PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs Jamaal Charles vs Adrian Peterson


charlesjones
02-02-2011, 04:51 PM
I would rather have Charles. Call me crazy?

threebag02
02-02-2011, 04:52 PM
Peterson can't hold onto the ball. Charles will never get enough carries.

chiefzilla1501
02-02-2011, 04:53 PM
I'm a huge Charles fan.

But I think AP helps your team more. He's dominant in short yardage and the goal line, and he wears the living shit out of a team going into the 4th quarter. I'd rather have the every down guy than the lightning back. But I'm glad to have Charles, don't get me wrong.

Pestilence
02-02-2011, 04:59 PM
How the fuck did you start a thread with 18 posts?

MagicHef
02-02-2011, 05:02 PM
I'd rather have Charles and a bruiser (the UDFA type, nothing special) than Peterson. 2 people for 2 different roles is how I see it.

chefsos
02-02-2011, 05:05 PM
How the fuck did you start a thread with 18 posts?The spambots have become self-aware...

KCrockaholic
02-02-2011, 05:06 PM
Jamaal Charles is the best halfback in the NFL. I'll take Jamaal.

DaFace
02-02-2011, 05:08 PM
How the fuck did you start a thread with 18 posts?

Bribed a mod. Or just asked nicely.

Deberg_1990
02-02-2011, 05:12 PM
Peterson can't hold onto the ball.

neither can Charles. Luv me sum Charles, but Peterson is more valuable as an every down guy.

Shaid
02-02-2011, 05:26 PM
I'm a huge Charles fan.

But I think AP helps your team more. He's dominant in short yardage and the goal line, and he wears the living shit out of a team going into the 4th quarter. I'd rather have the every down guy than the lightning back. But I'm glad to have Charles, don't get me wrong.

yep

charlesjones
02-02-2011, 06:00 PM
neither can Charles. Luv me sum Charles, but Peterson is more valuable as an every down guy.

How can you say that? Charles had 230 rushes to Peterson's 283 carries. Charles never even got the opportunities. Guy runs 6.4 ypg compared to Peterson's 4.6. Noone came close to that this year.

Charles > Peterson

KCrockaholic
02-02-2011, 06:02 PM
How can you say that? Charles had 230 rushes to Peterson's 283 carries. Charles never even got the opportunities. Guy runs 6.4 ypg compared to Peterson's 4.6. Noone came close to that this year.

Charles > Peterson

YPC. 6.4 YPG would suck ass.

DeezNutz
02-02-2011, 06:02 PM
How can you say that? Charles had 230 rushes to Peterson's 283 carries. Charles never even got the opportunities. Guy runs 6.4 ypg compared to Peterson's 4.6. Noone came close to that this year.

Charles > Peterson

Then we ought to look into acquiring Noone to complement Charles.

KurtCobain
02-02-2011, 06:05 PM
Agreed.

Saul Good
02-02-2011, 06:05 PM
YPC. 6.4 YPG would suck ass.

2009 LJ thinks that's pretty good.

charlesjones
02-02-2011, 06:06 PM
YPC. 6.4 YPG would suck ass.

I meant YPC, duhhhh

Marcellus
02-02-2011, 06:07 PM
How the **** did you start a thread with 18 posts?

It's actually Jamal Charles, duh.

KCrockaholic
02-02-2011, 06:10 PM
I meant YPC, duhhhh

Oh. I thought you were just dumb....

Are you new here? And are you young? Cause if you hang around this place very long it will change your life. You could become a huge asshole, if you're not one already.

bowener
02-02-2011, 06:28 PM
It's actually Jamal Charles, duh.

Jamaal Charles (http://www.nfl.com/players/jamaalcharles/profile?id=CHA561428) says, "Say WHAAAT?"

SNR
02-02-2011, 06:38 PM
The spambots have become self-aware...WTF? Is this an episode of Star Trek?

Brianfo
02-02-2011, 06:46 PM
neither can Charles. Luv me sum Charles, but Peterson is more valuable as an every down guy.

WRONG!! Admit this or fail.

HighChief
02-02-2011, 06:48 PM
I am from MN so i know all about AD. Being a die hard chiefs fanatic i love and know what JC brings to the table.

Both are top 4 in the league. For my buck i will take AD for the fact that he can be a 25 plus carry guy like its nothing.

Both players have fumble problems. AD actually had i think 1 fumble this year so i think he has taken control of that. JC will be a 2 fumbles a year type on far less carries.

If you take the rose colored glasses off i think you have to pick the workhorse who has hit some homeruns himself. I will take AD.

SNR
02-02-2011, 07:21 PM
I am from MN so i know all about AD. Being a die hard chiefs fanatic i love and know what JC brings to the table.

Both are top 4 in the league. For my buck i will take AD for the fact that he can be a 25 plus carry guy like its nothing.

Both players have fumble problems. AD actually had i think 1 fumble this year so i think he has taken control of that. JC will be a 2 fumbles a year type on far less carries.

If you take the rose colored glasses off i think you have to pick the workhorse who has hit some homeruns himself. I will take AD.Rose-colored glasses my ass. Jamaal Charles makes any offense lethal as hell. The Vikings would have won at least two more games if they had a player like Charles and knew how to use him correctly.

Peterson is amazing. He's powerful, fast, and angry. I love watching him play. But he's inconsistent with the ball, (he DID have a fumble problem this year contrary to popular belief) and isn't as adept at finding space and hitting the hole. At times it was so embarrassing it was like watching a 2007-2008 version of Larry Johnson.

Charles isn't the workhorse. But these days you don't need a workhorse. Just do what the Chiefs did and find some other guy to be the workhorse. Chester Taylor, Thomas Jones, anybody. It's worth dividing the load between the two backs if you're going to have the combo home-run threat + a guy who can make a bad/mediocre offense look amazing, as Charles did SEVERAL times this past season.

burt
02-02-2011, 07:24 PM
um.......attitude cant be fucking measured.

Sure-Oz
02-02-2011, 07:26 PM
Charles is a good 3rd down back

chiefzilla1501
02-02-2011, 07:27 PM
Rose-colored glasses my ass. Jamaal Charles makes any offense lethal as hell. The Vikings would have won at least two more games if they had a player like Charles and knew how to use him correctly.

Peterson is amazing. He's powerful, fast, and angry. I love watching him play. But he's inconsistent with the ball, (he DID have a fumble problem this year contrary to popular belief) and isn't as adept at finding space and hitting the hole. At times it was so embarrassing it was like watching a 2007-2008 version of Larry Johnson.

