Better RB through age 28 -- Peterson or LT? (1 Viewer)

[gianmarco]

Both started in the NFL at age 22. Peterson started 15 fewer games (rookie year and injuries) than LT. LT was much more involved in the passing game. AP has higher effiency in running numbers but fewer TDs.

Peterson --

103 games

2033 carries

10115 rushing yards

86 rushing TDs

5.0 ypc

98.2 ypg

206 rec

1697 rec yards

5 rec TDs

31 fumbles

3 All-Pros

LT --

111 games

2365 carries

10650 rushing yards

115 rushing TDs

4.5 ypc

95.9 ypg

458 rec

3375 rec yards

14 rec TDs

24 fumbles

3 All-Pros

It'll be interesting to see what some of the answers to the questions above end up being. It also serves as a reminder how incredibly amazing and consistent LT was for the majority of his career. Of note, LT only had 1 season beyond his first 7 listed above over 1000 yds (his age 29 year) as he never hit 1000 yards again for the last 3 years of his career.

 

[EBF]

Purely as a runner I might give Peterson the edge, but LT made a much bigger impact as a pass catcher. I would rather have him.

 

[Rhythmdoctor]

I think recency bias is going on in the voting. LT is better than AP. It's not as close as some would think. AP is awesome but LT is the better pure everything over AP.

 

[skol asylum]

Peterson played on some pretty crappy Vikings teams and still produced including almost breaking the rushing record. Its Peterson without question.

 

[wodahSShadow]

Peterson, and it's not even close. Stats mean nothing without context. Tomlinson played on a STACKED team for most, if not all, of his prime, where one can definitely say that AP has not save the 09 Favre year. I look at LT's highlights and see him running through massive holes; I look at APand see him making his own holes. AP simply jumps off the page in the Eyeball Test (LT is no slouch, granted).

 

[wodahSShadow]

Peterson, and it's not even close. Stats mean nothing without context. Tomlinson played on a STACKED team for most, if not all, of his prime, where one can definitely say that AP has not save the 09 Favre year. I look at LT's highlights and see him running through massive holes; I look at APand see him making his own holes. AP simply jumps off the page in the Eyeball Test (LT is no slouch, granted).

 

[wodahSShadow]

Peterson, and it's not even close. Stats mean nothing without context. Tomlinson played on a STACKED team for most, if not all, of his prime, where one can definitely say that AP has not save the 09 Favre year. I look at LT's highlights and see him running through massive holes; I look at APand see him making his own holes. AP simply jumps off the page in the Eyeball Test (LT is no slouch, granted).

 

[Milkman]

I would rather have LT on my FF team but Peterson is the better NFL RB. It's not close either.

 

[Pots]

This is an interesting comparison as I loved both RBs and followed them closely throughout their careers, but I'd have to say LT is the better RB overall, by the numbers, and I'd rather have him in his prime. AP is the better pure rusher, however.

 

[Andrew74]

Am I forgetting something or did LT slog away on some really BAD Charger teams? I know at the end they had some good teams but I thought those early teams were bad.

 

[gianmarco]

Am I forgetting something or did LT slog away on some really BAD Charger teams? I know at the end they had some good teams but I thought those early teams were bad.

They were. In fact, LT probably had less around him (not to mention a lesser line) than AP.

 

[Evil G]

It is amazingly how quickly people forget.

LT was and remains Mr. Everything. One year he caught 100 passes. ONE HUNDRED

The stats above don't include the TDs he threw. AP, while an amazing runner, has fewer of LT's skills, and 7/8 the mojo.

 

[LBH]

I'd rather have LT easily. Great RB, great reciever. The Chargers team was crap when Tomlinson came on board.

 

[matuski]

LT. A different player, but better at most facets of the game.

 

[Khy]

Am I forgetting something or did LT slog away on some really BAD Charger teams? I know at the end they had some good teams but I thought those early teams were bad.

They were. In fact, LT probably had less around him (not to mention a lesser line) than AP.

Disagree, the Chargers were craps for his first two seasons. After that they missed the plAyoffs once in his remaining 6 seasons with the team. He also played with a future HOF QB in Brees and another who is close in Rivers.

The Vikings only made the plAyoffs 3 ADs 6 years with the team. Peterson played with Tavaris Jackson, Gus Ferrotte, a 41 year old Brett Favre, Christian Ponder and Matt Cassell.

 

[JPeso]

AP is the better pure runner, but there's no way you can overlook that TD discrepancy (let alone catch discrepancy). LT was a superior weapon.

 

[gianmarco]

Am I forgetting something or did LT slog away on some really BAD Charger teams? I know at the end they had some good teams but I thought those early teams were bad.

They were. In fact, LT probably had less around him (not to mention a lesser line) than AP.

Disagree, the Chargers were craps for his first two seasons. After that they missed the plAyoffs once in his remaining 6 seasons with the team. He also played with a future HOF QB in Brees and another who is close in Rivers.

The Vikings only made the plAyoffs 3 ADs 6 years with the team. Peterson played with Tavaris Jackson, Gus Ferrotte, a 41 year old Brett Favre, Christian Ponder and Matt Cassell.

