Does Adrian Peterson Have an Above Average Injury Risk? (1 Viewer)

[LHUCKS]

So just out of curiosity, how far down do you bump him based on his injury risk? Do you put SJackson ahead of him? Addai? Westbrook or Portis? Of those that I mentioned, which ones are not injury prone? Every one of them has missed significant playing time in their career. I guess my point is that injuries come with the position. IMO, Peterson's potential far outweighs the injury risk.

Yeah, I don't know that you necessarily need to rank him much differently, because like most I play to win and tend to draft upside in the head to head formats. To answer your question, Jackson is the only player I may consider ranking ahead of Peterson, but I'm not finished with my projections/rankings so it's hard for me to say right now.I think it may come more into play in terms of drafting a 2nd or 3rd RB earlier than you would normally have had you selected a "low risk" back...or in this case ensuring that you handcuff Peterson with Chester.

 

[suchislife]

So just out of curiosity, how far down do you bump him based on his injury risk? Do you put SJackson ahead of him? Addai? Westbrook or Portis? Of those that I mentioned, which ones are not injury prone? Every one of them has missed significant playing time in their career. I guess my point is that injuries come with the position. IMO, Peterson's potential far outweighs the injury risk.

Yeah, I don't know that you necessarily need to rank him much differently, because like most I play to win and tend to draft upside in the head to head formats. To answer your question, Jackson is the only player I may consider ranking ahead of Peterson, but I'm not finished with my projections/rankings so it's hard for me to say right now.I think it may come more into play in terms of drafting a 2nd or 3rd RB earlier than you would normally have had you selected a "low risk" back...or in this case ensuring that you handcuff Peterson with Chester.

But wouldn't you say that the "average" RB tends to miss time each season? Particularly the workhorse RB's? In that regard, I wouldn't consider Peterson to be an above average risk. I think the ones who don't miss time are the exception rather than the norm.

 

[LHUCKS]

But wouldn't you say that the "average" RB tends to miss time each season?

Of course, it becomes a matter of relative risk...this thread is speaking to several topics, one of which is Peterson's risk relative to other starting backs.

 

[Jason Wood]

I've read a lot of arguments about injury risk and how past history is no indication of future performance. But I can't help but worry about RBs, in particular. The take such a cumulative pounding that I don't see how there isn't some kind of compounding effect of each successive injury. Perhaps Peterson has just had bad luck, but that doesn't mean he's not that much more beaten up now than other backs his age. Does that mean he's more likely to get hurt in the future? I don't know if there's a statistical way to quantify that either way; but it concerns me. I'm less concerned about this notion about his running style. How many HOF-caliber NFL backs didn't invite contact? Honestly, that's par for the course of being a great runner.

Is there anything behind body type? Compact runners like CuMar, LT and Emmit seem to last longer. There are not a lot of backs with Peterson's frame running for ten years, or even running at all for that matter. I'm not saying he's going to get injured, but the argument that his fantasy value should be altered due to a perceived injury risk is one worth addressing IMHO.

LHUCKS...I think body type plays a role, sure. But as you know it's awfully hard to put any weight behind that assertion because, to my knowledge, we've not had any published studies that look to isolate body type in relation to the other factors that impact an NFL running back. As to your assertion that his body type hasn't had much success...I'm not sure I buy into that, though.He's 6'2", 217 pounds...*** Dickerson was 6'3", 220*** Marcus Allen was 6'2", 210*** O.J. Simpson was 6'2", 212I'd say those guys did alright for themselves. And looking back at pictures from their playing days, they looked similar to Peterson. Their height made it seem like they had skinny legs; but the reality is they just had longer torsos, their legs were still powerful and compact.

Oh, I definitely agree there are exceptions to the rule...I'm just wondering if you handicap these "unique" body types in terms of taking into account a perceived increased risk of injury.

I would if I had some way to quantify the impact; but without it, how can I? And to be honest, if you take a look at the RBs in the Hall of Fame, the body types are pretty far reaching. The three guys I mentioned are all top 10 backs all-time in most people's estimation; so I hardly think we can dismiss that as mere exceptions to the rule. Any back achieving those numbers with ANY body type is an exception to the rule.

 

[doomsdaydoc]

I voted yes because after watching the SD-Minn game it is clear that he runs with reckless abandon and hates to go out of bounds. These are some of the qualities that will lead to success but might also lead to injury. He is an amazing talent and is probably the best RB in the NFL right now. I would still draft him in the first couple of picks and keep my fingers crossed. The upside is staggering.

 

[gregjcross]

I've read a lot of arguments about injury risk and how past history is no indication of future performance. But I can't help but worry about RBs, in particular. The take such a cumulative pounding that I don't see how there isn't some kind of compounding effect of each successive injury. Perhaps Peterson has just had bad luck, but that doesn't mean he's not that much more beaten up now than other backs his age. Does that mean he's more likely to get hurt in the future? I don't know if there's a statistical way to quantify that either way; but it concerns me. I'm less concerned about this notion about his running style. How many HOF-caliber NFL backs didn't invite contact? Honestly, that's par for the course of being a great runner.

Is there anything behind body type? Compact runners like CuMar, LT and Emmit seem to last longer. There are not a lot of backs with Peterson's frame running for ten years, or even running at all for that matter. I'm not saying he's going to get injured, but the argument that his fantasy value should be altered due to a perceived injury risk is one worth addressing IMHO.

LHUCKS...I think body type plays a role, sure. But as you know it's awfully hard to put any weight behind that assertion because, to my knowledge, we've not had any published studies that look to isolate body type in relation to the other factors that impact an NFL running back. As to your assertion that his body type hasn't had much success...I'm not sure I buy into that, though.He's 6'2", 217 pounds...*** Dickerson was 6'3", 220*** Marcus Allen was 6'2", 210*** O.J. Simpson was 6'2", 212I'd say those guys did alright for themselves. And looking back at pictures from their playing days, they looked similar to Peterson. Their height made it seem like they had skinny legs; but the reality is they just had longer torsos, their legs were still powerful and compact.

Oh, I definitely agree there are exceptions to the rule...I'm just wondering if you handicap these "unique" body types in terms of taking into account a perceived increased risk of injury.

I think he is a little more than average but I dont think it should scare anyone off of drafting him. Look at Frank Gore, Willis McGahee and Terry Allen, they all suffered tons of injuries and went on to solid fantasy production. Marshall Faulk was getting banged around at the beginning of his career too. No less than ADP.