There are 100 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Would Julian Peterson start over Ahmad Brooks?

Would Julian Peterson start over Ahmad Brooks?

Originally posted by GORO:
Julian Peterson was a special player. He was a really good blitzer and could cover Tight Ends as well. Brooks makes a few player here and their but Peterson was a pro bowler

I still remember the game against KC when he just blanketed Tony Gonzales all day and completely shut him down.
I think both he and Brooks are very good, versatile players.
I'll take a prime and healthy Tony Parrish Over Witner
Based on talent I'd say yes for Pererson. He was a pro bowl player without much help. Of course we ran a different defense then so no one can say for sure and I wouldn't hold anything that occurred during his brief stints with Nolan against him.
  • Garcia
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 26,463
Originally posted by JerryRice1848:
I could be wrong but was he still a pro bowler when the Niners had that two-year playoff run with Garce and Owens

JP was one of the most complete linebackers of his time.
Julian Peterson combined the best traits of Ahmad Brooks and Manny Lawson, all in one.
I liked Peterson a lot, but I'd take Brooks over him any day, especially with this particular defense. Brooks is a lot better all-around LB. He's better against the run and setting the edge. Teams would run at Peterson. They can't do that with Brooks - he's just bigger and stronger (Brooks: 6'4", 255; Peterson: 6'3", 235). But, even though Brooks is bigger than Peterson, he's just as fast. Peterson was real good in pass defense though. But, I find it interesting that Brooks has gotten lots more sacks over the last four years than Peterson did in his last four years with the Niners. Peterson made more tackles, but he didn't play on the same team with Willis and Bowman.
WAIT, you mean circa 2004?

[ Edited by vrabbit on May 10, 2013 at 5:37 PM ]
He was terrible that year. Big run play after big run play. He was always basically a pass guy and sucked against the run, that was especially evident that season and I was happy the Seahawks signed him after his Achilles.
Originally posted by bdub2588:
JP was one of the most complete linebackers of his time.

Only if you include getting gashed regularly in the running game as a part of a complete OLB's game.
No, Ahmad Brooks maybe our fourth best linebacker but that's because our other 3 linebackers are really that good. Wasn't he a second-team All-Pro? I'm pretty sure he starts for nearly every team in the league
JP in his prime would not start for this 49ers defense imo. I never thought he was well suited for the 3-4, and Brooks is a nice complement to Smith on the other side.
[ Edited by WINiner on May 10, 2013 at 5:58 PM ]
Originally posted by BullFrogAlien49:
I'll take a prime and healthy Tony Parrish Over Witner

Good one. Dude was a real ballhawk.
Hate hypothetical questions..

Brooks gets my vote.
This is a good question and fun to think about who from the Hell years could start on this team.

I think Parrish would start over Whitner. Peterson was real good but I don't think he could really seal the edge since he wasn't all that big, as some have already mentioned. I also think Newberry couuld start over Goodwin. Another guy I think could challenge for a starting role or significant playing time would be Ahmed Plummer. He was a very solid corner.