I'm sorry, but that is nonsense.

2001 Chargers --

5-11 record

Flutie QB with 3464 yards and 15 TDs

Conway led team with 71/1125/6

LT was 2nd in rec on the team with 59

2002 Chargers --

8-8 record

Brees QB with 3284 yards and 17 TDs

LT led the team with 79 rec

Next highest was Conway with 57/852/5 (lol)

2003 Chargers --

4-12 record

Brees QB with only 2100 yards and 11 TDs through 11 games (Flutie with 1100 and 9 for remainder)

LT easily led the team with 100 rec

Next highest was Boston with 70/880/7

3rd highest rec had 24 receptions (lol)

Also, Flutie was 2nd highest rusher with 33 carries

2004 Chargers --

12-4 record

Brees QB with only 3200 yards but did have 27 TDs

Gates led the team with 81/964/13

LT was 2nd highest rec with 53 catches

No one else even hit 50 rec

2005 Chargers --

9-7 record

Brees QB with 3576 yards and 24 TDs

Gates once again led the team with 89/1101/10

Finally someone else, McCardell was 2nd with 70/917/9

Of course, LT still had 20 TDs that year

2006 Chargers --

14-2 record

Rivers was QB now with only 3388 yds and 22 TDs

Gates led with 71/924/9

LT 2nd yet again with 56 rec

Yet again, no other rec over 50 rec

LT scored 31 total TDs and passed for 2 more

2007 Chargers --

11-5 record

Rivers was QB with 3152 and 21 TDs

Gates again with 75/984/9

LT 2nd yet again with 60 catches

No one else over 50

LT was the team and had no supporting cast except for Gates for half the time. 2005 was the only year LT really had any help elsewhere. And AP's O-line when he first joined the Vikings was an elite run blocking unit. LT never had that.

FWIW, as others stated, I think AP is the better pure runner, but LT's numbers are incredible and his overall game is simply better. Factor in his versatility and the fact he only missed 1 game in that entire time frame, and I don't see how you can choose AP despite how amazing he is.

 

[loose circuits]

I'd rather have LT easily. Great RB, great reciever. The Chargers team was crap when Tomlinson came on board.

also better in pass protection

 

[Bronco Billy]

5.0 ypc on 2000+ carries? That's astounding. I'll take that guy as my RB. That's no knock on LT. He was absolutely a great RB. But that stat is nothing short of amazing, especially given that he didn't have much of a passing game to take the pressure off. Everyone knew who to stop and he still hit that number.

 

[gianmarco]

AP is the better pure runner, but there's no way you can overlook that TD discrepancy (let alone catch discrepancy). LT was a superior weapon.

You could remove LT's record setting 28 TD season and he would still have more rushing TDs, let alone receiving and passing.

 

[Heatman]

The main difference is LT had coaches who knew how to use him. AP had Childress who I doubt even knew how to put on a pair of pants.

They were/are both awesome and I would take either one.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I voted LT, AP, AP, LT.

The real test will be coming this year when AP actually plays in the same offensive system under the same coach/OC that LT did.

 

[Heatman]

I voted LT, AP, AP, LT.

The real test will be coming this year when AP actually plays in the same offensive system under the same coach/OC that LT did.

True, if somehow AP runs for 2k yards again this season does that change the conversation for the LT guys?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

LT thru 28 years old: 126.3 yards/game, 129 TDs in 111 games

AP thru 28 years old: 114.7 yards/game, 91 TDs in 103 games

If both played 100 games:

LT 12,630 yards, 116 TDs

AP 11,470 yards, 88 TDs

Not really very close. LT did a lot more.

 

[ROYALWITCHEESE]

Interesting to me that AP has 584 less touches. That's almost 2 seasons worth at his usage rate. LT was literally run into the ground. It bodes well for AP's future I think.

 

[gianmarco]

As another quick comparison, here are Emmitt's #'s from ages 22-28. He did have a solid rookie year at age 21 with 241/937/11 at 3.9 ypc, but will leave that out. Keep in mind that Emmitt played behind an elite all-time O-line with HOF at QB and WR and a far superior supporting cast.

Emmitt Smith --

108 games

2354 carries
10297 rushing yards

95.3 ypg
101 rushing TDs
4.4 ypc
364 rec
7 rec TDs

30 fumbles

4 All-Pros

About the same # of carries (9 fewer), fewer rushing yards, lower YPC, fewer YPG, 14 fewer rushing TDs, 7 fewer rec TDs, ~100 fewer receptions. That is easily the best stretch of Emmitt's career and it still falls short to LT with far, far less around him. I don't think there's anyone that comes close to LT's prime from age 22-28. Not Marshall. Not Barry. Not Payton.

Only the great Jim Brown is close with a higher YPC and YPG, but lower TD total and a not even close in the receiving game.

Pretty amazing.

 

[BobbyLayne]

LT2 across the board.

 

[Milkman]

Epic poll fail going on here. LOL at LT being better than AP.

