This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
GG..AP is still a top pick. What you're saying is correct about the projections. I just feel that he will be on a much shorter leash going forward and now has a real threat to take touches especially at the goal line.
He won't get close to as many touches as Chester did. And for those with short memories, Taylor saw a lot of red-zone looks in the 2008 season when ADP finished as the No. 3 fantasy back.
Peterson has one of the longest leashes in the NFL of any player at any position.
Is that why Chilly kept putting him on the sideline after every fumble?? Look fine by me, I hope everyone still takes him 1 overall. Teams don't trade up and use a top pick on a RB because he's the end all that he's been made out to be. And guaranteed, he fumbles a couple times he will be watching.
and then he would be right back in next series?? He's just not going to get benched like a slaton or whomever else, he's to good.
You obviously have some sort of an agenda, or bone to pick regarding Peterson. Does he fumble too much? Yup. Are the Vikings going to take a RB they took #7 overall who is, health permitting, on pace to be one of the all-time greats at the position and "put him on the sideline" for a slightly-above-average RB they took in the mid-2nd round? Short answer - no. Gerhart may be better than Chester Taylor at certain things, but he's not a better running back than Chester. He's on par, but they just excel in different aspects of being a running back. There's zero chance that Gerhart gets any more work than Chester got, unless Peterson suffers an injury. They may use Gerhart on the goaline occassionally or to close out blowout games, but Peterson will get far more 3rd down work than he has in the past. The end result will be another top 5 season for AP while the backup running back for the Vikings, now Gerhart, will remain one of the more desireable handcuffs.
can't argue that too much. he will have a shorter leash, however, that is only if gerhart is successful filling in for him if needed, and that is a complete uknown.
Why wouldn't he get close to the touches Chester did? Sure he'll get less receptions but the Vikings don't want to run ADP into the ground so they are going to limit to 25 carries a game, less if they can. I wouldn't be surprised to see close to 10 carries a game for Gerhart and it won't impact ADP's fantasy numbers much at all. I think if you're an ADP dynasty owner you have to be very happy about the team drafting Gerhart. They should have north of 500 carries this season so there's no worry about ADP, and in fact I wouldn't be surprised to see him break even more long runs with Gerhart wearing down defenses.He won't get close to as many touches as Chester did. And for those with short memories, Taylor saw a lot of red-zone looks in the 2008 season when ADP finished as the No. 3 fantasy back.
This is exactly right, IMO. I'm wondering if half the reason for the fumbling is due to injury. He didn't look like the AP I expect to see sometime after about mid-season last year. Gerhard will lessen the wear and tear on AP.
any more than Ringer to handcuff CJ, Jennings to handcuff MJD or McGahee to handcuff Rice? If anything I have to think Ringer is the most expensive pure handcuff.
I think your assumption that the Vikings would replace one of the top two running backs in the game with Gerhart at the goal-line is terribly offbase, but would you care to elaborate on AP's fumbles in goal-line situations as referenced above? Outside of botched handoff with Favre in the Saints game, I don't recall another goal-line fumble last year. Is Gerhart going to get some GL carries next year? Absolutely. Is he going to steal anywhere close to half of those GL touchdowns? My answer to that question is a resounding "
" Isn't this true of most RB's with high TD totals? This is dumb. AP is a great goal line back. Why on earth would we just assume that a rookie, that has proven nothing yet IN THE NFL, is going to automatically get goal line work?Most of his TD's came from inside the 3. Anyone want to bet his TD totals go down by at least 25% next year?
IMO this post is pretty far off base.1. On the first bolded point above:
).
It's not like any of the 3rd round WR's are stepping into productive starting jobs anytime soon either. You could make a case for McCluster getting playing time right away but I don't see the upside. Emmanuel Sanders is in a nice spot, but after Golden Tate all of these guys are a crapshoot.
AD's goal line fumbles were backbreakers, huh? Would it surprise you to find out that he only fumbled once inside the red zone in 2009 (at the 17 against Detroit) and the Vikings won the game. Only one of his lost fumbles in 2009 occurred in a loss. And that happened at the Vikings' 17 yard line. As a matter of fact, other than the bobbled hand-off against NO, AD has never lost a fumble in a goal-to-go situation.Facts, get some.
