Adrian Peterson on ESPN: Giants Potential New Team?

.

but a team can't say what players under contract they'd like.

Interesting

In comment 13332500 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

.

Are you kidding me? We take Rashad, we take Shane... YOU WOULDNT TAKE A.P??

In comment 13332500 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

.

why not?

I'd like to go some place with a QB. Maybe he's thinking a lesser QB means more work for him, but at this point, I'd want to look for a winner.

And agree with JBQ - that was my first thought.

addition, however, he'll be too costly and we have other more pressing needs like our DE, DT, Oline and TE.

he's still got it, then absolutely. He's been that good, the question is age.

and coming off injuries the last bunch of years..Why would I invest big money(he's not coming here for vet minimum) in an aging RB when we have needs elsewhere

oh, wait............

too old and probably too expensive. And he didn't look that great to me this year

Houston, because he has a home in Texas. They make no sense after signing Lamar Miller. If the Giants can get Peterson they have to do it. He should be able to open up a ton of space for Odell and vice versa.

That said, we are in a 2-3 year window with Eli and AP would be a huge improvement at RB.

In comment 13332516 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

and coming off injuries the last bunch of years..Why would I invest big money(he's not coming here for vet minimum) in an aging RB when we have needs elsewhere

the OP said "for the right price"

position does..

have to change the offense. I don't see AP running the shotgun draw and being successful.

depends on price

AP is in fact a huge improvement over any running back the Giants have

perfect fit.

In comment 13332517 Victor in CT said:

Quote:

oh, wait............ too old and probably too expensive. And he didn't look that great to me this year

Well I feel the reason he didn't look so good was that most of his opponents early this season had no fear of the Viking passing attack and stacked the box against him. Later in the season he was coming off injury so its hard to judge. However the guy is still a beast even when he is hurt he does not stay out for long he has come back from injuries faster than anybody has in the past

In comment 13332524 gidiefor said:

Quote:

In comment 13332516 Big Blue '56 said: Quote: and coming off injuries the last bunch of years..Why would I invest big money(he's not coming here for vet minimum) in an aging RB when we have needs elsewhere the OP said "for the right price"

There is no right price for AP..His ego would never allow him to play for anything less than huge dollars imo..

AP would be an affordable year to year proposition, or no option at all. Age is the issue, he's smack in the ripe zone for the wheels to fall off. Hard to believe he's 32 already ...

In comment 13332526 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

position does..

nobody said not to improve the Oline and TE position - remember what a huge difference Otis Anderson made when he came to the Giants -- AP > OA

In comment 13332527 rob13934 said:

Quote:

have to change the offense. I don't see AP running the shotgun draw and being successful.

Very true

He's going to be super costly, why? They don't have the OL to make it work. He's 31 (32 in March) years old and has lots of wear and tear and injuries on his lap. On top of that, you can get someone like Eddie Lacy, Latavius Murray, or Jacquizz Rodgers for much cheaper (and younger).

If they get better OL and TE, it will open up holes for guys like Perkins, Vereen if he's kept, or someone I named above. Peterson is too pricey for what you'll get from him.

In comment 13332542 Toth029 said:

Quote:

He's going to be super costly, why? They don't have the OL to make it work. He's 31 (32 in March) years old and has lots of wear and tear and injuries on his lap. On top of that, you can get someone like Eddie Lacy, Latavius Murray, or Jacquizz Rodgers for much cheaper (and younger). If they get better OL and TE, it will open up holes for guys like Perkins, Vereen if he's kept, or someone I named above. Peterson is too pricey for what you'll get from him.

Bingo

they would sign him in a second. An old, banged up big name, with the Giants going into 2017 as a potential Super Bowl contender with a good offseason and cap room? Woody would sign him in a second and try to sell more jerseys.

Started well before this past season. His 2nd half of 2015 was abysmal. He had two good games against the Giants the Falcons. This was even before this new injury.

Sure I'd take him over Jennings if he was cheap but you really think some team wouldn't throw him $5M-$10M for 1 year with the extra cap space they have lying around?