Charles isn't the workhorse. But these days you don't need a workhorse. Just do what the Chiefs did and find some other guy to be the workhorse. Chester Taylor, Thomas Jones, anybody. It's worth dividing the load between the two backs if you're going to have the combo home-run threat + a guy who can make a bad/mediocre offense look amazing, as Charles did SEVERAL times this past season.

The Chiefs are using him right. The guy has limped off the field about 4 times despite being limited in carries, and he has just as much trouble holding onto the ball.

What AP gives that I think makes him real special is that he is going to wear a defense out. If you give it to him 25-30 times, you have one whale of a 4th quarter coming up on you. Again, love the guy we've got. And I really don't think AP's running style will keep him in the league for all that long. But if I'm talking about impact player, I'm going with AP.

WV
02-02-2011, 07:29 PM
Oh. I thought you were just dumb....

Are you new here? And are you young? Cause if you hang around this place very long it will change your life. You could become a huge asshole, if you're not one already.

:D

TheGuardian
02-02-2011, 07:30 PM
Peterson is overrated at this point. I remember watching that Viking/Eagles game that was delayed and been used to watching Charles run so much, Peterson looked tame.

Peterson built his rep off a highlight reel against the Browns. In the NFCCG against the Saints I remember watching Vilma own him on several plays. He's a really good back, but I would take Charles over Peterson everyday of the week and twice on Sundays.

KCrockaholic
02-02-2011, 07:31 PM
:D

:) You like that huh?

milkman
02-02-2011, 07:35 PM
The Chiefs are using him right. The guy has limped off the field about 4 times despite being limited in carries, and he has just as much trouble holding onto the ball.

What AP gives that I think makes him real special is that he is going to wear a defense out. If you give it to him 25-30 times, you have one whale of a 4th quarter coming up on you. Again, love the guy we've got. And I really don't think AP's running style will keep him in the league for all that long. But if I'm talking about impact player, I'm going with AP.

Here's my problem with the idea of a RB as an impact player.

Go through the SBs, and you'll find a lot of impact RBs, but the teams that win SBs have a top flight defense and/or franchise QB.

But generally, a RB is not going to lead your team to the SB.

So the reality is, there is no such thing as an impact RB.

milkman
02-02-2011, 07:37 PM
Bottom line.

I want the guy that's going to make big plays and wear down the defense on the second level.

That's Charles.

A strong O-Line can wear down the front four.

Brock
02-02-2011, 07:58 PM
Charles is a good 3rd down back

lolwut

KCrockaholic
02-02-2011, 08:01 PM
I think if I had to pin point one major difference between Peterson and Charles, it would be that Charles has vision like none other. He's patient. He hits the hole faster than anyone. Peterson lately seems to lack the ability to hit the hole or even find it at times. He's not patient. He's just wreck less and powerful. Also, Peterson needs a good O-line to be successful. Charles can make chicken salad out of chicken shit.

DeezNutz
02-02-2011, 08:09 PM
But generally, a RB is not going to lead your team to the SB.

So the reality is, there is no such thing as an impact RB.

Riggins in '83 would be a pretty good example of a RB having a championship-level impact. The stats aren't real sexy by current standards, but that team was line, back, and D.

More generally, I disagree with how you're using "impact." While I tend to agree that a RB is not going to carry a team, I absolutely believe that one can have a major impact on the overall quality of how a team performs.

Give me a franchise QB and top-ten D any day, but I think you're short-selling a high-quality back just a bit.

Deberg_1990
02-02-2011, 08:17 PM
Here's my problem with the idea of a RB as an impact player.

Go through the SBs, and you'll find a lot of impact RBs, but the teams that win SBs have a top flight defense and/or franchise QB.

But generally, a RB is not going to lead your team to the SB.

So the reality is, there is no such thing as an impact RB.

Your right, Theres been very few "Franchise RB's" who led their team to SB wins.

Emmit Smith probably the best one....Payton won, but was towards the end of his career.

milkman
02-02-2011, 09:05 PM
Riggins in '83 would be a pretty good example of a RB having a championship-level impact. That stats aren't real sexy by current standards, but this team line, back, and D.

More generally, I disagree with how you're using "impact." While I tend to agree that a RB is not going to carry a team, I absolutely believe that one can have a major impact on the overall quality of how a team performs.

Give me a franchise QB and top-ten D any day, but I think you're short-selling a high-quality back just a bit.

I'm generalizing, but I stand by what I said.

DBOSHO
02-02-2011, 09:13 PM
WHEN THE FUCK HAS CHARLES GOT THE CHANCE TO PROVE HE ISNT AN EVERY DOWN BACK?

chiefzilla1501
02-02-2011, 09:42 PM
WHEN THE **** HAS CHARLES GOT THE CHANCE TO PROVE HE ISNT AN EVERY DOWN BACK?

He's limped off the field about 4 times despite only averaging less than 15 carries per game.

He can carry the ball well on any given down. But there's no way he's an every-down back if he's given a full workload for a full season.

SNR
02-02-2011, 10:29 PM
He's limped off the field about 4 times despite only averaging less than 15 carries per game.

He can carry the ball well on any given down. But there's no way he's an every-down back if he's given a full workload for a full season.And yet he's played every single game. Also, in how many of those four times has he stayed on the sidelines for the rest of the game? If memory serves me correctly, I'd say zero.

He's an every down back. He's not a workhorse. There's a difference.

This team has had the pleasure of seeing great workhorse backs for the past few years (Larry Johnson for a limited time... Holmes). And personally, I like the new direction in this running game. I don't think there's any RB I'd rather have than Charles right now. Maybe CJ2500.

Demonpenz
02-02-2011, 10:34 PM
Charles Raw speed is awesome. Ap's power and tude is awesome, but fumble. I would rather have AP get some tough yards just because I haven't seen charles get first downs...he hasn't been given a chance that I can remember. It's always Slowmcgee jones back there.

WebGem
02-02-2011, 10:34 PM
I'll take JC6.4YPC

|Zach|
02-03-2011, 12:53 AM
And yet he's played every single game. Also, in how many of those four times has he stayed on the sidelines for the rest of the game? If memory serves me correctly, I'd say zero.

He's an every down back. He's not a workhorse. There's a difference.

This team has had the pleasure of seeing great workhorse backs for the past few years (Larry Johnson for a limited time... Holmes). And personally, I like the new direction in this running game. I don't think there's any RB I'd rather have than Charles right now. Maybe CJ2500.

Great post.

keg in kc
02-03-2011, 01:07 AM
That would be a really tough decision to make, I think. Peterson's pretty fast himself. I'd say calling him just a power back is a bit of a misnomer.

I do agree with the people who think the 2010 division of the running game is probably a good thing. I think it protected Charles.

Los Pollos Hermanos
02-03-2011, 04:31 AM
Here's my problem with the idea of a RB as an impact player.

