Adrian Peterson- cost of trading up revisited

[tyke1doe]

Look, hindsight is 20/20. I doubt the Vikings would have traded their pick even if the Cowboys offered them two No. 1s and a No. 2.

The Cowboys were considered an up-and-coming team so their picks the following year (2008) would be low. So why would Minnesota give up a potential blue chip player to draft lower and gamble on players not as good as those in the top tier of the draft?

As someone said, let it go. We wouldn't have gotten Adrian Peterson.

The teams that screwed up were Oakland, Detroit and Arizona. Imagine pairing Roy Williams with AP? Imagine how much better the Cardinals would be with the one-two punch of Edge and AP.

The Raiders? How much better would their overall offense be with an AP and a healthy Culpepper.

 

[Verdict]

The value of picks in the following year is demoted a round. So in 2007, our 2008 first round pick is only worth a 2007 second round pick.

I valued it as the last pick in round 1 at 580 points. I don't think you can get lower than that can you?

 

[AsthmaField]

Essentially we could have probably traded our 2007 first rounder, 2008 first rounder and probably a third round pick in 2007 and could have selected Peterson. If he continues to kick butt like he has so far, that looks cheap in retrospect.

I haven't watched McFadden much, but he would have to be quite a hoss to be better than Peterson. Personally, I wished we had made the push this year and got Peterson. Then again, I realize these trades look different as time goes on. How good would we be if we had Peterson on this team?

I do know that hindsight is always 20/20... but I was definately in favor of moving up to get Peterson. I wrote quite a long post about how I thought that we were good enough where we didn't need quantity... but rather needed quality and that we should do what we needed to do to go get him (within reason).

I would go look it up if I knew how to look it up in the archives. My last 500 posts are all within about September 2007 forward. (kind of sad really... don't I have a life?)

Now, even after seeing how good he is... I'm not sure that we still aren't better off now. Ellis is really getting old and Spencer is going to be a very good OLB for us, I think. Plus, having two No. 1's next year will give us a lot of flexability and McFadden will be sitting there if we want to move up.

However, I wouldn't be too upset if we had taken Peterson and had no No. 1 next year.

We likely would have had to trade our second too, but we we would still have walked out of the draft with:

Peterson
Martin
Stanback
Free
Folk
Anderson
Brown
Ball

With no number 1 next year.

Still a tough decision between the two.

The difference is basically:

Peterson - for - Spencer and whoever the two 1st are next year.

So say it ends up being: Spencer, DeShawn Jackson, and Ray Rice.

Or possibly: Spencer and McFadden.

 

[mmillman]

Nobody has doubted AP's skills just his ability to stay healthy. McFadden is every bit as good as Peterson and might be faster.

 

[jterrell]

The Vikings haven't won because they have no QB, meaning they stack the line to make Adrian Peterson beat them... AP is a beast, and if he gets a QB, that team is going to be a contender...

Lord only knows how good the WR will look if the Vikings have a QB could throw it, and play-action is in effect, because AP is a threat to run it all the way every time he touches the ball...

What team is doing well where the focus of the offense is a single running back?

This isn't 1960.

AP is a heck of a player but running games do not equate success anymore.
I grew up with the veer and even I can admit football has shifted to the passing games.