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

[Milkman]

Put them both behind the same OL and give them the same touches at the same spots on the field. Lol easy game.

Peterson>>> LT

 

[Tau837]

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.

This.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Peterson across the board except for stats. LT was great, AP is better. As others have mentioned, the stats that folks are concerned about were generated by usage.

Peterson wasn't used on the goal-line as much as LTS was because NOBODY was used on the goal-line as much as LT was. But if were Peterson back there, he scores too, maybe more that LT did.

When targeted, Peterson is an excellent receiving option, and if he had been playing for Turner in SD, he would have put up the same receiving numbers LT did. His catch percentage, yards per target and yards per reception are all HIGHER than LT's.

I think it's fairly obvious that Peterson is a better pure runner, and everything else is usage.

 

[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.

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.

I'm not saying that Faulk had a better 3-4 year stretch than Tomlinson. I'm saying that Faulk had a better 6-year stretch based on the strength of that unbelievable 3-4 year stretch. If you want to say that Tomlinson had better counting numbers, then I don't disagree at all- that's a pretty direct and easy comparison. If you want to say that Tomlinson is a better player because he had better counting numbers... well, we're going to have to part ways there. Marshall Faulk was as talented of a runner as Tomlinson, and he was substantially more dangerous as a receiver.

In response to your edit: the fact that Faulk produced almost as much as Tomlinson on a noticeably smaller workload is not something I ignored. In fact, it's sort of the crux of my argument.

 

[ebsteelers]

any mention of Peterson fumbling problem early in his career? didnt he cough it up 3 times in the title game a few years ago... then again LT didnt play in that game.

I dont recall LT having the same fumbling problems thouhg

 

[Adam Harstad]

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.

In 2003, Tomlinson wasn't just overshadowed by JamLew. An argument could be made that Tomlinson was the 3rd-best RB in his own division. You might not find it to be a compelling argument, but pro bowl voters certainly did. Holmes put up 2110/27 as the engine behind the best offense in the NFL. Portis had an identical YPG average and matched Tomlinson with 17 touchdowns despite missing the final three games of the season. He also led the league in yards per carry. Tomlinson missing the pro bowl wasn't a travesty, he just happened to have an incredible season the same year as three other guys in the same conference.

I'd also argue that Tomlinson had some average years. Averaging 3.6 yards per carry as a rookie wasn't exactly a "great season" (why do you think A-Train won the ORoY over him?) Tomlinson ranked 34th by DVOA and 36th by DYAR that year- as bad as Faulk's 1996, volume stats or no. In 2004, Tomlinson was 28th by DVOA and DYAR, much worse than Faulk's 1997.

Again, Tomlinson had unprecedented volume stats, but unprecedented volume stats alone do not an argument end. Unless you want to close that Emmitt Smith vs. Barry Sanders debate in favor of Smith while you're at it.

 

[ROYALWITCHEESE]

any mention of Peterson fumbling problem early in his career? didnt he cough it up 3 times in the title game a few years ago... then again LT didnt play in that game.

I dont recall LT having the same fumbling problems thouhg

Pretty sure LT had his own fumbling issues.

"After fumbling eight times as a rookie, Tomlinson fumbled just 22 times the rest of his career which averages to less than three fumbles per season. The aforementioned Adrian Peterson has already fumbled 22 times in his career, and he's only five years in."

http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/1227252-why-ladainian-tomlinson-is-the-nfls-last-great-rb

 

[Adam Harstad]

For funsies, here's a quick statistical look at RBs over the 22-28 age window. I will leave commentary to other posters and other posts.

Approximate Value:

1. Tomlinson (124)

2. Faulk (121)

3. Smith (113)

4. Thomas (109)

5. Sanders (105)

Pro Bowls:

1 (tie). Sanders/Brown/Franco Harris (7)

4. Peterson (6)

5th place is a 15-way tie; I'm not going to list everyone, but most of the "big names" make the list.

