They are vikings fans. They have nothing else to argue about....Quote:
Originally Posted by RamsInfiniti
Printable View
They are vikings fans. They have nothing else to argue about....Quote:
Originally Posted by RamsInfiniti
Still no response...I guess this is something they can't take back to the KFAN boards.
Strange. Conversations like these are strangely absent there. I don't know why they wouldn't want to run back and share this...
u don"t know football.Quote:
Originally Posted by brokenwing
Laern the game
moran
any fan worth their salt knows it's "ad" (all day) and yes he is different from jackson. He doesn"t suck!
Unless it's the Rams stacking 8,9,10 in the box then they shouldn't have a problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by cookie_KFAN
BWAHHAAHAHAA
Did I just stumble into an alternate universe where there are actually people who believe Steven Jackson is a superior running back to Adrian Peterson? Have you people been studied for science yet? Such a primitive culture.
Look, Steven Jackson is good but even Michael Turner and DeAngelo Williams are ahead of him behind Adrian Peterson. He may be the most powerful of the elite running backs but he lacks too many other qualities to be considered the best. And, of course, Patrick Willis stated that Jackson was the best RB in the game. He said it right before the ***** played the Rams. He said the same thing about AD during an interview right before the Vikings played the *****. He's making sure there is no bulletin board material to latch onto. It's player/media doublespeak.
I think any NFL fan can respect Steven Jackson and, quite frankly, he is really one of very few things a Rams fan has to cheer about but calling him a better RB than Adrian Peterson is overtly homerish and a little silly.;)
Keep in mind we are referring to the negatives that keep him from being the best back in the league not from being an absolutely top notch back and one of the best. These wouldn't be negatives that mattered if we were comparing Jackson to Frank Gore or Brandon Jacobs or such.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua
Steven Jackson doesn't have a 4th gear. He doesn't have breakaway speed in the same category as Peterson( 40 yard times - Jackson 4.55/Peterson 4.37). Jackson doesn't move laterally or have the ability to stop on a dime and change direction and get back to full speed in a few steps (watch the 64yard run against the Browns if you need clarification). Jackson doesn't have the "shiftiness" or "jukes" of Peterson. And, while Jackson is a very powerful back he doesn't run with the same violence and determination of Peterson (only Marion the Barbarian runs as violently as Peterson). Jackson also needs to stay on the field. He's missed half a season over the last two seasons. AD has missed only 2 games in his career. Jackson has also been inconsistent. Peterson's poor performances can be counted on one hand with missing fingers.
Peterson is a rare combination of elite speed, power, shiftiness, vision, and determination. I'm amazed that there are Rams fans who don't see this. After all, you spent years with Erik Dickerson and AD is cut from the same mold as Dickerson and Payton with a little bit of Sanders thrown in. He is a once in a generation back. Jackson is merely (and I say this with great respect for Jackson) one of a number of top backs of his time.
And while the Vikings offensive line is clearly better than the Rams OL, until this season with Loadholt starting to come on, AD has been running behind a line that could only block to the left and 9 man boxes and still put up amazing numbers.
what about the invisible man aka chris long? Thank goodness he has a jersey on because he would not be seen on the field without it. Does anybody think he will make a play in 2009?
You could also add that Jackson doesn't fumble with the same kind of ferocity that Peterson does (once every 48 touches). Peterson's superior breakaway speed is also evident on the length of his receptions, he's only had 3 receptions longer than 20 yards (not 1 since week 3 of his rookie season), yet Jackson consistently takes the shorts passes for gains of over 20 yards. It's probably because when Peterson catches the ball he runs violently into the linebackers, when instead Jackson, very unviolently, runs away from them into the secondary for longer gains.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rush's Pharmacist
Away from sarcasm both are very good backs but are are in completely different circumstances. Peterson has been on the team with an excellent OL, a defense that consistently gets them the ball and a good passing attack (its good when compared to the rams passing attack). Jackson, it is fair to say, is not.
While i'm not arguing which back is better, it's definitely not as black and white as you make it out to be.
You are totally cool cookie, you start this whole thread saying you know absolutely nothing about our squad, but then know everything about how bad our whole squad is, how jackson playing for what is probably one of the worst 4 or 5 teams in the league with no other legitimate threat is nowhere near as good as Peterson, despite his good numbers etc etc etc. Its amazing how much you have learned in 5 minutes!
Your real clever. Please come back.
Now that some people who actually have come to talk football (albeit after waiting for gimp boy to try and bait us into emotional rather than logical based responses) I will reply.
Nonetheless it aint easy to compare 2 running backs when they play for teams with different talent levels, in 2006 jackson may not have had they greatest line in football by any stretch of the imagination but the team did have many other threats, not unlike the vikings this year.