He was mentioned in the Pro Football Rumors thread and he makes sense even if he isn't the same AP he used to was just for the fact that the defense has to account for him. Opens up play action just by being there and Eli gains some measure of effectiveness again.

In comment 13332526 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

position does..

We've been saying this for five years.

In comment 13332535 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

There is no right price for AP..His ego would never allow him to play for anything less than huge dollars imo..

still fixated on price -- the Giants could probably give him an incentive laden contract based on performance - you wouldn't go for that?

If you wouldn't you are just being obstinate -- AP -- if able to play -- hugely upgrades the Giants in a sore area of need

I'd take him over Peterson if the prices are in the ballpark. He had a decent season behind a similarly awful O-line and even worse passing game. He supposedly played with a torn meniscus

In comment 13332552 gidiefor said:

Quote:

In comment 13332535 Big Blue '56 said: Quote: There is no right price for AP..His ego would never allow him to play for anything less than huge dollars imo.. still fixated on price -- the Giants could probably give him an incentive laden contract based on performance - you wouldn't go for that? If you wouldn't you are just being obstinate -- AP -- if able to play -- hugely upgrades the Giants in a sore area of need

Sure I'd go for that, but he wouldn't, imv..Besides it's moot. A child beater (oh wait, he apologized) may not be acceptable to the Giants..

Re 'If he's healthy'comment:
With a better OL, OUR running backs are an improvement of our running backs.

Is "cashing in, big time" he gets a fair deal for what you expect from not for what he's done over the course of his career.

not even Jerrah and his fascination will pay big ... I could see a 1/$3M type deal to back up EE, for best case example.

In comment 13332516 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

and coming off injuries the last bunch of years..Why would I invest big money(he's not coming here for vet minimum) in an aging RB when we have needs elsewhere

I'd invest in a two year deal.

where old vets go for a ring.

.
Link - ( New Window )

people state their opinions as facts.

Like the poster above who said AP ego would never allow him to play for a reasonable deal. How the fuck do you know?

In comment 13332565 est1986 said:

Quote:

Is "cashing in, big time" he gets a fair deal for what you expect from not for what he's done over the course of his career.

Then he'll retire. He's not going to put his body through the inevitable beating "right price" dollars imo..He's made a fortune(assuming he hasn't pissed away his earnings), is a lock for the HOF and has had a few injuries that were not minor..Why would he play for anything less than 8-10 a year or whatever a big amount would be for an aging Superstar?

In comment 13332527 rob13934 said:

Quote:

have to change the offense. I don't see AP running the shotgun draw and being successful.

This is the only reason why it wouldn't make sense to me. If McAdoo will start having Eli under center MUCH more often than last season, then yeah... I'm all for it. But like rob13934 said above, I don't think he'd be a good fit if he (McAdoo) insists on running that Shotgun draw play.

In comment 13332588 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

Why would he play for anything less than 8-10 a year or whatever a big amount would be for an aging Superstar?

Maybe to have a shot at a Superbowl Ring?

.

In comment 13332590 gidiefor said:

Quote:

In comment 13332588 Big Blue '56 said: Quote: Why would he play for anything less than 8-10 a year or whatever a big amount would be for an aging Superstar? Maybe to have a shot at a Superbowl Ring?

Not buying..We'll disagree on this

Inventive based contract. Pretty sure he's got more gas left in his tank then anything we have on the roster right now. This would be huge.

has seen the Giants make the playoff in 2016. No steps backwards for an older, injury prone vet please.

Worked out pretty well

In comment 13332598 Trainmaster said:

Quote:

has seen the Giants make the playoff in 2016. No steps backwards for an older, injury prone vet please.

I agree. I despise AP the man, and AP the football players leaves a lot to be desired at his age. That $4-$6 million we'd spend on him can go to keeping one of our own or to improving at TE or the OL.

No thanks.

The Giants are really the only plausible one. The Texans paid a shit ton for Lamar Miller and Brock Osweiler and may still have a QB problem. The Bucs paid Martin a lot of money and he's injury prone as is. Rodgers has a good season and it would be much smarter to retain him than rely on two injury prone RBs that underperformed this past season.

