Speaking of Mayfield vs Rudolph

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

PontiacPoke717

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Nov 24, 2014
5,051
3,798
743
31
Lavon, TX
If the best to ever play went to your school, you'd hitch your wagon to him too... but he didn't...he went to ours.

Also, you'd be hard pressed to find a more deserving Heisman trophy ever awarded. Certainly none at OU. It also used to mean something.
Yep and Garth > Toby.
 

Cowboy2U

Federal Marshal
Mar 31, 2008
11,271
1,677
1,743
:lol: you mean that guy who nearly beat his kid to death, and that other guy who broke that girls face? Hang your hat on the abuse hook, that's what you do.
You and I both know that there is only one thing that matters at payola u, the win...at any cost. If it takes cash, they pay, if it takes gasoline...here's the key, if it is to bury tape on crushing a gal's face by their thug, so be it. Pitiful bunch there, the "small man" syndrome runs rampant in their group.
 

PontiacPoke717

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Nov 24, 2014
5,051
3,798
743
31
Lavon, TX
At this point Peterson has had a better career than Thomas, and he'll end up close to Sanders too. Give it 10-12 years and we'll see where Mixon stands.
Peterson has all but peter'd out. His career is all but over.

He was great in his prime, but to compare him to Barry is laughable. Mixon hasn't done shit yet either. If he was so great, he'd have had good flashes last year. So far, just a run of the mill NFL RB. 3.5 ypc with a long of 25. Wow, amazing...
 

Midnight Toker

Territorial Marshal
May 28, 2010
8,868
1,745
1,743
Considering Thomas had nearly 500 receptions, I would say the offense was designed a little different. Total production from rushing&receiving: Thomas= 16,532
Peterson= 14,291
Including playoffs: Thomas= 18,646
Peterson= 14,757
Not sure why you aren't counting Thomas' 1991 MVP/OffPOY and if you are trying to count the pro bowl MVP for Peterson that's just...I don't know what. Thomas was playing in the Super Bowl a week before 4 of his pro bowls, not sure he cared much.
Oh, cool, I didnt know Peterson had a pro bowl mvp too. Add it to the list! I'm just saying Peterson has been better, and he still has a couple years left at least. But sure, i'll concede thomas certainly received more passes no doubt about it. Peterson is a pure rb, and as far as that and nearly every single other stat goes, he has been clearly superior to thomas.

Peterson has all but peter'd out. His career is all but over.

He was great in his prime, but to compare him to Barry is laughable. Mixon hasn't done shit yet either. If he was so great, he'd have had good flashes last year. So far, just a run of the mill NFL RB. 3.5 ypc with a long of 25. Wow, amazing...
Sure he's not the same player he was 10 years ago, but he can still produce! who compared Peterson to Sanders? that person and I need to have a talk.

Mixon was a rookie last year as I am sure you knew. A rookie who split carries, so of course he wasnt going to have pro bowl production. But the Bengals have stated he will be their #1 rb in 2018 so expect a better season with more consistent numbers. Don't act like you havent seen some of the things he can do, once he gets the carries he will be making bengals fans very, very happy. There aren't very many rbs with his pure talent, it's gonna be fun to watch his career unfold.
 

PontiacPoke717

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Nov 24, 2014
5,051
3,798
743
31
Lavon, TX
Oh, cool, I didnt know Peterson had a pro bowl mvp too. Add it to the list! I'm just saying Peterson has been better, and he still has a couple years left at least. But sure, i'll concede thomas certainly received more passes no doubt about it. Peterson is a pure rb, and as far as that and nearly every single other stat goes, he has been clearly superior to thomas.



Sure he's not the same player he was 10 years ago, but he can still produce! who compared Peterson to Sanders? that person and I need to have a talk.

