12-09-2007, 05:33 PM
Chester just had an 84 yard td run(third longest in Vikings history with him also having the longest) taking his total to 6 carries for 99 yards. Peterson has 6 carries for -2 yards. enough said.
12-09-2007, 05:33 PM
12-09-2007, 11:37 PM
Taylor....
CAR YDS TD LG
8 101 1 84
CAR YDS TD LG
8 101 1 84
12-10-2007, 01:06 AM
The first and third longest runs in the Vikings long history. Pretty impressive. And from a guy who had been caught from behind more that a few times in his college career. Still my all time favorite player at UT- primarily from all that he overcame to be a success.
12-10-2007, 08:25 AM
Shrakkrocket Wrote:Chester just had an 84 yard td run(third longest in Vikings history with him also having the longest) taking his total to 6 carries for 99 yards. Peterson has 6 carries for -2 yards. enough said.
Please tell me that you aren't implying that Chester is a better running back than AP.
2-9-6
12-10-2007, 08:53 AM
Except for Chester's one big run, it doesn't look like either of the Minnesota backs had much success yesterday.
12-10-2007, 09:48 AM
Redwingtom Wrote:Shrakkrocket Wrote:Chester just had an 84 yard td run(third longest in Vikings history with him also having the longest) taking his total to 6 carries for 99 yards. Peterson has 6 carries for -2 yards. enough said.
Please tell me that you aren't implying that Chester is a better running back than AP.
2-9-6
Chester had a pretty darn good game a couple of weeks ago when Peterson was hurt.
IMO, Chester is a better overall running back. Peterson is a better athlete and receiver/kick returner making him the better all around football player. Chester has that better durability as a running back though, making him the better running back. Peterson needs to be used less at running back because of injury prone-ness, where Chester can carry the 35 carries a game load without becoming injury prone.
If you are a team that already has nice receivers and a good kick returner you would rather have Chester. if you need more help at other positions and either don't run as much (like the Lions) or have a decent running back that can take 8-10 carries a game to relieve Peterson, then you would rather have Adrian.
12-10-2007, 11:48 AM
rocketfootball Wrote:If you are a team that already has nice receivers and a good kick returner you would rather have Chester.
You are truly insane.
12-10-2007, 11:59 AM
Redwingtom Wrote:rocketfootball Wrote:If you are a team that already has nice receivers and a good kick returner you would rather have Chester.
You are truly insane.
Why? Adrian has a history of injuries. Last year at Oklahoma he got hurt and missed games. This year at Minnesota he got hurt and missed a few games. If you already have the receivers and kick returner you don't need an AP to return kicks and you want a running back that is durable and doesn't get hurt.
That's not insane, that is taking the players you need to fit your team......not necessarily the best player available. Super Bowls are won by teams, not individual stars.
12-10-2007, 12:58 PM
Me, I'd want to have both of them. Petereson is a real threat, and so is Chester, but in very different ways. RF is correct in that Taylor is more complete: he catches the ball well out of the backfield, he blocks well, and he's obviously a solid running back. Peterson may become that complete one day, but not yet. He IS a hell of a lot of fun to watch though.
12-10-2007, 01:50 PM
You have to give it up for Peterson. The kid is special. With Chester there with more experience and his versatility the Viks have a dangerous tandem there. The defense did a great job yesterday as well.