There's that angle too. After the Josh Brown thing, I'd doubt the Maras want another medium spotlight on one of their players.

In comment 13332588 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

In comment 13332565 est1986 said: Quote: Is "cashing in, big time" he gets a fair deal for what you expect from not for what he's done over the course of his career. Then he'll retire. He's not going to put his body through the inevitable beating "right price" dollars imo..He's made a fortune(assuming he hasn't pissed away his earnings), is a lock for the HOF and has had a few injuries that were not minor..Why would he play for anything less than 8-10 a year or whatever a big amount would be for an aging Superstar?

You could be right, but I think he loves football, and wants to still play, no? He will wither tell Minnesota he I willing o play for less or he will take his services elsewhere after they cut him. We shall see. The fact that he even mentions the Giants or any other team is kind of crazy imo.

media spotlight ..

I'd much rather have Jaquizz Rodgers.

In comment 13332600 joeinpa said:

Quote:

Worked out pretty well

behind a much better OL

and a first rate FB to succeed here.

We have neither.

who has managed to play 16 games 4 times in 10 years, who just underwent knee surgery this past season, and who averaged 1.9 yards per carry in what little action he saw this year.

I mean, sure, maybe everything will break right for him and he'll have a great last hurrah, but I wouldn't put any sort of bet on it.

but that doesn't factor in his spending habits, and all the legal trouble he's been in the past few years. He hasn't made Peyton Manning money and I have no idea if he even has sponsors anymore. If his lifestyle hasn't adjusted to the decline in income, he may absolutely be in the position to take a highest offer contract. More than half of what he makes goes to taxes and fees (agent, lawyer, etc), so there's really no way to know how much money AP actually has.

And even lower guaranteed, on a 1-year deal.

And it wouldn't change my approach to the draft at that position at all (we need someone).

Perkins and Vereen are the only useful backs on this roster, and Vereen at this point is somewhat superfluous. I think the Giants should invest at the position in the top half of the draft somewhere, at least by the end of the 4th, and really they could use another one after that, and a veteran free agent would make sense.

To me, a better option is LeGarrette Blount, who the Patriots may be parting with. Eddie Lacy also will likely be a free agent and would be a good fit. Latavius Murray would be a consideration if the Raiders let him walk.

He isnt a kid anymore, but man he can really help us switch up our approach. We need better discipline and he is a guy who can really lay the smackdown. I guess I would do anything to beat our opponents.

I'm a huge AP fan (at least of his on-field performance), but he'd be an awful fit:

1. Don't see him signing for less than $8-10M per season
2. He is awful in pass protection and has hands of stone.
3. He is by far at his best lined up 7 yards behind the QB so that he can get the ball and build up a head of steam. Obviously, Giants have preferred to use a lot of shotgun with the RB lined up next to Eli (i.e. RB has zero forward momentum when he gets the ball) under McAdoo. It's not even like we've sprinkled in some pistol.
4. With Eli, we are also heavily dependent on adjusting on the fly to what the D shows. That gets back to #2, which means the ideal RB for this offense would be one that can run, pass block, and catch the ball well (or at least does 2 of the 3 at a high level).

If we're going to sign an older RB coming off an injury, the guy to get is Charles (if he's cut). Far better fit in this offense, though his injury(s) may be more severe. Also doesn't have the off-the-field baggage.

Be it Joe Thomas, AP, etc. Anyone we're going to have to commit resources that could impact us several years down the road should get a thumbs down.

Now, a vet player who is a risk to have the wheels fall off on a reasonable deal? Sure thing. I don't know what AP would command, but at the right price I'd consider it. If he's in demand, pass.

sometimes reading BBI. In my line of work I do a lot of political analysis of events in the world. One of our frequent errors is always worse case scenario thinking or focusing on the negative because you want to warn of potential pitfalls. In doing so you some times lose sight of opportunities. I'm not sure what the correct answer is here, but there does seem to be a lot of emphasis on the negative rather than what he would bring to the team.

