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

[GreenBaySlacker]

Well, the Vikings started Christian Ponder for every single game during Peterson's dominant season in 2012.

In 2012 Peterson was in a league of his own. He was breaking off 60, 70, 80 yr chunks consistently that year... best season by a rb that I ever seen. And to think he turned his knee inside out less than a year earlier. If I didn't see it with my own eyes. Unbelievable.
Barry had the best career though imo.

 

[selimcan]

Peterson has a lot of football in him imo. After letting Lacy go we'll make use of a real RB. We would be lucky to have him but it seems to be long shot.

 

[Quientus]

Don't really get why so many think AD is "washed up" ... - Yes he is over 30, however, there is No denying he is a physical prodigy ... Vikings o-Line is/was inferior to the Packers. And the argument "AD doesn't fit the Packers Scheme" doesn't hold much merit either imo ...

An AD playing with a chip on his shoulder would bring a lot to the Packers offense, and most likely would create alot of space for the WR's - not to mention Rodgers ...

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Don't really get why so many think AD is "washed up" ... - Yes he is over 30, however, there is No denying he is a physical prodigy ... Vikings o-Line is/was inferior to the Packers. And the argument "AD doesn't fit the Packers Scheme" doesn't hold much merit either imo ...

An AD playing with a chip on his shoulder would bring a lot to the Packers offense, and most likely would create alot of space for the WR's - not to mention Rodgers ...

The Packers offensive line isn't any better than the Vikings' one blocking for the run. In addition it's true that Peterson has struggled with the quarterback in the shotgun for most of his career.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

The Packers offensive line isn't any better than the Vikings' one blocking for the run. In addition it's true that Peterson has struggled with the quarterback in the shotgun for most of his career.

Agree.

Peterson is.....

32 years old.

Not a particularly good blocker.

Prone to fumble.

Not great as a pass-catcher.

A guy who won't contribute on special teams.


So.....why would Green Bay want him?

 

[Quientus]

The Packers offensive line isn't any better than the Vikings' one blocking for the run. In addition it's true that Peterson has struggled with the quarterback in the shotgun for most of his career.

Statistics for 2016 would suggest the Packers runblocking were alot better than the Vikings ... which incidently were what I said to begin with ...

Runblocking:

GB #19
Vikings #30

Pass protection

GB #11
Vikings #17

So what you said isn't entirely true ...

As for struggling with playing out of the gun ... well - besides 2 seasons most QBs AD has played with have been subpar ...

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Statistics for 2016 would suggest the Packers runblocking were alot better than the Vikings ... which incidently were what I said to begin with ...

Runblocking:

GB #19
Vikings #30

Pass protection

GB #11
Vikings #17

So what you said isn't entirely true ...

As for struggling with playing out of the gun ... well - besides 2 seasons most QBs AD has played with have been subpar ...

I have no idea where you have those numbers from but according to PFF the Packers offensive line struggled blocking for the run as the team's running backs averaged the fewest yards before contact in the entire league.

While it's true that Peterson has mostly played with subpar quarterbacks having an above average signal caller doesn't improve his performance with the passer in the shotgun.

 

[Quientus]

I have no idea where you have those numbers from but according to PFF the Packers offensive line struggled blocking for the run as the team's running backs averaged the fewest yards before contact in the entire league.

While it's true that Peterson has mostly played with subpar quarterbacks having an above average signal caller doesn't improve his performance with the passer in the shotgun.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol

Playing with a signal caller that the opponent defense respects makes the possibilities alot different though

 

[Deleted member 6794]

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol

Playing with a signal caller that the opponent defense respects makes the possibilities alot different though

While I mostly respect Football Outsiders I don't like their metric for offensive line success at all as it is way too dependent on the performance of a team's running backs.

 

[Quientus]

I have no idea where you have those numbers from but according to PFF the Packers offensive line struggled blocking for the run as the team's running backs averaged the fewest yards before contact in the entire league.

While it's true that Peterson has mostly played with subpar quarterbacks having an above average signal caller doesn't improve his performance with the passer in the shotgun.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-ranking-all-32-offensive-lines-this-season/

Even PFF had the Packers as #7 overall (5th in PB and 17th RB) compared to Vikings at #14 overall (16th PB and 7th RB) - Packers with some significant injuries though. And I'd wager with a legit RB of ADs caliber, those Numbers would have been better than 17th ...