1st team AP All Pros:

1. Jim Brown (6)

2 (tie). Dickerson/Sayers (5)

4 (tie). Sanders/Smith/Simpson (4)

All of the rest of the stats will be per-game so as not to disadvantage the stars of the 14-game season

Fantasy points:

1. Tomlinson (19.70)

2. Brown (18.82)

3. Faulk (17.94)

4. Smith (17.32)

5. Dickerson (17.15)

6. Terrell Davis (17.02 - and yes, I shamelessly extended this list to 6 just to include him)

Touchdowns:

1. Tomlinson (1.16)

2. Alexander (1.04)

3. Brown (1.03)

4 (tie). Smith/Larry Johnson (1.00)

6. Lenny Moore (0.96)

7 (tie). Faulk/Davis (0.93)

9. Chuck Foreman (0.90)

10. Jim Taylor (0.89)

11. Adrian Peterson (0.88) - list extended just to get Peterson on it

Yards from Scrimmage:

1. Brown (129.8)

2. Tomlinson (126.4)

3. Dickerson (126.0)

4. Faulk (124.6)

5. Edgerrin (117.7)

6. William Andrews (116.4)*

7. Sanders (116.0)

8. Smith (115.8)

9. Peterson (114.7)

10. Payton (112.2)

Yards per carry (minimum 1,000 attempts)

1. Jamaal Charles (5.58)

2. Joe Perry (5.31)

3. Brown (5.26)

4. Peterson (4.98)

5. Sanders (4.87)

Note: Tomlinson ranks 25th, Faulk ranks 30th, Emmitt ranks 36th, Thurman ranks 44th

Yards per reception (minimum 200 receptions and 5000 rushing yards, to filter out guys who switched positions or played hybrid roles)

1. Larry Brown (10.80)

2. Jim Brown (9.98)

3. Marshall Faulk (9.93)

4. Joe Cribbs (9.90)

5. Thurman Thomas (9.86)

Note: of the 40 backs to make the cut, Watters ranks 10th, Payton 12th, Jamaal Charles 15th, Craig 16th, Peterson 26th, Sanders 30th, Tomlinson 36th, and Smith unsurprisingly finishes dead last.

*It's not often a name comes up on these lists that causes me to draw a total blank. Andrews entered the league at age 24, ranked 8th, 2nd, 3rd, and 2nd in fantasy over his age 25-28 seasons, and was a yards-from-scrimmage machine for the Atlanta Falcons from 1980-1983, ranking 4th, 1st, 2nd, and 2nd in the NFL over that span. He destroyed his knee before his age-29 season, sat out of the league for a couple of years, only to resurface as a hybrid TE for a single season at age 31. He is still Atlanta's all-time leader in yards from scrimmage. Roddy White passed him as Atlanta's all-time yards from scrimmage leader in week 16 of 2012.

 

[gianmarco]

Good stuff.

When we're going back and forth about the top 2 guys on the value list, it's really splitting hairs. Just makes you appreciate just how exceptional they were. I look forward to seeing where Peterson ends up on the list when his career is over.

 

[Adam Harstad]

In reviewing the numbers, I notice that PFR isn't handling Dickerson's data correctly, most likely due to the mid-season trade in 1987. Pulling his stats out by hand, I think he might have the best case just by the numbers. The fumble totals are insane, though that was partly an era thing (not totally- Dickerson fumbled a ton even for his era). The TD totals were lower, but that's a usage thing. Dickerson played just 6 seasons (entered the league at 23 instead of 22), but in those six seasons he averaged 126.0 yards per game, led the league in yards from scrimmage four times, was a first-team AP All Pro five times, was ORoY and OPoY, set the (still standing) single-season rushing record, and probably would have earned MVP in 1984 if not for some dude named Dan Marino having a pretty decent year, too. And he never played on a single top-10 offense during that span, so he avoids the "supporting cast" argument.

 

[BoltNlava]

Last I checked td's matter. If you have money you use it. LT was money.

 

[12punch]

Peterson destroys tomlinson

#realtalk

/thread

 

[Adam Harstad]

Last I checked td's matter. If you have money you use it. LT was money.

There are 44 RBs with at least 50 carries inside the 5 yard line since 2002. Of those 44 backs, Tomlinson ranks 12th in the percentage of carries that produced a first down or a touchdown, with 47.0%. Peterson actually ranks 9th (48.5%).

From age 22-28, Tomlinson rushed for 17.3% more touchdowns per game than Adrian Peterson. From age 22-28, Tomlinson's Chargers ran 15.0% more offensive plays inside the 5 yard line than Peterson's Vikings. Feel free to draw your own conclusions from those two numbers.

 

[Heatman]

This:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc5VWk6VtDI