.

In comment 13332643 jcn56 said:

Quote:

Be it Joe Thomas, AP, etc. Anyone we're going to have to commit resources that could impact us several years down the road should get a thumbs down. Now, a vet player who is a risk to have the wheels fall off on a reasonable deal? Sure thing. I don't know what AP would command, but at the right price I'd consider it. If he's in demand, pass.

Yea, it depends (as always) on the contract structure. I'd be willing to give him >$8M per year, as long as very little of it beyond 2017 was guaranteed. Small signing bonus, maybe some annual roster bonuses, etc.

In comment 13332631 giants#1 said:

Quote:

I'm a huge AP fan (at least of his on-field performance), but he'd be an awful fit: 1. Don't see him signing for less than $8-10M per season 2. He is awful in pass protection and has hands of stone. 3. He is by far at his best lined up 7 yards behind the QB so that he can get the ball and build up a head of steam. Obviously, Giants have preferred to use a lot of shotgun with the RB lined up next to Eli (i.e. RB has zero forward momentum when he gets the ball) under McAdoo. It's not even like we've sprinkled in some pistol. 4. With Eli, we are also heavily dependent on adjusting on the fly to what the D shows. That gets back to #2, which means the ideal RB for this offense would be one that can run, pass block, and catch the ball well (or at least does 2 of the 3 at a high level). If we're going to sign an older RB coming off an injury, the guy to get is Charles (if he's cut). Far better fit in this offense, though his injury(s) may be more severe. Also doesn't have the off-the-field baggage.

I generally agree with this assessment of AP's best use and at least how the Giants running game has been. But, I think that was partly because the roster ended up without a fullback when Johnson and Whitlock got hurt. If the Giants move in this offseason to get a fullback then a more traditional run game would be something they could want to return to.

due to the combination of age and injuries. I don't think Perkins is as good as vintage Peterson, but I wouldn't roll the dice that Peterson can come back yet again at that level either. I'd be much more comfortable with Perkins as our RB and use money/picks to upgrade OL and TE to improve the running game. I honestly expect Perkins to be a very good back both running and catching the football.

when he was released from the Seahawks.

He will be a free agent, assuming the Packers don't keep him.

Why would you want an old fart like Adrian Peterson when you can potentially sign a guy like Michael who:

a) is actually really talented
b) only in his mid 20s
c) would probably be cheaper

In comment 13332681 Brown Recluse said:

Quote:

when he was released from the Seahawks. He will be a free agent, assuming the Packers don't keep him. Why would you want an old fart like Adrian Peterson when you can potentially sign a guy like Michael who: a) is actually really talented b) only in his mid 20s c) would probably be cheaper

Because he's not really that good? He's been on what... 4 different teams (1 of them twice) in the last year or so? If he was that good you'd think he'd have stuck with at least one of them. Matter of fact, the moment Rawls came back for the Seahawks they immediately cut Michael... again!

I was a steadfast believer in the Christian Michael hype but I've cooled on him a lot in the past year. I'd rather just go with Perkins if he's the alternative.

He's on the wrong side of 30, is declining, and the money would be much better spent on a younger RB if they decided to sign a RB.

And this:

Remember Larry Csonka?

he produces.

Seattle cut him when he was their leading rusher. He came over to the Packers and has been productive.

So there must be something there, right?

In comment 13332689 Brown Recluse said:

Quote:

he produces. Seattle cut him when he was their leading rusher. He came over to the Packers and has been productive. So there must be something there, right?

The rumors on the Seattle side were that he was either incapable or not interested in learning the playbook.

I have no problem with Perkins. But I don't see him as a bellcow back. They will need a complimentary back anyway, and - just my opinion - but I think Michael provides that.

In comment 13332689 Brown Recluse said:

Quote:

he produces. Seattle cut him when he was their leading rusher. He came over to the Packers and has been productive. So there must be something there, right?

He was their leading rusher because they could never have a RB stay healthy or effective for more than a few games.

