ballpeen Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 No doubt Peterson is special. Just a quick review of the Vikings O-line show Hutcheson...1st rounder Ryan cook 2nd rounder Bryant McKinney 1st rounder Loadholt...2nd rounder That is the reason Peterson plays as well as he does. The Vikings are a team who knows where to invest top picks....yes I know Hutch wasn't drafted by them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 Well I'm definitely a trenches guy. I place high importance on the production of the offensive line, but Peterson IS special. He's the exception to the rule. Peterson could get 100 yds with a bunch of 10 year olds blocking for him.... Thomas is a great lineman no doubt, but like I've said a million times, I've yet to see him break a 80 yd TD and swing the game in our favor.... No, he hasn't. But J-Lew's 60 yarder against Cincy (2007), and Harrison's 72 yarder against Buffaloni ran right behind (and then past) him. Davis' 80 yarder went left too, though I can't remember if JT was in the game at that time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammertime Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 No doubt Peterson is special. Just a quick review of the Vikings O-line show Hutcheson...1st rounder Ryan cook 2nd rounder Bryant McKinney 1st rounder Loadholt...2nd rounder That is the reason Peterson plays as well as he does. The Vikings are a team who knows where to invest top picks....yes I know Hutch wasn't drafted by them. Expect half the lifespan of Peterson with a bad o-line Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choco Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 Sorry Solon...they are. It's just that people like you don't know it. I will beat you every time with a great line and a HS running back over you with a HS line and Jim Brown in the backfield. Bank it your average person cannot evaluate an OLman.....case in point, Solon (hell, im not that good at it and i love OL). it so much easier to do this with the skill positions because they stand out, you can check stats and make comparisons. they make you get off your seat and scream......yet only the very best of the best skill positions make more money than OL/DL....i wonder why that is? obviously, the people with the money put a higher value on that kind of talent. great skill position players do not make an OL good.....however, the vice versa is true. i have to wonder how many of our bust picks would still be on the team if your OL was stocked well enough to keep them healthy. AP would take a beating in our backfield, and his durability would be compromised. his ability is top notch, but this is a team sport. if you think he could do it all on his own, you're mental. its so much easier to sit back, after the fact and say we should/woulda coulda.....couch was a can't miss pick as well.....how'd that work out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 No doubt Peterson is special. Just a quick review of the Vikings O-line show Hutcheson...1st rounder Ryan cook 2nd rounder Bryant McKinney 1st rounder Loadholt...2nd rounder That is the reason Peterson plays as well as he does. The Vikings are a team who knows where to invest top picks....yes I know Hutch wasn't drafted by them. Bullshit again. By that logic, Lewis/Davis/Harrison should be tearing it up behind: Thomas - 1st round (overall pick #3) Steinbach - 2nd round (overall pick 33, CIN) Mack - 1st round (pick 22, right?) St Clair (round 3, Rams?) Womack (round 4, SEA) But yeah, they're not. I'm not claiming the o-line isn't important, just that some backs transcend what's in front of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Masters Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 Bullshit again. By that logic, Lewis/Davis/Harrison should be tearing it up behind: Thomas - 1st round (overall pick #3) Steinbach - 2nd round (overall pick 33, CIN) Mack - 1st round (pick 22, right?) St Clair (round 3, Rams?) Womack (round 4, SEA) But yeah, they're not. I'm not claiming the o-line isn't important, just that some backs transcend what's in front of them. Steinbach is pass blocking G, not a road grader Mack a rookie It's fuzzy logic to equal draft position and actual abilities for a OL. But if we are going to, all 5 OL guys for MIN are round 1 and 2 vs. CLE's 3 in RD1/2 and 3 in 3/4. Peterson I am sure would have still gotten his if CLE had drafted him. But I would questing that "his" would be as much to date. I'd also question if he would have held up if he was in CLE (1/2 season in the dome vs. outside, and no back like Chester Taylor to spell him). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 Steinbach is pass blocking G, not a road grader Mack a rookie Loadholt's a rookie, too, as long as we're choosing to split hairs. It's fuzzy logic to equal draft position and actual abilities for a OL. But if we are going to, all 5 OL guys for MIN are round 1 and 2 vs. CLE's 3 in RD1/2 and 3 in 3/4. I agree, but I'm not the one who brought it up. Ballpeen did. Plus, since you know we're still splitting hairs, the fifth starting O-lineman (who Peen refused to list and you assumed was a top pick, too) for MIN (Anthony Herrera) appears to have been an UDFA. Interesting... Peterson I am sure would have still gotten his if CLE had drafted him. But I would questing that "his" would be as much to date. I'd also question if he would have held up if he was in CLE (1/2 season in the dome vs. outside, and no back like Chester Taylor to spell him). Not saying you're right or wrong, but now we've delved into opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammertime Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 We could simplify it and just say that half our o-line is good and all of Minn. o-line is good. Leaving us with half the output of Minn. and probaly half the wins to boot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Masters Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 Loadholt's a rookie, too, as long as we're choosing to split hairs. I agree, but I'm not the one who brought it up. Ballpeen did. Plus, since you know we're still splitting hairs, the fifth starting O-lineman (who Peen refused to list and you assumed was a top pick, too) for MIN (Anthony Herrera) appears to have been an UDFA. Interesting... Not saying you're right or wrong, but now we've delved into opinions. Loadholts is a rookie. So I see your point. Though I'd argue rookie C vs. a RT aren't apples and apples. But again, I see your point. Actually there were a couple of flaws in what was listed for MIN starting line (now that I went and looked it up myself). It is actually: LT McKinnie - 1st RD 2002 LG Hutchinson - 1st RD 2001 C Sullivan - 6th RD 2008 RG Herrera - UDFA RT Loadholt - 2nd RD 2009 This also isn't the same line AD has run behind the last couple of years (was also mostly an established line when AD came to the Vikings). So let's see how he does this whole season w/ those new parts on that line, aside from running all over CLE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 If you ask me, I think there's way more value at RB than OL later in the draft, so I'm all for drafting the lineman high, eschewing picking the back until later. The Peterson-vs-Thomas thing just feels like another-one-that-got-away is all............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Masters Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 The Peterson-vs-Thomas thing just feels like another-one-that-got-away is all............. I'd agree w/ you on that, if Thomas hadn't come right in and been a pro bowl, all pro, franchise LT. But Thomas right now is looking like a guy who will be sitting at the corner giving up next to no sacks or the next 10 years (ala Ogden or Pace). Those guys don't come along often either. The chances are Peterson's better days will be behind him long before Joe's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrownIndian Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 Thomas was a safe pick. If Peterson's injury truly was bad and would have got worse then we would be cursing how we took him instead of JT, but thankfully for him it did not. We passed on Rapelisberger which to me was a bigger no-no seeing what iam seeing right now and the QB confusion we are having. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffer X Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 I haven't chimed in on this even after Mary Kay got it all stirred up with the unnamed front office guy. I loved AP coming into the draft, like the most love I've had for a back in a long time. However, the closer to the draft we got, I couldn't help but think Thomas was the better fit. By all accounts he sounded like a can't miss pro at a position that is absolutely paramount to having a stud in the NFL if you can. The biggest issue that is glossed over was the injury issue that AP brought with him. Nobody questioned his talent, but it was the Beanie Wells type injury proneness coming in that scared me. I looked at JT as a 10-15 year type but AP as more of a maybe 5-8 guy. Not only that, but he could have been hurt out the gate. I was watching the Browns Red Zone last night and they were discussing how he was bloodied and puking at halftime last week. This shit will take a toll on him and how long he can stay a beast we don't know. They could have moved Steiny to left tackle and fixed the line up the best they could while drafting AP I guess, but I think most were on a mission of getting the line built up for real. It is a definite argument but the fact that JT has stepped right in and dominated deflames it. This isn't Pocket Change over LT or even Seymour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solon16 Posted September 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 Fellows...I'm a "you win the game in the trenches" guy as well...always have been....a great O-line is every teams dream...we have a pretty good OL with drafting JT, overpaying for steinbach and taking a Center with the first pick in the draft....OK? Conceeded I'm a OL/DL guy! But.........LT and AP are SPECIAL guys you "JUST GET" when they are available....Take last wekk...AP got past the line(OL wins)....awesome job by minny's line.....But the next 54 yards are all AP....shaking 4 tacklers and going to the house. I like whoever said ...I haven't seen JT score on a 80 yard run!(good stuff) Those that know me ...know I have wanted a Left Tackle forever...But Lifespan of career be damned, I'd take AP over JT EVERYday! ANYWAY...doesn't it seem that when the browns have the chance to draft someone special...they always go for need? P.S. I wanted Ricky Williams and all the picks instead of TC(fyi) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZBrowns Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 I could just imagine Peterson running left behind Kevin Shaffer..... espeically in the AFC North.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solon16 Posted September 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 I could just imagine Peterson running left behind Kevin Shaffer..... espeically in the AFC North.... SO COULD I!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.