 

[Bronco Billy]

Interesting to me that AP has 584 less touches. That's almost 2 seasons worth at his usage rate. LT was literally run into the ground. It bodes well for AP's future I think.

Yep. Adjust Peterson's numbers by an increase of. 25% so that each has equal opportunity over that period and then make the judgment. It's well worth considering that even though Peterson has a substantially lower percentage of his touches being receptions that he has a higher ypt.

Peterson is the superior RB. That's no knock on Tomlinson. But Peterson really is just that special. And that's from a bleed green & gold Packer fan.

 

[ldizzle]

Epic poll fail going on here. LOL at LT being better than AP.

not a fail at all.

 

[Adam Harstad]

As another quick comparison, here are Emmitt's #'s from ages 22-28. He did have a solid rookie year at age 21 with 241/937/11 at 3.9 ypc, but will leave that out. Keep in mind that Emmitt played behind an elite all-time O-line with HOF at QB and WR and a far superior supporting cast.

Emmitt Smith --

108 games

2354 carries

10297 rushing yards

95.3 ypg

101 rushing TDs

4.4 ypc

364 rec

7 rec TDs

30 fumbles

4 All-Pros

About the same # of carries (9 fewer), fewer rushing yards, lower YPC, fewer YPG, 14 fewer rushing TDs, 7 fewer rec TDs, ~100 fewer receptions. That is easily the best stretch of Emmitt's career and it still falls short to LT with far, far less around him. I don't think there's anyone that comes close to LT's prime from age 22-28. Not Marshall. Not Barry. Not Payton.

Only the great Jim Brown is close with a higher YPC and YPG, but lower TD total and a not even close in the receiving game.

Pretty amazing.

Marshall Faulk:

105 games

1841/8160/68 rushing (4.4 ypa)

496/4925/30 receiving (9.9 ypr)

13,085 yards, 98 TDs

5 pro bowls, 3x first-team AP All Pro, 3x AP OPoY, 1x AP MVP (2x PFWA MVP)

I'd take Faulk's 22-28 seasons over Tomlinson's. And that ignores his 1800 yards from scrimmage, pro bowl appearance, and ORoY award at age 21.

 

[gianmarco]

As another quick comparison, here are Emmitt's #'s from ages 22-28. He did have a solid rookie year at age 21 with 241/937/11 at 3.9 ypc, but will leave that out. Keep in mind that Emmitt played behind an elite all-time O-line with HOF at QB and WR and a far superior supporting cast.

Emmitt Smith --

108 games

2354 carries

10297 rushing yards

95.3 ypg

101 rushing TDs

4.4 ypc

364 rec

7 rec TDs

30 fumbles

4 All-Pros

About the same # of carries (9 fewer), fewer rushing yards, lower YPC, fewer YPG, 14 fewer rushing TDs, 7 fewer rec TDs, ~100 fewer receptions. That is easily the best stretch of Emmitt's career and it still falls short to LT with far, far less around him. I don't think there's anyone that comes close to LT's prime from age 22-28. Not Marshall. Not Barry. Not Payton.

Only the great Jim Brown is close with a higher YPC and YPG, but lower TD total and a not even close in the receiving game.

Pretty amazing.

Marshall Faulk:

105 games

1841/8160/68 rushing (4.4 ypa)

496/4925/30 receiving (9.9 ypr)

13,085 yards, 98 TDs

5 pro bowls, 3x first-team AP All Pro, 3x AP OPoY, 1x AP MVP (2x PFWA MVP)

I'd take Faulk's 22-28 seasons over Tomlinson's. And that ignores his 1800 yards from scrimmage, pro bowl appearance, and ORoY award at age 21.

I don't understand. LT's #'s are better over that timeframe so why would you take Faulk over LT during their comparable timeframes?

LT had 111 games with 14025 total yards and 129 TDs (136 TDs if you include his 7 passing TDs)

Same # of Pro Bowls, same # of first team All Pro, same # of MVP.

He played in more games than Faulk over the same stretch (slightly more durable), but even if you look at the per game #'s.

LT -- 126 total yds/game (rushing/receiving) and 1.16 TDs/game (1.22 TDs/game counting passing TDs).

Faulk -- 124 total yds/game (rushing/receiving) and 0.93 TDs/game.

More durable (only missed 1 game), more total yds/game, and much higher TD/game rate. Not to mention, Faulk got to play behind Orlando Pace and with the Greatest Show On Turf that included the likes of Kurt Warner, Torry Holt, Isaac Bruce for part of that time as well as Peyton Manning for another year (who as a rookie was better than any QB during LT's time in SD) while LT had Antonio Gates for half that time and pretty much nothing else.

So why would you take Faulk over LT?

 

[Bronco Billy]

So why would you take Faulk over LT?

Because Faulk was more productive. He put up 1,000 less yards but did his work with 486 fewer touches. Give Faulk the same workload and he surpasses Tomlinson by quite a bit in production. You mention the GSOT years for Faulk but don't mention his time with IND, which were pretty poor offensive teams in the first few years of his career.

