Packers Have “Some” Interest In Bringing Adrian Peterson In For Visit, Likely To Wait Until After Dr

[C-Lee]

http://nfltraderumors.co/packers-interest-bringing-adrian-peterson-visit-likely-wait-draft/

I don't know guys... it's kind of intriguing....

 

[swhitset]

http://nfltraderumors.co/packers-interest-bringing-adrian-peterson-visit-likely-wait-draft/

I don't know guys... it's kind of intriguing....

"
In 2016, Peterson has rushed for 72 yards on 37 carries (1.9 YPC) to go along with three receptions for eight yards receiving and no touchdowns over the course of three games. "


enough said.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

In addition he's a terrible fit in the Packers offense as he struggles with the quarterback lined up in the shotgun.

 

[PikeBadger]

http://nfltraderumors.co/packers-interest-bringing-adrian-peterson-visit-likely-wait-draft/

I don't know guys... it's kind of intriguing....

Not to take anything away from Peterson who's obviously had a fabulous career but I just don't see him as a good fit in our offense.

 

[Djepacker]

Too bad we wouldn't have Lang or Sitton to block for him...That would've made too much sense!!!

 

[PikeBadger]

Too bad we wouldn't have Lang or Sitton to block for him...That would've made too much sense!!!

Yeah, we could change the entire offensive philosophy and turn into a running team I suppose. Trade Rodgers for defenders and draft picks and move in that direction. That would be interesting.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Not to take anything away from Peterson who's obviously had a fabulous career but I just don't see him as a good fit in our offense.

Both Sitton and Lang mostly excelled in pass protection. The Packers offense isn't predicated around the running game and changing the scheme to accomodatt a 32 year old running back doesn't make any sense.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

"
In 2016, Peterson has rushed for 72 yards on 37 carries (1.9 YPC) to go along with three receptions for eight yards receiving and no touchdowns over the course of three games. "


enough said.

He was playing on an injured knee... with no qb.

 

[Vince Lombardi]

He was playing on an injured knee... with no qb.

and a terrible offensive line........

Not sure he would be a good fit but I wouldn't use last year as proof he is finished.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

and a terrible offensive line........

Not sure he would be a good fit but I wouldn't use last year as proof he is finished.

The Packers don't have an elite run blocking offensive line either.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The Packers don't have an elite run blocking offensive line either.

Nor do they run or should try to run an offense designed around a RB like Peterson.

Only way I see Peterson in GB is come September, he is unemployed and the Packers due to injuries or lack of performance are out of other viable options.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

LOL.....

Quote of the day concerning Adrian Peterson:

"Somebody needs to step up and sign this guy, or else the Patriots will sign him to the league minimum and he will rush for 2,000 yards and 25 touchdowns."

http://www.behindthesteelcurtain.co...d-falling-after-the-first-wave-of-free-agency

 

[PackAttack12]

For all the talk of Peterson doesn't fit into our system and what not, if he's even 70-80% of what he was not long ago, I think we'll find a way to figure it out.

Production from the running back position, or lack thereof, is essentially the only thing holding this offense back from being absolutely unstoppable.

 

[C-Lee]

How was the offense when the Queens had Favre? I know he played really well that year, but how about overall? That's like the only time AP has played with a good QB.....

If AP is willing to be a team player, I don't understand why this wouldn't work. Teams would respect our run game, and I believe it was Rodell who said it, but our play action would be lethal.

 

[broguy]

I don't think football players need to be perfect role models. That's not what they're paid for, and that's not why I root for them. That being said, I'd prefer not to have someone on our team who has physically abused his child. I hope we don't sign him, and I won't root for him if we do.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

Nor do they run or should try to run an offense designed around a RB like Peterson.

Only way I see Peterson in GB is come September, he is unemployed and the Packers due to injuries or lack of performance are out of other viable options.

What on earth would make anyone think we would design the offense around Peterson? In my mind he is a one man running game....

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

What on earth would make anyone think we would design the offense around Peterson? In my mind he is a one man running game....

