Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Thanks Brian. I went straight there when I heard Van Buren. I'll be waiting for a big sale though

Thanks TankAndSpartans ... If you have never gotten their jerseys, they are expensive but worth it.
I have bought five of them but still waiting for them to put out #42 Paul Warfield for the Browns, #43 Don Perkins with Dallas and #19 John Unitas or #82 Berry with the Colts, I have Lenny Moore.
Like some others but cant afford them right now. Van Buren is a good idea too. If Bobby Layne's was any other year for Detroit other than 1958, I would get it ...

Brian wolf wrote:Though a smart runner, I was surprised that Shaun Alexander had only a few effective seasons as a receiver. With his high number of TDs, you would think he was more involved in a passing offense like Ricky Watters. Some backs like Timmy Brown, John David Crow, Matt Forte, maybe even Clem Daniels, were better receivers than running with the ball, which may keep them out of HOF discussions ...

Alexander proved himself as a receiver, IMO - he had 40, 50 catches a year for a while. Sometimes it's the coach/system/QB.

GameBeforeTheMoney wrote:
Alexander proved himself as a receiver, IMO - he had 40, 50 catches a year for a while. Sometimes it's the coach/system/QB.

Think in this case the coach/system was packages for other backs who were perhaps a bit better on 3rd and long. Not that SA
was awful or anything but Holmgren possibly getting best receiver on field of his backs. Strong was a fullback who was a bit better than most. Of course
excellent lead blocker, but also pass blocking.

Could also be, and would be fun to find out, maybe giving Alexander a rest. He was a bell cow
guy, a 25-carry-a-game guy so why use him on 3rd down when you can get just as good or slightly better (certainly no dropoff) receiving and
blocking.

Would have to talk to Holmgren to see if this might be the case.

All I know is when he was at top of his running game--he'd play in 3rd downs as single back but so would Strong, especially 3rd and long.
Don't know ther percentage but it was a decent amoung of the time, enough to cut into some of SA's targets.

JohnTurney wrote:

racepug wrote:

Brian wolf wrote:I think Adrian Peterson might have been the best one-dimensional back

I've never really thought about this but I think that A.P. is a good nominee although I have no idea if his deficiencies in receiving and blocking were because of poor coaching or more because he simply wasn't interested in either.

Certainly, Peterson was capable of being a good pass protector . . . but for whatever reason he was never mentioned as being all that good at it, at least not to the level of the ones often mentioned.

Hard to know. Desire? Scheme?

Let's look at who the best receivers were for the Vikings during Peterson's tenure there (2007-2015).

Bobby Wade (2007)
Bernard Berrian (2008)
Sidney Rice (2009)
Percy Harvin (2010-2012)
Greg Jennings (2013-2014)
Stefon Diggs (2015)

From 2007-2011, the Vikings had Steve Hutchinson at left guard, and during Peterson's first two seasons, they had Matt Birk at center.

It was likely a combination of scheme and talent, a sort of chicken-and-egg problem.

RyanChristiansen wrote:
It was likely a combination of scheme and talent, a sort of chicken-and-egg problem.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Percy Harvin should have had a great career but was a team cancer like Terrell Owens. Could run the ball too ...

Though known more for media attention as much as football, Tiki Barber may have finished his career better than any back in the 2000s. Low on accolades but high on scrimmage yards, his career got off to a slow start due to Ron Dayne being in the backfield but his receiving skills and finish to his career should put him in the HOF someday ... Had he played with NY in 2007, would the team had still won it all, or would Eli had not blossomed more?

JohnTurney wrote:It's just what happened. If you disagree, that's fine. Reasonable people can diagree, but I think a lot of people also saw Sanders play and if you want to say he was not used right, that's fine, but he wasn't effective in short-yardage because, mostly his style of running.

I don't disagree with most of what you said....the only thing I differ is that I don't think Sanders was in a perfect system with Detroit....he was actually in a variety of systems over the years and excelled in all of them. You could dump Sanders on any team in NFL history, and he'd get his 1200 yards. Put Csonka with a bad O-line...say the NY Giants of the 1970's, and you'd see a large decline in production.

This is all speculative, but I think certain aspects of RB production are out of their control and not really an accurate measure of their ability. Sanders led the NFL in rushing TDs, then two years later is taken out on the goal line and ends up with only 3 rushing TDs....did he somehow forget how to score TDs? Receptions are also weird, because a lot of it depends on the system. Ron Springs would go from like 15 receptions, to 46 receptions, to 15 receptions, to 71 receptions. Did he not know how to catch, learn how to catch, forget how to catch, then remember how to catch? Did Preston Pearson's retirement allow Springs a bigger role in the passing game, or did Springs just 'get better' at catching? Tomlinson's durability was impressive, but he wouldn't have put up those receiving numbers with any other team. The Chargers were always short-handed at WR, so there were plenty of dump off opportunities. One year Tomlinson had 100 receptions....is that because Tomlinson was a great 'route runner', or is it because Cam Cameron was the OC and the offense consisted of looking for David Boston and then dumping it off to Tomlinson, leading to Drew Brees averaging 5.9 yards per pass attempt?

Bryan wrote:
I don't disagree with most of what you said....the only thing I differ is that I don't think Sanders was in a perfect system with Detroit....he was actually in a variety of systems over the years and excelled in all of them.

By perfect system just mean in a spread offense he could do things like no others - he was a creator, make guys miss, make them look like fools.
He adjusted to a fullback when they finally went to a new offense in 1997 but they had to adjust that, be more patient, and allow that he was going
to lose yards more than the power guys in SD did---that Ross and Croom were used to, but he'd also get more explosive plays than others.

That's all I mean. It's just my opinion that the 3/4 WR offense was well-suited for Sanders.

If you disagree, that's fine...I don't claim to know all of what went on in the minds of Fontes, Levy, Moore, or to be an expert on the Lions.

To me, a spread offense seemed ideal for Sanders as opposed to a power running game like Emmitt in Dallas in the 1990s or what Bettis was in with the Rams or Foster/Bettis in Pittsburgh - it would have meant he'd have to not be as creative, he'd have to follow the lead blocker to certain hole or two holes if it was a two-hole option. So many of his runs were him going places he was not supposed to go and it befuddled defenders.

Those guys would not, IMO, have been able to play at a top level in a spread offense with no lead blocker--Sanders could.

As far as SY/GL and receiving - I think all that is known is that the Lions chose sometimes go with others in those situations. Maybe it wasn't that Sanders was not inadequate but that someone else had better skills in small, specific situations. It would be interesting to talk to guys like Tom Moore about it, not even sure Levy is still alive...
maybe he regrets those decisions, and looking back thinks as you do, that it was a mistake, they should not have taken him out on 3rd downs, or maybe they had something in mind when they did it.

Would be great to know the answers.