 

[PackerDNA]

I noticed PFF's comment on the Packers Oline;"...spearheaded by one of the league's best interiors".
Not anymore. Thanks, Ted.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-ranking-all-32-offensive-lines-this-season/

Even PFF had the Packers as #7 overall (5th in PB and 17th RB) compared to Vikings at #14 overall (16th PB and 7th RB) - Packers with some significant injuries though. And I'd wager with a legit RB of ADs caliber, those Numbers would have been better than 17th ...

Well, the PFF rankings you posted were released before the start of the 2016 season and it has the Vikings offensive line as a better run blocking unit than the Packers', which is all I was arguing.

 

[dcanddinky]

Win. Now. Bring in Peterson and Sherman to add some vets and give us a real shot if they are healthy. Peppers played decent for an old man why not these guys

 

[Quientus]

Well, the PFF rankings you posted were released before the start of the 2016 season and it has the Vikings offensive line as a better run blocking unit than the Packers', which is all I was arguing.

Yes, that was before the season, and the Vikings o-Line turned out to be alot worse during the season, as their almost at the bottom ranking suggested - compared to the Packers, which were my point ...

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categoryst..._YARDS_PER_GAME_AVG&d-447263-o=1&d-447263-n=1

Again - The Packers offensive Line is leaps and bounds better than the Vikings ...

Or are you just arguing because you just don't like AD ?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Yes, that was before the season, and the Vikings o-Line turned out to be alot worse during the season, as their almost at the bottom ranking suggested - compared to the Packers, which were my point ...

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categoryst..._YARDS_PER_GAME_AVG&d-447263-o=1&d-447263-n=1

Again - The Packers offensive Line is leaps and bounds better than the Vikings ...

Or are you just arguing because you just don't like AD ?

Once again, the Packers offensive line is elite in pass protection and overall a superior unit compared to the Vikings'.

They don't excel blocking for the run though which is the only thing we were discussing about in the first place.

BTW I have no idea why you posted a link to a ranking based on yards per game allowed in 2016 as it has absolutely nothing to do with what we previously talked about.

 

[Quientus]

Once again, the Packers offensive line is elite in pass protection and overall a superior unit compared to the Vikings'.

They don't excel blocking for the run though which is the only thing we were discussing about in the first place.

BTW I have no idea why you posted a link to a ranking based on yards per game allowed in 2016 as it has absolutely nothing to do with what we previously talked about.

Just switch from defense to offense, and the Packers are still superior to the Vikings, who are dead last ...

Besides, I never said the Packers o-Line were top notch, just that they were vastly better than the Vikings, which was my initial contention, that you refuted ... /boggle

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Besides, I never said the Packers o-Line were top notch, just that they were vastly better than the Vikings, which was my initial contention, that you refuted ... /boggle

For the last time, overall the Packers offensive line is better than the Vikings but not blocking for the run. Take a look at the average number of yards before contact in 2016:

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

FWIW rushing yards per game isn't a great indicator of the line's performance, especially with the quarterback being the team's second best rusher.

 

[Quientus]

For the last time, overall the Packers offensive line is better than the Vikings but not blocking for the run. Take a look at the average number of yards before contact in 2016:

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

FWIW rushing yards per game isn't a great indicator of the line's performance, especially with the quarterback being the team's second best rusher.

For the last time; cherry-picking stats to try to underline your argument doesnt help either

The Vikings running backs are both better than what the Packers had during last season (2016)

By your argument the Browns had an elite offensive Line last season ...

Besides, the Vikings were only marginally better run blocking, and ONLY in the middle and to the Right ...

Context my friend ... is everything ...

Ex this is from october 2016:

https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/57od13/rushing_yards_before_contact_per_attempt_for_all/

At that point the Packers runblocking performed vastly better than the

Vikings despite having lesser talented RBs .... Context ...

Incidently ... Rodgers was 3rd on the team, behind C Michaels and T Montgomery ...

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/player-stat/rushing-net-yards

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The Vikings running backs are both better than what the Packers had during last season (2016)

At that point the Packers runblocking performed vastly better than the Vikings despite having lesser talented RBs .... Context ...

