Page 1 of 2
NFL Top 100 - No Peterson
Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 12:05 am
by VikeFanInEagleLand
C'mon Man! They put 12 Running Backs on the list of All-Time Top 100 Players. Granted, every running back on the list is great, but to not put Peterson on is absurd. After this year (maybe after this week's game) Peterson will be 5th among All-Time rushing yards. He missed the single season rushing record by 9 yards AND that came the year after he tore his ACL & MCL...a season where any normal man wouldn't have even played. His running style was brutal and had breakaway speed. Oh yeah...he's still playing at age 34 with a chance at another 1000 yard rushing year to follow up his 1042 from last year.
Like I said, I don't want to take anything away from the guys that made the list, but for example, Earl Campbell but not Peterson?
Re: NFL Top 100 - No Peterson
Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:25 am
by fiestavike
VikeFanInEagleLand wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2019 12:05 am
C'mon Man! They put 12 Running Backs on the list of All-Time Top 100 Players. Granted, every running back on the list is great, but to not put Peterson on is absurd. After this year (maybe after this week's game) Peterson will be 5th among All-Time rushing yards. He missed the single season rushing record by 9 yards AND that came the year after he tore his ACL & MCL...a season where any normal man wouldn't have even played. His running style was brutal and had breakaway speed. Oh yeah...he's still playing at age 34 with a chance at another 1000 yard rushing year to follow up his 1042 from last year.
Like I said, I don't want to take anything away from the guys that made the list, but for example, Earl Campbell but not Peterson?
I'd take Earl Campbell 100 times out of 100 over Peterson.
Re: NFL Top 100 - No Peterson
Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:52 am
by Pondering Her Percy
I mean Lenny Moore over Adrian Peterson? Come on. Emmitt Smith was the "youngest" RB on the entire list and he hasnt played since '04. The fact that AP entered the league when the league started becoming more pass heavy and did what he did, he 110% deserves to be on that list.
Re: NFL Top 100 - No Peterson
Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 11:05 am
by VikeFanInEagleLand
fiestavike wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:25 am
VikeFanInEagleLand wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2019 12:05 am
C'mon Man! They put 12 Running Backs on the list of All-Time Top 100 Players. Granted, every running back on the list is great, but to not put Peterson on is absurd. After this year (maybe after this week's game) Peterson will be 5th among All-Time rushing yards. He missed the single season rushing record by 9 yards AND that came the year after he tore his ACL & MCL...a season where any normal man wouldn't have even played. His running style was brutal and had breakaway speed. Oh yeah...he's still playing at age 34 with a chance at another 1000 yard rushing year to follow up his 1042 from last year.
Like I said, I don't want to take anything away from the guys that made the list, but for example, Earl Campbell but not Peterson?
I'd take Earl Campbell 100 times out of 100 over Peterson.
Great running back for sure, but he played only 9 years and rushed for 1000 yards in five of them. In Petersons first 9 years, he rushed for over 1000 in seven of them (2000 in 2012), and his 970 in 2011 was only cut short because of the MCL/ACL injury. He's still going and may add another 1000 year this year after having one last year. Campbell averaged 4.3 yrd per carry and Peterson is averaging 4.7 in a much longer career. So again, I'd take Peterson is heartbeat.
Re: NFL Top 100 - No Peterson
Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 11:36 am
by StumpHunter
Does the list not include active players?
AP transcended whatever offense he played in in his prime. Still does at times. I can't say the same for the RBs on that list, but I can say if you put 2012 AP on any team, he runs for 2000+ yards. It did not matter who was blocking for him or who is QB was, AP was going to break 1K yards that season. Is that true for Emmet Smith?
Re: NFL Top 100 - No Peterson
Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 11:55 am
by VikeFanInEagleLand
Yeah that's thing with Emmitt. He ran behind arguably one of the best OL's ever. But I understand if you are the All-Time leading rusher, you're going to make any list like this. I've only seen the Running Backs, but I do know that they are also putting 12 coaches on the list and Belichick was the second one put on.
Re: NFL Top 100 - No Peterson
Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 12:35 pm
by VikeFanInEagleLand
Btw, of the Top 10 All-Time Leading Rushers, only Barry Sanders has a higher Yds Per Carry Avg of 5.0.