#1 IMO, that has been as much luck as anything. He fumbles, a lot. He may not have LOST many on the goal-line, but he's coughed it up for sure. While my back-breaking comment should have been more general (rather than attached to goal-line situations) fumbling is a back-breaker nearly anywhere on the field.#2 I stand corrected. His conversion rate has been better than I gave him credit for. 50% is well above average. Part of that is excellent run-blocking though and I tend to think other backs in the league might have done as well. No clear evidence to support that though, so I concede here.IMO this post is pretty far off base.1. On the first bolded point above:
Of Peterson's 20 career (regular season) fumbles, he lost 13. Of those 13 lost fumbles, 2 came in the red zone but 0 came inside the opponent's 10 yard line. So if you are discussing goal line carries, his fumbling has not been a problem.
2. On the second bolded point above:
Over the past 3 seasons, 31 RBs have had 20 or more carries at the goal line (defined as opponent's 5 yard line and closer). Of those 31 RBs, only Michael Turner and Lendale White had conversion rates better than Peterson's 50% rate. The worst rate among the group was Forte's 21.2%, so there is a decent spread. And some of those 31 players - like White, Fargas, Graham, Morris, McClain, etc. - aren't starters... meaning there are starters not even on the list.
Drop the threshold to all RBs with 10 or more carries at the goal line over the past 3 seasons, and the group expands to 64 RBs. Two more, Ricky Williams (on 16 carries) and Duckett (on 13 carries), have better conversion rates than Peterson, but the rest are lower, many by quite a bit. The lowest rate drops to 10% (Fred Jackson
IMO all of this shows that Peterson is indeed significantly more effective than an average NFL starter at the goal line. But we kind of knew that already... if he wasn't, he probably wouldn't have gotten 42 goal line carries over that span.
3. On the number of goal line carries:
While Peterson had 42 goal line carries over the past 3 seasons, note that Chester Taylor had 21, other RBs (Tahi & Richardson) had 3, and QBs (Frerotte & Jackson) had 5. Peterson only had 59% of the team's goal line carries over that span. So there would seem to be plenty of room for Gerhart and others to get some carries without taking a lot away from Peterson.
As for last season specifically, Peterson had 30 goal line carries, but others combined for 9. So Peterson had about 77% of the goal line carries. I don't see any compelling reason to believe Gerhart will get more than 25% of the goal line carries, which would basically maintain Peterson's percentage from last season.
I think a better question with regard to Peterson's fantasy performance this year is whether or not the team will get 57 goal line opportunities again (39 carries and 18 targets). That's a lot.
4. On Peterson's fumbling:
IMO the appropriate way to discuss his fumbling issue is in terms of fumbling rate, not total fumbles. For example, you note that he has more fumbles than any NFL RB over the past 3 years, but he also has many more carries than any other NFL RB other than Thomas Jones. Peterson has 916 carries over that span, and only three other RBs (Jones, Tomlinson, Jackson) have more than 790 over that period... big gap. Now, maybe his fumbling rate is also the worst, I don't know.
Plus, fumbles lost are actually more important IMO. It's harder to find that data in a format handy for comparing all RBs, but we know Peterson lost 13 of those 20 fumbles... on 999 touches. So his lost fumble rate is 1.3%. Meanwhile, he has 5313 total yards and 41 TDs on those touches. Only 4 others (LT, MJD, Deangelo, and Addai) are within 10 TDs of his total (LT actually had 42), but Peterson has at least almost 1000 yards more than all of them.
The Vikings are not going to stop giving Peterson the ball at the goal line or anywhere else.
Given the fact that the Vikings won all but one of the games he fumbled in last year, I guess we have different definitions of "back-breaker."
VeryIMO this post is pretty far off base.1. On the first bolded point above:
Of Peterson's 20 career (regular season) fumbles, he lost 13. Of those 13 lost fumbles, 2 came in the red zone but 0 came inside the opponent's 10 yard line. So if you are discussing goal line carries, his fumbling has not been a problem.
2. On the second bolded point above:
Over the past 3 seasons, 31 RBs have had 20 or more carries at the goal line (defined as opponent's 5 yard line and closer). Of those 31 RBs, only Michael Turner and Lendale White had conversion rates better than Peterson's 50% rate. The worst rate among the group was Forte's 21.2%, so there is a decent spread. And some of those 31 players - like White, Fargas, Graham, Morris, McClain, etc. - aren't starters... meaning there are starters not even on the list.
