Report: Vikes looking to "get rid of" AP (AD)

[Demi]

If it's the "QB" that has the most impact, why did Denver lose the Super Bowl? (Manning>Wilson).

They had a bottom 10 ranked defense. And a middle of the pack rushing attack. And they STILL made it to the super bowl. Despite having deficiencies all over the place. Without Manning they're a one and done. He gave them a chance. And they got further than the Vikings have in 50 years. If they don't sign Manning, they don't make a super bowl for years. Just like if the Vikings hadn't signed Favre, they wouldn't sniff a super bowl. Much less be a field goal away.

Let's even go back to 2009 (that 'magical' year of Favre).

Yes, the magic year we had our lowest ranked rushing attack, and our most success, since AD was drafted.

I can say that a HOF QB year is nets us only two extra victories per year over Gus Frerotte/Tarvaris Jackson. If that doesn't minimize the QB position I don't know what does

A top 10 offense. Which we haven't had since, or before that for five years. 2 more wins. A bye. And a playoff win. I'll take that. Throw in being competitive year in and year out? We may not win it, but at least we have a chance. Gus/TJoke don't even give us that. AD? Nope, either does he. Top 5 rushing attacks and still not even a sniff of the playoffs more than once so far.

I fail to see how reducing our effectiveness in a critical part of the game (rushing) would make us a better team.

Being effective in that critical part of the game has got us next to nothing.
2013 8th - 5 wins
2012 2nd - 10 wins
2011 4th - 3 wins
2010 10th - 6 wins
2009 13th - 12 wins
2008 5th - 10 wins
2007 1st - 8 wins

If it gets to the point that we can't sign critical defensive players (or others) because of the money we are paying Peterson, then I will be the first to lead the charge, but we are not there yet.

We've been at the cap for years now. We cut our best corner last year because he wouldn't take a pay cut. We had to cut our starting left tackle to get under the salary cap before that.
http://www.spotrac.com/rankings/nfl/run ... /limit-50/
It's easier to build a competitive *team* when your RB isn't eating up a 10th of your salary...and still field a more than competitive rushing attack.

[Just Me]

They had a bottom 10 ranked defense.

IOW you agree with me. It is more than just the QB that is going to determine the ultimate success/failure of the team.

And a middle of the pack rushing attack. And they STILL made it to the super bowl. Despite having deficiencies all over the place. Without Manning they're a one and done.

You mean like they were with Tebow? Yes there's a dominate QB. Why, the Broncos don't even sniff the playoffs without a Pro Bowl QBs like Manning and Tebow playing for them. (Or, maybe it's more than the QB and the difference between making the playoffs (or not). BTW - Denver was still 15th (above average) even with Manning at QB. I'm not sure they sniff the Super Bowl without some semblance of a rushing attack, either.

He gave them a chance. And they got further than the Vikings have in 50 years. If they don't sign Manning, they don't make a super bowl for years. Just like if the Vikings hadn't signed Favre, they wouldn't sniff a super bowl. Much less be a field goal away.

They certainly got farther than they did with Tebow. So does Wilson make it to the Super Bowl if he plays for Denver?

Yes, the magic year we had our lowest ranked rushing attack, and our most success, since AD was drafted.

Which was still 13th with 1918 yards rushing (for all backs - AD accounted for 1383 of that total and he even contributed to the passing attack with an additional 436 yards receiving, so AD was still contributing even when Favre was passing). AD's 1819 yards from scrimmage is not the lowest total since drafted, but if people want to believe the myth that Peterson is only a 'one trick pony' and only count his rushing yards, I guess that is up to them..

A top 10 offense. Which we haven't had since, or before that for five years. 2 more wins. A bye. And a playoff win. I'll take that. Throw in being competitive year in and year out? We may not win it, but at least we have a chance. Gus/TJoke don't even give us that. AD? Nope, either does he. Top 5 rushing attacks and still not even a sniff of the playoffs more than once so far.

The funny part is I agree with you. My point was to illustrate that if you over-simplify an argument then you get ridiculous assertions like Frerotte/Jackson are not that much of a "drop-off" from one of the best seasons Brett Favre ever played in his career. Kinda sounds a lot like: "Running backs just aren't that important and don't have a significant impact on the game" don't you think?

Being effective in that critical part of the game has got us next to nothing.
2013 8th - 5 wins
2012 2nd - 10 wins
2011 4th - 3 wins
2010 10th - 6 wins
2009 13th - 12 wins
2008 5th - 10 wins
2007 1st - 8 wins

Let's look at defense (points allowed) those years shall we?

2013 32nd - 5 wins
2012 14th - 10 Wins
2011 31st - 3 wins
2010 18th - 6 wins
2009 10th - 12 Wins
2008 13th - 10 Wins
2007 12th - 8 Wins

Since there is a disparity in some of the defensive rankings with the season's outcome (most notably 2007 which netted us less wins than the 2008 season where our defense performed more poorly,) would it also then be your assertion/implication that defense is a non-critical part of the game?