That said, if all things are equal I consider Faulk and Tomlinson to be pretty equivalent. Given all the nuances in the discussion, you can make good points for either over the other.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

The touchdown stat means little to me, as Ladainian Tomlinson received an absurd amount of goaline attempts compared to any other running back in recent history.

Ladainian Tomlinson had more than double the number of carries inside the 5 as Peterson, and also double the number of carries from between the 5-10 yard line as Peterson. In fact, no running back in the NFL since 2000 has approached even 75% of the goaline carries that Tomlinson got. His conversion percentage (46%) was not any better than Peterson's (47%) in those scenarios. He just got a lot more attempts due to more time spent playing on better teams and an OC that loved to run the ball inside the 10. More TDs, especially more rushing TDs, came on the back of more rushing TD opportunities and nothing else. 1.35% of Tomlinson's rushes were goaline attempts while 0.9% of Peterson's were. That's the difference.

It's difficult to judge who was the better overall player because it's hard to gauge how much Tomlinson's superior receiving ability makes up for Peterson's superior rushing ability, but I am counting rushing ability as being heavily in Peterson's favor. He averaged half a yard per carry more despite playing on, overall, significantly worse teams. People are quick to point out that Tomlinson played on some bad San Diego teams too but fail to acknowledge that the seasons that really tilt his stats as high as they do came on teams that were very good. Peterson has never averaged less than 4.4ypc in his career, something that Tomlinson had done four times by the time he was 28. That's all in addition to the phenomenal, mind boggling plays that Peterson has made throughout his career that just didn't seem possible. Tomlinson never had those kind of jaw dropping runs that left you frozen on the couch in disbelief.

Peterson also did something that seems impossible in this day in age. He took an absolutely awful team with few other players of note, and he put them on his back and carried them to the playoffs like you see only elite QBs or elite defenses do anymore. You just don't see that out of a running back in this era of deflated running back value. Unless you're Adrian Peterson.

It's also worth noting, in regards to comparison of situations, that backup RBs on the Chargers vastly outperformed backup running backs on the Vikings. While Peterson was nearly setting the NFL rushing record with 2,097 yards in a season where he averaged 6.0ypc, his backup was treading along at 3.4ypc behind the same line. Meanwhile the Chargers' backup running backs, including not only Turner but also Jesse Chatman before he arrived, were fairly consistently putting up 5.0-6.0 ypc with 50-100 carries behind the San Diego line.

As purely a runner, I think Peterson is one of if not the best of all-time. I think that's enough to make up for Tomlinson's receiving ability but as I mentioned that's tough to gauge.

 

[ZWK]

Trying to combine these numbers into a single number, we can calculate something like "yards over replacement" for each RB by adding together:

Rushing yards over 3 per carry

Receiving yards over 5 per reception

15 x TDs

-25 x fumbles

The results are:

5977 Faulk (56.9/game)

5975 Tomlinson (53.8/game)

5273 Peterson (51.2/game)

4491 Smith (41.6/game)

 

[gianmarco]

So why would you take Faulk over LT?

Because Faulk was more productive. He put up 1,000 less yards but did his work with 486 fewer touches. Give Faulk the same workload and he surpasses Tomlinson by quite a bit in production.You mention the GSOT years for Faulk but don't mention his time with IND, which were pretty poor offensive teams in the first few years of his career.

That said, if all things are equal I consider Faulk and Tomlinson to be pretty equivalent. Given all the nuances in the discussion, you can make good points for either over the other.

You realize that the TD production is a major factor in the difference between the 2 in my discussion, right? LT scored 25-30% more TDs than Faulk on a per game basis. That is not an insignificant amount. That is a HUGE amount.

If LT were to produce 30% more yardage than Faulk, he'd have had 160 yards/game. So imagine, instead, that they scored the same # of TDs, but LT had 160 yds/game and Faulk had 124 yds/game. Would you still think they were comparable?

It doesn't look like that big of a deal when looking at smaller numbers like TDs, but when put into context, you should realize that it's huge. And, we're not talking about a small sample size here. LT was routinely scoring 15+ TDs/year. You can even remove LT's record breaking year of 31 TDs in 2006 completely and he was STILL scoring 1.10 TDs/game without it. That's roughly 20% higher than Faulk's rate and that's without LT's biggest season in that span.

FreeBagel wants to account for that due to the increased opportunities. However, you don't get those opportunities unless you convert. LT was a guy who simply had a nose for the endzone and proved it over and over and over.

 

[Bronco Billy]

Trying to combine these numbers into a single number, we can calculate something like "yards over replacement" for each RB by adding together:

Rushing yards over 3 per carry

Receiving yards over 5 per reception

15 x TDs

-25 x fumbles

The results are:

5977 Faulk (56.9/game)

5975 Tomlinson (53.8/game)

5273 Peterson (51.2/game)

4491 Smith (41.6/game)

What's the basis for your baselines, and how do they equalize each statistical category to the others? Have you considered that rushing yards are more valuable than receiving yards since the risk of rushing is lower than that of passing?

 

[FreeBaGeL]

FreeBagel wants to account for that due to the increased opportunities. However, you don't get those opportunities unless you convert. LT was a guy who simply had a nose for the endzone and proved it over and over and over.

