Gambo - Peterson not for the Cards

[az jam]

Adrian Peterson not for Cards - even if he's available

John Gambadoro
Special for azcentral.com
Apr. 2, 2007 02:25 PM

The theory of taking the best available athlete in the NFL draft regardless of position is sometimes overrated and, at times, downright stupid. It certainly would be ridiculous for the Arizona Cardinals to contemplate taking running back Adrian Peterson with the fifth overall pick - which is where some draft experts, including Todd McShay of Scouts Inc and several others, have Peterson going.

The problem with taking Peterson is that just a year ago the Cardinals gave Edgerrin James $15 million in salary and guarantees. Not to mention the extra cash they would have to give to an early first-round pick. (Last year, the fifth-pick in the draft, A.J. Hawk got $37.5 million over six years with over $15 million guaranteed from the Green Bay Packers.)


It's inconceivable to think that the Cardinals can spend some $30 million on two players at one position in a one-year period. It just doesn't make sense. Plus, it would signal that the Cardinals believe they made a huge mistake in signing James last year.

Now James did not have a good year last season. He did rush for over 1,000 yards (1,159 to be exact), but 1,000 yards in a 16-game season isn't anything to write home about these days. The stat that matters the most is that James averaged a pathetic 3.4 yards per carry, the worst of his career. Granted, he ran behind a makeshift offensive line that was one of the worst in the league, but he clearly wasn't the factor that the Arizona brass thought he would be when they gave him a four-year, $30 million contract to fix the Cardinals' ground game.

Nonetheless, James is only 28 years old. He is just a season removed from a 1,506 yard rushing season. If new coach Ken Whisenhunt and right-hand man Russ Grimm can fix the offensive line woes, James may very well go back to being a dominant back. There is no reason to believe that at his age he has lost ability or, with his competitive edge, the desire to win. He just didn't have the holes last year, not enough to break a single run of 20 or more yards.

Peterson is a sensational running back who could be a great one. But you don't draft a running back that high and not play him, or play him sparingly. There wouldn't be enough carries to keep both James and Peterson happy. And Peterson is much like James, a power back who needs the ball. It's not like he's a Reggie Bush type who can make a huge impact touching the ball between 12 and 15 times a game from all over the field. And cutting James now is not an option. If they did, his signing bonus would be accelerated and he would count $9 million against the cap this season.

I can understand any team's interest in Peterson. He burst onto the scene at Oklahoma as a true freshman and damn near rushed for 2,000 yards (1,925) in only eight games. He finished second in the Heisman Trophy voting that year. He's a true workhorse back. He rushed for 211 yards on 34 carries in the Sooners' second game this year against Oregon. In the five games before he broke his collarbone against Iowa State, he rushed for 139 yards, 165 yards, 211 yards, 128 yards and 109 yards respectively. He missed the final seven games of the season but returned to play in the Fiesta Bowl, which Oklahoma lost to Boise State.

By comparison, James had only three 100-yard rushing games in 16 with the Cardinals, but they all came in the final five games in which the offensive line actually started to play better. In James' final five games his average yard-per-carries were 4.4, 4.4, 4.5, 3.6 and 4.1. So he got better as the season wore on.

Some teams have had success with a two-back set. Indianapolis used rookie Joseph Addai and veteran Dominic Rhodes, Chicago with Cedric Benson and Thomas Jones, and New Orleans with Bush and Deuce McAllister. But Indy let Rhodes go this year and the Bears traded Thomas Jones.

A team with as many needs as the Cardinals does not have the luxury of drafting a player at a position considered a strength. The Cardinals need help on the offensive line, at linebacker, in the secondary and on the defensive line. What they don't need is a quarterback, wide receiver or running back.