Hmmmm......you have a "one man passing game" player on offense with AR, teamed with an offensive line that is proficient in pass blocking and average in run blocking and you want to mix in a 32 year old "one man running game" player with AP....and you don't see a problem? Now if you told me AR was going to get hurt and Brett Hundley was going to be the Packer QB, I possibly see the need, even despite not having a great run blocking O-Line.

The Packers need a complimentary back to their Passing game, one that is effective when being asked to run, block or receive out of the shotgun/pistol formation, AP isn't that guy.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

For all the talk of Peterson doesn't fit into our system and what not, if he's even 70-80% of what he was not long ago, I think we'll find a way to figure it out.

Production from the running back position, or lack thereof, is essentially the only thing holding this offense back from being absolutely unstoppable.

The Packers would have to change their offensive philosophy for Peterson to be successful. There's no reason to even think about it.

How was the offense when the Queens had Favre? I know he played really well that year, but how about overall? That's like the only time AP has played with a good QB.....

If AP is willing to be a team player, I don't understand why this wouldn't work. Teams would respect our run game, and I believe it was Rodell who said it, but our play action would be lethal.

While the Vikings finished second in points scored during the 2009 season that doesn't change the fact that Peterson isn't a fit for the Packers offense and that success happened eight years ago.

 

[PackAttack12]

The Packers would have to change their offensive philosophy for Peterson to be successful. There's no reason to even think about it.

So we won't be in shotgun near as much on 1st and 2nd downs. I don't think that's the end of the world. We now have two legit pass catching tightends and we obviously know what we have on the outside.

Double TE formations with AP in the backfield? I could only imagine how many huge plays AR would make on play action down the field. In my opinion, if some are looking for the explosiveness to return to this offense, some of the 70 yard bombs that we used to see, put AP in the backfield if he's still able to do comparable things to what he used to.

Signing him doesn't mean he has to be a three down back and it doesn't mean he even has to be our shotgun back. I think a Montgomery/Peterson combo would be lethal. Even 10-15 touches in the backfield would give this offense a weapon they haven't had basically the entire time Rodgers has been under center. And I honestly think 10-15 touches, 18 at the most is a reasonable number considering his age anyway.

I really don't see the problem.

 

[C-Lee]

While the Vikings finished second in points scored during the 2009 season that doesn't change the fact that Peterson isn't a fit for the Packers offense and that success happened eight years ago.

I don't think we need AP at all, but he's a physical freak and was the rushing leader just 2 seasons ago. It's an intriguing idea, that's all I'm trying to say.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

So we won't be in shotgun near as much on 1st and 2nd downs. I don't think that's the end of the world. We now have two legit pass catching tightends and we obviously know what we have on the outside.

Double TE formations with AP in the backfield? I could only imagine how many huge plays AR would make on play action down the field. In my opinion, if some are looking for the explosiveness to return to this offense, some of the 70 yard bombs that we used to see, put AP in the backfield if he's still able to do comparable things to what he used to.

Signing him doesn't mean he has to be a three down back and it doesn't mean he even has to be our shotgun back. I think a Montgomery/Peterson combo would be lethal. Even 10-15 touches in the backfield would give this offense a weapon they haven't had basically the entire time Rodgers has been under center. And I honestly think 10-15 touches, 18 at the most is a reasonable number considering his age anyway.

I really don't see the problem.

The problem being that there's absolutely no reason to adjust the offensive scheme to accomodate a 32 year old running back while having the best quarterback in the league.

It's an intriguing idea, that's all I'm trying to say.

I vehemently disagree it's an intriguing idea.

 

[GBkrzygrl]

Not interested.

 

[Arthur Squires]

Personally I say save the money and draft 1 of these young stud RBs. Save the money to help sign FAs next year as in Dix, Burnett, Adams, Linsley and Taylor

 

[C-Lee]

vehemently .

Great word

 

[RRyder]

There's alot of "if we can get even just 70 or 80 percent of what AP used to be" and "2 years ago he did this" and "last year he played with no QB and a bad Oline" type of talk.

There is no 70-80% for a past their prime RB. They hit that wall hard and they hit it fast. There is not a gradual decline at the position. It's a steep drop off a cliff. Remember that also for those bringing up what he did two years ago.

But more importantly. When did our Oline get good at run blocking?