I'll play devil's advocate. I think there's a very realistic chance that Lynch will ultimately have the more productive pro career. Contrary to what some people have said, situation is of the utmost importance for a RB. I genuinely believe that guys like Willis McGahee, Cadillac Williams, and Kevin Jones could put up Larry Johnson type numbers if they played on the same team with the same coaching philosophy. Someone mentioned Tomlinson as evidence that situation doesn't matter. I disagree. LT has been productive since his rookie year, but he's only begun to shoot out of the stratosphere now that the Chargers have surrounded him with a top notch supporting cast. Peterson is a very promising back, but he's not necessarily the type of guy who can be a stud on any team. One of the things I noticed about his college numbers is that he was bottled up in every single bowl game that he ever played in. USC destroyed him back in 2005. You could argue that this was a result of superior overall talent on the part of the Trojans. That may be true, but Peterson also got more or less shut down by Boise State in his most recent bowl game. He did still manage to be very productive last year despite being the unquestioned focus of opposing defenses, but I still don't believe that he's immune to struggling behind a bad line. I think it's been at least two full years since Lynch has had a single game of under 4.0 YPC. Some of that is probably due to Cal's effective system, but it's still an impressive stat. Also, it's almost undeniable that Lynch has a better build and running style for the pro game. Peterson is a more dynamic talent and a significantly better overall athlete, but he's built like a WR and he has the nasty habit of taking monster hits. I don't dispute that Peterson is the more exciting prospect in a vacuum, but ignoring situational factors when comparing these two would be nothing short of foolish. Great RBs can, do, and will struggle with marginal supporting casts. Witness the early careers of Kevin Jones, Cadillac Williams, Thomas Jones, and Willis McGahee. All of them carried similar hype to Peterson entering the league. All of them have struggled at one point or another. Also consider a guy like Jamal Lewis. In his prime, he was a dynamic talent and a devastating back. He had a few strong seasons, but was never really a truly fantastic FF option. Was that a talent issue? Nope. He was on the Ravens and they flat out didn't score enough to put him in the Faulk/Tomlinson/Holmes/Alexander range. If Lynch goes to a team like the New York Giants and Peterson goes to a team like the Browns, you have to consider taking Lynch over Peterson. I'm a big proponent of drafting talent over situation, but is the talent gap in this particular case so wide that it eliminates the possibility of taking Lynch over Peterson? I don't necessarily think so. If you look at where these guys seem to be rated by the pro scouts, there's only a gap of 5-20 spots (out of all the players in the draft).