In comment 13332693 jcn56 said:

Quote:

In comment 13332689 Brown Recluse said: Quote: he produces. Seattle cut him when he was their leading rusher. He came over to the Packers and has been productive. So there must be something there, right? The rumors on the Seattle side were that he was either incapable or not interested in learning the playbook.

Fair enough. Still worth looking into. While I can't comment on his head, he seems the best back available on the free agent market considering talent, age, and $$$.

Went to the Cowboys after his first stint with Seattle.

He seems to have some issues.

Eddie Lacy is an interesting look, he is a capable receiver and a bruising back. A one two punch with he and Perkins is very intriguing.

In comment 13332689 Brown Recluse said:

Quote:

he produces. Seattle cut him when he was their leading rusher. He came over to the Packers and has been productive. So there must be something there, right?

And actually... to answer your question... yes, there definitely is something there because he keeps getting chance after chance with multiple teams. He was a 2nd round pick after all. But for whatever reason he's been unable (or like jcn stated earlier, maybe I should say 'unwilling') to put that something all together.

In comment 13332705 T-Bone said:

Quote:

In comment 13332689 Brown Recluse said: Quote: he produces. Seattle cut him when he was their leading rusher. He came over to the Packers and has been productive. So there must be something there, right? He was their leading rusher because they could never have a RB stay healthy or effective for more than a few games.

Right, but does it really matter *why?* The fact is he was productive. He is a productive player. Maybe he's not very bright or interested in football as jcn pointed out and if thats the case - then lets look elsewhere. But to say he's just not very good - I just don't agree with that. He obviously can play football.

so still (i would surmise) in his prime. I understand the Eagles might go after him

In comment 13332689 Brown Recluse said:

Quote:

he produces. Seattle cut him when he was their leading rusher. He came over to the Packers and has been productive. So there must be something there, right?

Produces? Sure, if by produce you mean 3.9 yards/attempt last season. Even for his career he's only at 4.3 y/a. And it's not like he's a stud receiving option out of the backfield as he'saveraged just 5.2 yards/catch on 26 career receptions (in 37 games, 9 starts).

For comparison, Perkins rushed for 4.1 y/a this past season. Perkins had 15 receptions for a 10.8 y/r average. Even taking out his 67 yard screen, he still average 6.8 y/r and over 1 catch per game played.

I think we have our cheap, young, cost controlled starting RB on the roster. IMO, we need to find a good compliment and find better blockers and we'll be fine without signing an aging ex superstar.

Sign Jaquizz Rodgers and fix the OL. Perkins is going to be a solid player IMO.

In comment 13332722 giants#1 said:

Quote:

In comment 13332689 Brown Recluse said: Quote: he produces. Seattle cut him when he was their leading rusher. He came over to the Packers and has been productive. So there must be something there, right? Produces? Sure, if by produce you mean 3.9 yards/attempt last season. Even for his career he's only at 4.3 y/a. And it's not like he's a stud receiving option out of the backfield as he'saveraged just 5.2 yards/catch on 26 career receptions (in 37 games, 9 starts). For comparison, Perkins rushed for 4.1 y/a this past season. Perkins had 15 receptions for a 10.8 y/r average. Even taking out his 67 yard screen, he still average 6.8 y/r and over 1 catch per game played.

He played for 2 different teams this season - so just stating his statistics is a little disingenuous. He rushed for 469 yards and 6 TD's with the Packers.

Look - I'm not touting him as the second coming. But has a compliment to Perkins, his skill set running the ball seems a perfect fit if his head checks out. And he won't blow a hole in your wallet like old man Peterson or Eddie Lacy.

unless it's a 1 year "prove it" deal, which I doubt he'll need to accept. Too much noise in past seasons about him showing up fat and out of shape to camp. I'm not sure the commitment is there.

.

In comment 13332735 giants#1 said:

Quote:

unless it's a 1 year "prove it" deal, which I doubt he'll need to accept. Too much noise in past seasons about him showing up fat and out of shape to camp. I'm not sure the commitment is there.