Mixon was a rookie last year as I am sure you knew. A rookie who split carries, so of course he wasnt going to have pro bowl production. But the Bengals have stated he will be their #1 rb in 2018 so expect a better season with more consistent numbers. Don't act like you havent seen some of the things he can do, once he gets the carries he will be making bengals fans very, very happy. There aren't very many rbs with his pure talent, it's gonna be fun to watch his career unfold.
I honestly think he's more of a threat in the passing game than in the run game (which isn't a bad thing). He has elite talent, no denying that, but as in college, he made people pay catching passes out of the back field. A lot like Sproles, except I expect him to have more rushing yards than Sproles, strictly because of his size and ability to bang inside.

Maybe Alvin Kamara is a better comparison, if the light comes on and he doesn't go full retard on some other broads.

Draft worthy in PPR leagues.
 

jobob85

Alcoholistic Sage
A/V Subscriber
Mar 11, 2009
22,978
27,317
1,743
Peterson has all but peter'd out. His career is all but over.

He was great in his prime, but to compare him to Barry is laughable. Mixon hasn't done shit yet either. If he was so great, he'd have had good flashes last year. So far, just a run of the mill NFL RB. 3.5 ypc with a long of 25. Wow, amazing...
But, in this scenario Mixon’s receiving yards count because he’s a Sooner.
 

Midnight Toker

Territorial Marshal
May 28, 2010
8,868
1,745
1,743
I honestly think he's more of a threat in the passing game than in the run game (which isn't a bad thing). He has elite talent, no denying that, but as in college, he made people pay catching passes out of the back field. A lot like Sproles, except I expect him to have more rushing yards than Sproles, strictly because of his size and ability to bang inside.

Maybe Alvin Kamara is a better comparison, if the light comes on and he doesn't go full retard on some other broads.

Draft worthy in PPR leagues.
He just happens to be a really good receiver out of the backfield, but his talents certainly are as a #1 running back. Sure it doesnt hurt that he's big enough to be a wr but strong enough to take the beating that rbs take. Kamara is wonderfully productive, he'll be really really good. I'm not sure how productive hell be in the receiving game if he were also the bellcow back. I think in the nfl you need a specialist who can take passes, but also the #1 rb who can run between the tackles. it's worked really well for new orleans and atlanta off the top of my head. Just makes you so dangerous
 

orngblkzebra

"All this endless thinking, it's very overrated."
A/V Subscriber
Feb 9, 2015
1,284
573
743
Shawnee, OK
Oh, cool, I didnt know Peterson had a pro bowl mvp too. Add it to the list! I'm just saying Peterson has been better, and he still has a couple years left at least. But sure, i'll concede thomas certainly received more passes no doubt about it. Peterson is a pure rb, and as far as that and nearly every single other stat goes, he has been clearly superior to thomas.



Sure he's not the same player he was 10 years ago, but he can still produce! who compared Peterson to Sanders? that person and I need to have a talk.

Mixon was a rookie last year as I am sure you knew. A rookie who split carries, so of course he wasnt going to have pro bowl production. But the Bengals have stated he will be their #1 rb in 2018 so expect a better season with more consistent numbers. Don't act like you havent seen some of the things he can do, once he gets the carries he will be making bengals fans very, very happy. There aren't very many rbs with his pure talent, it's gonna be fun to watch his career unfold.
Still not sure where you believe AD has more MVP awards!?
TT had 8 consecutive 1k yd seasons...AD has only had 7 1k yd seasons (here & there). Thomas was the only player to lead the league 4 consecutive seasons in yds from scrimmage.
Also, 1 of 6 RBS with 400+ Rec & 10,000 rush yds. He didn't "just have more receptions", he produced 2400 more yds than AD in receiving.
Can AD run the ball? Sure.
Better all around player? No way!
 

Midnight Toker

Territorial Marshal
May 28, 2010
8,868
1,745
1,743
Still not sure where you believe AD has more MVP awards!?
TT had 8 consecutive 1k yd seasons...AD has only had 7 1k yd seasons (here & there). Thomas was the only player to lead the league 4 consecutive seasons in yds from scrimmage.
Also, 1 of 6 RBS with 400+ Rec & 10,000 rush yds. He didn't "just have more receptions", he produced 2400 more yds than AD in receiving.
Can AD run the ball? Sure.
Better all around player? No way!
If it makes you feel better i can reword it for you- Peterson was a better running back. Thomas was a better receiver. About the only thing thomas did better was catch the ball. He had 472 receptions to Peterson's 252. But since they are both running backs, and since Peterson was better than him in nearly every single statistic other than receptions, Peterson was clearly the better running back.