Go through the SBs, and you'll find a lot of impact RBs, but the teams that win SBs have a top flight defense and/or franchise QB.

But generally, a RB is not going to lead your team to the SB.

So the reality is, there is no such thing as an impact RB.

Terrell Davis says you're smoking crack. :)

Von Dumbass
02-03-2011, 04:43 AM
Peterson can't hold onto the ball. Charles will never get enough carries.

Jamaal Charles has ball security issues too.

You would be CRAZY to pick Charles over Adrian Peterson. Peterson is just as fast if not faster and weighs 30 pounds more than Charles.

Von Dumbass
02-03-2011, 04:44 AM
Terrell Davis says you're smoking crack. :)

G.O.A.T. IMO

mikey23545
02-03-2011, 05:03 AM
The spambots have become self-aware...

WTF? Is this an episode of Star Trek?

It was probably another one of Wesley's experiments...

mikey23545
02-03-2011, 05:05 AM
And yet he's played every single game. Also, in how many of those four times has he stayed on the sidelines for the rest of the game? If memory serves me correctly, I'd say zero.

He's an every down back. He's not a workhorse. There's a difference.

This team has had the pleasure of seeing great workhorse backs for the past few years (Larry Johnson for a limited time... Holmes). And personally, I like the new direction in this running game. I don't think there's any RB I'd rather have than Charles right now. Maybe CJ2500.

If he really was an every down back, there wouldn't have to be so much worry about how many carries he gets every game.

Q.E.D.

suds79
02-03-2011, 06:01 AM
I think sometimes people don't realize that the list of very best at the RB spot turns over every year or two.

AP. Bigger name? Yep. Greater career so far? You bet. No doubt about all that.

But the RB spot takes such a beating on guys, those peak years are very short for most of them.

So I'll take Jamaal's 6.4 YPC right now. He's peaking.

Two years down the line? I'd probably take somebody different.

Von Dumbass
02-03-2011, 06:21 AM
Who would you want to carry the ball on a crucial 4th and inches or on a long game clinching drive where all you need is a couple first downs to run the clock out?

Charles is a big play guy but he doesn't get those tough yards that you need to clinch tight games. Give me the guy who can get the tough yards AND make the big play any day. Guys like Adrian Peterson, LT, Terrell Davis....

suds79
02-03-2011, 06:28 AM
G.O.A.T. IMO

TD was great. I think probably should be a HOFer. But GOAT? If by that you mean GOAT in the Denver system sure.

You have to account for the Gary Kubiak system and line they were running at that time. Every RB tore it up. It's a factor.

Olandis Gary, Mike Anderson.

beach tribe
02-03-2011, 06:39 AM
I'll take Charles, and the way he's being used. AP is going to turn into 2009 LJ VERY soon. 25+ carry backs, that run with fury last about 4 years, then they suck ass, and $.

See: Eddie George

Von Dumbass
02-03-2011, 06:40 AM
TD was great. I think probably should be a HOFer. But GOAT? If by that you mean GOAT in the Denver system sure.

You have to account for the Gary Kubiak system and line they were running at that time. Every RB tore it up. It's a factor.

Olandis Gary, Mike Anderson.

Good points and a lot of RB's did do well in that system but if TD would have stayed healthy he would have owned all of the records. If you compared TD's numbers in his first four years to guys like Jim Brown, Walter Payton, Emmitt Smith, LT, and Barry Sanders TD came out on top in almost every category.

beach tribe
02-03-2011, 06:44 AM
Who would you want to carry the ball on a crucial 4th and inches or on a long game clinching drive where all you need is a couple first downs to run the clock out?

Charles is a big play guy but he doesn't get those tough yards that you need to clinch tight games. Give me the guy who can get the tough yards AND make the big play any day. Guys like Adrian Peterson, LT, Terrell Davis....

People SERIOUSLY underestimate Charles' toughness. He put more than a few guys on their ass this season. The short yardage play calling was pretty meh, this season.

OH, and TD is another of the 4 effective years, and out club.

beach tribe
02-03-2011, 06:48 AM
Good points and a lot of RB's did do well in that system but if TD would have stayed healthy he would have owned all of the records. If you compared TD's numbers in his first four years to guys like Jim Brown, Walter Payton, Emmitt Smith, LT, and Barry Sanders TD came out on top in almost every category.

You really are and Idoit aren't you. If Priest Holmes or LT would have produced the same numbers year in, and year out, they would be catching Jerry Rice's record. RBs like TD NEVER last very long.

TheGuardian
02-03-2011, 06:56 AM
Terrell Davis was a no talent ass clown who was i nthe right place at the right time. On any other team that guy is never anything but a special teams player. After TD they had no problem pushing nobodies through that system that put up big numbers.

Anyway back on discussion, AP isn't even a power back. As noted, Vilma owned him repeatedly in the NFCCG last season. He's only 215 pounds. So some people are taking AP over Charles because of 15 pounds? heh

Gimme the guy that breaks off 6.4 per carry, please and thank you. You can have you 4.whatever "power back" that actually doesn't make a lot of big plays.

MOhillbilly
02-03-2011, 08:09 AM
Hate to tell you fellas but charles is everybit a power football player.

Chiefnj2
02-03-2011, 08:10 AM
Hate to tell you fellas but charles is everybit a power football player.

For a handful of runs before he gets injured.

Chiefshrink
02-03-2011, 08:14 AM
neither can Charles. Luv me sum Charles, but Peterson is more valuable as an every down guy.

This!

MOhillbilly
02-03-2011, 08:17 AM
For a handful of runs before he gets injured.

everyone gets injured. Its football. Facts are facts the guy is a power runner. IDK what everyone else sees but i see a bull with rockets strapped to his back. Dude is tough.

KCrockaholic
02-03-2011, 08:17 AM
Who would you want to carry the ball on a crucial 4th and inches or on a long game clinching drive where all you need is a couple first downs to run the clock out?

Charles is a big play guy but he doesn't get those tough yards that you need to clinch tight games. Give me the guy who can get the tough yards AND make the big play any day. Guys like Adrian Peterson, LT, Terrell Davis....

God you're fucking stupid.

SNR
02-03-2011, 09:50 AM
Jamaal Charles has ball security issues too.
.:spock:

SNR
02-03-2011, 09:59 AM
Who would you want to carry the ball on a crucial 4th and inches or on a long game clinching drive where all you need is a couple first downs to run the clock out?
Jamaal. Charles. He's fast, quick, nimble, graceful, has the best downfield vision of any back in the league. He's tough, makes defenders miss, and he's smart. He's the best runner in the game. Your measure of a great RB being a guy who can convert on 4th and inches every time is a shit measure. If that's the case, then Zack Crockett of the Raiders was the best RB of the past decade.