As I mentioned, conversion percentage had little to do with it. LT's conversion percentage was standout against an average RB but not standout against the guys we're talking about here. It was actually slightly lower than Peterson's so the point that LT got more carries inside the 5 because he was better at converting those opps doesn't really have any legs to stand on. He got more opportunities near the goaline for reasons completely outside each of their control. More time on better teams and more time with an OC who's major philosophy was to run as much as possible near the goaline.

 

[Bronco Billy]

So why would you take Faulk over LT?

Because Faulk was more productive. He put up 1,000 less yards but did his work with 486 fewer touches. Give Faulk the same workload and he surpasses Tomlinson by quite a bit in production.You mention the GSOT years for Faulk but don't mention his time with IND, which were pretty poor offensive teams in the first few years of his career.

That said, if all things are equal I consider Faulk and Tomlinson to be pretty equivalent. Given all the nuances in the discussion, you can make good points for either over the other.

You realize that the TD production is a major factor in the difference between the 2 in my discussion, right? LT scored 25-30% more TDs than Faulk on a per game basis. That is not an insignificant amount. That is a HUGE amount.

If LT were to produce 30% more yardage than Faulk, he'd have had 160 yards/game. So imagine, instead, that they scored the same # of TDs, but LT had 160 yds/game and Faulk had 124 yds/game. Would you still think they were comparable?

It doesn't look like that big of a deal when looking at smaller numbers like TDs, but when put into context, you should realize that it's huge. And, we're not talking about a small sample size here. LT was routinely scoring 15+ TDs/year. You can even remove LT's record breaking year of 31 TDs in 2006 completely and he was STILL scoring 1.10 TDs/game without it. That's roughly 20% higher than Faulk's rate and that's without LT's biggest season in that span.

FreeBagel wants to account for that due to the increased opportunities. However, you don't get those opportunities unless you convert. LT was a guy who simply had a nose for the endzone and proved it over and over and over.

I don't quite see this the way you do. You want to put substantial additional emphasis on TDs. Beside the point that when you equalize workloads that the differential in TDs scored becomes small to what is likely within the statistical variance, I believe that field position and ball control has greater impact. But I understand your argument, even though I disagree. You have a point.

 

[Eminence]

Interesting to me that AP has 584 less touches. That's almost 2 seasons worth at his usage rate. LT was literally run into the ground. It bodes well for AP's future I think.

This. I think Adrian Peterson is a physical freak in a class of his own. I, personally, will take a runner with pure rushing ability over someone lesser rushing ability who can catch as well. I think it's actually even more impressive that AP has a higher YPC than Tomlinson despite not being utilized on screens and outs. You know he's going to run it, yet people still can't stop him.

I feel like backs with hands are a dime a dozen, nowadays.

 

[Adam Harstad]

As another quick comparison, here are Emmitt's #'s from ages 22-28. He did have a solid rookie year at age 21 with 241/937/11 at 3.9 ypc, but will leave that out. Keep in mind that Emmitt played behind an elite all-time O-line with HOF at QB and WR and a far superior supporting cast.

Emmitt Smith --

108 games

2354 carries

10297 rushing yards

95.3 ypg

101 rushing TDs

4.4 ypc

364 rec

7 rec TDs

30 fumbles

4 All-Pros

About the same # of carries (9 fewer), fewer rushing yards, lower YPC, fewer YPG, 14 fewer rushing TDs, 7 fewer rec TDs, ~100 fewer receptions. That is easily the best stretch of Emmitt's career and it still falls short to LT with far, far less around him. I don't think there's anyone that comes close to LT's prime from age 22-28. Not Marshall. Not Barry. Not Payton.

Only the great Jim Brown is close with a higher YPC and YPG, but lower TD total and a not even close in the receiving game.

Pretty amazing.

Marshall Faulk:

105 games

1841/8160/68 rushing (4.4 ypa)

496/4925/30 receiving (9.9 ypr)

13,085 yards, 98 TDs

5 pro bowls, 3x first-team AP All Pro, 3x AP OPoY, 1x AP MVP (2x PFWA MVP)

I'd take Faulk's 22-28 seasons over Tomlinson's. And that ignores his 1800 yards from scrimmage, pro bowl appearance, and ORoY award at age 21.

I don't understand. LT's #'s are better over that timeframe so why would you take Faulk over LT during their comparable timeframes?

LT had 111 games with 14025 total yards and 129 TDs (136 TDs if you include his 7 passing TDs)

Same # of Pro Bowls, same # of first team All Pro, same # of MVP.

He played in more games than Faulk over the same stretch (slightly more durable), but even if you look at the per game #'s.

LT -- 126 total yds/game (rushing/receiving) and 1.16 TDs/game (1.22 TDs/game counting passing TDs).

Faulk -- 124 total yds/game (rushing/receiving) and 0.93 TDs/game.

More durable (only missed 1 game), more total yds/game, and much higher TD/game rate. Not to mention, Faulk got to play behind Orlando Pace and with the Greatest Show On Turf that included the likes of Kurt Warner, Torry Holt, Isaac Bruce for part of that time as well as Peyton Manning for another year (who as a rookie was better than any QB during LT's time in SD) while LT had Antonio Gates for half that time and pretty much nothing else.