Thomas averaged, for his career, 66 rush yards per game. Peterson averaged 92 rush yards per game. Which is insane considering he's only played in 16 games two times since 2012. If i need a rb to tote the rock 25 times per game, Peterson all day long over Thomas.

I'll even break it down for you, total yards from scrimmage per game for each guy's career:

Thomas- 90.83.
Peterson- 107.45

Total touchdowns: Peterson 104. Thomas 88. (Much more scoring despite ~500 less touches)
Touchdowns per game: Peterson 0.78. Thomas 0.48.

For their career in total touches: Peterson 2826. Thomas 3349.

thomas for his career 4.93 yards per touch
Peterson for his career 5.05 yards per touch

I can go all day with this. Peterson was just better, more productive, and more efficient. But certainly not as good of a receiver. too bad we arent comparing who the better receiver is.
 

Rob B.

I'm......Batman.
A/V Subscriber
Aug 13, 2007
49,330
27,680
1,743
Rockin' the GL.
If it makes you feel better i can reword it for you- Peterson was a better running back. Thomas was a better receiver. About the only thing thomas did better was catch the ball. He had 472 receptions to Peterson's 252. But since they are both running backs, and since Peterson was better than him in nearly every single statistic other than receptions, Peterson was clearly the better running back.

Thomas averaged, for his career, 66 rush yards per game. Peterson averaged 92 rush yards per game. Which is insane considering he's only played in 16 games two times since 2012. If i need a rb to tote the rock 25 times per game, Peterson all day long over Thomas.

I'll even break it down for you, total yards from scrimmage per game for each guy's career:

Thomas- 90.83.
Peterson- 107.45

Total touchdowns: Peterson 104. Thomas 88. (Much more scoring despite ~500 less touches)
Touchdowns per game: Peterson 0.78. Thomas 0.48.

For their career in total touches: Peterson 2826. Thomas 3349.

thomas for his career 4.93 yards per touch
Peterson for his career 5.05 yards per touch

I can go all day with this. Peterson was just better, more productive, and more efficient. But certainly not as good of a receiver. too bad we arent comparing who the better receiver is.
You can go on all day if you want, doesn't make your opinion correct. Thomas was a more productive NFL running back. How's that?
 

More Cowbell

Territorial Marshal
May 2, 2005
5,789
4,722
1,743
Highland Village, TX
On the weekends when he wasn't beating his kids, Peterson was forced the ball repeatedly because the Vikings rarely had a great passing game. Thomas had a different role in a offense with other weapons, yet still piled up stats. You really can't compare the two styles.
You could compare playoff wins: Thurman: 11 Peterson: 1 (In which he stunk and Brett Favre won for him)
 

More Cowbell

Territorial Marshal
May 2, 2005
5,789
4,722
1,743
Highland Village, TX
Bottom line, OSU has had better NFL stars. We both have 2 HOF'ers, you will get a 3rd if they let Peterson in despite his character.

1) Barry Sanders (The GOAT)
2) Thurman Thomas
3) Adrian Peterson
4) Lee Roy Selmon
5) Tommy McDonald
 

orngblkzebra

"All this endless thinking, it's very overrated."
A/V Subscriber
Feb 9, 2015
1,284
573
743
Shawnee, OK
If it makes you feel better i can reword it for you- Peterson was a better running back. Thomas was a better receiver. About the only thing thomas did better was catch the ball. He had 472 receptions to Peterson's 252. But since they are both running backs, and since Peterson was better than him in nearly every single statistic other than receptions, Peterson was clearly the better running back.

