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.

Midnight Toker

Territorial Marshal
May 28, 2010
7,955
1,636
743
Thank You!
I doubt he caught on to the clue that a "new question" was not aimed at recycling the same answer.
Uhh first of all playing indoors vs outdoors doesnt mean a damn thing in regard to making cuts and driving forward. Whether it's turf or grass, that matters for cuts big time, but they both played on turf and turf indoors or outdoors is the same. And dont be a girl and bring up weather, rare was it that they had to play in snow storms or inclement weather in buffalo. How many of his 183 games dealt with that? 10? Peterson had a few himself. Think that made up for the fact that peterson had no qb and no decent wrs on most of his teams?

I'm sure Thomas didnt greatly benefit from having hall of fame qb, wr and head coach too Poor guy had to play outdoors like almost everyone else. I'm sure the outdoor playing area had a much greater effect on his game than defenses having to worry bout Jim Kelly and Andre Reed. I wonder if you think Barry Sanders isnt truly the greatest rb in the history of Earth because he padded his stats playing in that fancy dome.

Luckily there are stats for grass and turf though. Let's examine the findings, shall we?

For his career Thomas averaged 4.2 yards per carry. Probably played more games on turf than Peterson did.

Peterson for his career averaged 4.8 yards per carry. We know who has the advantage there.

But I looked, and his career average per carry on turf? 4.9.
His career average per carry on grass? 4.7.

His indoors vs outdoors was almost the same. You keep digging to find something, anything huh? Keep bringing up more excuses why Peterson outperformed Thomas as a running back.
 

More Cowbell

Territorial Marshal
May 2, 2005
5,691
4,652
1,743
Highland Village, TX
:facepalm:

Something tells me you dont have a degree in reading comprehension. I was referencing Peterson's 2948 career touches which I rounded up to 3000. So that's ~3000 career touches, not 612 per game.
If someone in your family ever goes to college, they can tell you there is no such thing as a degree in reading. :facepalm:

You just calculated that Peterson averaged .03 yds per touch more than Thurman. So, give him 30 touches per game and he almost gets you an extra yard. And fumbles twice as much. And loses games twice as much.

Thurman all day.
 

Midnight Toker

Territorial Marshal
May 28, 2010
7,955
1,636
743
If someone in your family ever goes to college, they can tell you there is no such thing as a degree in reading. :facepalm:

You just calculated that Peterson averaged .03 yds per touch more than Thurman. So, give him 30 touches per game and he almost gets you an extra yard. And fumbles twice as much. And loses games twice as much.

Thurman all day.
I am fully aware that there are no "reading comprehension" degree programs. My comment stands though as this non existent degree would have been really beneficial for you in navigating your ability to comprehend a post you read online.

Yes, that includes rushing and receiving numbers. If you include just rushing, Thomas isnt even in the same universe. But it's impressive that Peterson had more yards per touch in spite of all those receiving yards thomas had. Come to show you it wasnt that big of a part of his game. But if you extrapolate Peterson's per touch advantage over 3000 touches, you see how much better and more efficient Peterson has been throughout his career. As good as thomas was, peterson was that much and more. Running backs dont lose games so that's a bunk comment and you know it. See how desperate your argument is getting? You have no way to statistically prove he was better, so you want to suggest Peterson was somehow better at losing, like that is some sort of litmus test for running backs.

You are obviously aware that the Bills teams, who had a dozen + pro bowlers and a small handful of hall of famers was very beneficial to Thomas and his career. Something Peterson never had, which says a lot about how hard earned his yards were. Put Thomas on the vikings and he would have been known as nothing more than some guy who once played with barry sanders in college. thomas never would have rushed for the yards he did against 8 man fronts all day like Peterson had to. Not physical enough, and not the same kind of athlete. You just cant admit Peterson was a better rb despite all the evidence proving so. It's not even that big of a deal, but this is how bias and blind some of you are. I can admit when someone is better
 

More Cowbell

Territorial Marshal
May 2, 2005
5,691
4,652
1,743
Highland Village, TX
I am fully aware that there are no "reading comprehension" degree programs. My comment stands though as this non existent degree would have been really beneficial for you in navigating your ability to comprehend a post you read online.

Yes, that includes rushing and receiving numbers. If you include just rushing, Thomas isnt even in the same universe. But it's impressive that Peterson had more yards per touch in spite of all those receiving yards thomas had. Come to show you it wasnt that big of a part of his game. But if you extrapolate Peterson's per touch advantage over 3000 touches, you see how much better and more efficient Peterson has been throughout his career. As good as thomas was, peterson was that much and more. Running backs dont lose games so that's a bunk comment and you know it. See how desperate your argument is getting? You have no way to statistically prove he was better, so you want to suggest Peterson was somehow better at losing, like that is some sort of litmus test for running backs.