Yeah. he's a fine player but he's not exactly the red zone bruising back you'd think he is given his size.

but he's tempting..😎

on this team unless we have a brand new OL. He just isn't very good, Rodgers made him what he was. And if we are going to get a new OL, i'd rather give the reigns to Perkins and spend that Lacy money on keeping our Defense in place.

Home of the offseason plan that usually consists of "We need a stud player with no injury or character issues who is 27 and will sign a team friendly deal so he can come to NY, be a star, and make tons of money making commercials."

Putting a team together in the NFL really is just that simple.

Are acting like he beat the shit out of a kid or something.

It would cost a lot of money to have an old man running the ball.

Stick with youth and fresh legs. Peterson had his moment in the sun - his 2 years of fame. His best years are behind him, not in front of him.

I would expect the playing time to be about the same as Jennings at the end of the year also. At least until he proves otherwise. Also would not stop me from drafting a RB.

I'd like to have a veteran to go with Perkins and rookie. Who that veterans is would be dependent on who will play for less then 3mil/yr. I'm fine with keeping Jennings also, you're not going to find a vet worth anything for less then what we owe him.

a decent amount of Lacy this year for fantasy purposes haha. He's ok at the right price but he'd be pretty brutal on this team for the reasons people mentioned above.

Solid blocker, not a great receiver, and obviously slow at the line.

He lost a lot of weight in the offseason which was good but somehow put all of it back on.

Big risk. I think another team will offer a lot more money for him and take a chance.

...

This is a guy who's made bad blocking look good for most of his career in MIN. He's also a great pass blocker and could replace Jennings nicely - the Giants had largely phased Jennings out by the end of the year. With Perkins and Vereen clearly ahead of him, I think the writing's on the wall for a commendable player.

Signing Peterson provides a front-line starter, allows Perkins to oft-spell him as a "1B" and Vereen to his natural #3/3rd down/hurry up spot. (Law of diminishing returns w/Vereen if used more.)

From what I saw last year, he is still an elite RB - the fact he wants to play here is very attractive. He makes sense IMO.

until we got caught. Why not a child beater too?

with his personal life. Depending on which source you read, he has at least 7 or 8 children around the country from different women. They made a big deal about one of his sons dying - kid was 2 years old who AP never met him and people were pouring out their sympathy to him. Heck, he didn't even know about the kid until the kid was on his death bed. And of course, he got into a legal jam for child abuse of a 1-yr old. Not exactly the kind of player that fits the ideal Giant resume. Good football player at one time, but not the brightest bulb in the package and apparently likes to make kids on the fly and possibly smack them around if he knows about one that he's fathered.

Again - NOPE!

In comment 13332796 Mike from Ohio said:

Quote:

Home of the offseason plan that usually consists of "We need a stud player with no injury or character issues who is 27 and will sign a team friendly deal so he can come to NY, be a star, and make tons of money making commercials." Putting a team together in the NFL really is just that simple.

Yeah, every free agent we sign has to be a future 10 year starter who makes the Pro Bowl every year.

As has been mentioned, different time and circumstances, but OJ Anderson worked out pretty well for Parcells, no? He was 29 when we traded for him and a 33 year old Super Bowl MVP. Its OK to rent a player for a few years if that will put you over the top.

'If we're trying to run for the roses,' said [George] Young, ''and we can get somebody to help us. . . . '' Young did not finish the sentence.

O. J. Trade - ( New Window )

In comment 13332894 SB 42 and 46 and ? said:

Quote:

In comment 13332796 Mike from Ohio said: Quote: Home of the offseason plan that usually consists of "We need a stud player with no injury or character issues who is 27 and will sign a team friendly deal so he can come to NY, be a star, and make tons of money making commercials." Putting a team together in the NFL really is just that simple. Yeah, every free agent we sign has to be a future 10 year starter who makes the Pro Bowl every year. As has been mentioned, different time and circumstances, but OJ Anderson worked out pretty well for Parcells, no? He was 29 when we traded for him and a 33 year old Super Bowl MVP. Its OK to rent a player for a few years if that will put you over the top. 'If we're trying to run for the roses,' said [George] Young, ''and we can get somebody to help us. . . . '' Young did not finish the sentence. O. J. Trade - ( New Window )