But if you need a guy to keep the chains moving and keep the clock running in the end game, give me Charles. He will do that job just fine.

(BTW, I'd much rather have an all-pro QB in those move the chains kind of situations. Likely the opposing defense is going to stop the run. It takes a Ben Roethlisberger-type QB to REALLY end the game and get first downs to win it)

Chiefnj2
02-03-2011, 10:08 AM
everyone gets injured. Its football. Facts are facts the guy is a power runner. IDK what everyone else sees but i see a bull with rockets strapped to his back. Dude is tough.

He's fragile and is always nursing some type of injury. In short yardage situations he isn't anything special.

Von Dumbass
02-03-2011, 10:12 AM
Charles does have excellent field vision. Watching him run, it looks like everything going on around him is in slow motion and he always seems to find the hole.

But he doesn't get enough tough yards for me to want him over a guy like Adrian Peterson. Almost 75% of Charles' runs are to the outside and the ONLY time he runs inside is out of the Shotgun on some sort of draw play. He doesn't get tough yards, he doesn't block well, and he drops a lot of catchable passes. I just don't see him as a complete RB.

beach tribe
02-03-2011, 10:14 AM
He's fragile and is always nursing some type of injury. In short yardage situations he isn't anything special.

What injuries were he nursing this year exactly? Cramps? Hurt, and injured are two different things, and I don't remember Charles missing a single game because of injury.

beach tribe
02-03-2011, 10:14 AM
Charles does have excellent field vision. Watching him run, it looks like everything going on around him is in slow motion and he always seems to find the hole.

But he doesn't get enough tough yards for me to want him over a guy like Adrian Peterson. Almost 75% of Charles' runs are to the outside. He doesn't get tough yards, he doesn't block well, and he drops a lot of catchable passes. I just don't see him as a complete RB.

Sounds like you watch as many Chiefs games as you do Broncos games.

Chiefnj2
02-03-2011, 10:14 AM
What injuries were he nursing this year exactly? Cramps? Hurt, and injured are two different things, and I don't remember Charles missing a single game because of injury.

He carried the ball less than 15 times in 12 of KC's 17 games.

Where was he in the 2nd half of the Ravens game?

DBOSHO
02-03-2011, 10:17 AM
Who would you want to carry the ball on a crucial 4th and inches or on a long game clinching drive where all you need is a couple first downs to run the clock out?

Charles is a big play guy but he doesn't get those tough yards that you need to clinch tight games. Give me the guy who can get the tough yards AND make the big play any day. Guys like Adrian Peterson, LT, Terrell Davis....

Jamaal makes people miss in the hole and hes stronger than he looks. I actually will take charles.

SNR
02-03-2011, 10:18 AM
He carried the ball less than 15 times in 12 of KC's 17 games.

Where was he in the 2nd half of the Ravens game?Watching Matt Cassel throw interceptions deep in our half of the field

MOhillbilly
02-03-2011, 10:18 AM
He carried the ball less than 15 times in 12 of KC's 17 games.

Where was he in the 2nd half of the Ravens game?

come on now.

SNR
02-03-2011, 10:20 AM
He doesn't get tough yards,Swing and a miss

he doesn't block wellNot the best blocking RB in the league, but he's pretty accurate and will do his job in protection. So steeeeeeeeeeeeerike!

and he drops a lot of catchable passes.HEEEEEE'S OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUT!

beach tribe
02-03-2011, 10:24 AM
He carried the ball less than 15 times in 12 of KC's 17 games.

Where was he in the 2nd half of the Ravens game?

Wow.

Chiefnj2
02-03-2011, 10:25 AM
Watching Matt Cassel throw interceptions deep in our half of the field

Was that before or after his own turnover?

He's an exciting player, he's a very good runner, but if KC is going to be the run first team that Haley seems to be building they need a more durable back who can get the tough yards and grind it out in December and January.

beach tribe
02-03-2011, 10:27 AM
He carried the ball less than 15 times in 12 of KC's 17 games.

Where was he in the 2nd half of the Ravens game?

A question answered by a comment and a question.

How bout an actual answer next time?

Here ya go. Try again. What injuries did Charles have last season?

DaFace
02-03-2011, 10:28 AM
Please ignore the KnowMo. Keep in mind, the guy doesn't even watch his own team play, let alone others, enough to form an substantiated opinion.

SNR
02-03-2011, 11:32 AM
Was that before or after his own turnover?

He's an exciting player, he's a very good runner, but if KC is going to be the run first team that Haley seems to be building they need a more durable back who can get the tough yards and grind it out in December and January.
http://www.nickysragtales.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/jackie-magazine.jpg

http://www.britishbattles.com/norman-conquest/hastings-1066.jpg

SNR
02-03-2011, 11:33 AM
Was that before or after his own turnover?

He's an exciting player, he's a very good runner, but if KC is going to be the run first team that Haley seems to be building they need a more durable back who can get the tough yards and grind it out in December and January.
Priest Holmes fumbled in the playoff game against the Colts.

I guess that means Priest has fumbling problems

SNR
02-03-2011, 11:35 AM
Guess how many fumbles Jamaal Charles had all year?

I'm not going to wait. It's three. The answer is 3.

I WANT HIS ASS OUT OF HERE!

SNR
02-03-2011, 11:39 AM
Adrian Peterson had 1 fumble all year. Power to him. Makes up for the NINE fumbles he had the year before

|Zach|
02-03-2011, 11:50 AM
Please ignore the KnowMo. Keep in mind, the guy doesn't even watch his own team play, let alone others, enough to form an substantiated opinion.

Exactly. What a clown.

Halfcan
02-03-2011, 01:03 PM
JC should have a longer career-AP gets banged up a lot.

Chiefnj2
02-03-2011, 01:12 PM
Guess how many fumbles Jamaal Charles had all year?

I'm not going to wait. It's three. The answer is 3.

I WANT HIS ASS OUT OF HERE!

Who said get his ass out of here? Strawman anyone?

SNR
02-03-2011, 02:40 PM
Who said get his ass out of here? Strawman anyone?
He's an exciting player, he's a very good runner, but if KC is going to be the run first team that Haley seems to be building they need a more durable back who can get the tough yards and grind it out in December and January.

Nobody's denying that JC probably needs another guy in the backfield with him. But that doesn't make AP better.

If AP were on the Chiefs would we be in the playoffs?

My answer is no. Hell no. I'll betcha we lose the San Diego game, and some games that we should have won (@Oakland, @Houston) aren't even the close losses that they were.

DJ's left nut
02-03-2011, 02:43 PM
I don't believe for a minute that Charles could stand up to the abuse of being a 'true #1' back.