The Cardinals would love to draft offensive tackle Joe Thomas of Wisconsin at five but chances are good that he won't be there. They could elect to trade down and stockpile some more picks. Or they could keep the pick and make a selection. If both Peterson and Clemson defensive end Gaines Adams are on the board then the pick should be a no brainer. Adams fits a need, Peterson doesn't. Adams is said to be the best defensive player in the draft and Bertrand Berry isn't getting any younger and can't seem to stay healthy. Berry has played only 18 games the past two seasons because of injury and is no longer capable of making the impact he did in his first season with Arizona when he had 14½ sacks. He had six sacks in 10 games last season, but three of those came in one game against the Oakland Raiders. He is also going to be 32 years old when the season starts.

Adams can come in and take some of the pressure off Berry and Chike Okeafor as the Cardinals begin to phase those players out.

Peterson could be a great player. And at another time he could have been perfect for Arizona. But not now. Not with all the needs they have and with James just one year into his contract.


John Gambadoro is freelance columnist who writes for azcentral.com. Reach Gambo at [email protected]

 

[BullheadCardFan]

I don't see us taking AP ... he is a real talent at RB, but we have so much tied up in Edge and we have so many areas that need to be addressed that it jsut doesn't make sense to me ...

 

[az jam]

I don't see us taking AP ... he is a real talent at RB, but we have so much tied up in Edge and we have so many areas that need to be addressed that it jsut doesn't make sense to me ...

I think that is exactly the point that Gambo is making. Too much money tied up in Edge.

 

[BigRedArk]

We could always draft Peterson and then have the luxury of seeing how the next 5 or so picks go and see if we could find a trading partner. If someone the brass likes is there at that point then try and trade him and get a guy you like plus another pick or two. Between Adrian Peterson and Gaines Adams it's a no-brainer. Peterson.

Having said all of that Gambo has a good point in that Edge and Peterson may not be a good combo like Bush and McCallister are for the Saints. That part could be dicey. Still with talent like that and shrewd coaching it might be possible to find a way to make it work. It's not impossible. It just might take some creativity.

 

[SuperSpck]

We could always draft Peterson and then have the luxury of seeing how the next 5 or so picks go and see if we could find a trading partner. If someone the brass likes is there at that point then try and trade him and get a guy you like plus another pick or two. Between Adrian Peterson and Gaines Adams it's a no-brainer. Peterson.

Having said all of that Gambo has a good point in that Edge and Peterson may not be a good combo like Bush and McCallister are for the Saints. That part could be dicey. Still with talent like that and shrewd coaching it might be possible to find a way to make it work. It's not impossible. It just might take some creativity.

I'm inclined to agree with the author, but I wouldn't cry if AZ drafted AP, there's worse picks to make and a team is only one injury from being thin anyway.

What I wonder is if a guy like Edge could fill the Bus' role in the power running game while Peterson could be more of a Parker speed role. Both seemed to have an effective year using this strategy in the big year in Pittsburg.

I know embarrasingly little about Peterson, does he have the running ability to be a "burner" in the NFL @ RB?

 

[BigRedArk]

I'm inclined to agree with the author, but I wouldn't cry if AZ drafted AP, there's worse picks to make and a team is only one injury from being thin anyway.

What I wonder is if a guy like Edge could fill the Bus' role in the power running game while Peterson could be more of a Parker speed role. Both seemed to have an effective year using this strategy in the big year in Pittsburg.

I know embarrasingly little about Peterson, does he have the running ability to be a "burner" in the NFL @ RB?

He does indeed Spck. The only caveat is that he gets better as the game goes on hence his nickname All Day. That is where it could get dicey. He and Edge in the same backfield along with Fitz and Boldin and well there's only one football and...well you get the idea.

 

[ThunderCard]

well everything he says is somewhat true, however Edge will be turning 29 before the season starts and we should start looking for a replacement soon. I honestly believe AP is the BPA in this entire draft so who cares if we are tying up to much money at RB. Didn't we already do the same thing at Center ?

 

[Garthshort]

Drafting for Need

Probably the main reason why the team has struggled over the years.

 

[lobo]

Probably the main reason why the team has struggled over the years.

