You are currently viewing the old forums. We have upgraded to a new NFL Forum.
This old forum is being left as a read-only archive.
Please update your bookmarks to our new forum at forums.footballsfuture.com.


 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Tom Brady/Faulk VS Manning/LT VS Rodgers/Peterson
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL Comparisons
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Which QB/RB Tandem Would You Take
Combo 1
36%
 36%  [ 12 ]
Combo 2
36%
 36%  [ 12 ]
Combo 3
27%
 27%  [ 9 ]
Total Votes : 33

Author Message
mdonnelly21


Joined: 11 Jun 2012
Posts: 886
PostPosted: Sat Jun 17, 2017 9:29 pm    Post subject: Tom Brady/Faulk VS Manning/LT VS Rodgers/Peterson Reply with quote

All Primes

Combo1
QB: Tom Brady
RB: Marshall Faulk

Combo 2
QB: Peyton Manning
RB: LT

Combo 3
QB: Aaron Rodgers
RB: Adrian Peterson
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BayRaider


Joined: 01 Jun 2011
Posts: 5255
PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 12:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

QB/RB combinations is hard.. because it's not necessarily dependent on who the best QB/RB is. You still take the best QB and whatever RB fits his offense the most.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
raiderrocker18


Joined: 09 Dec 2014
Posts: 5148
Location: Los Angeles
PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 12:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

its between 1 and 2, just because if we're going to nitpick, which we sorta need to here, peterson seems to be the least likely to mesh and complement the qb.

is that a very narrow analysis? sure... but we were given 2 player combos with no other context, so i don't really have a choice.

i ended up having 1 edging out 2, just because manning and LT were subpar playoff performers
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RuralBill


Joined: 29 Nov 2016
Posts: 62
PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 10:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rodgers/AD.

A great QB doesn't need a good receiving RB to be successful. The best thing you can get from the RB position out of such an offense is a great runner. AD is the best of these runners (though LT is arguable; Faulk is a distant third).

I also believe Rodgers had the highest ceiling of the three QBs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lancerman


Joined: 06 Feb 2011
Posts: 8685
PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 11:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's 1 and it's a no brainer to me. Of the 3 QB's Brady has utilized a RB coming out of the backfield to receive passes more and more effectively than the other two. His last two Super Bowl wins were basically down to his RB's stepping up and catching passes out of the backfield.

Faulk probably is the overall 3rd best running back but he's the most consistent receiver of the 3 and he would be insane with Brady's play style. This is more of a case of two really good QB's with two really good running backs. And then one really good QB who loves throwing passes to RB's out of the backfield with arguably the best RB in league history at catching out of the backfield.

It's also going to cause far more mismatches than the other two combinations.
_________________
Signature
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BayRaider


Joined: 01 Jun 2011
Posts: 5255
PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 12:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

raiderrocker18 wrote:
its between 1 and 2, just because if we're going to nitpick, which we sorta need to here, peterson seems to be the least likely to mesh and complement the qb.

is that a very narrow analysis? sure... but we were given 2 player combos with no other context, so i don't really have a choice.

i ended up having 1 edging out 2, just because manning and LT were subpar playoff performers


You do realize Favre had the best season of his entire career at 39 because teams respected Peterson so much right?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RuralBill


Joined: 29 Nov 2016
Posts: 62
PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 1:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BayRaider wrote:
raiderrocker18 wrote:
its between 1 and 2, just because if we're going to nitpick, which we sorta need to here, peterson seems to be the least likely to mesh and complement the qb.

is that a very narrow analysis? sure... but we were given 2 player combos with no other context, so i don't really have a choice.

i ended up having 1 edging out 2, just because manning and LT were subpar playoff performers


You do realize Favre had the best season of his entire career at 39 because teams respected Peterson so much right?
That's how I feel. Obviously, the Brady-to-Faulk duo would be amazing on pass plays, but the value of the 70 catches a year Faulk will have a year pales in comparison to the value a great running game will have.

I wouldn't object to anyone taking Manning/LT because LT has the substianlly best combo of run/receiver ability, but I just can't do option 1.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lancerman


Joined: 06 Feb 2011
Posts: 8685
PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 2:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You're still getting an elite running game with Faulk though. He's not the best of the 3 but he's good enough that you absolutely have to respect him.

LT's best year in average yards per carry was 5.3. Faulk's had 3 season of 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5. Peterson is the only one out doing that with 5.6 and then the 6.0 season in 2012.

