Saw this on twitter but apparently Adrian Peterson was on First Take this morning and openly talked about other teams he'd be interested in signing with if the Vikings cut him this offseason.
Mentioned the Giants, Tampa, and Houston as possible destinations.
Didn't see it live so not sure if that was taken out of context but thought it was interesting. Would you be interested in Peterson at this point at the right price?
behind a much better OL
We have neither.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
And this:
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?
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.
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.
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 $$$.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sign Jaquizz Rodgers and fix the OL. Perkins is going to be a solid player IMO.
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.
Yeah. he's a fine player but he's not exactly the red zone bruising back you'd think he is given his size.
"I'm an expensive old running back who fumbles all the time and hits kids with sticks. I WILL ONLY ACCEPT THE FOLLOWING SUITORS:"
Putting a team together in the NFL really is just that simple.
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'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.
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.
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.
Again - NOPE!
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 )
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.
I mean, he certainly can't be worse than what the Giants had this year outside of Perkins.