Losing takes its toll, its much easier to run for a winning team with a good squad on both sides of the ball, knowing your gonna compete week in week out. CB's can go man to man with our current WR's this year and jackson still gets yards. The passing game still struggles. The D still doesn't get sacks. The losses pile up. He has never had the benefit of a winning team in his career as a starter with the rams. Even Gus Frerotte got a qb rating in the 70's for the vikings last year whilst he managed a rating in the 50's as a ram the year earlier.
Gus isn't bret favre and he still provided a better distraction than bulger or boller at the rams have this year, despite our running backs offering a similar threat level. Jackson simply has his work cut out a lot more than peterson has.
That said I do think Peterson is/has been the premier back in the nfl the last 2 seasons and will have an amazing career. Would he do obviously so much better than jackson if he was in a rams uniform, I dont think its as far apart as some may think, but if jackson doesn't end up with a better supporting cast around him wether in st louis or elsewhere, his career will certainly not be as good.
There are absolutely fair criticisms of Peterson that can be made. Fumbles too much? Yes. Isn't as good a receiver as some other backs? Yes though he'd get used a lot more in that role if the Vikings didn't have one of the best receiving RBs in Chester Taylor. Is he great in pass protection? He's ok, getting better, but still just ok. Is he the best pure running back in the league? Without question.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBritishRam
A few points I disagree with you on -
Peterson doesn't purposefully find defenders to crash into. If you watch the way he runs, when he gets into the open field he zigzags, cuts, jukes, and stiff-arms his way around around defenders only lowering his head for the boom when all other options have been exhausted. He also hasn't had a great OL until maybe the last couple of games. The left side has been great but the right side of the line still needs some work and is only starting to come together. The Vikings OL gets terribly over-rated. They are good and could be great by year end but that's new this year. And the passing attack is also completely new this year. Keep in mind that Peterson has put up big numbers with Tarvaris Jackson, Gus Frerotte, Kelly Holcomb, and Brooks Bollinger throwing the ball. A murderers row in inability.
In regards to Jackson, we saw it today. Give him some room and he'll move the chains and take a couple of defenders with him. He'll line up at receiver. He'll make some plays and is a excellent back. Keep this in mind, however. If Adrian Peterson is a Ram, with the Rams current roster otherwise intact, do you not think Peterson would get used in extremely similar ways? The Rams don't have the receiving core the Vikings have. The Rams don't have a Percy Harvin to be that WR/RB combo. The Rams don't have a Chester Taylor as a back up RB. And the Rams don't have a Favre throwing the ball. They have to rely on Jackson to do as much as he can because they have little else.
Best year - yards from scrimmage total:
Steven Jackson - 2,334
Adrian Peterson - 1,885
There is little doubt that Peterson is the better pure runner, but the case coud easily be made that Jackson is the better all-around back.
More versatile, sure. I won't argue that. Keep in mind, a running back's worth is comes first from his ability to run (hence the label "running back") and then from the players other attributes and abilities. All that those numbers really show us is that Jackson compiled more yardage in his best season than Peterson has yet. The general consensus is that Peterson's ceiling is considerably higher than 1.885 as he becomes a more complete back. 2, 334 is generally considered as good a Jackson will ever do. Obviously, over 2000 total yards is incredible production and I am not trying to take that away from him but Peterson plays on a team with more weapons, thus not having to carry the team, and his yardage gets spread around to Harvin, Taylor, Tarvaris Jackson's legs when he was QB. If Peterson was a Ram he puts up more yardage in Jackson's best season because he'd get used as much as Jackson was that season.Quote:
Originally Posted by r8rh8rmike
The Rams had a Pro Bowl QB that year throwing to Pro Bowl WR Torry Holt and future Hall of Famer Isaac Bruce, and still Jackson rushed for 1528 yards and caught 90 passes for 806 yards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rush's Pharmacist
When Peterson proves he can be a superior all-purpose back like Jackson, we can continue the discussion.
Ahh, I didn't realize that. I guess I was higher on Jackson than perhaps I should have been. I still think he's a great runner but I thought he put up those numbers without the luxury of a solid offense.Quote:
Originally Posted by r8rh8rmike
And just for clarification purposes are you saying that you wouldn't trade Steven Jackson for Adrian Peterson straight up?
Hmm. So when Jackson has to share the wealth with other great players, he's benefitting from the "luxury" of a solid offense, but when Peterson has to share it, it's a detriment to his numbers. Interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rush's Pharmacist
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rush's Pharmacist
To clarify, I would not trade Jackson for Peterson, but that's just me.