I understand why you may be confused as to why we are starting with Chris Johnson vs Adrian Peterson. Is it really THAT assumed that Arian Foster should be taken first overall? Shouldn't the debate be Arian Foster vs Chris Johnson vs Adrain Peterson?
Here's a fun fact for you:
- Number of searches in Google for Chris Johnson vs Adrian Peterson over the past month: 720
- Number of searches in Google for Chris Johnson vs Arian Foster: 0
- Number of searches in Google for Adrian Peterson vs Arian Foster: 0
Pretty funky huh? Then go look at the average draft positions so far this year.
- #1: Arian Foster (1.25). That's close to a lock.
- #4: Jamaal Charles (4.22). That is in cement.
However....Adrian Peterson? ADP of 2.86. Chris Johnson? 3.14. In other words....there's a debate there. And there absolutely, positively should be. Kind of.
First off...let me say this: Arian Foster should drop to number three. In fact....he SHOULD drop to number 5 behind Jamaal Charles and Michael Vick, but you are human, and therefore essentially risk averse. If you take Foster with the first pick, you won't seem stupid. Even if he sucks, "noone could blame you" for taking him with that pick. So why risk it?
Well....he won't suck. It is however the wrong decision. And you are stupid if you make it. Why? 3 reasons:
1) Vonta Leech (Houston's 2010 Fullback) is now a Raven.
2) James Casey (Houston's 2011 Fullback) is more of a ball-carrier than a blocker.
3) James Casey was a minor league baseball player before he signed on for football. Position? Pitcher.
He was a fucking pitcher. Great. Here's to hoping the Cowboys sign Jabba Chamberlien's fat ass to block for the brittle 1-2-3 punch of Jones/Choice/Murray. The fact is every three years Texas gets a running back, that was picked in fantasy football round 5 (or off the waiver wire) and does great things. The following year they are picked in the first round of every fantasy football league. And then what happens? Well...let me ask you....where are you picking Steve Slaton or Dominick Davis in this years draft?
But I digress. The fantasy football playing masses in this small August sample size have made their opinion known, so I will stop berating them for being stupid. And I will move on.
The number two pick should be Chris Johnson. Actually, the number 1 pick should be Chris Johnson. Here's why;
Adrian Peterson has been the safest play at RB for four years running. Not dominant in the way LT2 or Priest Holmes, or Marshall Faulk was dominant...but he'll be a top 5 back every year. If you have owned him in a keeper league, you should thank him.
And you can cut him now.
Why? Because out of those players I just mentioned, none of them...NONE of them had 5 great years. Neither did Stephen Davis, Brian Westbrook, Emmit Smith....pick a name. 4 years. Then a significant slide.
Now...it's not always the RB. Offensive lines deteriorate, QB's get replaced Coaches get moved around, offensive schemes change, etc. And how many of those things are happening in Minnesota right now? All of them.
Now...will Johnson face some of those issues as well? Yes. But has his offensive line gotten worse? No. And will the offensive scheme change? Not really. And will Hasselback do a better job of getting him the ball in the flats than Young? Yes.
So there you have it. Debate settled. I have the third pick in my draft, and I'm hoping Johnson falls. And if he doesn't....I'm taking Jamaal Chares.
You fail to factor in Lawrence Vickers into the equation. The Texans signed him last week to replace Leach. Also, it's not like Leach was on the field for all or even most of Foster's runs last year. Foster prefers the 1-back set.
ReplyDeleteAs for Peterson, he is running with a much improved QB situation this year. McNabb is unquestionably an upgrade from last season's failed combination of geriatric signal callers and underwhelming career backups that are now Pete Carroll's problems.
ReplyDeleteAlso, your Emmitt Smith comments are just plain wrong. Look at the stats before you post something like what you wrote above. Here's a glimpse at his yardage: 1563, 1713, 1486, 1484, 1773. From what I can tell that is 5 years (1991-95) of solid production in a row. By the way, the year he had 1773 yards (1995) he also had 25 tds. Emmitt's "significant slide" occurred in 1996 when he ran for a meager 1204 yards and 12 tds (1400+ yards and 15 tds total).
So get your facts straight (it's called research) and then try posting again.
PS From 2004-2008 the lowest total yards from scrimmage that Brian Westbrook produced was 1233.
I'm glad to hear you think a 34 yr. old McNabb is that much better than a 40 yr. old Favre. I disagree. Considering a 33 year old McNabb was as ineffective as a 40 year old Favre, and a 32 year old McNabb was less effective than a 39 year old Favre, I don't understand why you anticipate great success.
ReplyDeleteYou are right about Smith. Good catch...Emmit Smith is an outlier. I did call him out specifically, so my bad. He had 5 years of playing at an extremely high level before falling off to 1200/12, which are still good...but not what you drafted him for. If Peterson's numbers get cut like that you're looking at 900/6.
I'm not saying a healthy Peterson wouldn't break 900/6 with 300 carries. I'm saying the odds of Peterson beating 300 carries are slim. And if he does, 900/6 is possible.
And regarding Leach;
ReplyDeleteTexas ran out of a 2 back set 65% of the time last year. That's significant. Especially in short yardage situations. Foster may have a better YPC out of a one back set, but when you're not using it in short yardage, it skews the numbers.