I didn't say that being a generational makes him immune to anything. I said that being a generational talent greatly increases his odds of being able to produce for the next few years. Why didn't work horse backs like Payton, Smith, Martin, and Dorsett hit a wall at 30? Are they "superhuman"?

 

Do you agree that it makes more sense to compare Peterson's trajectory to former elite RBs instead of mid and low tier backs? The elite backs can lose a step or two and still be very, very good backs. If an average back loses a step or 2 at age 30, he becomes below average. Surely we can both agree on this, right?

Why would you want someone on the decline with a bloated contract in a year when the draft is offering us plenty of talent that could be productive for more than a year or two at a fraction of the cost without costing this team a single draft pick.

 

You say you don't support trading for him unless it's a 4th or lower.  Minnesota isn't going to trade him anywhere unless there's a premium offer they simply can't refuse.  A 4th round pick or later doesn't qualify.  They're not shopping him.  There's no reason to do so.  If someone comes to them with a ridiculous offer like a 1 or 2, I'm sure they'll consider it.  A 4th?  Not a chance. 

 

I don't care what Peterson's trajectory is in comparison to other running backs.  I care about what he offers this team over the long haul, and I'm not inspired to think he's worth what Minnesota is going to expect in compensation.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

I said into his his 30s.

 

Tony Dorsett

Age 30: 1,648 total yards in 16 games.

Age 31: 1,756 total yards in 16 games.

Age 32: 1,011 total yards in 13 games.

 

Why can't Peterson follow a similar trajectory?

Keep in mind, Dorsett was 32 in 1986, the year Dallas added Herschel Walker.  Walker took a lot of carries away from Dorsett, who still averaged a decent 4.1 ypc that year.

 

There are arguments for AP being able to sustain productivity into his 30s.

 

He has already shown he is a physical freak by returning from the torn ACL in a very short time to eclipse 2000 yards rushing the following year.

 

He only played in one game last year due to the suspension.  That is a year's less of pounding.  He should be fresh coming into this season.

 

However, there are plenty of arguments against him being able to sustain a decent level of play.

 

Father time is undefeated against every player.  Though I think Peterson is a Hall of Fame caliber RB, the immutable laws of football physics apply to him, too.  More likely than not, there will be a steep decline in his performance within the next couple of seasons.

 

Being off that time last year can refresh him to a degree, but could also make him more susceptible to soft tissue injuries due to the long inaction.

 

Furthermore, if he came here and struggled behind our OL, which may still be in the transition stage, how could we tell if it is age or the poor OL that is causing his presumably substandard performance?

 

Finally, this is a deep RB class.  If we evaluate properly, we should get a productive RB (productive enough to command attention on play action) at a fraction of the cost AP would represent.  The RB may not be as productive as AP would be here in the first year, but longer term he'd likely be more productive.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Actually, your 'generational talent' reference is flawed anyway. It's ridiculous. You're calling someone a 'generational talent' because they had an extended career.


So if Peterson get's hurt in pres-season and never plays another down, is he no longer a generational talent because he didn't have an extended career?


Sorry, your logic is flawed, no matter how much you argue about it.

You are completely misinterpreting the term generational talent. I'm talking about the fact that Peterson is one of the best backs of all time. In his prime, he was better than the average prime RB. In his age 30/31/32 seasons, he's likely to be better than the average 30/31/32 year old RBs.


It's not hard logic to follow.

---

Why would you want someone on the decline with a bloated contract in a year when the draft is offering us plenty of talent that could be productive for more than a year or two at a fraction of the cost without costing this team a single draft pick.

 

You say you don't support trading for him unless it's a 4th or lower.  Minnesota isn't going to trade him anywhere unless there's a premium offer they simply can't refuse.  A 4th round pick or later doesn't qualify.  They're not shopping him.  There's no reason to do so.  If someone comes to them with a ridiculous offer like a 1 or 2, I'm sure they'll consider it.  A 4th?  Not a chance. 

 

I don't care what Peterson's trajectory is in comparison to other running backs.  I care about what he offers this team over the long haul, and I'm not inspired to think he's worth what Minnesota is going to expect in compensation.

 

This is all fair, FBT, and this isn't what I was arguing against. I'm arguing against the ideaolgy that elite players should be expected to hit the same wall and production level as middling talent players. Like I said, if an average RB loses a step or 2 at age 30, he becomes below average. If one of the most gifted RBs of all time loses a step or 2 at age 30, he is still going to be an above average player.

