Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

tec79

Adrian Peterson vs Marshawn Lynch

20 posts in this topic

Guys-

need some help, having a hard time deciding between Adrian Peterson or Marshawn Lynch. Decided to try to make some comparisons between their team opportunities they landed in to see which one is better, having a tough time deciding...so let me know your opinions:

Offensive Line Advantage Peterson

Quarterback Advantage Lynch

Offensive Scheme can not decide slight tilt towards Minn?

Defensive Scheme Advantage Lynch

Divisional Defenses Advantage Peterson -poorer against run

Speed AD

Power AD

Quickness Lynch

Receiving ability Lynch

Durability issues both have issues to a degree

so based upon these criteria, and i am sure some of you can come up with others, they are about even...which really doesnt help me at all.

Can anyone convince me that one guy is noticeably better than the other?

thanks

tex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you need immediate help Lynch is probably your guy. If your selection is based on who do you think will have the better career AD is your guy. For me, it is that simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you are looking for immediate return this year, I think it's lynch. He has no real competition to split time. Anthony Thomas is not good enough to keep him off the field.

If you are looing to next year and the future, it's Peterson. Chester Taylor will probably split carries this year, which should help AD get completely healthy. then next year and beyond, look for AD to be a very solid performer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see Chester Taylor being a threat to Peterson at all from day 1. Taylor is decent RB while AP is a transcendent talent on a team with great linemen and lead blocker (Richardson) whose young QB will rely on the running game.

This is not to say Lynch cannot also be a star, but all signs point to Peterson, IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something that personally helps me when trying to make a close call is, instead of looking at who I'd rather have - look at who would scare me more NOT having.

For me personally, I could live with taking AP and being wrong. But taking Lynch and having Peterson become what nearly everyone thinks he'll be? I'd be kicking my own ### for a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always go for the guy with the higher ceiling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this is a dynasty then I don't see how this is even a question. ADP by a mile. No, ADP by a hundred miles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always go for the guy with the higher ceiling

Have they even purchased their homes yet? :lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think both will be successful.

In a perfect world maybe it is the E. James and R. Willams of 07 where both have productive careers although James more so than Williams (thanks weed).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something that personally helps me when trying to make a close call is, instead of looking at who I'd rather have - look at who would scare me more NOT having. For me personally, I could live with taking AP and being wrong. But taking Lynch and having Peterson become what nearly everyone thinks he'll be? I'd be kicking my own ### for a long time.

Exactly. You don't win in FF by making the safe pick. You win when your calculated risk hits the mark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, if the Bills' O-line can just be average this year and going forward, I REALLY like Lynch. I'm a Bills fan so I'm terribly biased. I'll freely admit that I wanted Peterson in the draft. But Lynch could honestly be the second coming of Marshall Faulk. He's got some power to run inside, he definitely has the speed to take it outside, he can make unbelievable cuts and get to top speed almost instantly. He's also a tremendous receiver out of the backfield that can also stay in and block. I don't think that he'll have as many rushing yards as Peterson year in and year out, but I think that he could have more rushing+receiving quite often.

Again, I know I'm hugely biased, but having a multi-dimensional RB like Lynch could allow the Buffalo offense to explode. With serious downfield threats like Evans, Parrish and Price the Bills can stretch the secondary out and then dump it off to Lynch.

This is about as perfect of a situation for the Bills & Lynch too with Steve Fairchild as the OC. Remember, Fairchild was the OC for the Rams with Faulk still there. Granted, Faulk was starting to decline by 2003 when Fairchild came in, but he's coached a guy like Lynch previously.

The Bills specifically said that McGahee wasn't a good fit for their offense because they wanted someone that could catch the ball better out of the backfield. They went and got exactly that guy (and two more in Dwayne Wright and Derek Schouman).

IMO, the only two limitations on Lynch are his health and the possibility that the Bills use Wright at the goaline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a very tough decision between these two. Peterson jumps out a little bit more on the field. He's more explosive and more likely to hit a home run. He has that rare burst of speed that will make him a big play threat at the RB position. His lateral quickness isn't as good as Lynch's, but he definitely has a better burst and is just the more impressive RB all-around. On the surface he looks like the no-brainer pick, but it's not nearly that simple.

If you look at the most consistently excellent RBs in FF over the past few years, I think you get a list like:

Marshall Faulk

LaDainian Tomlinson

Ahman Green

Priest Holmes

Tiki Barber

Shaun Alexander

Larry Johnson

Edgerrin James

Rudi Johnson

Brian Westbrook

Most of these guys are under 6'0" and most of them are built compact with a sturdy build that can hold up to the rigors of the job. I don't personally think it's a coincidence that these guys are mostly 5'9"-6'0" and 215-230 pounds. I think function follows form and I think these dimensions represent the ideal form for a RB.

I'd argue that Lynch is much closer to this ideal. He's roughly the same weight as Peterson and is about two inches shorter. At 5'11" and 215 pounds, he falls right into the perfect range for a RB. He runs a lot lower than Peterson and just looks a lot sturdier. I think he has a much better chance to survive multiple seasons in the NFL.

Peterson is a great talent. If you took his skills and put them in Lynch's body, you'd have the best back since Tomlinson. But Peterson is built tall and is significantly lighter (217 pounds) than successful tall backs like Deuce McAllister (231), Larry Johnson (230), and Steven Jackson (231). His supporters brush off his injury history like it's nothing, but that's foolish. The guy takes monster hits and was seriously injured two out of his three college seasons. I think there's a very real chance that he ends up constantly dinged in the NFL like Chris Brown and DeShaun Foster (two other upright-ish backs who entered the league with serious durability questions).