Drop the threshold to all RBs with 10 or more carries at the goal line over the past 3 seasons, and the group expands to 64 RBs. Two more, Ricky Williams (on 16 carries) and Duckett (on 13 carries), have better conversion rates than Peterson, but the rest are lower, many by quite a bit. The lowest rate drops to 10% (Fred Jackson).
IMO all of this shows that Peterson is indeed significantly more effective than an average NFL starter at the goal line. But we kind of knew that already... if he wasn't, he probably wouldn't have gotten 42 goal line carries over that span.
3. On the number of goal line carries:
While Peterson had 42 goal line carries over the past 3 seasons, note that Chester Taylor had 21, other RBs (Tahi & Richardson) had 3, and QBs (Frerotte & Jackson) had 5. Peterson only had 59% of the team's goal line carries over that span. So there would seem to be plenty of room for Gerhart and others to get some carries without taking a lot away from Peterson.
As for last season specifically, Peterson had 30 goal line carries, but others combined for 9. So Peterson had about 77% of the goal line carries. I don't see any compelling reason to believe Gerhart will get more than 25% of the goal line carries, which would basically maintain Peterson's percentage from last season.
I think a better question with regard to Peterson's fantasy performance this year is whether or not the team will get 57 goal line opportunities again (39 carries and 18 targets). That's a lot.
4. On Peterson's fumbling:
IMO the appropriate way to discuss his fumbling issue is in terms of fumbling rate, not total fumbles. For example, you note that he has more fumbles than any NFL RB over the past 3 years, but he also has many more carries than any other NFL RB other than Thomas Jones. Peterson has 916 carries over that span, and only three other RBs (Jones, Tomlinson, Jackson) have more than 790 over that period... big gap. Now, maybe his fumbling rate is also the worst, I don't know.
Plus, fumbles lost are actually more important IMO. It's harder to find that data in a format handy for comparing all RBs, but we know Peterson lost 13 of those 20 fumbles... on 999 touches. So his lost fumble rate is 1.3%. Meanwhile, he has 5313 total yards and 41 TDs on those touches. Only 4 others (LT, MJD, Deangelo, and Addai) are within 10 TDs of his total (LT actually had 42), but Peterson has at least almost 1000 yards more than all of them.
The Vikings are not going to stop giving Peterson the ball at the goal line or anywhere else.
Well, he fumbled twice in the playoff game they lost that prevented them from going to the Superbowl (the game, not the fumbles directly necessarily).Look, I'm not trying to argue that Peterson is anything less than a superb talent. I'm just saying the guy fumbles. A LOT. Whether you do the head in sand thing or not, it's an issue. And if you don't think the coaching staff has noticed this, you are kidding yourself. No, they are not going to "bench" him for it, he's way too good. But that doesn't mean they won't devise roles for other players in situations where it is extra critical to hang on to the ball, and where you don't need to worry about a long gainer (i.e. the goal-line) that Peterson brings to the table so admirably.
1. Again, you are incorrect. Peterson has not "coughed it up for sure" on the goal line. He has never fumbled inside the opponent's 10 yard line (in the regular season, anyway). All of his fumbles occurred away from the goal line.2. Actually, there is some pretty compelling evidence to suggest it is Peterson and not the Vikings' run blocking that is responsible for his excellent conversion rate. Over the past 3 seasons, Peterson has 21 TDs on 42 carries (50%) at the goal line (defined as opponent's 5 yard line and closer). Over the same period, other Vikings' RBs have 5 TDs on 24 carries (20.8%). That was mostly Chester Taylor (5 TDs in 21 carries). That doesn't mean some other backs in the league couldn't have done as well as Peterson, but it does suggest it wasn't the run blocking.Holy Schneikes said:#1 IMO, that has been as much luck as anything. He fumbles, a lot. He may not have LOST many on the goal-line, but he's coughed it up for sure. While my back-breaking comment should have been more general (rather than attached to goal-line situations) fumbling is a back-breaker nearly anywhere on the field.#2 I stand corrected. His conversion rate has been better than I gave him credit for. 50% is well above average. Part of that is excellent run-blocking though and I tend to think other backs in the league might have done as well. No clear evidence to support that though, so I concede here.Just Win Baby said:IMO this post is pretty far off base.1. On the first bolded point above:Holy Schneikes said:
Of Peterson's 20 career (regular season) fumbles, he lost 13. Of those 13 lost fumbles, 2 came in the red zone but 0 came inside the opponent's 10 yard line. So if you are discussing goal line carries, his fumbling has not been a problem.