So why would you take Faulk over LT?

Because Faulk had three times as many OPoY awards? Because Faulk topped 1000 rushing and 1000 receiving yards in the same season? As much better of a receiver as Tomlinson is over Peterson, that's how much better of a receiver that Faulk was over Tomlinson. And since I think Faulk and Tomlinson were pretty equal when running (with both well behind Peterson), I think Faulk was superior to Tomlinson overall. I watched them both play. Tomlinson made me think "this guy is one of the best receiving RBs in history". Faulk made me think "there is absolutely no question in my mind that this is the best receiving RB to ever play the game, and I bet he could probably have been an All Pro wide receiver if he'd really wanted to be".

Faulk's 1999 was absurd- 150 yards per game, 5.5 yards per carry, 12.0 (!!!) yards per reception. All three would have been career highs for Tomlinson, and that was just one season. Over his three OPoY years, Faulk averaged 153.8 yards, 5.4 ypc, 10.5 ypr, and the equivalent of 21 TDs per 16 games. Tomlinson can't touch that kind of sustained dominance. His 3-year averages would have been a career high for Tomlinson in ypg, ypc, and almost would have been a career high in ypr (Tomlinson averaged 10.7 as a part-timer for the Jets in his final season). Faulk led the league in yards per carry for three consecutive seasons. He was first or second in yards from scrimmage for four consecutive seasons (would have been 1st in all four, but he missed two games in both 2000 and 2001- and still finished second). And again, this is completely ignoring Faulk's 1800 yard ORoY season.

If I were having a draft and I could build my team around any RB in the entire history of the game in his prime, both Tomlinson and Peterson would rank very high on my list, but the only question at all with my #1 overall pick would be whether I wanted Marshall Faulk or Jim Brown. And I'd probably take Faulk.

 

[ZWK]

Trying to combine these numbers into a single number, we can calculate something like "yards over replacement" for each RB by adding together:

Rushing yards over 3 per carry

Receiving yards over 5 per reception

15 x TDs

-25 x fumbles

The results are:

5977 Faulk (56.9/game)

5975 Tomlinson (53.8/game)

5273 Peterson (51.2/game)

4491 Smith (41.6/game)

What's the basis for your baselines, and how do they equalize each statistical category to the others? Have you considered that rushing yards are more valuable than receiving yards since the risk of rushing is lower than that of passing?

I made up baselines & weightings that felt plausible, influenced in part by stuff that Chase Stuart has done.

If you tinker around with the numbers then you could change the ordering a little, but it would be hard to get it to change much. With the totals you could easily get Faulk & Tomlinson to swap (e.g., if you raised the baseline for receiving or increased the value of TDs) but it would be hard to change the rest of the ordering. For per-game numbers, you could get Tomlinson & Peterson to swap (e.g., if you raised the baseline for receiving and decreased the value of TDs) but it would be hard to change the rest of the ordering.

 

[gianmarco]

As another quick comparison, here are Emmitt's #'s from ages 22-28. He did have a solid rookie year at age 21 with 241/937/11 at 3.9 ypc, but will leave that out. Keep in mind that Emmitt played behind an elite all-time O-line with HOF at QB and WR and a far superior supporting cast.

Emmitt Smith --

108 games

2354 carries

10297 rushing yards

95.3 ypg

101 rushing TDs

4.4 ypc

364 rec

7 rec TDs

30 fumbles

4 All-Pros

About the same # of carries (9 fewer), fewer rushing yards, lower YPC, fewer YPG, 14 fewer rushing TDs, 7 fewer rec TDs, ~100 fewer receptions. That is easily the best stretch of Emmitt's career and it still falls short to LT with far, far less around him. I don't think there's anyone that comes close to LT's prime from age 22-28. Not Marshall. Not Barry. Not Payton.

Only the great Jim Brown is close with a higher YPC and YPG, but lower TD total and a not even close in the receiving game.

Pretty amazing.

Marshall Faulk:

105 games

1841/8160/68 rushing (4.4 ypa)

496/4925/30 receiving (9.9 ypr)

13,085 yards, 98 TDs

5 pro bowls, 3x first-team AP All Pro, 3x AP OPoY, 1x AP MVP (2x PFWA MVP)

I'd take Faulk's 22-28 seasons over Tomlinson's. And that ignores his 1800 yards from scrimmage, pro bowl appearance, and ORoY award at age 21.

I don't understand. LT's #'s are better over that timeframe so why would you take Faulk over LT during their comparable timeframes?

LT had 111 games with 14025 total yards and 129 TDs (136 TDs if you include his 7 passing TDs)

Same # of Pro Bowls, same # of first team All Pro, same # of MVP.

He played in more games than Faulk over the same stretch (slightly more durable), but even if you look at the per game #'s.

LT -- 126 total yds/game (rushing/receiving) and 1.16 TDs/game (1.22 TDs/game counting passing TDs).