Look at your title and your answer and please expand on your thougt. Stricly speaking for myself, say Peterson is the BPA in mgts opinion and we continue to die at DB, DE, LB can you explain to me the logic in taking a RB where the need is not nearly as great.

 

[Stout]

Look at your title and your answer and please expand on your thougt. Stricly speaking for myself, say Peterson is the BPA in mgts opinion and we continue to die at DB, DE, LB can you explain to me the logic in taking a RB where the need is not nearly as great.

I'll do it. Who would you rather have, LaDanian Tomlinson or Leonard Davis? Same draft; Davis was the #2 and Tomlinson the #5.

Thank you, good night.

 

[CardNots]

I'll do it. Who would you rather have, LaDanian Tomlinson or Leonard Davis? Same draft; Davis was the #2 and Tomlinson the #5.

Thank you, good night.

Indeed, you paint a picture of a no-brainer.

 

[JeffGollin]

Gambo had me until he mentioned Adams and our "crying need" for a DE.

With Chike, B-Train, Pace and Antonio Smith at DE, I don't think we have a "crying need" (although adding more quality depth there couldn't hurt).

Equally important, the DE position is so deep that the #12th best pass rusher at the position is likely to be a potential starter; so why use a #5 on one when we could still get a pass rusher like Spencer, Moss or Woodley at #38 or Bazuin, Robison or Crowder at #69?

 

[Rivercard]

I'll do it. Who would you rather have, LaDanian Tomlinson or Leonard Davis? Same draft; Davis was the #2 and Tomlinson the #5.

Thank you, good night.

Hindsight makes critics look like a genious.

 

[Diamondback Jay]

You're preaching to the choir John..

 

[HoodieBets]

Gambo had me until he mentioned Adams and our "crying need" for a DE.

With Chike, B-Train, Pace and Antonio Smith at DE, I don't think we have a "crying need" (although adding more quality depth there couldn't hurt).

Equally important, the DE position is so deep that the #12th best pass rusher at the position is likely to be a potential starter; so why use a #5 on one when we could still get a pass rusher like Spencer, Moss or Woodley at #38 or Bazuin, Robison or Crowder at #69?

Chike is gettin old and has never been great, Berry can never finish a season, and Smith ehhhh how much have we really seen? DE is a need, its not as big of a need as OLB and OT but its our third biggest need on the team.

IMO we should trade down, stockpile picks and draft Levi. I wouldnt shed tears over drafting Adams tho. BTW Crowder wont be there at #69.

 

[Stout]

Hindsight makes critics look like a genious.

You miss the point. Then, as now, LT was a glaring need. I cannot say who we considered BPA back then, but if we make a pick based on need rather than who we feel might become the next great player in our upcoming, then we will have flubbed. Someone wanted an example of why you should take a possible next great player over a need player, and I gave one. I was not being critical of our taking Davis, but highlighting what might have been if we had gone a different direction.

 

[CardLogic]

Gambo wrote a good article, and made a good case.

That said, if Joe Thomas is gone and Adrian Peterson available at #5, this board will be lamenting about it for years if we don't take Peterson.

 

[lobo]

You miss the point. Then, as now, LT was a glaring need. I cannot say who we considered BPA back then, but if we make a pick based on need rather than who we feel might become the next great player in our upcoming, then we will have flubbed. Someone wanted an example of why you should take a possible next great player over a need player, and I gave one. I was not being critical of our taking Davis, but highlighting what might have been if we had gone a different direction.

I am sure you will agree this is a fuzzy area and not very clear cut. Davis was a very sensible pick I agree. Think about this year, would you consider Calvin Johnson the premier BPA or at least one of two? Now if Johnson is there at 5, and let's assume Thomas is gone. If you are a BPA guy, you have to take him for the Cardinals. Right?

Now, let's say based on need Adams, Landry etc were the top choices on the board..still take Johnson. You know the next question. What do you do with Q/Boldin etc.

 

[lobo]

Gambo wrote a good article, and made a good case.