He's solid, don't get me wrong, but he keeps having those lingering little dings here and there that would pile up if he got the workload that AP does.

Charles is a top 5 guy without question, but I wouldn't take him ahead of AP.

MOhillbilly
02-03-2011, 02:46 PM
I don't believe for a minute that Charles could stand up to the abuse of being a 'true #1' back.

He's solid, don't get me wrong, but he keeps having those lingering little dings here and there that would pile up if he got the workload that AP does.

Charles is a top 5 guy without question, but I wouldn't take him ahead of AP.

In todays NFL or the one we grew up watching?

DJ's left nut
02-03-2011, 03:00 PM
In todays NFL or the one we grew up watching?

In fairness, the NFL I grew up watching had Okoye and Word splitting carries.

But speaking directly to today's version - when I say 'true #1' I think of your 300+ carry back. Mendenhall, MJD, AP, Turner etc...; guys that have a little more value by virtue of the fact that you can give them 20 carries with some regularity and not worry about them dying by January.

Granted, even the sturdiest will succomb on occasion (MJD, for instance), but there's an intrinsic value in being not only the guy that busts the long runs when the D gets tired, but also being the guy that helps wear them out in the first 2 or 3 quarters.

Charles can't be that guy. I see no way he makes it through 300 carries. I've said all season and I continue to say that I think he's a guy that probably shouldn't have much more than 200 carries and maybe another 30-40 touches. 250 touches over the course of a season is probably about all he can handle.

If you're talking about Mendenhall v. Charles - I take Charles because he's a breakaway threat. But if you're talking about Peterson v. Charles, I take Peterson because he's both the workhorse and the breakaway threat.

Any team would be damn lucky to have either player, but in the end I like Peterson just a little bit more.

MOhillbilly
02-03-2011, 03:12 PM
JC gets hard carries. 8 guys in the box cause everyone knows were gonna run. Dude is tough. If kc had any real vertical threat his carries & yards would go up by virtue of the D having to scheme for more than a handfull of plays.

MOhillbilly
02-03-2011, 03:15 PM
AP wilted as badly as ive ever seen any back wilt in the NO playoff game. Bunch of no names smacked him in the mouth and his brain folded.

DJ's left nut
02-03-2011, 03:25 PM
JC gets hard carries. 8 guys in the box cause everyone knows were gonna run. Dude is tough. If kc had any real vertical threat his carries & yards would go up by virtue of the D having to scheme for more than a handfull of plays.

I don't doubt that he's tough, but tough only goes so far.

Urlacher's the toughest bastich in the NFL and even he has had injury issues. Sometimes your body just isn't built to take as much abuse as the next guys.

He runs with solid 'power' because he has phenominal balance, but it doesn't change the fact that he still runs a bit upright and he's still fairly slight by NFL RB standards. He's had lower body injuries in his history as well as shoulder problems. He's simply not an exceptionally durable RB. He can tough it out when he's getting 10-15 carries, but when you give him 20 carries a game for 6 consecutive weeks, he simply can't grind through that punishment; it will absolutely take a toll.

People are saying that AP has injury issues, but that's simply carryover from his draft rep. Peterson missed 2 games as a rookie and then missed one game this season that he wouldn't have missed if the game mattered. In the meantime, he's averaged 300 carries/season over those first 4 years and right at 5 YPC.

That's just a different breed of back. He's not as explosive as Charles, but he's just so damn strong that he's able to plow for yards here and there, he's able to bust through the line if necessary. And again - he's capable of actually being the guy that wears the defense down before he sticks a dagger in its back. Charles simply isn't built to be that guy.

In my mind, that kind of back has a little more value.

DBOSHO
02-03-2011, 03:39 PM
Charles did just fine getting 20 carries a game in 09. What a myth this is.

How can you prove something that hasnt been tested to prove?

MOhillbilly
02-03-2011, 03:40 PM
JC is gonna make you eat your words Nut. The dude didnt come from the same ped. or fall into the same situation as AP. Give the guy more time(hes gonna be a beast in year 3) to develop and a few more tools like AP has been given and he will lean on NFL Ds week in week out.

I see something special and i rarely say that about players.

Short Leash Hootie
02-03-2011, 03:47 PM
G.O.A.T. IMO

maybe if Mike Anderson and Olandis Gary didn't step in and have immediate, comparable success in that system

DJ's left nut
02-03-2011, 03:58 PM
Charles did just fine getting 20 carries a game in 09. What a myth this is.

How can you prove something that hasnt been tested to prove?

Let's not ignore the reality of 2009.

Charles ran 20 times/gm for 8 games. He also ended up needing offseason shoulder surgery. He did it in the latter half of the season when he was fresh and his opponents were starting to get dinged up.

Running 20 tims/gm for the 2nd half of a season means something, but it certainly isn't dispositive. Perhaps had he not had to go under the knife afterwards it would've meant more. Perhaps had he not appeared to be injured in the playoff game this season it would mean even more.

Just as I can't say conclusively that he can't hold up for an entire season with a full workload, you certainly can't say that he can. And when the evidence appears split, the raw physical attributes come into play. Charles just isn't a very big guy for an NFL back and he absolutely runs upright.

JC is gonna make you eat your words Nut. The dude didnt come from the same ped. or fall into the same situation as AP. Give the guy more time(hes gonna be a beast in year 3) to develop and a few more tools like AP has been given and he will lean on NFL Ds week in week out.

I see something special and i rarely say that about players.

I see a lot of things special in him, but size and strength are not among them. He's lightening fast, extremely quick, has arguably the best balance in the NFL and has fantastic field vision. He's a great RB by any definition.

But so is AP. And given the choice between two great RBs, there's one type of runner that I would prefer and that's the guy that is a slightly more versatile, likely more durable guy.

chefsos
02-03-2011, 04:40 PM
I'll probably fuck this up because I'm not a stats guy, but the "tough yards" comparison got me thinking about first downs gained. Peterson got 70, according to nfl.com.

Charles had...70. :shrug:

And, when Jamaal busts one for 40 yards, he doesn't get credit for four first downs. So there must be some tough yards in there.

TheGuardian
02-03-2011, 05:49 PM
The word "durable" and "Adrien Peterson" have never been synonymous. Ever.

I don't know what the fuck some of you are talking about.

Short Leash Hootie
02-03-2011, 05:52 PM
The word "durable" and "Adrien Peterson" have never been synonymous. Ever.

I don't know what the **** some of you are talking about.

Truth.

and he cost me a FFL championship by being a pussy ass bitch.

