Who better rookie season: Adrian Peterson or Reggie Bush?

[Raiders Army]

With Adrian Peterson winning Offensive Rookie of the year, let's compare his stats to Reggie Bush's stats last year:

Rookie stats:

Player          G   GS Att Yds  TD  Lng Y/A Rec Yds Y/R  TD Lng T/O
Reggie Bush     16  8  155 565  6   18  3.6 88  742 8.4  2  74  3
Adrian Peterson 14  0  238 1341 12  73  5.6 19  268 14.1 1  60  3

Of course, yardage isn't the most important stat, but it is important. It's interesting to see how much Peterson contributed to his team vs. Bush. I think both rookies contributed greatly, but I'd give the edge to Peterson since without Peterson on the Vikings I'd doubt they would do nearly as well...then again the Vikes didn't make the playoffs, but the Saints did last year.

[Logan]

Not even a contest.

[MikeVic]

I think Peterson hands-down had the better rookie season.

[ISiddiqui]

I think Adrian Peterson vs. Joe Thomas may be a closer poll.

[vex]

AD had 9 starts.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think Adrian Peterson vs. Joe Thomas may be a closer poll.

He really was deserving...but for an OT to win it, he would need to be going up a group of very average performers, let alone a guy who led the NFC in rushing in limited chances and rolled out the greatest single rushing performance ever.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Logan

He really was deserving...but for an OT to win it, he would need to be going up a group of very average performers, let alone a guy who led the NFC in rushing in limited chances and rolled out the greatest single rushing performance ever.

The good part is that we aren't bound by what the voters for Offensive Rookie of the Year use to weigh things .

And people may still think Joe Thomas was more valuable than Reggie Bush.

[Atocep]

Peterson's rookie year blows Bush's away, its not even close. However, Peterson is too boom or bust at this point. His DVOA was only 12th among running backs becuase of his 45% success rate. Still a great player, but unless the Vikings upgrade their quarterback Peterson will see a lot of the 8-man fronts that shut him down toward the end of the year.

Joe Thomas was very good this year, but if Marcus McNeil didn't win the rookie of the year last year then an offensive tackle is never going to win the award.

[cartman]

Devin Hester has become the gamebreaker most people thought Bush would be.

[Vegas Vic]

Reggie Bush just has *it*. Any you can't measure *it* by statistical means, so the comparison isn't fair to Reggie.

[Huckleberry]

The funniest thing about this comparison is that neither Trojan supporters or Sooner supporters wanted to agree with me (particularly Trojan supporters).

Reggie Bush is not the type of runner that will be overly productive in the NFL. Never was. I was just a Vince Young homer when it came to the draft, though. Reggie Bush doesn't run inside. He can't make himself do it.

Meanwhile, Adrian Peterson is a badass when allowed to build up a head of steam. Playing him a little deeper in the backfield is a good thing. With a good OL he is dominant. He turns 100 yard days into 200 yard days. But without holes, he suffers more than your average back looking for daylight. And odds are he will miss time with injuries.

But Peterson is obviously a better running back than Bush, especially for the NFL, and always was. No comparison there.

[Rizon]

Peterson = good
Bush = massive bust, 3rd string running back AT BEST. More like a 6, 7th round pick or an undrafted FA signee.

[Pyser]

wow, 23-0 so far

[Karlifornia]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

With Adrian Peterson winning Offensive Rookie of the year, let's compare his stats to Reggie Bush's stats last year:

Rookie stats:

Player          G   GS Att Yds  TD  Lng Y/A Rec Yds Y/R  TD Lng T/O
Reggie Bush     16  8  155 565  6   18  3.6 88  742 8.4  2  74  3
Adrian Peterson 14  0  238 1341 12  73  5.6 19  268 14.1 1  60  3

Of course, yardage isn't the most important stat, but it is important. It's interesting to see how much Peterson contributed to his team vs. Bush. I think both rookies contributed greatly, but I'd give the edge to Peterson since without Peterson on the Vikings I'd doubt they would do nearly as well...then again the Vikes didn't make the playoffs, but the Saints did last year.

Please, buddy. Even asking this question is silly. You have an agenda.

[Cap Ologist]

Isn't Reggie Bush nothing more than a glorified Eric Metcalf/Dave Meggett type?

[Deattribution]

This isn't even close... I could see doing maybe Maurice Jones Drew vs Bush but this is like asking whether you'd select Barry Sanders or Curtis Enis to build your team around.

Bush might still turn it around and be great (it depends how bad he wants it, he has talent), but Peterson til the latter part of the season looked like a top 3 running back.