2. On the second bolded point above:
Over the past 3 seasons, 31 RBs have had 20 or more carries at the goal line (defined as opponent's 5 yard line and closer). Of those 31 RBs, only Michael Turner and Lendale White had conversion rates better than Peterson's 50% rate. The worst rate among the group was Forte's 21.2%, so there is a decent spread. And some of those 31 players - like White, Fargas, Graham, Morris, McClain, etc. - aren't starters... meaning there are starters not even on the list.
Drop the threshold to all RBs with 10 or more carries at the goal line over the past 3 seasons, and the group expands to 64 RBs. Two more, Ricky Williams (on 16 carries) and Duckett (on 13 carries), have better conversion rates than Peterson, but the rest are lower, many by quite a bit. The lowest rate drops to 10% (Fred Jackson
IMO all of this shows that Peterson is indeed significantly more effective than an average NFL starter at the goal line. But we kind of knew that already... if he wasn't, he probably wouldn't have gotten 42 goal line carries over that span.
3. On the number of goal line carries:
While Peterson had 42 goal line carries over the past 3 seasons, note that Chester Taylor had 21, other RBs (Tahi & Richardson) had 3, and QBs (Frerotte & Jackson) had 5. Peterson only had 59% of the team's goal line carries over that span. So there would seem to be plenty of room for Gerhart and others to get some carries without taking a lot away from Peterson.
As for last season specifically, Peterson had 30 goal line carries, but others combined for 9. So Peterson had about 77% of the goal line carries. I don't see any compelling reason to believe Gerhart will get more than 25% of the goal line carries, which would basically maintain Peterson's percentage from last season.
I think a better question with regard to Peterson's fantasy performance this year is whether or not the team will get 57 goal line opportunities again (39 carries and 18 targets). That's a lot.
4. On Peterson's fumbling:
IMO the appropriate way to discuss his fumbling issue is in terms of fumbling rate, not total fumbles. For example, you note that he has more fumbles than any NFL RB over the past 3 years, but he also has many more carries than any other NFL RB other than Thomas Jones. Peterson has 916 carries over that span, and only three other RBs (Jones, Tomlinson, Jackson) have more than 790 over that period... big gap. Now, maybe his fumbling rate is also the worst, I don't know.
Plus, fumbles lost are actually more important IMO. It's harder to find that data in a format handy for comparing all RBs, but we know Peterson lost 13 of those 20 fumbles... on 999 touches. So his lost fumble rate is 1.3%. Meanwhile, he has 5313 total yards and 41 TDs on those touches. Only 4 others (LT, MJD, Deangelo, and Addai) are within 10 TDs of his total (LT actually had 42), but Peterson has at least almost 1000 yards more than all of them.
The Vikings are not going to stop giving Peterson the ball at the goal line or anywhere else.
#3 We obviously differ here. I do think there is a reason to give another back goal-line opportunities and I think Gerhart was brought in partially to do just that. Taylor was basically awful on the goal-line - it just wasn't his strength. Gerhart is another story. If the team was strictly looking for you basic back-up, I think they may have gone in a another direction with a back. But I do agree that the massive number of opportunities the team generated last year is unlikely to be repeated.
#4. This one is a soft-ball. Peterson's fumble per touch over the last three years has been the worst by far PER TOUCH of any back in the league with 500+ total carries. Basically, he's the worst starter in the league when it comes to fumble rate AND lost fumble rate. No one else is even close. There are some guys who for short spans and limited touches might be close, but as a starter (let alone a superstar) he's the worst.
Overall, #2 does weaken my argument considerably, but I still think Gerhart was drafted with an intended role, and I think goal-line duty will be part of it (at least more than Taylor was used there).
IMO he will get part of that role. I doubt he'll get terribly close to the 93 carries that Taylor had last season... Harvin had only 15 carries himself. But I do think he will get considerably more carries, and I think he'll get some of Taylor's 44 catches out of the backfield, too.haterade said:
1. I didn't go back and research the situations for every single one of them (too much time
), but it would seem rather odd that he somehow is not able to hold on to the ball in the middle of the field, but can on the ends. Like I said before, it can happen at any time and in any situation, and it is NEVER good. Whether he has lost one right on either goal-line yet is fairly irrelevant - the possibility is there.2. All that really shows for sure is that he is better than Chester Taylor. I am happy to grant you that he is much better than Chester Taylor on the goal-line. For any other replacement, we just don't know for sure. But I've already agreed that he's probably better than average. Could Gerhart possibly be better than average too? And if he doesn't fumble, and long runs don't matter in the least, why not give him those carries?