JASONSAUTO
02-03-2011, 06:22 PM
Jc reminds me of gayle sayers. They both ran in similar styles.
Posted via Mobile Device

vailpass
02-03-2011, 09:59 PM
LMAO

Von Dumbass
02-04-2011, 01:34 AM
maybe if Mike Anderson and Olandis Gary didn't step in and have immediate, comparable success in that system

Remind me how many league MVP's, Super Bowl MVP's, First Team All Pro's, and 2000 yard seasons those guys have...

Short Leash Hootie
02-04-2011, 01:59 AM
Remind me how many league MVP's, Super Bowl MVP's, First Team All Pro's, and 2000 yard seasons those guys have...

Meh.

The worst thing that ever happened to TD was getting injured and exposing himself as "somewhat" of a fraud...

It's like the VORP stat in baseball (value over replacement player)...

How much more valuable was TD than Mike Anderson? Olandis Gary? Not much.

You know what that means?

HE'S NOT EVEN CLOSE TO THE GREATEST OF ALL TIME AT RUNNING BACK LET ALONE ANY POSITION.

milkman
02-04-2011, 06:26 AM
The myth is that power backs are better short yardage runners and are better at moving the chains when you are trying to run out the clock.

The best RBs in those situations historically are guys like Marcus Allen, Emmit Smith, Walter Payton, etc....

All guys that had some strength, but their best attribute was vision.

What they also had were O-Lines that could create seams when they needed the tough yards.

If we had any push from the interior O-Line when we needed those tough yards, Charles, who has outstanding vision, would excel.

But we do't have that, and it wouldn't matter who we have at RB in those situations, if the line isn't creating a seam, we aren't getting those tough yards.

TheGuardian
02-04-2011, 06:50 AM
Remind me how many league MVP's, Super Bowl MVP's, First Team All Pro's, and 2000 yard seasons those guys have...

This was before Denver got outed as having a plug n play running back system. Which should have been obviously to anyone watching. Esp when they flashed up the stat that 90% of Davis' yards came before any contact.

Terrell DAvis was a no talent ass clown. He was a special teams player on every other team. Terrell just happened to be in that system longer than anyone else, and at its peak of both coaching and players.

Hell Clinton Portis was actually better in that system but he just couldn't stay healthy. Portis never came close to the number in Washington that he had in Denver. And he was a first rounder. Davis was just luck to get drafted into that system. That's all.

keg in kc
02-04-2011, 07:00 AM
The myth is that power backs are better short yardage runners and are better at moving the chains when you are trying to run out the clock.

The best RBs in those situations historically are guys like Marcus Allen, Emmit Smith, Walter Payton, etc....

All guys that had some strength, but their best attribute was vision.

What they also had were O-Lines that could create seams when they needed the tough yards.

If we had any push from the interior O-Line when we needed those tough yards, Charles, who has outstanding vision, would excel.

But we do't have that, and it wouldn't matter who we have at RB in those situations, if the line isn't creating a seam, we aren't getting those tough yards.Absolutely. It's all about blocking and vision. Hell, I think speed is as overrated as power is in a lot of cases. It's good to have that extra gear once you get to the second level, but if you can't get out of the blocks to start with, you're not going anywhere.

Everybody talks about how fast he is (and he is....), but what Charles has, and he's shown this for two years now, is an uncanny ability to gain yards when there's really not a whole lot there. There are times when I think that he makes the o-line look a whole lot better than it really is. There are the occasional gaping holes, but there's a lot of plays where he's somehow pinballing off of defenders and then *zip* he's 6 or 7 yards downfield.

I think what we saw with Thomas Jones was a more realistic vision of the kind of line we have, particularly in the interior. As the season went on and Weigmann wore down, his yards went down. And I think that's maybe not a coincidence.

Reerun_KC
02-04-2011, 07:05 AM
Its time for JC to Man up and take the load... He should touch the ball about 30 times a game...

They need to run his dick into the dirt Herm style....

Von Dumbass
02-04-2011, 07:09 AM
This was before Denver got outed as having a plug n play running back system. Which should have been obviously to anyone watching. Esp when they flashed up the stat that 90% of Davis' yards came before any contact.

Terrell DAvis was a no talent ass clown. He was a special teams player on every other team. Terrell just happened to be in that system longer than anyone else, and at its peak of both coaching and players.

Hell Clinton Portis was actually better in that system but he just couldn't stay healthy. Portis never came close to the number in Washington that he had in Denver. And he was a first rounder. Davis was just luck to get drafted into that system. That's all.

Why are you dissing runners that came out of the zone system when Jamaal Charles himself is in that same system??????

keg in kc
02-04-2011, 07:10 AM
Its time for JC to Man up and take the load... He should touch the ball about 30 times a game...

They need to run his dick into the dirt Herm style....Yeah, or not.

Reerun_KC
02-04-2011, 07:12 AM
Yeah, or not.

he needs more carries!

DJ's left nut
02-04-2011, 08:55 AM
The word "durable" and "Adrien Peterson" have never been synonymous. Ever.

I don't know what the **** some of you are talking about.

Right.

Missing 1 game over the last 3 seasons (a game he's admitted he'd have played if there was anything on the line) makes him a pussy. Over 1200 NFL carries he's had one significant injury, a sprained lateral collateral ligament...he missed 2 games - fuckin' charmin soft.

Again - if he hadn't have been injured at Oklahoma, this myth wouldn't exist.

"Adrien" Peterson answers the bell as often as any back in the league and he carries a serious load in the process.

DJ's left nut
02-04-2011, 08:58 AM
Absolutely. It's all about blocking and vision. Hell, I think speed is as overrated as power is in a lot of cases. It's good to have that extra gear once you get to the second level, but if you can't get out of the blocks to start with, you're not going anywhere.

Everybody talks about how fast he is (and he is....), but what Charles has, and he's shown this for two years now, is an uncanny ability to gain yards when there's really not a whole lot there. There are times when I think that he makes the o-line look a whole lot better than it really is. There are the occasional gaping holes, but there's a lot of plays where he's somehow pinballing off of defenders and then *zip* he's 6 or 7 yards downfield.

I think what we saw with Thomas Jones was a more realistic vision of the kind of line we have, particularly in the interior. As the season went on and Weigmann wore down, his yards went down. And I think that's maybe not a coincidence.

I think somewhere in the middle is more accurte.

It's not as good as Charles made it look, it's nowhere near as bad as Jones made it look. Didn't he average something like 2 YPC over the last 8 games of the season? That would be by far and away the worst running game in the NFL, probably in NFL history.

Jones looked like he was running in wet cement as the season went on. He lost several steps over the course of the year. I liked the signing and I liked the commitment to a power game to soften the defense, but by the end of the season he was completely ineffective.