[IMetTrentGreen]

Haha. It's an insult to Peterson to mention him along side Reggie Bust. Bush wasn't even the best running back on his own team, at USC or New Orleans.

Sidenote, the Reggie Bust was a complete typo, and I am keeping it.

[Rizon]

Originally Posted by Cap Ologist

Isn't Reggie Bush nothing more than a glorified Eric Metcalf/Dave Meggett type?

I thought that at first, but I don't even think he has those skills. He's a screen catching RB.

[Lathum]

The Texans got it right.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by Cap Ologist

Isn't Reggie Bush nothing more than a glorified Eric Metcalf/Dave Meggett type?

I don't think defenses ever gameplanned and shifted around to stop Meggett or Metcalf like they do Bush. Vegas Vic is right, Bush has the "it" factor and teams gameplan to stop him and it opens up things for everyone else. His versatility makes him a very good player and once he improves his inside running, he'll be a great player. That being said, Adrian Peterson had an impressive rookie season and I'd give him the nod.

[larrymcg421]

How about Bush vs. random Dolphins RB?

Player          G   GS Att Yds  TD  Lng Y/A Rec Yds Y/R  TD Lng T/O
Reggie Bush     16  8  155 565  6   18  3.6 88  742 8.4  2  74  3
Terry Kirby      16  8  118 390  3   20  3.3 75  874 11.7 3  47  5

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Joe Thomas was very good this year, but if Marcus McNeil didn't win the rookie of the year last year then an offensive tackle is never going to win the award.

Yep. In my mind Joe Thomas easily meant more to his team than any other rookie this year. Without him the Browns aren't even in the playoff hunt and Anderson's completion percentage goes down about 5%.

Originally Posted by Rizon

Bush = massive bust, 3rd string running back AT BEST. More like a 6, 7th round pick or an undrafted FA signee.

Maybe. In my mind, Bush could be like Brian Westbrook if a) he applies himself and b) the team he's on decides to use him in that manner. Although Westbrook was obviously a lot less heralded, I remember people saying all the same things about him ("he can't be a #1" "he can't run inside") when they let Staley go.

But there are a lot of "ifs" and "maybes" there.

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

I don't think defenses ever gameplanned and shifted around to stop Meggett or Metcalf like they do Bush. Vegas Vic is right, Bush has the "it" factor and teams gameplan to stop him and it opens up things for everyone else. His versatility makes him a very good player and once he improves his inside running, he'll be a great player. That being said, Adrian Peterson had an impressive rookie season and I'd give him the nod.

I'm pretty sure Vic was being sarcastic. The only "it" that Bush has shown he has is hype.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Lathum

The Texans got it right.

Amazing how it looks like they'll have the last laugh. Maybe this will cause people to wait, I don't know, more than a week to evaluate a draft class. By my count, Williams is the 4th "best player of the class" since it came to be and there are serious questions about the legitimacy of the first 3 (Leinart, Young, Bush).

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

I'm pretty sure Vic was being sarcastic. The only "it" that Bush has shown he has is hype.

You are probably right, but the fact of the matter is that in his rookie season, teams were gameplanning to stop Bush and it opened up plays for other guys, so my point stands.

[rkmsuf]

"it" for a running back in football is production

beyond that you are fooling yourself


oh and how dare you call terry kirby random

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

"it" for a running back in football is production

beyond that you are fooling yourself


oh and how dare you call terry kirby random

Because he performed to about the same level as other Dolphins RB's during the Marino era and was actually a worse runner than most of them. He had good pass receiving skills, but so did Tony Nathan, Troy Stradford, and Bobby Humphrey.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

"it" for a running back in football is production

Yes, but....

Let's say that "production" for a RB is generally measured in yards/carry and the ability to get tough first downs. You need to be able to produce well in these two areas to be considered "good".

If that's the case, then I'd say "it" as a RB is something on top of this, which could be two different things.

First, the ability to make the defense feel that they just can't stop you. Peterson had a few games this year where he was gaining 6+ every time he touched the ball, for instance. In those games you saw the defense basically pack up and go home. It's got to be incredibly demoralizing. Obviously a lot of that is still the O-Line as well, but still.... LT also has games like this, Alexander from a couple of years ago, and the occasional Jamal Lewis day, for instance.

Second, exceptional versatility can also be "it", I'd propose. I think this is what a lot of people were hoping out of Bush. Again, I think the exemplar for this is Westbrook, though LT also fits the mold. Westbrook lines up in the backfield, as a WR, takes screens, takes dump-offs, etc.... He can do so much, and is such a threat when he's gotten the ball, that opposing defenses have to account for him, which then exposes something elsewhere.