Faulk -- 124 total yds/game (rushing/receiving) and 0.93 TDs/game.

More durable (only missed 1 game), more total yds/game, and much higher TD/game rate. Not to mention, Faulk got to play behind Orlando Pace and with the Greatest Show On Turf that included the likes of Kurt Warner, Torry Holt, Isaac Bruce for part of that time as well as Peyton Manning for another year (who as a rookie was better than any QB during LT's time in SD) while LT had Antonio Gates for half that time and pretty much nothing else.

So why would you take Faulk over LT?

Because Faulk had three times as many OPoY awards? Because Faulk topped 1000 rushing and 1000 receiving yards in the same season? As much better of a receiver as Tomlinson is over Peterson, that's how much better of a receiver that Faulk was over Tomlinson. And since I think Faulk and Tomlinson were pretty equal when running (with both well behind Peterson), I think Faulk was superior to Tomlinson overall. I watched them both play. Tomlinson made me think "this guy is one of the best receiving RBs in history". Faulk made me think "there is absolutely no question in my mind that this is the best receiving RB to ever play the game, and I bet he could probably have been an All Pro wide receiver if he'd really wanted to be".

Faulk's 1999 was absurd- 150 yards per game, 5.5 yards per carry, 12.0 (!!!) yards per reception. All three would have been career highs for Tomlinson, and that was just one season. Over his three OPoY years, Faulk averaged 153.8 yards, 5.4 ypc, 10.5 ypr, and the equivalent of 21 TDs per 16 games. Tomlinson can't touch that kind of sustained dominance. His 3-year averages would have been a career high for Tomlinson in ypg, ypc, and almost would have been a career high in ypr (Tomlinson averaged 10.7 as a part-timer for the Jets in his final season). Faulk led the league in yards per carry for three consecutive seasons. He was first or second in yards from scrimmage for four consecutive seasons (would have been 1st in all four, but he missed two games in both 2000 and 2001- and still finished second). And again, this is completely ignoring Faulk's 1800 yard ORoY season.

If I were having a draft and I could build my team around any RB in the entire history of the game in his prime, both Tomlinson and Peterson would rank very high on my list, but the only question at all with my #1 overall pick would be whether I wanted Marshall Faulk or Jim Brown. And I'd probably take Faulk.

If the question was which RB had the best 3 year stretch or the best 4 year stretch, then Faulk would be the winner. However, unfortunately for your argument, that wasn't the question or the comparison.

Arbitrary as it might be, I was using the set of years of 22-28 because that's what Peterson has done so far. Then the comparison came for Faulk and you're trying to change it to the best 3 or 4 yr stretch. However, when using those same criteria that I originally proposed, LT > Faulk even though Faulk had a better 3 or 4 yr stretch during those 7 years.

And while those 4 yrs from ages 25-28 were phenomenal for Faulk, he also had 3 yrs of 1553 total yards or less for 3 straight years. He also had 3 straight years where he scored 7, 8, and 10 total TDs during the same timeframe. LT had one year (his rookie year) of ~1600 total yards and the other 6 years were ~1800 or higher. Except for his rookie year (when he had 10), LT never had fewer than 15 combined TDs. Marshall had <15 TDs in 5 straight years and <10 TDs in 2 years.

Marshall had 3 decent years and 4 amazing, unbelievable years. LT had 7 incredibly good years. And when you take the totality of 7 yrs that I initially laid out, then LT's #'s > Faulk's #'s. Higher yards/game. Higher TDs/game. There's not really any other way to spin those #'s when using the initial criteria set forth. If you want to argue about who had the higher peak or 3 yr stretch or 4 yr stretch, I'll gladly agree with you that it's Faulk. If you want to argue the same thing over the 7 yrs from age 22-28, then I'll respectfully disagree just because, you know, the numbers actually show otherwise.

And again, this is completely ignoring the fact that Marshall got to play indoors completely surrounded by HOF talent while LT got to do this when he was surrounded by....himself.

ETA -- It's also ignoring the fact the LT had 300+ carries every single one of those years and Marshall topped 300 carries only once in those 7 years. The workload LT had during those 7 years was amazing and he missed one total game during that time and is far more impressive to me.

 

[gianmarco]

Let's put it another way.

If you put Faulk in SD, he's likely to still be incredibly good and put up years like he had while in Indy. But those years don't compare to what LT did. It wasn't until he joined Martz, Warner, Holt, and Bruce in a dome that he earned his 3 All-Pros and put up the silly numbers he did. They are still probably the greatest 3 year stretch by any RB ever, but it was a matter of the perfect talent meeting the perfect situation. And again, we didn't start off just talking about a 3 or 4 yr stretch of time.

LT did it every. single. year. with different coaches, QBs, receivers, and pretty much no O-line to speak of and put up #'s that dwarf most anything else any RB has done with the exception of that stretch by Faulk and some of Brown's #'s.

Put Faulk in LT's exact place and I don't think he equals those #'s. Put LT in Faulk's and I'm pretty comfortable he does.