I hope we draft a back to replace him this year. I'd love to see Clay out of Wisconsin.

Brock
02-04-2011, 08:59 AM
Peterson and Charles had a nearly identical workload this year, fwiw.

DJ's left nut
02-04-2011, 09:00 AM
Peterson and Charles had a nearly identical workload this year, fwiw.

Peterson averaged better than 4 more touches per game.

No, they really didn't.

Brock
02-04-2011, 09:02 AM
Peterson averaged better than 4 more touches per game.

No, they really didn't.

Oh, yeah. Ha ha. I read Peterson's carries as 238, not 283. Oops.

keg in kc
02-04-2011, 09:08 AM
Jones looked like he was running in wet cement as the season went on. He lost several steps over the course of the year. I liked the signing and I liked the commitment to a power game to soften the defense, but by the end of the season he was completely ineffective. I thought it was difficult to tell whether he had lost anything or not because he was often taking hits as soon as he got the handoff. Maybe he was - it wouldn't be a big surprise at 32 - but I think the bigger decline late in the year was probably Wiegmann. He's always had issues maintaining his weight late in the season, and he's really up there in years now.

DJ's left nut
02-04-2011, 09:18 AM
I thought it was difficult to tell whether he had lost anything or not because he was often taking hits as soon as he got the handoff. Maybe he was - it wouldn't be a big surprise at 32 - but I think the bigger decline late in the year was probably Wiegmann. He's always had issues maintaining his weight late in the season, and he's really up there in years now.

True.

But remember, a lot of a backs YPC is going to come on those 7 or 8 yard runs where they get that little seam into the defensive secondary. A RB has to hit those well to make up for the times he gets pushed back.

Jones simply didn't have the ability to do anything with the time he was given. I don't think he'd have remained a 5 YPC back, but there was ample opportunity for him to hit several 5-7 yard runs that would've helped that YPC out a ton. He simply didn't have the gear to make a simple off-tackle run effective and he'd get stuffed for 1 or 2.

I suppose you can make an argument that it was tough to know if he was bad or really really bad. But he wasn't getting blasted every time he carried. The times he had space, he still couldn't do anything with it. He was bad, though it's possible that Weigmann made him look a little worse.

Short Leash Hootie
02-04-2011, 09:54 AM
there is no way around it...

Jamaal Charles was the best back in the NFL last year...well maybe co-best with Arian Foster.

Adrian Peterson? Meh. Too inconsistent. Definitely a down year for AP...though, probably not surprising with that train wreck in Minnesota.

(and he cost me a FFL championship by 3 points when he was a "surprise" scratch on MNF...fucking asshole)

Short Leash Hootie
02-04-2011, 09:55 AM
and at this point...I'd take Charles over AP...no doubt in my mind. Less wear on the tread...

for ONE season? Still Jamaal.

But hey...they'd make an awesome 1 2 punch ;) Can we have both?

TheGuardian
02-04-2011, 10:13 AM
Right.

Missing 1 game over the last 3 seasons (a game he's admitted he'd have played if there was anything on the line) makes him a pussy. Over 1200 NFL carries he's had one significant injury, a sprained lateral collateral ligament...he missed 2 games - ****in' charmin soft.

Again - if he hadn't have been injured at Oklahoma, this myth wouldn't exist.

"Adrien" Peterson answers the bell as often as any back in the league and he carries a serious load in the process.

I like how you avoid his rookie year.

Again, Peterson is not the poster boy for durability.

TheGuardian
02-04-2011, 10:17 AM
Why are you dissing runners that came out of the zone system when Jamaal Charles himself is in that same system??????

Charles is not in the same system Davis ran in. Some of the things that were allowed during the time DAvis was playing is illegal now. And that made a big difference in his yards and production.

Terrell Davis was a very limited talent guy who just got lucky.

DJ's left nut
02-04-2011, 12:32 PM
I like how you avoid his rookie year.

Again, Peterson is not the poster boy for durability.

I avoided his rookie year?

Oh, you mean when I specifically mentioned the season he had the only significant injury of his career - and missed a whopping 2 games? You mean that time I was avoiding his rookie year?

I like how you're talking out your ass, didn't realize that he actually started 14 games that season and can't quite figure out a way to worm out of the argument.

The guy has been his teams primary ballcarrier for 4 seasons and has had 1 significant injury. He sprained his MCL and missed a whopping 2 games as a rookie (even without the benefit of a BYE).

Yeah, I'd say Adrian Peterson has been pretty damn durable.

DJ's left nut
02-04-2011, 12:49 PM
Alright, I've rooted around a bit.

I cannot come up with a single RB that has had as many carries or has been as consistently excellent than Adrian Peterson since he came into the league in 2007.

LDT comes close, but he missed a couple of games 2 years ago and doesn't shoulder the volume Peterson does. Turner's carried a heavy load but got injured (and didn't start in 2007). Jackson's a plowhorse but has missed several games in 2007 and 2008. MJD was looking like he might be that guy with full-time carries but finished this season with a bum knee. Ryan Grant could've been in the discussion but went down with a bum ankle. You tend to think of Cedric Benson as durable but he missed 3 starts with a bad hip in 2009 and still hasn't had near the workload of Peterson.

Thomas Jones appears to be the closest I can find. He hasn't missed a game and has carried the ball 1176 times to 1198 for Peterson. Chris Johnson could be the next person to join the group with three seasons of workload that look a lot like APs and only 1 game missed through the first 3 years instead of 2. Clearly that makes him twice as durable through their first three seasons. So Johnson's a tank, AP is a pussy.

There you have it. Thomas Jones is the indestructible 'poster child' of durability. Chris Johnson is waiting to assume the mantle. Everyone else in the NFL, OTOH, is a soft bitch. Afterall, you said so.

Next time try doing some research before you run your mouth.

ThaVirus
02-04-2011, 01:12 PM
Alright, I've rooted around a bit.

I cannot come up with a single RB that has had as many carries or has been as consistently excellent than Adrian Peterson since he came into the league in 2007.

LDT comes close, but he missed a couple of games 2 years ago and doesn't shoulder the volume Peterson does. Turner's carried a heavy load but got injured (and didn't start in 2007). Jackson's a plowhorse but has missed several games in 2007 and 2008. MJD was looking like he might be that guy with full-time carries but finished this season with a bum knee. Ryan Grant could've been in the discussion but went down with a bum ankle. You tend to think of Cedric Benson as durable but he missed 3 starts with a bad hip in 2009 and still hasn't had near the workload of Peterson.

Thomas Jones appears to be the closest I can find. He hasn't missed a game and has carried the ball 1176 times to 1198 for Peterson. Chris Johnson could be the next person to join the group with three seasons of workload that look a lot like APs and only 1 game missed through the first 3 years instead of 2. Clearly that makes him twice as durable through their first three seasons. So Johnson's a tank, AP is a pussy.

