Brees or Peterson?
by PurplePeopleEaters09 on Feb 14, 2009 3:31 PM CST
Email
PrintThe other day my friend and I were talking about the Vikings and the need to get a quarterback. The topic got brought up about the Vikings not making a push to get Drew Brees back in 2006. While I would love to have Brees in Minnesota, me and my friend both agreed that if Brees was in Minnesota, the Vikings would not have gotten Adrian Peterson in the draft, because they probably would not hae been picking 7th overall. So I want to know what you all think about this. Would you rather have Drew Brees or Adrian Peterson. Both sides have a good argument. With Brees, the Vikings would have their franchise QB. But Adrian Peterson is the best back in the NFL and if he stays healthy, he has the chance to be the best back to ever have played the game. I'm not sure which player I'd rather have.
This FanPost was created by a registered user of The Daily Norseman, and does not necessarily reflect the views of the staff of the site. However, since this is a community, that view is no less important.
30 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Peterson
And it’s not close.
Viking Vigil - The 2nd greatest Vikings community on the internet!
http://www.vikingvigil.com
Twins Fix
http://www.twinsfix.com
How many of the "Best in the NFL" backs have Rings
First, I don’t know that Brees would have been/is the all world QB for MN. With that said, I would take an all world QB over the running back everytime. If you don’t agree, answer this one for me. How many all world backs have been able to carry a team to the promise land vs. the all world QB’s who have carried a team? (it does not count if both the all world back and all world QB were on the same team or if it was done before the passing era, ie Jim Brown is not a good example).
Some pretty damn good Backs with no QB and no ring:
Peterson
Sanders
Jackson
Holmes
Tomlinson
could go on and on…
List of All world QB’s with non all world Running backs and a ring:
Manning
Brady
Roethlisberger (I don’t want to hear it…even though it wasn’t a catch at the end, it was a great throw and Pittsburg gets smashed in that game without him.)
Elway (Although TD was pretty Damn good)
Montana
Young
Could go on here also:
Bottom Line: No QB, no chance…it is way, way, way more important than having a stud RB. If I thought for sure that Brees was that guy…I would drop Peterson in a heartbeat. It sure as hell would have been nice to have them both though…
I did note that TD was pretty damn good...
So i would have no problem dropping Elway off the list. The point still remains…We need a stud QB or the chances are ultra slim that the team really goes over the top. But hey, I’m holding on to that slim chance, so here’s to Cassel being the stud!
by VikesSince85 on Feb 15, 2009 12:39 AM CST up reply actions
Not an either-or question
Eli Manning: Brandon Jacobs is pretty good, and he may not have been the best RB on that team!
Peyton Manning: Addai was worth more fantasy points than Thomas Jones that year.
Brady: Corey Dillon was a Pro Bowler one of the years, but he’s possibly an example in other years.
Roethlisberger He had at least one Pro Bowl calibre RB each time.
Elway The years he lost the SB, he lacked a Pro Bowl running back (although Sammy Winder went to 2 Pro Bowls, he wasn’t really that good, but TD is a serious HoF candidate despite an injury-shortened career).
Montana Seriously? Look up Roger Craig. All he did was lead the league in receptions AND have 1,000 yards receiving AND 1,000 yards rushing in 1985. In another Championship year, Montana’s favorite RB led the league in yards from scrimmage.
Young Ricky Watters was Craig Lite (5th in the NFL in ’94 in Yds from Scrimmage) and went to Pro Bowls with more than one team. (1994 was his 3rd or 5 consecutive Pro Bowl appearances, and he was even better in Philadelphia after that…and still productive in Seattle after that.)
Let’s review the past 15 Super Bowls to see if an “all-world QB” is really the most important factor:
In 1994, both the Chargers and Niners had Pro Bowl running backs (Ricky Watters and Natrone Means), so this one is a wash.
In 1995, Emmitt Smith only rushed for 1,700+ yards and 25 TDs that year. The losing Steelers started Neil O’Donnell and Erric Pegram, who led a committee with fewer than 900 yards.
1996 seemed to be a battle of franchise QBs at the time, but given the rest of his career after this game, the Patriots may have owed far more to Curtis Martin and Dave Meggett (both were Pro Bowlers that year, Meggett as a returner). Green Bay won with a talented RBBC and Favre. It gets a half point since Dorsey hadn’t gone to a Pro Bowl yet.
In 1997, the Pack was back, and Pro Bowl RB Dorsey Levens had taken over full-time duties there. They lost to HoF QB John Elway, Pro Bowl RB Terrell Davis, and Co.
In 1998, the Broncos were back, but this time they defeated a Falcons team that been buoyed by career-best seasons from Pro Bowl RB Jamaal Anderson (led the league with a then-record-breaking number of touches) and Chris Chandler.
1999: McNair had been snubbed from the Pro Bowl (again), but Eddie George went to Hawaii. On the winners’ side, we all know how great Warner has been, but let’s not forget that Marshall Faulk was considered the best to ever play the game at the time by some based on his years with the Greatest Show on Turf.