[rkmsuf]

are we really trying to say bush has accomplished something by being gameplanned for and taken away? whoope de damn do. call me when he's gameplanned for and is making plays.

[GreenMonster]

I saw "it" this season and he didn't play for the Saints. Do people realize that AP had almost as many yards rushing in the Chicago and San Diego games than Reggie "it" Bush had all year. Bush had 5 games of 100+ yards recieving and rushing this year, Peterson topped 100 yards alone rushing 6 times. Bush has 1136 yards rushing in his 1st 2 years, AP 1341, out totally 2 games.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

are we really trying to say bush has accomplished something by being gameplanned for and taken away? whoope de damn do. call me when he's gameplanned for and is making plays.

That is only part of what I'm saying. When he arrived, the offense went from 20th in the league to #1 in the league in yardage per game. Obviously, part of that is Drew Brees, but Brees never did that in SD where his best year they were 10th in the league despite having LT. The passing offense went from 14th in the league before Bush's arrival to 1st. Bush's receptions were 10th in the league with a long of 74. That homerun potential every time he touched the ball, drew guys away with him when he went in motion, which opened things up for Colston and the rest of the team. I'm not saying he had a better season than Adrian Peterson or that he is even a great player yet. However, I think it is ridiculous to label him a bust or a 3rd string running back. I think next year he is going to keep learning about the NFL game and have a year that will compare favorably with some of Westbrook's best years.

[albionmoonlight]

Bush's first year, I thought that he really started to "get it" by the end of the season, and I thought that he would really explode going forward. I thought that his ceiling was a more explosive Thurman Thomas, and that he had a pretty good chance to reach that ceiling.

Having watched him for another year, I think that he is more likely to become "a rich man's Larry Centers."

As a Saints fan, I fear that we might have the Michael Vick of running backs--the kind of guy that a coach feels compelled to build an offense around, but who isn't really good enough to have an offense built around him.

[albionmoonlight]

Oh, and all that said, I agree that it is foolish to call the guy a 3rd string back or a 6th round pick. The man is still a starting caliber player in the NFL. He is not a super-duper star, but that does not mean that he sucks. He falls somewhere in between.

[rkmsuf]

That's all well and good. At some point you have to make plays with all this explosive ability. You don't draft decoys at 1.1

Bottom line is this guy had a lousy season. Maybe he can transform himself into the caliber player he is portrayed as. Don't know. Right now I kind of doubt it. 3.7 yards per carry and 7.2 yards per catch. That's one expensive decoy.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

Please, buddy. Even asking this question is silly. You have an agenda.

Not really. I just remember the discussions around Reggie Bush last year. Much like looking at the Vick trade with the Chargers, it's interesting to look back at the draft and think about if teams made smart decisions. In a lot of ways, I thought that the Raiders should've traded up to get Vince Young instead of Michael Huff last year and I'm not sure if they've made smart decisions in the draft as well.

I'd say that the sample set of looking at one year for RBs is too small to accurately predict what they'll do for their careers, but the comparison here is just looking at who had the better rookie season.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Who better career: Tom Brady or Gus Frerotte?!?!??

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

Who better career: Tom Brady or Gus Frerotte?!?!??

Until Brady headbutts a concrete wall, I have to go with Gus.

[RomaGoth]

I am not convinced that Reggie Bush is the great running back that he was hyped up to be. He has had to share time with Deuce in New Orleans, so we will really see what he can do when he has the #1 spot on the roster. I am not sure that he can carry a full load through an entire NFL season. Adrian Peterson is the real deal. Another player that the Detroit Lions and Miami Dolphins let go. Calvin Johnson? Meh....Ted Ginn, Jr.? Meh...

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

I am not convinced that Reggie Bush is the great running back that he was hyped up to be. He has had to share time with Deuce in New Orleans, so we will really see what he can do when he has the #1 spot on the roster. I am not sure that he can carry a full load through an entire NFL season. Adrian Peterson is the real deal. Another player that the Detroit Lions and Miami Dolphins let go. Calvin Johnson? Meh....Ted Ginn, Jr.? Meh...

Why are you obsessed with the Dolphins getting a running back? Ginn was a terrible pick, but our running game was far from the major problem this year, and was actually pretty damned good until Ronnie Brown went down. The Dolphins need to address about 500 other issues before they even think about the running game.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Why are you obsessed with the Dolphins getting a running back? Ginn was a terrible pick, but our running game was far from the major problem this year, and was actually pretty damned good until Ronnie Brown went down. The Dolphins need to address about 500 other issues before they even think about the running game.