Thomas averaged, for his career, 66 rush yards per game. Peterson averaged 92 rush yards per game. Which is insane considering he's only played in 16 games two times since 2012. If i need a rb to tote the rock 25 times per game, Peterson all day long over Thomas.

I'll even break it down for you, total yards from scrimmage per game for each guy's career:

Thomas- 90.83.
Peterson- 107.45

Total touchdowns: Peterson 104. Thomas 88. (Much more scoring despite ~500 less touches)
Touchdowns per game: Peterson 0.78. Thomas 0.48.

For their career in total touches: Peterson 2826. Thomas 3349.

thomas for his career 4.93 yards per touch
Peterson for his career 5.05 yards per touch

I can go all day with this. Peterson was just better, more productive, and more efficient. But certainly not as good of a receiver. too bad we arent comparing who the better receiver is.
Thomas also matched Peterson''s best season in what he has produced in the playoffs...in other words, he played another whole season in the playoffs that isn't counted in career stats. Incidentally, they have the same number of TDs if you count what Thomas scored in the playoffs (109).
When you guys were touting Mixon all that time, he was more dangerous because of his ability to receive. It has to apply to all or none. Like I said: better runner but not overall position player.
 

Midnight Toker

Territorial Marshal
May 28, 2010
8,868
1,745
1,743
You can go on all day if you want, doesn't make your opinion correct. Thomas was a more productive NFL running back. How's that?
He was a more productive receiver, Peterson was a much more efficient and productive running back. I prove my position with statistics that agree with me. You have nothing except receiving yards. to compare running backs. it's silly and you dont even realize it. Not sure how having more receiving yards makes thomas a better running back. is that just poke logic? Can you elaborate how thomas is a better rb than a guy who has more yards, more touchdowns, and more yards per carry over their career?

On the weekends when he wasn't beating his kids, Peterson was forced the ball repeatedly because the Vikings rarely had a great passing game. Thomas had a different role in a offense with other weapons, yet still piled up stats. You really can't compare the two styles.
You could compare playoff wins: Thurman: 11 Peterson: 1 (In which he stunk and Brett Favre won for him)
Of course you can compare the two styles- Peterson a much more polished and better running back; Thomas much better as a receiver. Nothing wrong with that. But Peterson was a much better running back.

Thomas also matched Peterson''s best season in what he has produced in the playoffs...in other words, he played another whole season in the playoffs that isn't counted in career stats. Incidentally, they have the same number of TDs if you count what Thomas scored in the playoffs (109).
When you guys were touting Mixon all that time, he was more dangerous because of his ability to receive. It has to apply to all or none. Like I said: better runner but not overall position player.
Lucky thurman, he got to play on great teams full of HOFers. I am confident that if Peterson had played on great teams who went to the playoffs every year, he would have played in those games and accrued stats too. So yes, the bills were absolutely better than the vikings. Peterson outproduced thomas despite being on worse teams, that says a lot about Peterson.

Mixon was MORE dangerous because of his abilities to receive, but he would still be very dangerous and one of the best players in the country with 0 career receptions. Thomas was a great running back, Peterson was just better at it. Thomas only did one thing better than Peterson- catch the ball. Peterson did everything else better. So i dont see how thomas is the better player because of that. I am not sure why you seem to place a higher value on Thomas' 472 career receptions than his 2877 rush attempts in assessing where he really impacted the game. Peterson was a big hungry 3 down back who could run through or around you, a better pure running back. Just the way it is.
 

Rob B.

I'm......Batman.
A/V Subscriber
Aug 13, 2007
49,330
27,680
1,743
Rockin' the GL.
He was a more productive receiver, Peterson was a much more efficient and productive running back. I prove my position with statistics that agree with me. You have nothing except receiving yards. to compare running backs. it's silly and you dont even realize it. Not sure how having more receiving yards makes thomas a better running back. is that just poke logic? Can you elaborate how thomas is a better rb than a guy who has more yards, more touchdowns, and more yards per carry over their career?
No. Thomas was a more productive running back.