How much longer for Adrian Peterson?

[Patler]

SI had an article quite a few years ago that looked at RB performance decline based on the number of touches they had in their overall careers, not just as pros. It was surprisingly consistent, though not cast in stone, obviously. As I recall, the decline started in the range of 3000-3500 touches. For some it was performance, for others it was injuries, but for all but a few their overall effectiveness declined significantly.

Adrian Peterson has the following approximate lifetime touches:

500 - high school
750 - college
1300 - NFL

He will be approaching 3000 career touches at the end of this season. Even if the Vikings can rebuild around him over the next 2 years or so, it may be too late.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

He's only 26, regardless of the number of touches he has another 2-3 very good seasons in him. Wear and tear is a big factor, but age is still the biggest. Once he is 29-30 he will not be the same player.

[Patler]

He's only 26, regardless of the number of touches he has another 2-3 very good seasons in him. Wear and tear is a big factor, but age is still the biggest. Once he is 29-30 he will not be the same player.

That was one of the very interesting aspects of the article. It almost ruled out age as the most significant factor. They identified a number of excellent RBs who seemed to flame out at very young ages. All had big workloads before they came to the NFL, and a lot of carries early in their pro careers. Many of the RBs who have been effective into their mid-30s had lighter workloads in college and early in their careers. Touches seemed more significant than age.

That said, I agree he will have 2-3 years at least. My point was that the Vikings are going to need 2-3 years to rebuild around him, and by then it might be too late for Peterson to be a big part of the rebuilt Vikings, because he could be one of the backs who is not effective past 30 due to his pre-NFL and early career workload.

[Guiness]

Anyone know how many touches Chris Johnson has?

There's another guy on a team that's not ready to compete, and could be done when (and if) they turn it around.

[MJZiggy]

That was one of the very interesting aspects of the article. It almost ruled out age as the most significant factor. They identified a number of excellent RBs who seemed to flame out at very young ages. All had big workloads before they came to the NFL, and a lot of carries early in their pro careers. Many of the RBs who have been effective into their mid-30s had lighter workloads in college and early in their careers. Touches seemed more significant than age.

That said, I agree he will have 2-3 years at least. My point was that the Vikings are going to need 2-3 years to rebuild around him, and by then it might be too late for Peterson to be a big part of the rebuilt Vikings, because he could be one of the backs who is not effective past 30 due to his pre-NFL and early career workload.

Anything that makes the Vikings weaker warms my heart. How nice a thought that they will spend a couple years rebuilding around someone who won't be worth anything by the time the house is done.

[red]

patler, do those numbers include catches? i'm guessing they do because you called them "touches"

i've read a little bit about the numbers game, and i'm a believer too. it seems pretty clear that running backs only have a certain amount touches in them

not only is he getting up near that 3000 touch mark, but i'm still waiting for that serious injury to hit hit. his running style led to some pretty big injury problems in college

[red]

Anything that makes the Vikings weaker warms my heart. How nice a thought that they will spend a couple years rebuilding around someone who won't be worth anything by the time the house is done.

and its nice to know they wasted the best years of one of the best players in the nfl without winning the big one

[swede]

and its nice to know they wasted the best years of one of the best players in the nfl without winning the big one

Brett says thanks for the support and kind words.

[vince]

It's a really good question that will be interesting to track in the coming years.

I looked up his stats and was a bit surprised that he wasn't used a bit more than he's actually been to this point.

He had a heavy workload in his second year, but other than that, he's had fewer touches than I expected.

Age Yr. Touches
25 2010 - 319 - 283 rushes & 36 receptions
24 2009 - 357 - 314 & 43
23 2008 - 384 - 363 & 21
22 2007 - 257 - 238 & 19
1317

His YPC is still very good, but it has declined to 4.5 the last two years from an otherworldly 5.2 his first two years.

Here's an article (http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_3157_Stop_running_back_abuse!.html)that gives evidence that 400 touches in a year (depending on age) a thresholds for declining performance and 2800 touches dictates the end of a career. Career touches would give Peterson about 4 more years, although another year in the 400 touch range would be pretty debilitating on his career. It'll be interesting to see how much he's ridden this year.

[bobblehead]

Maybe this is why TT didn't take my avice or phonecalls regarding cutting Grant. Although 29, he likely is still well under 3000 touches lifetime.

[KYPack]

SI had an article quite a few years ago that looked at RB performance decline based on the number of touches they had in their overall careers, not just as pros. It was surprisingly consistent, though not cast in stone, obviously. As I recall, the decline started in the range of 3000-3500 touches. For some it was performance, for others it was injuries, but for all but a few their overall effectiveness declined significantly.

Adrian Peterson has the following approximate lifetime touches:

500 - high school
750 - college
1300 - NFL

He will be approaching 3000 career touches at the end of this season. Even if the Vikings can rebuild around him over the next 2 years or so, it may be too late.