Of the 12 Running Backs that were on the list, seven of these had a Yds Per Carry over 4.5. They are:
Marion Motley 5.7 - 8 Years
Jim Brown 5.0 - 10 Years
Barry Sanders 5.0 - 10 Years
Gale Sayers 5.0 - 7 Years
Lenny Moore 4.8 - 12 Years
O.J. Simpson 4.7 - 11 Years
Dutch Clark 4.6 - 7 Years
As a note, after Petersons 7th year, he was at 5.0 so would essentially be there with Sayers.
Adrian Peterson 4.7 - 13 Years
Re: NFL Top 100 - No Peterson
Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 12:58 pm
by Bowhunting Viking
My buddies and I have had the Emmitt conversations many times. If Barry Sanders would have had the O lines that Emmitt was blessed enough to have ran behind, and wouldn't have retired early and played as long as Emmitt did, he more than likely would have put up a yardage total that nobody would probably ever get close to.
Sweetness had some decent lines for part of his career also.
I'm not trying to say that Emmitt wasn't a great RB, but IMO, and so many of my friends with the exception of one who is a die hard Cowgirl fan ... we intelligent fans think its due to having his head scrunched with forceps during delivery.. Emmitt was nowhere near the back that Sanders and Sweetness were.
I had the privilege of seeing Barry play 5 times in the old Silverdome against the Vikes. We live in NW Ohio so until my 40th birthday present of seeing the Vikes play at home, we went to Detroit to see them.
I remember the 1 yr we sat in the end zone sections. We had the ball first and went 3 and out and punted. We pinned them back on about the 7 or 8 yrs line. Before the first play the crowd was chanting Barry Barry and waving the Barry signs. My wife said "What are they yelling?" I said " Barry" . She said Why? Then I pointed and said "Right there is why!" First play .. me made a cut at the line and outran the whole Vikes D for the 1st score of the game. Lol. She said Wow that guy is Fast!!
He was an amazing thing to witness live.
Emmitt is VERY lucky to have had the lines to run behind that he did because in my book , he may have the record , but he wasnt the best. He even said himself when asked that Sweetness was the best to him.
I also can't even begin to imagine what Jim Brown would have done if he would have played a full career himself.
Re: NFL Top 100 - No Peterson
Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 1:01 pm
by Bowhunting Viking
P.S. I also wish Gale Sayers would not have been cursed with the knee injuries, or would have had the medical technology available to him then that players do now. If Dr. James Andrews just coulda been able to work on him. Such a shame
Re: NFL Top 100 - No Peterson
Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 1:45 pm
by J. Kapp 11
I find it a bit surprising that AP is left off this list.
Marion Motley? He was simply bigger than everybody he was playing against, including his own offensive line. Dutch Clark? That's a nod to history ... the NFL was barely a league when he played. If they're gonna have Dutch Clark on this team, then what about Bronco Nagurski or Red Grange? I've read a lot of football history, and to me, they had far more of an impact on the NFL's early days than Dutch Clark.
It's also interesting that Sanders, Dickerson and Simpson all had 2,000-yard seasons and were included on the list, but AP, who had the second-most yards ever in a season, was left off. So were Jamal Lewis, Chris Johnson and Terrell Davis, the other 2,000-yard rushers. I can understand the exclusion of Lewis and Johnson. Nether were all that great over their entire careers. TD was a great back, a HOFer, but only for 6 years due to knee injuries. AP, at 33, rushed for 1,000 yards for a terrible Redskins team last year, and he has an outside chance of doing it again this year.
AP also has the 296-yard game to his credit. That was not only the most yardage gained by a RB in a game, but in my opinion was the single greatest game any player has ever played. I'll never forget that day. He was absolutely unstoppable.
Hard to believe he's not one of the 12 greatest RBs in NFL history.
Re: NFL Top 100 - No Peterson
Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 2:24 pm
by fiestavike
VikeFanInEagleLand wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2019 11:05 am
fiestavike wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:25 am
I'd take Earl Campbell 100 times out of 100 over Peterson.
Great running back for sure, but he played only 9 years and rushed for 1000 yards in five of them. In Petersons first 9 years, he rushed for over 1000 in seven of them (2000 in 2012), and his 970 in 2011 was only cut short because of the MCL/ACL injury. He's still going and may add another 1000 year this year after having one last year. Campbell averaged 4.3 yrd per carry and Peterson is averaging 4.7 in a much longer career. So again, I'd take Peterson is heartbeat.