I am not obsessed with a running back. I am just saying that Miami could (and should) have taken Peterson instead of Ginn. It was a wasted pick. I agree that there are 500 other issues to be fixed. I believe Parcells will help with that process. My concern is that Brown will not be the same player he was before the injury. Look at Cadillac Williams in Tampa. He has been injury riddled with them. I have seen a lot of players come back after a major injury and not be nearly as effective.

[Daimyo]

Is this a joke? Bush isn't even in the top 3 among running backs in his draft class.

[Blade6119]

One could argue this point effectively:

Saints went from a bottom dweller to the super bowl in Bush's first season, the Vikings went from average to average with Peterson...

I personally have always thought Peterson was the best RB to come into the draft in a decade, but my biggest fear is injuries. They didnt seem to hit this year, but i still truly believe he will be a 5-6 game a year player a few years from now.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

I am not convinced that Reggie Bush is the great running back that he was hyped up to be. He has had to share time with Deuce in New Orleans, so we will really see what he can do when he has the #1 spot on the roster. I am not sure that he can carry a full load through an entire NFL season. Adrian Peterson is the real deal. Another player that the Detroit Lions and Miami Dolphins let go. Calvin Johnson? Meh....Ted Ginn, Jr.? Meh...

I think it's too soon to judge this year's (or even last year's) draft class.

As much as I love the speed of Ginn, I think he was a bad pick. Johnson, I think, will be a top receiver over time (provided Detroit continues to get better).


I don't see why Miami would take Peterson, when they spent a top pick the year before on Brown. Of course, you do realize that Miami had the 9th pick, and Minnesota plucked Peterson at the 7th pick?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

One could argue this point effectively:

Saints went from a bottom dweller to the super bowl in Bush's first season, the Vikings went from average to average with Peterson...

You could argue that point, but not effectively. The Saints improvement also coincided with the arrival of Drew Brees. You'd have to completely ignore that, or try to argue that Tarvaris Jackson is as good as Drew Brees.

[nfg22]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

You are probably right, but the fact of the matter is that in his rookie season, teams were gameplanning to stop Bush and it opened up plays for other guys, so my point stands.

If you want to say that putting eight men in the box isn't game planning against AP, then your point is valid. Though some could say AP didnt produce when this started hapenning. Overall AP has a horrible offense without him, Bush's...well they are almost better without him.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

I personally have always thought Peterson was the best RB to come into the draft in a decade, but my biggest fear is injuries. They didnt seem to hit this year, but i still truly believe he will be a 5-6 game a year player a few years from now.

Absolutely agree with this. I felt AP was great...but...will not last for more than 3-4 years semi-fulltime, if that. It's impossible to say any RB will last for 10 years and gain 1000 or more yards each year...but I believe AP's college career & running style indicate he will be great, but for only a few seasons.

This is one of the main reasons why I dont place a ton of value on RB's early in the draft. In general, it's reasonably straightforward to judge "talent", but nearly impossible to judge longevity & durability...and both is what I believe you should be targeting with a first round pick(namely a top 10).

[SteveMax58]

Dola (my first dola)

To the original point of the poll...it isnt even close. AP out-did Bush by week 9...and I'm not just talking statistically...but also as a real force that is extremely difficult to stop, even when you gameplan him correctly.

I think somebody else made a really good observation that Hester has become what everybody expected Bush to be. I think that's spot-on...but I do believe Bush has the ability to still become that type of gamebreaker.

Bush is similar to Ginn to me in this regard...yes they both have gamebreaking talent...but you have to realize you are not getting a 30-50 snaps a game, 16 game player. And you can't try and make Bush a fulltime 3 down back, or Ginn a #1 WR. They just arent built for that in the NFL.

[MizzouRah]

Is this even a serious question?

AP by a Looooooooooooooooooooong margin.

[johnnyshaka]

Originally Posted by nfg22

If you want to say that putting eight men in the box isn't game planning against AP, then your point is valid. Though some could say AP didnt produce when this started hapenning. Overall AP has a horrible offense without him, Bush's...well they are almost better without him.

Hmm...funny that the Vikes didn't have a problem winning both games AP missed behind Taylor and his 300 yards of offense and 4 TDs.

AP has talent...agreed...but what does it say when Taylor can mirror his production?

[Deattribution]

Originally Posted by johnnyshaka

AP has talent...agreed...but what does it say when Taylor can mirror his production?

What does it say when the entire league can mirror Bush's production?