---

There are linemen and other players at other positions who are highly effective beyond 30.  Running back is historically not one of those positions, especially when you're talking about investing $15 million per year hoping he'll be the guy bucking history.

 

That, and with Poz, the attitude is "we'll be cutting him a year into his three year deal."

 

On the flip side, it's "no sweat, AP is good for three."

 

When the reality is, as you suggested, AP is closing in on the RB production cliff in that window and isn't in a really different situation than Poz at all.

 

Both would be beating the odds if they are as productive three years from now as they will be this season.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

This is all fair, FBT, and this isn't what I was arguing against. I'm arguing against the ideaolgy that elite players should be expected to hit the same wall and production level as middling talent players. Like I said, if an average RB loses a step or 2 at age 30, he becomes below average. If one of the most gifted RBs of all time loses a step or 2 at age 30, he is still going to be an above average player.

And I'm saying elite or not, every player hits a wall.  Many elite players have hit the wall sooner than Peterson, and some have managed to go for a few years beyond 30.  But, the general trend is that there is a wall, and 30 is a line beyond which most teams are reluctant to pay a running back the kind of contract Peterson is working under because they know/expect his production to falter.  If Peterson loses a step or 2 at age 30, he's no longer the back he was prior to that.  He's thus not worth $15 million.  Sorry, there's no way you're going to try to spin this where you'll convince me this team would be better off trading away a draft pick and paying that contract over drafting one of the top tier backs this year. 

 

In addition, I don't think Minnesota sees trading Peterson as a priority.  There's no motivation for them unless some team comes to them with a deal they simply can't turn down.  Your suggestion that you'd be fine with giving up a 4th rounder for him wouldn't draw their interest one bit.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

That, and with Poz, the attitude is "we'll be cutting him a year into his three year deal."

 

On the flip side, it's "no sweat, AP is good for three."

 

When the reality is, as you suggested, AP is closing in on the RB production cliff in that window and isn't in a really different situation than Poz at all.

 

Both would be beating the odds if they are as productive three years from now as they will be this season.

Poz has a lot shorter distance to fall off than Peterson, and he plays at a position where players can still be effective beyond the age of 30.  Peterson does not.  Everyone knows the general expectation for a running back's career. 

 

Poz is also labeled as overpaid at his previous $7.5 million salary, but people are fine with paying Peterson twice that. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

You are completely misinterpreting the term generational talent. I'm talking about the fact that Peterson is one of the best backs of all time. In his prime, he was better than the average prime RB. In his age 30/31/32 seasons, he's likely to be better than the average 30/31/32 year old RBs.


It's not hard logic to follow.

 

I Could list 'generational talents'.  I am absolutely not 'misinterpreting anything.

 

Let's just start with Billy Sims?  He should be familiar to you.  'Generational talent' or not?  Hell...you could even make a case for MJD if.....IF....he had played longer.  But that's the crux of the issue, isn't it?

---

And I'm saying elite or not, every player hits a wall.  Many elite players have hit the wall sooner than Peterson, and some have managed to go for a few years beyond 30.  But, the general trend is that there is a wall, and 30 is a line beyond which most teams are reluctant to pay a running back the kind of contract Peterson is working under because they know/expect his production to falter.  If Peterson loses a step or 2 at age 30, he's no longer the back he was prior to that.  He's thus not worth $15 million.  Sorry, there's no way you're going to try to spin this where you'll convince me this team would be better off trading away a draft pick and paying that contract over drafting one of the top tier backs this year. 

 

In addition, I don't think Minnesota sees trading Peterson as a priority.  There's no motivation for them unless some team comes to them with a deal they simply can't turn down.  Your suggestion that you'd be fine with giving up a 4th rounder for him wouldn't draw their interest one bit.

 

For the 3rd time, this was never my point or intention.

 

I've already said that this draft is loaded with RBs and the position isn't a premium position anymore. There is no need to overpay for a RB at this point.

---

I Could list 'generational talents'.  I am absolutely not 'misinterpreting anything.

 

Let's just start with Billy Sims?  He should be familiar to you.  'Generational talent' or not?  Hell...you could even make a case for MJD if.....IF....he had played longer.  But that's the crux of the issue, isn't it?

 

I don't think that generational talents are locks to continue being productive, but I don't think they are locks to hit the same wall at the same time as middling talent players. It isn't an either or thing. I see Adrian Peterson being a productive, top 5-10 level RB over the next three seasons, despite being over 30. He will regress in terms of his overall skill level, but even with that regression he should be pretty good.