So while I think Peterson is the better raw talent when 100% healthy, I have questions about his durability. It also doesn't help his cause that his team has absolutely zero proven talent at QB and WR.

I look at it this way:

Lynch will probably be a good back with good durability.

Peterson will probably be a great back with poor durability.

Which is worth more?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So while I think Peterson is the better raw talent when 100% healthy, I have questions about his durability. It also doesn't help his cause that his team has absolutely zero proven talent at QB and WR. Peterson will probably be a great back with poor durability.Which is worth more?

Sure injury history is a factor. But people generally ignore it all the time.If Gore is ranked in your top 15 fantasy RBs, but have questions about ADs durability, you're pretty much fooling yourself to suit your man crush.

The star running back twice returned from reconstructive knee surgery and was still considered among the top backs in the nation. Gore suffered a torn anterior cruciate ligament in his left knee in 2001 and redshirted in 2002. He returned and rushed for 100 yards in each of his first three games of the 2003 season, then tore the anterior cruciate ligament in his right knee in the season's fifth game.The former University of Miami star underwent reconstructive surgery on both knees in college, followed by major surgery on both shoulders after his rookie season with the Niners.

Gore's injury history is FAR worse then AD. It's not even close. Yet I see people ranking Gore in the top 5-6 dynasty RBs. That's fine. But if you do, don't come screaming about AD. And to carry it a little further, this is how I see both those guys (Gore AD).Injury concerns, but when healthy, very productive. You'll have to ride out the injuries/surgeries, but when they're healthy they'll be elite RBs.FF is a "what have you done lately". If AD plays 15-16 games, he'll no longer be injury prone. People rarely mention Gore's past, because hey he had a great year. People use injury prone to suit their personal player values and arguments. Injuries are more about bad luck. Sure you can be more likely to get hurt then others, but luck plays a fairly big part in it.And at the end of the day, ADs talent overrides pretty much everything else IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FF is a "what have you done lately". If AD plays 15-16 games, he'll no longer be injury prone. People rarely mention Gore's past, because hey he had a great year. People use injury prone to suit their personal player values and arguments. Injuries are more about bad luck. Sure you can be more likely to get hurt then others, but luck plays a fairly big part in it.And at the end of the day, ADs talent overrides pretty much everything else IMHO.

When did I mention Frank Gore? And I strongly disagree with the idea that injury problems are a question of luck. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that build and running style play a role whne it comes to RB durability. Peterson has three strikes in this regard because he has a bad build, a bad running style, and a suspect injury history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Offensive Line Advantage Peterson Lynch (BUF has a better line)

Quarterback Advantage Lynch

Offensive Scheme can not decide slight tilt towards Minn? Peterson

Defensive Scheme Advantage Lynch

Divisional Defenses Advantage Peterson -poorer against run

Speed AD

Power AD

Quickness Lynch

Receiving ability Lynch

Durability issues both have issues to a degree Lynch

Can anyone convince me that one guy is noticeably better than the other?

Here's my take - Peterson vs. Lynch this year, and comparable to Bush vs. Addai last year.

Peterson has CTaylor, like Bush has McAllister.

Lynch had ATrain, like Addai had Rhodes.

Lynch I think will see more carries earlier, Peterson will be the better RB in the long run. If you are in a dynasty league, the easy pick is Peterson, if you are in a redraft, I'd go with Lynch.

I'm siting at 1.3 in my dynasty draft, and I am hopinh Peterson falls due to his collarbone, but I expect to get Calvin Jonhson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, if the Bills' O-line can just be average this year and going forward, I REALLY like Lynch. I'm a Bills fan so I'm terribly biased. I'll freely admit that I wanted Peterson in the draft. But Lynch could honestly be the second coming of Marshall Faulk. He's got some power to run inside, he definitely has the speed to take it outside, he can make unbelievable cuts and get to top speed almost instantly. He's also a tremendous receiver out of the backfield that can also stay in and block. I don't think that he'll have as many rushing yards as Peterson year in and year out, but I think that he could have more rushing+receiving quite often.

I didn't really like Lynch before the draft, but I trust Levy completely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a Bills fan so I'm terribly biased. I'll freely admit that I wanted Peterson in the draft. But Lynch could honestly be the second coming of Marshall Faulk. He's got some power to run inside, he definitely has the speed to take it outside, he can make unbelievable cuts and get to top speed almost instantly. He's also a tremendous receiver out of the backfield that can also stay in and block. I don't think that he'll have as many rushing yards as Peterson year in and year out, but I think that he could have more rushing+receiving quite often. Again, I know I'm hugely biased, but having a multi-dimensional RB like Lynch could allow the Buffalo offense to explode. With serious downfield threats like Evans, Parrish and Price the Bills can stretch the secondary out and then dump it off to Lynch.

You are terribly biased. Marshall Faulk was a far better prospect than Lynch. He had incredible speed coming out of school. Faulk averaged 1000 rushing yards, 60+ catches, 550+ and 11td's a year for 12 years. He is one of the great backs to play the game. Lynch may be a perfect fit an an excellent player. However, to predict Lynch as the second coming of Faulk is silly homerism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Offensive Line Advantage Peterson Lynch (BUF has a better line)

Oh Come on now.

LT - Bryant McKinnie

LG - Steve Hutchison - 4 time Pro-Bowler - arguably the best LG in the NFL

C - Matt Birk - 5 time Pro-Bowler

RG - Artis Hicks

RT - Marcus Johnson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.