2000: In a battle of unspectacular offenses, Pro Bowl RB Jamal Lewis stood out, although some guy named Tiki Barber had accumulated 1700+ yards from scrimmage in a committee setting.
2001: This is the first clear example of a great QB winning a Championship without a great running back, although other Super Bowl teams have had worse RBs and RBBCs before and since. Still, the other team had Warner and Faulk. (It seems to take great talent at both positions to get to the Super Bowl.)
2002: Brad Johnson was a Pro Bowl QB with a dual-threat RBBC which included Pro Bowl FB Mike Alstott, but if there was an “all-world” QB in this game, it was Rich Gannon (an especially painful game for Vikings fans), who had the benefit of a better starting RB. Given the number of teams that had passed on Johnson and Gannon, it’s difficult to think of either of them as “all-world” QBs.
2003: Brady’s team winning fits the profile.
2004: This time, Brady had a Pro Bowl RB (who used to own a few records now owned by AP).
2005: Big Ben manages the games well with help from an RBBC of 2-time Pro Bowl RB Willie Parker and future HoFer Jerome Bettis. Shawn Alexander was a dominant rusher for the Super Bowl losing Seahawks. I’ll give this one half a point.
In 2006, neither team had a great RB, but Addai’s season was worth significantly more fantasy points than Thomas Jones’s season. This game was clearly won by having a superior QB, though.
2007: Eli didn’t win that game by being the best QB in the stadium, and he had the more productive backfield.
2008: Despite posting a rating over 100 against the league’s best defense, Kurt Warner found himself on the losing end.
That’s only 3 clear examples and 2 half examples of Super Bowl teams being won by a great QB and a mediocre running game over the past 15 Super Bowls.
On the flipside, the 1998 Falcons, 2000 Giants, 2000 Ravens, 2006 Bears, and 1994 Chargers (and arguably the 2002 Raiders and 2002 Bucs) had average, journeyman, or even below average QBs (5 clear examples and 2 half examples).
The real bottom line: Of QB, RB, and D, a Super Bowl team requires at least 2/3. It isn’t an either QB or RB proposition at all. With that in mind:
1) If a team already has the stud RB, then the clock is ticking for that team. A great D is sustainable via FA and quality draft picks. A QB can play until he’s 35+. RBs are at their best for 2-5 years, and we’ve already seen 2 great years from AP (twice as many as he had in college).
2) WIth AP and the Williamses and Antoine Winfield nearing the end of their peak years, the Vikings don’t have time to develop TJ over 2-3 more years. The team needs a starting QB whose NFL passer rating will be at least 80 in 2009 to have a real chance at a Championship.
3) It seems that a mediocre or average RB/RBBC requires a great D and a great QB to make up for it, whereas a good-to-great running game only requires the QB (Warner, Brady a few times, Peyton Manning, Warner again) or great D (2006 Bears, 2000 Ravens and Giants, 2002 Bucs, 2003 Panthers) to be great. Mediocre QBs can only get to the game with a good-to-great RB and an elite D (Kerry Collins, Chris Chandler, Rex Grossmann). The Vikings’ D is not strong enough vs. the pass to justify the mediocre QB model.
Beyond that, there are some HoF QBs who never won Super Bowl Rings:Dan Marino
Dan Fouts
Archie Manning
and some guy named Fran Tarkenton.
Some of them never even played in a Super Bowl.
I did leave a pretty big clause that having both doesn't count
I think what you pointed out is that a lot of these teams had both a good/great QB and RB. Really Baltimore is the only glaring example of QB not being great, but if I recall Dilfer played his best ball ever during that playoff run. Beyond that, I think that if we sat here and listed out RB’s vs. QB’s we would find that the RB position is easier to fill at a high level than the QB position…and that is ultimately the point I was going for.
by VikesSince85 on Feb 17, 2009 1:23 AM CST up reply actions
Agreed
You were reasonable, but I felt like I had to expound on a couple of those (Craig, especially—he gets no respect compared to Montana, RIce, and Young, who wasn’t even a factor in 4/5 of the Championship years), and once I get started on something, it’s too fun to stop.
Shorter version: I’d rather have the QB only because their careers last longer. That aside, the RB has more advantages. The stud RB can turn his team into a contender overnight while the QB still needs a lot of help from the line, receivers, and running game (and usually more time to develop). A stud RB can positively impact a team overnight. Even a team with a bad D is better off with the RB at first since he can control the clock more and keep the worse D off the field.
Alternate question: Adrian Peterson or Brady Quinn, redux?
alternate question? That's a stupid question
The best Rb in the league for a back up QB? Not even close
by PurplePeopleEaters09 on Feb 19, 2009 3:13 PM CST up reply actions
The original question was franchise QB or franchise RB
So on draft day 2007, that sort of thinking would have led to selecting Brady Quinn for some.
Aaron Rodgers and Jason Campbell seemed like busts after 2 years, too, so time will tell with Quinn. I was for AP on draft day, and it would take a lot over the next 3 years to change my mind, but anything is still possible.