You are obviously aware that the Bills teams, who had a dozen + pro bowlers and a small handful of hall of famers was very beneficial to Thomas and his career. Something Peterson never had, which says a lot about how hard earned his yards were. Put Thomas on the vikings and he would have been known as nothing more than some guy who once played with barry sanders in college. thomas never would have rushed for the yards he did against 8 man fronts all day like Peterson had to. Not physical enough, and not the same kind of athlete. You just cant admit Peterson was a better rb despite all the evidence proving so. It's not even that big of a deal, but this is how bias and blind some of you are. I can admit when someone is better
I have a degree, but it's certainly not in decoding the way you slice and dice statistics to fit your argument. I'll take the big picture. Productivity was virtually equal, so give me the guy who fumbles less, is more versatile, wins more games, excels in the playoffs, goes to Super Bowls, and doesn't get arrested and suspended for injuring little kids.
 
Mar 27, 2012
4,173
5,013
743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
I have a degree, but it's certainly not in decoding the way you slice and dice statistics to fit your argument. I'll take the big picture. Productivity was virtually equal, so give me the guy who fumbles less, is more versatile, wins more games, excels in the playoffs, goes to Super Bowls, and doesn't get arrested and suspended for injuring little kids.
Morals are not high on the priority list, productivity is. The rest is just collateral damage.
 

Midnight Toker

Territorial Marshal
May 28, 2010
7,955
1,636
743
I have a degree, but it's certainly not in decoding the way you slice and dice statistics to fit your argument. I'll take the big picture. Productivity was virtually equal, so give me the guy who fumbles less, is more versatile, wins more games, excels in the playoffs, goes to Super Bowls, and doesn't get arrested and suspended for injuring little kids.
Not slicing and dicing anything. They are legit true big picture stats. Productivity was not virtually equal, close but not equal. I illustrated this by defining how many yards each person gets per game, per rush, per touch overall. I illustrated this by defining how many touchdowns each person scores throughout their career, and per game. Peterson has excelled on all of that. Here's a fun stat that really shows how explosive a running back is.

Rushes for 20+ yards. Peterson has 106 of them. Barry had 113. Insane. Thomas? 36. how about rushes of 40+ yards? Sanders is the king again with 42. I bow to that greatness. Peterson had 32 of them. Thomas had 3. Sanders and Peterson, both far far far ahead of Thomas as running backs. But yes i concede, thomas was a better receiver than both. But not in the same planet as a pure rb goes.

You really think thomas would have went to all those playoff games and super bowls without jim kelly, andre reed, marv levy, and his pro bowl offensive line? Retarded but again, it illustrates the overall weakness of your argument. You know one major reason why I respect Barry Sanders so much? Not just because he was the best ever, but because he never let his shitty horrible teams get in the way of that. 8 man fronts? ill run 60 yards behind the line of scrimmage or from one sideline to the other just for a 5 yard gain. He was boss behind a bad offense. Peterson ran for 2000 yards with christian ponder as his qb and the D knew he was coming. thomas, not the kind of player to be able to do that. he needed the better team around him and STILL even with all that going his way, he consistently put up less yards, and less points than Peterson did. Whether it's per game or per touch, Peterson advantage and you dont get that.

you value fumbles and receptions more than yards, and touchdowns. Lol. Peterson averaged 3 fumbles a year in 250 attempts. Thomas averaged around 2 per year. So that insignificant stat is a bunk comparison because of how rare they occured. just the fact that peterson scores more points per game takes away that advantage. if you were smart you'd bring up something more significant like pass protection, something peterson was average at at best. It's one of the few things thomas was better at than peterson.

I guess you also think Thomas is better than Sanders using that same argument. he was more versatile than sanders, had more receiving yards. and definitely excelled more in the playoffs. No way Sanders is better. No way. all sanders can do is run better, how does that make him better than Thomas?
 

More Cowbell

Territorial Marshal
May 2, 2005
5,691
4,652
1,743
Highland Village, TX
Not slicing and dicing anything. They are legit true big picture stats. Productivity was not virtually equal, close but not equal. I illustrated this by defining how many yards each person gets per game, per rush, per touch overall. I illustrated this by defining how many touchdowns each person scores throughout their career, and per game. Peterson has excelled on all of that. Here's a fun stat that really shows how explosive a running back is.

Rushes for 20+ yards. Peterson has 106 of them. Barry had 113. Insane. Thomas? 36. how about rushes of 40+ yards? Sanders is the king again with 42. I bow to that greatness. Peterson had 32 of them. Thomas had 3. Sanders and Peterson, both far far far ahead of Thomas as running backs. But yes i concede, thomas was a better receiver than both. But not in the same planet as a pure rb goes.