 

Again:

If an average tier RB loses a step or 2 at age 30, he is going to become a useless, below average runner.

If one of the best RBs of all time loses a step or 2 at age 30, he is more than likely going to still be a productive player.

---

Why would you want someone on the decline with a bloated contract in a year when the draft is offering us plenty of talent that could be productive for more than a year or two at a fraction of the cost without costing this team a single draft pick.

 

You say you don't support trading for him unless it's a 4th or lower.  Minnesota isn't going to trade him anywhere unless there's a premium offer they simply can't refuse.  A 4th round pick or later doesn't qualify.  They're not shopping him.  There's no reason to do so.  If someone comes to them with a ridiculous offer like a 1 or 2, I'm sure they'll consider it.  A 4th?  Not a chance. 

 

I don't care what Peterson's trajectory is in comparison to other running backs.  I care about what he offers this team over the long haul, and I'm not inspired to think he's worth what Minnesota is going to expect in compensation.

 

i agree with this 100%.

 

id even say a late first rd pick on someone like gurley would be a way more logical investment than peterson. 

---

Coughlin when asked if winning will be a focus: "What the hell else is there? This is nice and dandy, but winning is what all this is about."

Thank God you aren't the GM. Yikes.

Right cause the current GM"s have proven to do such a good job

---

Do you have any clue about the history for running backs after they hit the 30 year old threshold?  Obviously not. 

 

If you were the GM and did a deal like this, we could be assured of at least another decade of losing. 

He missed all of last year so you can call him 29 and he is by far still the best running back in the league.  yeah I'm crazy hugh

---

On Jaguar's Thursday, Lageman, Boselli, and Shadrick all agreed they'd give up a 2nd rounder for AP in a heartbeat (But they used a team like SF as an example).  That seemed kinda high for me.  But I guess it depends on your roster.  

These guys know what they are talking about.  They are not the usual message board sheep around here./

---

I follow you.

Who called him young?

---

Right cause the current GM"s have proven to do such a good job

So let's compound the problem with even worse move... Ha.

---

Why would you want someone on the decline with a bloated contract in a year when the draft is offering us plenty of talent that could be productive for more than a year or two at a fraction of the cost without costing this team a single draft pick.

 

You say you don't support trading for him unless it's a 4th or lower.  Minnesota isn't going to trade him anywhere unless there's a premium offer they simply can't refuse.  A 4th round pick or later doesn't qualify.  They're not shopping him.  There's no reason to do so.  If someone comes to them with a ridiculous offer like a 1 or 2, I'm sure they'll consider it.  A 4th?  Not a chance. 

 

I don't care what Peterson's trajectory is in comparison to other running backs.  I care about what he offers this team over the long haul, and I'm not inspired to think he's worth what Minnesota is going to expect in compensation.

Where is the proof he is on the decline? Before the suspension he rushed for 1,200 yars and 10 tds.  Before his suspension he was by far and away the best RB in the league.  Ok he just turned 30 with a years rest and less mileage on his body.  

 

I would easily trade a second round pick for this kind of talent.  You really want to help Bortles?  Get him a star RB like this and the QB will be very happy.  Superstars who can still play at an elite level don't hit the market very often.  We have more then enough money to afford him.  He was instantly become the best player on this team.

---

http://espn.go.com/blog/jacksonville-jag...n-peterson

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://espn.go.com/blog/jacksonville-jaguars/post/_/id/12298/hard-to-make-sense-of-jaguars-potentially-trading-for-adrian-peterson'>http://espn.go.com/blog/jacksonville-jaguars/post/_/id/12298/hard-to-make-sense-of-jaguars-potentially-trading-for-adrian-peterson</a>

Pretty much reiterates what many of us have been saying here.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Where is the proof he is on the decline? Before the suspension he rushed for 1,200 yars and 10 tds.  Before his suspension he was by far and away the best RB in the league.  Ok he just turned 30 with a years rest and less mileage on his body.  

 

I would easily trade a second round pick for this kind of talent.  You really want to help Bortles?  Get him a star RB like this and the QB will be very happy.  Superstars who can still play at an elite level don't hit the market very often.  We have more then enough money to afford him.  He was instantly become the best player on this team.

Feel free to point out where I said he's "on the decline."


I'm speaking from an historical perspective about running backs and their general effectiveness once they hit 30. It's not really that difficult to understand.


You'd easily trade a 2nd round pick for him because your job isn't on the line for making such an idiotic move. Easy to tell us what you'd do from the security of your anonymous keyboard. The article Bullseye posted outlines why it's a stupid move.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.