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

Peterson was very active and quick, he was all over the field. He closed on ball carriers the way Deion Sanders would close on receivers. He was a pro bowler 5 times, his skills did fade fast after he hit 30, and was done with football at 32.

I'm surprised "no" has 60%. Peterson was a heck of a player, and arguably the best outside lb NFL for a period of time.

Kind of a tough questions to answer because they are better at different things. The question is touch but Brooks has proven too be our most clutch defender.
Also, I may be misinterpreting the original post but no way is hell does Ray McDonald start over BY...I like Ray but BY was a HOF caliber player

Originally posted by Mr.Mcgibblets:
Brooks is better... particularly at SOLB. He doesn't have the pure quickness of JP running an arc, but he's quick enough. Plus, he is excellent at holding the POA and forcing backs to run back inside.

^ meaning, JP would get pancaked +/or simply give up lots more rush yards to his side.

This is absolutely correct! I loved Peterson because of his speed and ability to cover the field, but as far as holding the POA...no way is he as good as Brooks. And with this team that is a vital role. Pass D JP > AB, Run AB > JP. And I think Brooks is better against the pass than Peterson was against the run.

You can tell there's not much going on now...because the question is apples & oranges.

God no! When he DID play in the 3-4, he was a train-wreck...230 pound OLB would just engulfed by OT and disappear. He was easily blocked out by TE's and RB's, etc. Terrible. If he couldn't get around the edge, he had no game what so ever. Period. Once he moved on to Seattle and had 4 active DL in front of him again, and he could be moved all around as the "free" LB, he was a pretty decent rusher again but he would never be a SAM or WILL LB that would seal edges, make TFL's by playing off and through blocks, etc. In fact, he was SO bad in our 3-4, the coaches bailed on him even rushing the passer anymore and used him as a 230 SS to cover TE's. Absolutely no comparison. Brooks is probably the best complete 3-4 SAM in the game (or at lest 2nd best).

I remember when JP signed with the Seahawks, that dude flexed his biceps at use like 3 times a game every time we played him.
Dude owned us

Originally posted by RishikeshA:
I remember a game against the Chiefs, Peterson blanketed Tony Gonzalez. He was not a great pass rusher, whereas Brooks is a load on the end. Some might say that Brooks doesn't have big numbers in sack totals, but he comes up with the big play consistently.

That is really THE GAME that Peterson's reputation is built on.

I would take take Brooks over Peterson

I always thought of Peterson as a poormans Lee Woodall

He was drafted as a passrusher...he was not really great that that....every one started to chat about how great a coverage guy he was...and he was no Lee Woodall

Julian Peterson can EAD

Originally posted by 49erRider:
As much as I love Bryant Young, he never played at an MVP level (league MVP, not team). Justin Smith got screwed out of the NFL Defensive MVP award in 2011 and losing him to injury in 2012 should have proven his worth. I'm sorry, but as good as Bryant Young was, he didn't have the kind of impact Justin Smith has on this defense. He was a force, but Justin Smith is ridiculous. He's so good that even though people give him major credit, they still don't give him enough credit, if you get what I'm saying.

And a healthy Jeremy Newberry would definitely start over Goodwin.

stubby earned his mvp because of young, just because young didnt get the flashy sacks doesnt mean he play at a mvp/hof level. as others have noted young always commaneded at least a double team thats why those who played along side of him shined.

Originally posted by Dshearn:
That is really THE GAME that Peterson's reputation is built on.

I would take take Brooks over Peterson

I always thought of Peterson as a poormans Lee Woodall

He was drafted as a passrusher...he was not really great that that....every one started to chat about how great a coverage guy he was...and he was no Lee Woodall

The game that sticks out in my mind is the Cowboys game @ Dallas where he played 5+ positions on defense throughout the game.
That and the NYG Wild Card game he played very well....always an active presence on the field.
Peterson was a beast. He would certainly start over Ahmad Brooks.

Never liked him, and really didn't like when he went to seattle

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
No, not true. Everybody had to scheme against Bryant, before the leg. He may not have been better than SMith, but he had similar impact.

I'd have to agree, I mean he had 11 sacks and over twice At DT, when the other guys along the line got to the QB pretty quickly. He was a good run defender in his own right as well. 97's success partially in the sack department by Stubb and Coleman in 98', could be attributed to BY's immense domination. Not unlike what Justin does for Aldon. but Smiths never amounted to as much pressure as BY, even at his respective positions.

I do recall sincerely missing the loss of Peterson back in the day, worse than any recent FA/trade loss.

Brooks happens to be playing next to 3 all pros at the LB position.....that's crazy as it is, yet he still manages to make plays of his own.

A big play made by Peterson that is forgotten by most I'd say is the TD saving tackle he made against Jeremy Shockey in the 2002 Wildcard game......he mentioned in the documentary that Shockey instead of going straight for the TD, angled towards Peterson to intentionally collide with him and failed to score!

Originally posted by SofaKing:
Peterson in his prime was really good. At one point he was arguably the top 4-3 OLB. He rushed the passer very well, especially in Seattle. Didn't see him enough in a 3-4 to tell if he would be successful. We did a little bit in 2005 but didn't have the personnel, plus he was coming off injury. I don't think he would have started over Brooks.

I believe he was not resigned because he was coming of an injury so he never played 3-4 scheme. I think he would have been a 12 plus sack man in the 3-4