Patler, I think you are following me around. Last night we were drinking in the driveway around a firepit, again. After a few rounds, that subject that came up. That Peterson is a great player whose career has been pissed away by a goofball organization.

2009 was their year, but he got diddled by the fickle finger of fate.

And Bert.

It's too bad, sorta.

[Patler]

patler, do those numbers include catches? i'm guessing they do because you called them "touches"

i've read a little bit about the numbers game, and i'm a believer too. it seems pretty clear that running backs only have a certain amount touches in them

not only is he getting up near that 3000 touch mark, but i'm still waiting for that serious injury to hit hit. his running style led to some pretty big injury problems in college

Yup, touches includes receptions and kick/punt returns, although Peterson does not have many returns.

[Patler]

Patler, I think you are following me around. Last night we were drinking in the driveway around a firepit, again. After a few rounds, that subject that came up. That Peterson is a great player whose career has been pissed away by a goofball organization.



Great minds KYP, great minds......!:lol: :lol:

[3irty1]

The thing with Peterson though is that as much as everyone loved to sniff his jock, he had tons of room to improve. His first two years he might have been the worst back in the NFL on 3rd down and was a fumble machine. He's cleaning that stuff up so even if his body begins to break down, he might be able to make up for it by improving in other areas.

[gbgary]

It's too bad, sorta.

not!!

[Jimx29]

one thing the article doesn't disclose, is just how long and hard slave owners work their slaves before selling them to other owners

[bobblehead]

Patler, I think you are following me around. Last night we were drinking in the driveway around a firepit, again. After a few rounds, that subject that came up. That Peterson is a great player whose career has been pissed away by a goofball organization.

2009 was their year, but he got diddled by the fickle finger of fate.

And Bert.

It's too bad, sorta.

KY, are you a democrat? I don't call it fate when you fail because YOU fumble 3 times. I call that your own damn fault....but it is damn fun to blame bert.

[Lurker64]

KY, are you a democrat? I don't call it fate when you fail because YOU fumble 3 times. I call that your own damn fault....but it is damn fun to blame bert.

Well, you always remember the play that happens last more than the ones that came before it. People say that the Pickett/Matthews/Bishop fumble recovery in the superbowl was the play that decided the game, but was it really more of a deciding play than Collins's interception or Bush's interception? It's the same way in reverse for the Vikings in the NFC Championship game. The last turnover by the Vikes was the one everybody remembers, Favre throwing a boneheaded pick when the Vikings were within range of attempting a field goal that would have decided the game, so he gets more blame for the loss than Peterson just like how the fumble play in the superbowl gets more credit for the victory than either of the interceptions.

[KYPack]

KY, are you a democrat? I don't call it fate when you fail because YOU fumble 3 times. I call that your own damn fault....but it is damn fun to blame bert.

Democrat?

Back off, Bobble.

Them's fightin' words down here AND up there.

I like Peterson, but he's a Vike, so yeah, I tossed a sorta in there.

Bert? he didn't help the situation out there at the end.

[Cheesehead Craig]

From what I've heard up here in the Twin Cities is that the plan is ride Peterson more than in the past 2 years. While he may have solved his fumbling problems last year, I still haven't seen a noticeable improvement in his pass blocking (which is poor).

I think AP gets over 400 touches this season, assuming he isn't hurt.

[pbmax]

I have seen Bill Musgrave's offensive philosophy described (sarcastically, but with a nod to real world experience) as run, run, seven step drop for a deep pass. Peterson could be very busy this year.

[Joemailman]

From what I've heard up here in the Twin Cities is that the plan is ride Peterson more than in the past 2 years. While he may have solved his fumbling problems last year, I still haven't seen a noticeable improvement in his pass blocking (which is poor).

I think AP gets over 400 touches this season, assuming he isn't hurt.

I hope he gets 400 touches, because if he does, we won't have to worry about him much longer. I believe the last guy to go over 400 was Steven Jackson in 2006, and he hasn't been the same since.

[run pMc]

I know that Chilly had him on a limit for a while. I think that was to keep him from getting hurt and to not wear him out by age 28. I think they'll run him a lot to help out McNabb and the passing game, but I think they'll use Gerhart a lot more than they did last year. Interesting that he's reaching that 3000 count though.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I will say one thing. Peterson looks awesome this preseason. The best he's looked since his first or second year. His explosiveness is back to that level. Minnesota is starting to scare me. McNabb looks good and Peterson looks awesome.

[Fritz]

I'm guessing they'll ride him harder this year. The more touches the sooner he goes. So I hope he gets a lot of touches - but that he doesn't get many yards.

[TennesseePackerBacker]

I'm not worried about McNabb. If he doesn't have the "cardiovascular endurance" to run a successful 2-minute drill, how will he ever be able to play 16 games?

[Harlan Huckleby]

The more touches the sooner he goes. So I hope he gets a lot of touches - but that he doesn't get many yards.why not just hope he gets hit by a bus - that'll fix things once and for all. you mean man.