Both of you please be a lot cooler if you want to keep posting here. This catfight stuff needs to be turned way down in the Shark Pool. TIA.A hell of a lot better than the crap you spewed out.Raider Nation said:Superb retort.
with ADP's 9 game streak of failing to rush for 100 yards and his fumbling issues, this is more than just a wake-up call for him...I think Gerhart takes a lot of the goal line work , a lot of the 3rd-n-short calls, and ADP sees a spike in his recs...I was browsing Toby's thread after he was drafted. Most people had a "ho-hum" reaction.
I'm not so sure.
Peterson's fumbling issues are well documented. Gerhart really isn't a special receiver or anything, which makes me think that in addition to spelling AP from time to time, he was drafted with the intention of getting a lot of looks at the goal line. He was a productive BEAST at the stripe in college.
Nobody else is concerned a little bit?
On point #2, anyone giving credit for anything to the Vikings O-line is just sloppy logic at this point. Either they're living in the past and thinking of three years ago, or they're basing their opinions on Madden. The Vikings O-line was well below average last year. Every single yard and touchdown Peterson got last year he got entirely on his own. This has been covered ad nauseum on this board and to claim the Vikings O-line was responsible for anything good in the running game last year shows a real lack of being in touch with the situation being discussed here.1. I didn't go back and research the situations for every single one of them (too much time), but it would seem rather odd that he somehow is not able to hold on to the ball in the middle of the field, but can on the ends. Like I said before, it can happen at any time and in any situation, and it is NEVER good. Whether he has lost one right on either goal-line yet is fairly irrelevant - the possibility is there.2. All that really shows for sure is that he is better than Chester Taylor. I am happy to grant you that he is much better than Chester Taylor on the goal-line. For any other replacement, we just don't know for sure. But I've already agreed that he's probably better than average. Could Gerhart possibly be better than average too? And if he doesn't fumble, and long runs don't matter in the least, why not give him those carries?I'm out. You make a good point that he is great player and effective on the goal-line. You also point out rightfully, that fumbles directly in the goal-line have not seemed to be a huge issue in particular. Both fair points. What I'm saying is that he fumbles the ball more than any starter in the league (any way you choose to slice the data), and it's not close. The fact that the team drafted a guy (fairly highly) who doesn't seem to fumble AT ALL, and also excels in short yardage situations leads me to put two and two together and believe that Gerhart will at the very least be auditioned for that role. I don't think it's a 100% done deal, it's just what I think based on the circumstances.
Again, it's clear that you weren't paying attention to Minnesota or the discussions about them last year.This sort of reminds me of the Sjax/Leonard situation a few years ago (the fact that both backups are white running backs is a total coincidence, I swear). Sjax put up a good ypc in that offense (this was back before StL was as bad as they are now) but as soon as he got hurt and Leonard came in he was completely useless. This is the same kind of reality check you'll get in Minnesota if Peterson were to go down. This isn't a "plug and play and you'll get AD numbers" situation here. You're going to get production that equates with the talent level of the running back.Chester Taylor averaged 3.5ypc and was 21% at the goaline in this offense last year. You can say "Chester Taylor" all you want but he is widely regarded as a pretty good running back, and a second round rookie is in no way a sure-fire upgrade to that.
Like FreBaGel posted, the MN line is far from being beastly nowadays. Watching the games, they looked downright bad at times with Peterson getting piled up on in the backfield.I own Peterson in a league and I'm really worried about him losing TDs now...
But as others have pointed out, AP's as good as it gets at converting at the goal line as well. It's not just the "long gainers" he excels at. If the Vikings are on the goal line, HE gives them the BEST CHANCE to convert it. So pulling him for an unproven rookie makes zero sense. Also, just because a guy is good in college at something does not mean it will translate in the NFL. Gerhart has proven nothing. What reason do the Vikings have to put a rookie in at the goal line if they have the best person in the league at that? The argument just does not make sense.
With regard to the bolded, from today's FBG email:
I think it's pretty clear Gerhart won't be replacing Peterson due to fumbling issues.
