Season Retro: Julian Peterson
Julian Peterson
0 recs |
7 comments
Comments
Can I ask, John,
What exactly indicates to you that Peterson has any likelihood of improving in the next year or two? I’m completely happy with the level of production we’ve received from him (truly, that signing was brilliant, and came on us so suddenly, that was awesome!), and if he became a legend, that’s awesome, I guess I just don’t understand why you think that’s possible for him.
by jimmimoose on
May 5, 2008 12:52 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
I can't speak for John, but I agree with him because of Peterson's sheer physical superiority.
He is such an athlete that it would make sense that his skills would last longer than most, and once his mental game reaches it’s peak, which most players seem to accomplish in their 30s from all the experience, he could truly be a force. Not that he isn’t already.
by ASUBoyd on
May 5, 2008 1:14 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
It's just a physical profile/player profile thing.
Peterson could easily lose a little speed and not suffer at all. Ditto athleticism. He should see an increase in strength. It is my understanding, though I can’t find a good source at the moment, that muscle mass peaks for a male in the early thirties. So a player like Peterson, who can lose a little speed and agility, but is a touch on the slim side, could experience a late career peak as his strength, speed, agility and knowledge of the game are at their best balanced.
by John Morgan on
May 5, 2008 3:57 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I'm going to get skewered for this
but I’ve always felt that the biggest problem with the Hawks defense in general, and Peterson and Kerney in particular, is that they don’t come up big when it matters as much as they should. Peterson is great, but I can’t think of too many times that he’s made big plays at crucial times. And unlike Kerney, I’ve never come away from a game feeling that he dominated. He’s a great players that does a lot of the little things to help this defense go, but I’m not going to call him a superstar or a legend anytime soon.
Also, you usually have some stats like broken tackles, good/blown coverage, etc., but I don’t see it for Peterson.
by Nate Dogg on
May 5, 2008 2:14 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
I think you're looking at it wrong
Kerney is only responsible for attacking the QB and flaring out to stop runs, typically. He is much easier to observe since he can “dominate” by getting multiple sacks or disrupting the backfield all day.
Peterson is asked to do a lot more. He blitzes plenty since he has gotten ~10 sacks the past two years, plus he stops the run, and is valuable in coverage against tight ends and slot receivers. It is hard to dominate when some games he gets good blitz schemes and sometimes he is asked to be in coverage all day. Plus, he sometimes is brought up as a DE and plays out of position. Kerney would look much worse if he was asked to drop back into a linebacker slot.
I think you have to look at his whole body of work and think about how much he adds to the defense.
by ASUBoyd on
May 5, 2008 3:24 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I kinda agree about Peterson...
And it’s entirely unfair and without evidence, but it always seems like he’s thisclose to getting the big sack… which is weird for a guy with his freakish speed. I dunno.
I would say that Kerney dominated in the first playoff game though—sure, it was against a super-green RT, but it’s not that much different from when Osi Umeniyiora owned Winston Justice on national TV.
I would love to see Peterson make the leap to legend, but I am skeptical. Although it seems like the biggest weakness in his game is overpursuit…
by Strang on
May 5, 2008 6:56 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs











