's able to get close to 6 yards a catch when most of his passes are caught at or behind the line of scrimmage.

Also, 80% of Bush's carries come without the use of a fullback. Mike Karney is one of the best blocking fullbacks in the league and is under-utilized. When Bush runs behinds Karney, he is successful. The problem is Payton loves to run these exotic sets that often leave Bush in a singleback set. If you look at his success at USC, he ran behind a FB most of the time. That's not to be shortsighted and say that he cannot run out of a singleback set but we do not show an earnest attempt to run the ball.

You fix those problems, I guarantee you fix Bush's alleged problems. Oh, one other thing. I think last year stunted Bush's growth more than anything. He was used a decoy and Payton got comfortable using him that way rather than developing him as a RB. And it's like, you can see where he still tries to be cute even though teams are no longer fearful about Bush as a decoy. Now, this is not to say that Bush cannot improve his game; he certainly can and I suspect that he will. But the team has got to go out, improve the offensive line, better the playcalling and how Bush is used and do a better job of keeping Bush running behind Karney. And then he will be a guy that can consistently get you 100 yard rushing games.

LonghornsLegend
12-06-2007, 06:17 PM
If were judging these guys strictly off being a prospect or draft stock then of course Bush is higher, but there was alot bigger crowd who felt and knew AD would be a better NFL back, regardless of the hype Bush had around him...People just prefered the workhorse rb to dominate games

Im cant wait until McFadden gets to the league and we can put this to rest somewhat, I think McFadden will be dominant as well but alot depends on the team, I think he is a better prospect and player then Lynch, and Lynch is a beast in his own right...but while these guys may end up great, AD is still in a class by himself

BamaFalcon59
12-06-2007, 09:50 PM
First of all, he's in a bad situation because 3/5 of his line is terrible. Faine and Nesbit get no push on the interior and Stinchcomb cannot seal off the right side to save his life. This line is more a pass-blocking line and they are not even that good at that. A lot of the credit the line gets for Brees being the least sacked QB in the league should go to Brees, himself, for constantly avoiding the rush and getting the ball out so quickly.

Jahri Evans is the team's best offensive lineman and one of the best in the league. He's a keeper. Jamaal Brown is superb as a tackle, although he sometimes has lapses, it seems, in concentration and effort. The team did a much better job running the football when Jonathan Goodwin was in at center and I think he deserves the opportunity to play next year. Other than that, they need to sign a guy like Alan Faneca. Faneca's a local guy who played at LSU and would do wonders for the running game. In terms of RT, they drafted Jermon Bushrod and also have Zach Strief, who is more able as a run blocker than Stinchcomb could ever be. They definitely will need an upgrade on the O-line and I think with that upgrade you will see marked improvement from Bush.

Bush never seems to have any holes to run through. When you combined that with the fact that he only touches the ball 11 times a game in terms of rushing and the carries are so spread out, it's difficult to imagine him being the back he should be. On last Sunday, he had 13 for 64 yards but just did not touch the ball enough rushing it. He did have the fumble, but it was a stupid call to begin with. Also, Brown got bullrushed, which forced Henderson to retreat further in the backfield and Bush was not able to execute the pass.

In terms of Bush only averaging 5.7 per pass, he only gets swing passes, which basically become runs. He does not catch screen passes. He does not get sent out on digs, skinny posts, fly routes, etc., like he did when he was at USC. He practices those plays and even executed them during the preseason. But Sean Payton never calls those type of plays for him. Thus, it is amazing that he's able to get close to 6 yards a catch when most of his passes are caught at or behind the line of scrimmage.

Also, 80% of Bush's carries come without the use of a fullback. Mike Karney is one of the best blocking fullbacks in the league and is under-utilized. When Bush runs behinds Karney, he is successful. The problem is Payton loves to run these exotic sets that often leave Bush in a singleback set. If you look at his success at USC, he ran behind a FB most of the time. That's not to be shortsighted and say that he cannot run out of a singleback set but we do not show an earnest attempt to run the ball.

You fix those problems, I guarantee you fix Bush's alleged problems. Oh, one other thing. I think last year stunted Bush's growth more than anything. He was used a decoy and Payton got comfortable using him that way rather than developing him as a RB. And it's like, you can see where he still tries to be cute even though teams are no longer fearful about Bush as a decoy. Now, this is not to say that Bush cannot improve his game; he certainly can and I suspect that he will. But the team has got to go out, improve the offensive line, better the playcalling and how Bush is used and do a better job of keeping Bush running behind Karney. And then he will be a guy that can consistently get you 100 yard rushing games.

Excuses? Peterson has/ had no passing attack to push the safties off. His right side is nothing to bragg about.

Tomlinson wasn't in an ideal situation early on in his career.

Ditto for Barry Sanders.

The great runningbacks make things happen.

CC.SD
12-06-2007, 10:07 PM
Excuses? Peterson has/ had no passing attack to push the safties off. His right side is nothing to bragg about.

Tomlinson wasn't in an ideal situation early on in his career.

Ditto for Barry Sanders.

The great runningbacks make things happen.

LT couldn't have been in a WORSE situation. Horrible line. No quarterback...alternating ancient Flutie and Brees when he SUCKED early in his career. What did he do? How about consecutive 1600 yard seasons and leading the team in receptions, with a freaking 100 in 2003.

BamaFalcon59
12-06-2007, 10:14 PM
Yeah, thats insane considering Brees early in his career. Couldn't recall his OL though.

crazyisme
12-06-2007, 11:47 PM
I've always been a bush doubter, yes hes a solid offensive threat, but from a RB standpoint, no way is he in the same class as Peterson and possibly even McFadden.

Bush came out in what might be one of the worst draft in terms of prospects in a very long time, AP came out with a ton of potential studs...Guys like CJ, Russell, Thomas...all of whom would have gone before Bush when Bush was drafted...and IMO, if all 3 of these guys were the same draft, I bet you more GM's would take Peterson before Bush, the ONLY reason not to would be because of injury, which i think is bogus any way

and right now in the NFL, Peterson is TWICE the RB that Bush is.

crazyisme
12-06-2007, 11:51 PM
McFadden runs upright but Peterson doesn't???

That is the funniest thing I've read this week!!!!!

Peterson running upright might be the most over exaggerated idea ever...have you ever watched him play or do you just say that because that was the bit on him coming out along with him being injury prone? Watch him play a little bit, the dude gets low when hes about to take a hit, rarely takes anything when hes upright....Ive seen some of mcfadden, he doesnt nearly have the power that Peterson does because he gets stood up very easily, McFadden is far more of an upright runner than Peterson is

akvikefan89
12-07-2007, 05:31 AM
This thread makes me laugh...