You really think thomas would have went to all those playoff games and super bowls without jim kelly, andre reed, marv levy, and his pro bowl offensive line? Retarded but again, it illustrates the overall weakness of your argument. You know one major reason why I respect Barry Sanders so much? Not just because he was the best ever, but because he never let his shitty horrible teams get in the way of that. 8 man fronts? ill run 60 yards behind the line of scrimmage or from one sideline to the other just for a 5 yard gain. He was boss behind a bad offense. Peterson ran for 2000 yards with christian ponder as his qb and the D knew he was coming. thomas, not the kind of player to be able to do that. he needed the better team around him and STILL even with all that going his way, he consistently put up less yards, and less points than Peterson did. Whether it's per game or per touch, Peterson advantage and you dont get that.

you value fumbles and receptions more than yards, and touchdowns. Lol. Peterson averaged 3 fumbles a year in 250 attempts. Thomas averaged around 2 per year. So that insignificant stat is a bunk comparison because of how rare they occured. just the fact that peterson scores more points per game takes away that advantage. if you were smart you'd bring up something more significant like pass protection, something peterson was average at at best. It's one of the few things thomas was better at than peterson.

I guess you also think Thomas is better than Sanders using that same argument. he was more versatile than sanders, had more receiving yards. and definitely excelled more in the playoffs. No way Sanders is better. No way. all sanders can do is run better, how does that make him better than Thomas?
Stats are a wash. I'll take the winner, on and off the field.
 

Midnight Toker

Territorial Marshal
May 28, 2010
7,955
1,636
743
Stats are not a wash at all. Peterson is way way more explosive, found the end zone much much more often, and was significantly better as a runner. Thomas was better at receiving (his whole 2.6 receptions per game), probably a beter blocker, but no where near the same talent as a runner. Pretty important thing for a running back

Thomas was not a "winner". His team was though, great team for sure. But Peterson on that same team, they'd be super bowl champs. But they were stuck with a rb with a limited ability to punish a defense like Peterson.
 

More Cowbell

Territorial Marshal
May 2, 2005
5,691
4,652
1,743
Highland Village, TX
Stats are not a wash at all. Peterson is way way more explosive, found the end zone much much more often, and was significantly better as a runner. Thomas was better at receiving (his whole 2.6 receptions per game), probably a beter blocker, but no where near the same talent as a runner. Pretty important thing for a running back

Thomas was not a "winner". His team was though, great team for sure. But Peterson on that same team, they'd be super bowl champs. But they were stuck with a rb with a limited ability to punish a defense like Peterson.
You mention stats and then follow it up spewing opinions. Classic.
 

Midnight Toker

Territorial Marshal
May 28, 2010
7,955
1,636
743
You mention stats and then follow it up spewing opinions. Classic.
I already cited the stats that support my statements. Just comparing the number of 20 and 40 yard rushes alone is an extremely telling statistic. Sanders was the king of it and Peterson almost nearly as good. Thomas didnt posses that same explosive capability. He wasnt the physical freak of nature that Sanders and Peterson were.

There's way more evidence that the Vikings+Thurman would be Super Bowl champs than the Bills+Peterson.
lol. uh huh. what evidence do you have? I have a whole career of Peterson's detailing how and why he was a better running back. Thomas averaged 4.2 per carry with pro bowl offensive linemen and hall of fame qb and wr, he would absolutely have been worse behind a horrible vikings team. Peterson managed 4.8 per carry and he didnt have 3 pro bowl offensive linemen. you give peterson a hall of fame qb and wr to keep the defense honest, and he doesnt see the 8 man fronts all day long he would have been even better!
 

More Cowbell

Territorial Marshal
May 2, 2005
5,691
4,652
1,743
Highland Village, TX
I already cited the stats that support my statements. Just comparing the number of 20 and 40 yard rushes alone is an extremely telling statistic. Sanders was the king of it and Peterson almost nearly as good. Thomas didnt posses that same explosive capability. He wasnt the physical freak of nature that Sanders and Peterson were.
More long rushes. Cool. Thomas put up equal numbers in a pass-first offense.

lol. uh huh. what evidence do you have? I have a whole career of Peterson's detailing how and why he was a better running back. Thomas averaged 4.2 per carry with pro bowl offensive linemen and hall of fame qb and wr, he would absolutely have been worse behind a horrible vikings team. Peterson managed 4.8 per carry and he didnt have 3 pro bowl offensive linemen. you give peterson a hall of fame qb and wr to keep the defense honest, and he doesnt see the 8 man fronts all day long he would have been even better!
You debating who could lead their team to a Super Bowl victory is laughable. You have whole career of Thomas excelling in the playoff and Peterson crapping his pants.
 

Midnight Toker

Territorial Marshal
May 28, 2010
7,955
1,636
743
More long rushes. Cool. Thomas put up equal numbers in a pass-first offense.