So on average they are all comprable. The only real difference is bulk volume stats where LT and AP had to go over 300 carries a season to accomplish it. Whereas Faulk got significant playing time coming out of the backfield.

So they are all in the ball park on that enough that every defense will have to respect them. The only difference here is that Faulk adds another dynamic as a receiver where he blows the other two away.... And you are pairing him with arguably the best QB when it comes to throwing to targets out of the backfield.

It's just a better fit and the the difference between the backs as pure rushers isn't enough and largely is based on volume to really say that one commands far more respect from a defense than the other. I mean not for nothing, but Faulk's 3 year peak basically made his team one of the most dominant offenses of all time.
_________________
Signature
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tom cody


Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 13515
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 3:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Combo 2.
_________________
I bought one of those tapes to teach you Spanish in your sleep. During the night, the tape skipped. Now I can only stutter in Spanish.

Courtesy of an online joke search.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
patriotsheatyan


Joined: 09 Jan 2014
Posts: 731
PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 6:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Can't decide between one and two.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Malik


Joined: 18 Dec 2011
Posts: 8743
PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 8:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Number 2 because I believe the gap between him and the other 2 RBs is greater and more pronounced than the gap between the 3 QBs. LT's 2006 is the most impressive season I've seen from an offensive player. 33 touchdowns man. It wasn't like 2005 Seahawks or 2003 Chiefs when they had elite/some of the best all time offensive lines either.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
game3525


Joined: 03 Oct 2009
Posts: 11036
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tough call between combo 1 and 2. But I would take combo 2, Brady is better then Manning, but it is not by much and LT had longer peak/prime then Faulk.

Granted, you are splitting hairs with one and two.

Rodgers/Peterson is clearly third IMO due to AD's issues out of shotgun. You would have to have Rodgers under center alot and I rather have him in shotgun with 11 personnel.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nzd07


Joined: 13 Nov 2010
Posts: 4005
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 7:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

lancerman wrote:
You're still getting an elite running game with Faulk though. He's not the best of the 3 but he's good enough that you absolutely have to respect him.

LT's best year in average yards per carry was 5.3. Faulk's had 3 season of 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5. Peterson is the only one out doing that with 5.6 and then the 6.0 season in 2012.

So on average they are all comprable. The only real difference is bulk volume stats where LT and AP had to go over 300 carries a season to accomplish it. Whereas Faulk got significant playing time coming out of the backfield.

So they are all in the ball park on that enough that every defense will have to respect them. The only difference here is that Faulk adds another dynamic as a receiver where he blows the other two away.... And you are pairing him with arguably the best QB when it comes to throwing to targets out of the backfield.

It's just a better fit and the the difference between the backs as pure rushers isn't enough and largely is based on volume to really say that one commands far more respect from a defense than the other. I mean not for nothing, but Faulk's 3 year peak basically made his team one of the most dominant offenses of all time.


Faulk and Peterson aren't comparable as runners.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
strat1080


Joined: 16 Apr 2010
Posts: 2268
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 1:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I went Rodgers and Peterson. Aaron Rodgers would be absolutely lethal if defenses had to respect a running game for the Packers. Rodgers hasn't really utilized RBs in the passing game all that much anyway but with Rodgers and Peterson in the same backfield teams would face a two edged sword. Get burned deep by Rodgers or give up the home run to Peterson. Adrian Peterson willed a few of those Vikings teams to the playoffs with pretty lackluster play at QB. He's the best runner I've seen since Barry Sanders and just such a dominating presence.

The Vikings actually beat out the Packers to win the NFCN in 2012 with Christian Ponder at QB. Let that resonate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
FourThreeMafia


Joined: 28 Sep 2006
Posts: 63655
Location: East of Sixburgh
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 5:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

lancerman wrote:
It's 1 and it's a no brainer to me. Of the 3 QB's Brady has utilized a RB coming out of the backfield to receive passes more and more effectively than the other two. His last two Super Bowl wins were basically down to his RB's stepping up and catching passes out of the backfield.

Faulk probably is the overall 3rd best running back but he's the most consistent receiver of the 3 and he would be insane with Brady's play style. This is more of a case of two really good QB's with two really good running backs. And then one really good QB who loves throwing passes to RB's out of the backfield with arguably the best RB in league history at catching out of the backfield.

It's also going to cause far more mismatches than the other two combinations.


I agree with most of this, but saying its a no brainer is completely ridiculous and an obviously bias comparison.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL Comparisons All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group