This is a stupid analogy. OJ Anderson was brought in in '86 as insurance on a Super Bowl contender with a very solid OL that had been together for 3 years. Peterson would be coming here to a shit OL and want to get paid which will eat up cap $$. THere was no cap in 1986.

that he comes at a reasonable price because the Giants won't be interested otherwise. So if he's not costing huge money... why not? He would make for a great combination at RB with Perkins. They would still be able to load up at OL and hopefully add a TE too.

I mean, he certainly can't be worse than what the Giants had this year outside of Perkins.

Vic.

In comment 13332831 rasbutant said:

Quote:

I'm fine with keeping Jennings also, you're not going to find a vet worth anything for less then what we owe him.

Jennings is cooked and I'm pretty sure we dont owe him anything. He's a free agent.

He made about 2.5 mil last year alone (and Shane Vereen made even more - which is actually about 6 mil wasted on these two), according to the BBI salary page. If we can't find a veteran back who makes less than that, I'll eat my hat.

No!

Aged. Injury prone. Salary req's. Plus bad PR for the guy, where we just had to release a guy in the same arena.

In comment 13332710 Toth029 said:

Quote:

Went to the Cowboys after his first stint with Seattle. He seems to have some issues. Eddie Lacy is an interesting look, he is a capable receiver and a bruising back. A one two punch with he and Perkins is very intriguing.

Exactly. If you want a power back that has more tread on the tires than years played look at Lacy. He's entering his second contract. He's produced at a high enough level to represent an upgrade and he showed serious signs of maturity this past season when he came into camp in his best shape yet. The guy has averaged over 5 YPC for long stretches of time. And he likely won't get an insane contract but if the Giants like him, strike early make him an offer. He's already better than any back on this team.

but a big part of me wants a ready made back for this team going into 2017. Perkins is cheap and cost controlled and young. Vereen is what he is. Add some beef to the OL and a guy like LAcy and this running game really has a chance to be something. Rookie backs always seem to take forever to fully develop here with the Giants...and really overall they aren't as NFL ready as some insist on believing. They come with risks.

Now he flat out sucks. Waste of money and roster spot.

Peterson has always been overated......
Dry Lightning : 5:55 pm : link : reply
Now he flat out sucks. Waste of money and roster spot.

... unless he costs the league vet minimum. Running backs can fall off a cliff and AP looked pretty close to the edge last year - and that was with a pretty good offensive line.

Joe Thomas is less risky (but still a risk).

But RB is a young mans position and AP is coming off another injury. I think this is the exact point in his career where he's going to show very noticeable signs of slowing down. I'd pass.

Although.... Blount isn't much younger and I think he'd be an excellent complement to Perkins for a couple years.

In comment 13332631 giants#1 said:

Quote:

I'm a huge AP fan (at least of his on-field performance), but he'd be an awful fit: 1. Don't see him signing for less than $8-10M per season 2. He is awful in pass protection and has hands of stone. 3. He is by far at his best lined up 7 yards behind the QB so that he can get the ball and build up a head of steam. Obviously, Giants have preferred to use a lot of shotgun with the RB lined up next to Eli (i.e. RB has zero forward momentum when he gets the ball) under McAdoo. It's not even like we've sprinkled in some pistol. 4. With Eli, we are also heavily dependent on adjusting on the fly to what the D shows. That gets back to #2, which means the ideal RB for this offense would be one that can run, pass block, and catch the ball well (or at least does 2 of the 3 at a high level). If we're going to sign an older RB coming off an injury, the guy to get is Charles (if he's cut). Far better fit in this offense, though his injury(s) may be more severe. Also doesn't have the off-the-field baggage.

Of all the influx of shithead "new" posters in recent memory, giants#1 remains an example of a quality addition to this board. Hes got his facts straight and makes fantastic points ALWAYS.

