If Adrian Peterson was drafted in 2000, how would he have been viewed?

[patriotsheatyan]

Peterson was drafted in 2007 and played in an era without Faulk or Martin, with Tomlinson in his twilight years, and Lewis and Alexander's historic seasons passed. Green and Williams also had some great seasons. 

For most of Peterson's career, he was playing in a league where almost no running back had historic seasons, almost every top back hit the 30 wall right away, and where many of his potential competitors for top dealt with injuries setting them back at some point. 

 

If Peterson was drafted in 2000 and had his career play out largely the same, with the same or similar numbers over time and the same time missed, how would he have been considered compared to others? 

 

 

[Crickett]

One of the better members of what could be considered a golden age of running backs.  I don't think AD would have been lost in the shuffle by any stretch, but he wouldn't have stood out as much as he did a decade later.   In the early to mid 2000's, it'd be a shorter list of teams that didn't have at least good running backs.  Most had great ones. 

 

Dallas between the times Emmitt's prime ended and the selection of Julius Jones and Marion Barber III.

Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago before they signed Thomas Jones, Washington before the Portis trade?  Arizona?   Tennessee between the time Jeff Fisher ran Eddie George's career into the ground and CJ2K.

 

[RedRider]

Aiding his perception would be the fact that he would have had a much better career, mostly for the following reasons:

1. RBs back then were mostly asked to run out of I, strong, and weak formations. Thus there was a bigger premium on an RB's ability to run. This fits Peterson like a glove. No longer would he be forced to run out of shotgun 80% of the time, no longer would his inability to catch passes be such a negative.

2. Offensive lineman were simply better back in the 2000. I'm aware this is a big blanket statement to cast, but it is true. In college, O-lineman now play in simplified schemes and simply don't get the technique training they used to, they haven't since the early 2000's. NFL Teams are also prioritizing pass blocking lineman rather than run blocking lineman.

3. Sticking with the run even when it wasn't very fruitful was still the motto then, more so than it was for most of Peterson's career anyway. He got a lot of carries, but would have received even more in this hypothetical scenario. In specific, this would greatly benefit Peterson as - more than any other RB I've seen - he got better with each carry. In a general sense, as with any other back, this would have had a negative effect on his durability and likely his ypc, but a positive effect on all other stats.

The position was not only a premiere position in the 2000's in the sense of scheme and workload, it was also a premiere position for coverage. Not only would Peterson have a better career, but every play he made would have been looked at with more grandeur. 

 

 

Disregarding the positive/negative effect that the era transition would give Peterson and just looking at perception. (as you state in your opening post) He would be a (still) big fish in a bigger pond. But this is only true in the sense of perception. In reality, the great backs of today (Peterson, McCoy, Bell, Lynch, Charles, Gore) are not really less talented and have no less drive to succeed than the backs of yesteryear (Tomlinson, Faulk, Martin, Lewis, Alexander, Green). The discrepancy between them and the older backs is mostly due to the three+1 reasons listed above, and these are all extrinsic factors.

 

Though this hypothetical scenario is just seven years different than reality, Peterson is a textbook case of a player playing in the wrong era.

[Pats#1]

5 hours ago, Crickett said:

One of the better members of what could be considered a golden age of running backs. 

This sums it up for me.

[lavar703]

He has undeniable talent that translated from college to the pros. I can remember watching him early on at Oklahoma and he was always the best player on the field. The era he played in wouldn't have mattered because he was that dominant of a player. 

If Peterson were drafted in 2000 he'd still be viewed the same way. He still would've been a top 10 pick and considering how the era was more kind to top 5 picks being RBs he potentially could've gone #1 over Courtney Brown. While I like Jamal Lewis and being from VA cheered for Thomas Jones, he was lightyears beyond those two as a collegiate prospect. He's honestly one of the most dominant players I've ever seen. 

[DontTazeMeBro]

Best RB I’ve seen other than Barry Sanders. @RedRider is probably right. He probably would have been perfect for that era. Although I think most of his career Minnesota centered their offense around him and defenses of the early 2000s were built more to stop the run. So that would be the counter argument. But I don’t think all those RBs would have changed perception of him because he was better than all of them 

[smetana34]

1 hour ago, RedRider said:

Aiding his perception would be the fact that he would have had a much better career, mostly for the following reasons:

1. RBs back then were mostly asked to run out of I, strong, and weak formations. Thus there was a bigger premium on an RB's ability to run. This fits Peterson like a glove. No longer would he be forced to run out of shotgun 80% of the time, no longer would his inability to catch passes be such a negative.

2. Offensive lineman were simply better back in the 2000. I'm aware this is a big blanket statement to cast, but it is true. In college, O-lineman now play in simplified schemes and simply don't get the technique training they used to, they haven't since the early 2000's. NFL Teams are also prioritizing pass blocking lineman rather than run blocking lineman.

