Over all he had 72 yards on 14 carries.

His longest runs were 25, 15, 11 & 10. To answer your question I removed the longer 2 runs.

That leaves 32 yards on 12 carries or a 2.7 avg.

---

What was ARod's day like without his four longest passes? You know, since he's got twice as many attempts as APete.

18/27, 147 Yd 2 TD

Yeah, it's kind of dumb to judge someone's performance by removing the outliers, and only from one side.

Peterson had carries for 10, 11 and 25. Out of his 72 yards. The rest of his carries, he averaged 2.36 yards per carry.

The 10 and the 11 were back to back.

If you keep him in front of you and don't over pursue, you can limit his big carries and keep him from scoring. Then he will kill drives with back to back short or no gain carries leaving Favre in 3rd and long.

---

As I've said so many times, Adrian Peterson has yet to prove he can consistently win games on his own. I do not understand why so many defensive coordinators seem so afraid of him. Some of them seem so afraid of public ridicule that they'd rather lose as slowly as possible than actually win the game.

---

Can we please admit that we're just giving APete more shit than we would if he were a Packer or at least not a member of a division rival? How much more effective would an Adrian Peterson be if he were surrounded by an offense that could handle third and long situations, like say the Packers (especially last year)? Suddenly those 1 and 2 yard gains aren't so bad, when you have a very high chance of converting on third and 7 or so?

What RB, or any other single player has proven that they can consistently win games on their own? It's a damn team game, it doesn't matter if you have a magic RB that gets a TD every run if your defense gives up a TD every play and your opponent has one more possession than you.

Truth be told, the best RB in the league is going to be average at best without a line to block him or any threat of a passing attack to prevent loading up the line of scrimmage. Just like an elite QB is going to be worthless with a line that can't protect him and WRs to catch the ball, elite WRs that don't have a QB that could hit the broad side of the barn, elite kickers without competent holders/long snappers/blockers, etc etc etc. An elite player without any kind of supporting cast is like Batman without money. Just a middle-aged man in a suit that sleeps with orphans.

I never said they didn't count. It just goes to prove the point that between the few and far between big carries, Peterson can't grind out first downs, move chains and wear out D's because he only gets little carries. It just explains why the Vikings can't sustain drives.

That is also why they take him out when you need to get a first down or in short yardage. He loses his advantage of being able to break one eventually when you only have one shot at it.

---

Porforis, none of us is ragging on Adrian Peterson in particular. It could just as legitimately (hell, far more legitimately) be said that none of the Packers running backs has proven he can win games on his own.

But that's just the point. Quarterbacks are far more important to overall success in this team sport than running backs are. All things being equal, shutting down the quarterback gives a much greater statistical probability of winning than shutting down the running back. I think more debunking efforts are expended on Adrian Peterson because opposing DCs seem so intimidated by him.

---

I am not trying to say Peterson is not good, I think he is great. I am saying his impact is way over stated.

The best running back in the league is nice, for him. Not so nice for the team though.

How many Super Bowl rings do the top 5 backs from last year own between them in their combined 20+ seasons?

---

Dexter always says things better than I ever could. I'd love to have Adrian Peterson on our roster. But I'd still want this team to be a pass-first offense with Aaron Rodgers at the helm.

---

That's obviously because he's not scouring Thesaurus.com while procuring his posts.

---