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

[Deleted member 6794]

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 ...

Of course you continue to ignore that Peterson is a terrible fit for the Packers offense in the first place.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Good work on the Stats Captain. They confirm my "eye test" concern with the Packer running game and the need for a RB that can pick up yards after contact. Fortunately, Monty actually had some good numbers after contact (5.1), but how much of that can be credited to playing against a defense lined up to stop the passing game and will he be able to sustain that average through an entire season? The offensive line, while doing an excellent job of protecting Rodgers, some of which is aided by Rogers himself IMO, are not known for their run blocking, the yds. before contact bear this out IMO. As long as AR is the Packers QB, they don't need a feature back like AP, what they do need though is a guy like Monty as well as a guy who can actually pick up those tough yards, when the defense is playing the run. Ripkowski is a nice option, but someone like Blount would be even better. My guess is they will be going after a Blount like back in the draft and once he is ready, could provide a nice 1-2 punch with Monty for an offense that is built to pass, not run.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Good work on the Stats Captain. They confirm my "eye test" concern with the Packer running game and the need for a RB that can pick up yards after contact. Fortunately, Monty actually had some good numbers after contact (5.1), but how much of that can be credited to playing against a defense lined up to stop the passing game and will he be able to sustain that average through an entire season?

Montgomery struggled against loaded boxes last season, according to another poster only averaging 0.8 yards on such runs in limited carries.

 

[Quientus]

Of course you continue to ignore that Peterson is a terrible fit for the Packers offense in the first place.

And you are basing this astout observation on AD's stats from last season, not to mention the fact that AD pretty much have only played with 1 QB of above average caliber his entire career up to this point ...

I'm not ignoring anything, however, you seem to be ignoring alot, when it doesn't suit your argument, cherrypicking few statlines, without putting those same stats into Context ...

Might AD prove to be a "bad fit" ? Sure ! I nor others have not said AD would be a sure hit. However there is also the distinct possibility that AD just still might have some gas left in the tank and in most likelyhood be able to improve the Packers offense ...

For a person so into selective stats, you sure do seem to disregard a vast amount of stats that (statistically) doesnt fit "your mold of opponions" ... /boggle

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Montgomery struggled against loaded boxes last season, according to another poster only averaging 0.8 yards on such runs in limited carries.

I remember reading that as well as witnessing it, which is why it's a bit nerve wracking to see Monty and Michaels as the only 2 RB's on the current roster. While the Packers don't see loaded boxes all that often, it would be nice to have another option outside of Rip to go with.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

And you are basing this astout observation on AD's stats from last season, not to mention the fact that AD pretty much have only played with 1 QB of above average caliber his entire career up to this point ...

I'm not basing Peterson being a bad fit for the Packers on his numbers from last season but on him having struggled with the quarterback lining up in the shotgun for his entire career. There's no reason for the Packers to change their scheme to accomodate a 32-year old running back.

I remember reading that as well as witnessing it, which is why it's a bit nerve wracking to see Monty and Michaels as the only 2 RB's on the current roster.

Don't forget about the mighty Don Jackson.

 

[Poppa San]

The one running stat that matters to me is how often the Packers get a first down running the ball on 3rd and 2 or 4th < one. That and goal to go < 3. Seems to me the OL gets stoned more often than not in those setups. Remove the QB sneak and there aren't too many successful tries.

it's a bit nerve wracking to see Monty and Michaels as the only 2 RB's on the current roster

Don't forget about the mighty Don Jackson.

You forgot about "the Ripper". He's a darkhorse candidate for the short yardage, chew the clock type runs.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The one running stat that matters to me is how often the Packers get a first down running the ball on 3rd and 2 or 4th < one. That and goal to go < 3. Seems to me the OL gets stoned more often than not in those setups. Remove the QB sneak and there aren't too many successful tries.



You forgot about "the Ripper". He's a darkhorse candidate for the short yardage, chew the clock type runs.

I didn't forget about Rippppp...

Ripkowski is a nice option, but someone like Blount would be even better.

