eclipse99t Posted January 15, 2007 Report Share Posted January 15, 2007 Let's say Adrian Peterson or Michael Bush slips down to no. 18 in the draft, and the big 3 DEs are gone (Anderson, Adams, Moss) and for argument's sake, so is Alan Branch.Would you rather take LaMarr Woodley, or get one of the best RB prospects in a while in Adrian Peterson?Not to diss Rudi, but he's just not the kind of back that goes with this offense. I'm getting absolutely exhausted with his stuffs at the LOS and his lack of big plays.Peterson can/will give us that dangerous RB that can take it to the house every time he touches the ball, and I would be absolutely elated if we took him at 18, which is a steal in my opinion. Forget the defense...our offense wasn't nearly as good as we needed it to be in crunch time...put Peterson in there, and teams are scared s**tless about Peterson, whereas they don't need to commit to stopping Rudi.Now I know all the haters will bring up Chris Perry, but the fact is, he's never going to be healthy enough to provide us with that big play ability quite like a healthy Peterson will.Thoughts??!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whur CHad At? Posted January 15, 2007 Report Share Posted January 15, 2007 I would be upset, I am sick of everyone hating on rudi. I don't know what he did to deserve to get all of this hating, I mean he is a very consistant back. Rudi is our running back so that is enough.Michael Bush will be an early second rounder, pending if he has an absolutley amazing combine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kazkal Posted January 15, 2007 Report Share Posted January 15, 2007 Rudis not getting alot of hate but he gets more praise then he deserves sometimes...if AP was there and we drafted him I would not be upset just because hes such a huge talent it would be hard to say no too....I rather go RB in 2008 though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tasher Posted January 15, 2007 Report Share Posted January 15, 2007 IF Adrian Peterson were there at 18 (which he WON'T be), yeah I think we would take him. AND we would be idiots not to. Kinda like last year when the Texans already HAD a good back and their team needs were not at RB and they passed on Bush. Yeah kinda like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nechemia Posted January 15, 2007 Report Share Posted January 15, 2007 Let's say Adrian Peterson or Michael Bush slips down to no. 18 in the draft, and the big 3 DEs are gone (Anderson, Adams, Moss) and for argument's sake, so is Alan Branch.Would you rather take LaMarr Woodley, or get one of the best RB prospects in a while in Adrian Peterson?Not to diss Rudi, but he's just not the kind of back that goes with this offense. I'm getting absolutely exhausted with his stuffs at the LOS and his lack of big plays.Peterson can/will give us that dangerous RB that can take it to the house every time he touches the ball, and I would be absolutely elated if we took him at 18, which is a steal in my opinion. Forget the defense...our offense wasn't nearly as good as we needed it to be in crunch time...put Peterson in there, and teams are scared s**tless about Peterson, whereas they don't need to commit to stopping Rudi.Now I know all the haters will bring up Chris Perry, but the fact is, he's never going to be healthy enough to provide us with that big play ability quite like a healthy Peterson will.Agreed we need a new RB, but C.Perry deserves anoyther chance, when he has been healthy he has been pretty dope, plus Petersen also has serious durability issuesThoughts??!?Perry ,Perry! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stripes Posted January 15, 2007 Report Share Posted January 15, 2007 Rudi could use some support in carrying the load, but he'll still be the Bengals' starting running back and he'll still put up numbers comparable to anyone else in the league when his line doesn't fail to open holes consistently.I wouldn't like using a first rounder on a RB when we have so many other more pressing needs, but I could live with a secound rounder going that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacD BengalFan Posted January 16, 2007 Report Share Posted January 16, 2007 Ok, lets review. Adrian Peterson has been injured nearly his entire college football career. The Bengals don't need another running back that will spend more time on the injured reserve list then on the playing field, ala Chris Perry. Kenny Watson has stayed healthy and has proven to be a solid relief for Rudi. What the Bengals need is more help with the defense and until the Bengals address this, they should stay away from oft-injured running backs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kazkal Posted January 16, 2007 Report Share Posted January 16, 2007 Preatty minor stuff but still have a point hehe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurmanation Posted January 16, 2007 Report Share Posted January 16, 2007 The only reaosn i could agree to taking a RB is because if CP did go down to an injury you really think RJ would lead us to a winning season...his ass is anything but a play maker when was the last time you saw him brake off a 75 yard run.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kazkal Posted January 18, 2007 Report Share Posted January 18, 2007 Well we still get Rudi plenty of carries but look at all the teams who have 2back attacks...bengals and chiefs are really only teams who feed it to one guy and only 1 guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.