Matt Asiata and Jerrick McKinnon were absolutely terrible last season averaging 3.4 yards per attempt on a combined 280 carries. Please tell me how that is any better than what the Packers had at running back in 2016???

There's no point in bringing up any numbers from a random point of last season as the Packers finished in dead last at the end of it.

 

[Quientus]

Matt Asiata and Jerrick McKinnon were absolutely terrible last season averaging 3.4 yards per attempt on a combined 280 carries. Please tell me how that is any better than what the Packers had at running back in 2016???

There's no point in bringing up any numbers from a random point of last season as the Packers finished in dead last at the end of it.

They may very well have performed sub par last season, however, as I said, cherry picking stats and picking one of the only 2 statlines, of rushing statistics, were the Vikings are (maginally) better than the Packers ditto, and even then only to the center and the Right side seems naive at Best. Again The Packers offensive Line is better than the Vikings and only SLIGHTLY less accomplished at run blocking than the Vikings ditto. A healthy Lacy would No doubt had made the stats for runblocking blow The Vikings ditto away ...

 

[Deleted member 6794]

They may very well have performed sub par last season, however, as I said, cherry picking stats and picking one of the only 2 statlines, of rushing statistics, were the Vikings are (maginally) better than the Packers ditto, and even then only to the center and the Right side seems naive at Best.

It's for sure worse than naive to truly believe the Packers offensive line has excelled blocking for the run in recent years. The unit is primarily built to protect Rodgers which they have mostly done an excellent job of.

 

[Quientus]

It's for sure worse than naive to truly believe the Packers offensive line has excelled blocking for the run in recent years. The unit is primarily built to protect Rodgers which they have mostly done an excellent job of.

LOL - now I know you only SKIM posts before replying ...

I have never said anything of the sorts of what you claim ... its hilarious !!!

Again, let me point out - YET again !!!

I compared the Packers o Line to the Vikings ditto ! YOU are Reading (skimming) something that was never said ...!

1) I never said the Packers o Line excelled at run blocking ...

2) I have said that the Packers o Line was better than the Vikings in pretty much everything - EXCEPT runblocking were the Packers were MARGINALLY poorer than the Vikings

3) adding a RB like AD (in my opinion) and hence my argument would only improve the Packers offense

You are the one arguing semantics, and cherry picking stats ... pretty much every statline concerning rushing offense, EXCEPT yds before contact and rush attempts has the Packers Way ahead of the Vikings ... hence why I say:

The Packers OFFENSIVE Line is much much BETTER than the Vikings ditto ...

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I have said that the Packers o Line was better than the Vikings in pretty much everything - EXCEPT runblocking were the Packers were MARGINALLY poorer than the Vikings

You are the one arguing semantics, and cherry picking stats ... pretty much every statline concerning rushing offense, EXCEPT yds before contact and rush attempts has the Packers Way ahead of the Vikings ...

Actually the entire discussion has been about the ability of the Packers offensive line blocking for the run. I didn't mentioned anything about pass protection before you felt compelled to bring it up for some reason.

Yards before contact is the only statistic that solely measures the performance by the offensive line though therefore it is relevant when evaluating the unit's run blocking. All of the stats you posted are heavily dependent on the play by running backs and make it less important in this regard.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Incidently ... Rodgers was 3rd on the team, behind C Michaels and T Montgomery ...

No, as Michael only had 114 rushing yards with the Packers ranking sixth on the team. He played for the Seahawks for most of last season.

 

[Quientus]

Actually the entire discussion has been about the ability of the Packers offensive line blocking for the run. I didn't mentioned anything about pass protection before you felt compelled to bring it up for some reason.

Yards before contact is the only statistic that solely measures the performance by the offensive line though therefore it is relevant when evaluating the unit's run blocking. All of the stats you posted are heavily dependent on the play by running backs and make it less important in this regard.

You do realize that this stat you hold so High in regard could also be argued to be dependant on the play by the running back ?

I'd wager a good running back could gain more yards before contact than lesser rbs ... and thereby making the statline for the offensive Line better ...

Again adding a RB like AD in MY opinion would only improve the Packers offense Regardless IF they are MARGINALLY poorer at runblocking vis-avis yds before contact, than the Vikings, - which was what I have said all along ... Irrespective the fact that the Packers STILL outperformed the Vikings rushingwise ... aside the above mentioned statline and # of attempts ...