However, kind of like Kuhn, Ripp isn't the guy you are going to a lot on first downs. I still think a backfield of Blount (and Ripp) on first and maybe second down and then bring Monty in for 3rd downs, would be formidable.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The one running stat that matters to me is how often the Packers get a first down running the ball on 3rd and 2 or 4th < one. That and goal to go < 3. Seems to me the OL gets stoned more often than not in those setups. Remove the QB sneak and there aren't too many successful tries.

Good observation, the Packers finished only 30th in the league last season in power success, a metric that analyzes the percentage of runs on third or fourth down, two yards or less to go, that achieved a first down or touchdown and also includes runs on first-and-goal or second-and-goal from the two-yard line or closer.

 

[Poppa San]

the Packers finished only 30th in the league last season in power success

Yep, this tells me either the line can't drive when needed or the RB keeps tripping over his shoestrings. I'd tend more towards the former than the latter. Tells me unless the RB makes his own hole, he ain't getting nowhere. Lacy could do it somewhat yet he rarely did. Could AP? That is the type of back we need, not a Barry Sanders type scatback.

 

[thequick12]

I'm not basing Peterson being a bad fit for the Packers on his numbers from last season but on him having struggled with the quarterback lining up in the shotgun for his entire career. There's no reason for the Packers to change their scheme to accomodate a 32-year old running back.



Don't forget about the mighty Don Jackson.

he's only got like 150 career shotgun snaps or something around there

 

[Deleted member 6794]

he's only got like 150 career shotgun snaps or something around there

If that number is accurate the reason for it being that low is most likely because Peterson struggles in that formation.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Another aspect to look at with Peterson in trying to decide what he has left in the tank is the team that he was with, the Minnesota Vikings. It was an obvious move to cut him under his current contract and not pay him $18M, but why was he not resigned by the Vikings at a lower price if they thought he was still an excellent football player? Now maybe that was a possibility and Peterson wouldn't come down to what the Vikings were willing to pay him, but I find it a bit telling that a franchise who was so dependent on AP for all those years, quickly moved on without him.

 

[Poppa San]

If that number is accurate the reason for it being that low is most likely because Peterson struggles in that formation.

why would you line up in shotgun when your offense was designed and built around the running game? How often was Dullass in shotgun this season when Zeke was on the field?

 

[Dantés]

Montgomery struggled against loaded boxes last season, according to another poster only averaging 0.8 yards on such runs in limited carries.

Do we know how often he actually ran against stacked boxes? My guess would be practically never. I'm suspicious that that number is highly skewed by GL snaps. Because I'm guessing those would account for a really big % of his snaps against stacked boxes.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

why would you line up in shotgun when your offense was designed and built around the running game?

Well, even in 2012 with Peterson having an outstanding season the Vikings threw the ball more often than they ran it.

Do we know how often he actually ran against stacked boxes? My guess would be practically never. I'm suspicious that that number is highly skewed by GL snaps. Because I'm guessing those would account for a really big % of his snaps against stacked boxes.

I honestly don't know. Another poster brought it up and somewhere posted a link to it.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The Saints and Peterson are closing in on a deal that would pay the running back $3M+ in 2017.

 

[Snoops]

The Saints and Peterson are closing in on a deal that would pay the running back $3M+ in 2017.

I'm so glad now the ap stuff to Green Bay can stop anytime now lol he can't run out of gun and doesn't fit plus he is old now everyone is gonna be Charles come or Blount I'd rather just move forward and see what happens in the draft rather get a unknown that turns out to be great kind of deal...

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'm so glad now the ap stuff to Green Bay can stop anytime now lol he can't run out of gun and doesn't fit plus he is old now everyone is gonna be Charles come or Blount I'd rather just move forward and see what happens in the draft rather get a unknown that turns out to be great kind of deal...

I agree about Peterson and Charles but would be in favor of the Packers adding Blount for a similar deal he signed with the Pateiots last season.

 

[Snoops]

I agree about Peterson and Charles but would be in favor of the Packers adding Blount for a similar deal he signed with the Pateiots last season.

I feel like Blount would be the best bet after what potentially happens with the draft we need a bigger back Monty is that speed receiver back and Blount is not likely to return to the pats due them just getting gillisee from the bills and Burkhead earlier the only rb in the draft I like in the draft is fournette or mixon cook is gonna go to tb I think and mccaf will be gone