I believe this was asked in sarcasm
Right? Because even Vince Young could get that question right on the Wonderlic test.
by Eric J. Thompson on Feb 19, 2009 5:06 PM CST up reply actions
Possibilities
In the next 3-5 years, it is possible for AP to break down or drop off to mediocrity or the end of his career as a starter and for Brady Quinn to emerge as a franchise QB for the next 3-5 more years after that. I don’t know how likely or unlikely that is, but we just don’t know yet.
I had AP ranked well above Quinn on draft day, and I doubt I’ll ever look back in hindsight and feel any differently, but if Quinn steps up his play and gets a real opportunity, then any reasonable person would have to re-evaluate that move.
Not exactly sarcasm
…but rephrasing the original question to a specific real-world example on draft day ’07.
Well, I dunno. I wish we had signed Brees and still managed to get ahold of Peterson. I mean, the guy WAS falling in the draft. He was supposed to be in the top 3 picks. I doubt the Dolphins would have nabbed him either, they have Ronnie Brown. Point is, he probably would have fallen farther than pick 7 because teams were concerned about his “durability” and whether he needed surgery on his collarbone or not.
With Brees, we likely would have made the playoffs, meaning we’d have a pick in the 20s. Its hard to imagine Peterson falling that far, but Brady Quinn did fall to the 20s and he was projected to be a number 1 overall pick. It might have been possible to get both.
Peterson.
Mainly because I have a ridiculously huge man-crush on him. And I’m okay with that.
In AP I trust
by FarvaForTheVikings on Feb 14, 2009 11:19 PM CST reply actions
Peterson
Hands down, we are run first offense and besides who would have Brees thrown the ball to? Brad Johnson has a ring and he is not all world QB and didn’t have a stud RB either in TB but had a killer D behind him. Montana, Elway, Manning, and Brady all had great all around teams and didn’t have to carry the load by themselves.
Wow, great question
I remember a lot of people questioning the Peterson pick because the Vikes already had Taylor, who was coming off of a nearly 1300 yard season, and Peterson had that injury history problem. As great as a runner that AP is, we’ve seen first hand what mediocre quarterbacking gets you, so I would reluctantly have to say Brees..
I love Peterson, but good/great running backs are easier to find/replace than a great QB.
Thoughts on the Vikings, Buckeyes, and Cardinals
www.purplebuckeye.blogspot.com
Brees
I agree with MilCardFan and VikesSince85. A franchise QB is the most important piece to a superbowl caliber team. There are a lot more elite RBs than elite QBs. If Minnesota has Brees, they would still have Chester Taylor, who put up excellent numbers the year he started. It’s not like the Vikings would be stuck with Maurice Morris as their starting back. I like the combo of Brees and Taylor more than I like the combo of Peterson and T-Jack. With Minnesota’s D, a good O-Line, and Brees, there wouldn’t be talk of “Minnesota could be a super bowl caliber team, but…”
by PurplePeopleEaters09 on Feb 15, 2009 2:15 PM CST reply actions
I would still rather have Adrian
but most of the dominant teams in the league are lead by great QBs, not runningbacks. Maybe brees would have taken our team to the promise land by now. With our defense you can only imagine. But I love A.P.!
And how many SB's have the Saints won with Brees?
Or playoff games? That’s what I thought. He has a good O-line and WRs in NO and been putting up record numbers but still no promised land. I think we are closer to achieving that with AD & CT as a 1-2 punch, now if we could get some consistancy at QB…..
The difference is, N.O has never really had a dominant defense like you see the Vikings have had since ’06.
And I forgot to add this, but Brees did take them to the NFC Championship game. That’s farther than we certainly got.
Forgot about 06
I realized later that Brees did take NO to the NFC Championship game. I am just being biased because I love AD and I am glad that he running for us and not anybody else.
A-Robot
Most exciting player I’ve seen since Barry Sanders. Although the Vikings are underachievers and frustrating to watch sometimes, getting to watch Adrian Peterson every sunday is awesome.
If hassleback can stay injury free
He may be the story of 09 if he joined the Vikes. Not sure that he is going to be joining though. I best hope is that Cassel is the story….you know the always overlooked, never got to play until one day the big dog went down, now he is the first of the USC QB’s to take a team (ie Vikes) to a Superbowl Victory. Oh yeah, since Defenses have to actually defend the pass, Peterson rushes for 250 and a the superbowl MVP.
by VikesSince85 on Feb 16, 2009 2:18 PM CST up reply actions
We already had a stud
I voted for Peterson in this poll but after reading these posts, i have to reconsider. We already had Chester Taylor at that time (everyone was stunned during the draft when the Vikings took Peterson because we already had Taylor) and if we had gotten our hands on a top flight passer like Brees there is no telling what our offense could do. Of course we have Childress to worry about and with his play calling there is a good chance that he would have forced Brees to play down to T-Jack standards.
Why do people keep bringing up Hassleback? I have not heard any rumors that Seattle wants to be rid of him. I think he would be an excellent option under center for the purple but i just don’t see why Seattle would let him go right now.
Norm Green still sucks!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