3. Sticking with the run even when it wasn't very fruitful was still the motto then, more so than it was for most of Peterson's career anyway. He got a lot of carries, but would have received even more in this hypothetical scenario. In specific, this would greatly benefit Peterson as - more than any other RB I've seen - he got better with each carry. In a general sense, as with any other back, this would have had a negative effect on his durability and likely his ypc, but a positive effect on all other stats.

The position was not only a premiere position in the 2000's in the sense of scheme and workload, it was also a premiere position for coverage. Not only would Peterson have a better career, but every play he made would have been looked at with more grandeur. 

 

 

Disregarding the positive/negative effect that the era transition would give Peterson and just looking at perception. (as you state in your opening post) He would be a (still) big fish in a bigger pond. But this is only true in the sense of perception. In reality, the great backs of today (Peterson, McCoy, Bell, Lynch, Charles) are not really less talented and have no less drive to succeed than the backs of yesteryear (Tomlinson, Faulk, Martin, Lewis, Alexander). The discrepancy between them and the older backs is mostly due to the three+1 reasons listed above, and these are all extrinsic factors.

 

Though this hypothetical scenario is just seven years different than reality, Peterson is a textbook case of a player playing in the wrong era.

Yeah, I feel like a lot of this post is reaching. He ran out of the shotgun 80% of the time? I'd love to see something that supports that, as that doesn't seem accurate at all. He struggled in the shotgun; we're to believe he was misused 80% of the time? 

 

As for the "sticking with the run" comment, the difference in league wide carries per season in the early 2000s and AP's hay days is negligible at very best. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/NFL/rushing.htm Considering Minnesota was one of the teams who was running more than average, no, Peterson wouldn't have seen some big boom in his numbers. They likely wouldn't have changed at all. 

 

You've already acknowledged the blanket comment about prospects today vs 2000. There's absolutely no way to prove one way or another what you said is true, despite you saying so. Even if it were true, two things: AP had great players in front of him in Birk, Hutchinson, and Mckinnie paving the way, so that's moot. Two, if that were truly the case, wouldn't there be a philosophical switch in the way defense were run to counter the offensive change, thus making it easier for Peterson to find room against teams designed to stop the pass? (I assume that's what you were insinuating in the 2nd paragraph) If he were in the early 2000s, he would have been running against defenses set up to stop the run. FWIW, I don't believe there was some huge dramatic shift in offensive philosophies at all between early and late 2000s, so I'm just pointing out what I feel are inconsistencies in your 2nd paragraph. 

 

As someone mentioned, he would be a great RB in a golden era. However, at no point would he have been considered the best RB in the league like he has throughout his time in the league, which could cause him to get overlooked in conversations discussing the best RBs of the early 2000s. I know a lot of people here think an important piece of making the HOF is "considered the best in the league" which Peterson wouldn't have been behind more complete complete backs. He's a 1st ballot now, and it wouldn't surprise me if he was a 2nd or 3rd ballot instead had he played with Faulk, Tomlinson, etc.

 

In short, I disagree;  Peterson played in the era that most benefited him. He would have been considered just another great RB in the early 2000s that gets overlooked instead of the great in the late 2000s.

[RedRider]

@smetana34 Good post.

Although I don't agree with your last two paragraphs, I don't have much to refute some of your counters.

Regarding him having a good line: Birk's last year in Minnesota was 2008, Peterson only played behind him two years; Hutchinson's last good year was 2009, so only three years; McKinnie's (who was never a great run blocker during Peterson's career) last year was 2010, so four years. Their absence was filled by Matt Khalil, Charlie Johnson, and John Sullivan. Khalil had one good year before turning was among the league's worst LT's, Charlie Johnson is the worst player we've started this decade, and Sullivan was above-average. More often than not, Peterson's line was poor.

When making the 80% shotgun comment, I was thinking of the NFL in general now, not of Peterson in specific.. a lapse in logic. Though on a bit different note, it is fact that Minnesota used shotgun much more often when Peterson was on the sidelines than when he was in (thus telegraphing his plays, making him easier to stop). While I might have exaggerated the shift in offensive philosophy between eras, the offenses in the 2000's hardly ran shotgun. In this way, Peterson would not have telegraphed his play, so one can assume he'd have better performance.

[SteelKing728]

Imagine if he were drafted in 2017...

Minnesota's offense was so predictable with Adrian Peterson in the game back then. It'd just be worse now.

Although it doesn't help that we never had much talent around AD except in 08 and 09, had bad coaching and some underwhelming drafts to compliment it all.

