Would Julian Peterson start over Ahmad Brooks?

In 2004, that was the worst 49ers team I've ever witnessed and Julian Peterson was our "all star." I pesonally thought he got so much love not because he was a great player, but the lack of talent that was around him. He was our shining star in a big pile of crap.

As I compare this team to the teams 9 yrs ago, it begs the question: Would Julian Peterson start over Brooks since there's no way in hell we would start over Smith. In fact, would any of the 49er team in 2004 start over anyone from this current team. (Bryant Young over Ray Mcdonald) OR better yet, which starters from the 2004 team would even make this roster as a back up? From the top of my head, I don't think Barlow and Rattay wouldn't even make this roster.


discuss.

I could be wrong but was he still a pro bowler when the Niners had that two-year playoff run with Garce and Owens

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

But do you think JP in his prime> Brooks right now?

Originally posted by pdizo916:

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

But do you think JP in his prime> Brooks right now?

Yes

Originally posted by pdizo916:

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

But do you think JP in his prime> Brooks right now?

Hell Yes!

- 98

Who knows? They've put up similar numbers, but Brooks has been playing on a more talented roster overall. I thought I remembered Peterson being better for us than looking at his stats actually suggests. They look pretty equal overall, so I think it'd be a wash either way. McDonald was great, but BY would start over him.

Which starters from the 2004 team would make the roster?

I think Eric Johnson and Tony Perrish could start for this team. (well, i think EJ would see the field a hell of a whole lot)

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

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.

Originally posted by pdizo916:
Which starters from the 2004 team would make the roster?

I think Eric Johnson and Tony Perrish could start for this team. (well, i think EJ would see the field a hell of a whole lot)

The only 2 still on the team, Jennings and Lee

who the heck is garce?

Depends on the defense. In a 4-3, yes.

In a 3-4, no. I don't think Peterson ever felt comfortable in the 3-4 defense.

Brooks won us the Falcons game. And maybe the Saints. He is incredibly solid.

I just wish we'd had more around him when he was playing. JP could have been a great has he played on better teams and didn't tear the achilles.

No, Peterson wouldn't start over Brooks. Peterson is not a fit at 3-4 OLB. He would not be able to hold the edge, which is just as important as rushing the passer. Peterson was the "Mike" LB in the 3-4 when we played it, IIRC. He is just too small to play 3-4 OLB. Brooks is about 35 Lbs. heavier than Peterson was. He'd get traded to a 4-3 team.

Bryant Young would have pushed any player on our current DL for a starting role, including Justin Smith. He would start over McDonald.

Jeremy Newberry would start over Goodwin if he were healthy.

Meh, that's all the thought I'm putting into this.