I meant to say this at an earlier point in the season, but nice job giants#1. You bring a lot to the board and this shithead appreciates it.

Just to piss my Vikings fan friend off. He still thinks Giants fan it up in 2000. It was 34-0 at half. You can't run up score on first half.

In comment 13332719 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

so still (i would surmise) in his prime. I understand the Eagles might go after him

He is going to want top dollar, this is his first big contract.

Strong rb draft class. We can get a good player in the draft. Heck this year probably both in the draft and udfa

In comment 13332901 Victor in CT said:

Quote:

In comment 13332894 SB 42 and 46 and ? said: Quote: In comment 13332796 Mike from Ohio said: Quote: Home of the offseason plan that usually consists of "We need a stud player with no injury or character issues who is 27 and will sign a team friendly deal so he can come to NY, be a star, and make tons of money making commercials." Putting a team together in the NFL really is just that simple. Yeah, every free agent we sign has to be a future 10 year starter who makes the Pro Bowl every year. As has been mentioned, different time and circumstances, but OJ Anderson worked out pretty well for Parcells, no? He was 29 when we traded for him and a 33 year old Super Bowl MVP. Its OK to rent a player for a few years if that will put you over the top. 'If we're trying to run for the roses,' said [George] Young, ''and we can get somebody to help us. . . . '' Young did not finish the sentence. O. J. Trade - ( New Window ) This is a stupid analogy. OJ Anderson was brought in in '86 as insurance on a Super Bowl contender with a very solid OL that had been together for 3 years. Peterson would be coming here to a shit OL and want to get paid which will eat up cap $$. THere was no cap in 1986.

Not an analogy. I said that time and circumstances were different. The point was that it is OK to sign a vet with some mileage on him to plug a hole for a few years. Like Antonio Pierce. Peterson would be too expensive.

This past off season, AP worked out with Melvin Gordon and gave him some pointers, just practiced with him and taught him a few things. This season, Gordon was an absolute beast. Last season, he was considered a bust. Big difference. Of course ALL of the credit doesn't go to AP, but Gordon got to learn from one of the absolute best at the position. Imagine if we sign him to a one or two year deal and he mentors Perkins the whole time? Just saying.

In comment 13332520 NYG27 said:

Quote:

That said, we are in a 2-3 year window with Eli and AP would be a huge improvement at RB.

if Peterson did come here he would still have to run behind a crappy Oline until it gets fixed and that won't happen over night so he might be just a waste of money that could have been better spent elsewhere

I'd take a long look at Alfred Morris. I think the Cowboys use Elliot a lot more, and Morris isn't going to get many snaps with Elliot/McFadden ahead of him.

Morris at this point isn't much more than Jennings, but I think he would fit the vet backup role at a much cheaper cost. You don't want Perkins with too many carries, anyway.

This presumes we get Vereen back, of course.

In comment 13334496 JohnF said:

Quote:

I'd take a long look at Alfred Morris. I think the Cowboys use Elliot a lot more, and Morris isn't going to get many snaps with Elliot/McFadden ahead of him. Morris at this point isn't much more than Jennings, but I think he would fit the vet backup role at a much cheaper cost. You don't want Perkins with too many carries, anyway. This presumes we get Vereen back, of course.

McFadden is a FA. I think Morris might stay, but you never know. They need cap for sure.

next year (of course!). Morris would offer Dallas some cap relief as well (more than McFadden).

In comment 13332955 Brown Recluse said:

Quote:

In comment 13332831 rasbutant said: Quote: I'm fine with keeping Jennings also, you're not going to find a vet worth anything for less then what we owe him. Jennings is cooked and I'm pretty sure we dont owe him anything. He's a free agent. He made about 2.5 mil last year alone (and Shane Vereen made even more - which is actually about 6 mil wasted on these two), according to the BBI salary page. If we can't find a veteran back who makes less than that, I'll eat my hat.

Jennings is not a free agent.

because we still won't be able to open holes for him unless we fix this O line, with out blocking a good back still can't run the ball