[lavar703]

@smetana34

Faulk was a tremendous player but if you're going to knock Peterson for playing with great players, which I don't agree, then Faulk almost certainly gets the same treatment. He's certainly better than Bettis, Martin, Holmes, Davis, Lewis, Barber, Williams and Alexander. He was definitely better than S. Jackson, Portis and Thomas Jones. Larry Johnson was okay but pissed his career away. The only back that I can say with complete certainty that would've been better was LT. Mainly because he was in a league of his own. 

I guess what I'm asking is who would you put ahead of him from that era? I mean, I lived through it so I remember it quite well. I also remember when AP came into the league and pretty much nobody had seen anybody like him. Power, breakaway speed, vision etc. 

And while I disagree I'm not trying to put your opinion down. I'm genuinely curious. 

[Iamcanadian]

For what it is worth, I'm 65 and have seen all the great ones play from Jimmy Brown till today.

When Peterson was drafted, the only question mark about his ability, was how injury prone he was. His NFL career has been spotted throughout with injuries and that is something all the great RB's avoided, so he cannot rank up with the greatest. Saying that, when healthy, he was as talented as any RB I ever saw, of course, the 2000's was a passing first era, which means teams played the pass first and worried about the run later, although when he was healthy, they certainly paid a lot more attention to Minny's running game.

He did have some advantages though, over the past greats from earlier eras. Because it was a passing era, the defenders got smaller, faster and quicker, so they could defend the pass better and a lot of them were liabilities against the run, which played right into Peterson's advantage.

As strictly a runner, only LT compared to him in this era and his talent was pretty obvious, because even with injury concerns, he still went #6 in the draft in a passing era, so you just know, the scouts and GM's absolutely loved his talent.

[Nabbs4u]

12 hours ago, lavar703 said:

I guess what I'm asking is who would you put ahead of him from that era? I mean, I lived through it so I remember it quite well. I also remember when AP came into the league and pretty much nobody had seen anybody like him. Power, breakaway speed, vision etc

LT without a doubt and IMO even Marshall Faulk as well. Two of the most complete RB's in NFL history. Running, Receiving, Pass Protection, literally nothing they couldn't do on a Football Field.

As great as AP is and has been the one thing he was never outstanding at was as a Pass Catcher. Pure Beast of a Runner, damn near unstoppable at times sure but the other two could beat you numerous ways on Offense, not just in the run game where they too were every bit as Dominate! Legit 4 down Running Backs!!

[lavar703]

5 hours ago, Nabbs4u said:

LT without a doubt and IMO even Marshall Faulk as well. Two of the most complete RB's in NFL history. Running, Receiving, Pass Protection, literally nothing they couldn't do on a Football Field.

As great as AP is and has been the one thing he was never outstanding at was as a Pass Catcher. Pure Beast of a Runner, damn near unstoppable at times sure but the other two could beat you numerous ways on Offense, not just in the run game where they too were every bit as Dominate! Legit 4 down Running Backs!!

1000 yards receiving and rushing in one season is pretty outrageous. Faulk was incredible. 

[smetana34]

18 hours ago, lavar703 said:

 

 

And while I disagree I'm not trying to put your opinion down. I'm genuinely curious. 

I wasn't knocking AP for playing with other greats. The post I replied to mentioned the lineman were better trained in the early 2000s. I pointed out AP had some greats in front of him to refute that, that's all. Sorry if my original post was misconstrued. 

 

From pure ability, I like what LT and Faulk brought over him. Not as great of pure runners (no one was) but what they lacked in the run game they more than made up in the pass game. Then you consider some of the historically great seasons some RBs had:

Holmes 2300/24 campaign in 2002 followed by a 2100/27 campaign in 2003, where all 27 touchdowns were on the ground. Have we ever seen a player score 51 TDs in a two year span? 

Ahman Green: rushed for just under 1900 yards and 15 TDs in 2003, and chipped in another 365/5 in the air. 

Shaun Alexander: had a great 5 year run capped with with an 1880/27 campaign in 2005.

Jamal Lewis: challenged the rushing record himself in 2003 with a 2066 yard campaign. 

Ricky Williams: his 2002 season he ran for 1853/16. 

LT's 2006 was insane, doing literally everything passing/rushing/receiving and is, in my opinion, the greatest season by an RB ever. 

Faulk had the stretch from 98-2001 where he was absolutely brilliant in both phases.

 

Those are just the seasons I remember; you still had a host of great backs (Duece, Edge, Portis, Martin, Barber, Taylor) who were all very prominent in their time too. 

 

So to rephrase: there's two guys I feel better than AP talent wise. And there's a handful of guys who had statistical great seasons that would push AP down the board in any given year, thus lumping him in with a host of others. For all his greatness, AP only had two seasons where he seperated himself from the league; the rest were quite pedestrian, and nothing we didn't see from four or five backs every season in the late 90s/2000s. 

[Danger]

On par with Shaun Alexander IMO, but behind LT.