That surprised me because on the radio here one day they said he never fumbled in college. I checked it at Sportsline and according to their stats FBG is right.
It's actually a fairly simple explanation. AP has some strong fricken hands. Every reporter raves about their strength. In a goal line situation where the first concern on his mind is ball protection, it is almost impossible to rip the ball away from him. His fumbling problems come from a lack of focus. When he's in between the 20s, he's so focused on breaking a big play that he tends to hold the ball away from his body. This obviously makes it easy for defenders to swipe or rip away the ball. If he would make ball control a more primary focus, then the fumbling issues would probably go away, or at least lessen. However, unless the Vikings O line turns back into the monster that a lot of people still believe it to be(not many people were watching the Vikings last year apparently), then AP isn't likely going to get pulled from the goal line very often.1. I didn't go back and research the situations for every single one of them (too much time), but it would seem rather odd that he somehow is not able to hold on to the ball in the middle of the field, but can on the ends. Like I said before, it can happen at any time and in any situation, and it is NEVER good. Whether he has lost one right on either goal-line yet is fairly irrelevant - the possibility is there.
. I do actually think that Gerhart will make a solid handcuff this year. This will be the second year our O-line has been a unit, so I think they will have had that time to gel. Anyone that listens to Sulli monday mornings on 93X knows that the line feels it was horrible run blocking and for the most part they started working on getting better the day after the NFCC game. My one concern is our physically gifted LT, because it seems Big Mac is a record producer that happens to work as a football player. This unit has all the tools to be elite and I think now that Loadholt and Sulli got some time it they will return to at least being above average, barring major injury of course because they are VERY thin when it comes to depth.
Not sure how you can predict that at this point. You could turn out to be correct, but the Vikes traded up in the second round to get him. I wouldn't at all be surprised to see him getting Chester's cut of the carries.He won't get close to as many touches as Chester did. And for those with short memories, Taylor saw a lot of red-zone looks in the 2008 season when ADP finished as the No. 3 fantasy back.
They won't just give him the role, but if he does well in camp and then preseason and then they give him a chance in a game early in the season, he won't be "unproven" anymore. If he fails, he may not get another chance for a while. If he succeeds, even if he is only as good as ADP they might use in g/l situation to spare ADP's body. You take a lot of pounding in those situations. That's the main reason why I could see it happening.
Good call. Let everyone else try to figure out when to draft handcuffs that are going to sit on their bench all year. Sometimes the answer is too obvious. Percy will be a beast in ppr this year, 90+ catches, mark it down.
This is highly unlikely. As a Vikings fan I love the guy, but as a fantasy football owner I know in my heart of hearts that he is toxic to any fantasy team. My main reasoning is the migrains. The problem is not going to go away, and you are fu#$ed if he's playing in a late game and your other lesser options play early. As it stands right now six of the ten games in the fantsy season will be later games and I'd expect the week 11 game against the Pack to be moved to a sunday night game if/when Brett comes back. That's a killer when you really have zero idea if Percy will play until the final injury report. On top of all that you must remember he is still third on the depth chart behind Syd and Berrian. Now Berrian didn't exactly light it up last year with his fifty five receptions, but the staff here pretty much gave him a pass because he played through injury. BB will be given ever opportunity to hold onto his job and then some, because they'd much rather have Percy playing out of the slot/backfield/return man. Not to mention the players like Shiancoe and A.D. becoming elite options in the pass game.If the loss of C.T. does translate into a higher load for Percy, then I would expect him to be used a bit more often in the backfield or in Secret Squirrel's gadget plays. He could very well end up with 90 touches but predicting anything north of 75 receptions even if you feel he will start every game and be a monster would be a mistake.
Personally, I find it hard to believe they will run Harvin out of the backfield much because I don't think they want him to take a beating. They may try a few trick plays and reverses, maybe one or two a game, but he isn't going to be the regular third down back. How much play Gerhart gets will depend on how Gerhart develops. If he picks up the blocking scheme quickly and is effective when he gets chances I still think he will get the Taylor opportunities and maybe a few more goal line opportunities.It isn't that ADP can't do the job; it's that they don't want to risk wearing him out and injuring him. There is no way they want to give him more than the 360 carries he had in 2008, and I suspect they would rather keep it closer to the 314 he had last year. That's why they traded up to get Gerhart.
Batman.
