NFL Insider: Vikes' Peterson draws comparisons to top backs
Adrian Peterson had a breakout game against the Bears. This was not a surprise to me.
Last spring in my draft reports for CBSSports.com I said if it had not been for his missed time in college -- in 2005 he missed all or parts of four games and in 2006 he missed seven games -- Peterson would have been the top pick on most of the draft boards ahead of Calvin Johnson and JaMarcus Russell.
The reason is because his ability at his position was better than Russell at his and you would rate a running back ahead of a wide receiver if both were of equal talent, which many would agree that Johnson and Peterson are.
I first saw Peterson when he was a freshman at Oklahoma. When I went to practice to watch the seniors at Oklahoma you could not help but notice Peterson. When you scout players you always compare them to players you have scouted in the past. The first player who came to mind when I saw Peterson move around in practice was Eric Dickerson. They had similar builds (long and lean), with explosive speed.
As a freshman, Peterson did not disappoint. He was a dominant player in the Big 12, rushing for 1,925 yards despite playing with a shoulder injury. As I pointed out he missed time in both of the next two years.
The next time I really looked at Peterson was when I watched tape of him last spring in preparation for the draft for CBSSports.com. He immediately jumped off the screen. His best characteristic was his big-play ability due to his explosive speed. He could score any time he touched the ball. He had the ability to run inside and outside. Despite his lean build he was aggressive as an inside runner and had the foot quickness to change directions in the hole as well as the instincts to decide when to make that quick move.
In the passing game he did not have that much production, but in watching him work out at the NFL Combine he showed he had good hands. My experience in the NFL taught me that almost all backs can improve on their pass-receiving skills with work. Most college backs who are workhorse types or the primary running back in college do very little work in the passing game, whether it be in catching the ball or in blocking.
There was no question in my mind Peterson was a top back, just like I thought he would be when I saw him as a freshman. However, I would rate Dickerson as the better of the two. The difference was Dickerson had looser hips and was more elusive in the open field than what I see from Peterson in that area.
The next step in evaluating a player is to compare him to players at his position who have been drafted at his position. I have a list of those players at each position dating back to 2000. I have been scouting since 1977, but only try to go back eight years at a time when I am grading players. There is no particular reason I choose eight years.
When I compared him to the backs drafted since 2000, the only backs who could enter in the discussion were LaDainian Tomlinson and Jamal Lewis. The criteria for comparison is that you feel the current player compares to these players in similar talent, though styles may be different. Once you have put the player in that range of the draft, in this case a top-five pick, you begin to compare him to the other players in this draft.
The X-factor for Peterson was his injury history. You must rely upon your trainer and doctor for advice. Since I was not with a team, I surveyed a number of teams in the NFL to get their opinions. They all seemed to be the same. He didn't have any chronic problems in any area, but might need shoulder surgery. Still there was some risk just based on missed time and that was why he slipped in the draft.
When faced with similar medical reports in the past I felt the determining factor in whether to take the player was whether the injury was chronic. If it was not, then you take the player. I was faced with a similar situation in 1999 while I was with the Redskins and we traded for Vikings quarterback Brad Johnson. He had missed considerable time the previous two seasons, but none of the injuries were chronic. While he was with us he stayed healthy and did so for most of the rest of his career. He is still active in the NFL with the Dallas Cowboys.
That being said I can understand the reluctance of some teams to take Peterson high in the draft with the amount of money being paid to rookies and the salary-cap ramifications if these players do not work out.
The next and final step in the draft process is do you take the player if you already have a proven running back on your team. Minnesota went with the theory of drafting the best player on their draft board regardless of depth at the position. This was a classic example of why teams do this, because the player they take may just be too good to pass up. Could Chester Taylor have done what Peterson did on Sunday versus the Bears? Of course not. Not many backs could.
All of us in personnel have learned the hard way. Take the best player when it is your turn in the draft. Congratulations to the Minnesota Vikings!
Last spring in my draft reports for CBSSports.com I said if it had not been for his missed time in college -- in 2005 he missed all or parts of four games and in 2006 he missed seven games -- Peterson would have been the top pick on most of the draft boards ahead of Calvin Johnson and JaMarcus Russell.
The reason is because his ability at his position was better than Russell at his and you would rate a running back ahead of a wide receiver if both were of equal talent, which many would agree that Johnson and Peterson are.
I first saw Peterson when he was a freshman at Oklahoma. When I went to practice to watch the seniors at Oklahoma you could not help but notice Peterson. When you scout players you always compare them to players you have scouted in the past. The first player who came to mind when I saw Peterson move around in practice was Eric Dickerson. They had similar builds (long and lean), with explosive speed.
As a freshman, Peterson did not disappoint. He was a dominant player in the Big 12, rushing for 1,925 yards despite playing with a shoulder injury. As I pointed out he missed time in both of the next two years.
The next time I really looked at Peterson was when I watched tape of him last spring in preparation for the draft for CBSSports.com. He immediately jumped off the screen. His best characteristic was his big-play ability due to his explosive speed. He could score any time he touched the ball. He had the ability to run inside and outside. Despite his lean build he was aggressive as an inside runner and had the foot quickness to change directions in the hole as well as the instincts to decide when to make that quick move.
In the passing game he did not have that much production, but in watching him work out at the NFL Combine he showed he had good hands. My experience in the NFL taught me that almost all backs can improve on their pass-receiving skills with work. Most college backs who are workhorse types or the primary running back in college do very little work in the passing game, whether it be in catching the ball or in blocking.
There was no question in my mind Peterson was a top back, just like I thought he would be when I saw him as a freshman. However, I would rate Dickerson as the better of the two. The difference was Dickerson had looser hips and was more elusive in the open field than what I see from Peterson in that area.
The next step in evaluating a player is to compare him to players at his position who have been drafted at his position. I have a list of those players at each position dating back to 2000. I have been scouting since 1977, but only try to go back eight years at a time when I am grading players. There is no particular reason I choose eight years.
When I compared him to the backs drafted since 2000, the only backs who could enter in the discussion were LaDainian Tomlinson and Jamal Lewis. The criteria for comparison is that you feel the current player compares to these players in similar talent, though styles may be different. Once you have put the player in that range of the draft, in this case a top-five pick, you begin to compare him to the other players in this draft.
The X-factor for Peterson was his injury history. You must rely upon your trainer and doctor for advice. Since I was not with a team, I surveyed a number of teams in the NFL to get their opinions. They all seemed to be the same. He didn't have any chronic problems in any area, but might need shoulder surgery. Still there was some risk just based on missed time and that was why he slipped in the draft.
When faced with similar medical reports in the past I felt the determining factor in whether to take the player was whether the injury was chronic. If it was not, then you take the player. I was faced with a similar situation in 1999 while I was with the Redskins and we traded for Vikings quarterback Brad Johnson. He had missed considerable time the previous two seasons, but none of the injuries were chronic. While he was with us he stayed healthy and did so for most of the rest of his career. He is still active in the NFL with the Dallas Cowboys.
That being said I can understand the reluctance of some teams to take Peterson high in the draft with the amount of money being paid to rookies and the salary-cap ramifications if these players do not work out.
The next and final step in the draft process is do you take the player if you already have a proven running back on your team. Minnesota went with the theory of drafting the best player on their draft board regardless of depth at the position. This was a classic example of why teams do this, because the player they take may just be too good to pass up. Could Chester Taylor have done what Peterson did on Sunday versus the Bears? Of course not. Not many backs could.
All of us in personnel have learned the hard way. Take the best player when it is your turn in the draft. Congratulations to the Minnesota Vikings!
posted by The Gryphon at 5:41 AM
<< Home