That said, if Joe Thomas is gone and Adrian Peterson available at #5, this board will be lamenting about it for years if we don't take Peterson.

I stated many times as well. Aside from Thomas regardless of who we take we will see at least 60% people complain. That is just the way it is. Peterson is a great college player, but he will not have the impact on the team that (say) Willis, Adams, Landry might have. At least two would start day one, and one would be the first call off the bench.

 

[Stout]

I am sure you will agree this is a fuzzy area and not very clear cut. Davis was a very sensible pick I agree. Think about this year, would you consider Calvin Johnson the premier BPA or at least one of two? Now if Johnson is there at 5, and let's assume Thomas is gone. If you are a BPA guy, you have to take him for the Cardinals. Right?

Now, let's say based on need Adams, Landry etc were the top choices on the board..still take Johnson. You know the next question. What do you do with Q/Boldin etc.

Well, I do not think Johnson would be BPA. To me, he's a Fitz clone, and we already have a Fitz. I'd be in favor of him, but Fitz is already a special type of player, and could easily be a perennial all-pro. BPA does not leave need by the wayside, but weighs it far less heavily than drafting purely by need.

 

[lobo]

Well, I do not think Johnson would be BPA. To me, he's a Fitz clone, and we already have a Fitz. I'd be in favor of him, but Fitz is already a special type of player, and could easily be a perennial all-pro. BPA does not leave need by the wayside, but weighs it far less heavily than drafting purely by need.

Well, lunch is over and I have to get back to work. It is still a very fuzzy area and one can bend the BPA/Need story any way they care to. There is no right or wrong from my point of view. Just don't wind up with that 2002 draft!

Let's hope for Thomas and call him whatever we want to!

 

[Diamondback Jay]

I am sure you will agree this is a fuzzy area and not very clear cut. Davis was a very sensible pick I agree. Think about this year, would you consider Calvin Johnson the premier BPA or at least one of two? Now if Johnson is there at 5, and let's assume Thomas is gone. If you are a BPA guy, you have to take him for the Cardinals. Right?

Now, let's say based on need Adams, Landry etc were the top choices on the board..still take Johnson. You know the next question. What do you do with Q/Boldin etc.

Well said.

If there's a team that has a lot of needs, then yes you go with the BPA at a position of need, over just grabbing anyone in general.

Let me put this scenario to you for that are in favor of the BPA. Let's assume that the Indianapolis Colts have the number 1 pick in this draft. Do they pick Russell based off the fact that he's "best available"? How about the Patriots? Do the Cards take Johnson if he falls to them at 5, forgetting the fact that they have two of the best WRs in the NFL?

I like Peterson and think he'll do just fine in the NFL. However, the Cardinals have a HB who's an All Pro caliber player and at 28 isn't exactly old by any means.

 

[earthsci]

Now if Johnson is there at 5, and let's assume Thomas is gone. If you are a BPA guy, you have to take him for the Cardinals. Right?

Hell...Yes.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

I'll do it. Who would you rather have, LaDanian Tomlinson or Leonard Davis? Same draft; Davis was the #2 and Tomlinson the #5.

Thank you, good night.

awesome

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Well said.

If there's a team that has a lot of needs, then yes you go with the BPA at a position of need, over just grabbing anyone in general.

Let me put this scenario to you for that are in favor of the BPA. Let's assume that the Indianapolis Colts have the number 1 pick in this draft. Do they pick Russell based off the fact that he's "best available"? How about the Patriots? Do the Cards take Johnson if he falls to them at 5, forgetting the fact that they have two of the best WRs in the NFL?

I like Peterson and think he'll do just fine in the NFL. However, the Cardinals have a HB who's an All Pro caliber player and at 28 isn't exactly old by any means.

our wrs are young. no need to consider the future.

edge will be 29 by the start of the season. do me a favor, see how many rbs have excellend past the age of 30. very slim. draft the stud that's going to be a stud for years to come. it's call foresight. drafting proactively instead of reactively.