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

Status
Not open for further replies.

PackerDNA

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 8, 2014
Messages
6,428
Reaction score
1,499
No for me . He's at the point of diminishing returns, both with age and injuries.
And as RRyder pointed out, when a RB loses it, it's usually not gradual, it's BAM!- you're done.
 

fistfullofbeer

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
46
Reaction score
0
Location
Whidbey Island, WA
No interest in AP. I am actually fine rolling with Montgomery and Michael. We are still a pass 1st team and the running game is going to be more of a change-up anyway.
 

PackerDNA

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 8, 2014
Messages
6,428
Reaction score
1,499
Still wouldn't hurt to have a legit threat at RB.
This team still has no identity; what are they, what do they want to be.
 

PackAttack12

R-E-L-A-X
Joined
Sep 16, 2016
Messages
6,499
Reaction score
2,157
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.
I understand the point you're making, but lets not forget that Rodgers isn't getting any younger either. I don't think it's a terrible idea to take some of the pressure off of Rodgers to be the all time great generational talent that we all know him to be every time he steps onto the field.

This isn't a suggestion to take the ball out of Rodgers' hands. It's a suggestion to make him more effective. Imagine if Rodgers had a legit back that could gain the attention of opposing defenses by drawing the box closer to the line of scrimmage, and let Rodgers use his rollout ability in playaction/misdirection and take some shots down the field either rolling to his left or to his right, or even standing still in the pocket.

Just the threat of having a healthy/productive Peterson in the backfield would likely result in Rodgers throwing up an even better season than the one that he had in 2011.

Again, the suggestion isn't to take the ball out of Rodgers' hands.

I'm trying to make this offense more difficult to defend. Not ensure that Rodgers continues throwing the ball at the rate he had to throw it last year.

The Patriots change their run/pass dynamics all the time. Yes it's the same system, but different gameplans depending upon the personnel. That's why the Patriots are so good. They can adjust from year to year.

If we can get one great year out of Peterson and have a chance to win a Super Bowl, sign me up. We'll worry about 2018 when it gets here. The NFL is a win now league, especially when you have a 33 year old Aaron Rodgers that has only been able to get you one Super Bowl, in no small part due to maintaining the status quo.

The risk v.s. potential reward in this instance I feel like is too great to ignore. JMO.
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
13,772
Reaction score
4,801
Sign AP and drafting a RB is not a must, and would allow TT to not HAVE to grab one. Ty, Michael, Jackson and AP more than capable in our pass first offense.
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
13,772
Reaction score
4,801
However that said ^^^ I am 100% not for it as he will garner more than he should.
 

GreenBaySlacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
3,008
Reaction score
184
tired of the injured knee excuse.... he played in two games before getting injured the first time and looked terrible in both.
Considering 37 carries is usually a one game work load for Peterson without a qb... my point, exaggerated as it may be, is that his carries per game would say otherwise.

It seems loopy to me to judge one of the best conditioned athletes to ever play the game of football, on the fact he just turned 32 and had bad stats for 37 snaps. Some of which were while injured. Again , with no qb, crappy wrs and as someone pointed out, a injured line...
 

swhitset

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 28, 2015
Messages
4,350
Reaction score
1,217
Considering 37 carries is usually a one game work load for Peterson without a qb... my point, exaggerated as it may be, is that his carries per game would say otherwise.

It seems loopy to me to judge one of the best conditioned athletes to ever play the game of football, on the fact he just turned 32 and had bad stats for 37 snaps. Some of which were while injured. Again , with no qb, crappy wrs and as someone pointed out, a injured line...
It seems equally loopy to me to have such a devotion to a player based on the fact that he was once a great player. He is a running back..... it has been stated enough times already... when they are done... they are done. It is something you can see pretty easily. I remember watching him last year.... I said to myself in his first two games he looked done then. I thought the same thing about Starks last year... it is something you can see. When Petersen was great.... you could see that too. You believe he still has it. I do not. He has not been signed yet... I would guess many GMs are fearful that I am correct.
 

RRyder

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Messages
1,775
Reaction score
183
Still wouldn't hurt to have a legit threat at RB.
This team still has no identity; what are they, what do they want to be.

Not sure what you mean about the identity. Seems pretty obvious to me they're a pass 1st team. If anything it needs to be toned back from the "big play" down to a more traditional west coast scheme.

But yeah it definitely wouldn't hurt to add another legit RB. I'd actually be very tempted to draft Cook (he's the ONLY back I'd draft in RD1), should he fall, even despite the concerns on D
 

PackerDNA

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 8, 2014
Messages
6,428
Reaction score
1,499
Not sure what you mean about the identity. Seems pretty obvious to me they're a pass 1st team. If anything it needs to be toned back from the "big play" down to a more traditional west coast scheme.

But yeah it definitely wouldn't hurt to add another legit RB. I'd actually very tempted to draft Cook (he's the ONLY back I'd draft in RD1), should he fall, even despite the concerns on D

Do we want to run better, or forget it about it? Such as Seattle's identity was physical and strong defense, etc- along those lines. This team is about Rodgers; that's not a team identity.
As for Cook; I look over a lot of mock drafts, and he's all over the boards. I doubt we'd get a shot at him, but with a run on a position or some surprise picks, who knows?
 

GreenBaySlacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
3,008
Reaction score
184
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.
10 guys dedicated to the passing game. Only one to give us a respectable run game imo. Even on the down slide, as everyone has so adamantly declared. Peterson is motivated every run. Dedicated to the season. He knows how to hit the defense where it hurts.

I think Peterson's stature alone will keep defenses more honest than lacy ever did... I also firmly believe he will come out looking like 30 year old Peterson , than the injured 31 year old Peterson. And open up the field for #12 and those 4 receivers of his...
 

RRyder

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Messages
1,775
Reaction score
183
Do we want to run better, or forget it about it? Such as Seattle's identity was physical and strong defense, etc- along those lines. This team is about Rodgers; that's not a team identity.
As for Cook; I look over a lot of mock drafts, and he's all over the boards. I doubt we'd get a shot at him, but with a run on a position or some surprise picks, who knows?

Well I'd say they need to be more efficient and nobody should forget about it. We're on different lines about what an identity entails. We're a pass first offense. A big play stretch the field on the outside of the hash marks type of offense.

Your simplifying that to just Rodgers. I get that. I just cant go that far as theres way more then enough talent on offense and it's not just Rodgers. I mean the only "holes" on offense within the starting lineup are RG, a position I would consider the 2nd to least important position on the field outside of FB and possibly/probably RB. (Depending on how one feels about Monty)

I guess I'm asking if you think it's scheme or talent with what your referencing cause to me it seems like your talking of scheme more then available talent
 

GreenBaySlacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
3,008
Reaction score
184
It seems equally loopy to me to have such a devotion to a player based on the fact that he was once a great player. He is a running back..... it has been stated enough times already... when they are done... they are done. It is something you can see pretty easily. I remember watching him last year.... I said to myself in his first two games he looked done then. I thought the same thing about Starks last year... it is something you can see. When Petersen was great.... you could see that too. You believe he still has it. I do not. He has not been signed yet... I would guess many GMs are fearful that I am correct.
You realize this is the man who had his knee turned inside out and 8 months later rushed for 2097 yds...... like I have been saying since day one. You simply do not underestimate a person with that sort of will power. If he is playing, he will be great. He knows when it's over. GMs simply value good rbs at $5mil, and Peterson still wants 10!!! What does that tell you about how Peterson is feeling? He could have a couple years left. He has always been physically superior. It's because he works harder than everyone...
 

swhitset

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 28, 2015
Messages
4,350
Reaction score
1,217
You realize this is the man who had his knee turned inside out and 8 months later rushed for 2097 yds...... like I have been saying since day one. You simply do not underestimate a person with that sort of will power. If he is playing, he will be great. He knows when it's over. GMs simply value good rbs at $5mil, and Peterson still wants 10!!! What does that tell you about how Peterson is feeling? He could have a couple years left. He has always been physically superior. It's because he works harder than everyone...
Jerry Rice is widely considered the best wide receiver to ever play the game. He was also known to be one of the most motivated and hardest workers. When he was done... he did not want to let go easily... but when he had lost it it it was obvious. It was rather sad watching him try to get a job at the end and seeing no GMs willing to sign him.
 

GreenBaySlacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
3,008
Reaction score
184
Jerry Rice is widely considered the best wide receiver to ever play the game. He was also known to be one of the most motivated and hardest workers. When he was done... he did not want to let go easily... but when he had lost it it it was obvious. It was rather sad watching him try to get a job at the end and seeing no GMs willing to sign him.
Rice was 42.......... Peterson is just turn g 32.
 

GreenBaySlacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
3,008
Reaction score
184
I think Ted still holding 21mil cap space is a good indicator he is saving for something... he let lacy go... Ted has watched Peterson for a decade. He knows the potential....
The idea that teams are waiting for doctor to give thumbs up first, seems like a logical reason he is still on the fa list.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
14,262
Reaction score
5,661
its gonna be tough for Adrian to live on $300 per week if we sign him. Unless they let him sleep at Don Hutson facility for free?
I'd charge him rent
Ok I'm being sarcastic but guys..he's just not worth chancing more than the rookie minimum.. and he's clearly surpassed "rookie".
Maybe we could resign Flynn and then trade him for AP
 
Last edited:

RRyder

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Messages
1,775
Reaction score
183
Rice was 42.......... Peterson is just turn g 32.

And in RB years that puts AP at right about 55.

Your really holding onto what he was. He was done before he got injured last year. Another year aged and another injury for a player that plays a position where productivity falls off a cliff isn't negated by "willpower"

Father Time..... Still undefeated
 

Raptorman

Vikings fan since 1966.
Joined
Sep 1, 2006
Messages
3,168
Reaction score
438
Location
Vero Beach, FL
its gonna be tough for Adrian to live on $300 per week if we sign him. Unless they let him sleep at Don Hutson facility for free?
I'd charge him rent
Ok I'm being sarcastic but guys..he's just not worth chancing more than the rookie minimum.. and he's clearly surpassed "rookie".
Maybe we could resign Flynn and then trade him for AP

Trade him to whom?
 

GreenBaySlacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
3,008
Reaction score
184
Frank gore is two years older than Peterson......

I just read that John riggins had his best two season of his career at 34 and 35years old.
Seems like if he had listened to you guys, he never would have got his last 62 TDs, that he got from age 32 on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Latest posts

Top