And you also have whole career of Thomas excelling in the playoff and Peterson crapping his pants.
It's not peterson's fault the vikings were a terrible team who couldnt draft players to build around him. . thomas was lucky to be in an organization chock full of hall of famers. How can you be so dense as to not recognize the effect that hast? barry sanders playoff history is abysmal. and yet i bet you think he's the best rb ever dont you? shit argument and you know it. but, as i have said before, it's a reflection of how weak your argument has become.

He put up less than equal numbers. Peterson exceeded his numbers in almost every single stat. Very few stats went thomas' way in a comparison. it's the reason why you havent posted any stats to back up a single claim you've made.

It's more than just long rushes, its an indication of how explosive a player is and that he doesnt go down on first contact. thomas' low rush per carry is evidence of his lack of explosion and that he goes down easier. and with his his career total 36 20+ yard rushes it becomes even more obvious.
 

More Cowbell

Territorial Marshal
May 2, 2005
5,691
4,652
1,743
Highland Village, TX
It's not peterson's fault the vikings were a terrible team who couldnt draft players to build around him. . thomas was lucky to be in an organization chock full of hall of famers. How can you be so dense as to not recognize the effect that hast? barry sanders playoff history is abysmal. and yet i bet you think he's the best rb ever dont you? shit argument and you know it. but, as i have said before, it's a reflection of how weak your argument has become.

He put up less than equal numbers. Peterson exceeded his numbers in almost every single stat. Very few stats went thomas' way in a comparison. it's the reason why you havent posted any stats to back up a single claim you've made.

It's more than just long rushes, its an indication of how explosive a player is and that he doesnt go down on first contact. thomas' low rush per carry is evidence of his lack of explosion and that he goes down easier. and with his his career total 36 20+ yard rushes it becomes even more obvious.
You make it sound like Peterson played for the Browns. How many Pro Bowl offensive linemen did Peterson have during his career?
 

Midnight Toker

Territorial Marshal
May 28, 2010
7,955
1,636
743
It's not peterson's fault the vikings were a terrible team who couldnt draft players to build around him. . thomas was lucky to be in an organization chock full of hall of famers. How can you be so dense as to not recognize the effect that hast? barry sanders playoff history is abysmal. and yet i bet you think he's the best rb ever dont you? shit argument and you know it. but, as i have said before, it's a reflection of how weak your argument has become.

He put up less than equal numbers. Peterson exceeded his numbers in almost every single stat. Very few stats went thomas' way in a comparison. it's the reason why you havent posted any stats to back up a single claim you've made.

It's more than just long rushes, its an indication of how explosive a player is and that he doesnt go down on first contact. thomas' low rush per carry is evidence of his lack of explosion and that he goes down easier. and with his his career total 36 20+ yard rushes it becomes even more obvious.
You make it sound like Peterson played for the Browns. How many Pro Bowl offensive linemen did Peterson have during his career?
Well they were .500 or below 6 out of the 10 season he was there so they were mostly bad. And he still made all pro team 7 times to Thomas’ 5. And the bills had 2 losing seasons during his decade.

Peterson had 6 total pro bowl linemen And zero during his mvp season.
 

jobob85

Alcoholistic Sage
A/V Subscriber
Mar 11, 2009
20,740
26,351
743
Well they were .500 or below 6 out of the 10 season he was there so they were mostly bad. And he still made all pro team 7 times to Thomas’ 5. And the bills had 2 losing seasons during his decade.

Peterson had 6 total pro bowl linemen And zero during his mvp season.
Well, Peterson should of had more receptions to help his team over the hump.
 

orngblkzebra

"All this endless thinking, it's very overrated."
A/V Subscriber
Feb 9, 2015
266
192
93
Shawnee, OK
Well they were .500 or below 6 out of the 10 season he was there so they were mostly bad. And he still made all pro team 7 times to Thomas’ 5. And the bills had 2 losing seasons during his decade.

Peterson had 6 total pro bowl linemen And zero during his mvp season.
Well, "zero" must have been Matt Kalil''s nickname and TE Kyle Rudolph probably never had the need to line up inside anywhere and FB Jerome Felton was just there to help the formations look "pretty" from above...
All those blockers, all those yards, all those pro bowlers (7 total) and they still went 10-6 and lost the wildcard.
 

More Cowbell

Territorial Marshal
May 2, 2005
5,691
4,652
1,743
Highland Village, TX
Well they were .500 or below 6 out of the 10 season he was there so they were mostly bad. And he still made all pro team 7 times to Thomas’ 5. And the bills had 2 losing seasons during his decade.

Peterson had 6 total pro bowl linemen And zero during his mvp season.
6 Pro Bowl O-Linemen?! You have to be getting tired of proving your own arguments wrong at this point.