Fair enough. I don't have a problem with making a case for Peterson, you just happened to choose Campbell as the particular example of who he might replace, and for my money Earl Campbell is the best RB to ever play football.
In the end, I'm sure my list would look radically different than whatever they are producing anyway, so I don't put much stock in it to begin with.
Re: NFL Top 100 - No Peterson
Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:14 pm
by CharVike
It's all opinion based. Jim Brown had 1500 yards in a 12 game season. Had an 83 yard TD reception. Plus he won an NFL championship. He was a monster and could take it the distance. He's an old timer that could play today. That's my No 1. Peterson one year suspension was probably on peoples minds that made the list. To me that shouldn't matter.
Re: NFL Top 100 - No Peterson
Posted: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:48 am
by Bowhunting Viking
CharVike wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:14 pm
It's all opinion based. Jim Brown had 1500 yards in a 12 game season. Had an 83 yard TD reception. Plus he won an NFL championship. He was a monster and could take it the distance. He's an old timer that could play today. That's my No 1. Peterson one year suspension was probably on peoples minds that made the list. To me that shouldn't matter.
Perfectly said. It truly is an opinion based topic. There are so many what ifs, and how each person views the RBs being discussed.
It also has alot to do with our age and wha eras we witnessed. Alot of the younger members on this board, and I'm not in that group anymore, didn't get to watch Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, Eric Dickerson, and hate to bring him up but O.J. , etc during careers. They just see the highlights that are shown to represent their play. Those of us that did remember so many more memories of plays than the plays shown on the highlight reels.
Conversely, talk to my dad, my uncle, my grandpa when he was still alive , those guys got to witness Jim Brown, and the unfortunate short career of Gale Sayers. My dad will rattle off RB after RB , all the way up to the current players, and he will tell you , definitively, that to him Jim Brown was the baddest RB to ever play. He still laughs when he talks about how many defenders "just happened to slip and fall" or just make a half assed attempt and trying to tackle Brown.
I myself live to watch footage of Brown. That was a bad man. I would love to be able somehow transport him to this era, with all the fitness technology and the off season programs available today and see Brown in today's NFL. Can u imagine what that specimen of nature would be like today with all the technology at his disposal. He was a beast back then, I cant imagine what he would be today with his genetic make up and the benefit of the tools that are now available.
I guess the main thing is , as said, it does come down to personal opinions. But all these guys were very talented, amazing athletes with their own distinct styles. Its fun watching the amazing things that they all do.
And yes, A.P. also fits into that category. He is a an amazing physical talent, and I am glad that we were fortunate to have been the team who drafted him and that I was able to witness the amazing stuff he does. The guys poster still hangs in my Viking man cave, along side my Eller, Page and Tark posters from when I was a kid.
Re: NFL Top 100 - No Peterson
Posted: Fri Dec 13, 2019 8:20 am
by J. Kapp 11
CharVike wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:14 pm
It's all opinion based. Jim Brown had 1500 yards in a 12 game season. Had an 83 yard TD reception. Plus he won an NFL championship. He was a monster and could take it the distance. He's an old timer that could play today. That's my No 1. Peterson one year suspension was probably on peoples minds that made the list. To me that shouldn't matter.
I don't think anybody has an issue with Jim Brown's inclusion. I look at it this way. In 2009, AP had a monster run against Cleveland where he stiff armed one guy, then threw another guy out of bounds on his way to a 64-yard TD. We all marveled at that run. Jim Brown did that on a regular basis.
As for Brown's 1,500 yards in a 12-game season ... that's a monster year. But AP had 1,785 yards in the final 12 games of 2012. That's 148 yards per game which is unheard of in the NFL. It's nearly a 2,400-yard pace for a full season. The fact that it came on the heels of such a devastating injury in the second-to-last game of 2011 is the stuff of legend.
Re: NFL Top 100 - No Peterson
Posted: Fri Dec 13, 2019 11:40 am
by CanUDiggsIt?
AP was one of the most talented RB's the NFL has ever seen. He has put up HOF numbers behind mostly a putrid OL his entire career. Emmitt Smith ran behind the greatest OL of all time, and AP STILL has the better yards per carry average in a "PASSING LEAGUE".
Let that sink in...
There is no doubt in my mind that Peterson should be on this list, not ahead of Smith (was using him as reference) but definitely ahead of guys like Earl Campbell.