 

[gianmarco]

Oh, and a couple other thoughts as well since you focused on the 3 OPOY awards compared to the 1 for LT. Consider the following:

In 2001, the OROY award went to Anthony Thomas with 278/1183/7 rushing and 22/178/0 receiving. Somehow, that was thought to be better than LT's 339/1236/10 along with 59/367/0.

Of course, then there's 2003, when LT caught 100 balls, had a 5.3 ypc, scored 17 TDs, and led the league in total yards with 2370 (59 fewer than Faulk's career best) and failed to get an All-Pro, OPOY, and didn't even get a Pro Bowl berth because Jamal Lewis happened to run for 2066 yards on 387 carries. Not even a Pro Bowl. Ridiculous.

That's the thing. LT had something exceptional pretty much every year after his decent rookie year.

--2002, he had almost 2200 total yards but was outdone by Priest Holmes 2287 yards and 24 total TDs.

--2003, he led the league in total yards with 2370 (4th highest total ever) but was overshadowed by Jamal Lewis and his 2000 yards.

--2004, he was an All-Pro and led the league in TDs with 17 but was overshadowed by Peyton's 49 passing TDs.

--2005, a "down" year, he still scored 20 TDs and amassed 1800+ total yards but was overshadowed by Tiki, who put up the 3rd highest total yards in a single season and Alexander who rushed for the most TDs ever with 27 that year.

--2006, he topped that by rushing for 28 TDs and leading the league in rushing yards.

--2007, he was an All-Pro yet again while leading the league in rushing yards and rushing TDs.

There were no lulls. There were no "average" years. This is why his totals are as great as they are.

Faulk, on the other hand, was pretty "average" from 1995-1997. Nothing terrible, but certainly nothing that was really worth noting. 1995 was decent and 1996 and 1997 were quite ordinary. Higher highs and lower lows.

In the end, we're talking about 2 of the greatest RBs to ever play. And I certainly wouldn't fault you, or anyone at all for choosing Faulk over LT because of how amazing he was during his peak. It just depends on what you value most. But, if you're going to argue that no RB has ever had a 3 yr stretch that Faulk had from 99-01, then I'll similarly argue that no one has ever had a 7 yr stretch that LT had from 2001-2007. Especially when looking at a yds/game and TDs/game average over that time, which should be what matters most.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Let's put it another way.

If you put Faulk in SD, he's likely to still be incredibly good and put up years like he had while in Indy. But those years don't compare to what LT did. It wasn't until he joined Martz, Warner, Holt, and Bruce in a dome that he earned his 3 All-Pros and put up the silly numbers he did. They are still probably the greatest 3 year stretch by any RB ever, but it was a matter of the perfect talent meeting the perfect situation. And again, we didn't start off just talking about a 3 or 4 yr stretch of time.

LT did it every. single. year. with different coaches, QBs, receivers, and pretty much no O-line to speak of and put up #'s that dwarf most anything else any RB has done with the exception of that stretch by Faulk and some of Brown's #'s.

Put Faulk in LT's exact place and I don't think he equals those #'s. Put LT in Faulk's and I'm pretty comfortable he does.

LT had averaged under 4ypc three separate seasons by the time he turned 29. I would say there were lulls. Maybe not from a fantasy standpoint, but they were there.

 

[gianmarco]

Let's put it another way.

If you put Faulk in SD, he's likely to still be incredibly good and put up years like he had while in Indy. But those years don't compare to what LT did. It wasn't until he joined Martz, Warner, Holt, and Bruce in a dome that he earned his 3 All-Pros and put up the silly numbers he did. They are still probably the greatest 3 year stretch by any RB ever, but it was a matter of the perfect talent meeting the perfect situation. And again, we didn't start off just talking about a 3 or 4 yr stretch of time.

LT did it every. single. year. with different coaches, QBs, receivers, and pretty much no O-line to speak of and put up #'s that dwarf most anything else any RB has done with the exception of that stretch by Faulk and some of Brown's #'s.

Put Faulk in LT's exact place and I don't think he equals those #'s. Put LT in Faulk's and I'm pretty comfortable he does.

LT had averaged under 4ypc three separate seasons by the time he turned 29. I would say there were lulls. Maybe not from a fantasy standpoint, but they were there.

In the timeframe I specified, he was under 4 ypc twice, not three. The first was his rookie year. The second was 2004...when he was an All-Pro. If you want to point at his YPC and call 2004 a "lull" while winning an All-Pro, have at it.

As to looking beyond the years initially defined to help with your "point", he clearly started declining from 2008 onward and I don't think you'll get an argument stating otherwise. Again, the only reason I used the years I did is because those are the years that AP has had to date, which was what started this comparison. But if you want to alter it to make it fit better, go ahead I guess.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

LT.

 

[wodahSShadow]

Given all this back and forth with stats & arguments regarding who is the best, lets just make it easy:

Knowing what we know about each player now, which would you prefer to draft if we can reset their ages to 22?

 

[Bronco Billy]

Given all this back and forth with stats & arguments regarding who is the best, lets just make it easy:

Knowing what we know about each player now, which would you prefer to draft if we can reset their ages to 22?

You think that's going to make settling this easy?