There you have it. Thomas Jones is the indestructible 'poster child' of durability. Chris Johnson is waiting to assume the mantle. Everyone else in the NFL, OTOH, is a soft bitch. Afterall, you said so.

Next time try doing some research before you run your mouth.

Oooooh, bringing down the hammer!

Los Pollos Hermanos
02-04-2011, 01:56 PM
Peterson has lost his burst.

Short Leash Hootie
02-04-2011, 02:39 PM
I think adrians most impressive year was his rookie year...he's been incredibly solid since but he hasn't really done a ton of things that have impressed me. Did I mention he cost me a FFL championship and a boat load of $$$$?

Sent from my Ally using Tapatalk

DJ's left nut
02-04-2011, 02:43 PM
I think adrians most impressive year was his rookie year...he's been incredibly solid since but he hasn't really done a ton of things that have impressed me. Did I mention he cost me a FFL championship and a boat load of $$$$?

Sent from my Ally using Tapatalk

Averaging nearly 5 YPC over 360+ carries didn't impress you?

I think there's a chance we've seen his best, I'll give you that. His running style is so physical that he takes a pounding that few do.

But the guy still went for 4.6/carry this season in a lost year where the Vikings couldn't get out of their own way. He's improved as a pass-catcher and has really gotten a handle on his ball-control issues.

He probably only has another 2 or 3 seasons at an elite level, but I'm not going to pile dirt on the man just yet.

Short Leash Hootie
02-04-2011, 08:34 PM
I'm not trying to bash him (although I currently hate him more than any football player in the NFL for costing me that championship)...but from what I saw...he seems to have a bit of the "LJ disease"...

Meaning...he seems to have a lot of 1, 1, 1, 0 yard carries...and then bust one for 35 to skew the YPC...

That's just what I noticed some this year...as he had a handful of HUGE games...and equally as many shit games...

I do think some of that had to do with the drama going on over there...but still...

Rookie AP looked as good as anyone ever...this year Jamaal looked better than AP...

So yeah, I think 23 year old Jamaal has more value than AP does right now...for 1 season and long term.

TheGuardian
02-04-2011, 09:07 PM
Alright, I've rooted around a bit.

I cannot come up with a single RB that has had as many carries or has been as consistently excellent than Adrian Peterson since he came into the league in 2007.

LDT comes close, but he missed a couple of games 2 years ago and doesn't shoulder the volume Peterson does. Turner's carried a heavy load but got injured (and didn't start in 2007). Jackson's a plowhorse but has missed several games in 2007 and 2008. MJD was looking like he might be that guy with full-time carries but finished this season with a bum knee. Ryan Grant could've been in the discussion but went down with a bum ankle. You tend to think of Cedric Benson as durable but he missed 3 starts with a bad hip in 2009 and still hasn't had near the workload of Peterson.

Thomas Jones appears to be the closest I can find. He hasn't missed a game and has carried the ball 1176 times to 1198 for Peterson. Chris Johnson could be the next person to join the group with three seasons of workload that look a lot like APs and only 1 game missed through the first 3 years instead of 2. Clearly that makes him twice as durable through their first three seasons. So Johnson's a tank, AP is a pussy.

There you have it. Thomas Jones is the indestructible 'poster child' of durability. Chris Johnson is waiting to assume the mantle. Everyone else in the NFL, OTOH, is a soft bitch. Afterall, you said so.

Next time try doing some research before you run your mouth.

And yet Charles was the all pro running back this season you shit face of a ****tard.

This thread wasn't about who had more production over the last 3 or 4 years. It was about who you would take right now. Second, if Peterson were all that and a bucket of chicken, he'd have led the league in rushing more than 1 time in 4 seasons. Why don't you put on the NFCCG tape sometimes of the Vikings against the Saints and watch Jonatham Vilma own him head to head on several occasions. Take away one run from him and he averaged 3.9 on 24 carries before you start quoting his stats in that game.

You'd take the guy that produces less. But you're an idiot and I already knew that. So go eat a bag of Lexington Steel dicks you ****ing window licker.

keg in kc
02-05-2011, 12:53 AM
True.

But remember, a lot of a backs YPC is going to come on those 7 or 8 yard runs where they get that little seam into the defensive secondary. A RB has to hit those well to make up for the times he gets pushed back.

Jones simply didn't have the ability to do anything with the time he was given. I don't think he'd have remained a 5 YPC back, but there was ample opportunity for him to hit several 5-7 yard runs that would've helped that YPC out a ton. He simply didn't have the gear to make a simple off-tackle run effective and he'd get stuffed for 1 or 2. I think "ample opportunity" is a bit of a stretch. Jones was getting most of the inside runs, and while Weigmann's effective when he's getting to backers and dbs on the second level, he's a liability in one-on-one situations with any tackle of any size (also an issue throwing the ball, albeit a different topic). Pressure up the middle kills the running game and it kills the passing game. I don't think it's a coincidence that most of our success came running to the outside. And Jones wasn't the guy getting those carries (nor should he have been...).

We were also extremely conservative on offense. I think by the second half of the year, teams knew that were were a running team and little else and that's all that they worried about. Jones was generally the guy in there when everybody on the field, in the stands and watching on TV could tell we were going to try and run the ball.

I like to say that Charles was protected by the shared carries, and that's one of the ways that I mean that. It wasn't just a matter of protecting him from injuries or potential fumbles. It was having somebody else in there taking the beating and the 2-yard carries when the defense was selling out to stop the run.

royr17
02-05-2011, 02:47 AM
Dude I like Jamaal Charles too but I'd rather have Adrian Peterson, he is a workhorse running back that Jamaal is not, why do you think they brought in Thomas Jones for ?

Cause they know that Jamaal is not a every down back, but dont get me wrong he sure is explosive and exciting to watch.

Von Dumbass
02-05-2011, 05:26 AM
And yet Charles was the all pro running back this season you shit face of a ****tard.

This thread wasn't about who had more production over the last 3 or 4 years. It was about who you would take right now. Second, if Peterson were all that and a bucket of chicken, he'd have led the league in rushing more than 1 time in 4 seasons. Why don't you put on the NFCCG tape sometimes of the Vikings against the Saints and watch Jonatham Vilma own him head to head on several occasions. Take away one run from him and he averaged 3.9 on 24 carries before you start quoting his stats in that game.

You'd take the guy that produces less. But you're an idiot and I already knew that. So go eat a bag of Lexington Steel dicks you ****ing window licker.

Charles is an untalented assclown who is only good because he plays in the zone scheme. Right???