I don't want the vikings to beat the packers, but beyond that, Peterson is a one-in-a-million athlete, you can't wish for walter payton or joe montana to have a short career.

[Fritz]

why not just hope he gets hit by a bus - that'll fix things once and for all. you mean man.

I don't want the vikings to beat the packers, but beyond that, Peterson is a one-in-a-million athlete, you can't wish for walter payton or joe montana to have a short career.

I dunno, BLue Dog. Maybe I am mean. I actually really like the guy and I think he's a fabulous athlete, but he plays for the stinking Vikings, so I hope he's only good if it helps the Packers. So, for example, if it would help the Pack if the Vikes played the Lions and beat them, then I'd root for Peterson. But even if it's a game between the Vikes and say, the Chargers, and it's meaningless, I can't stand the Vikes, therefore, I hope they get beat. I don't want them getting momentum and feeling good about themselves - what if they took that into a game two weeks later with the Pack? Therefore, I don't want Peterson to do all that well unless I want him to do well so the Pack is helped out.

And yes, I kick puppies.

[RashanGary]

The Vikings suck.

[swede]

I just want to go up by 21 fast whenever we play them. We can admire Adrian as he runs out the clock for us. With Chilly gone, he will be running...how does one say it...All Day?

[Deputy Nutz]

The question really comes down to whether or not Adrian Peterson is a once a decade type of back. Can you put his name in the group of Sanders, Payton, and Smith? He hasn't taken any significant injuries heading into the 2011 season. He runs to contact which is both bad and good. Very rarely does he take a crushing hit, he usually delivers the punishment, but those are still 360 collisions a year. He is physically capable of taking those hits, unlike Tomlinson who's body hasn't been able to hold up over the years and years of punishment.

Again Peterson hasn't suffered any significant injury, no knee or leg problems, no serious head injuries or kneck injuries. Those are the injuries that cut a running backs life expectancy.

[HarveyWallbangers]

AP breaks the mold. Honestly, I'm hoping he doesn't sign an extension with the Vikings and then surprised me by making a move on him next year. Well, maybe not.
:)

This team would be unstoppable if they had Peterson. Of course, the Vikings will likely franchise him, if they aren't wasting their time with Greenway.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The question really comes down to whether or not Adrian Peterson is a once a decade type of back. Can you put his name in the group of Sanders, Payton, and Smith?

yes, from what i see

[hoosier]

The Vikings won't be scary until the fix their OL and their defense. The overall decline of their OL, teh loss of Fat Pat and Ray Edwards, combined with their always mediocre secondary makes me think they won't be winning at the LOS or stopping too many teams this year.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The Vikings won't be scary until the fix their OL and their defense. The overall decline of their OL, teh loss of Fat Pat and Ray Edwards, combined with their always mediocre secondary makes me think they won't be winning at the LOS or stopping too many teams this year.
their o-line looked very good saturday. the white boy that replaced edwards looks like good player.

you never know in the nfl, teams rise and fall unexpectedly. i pick the vikes to finish at bottom of division, but i really have no idea, beyond expecting pack to cruise to nfc north title.

[mraynrand]

I dunno, BLue Dog. Maybe I am mean. I actually really like the guy and I think he's a fabulous athlete, but he plays for the stinking Vikings, so I hope he's only good if it helps the Packers. So, for example, if it would help the Pack if the Vikes played the Lions and beat them, then I'd root for Peterson. But even if it's a game between the Vikes and say, the Chargers, and it's meaningless, I can't stand the Vikes, therefore, I hope they get beat. I don't want them getting momentum and feeling good about themselves - what if they took that into a game two weeks later with the Pack? Therefore, I don't want Peterson to do all that well unless I want him to do well so the Pack is helped out.

And yes, I kick puppies.

This is the kind of iron-clad reasoning you expect from a true Packer fan. You never cheer on you mortal enemy unless their success helps you - 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' - conditionally. I would only make one alteration: "And yes, I kick Viking puppies." Otherwise, you're solid.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Really? Outside of making a nice tackle on a reverse, Robinson was pretty invisible. Romo had time in the pocket--despite the fact the Vikings blitzed more often than not in a preseason game. I think Edwards is much better than Robinson. Edwards was underrated--which is one of the reasons that I'm more on the Falcons bandwagon than most seem to be. Robinson will be able to rush the passer a bit, but not enough to justify his poor run defense. Most of the Viking fans that I know aren't that high on Robinson. They think he's a situational pass rusher that will get exposed playing full-time.

Their OL did look good though. Peterson looks out of this world. Then again, looking at the names on that OL it's hard for me to believe that it will carry over into the season against a good defense. Johnson is ordinary, Hutchinson is on the downside, Sullivan was terrible last year, Herrera is ordinary, Loadholt was average last year but has tons of talent.