We've been at the cap for years now. We cut our best corner last year because he wouldn't take a pay cut. We had to cut our starting left tackle to get under the salary cap before that.
http://www.spotrac.com/rankings/nfl/run ... /limit-50/

The key word is critical. First, Winfield was an aging corner that we could have retained, but the Vikings elected to let him walk. I stated at the time (and I like Winfield) that it was the right move. No way was he worth the money we would have had to pay. Even when he went to Seattle, they paid him far less than his contract with the Vikes would have been. He couldn't even make the squad in Seattle and subsequently retired. This is just not a good example.
You want to squawk about 11M for AD but its OK to pay Winfield 7M? C'mon man.

The tackle? Are you kidding me? McKinnie couldn't show up for camp at the weight he was supposed to, and even Baltimore had issues with him. See this link for the details. He was not a cap casualty.

It's easier to build a competitive *team* when your RB isn't eating up a 10th of your salary...and still field a more than competitive rushing attack.

You mean like how effective we were at rushing before we felt the need to trade for Herschel Walker? Easy like that?

[Demi]

You want to squawk about 11M for AD but its OK to pay Winfield 7M? C'mon man.

No, it's not ok to pay either of them that much. But you said if it was an issue you'd be on board, it's an issue. We're cutting players because of how much they're making and our salary cap status.

McKinnie couldn't show up for camp at the weight he was supposed to, and even Baltimore had issues with him. See this link for the details. He was not a cap casualty.

You don't ask him to take a pay cut before cutting him if it isn't a cap issue. So he's ok to be on the roster and starting at a lower salary but the same other issues? We had to be under the cap by Thursday of that week, and suddenly it comes up. There were other issues, but if he had agreed to take a pay cut, he was still on the roster. Despite being 400 lbs and a bad practice away from a heart attack. And then left tackled a super bowl team.

IOW you agree with me. It is more than just the QB that is going to determine the ultimate success/failure of the team.

Yep. And a hell of a lot more than a HB. Which is an asset that we have. That we could possibly move to improve multiple other positions. Get in a better salary position. And likely not impact the teams on the field performance all that much. Packers won a super bowl with Brandon Jackson as their starting half back...and plenty of teams have had success without an elite "generational" back. More have had success with average running backs than with the best backs in the league.

BTW - Denver was still 15th (above average) even with Manning at QB. I'm not sure they sniff the Super Bowl without some semblance of a rushing attack, either.

They had an average rushing attack. With average rushers. In Indy the offense succeeded for years, because of Manning. Not because of Joseph Addai.

So does Wilson make it to the Super Bowl if he plays for Denver?

Nope. Wilson isn't going to get to a super bowl with an average rushing attack and a below average defense...just like Tebow wasn't. But an elite top 3 QB like Manning? Makes Denver from a wild card team to a super bowl contender. Year in and year out.

but if people want to believe the myth that Peterson is only a 'one trick pony' and only count his rushing yards

Has nothing to do with stats. Has to do with watching him pretend to block, and passes bounce off his hands...

[mosscarter]

i hate to say this but its the truth. no running back is worth 15 million dollars a year past the age of 30 ever. i love peterson as much as the rest of you, but next season its gets to the point where we have to look at it strictly financially. you cannot pay a running back that much and expect for the rest of your team to be successful.

[Slick Rick]

i hate to say this but its the truth. no running back is worth 15 million dollars a year past the age of 30 ever. i love peterson as much as the rest of you, but next season its gets to the point where we have to look at it strictly financially. you cannot pay a running back that much and expect for the rest of your team to be successful.

1. No running back is worth 15M/yr at 30? What if they score 20+ TDs?

2. We have to look at it strictly financially based on a year that we don't know the results of? I don't really get that. You make the call based off of his performance, not off of a fallacy hyped by PFF fanboys and NFL.com journalists.

3. What does Peterson's salary have to do with the rest of the team's performance. His salary and their performance only matters if you're having salary cap issues. Despite Peterson's salary, we still had plenty of money to burn this offseason.

I understand the importance of finance in football, obviously you want to optimize your payroll, and ideally everyone would be making less than 15M. In today's world that just isn't very realistic, and of all of the players to be paid that kind of money, I'd rather it be paid to Peterson than almost anyone else. Franchise players that you can build around are worth a lot of money. I don't understand why we're trying to pretend that Peterson is just another running back, which is essentially what you all are doing by saying that "no RBs are worth 15M" and that "you can't pay a RB that much".

[Purple bruise]

1. No running back is worth 15M/yr at 30? What if they score 20+ TDs?

2. We have to look at it strictly financially based on a year that we don't know the results of? I don't really get that. You make the call based off of his performance, not off of a fallacy hyped by PFF fanboys and NFL.com journalists.

3. What does Peterson's salary have to do with the rest of the team's performance. His salary and their performance only matters if you're having salary cap issues. Despite Peterson's salary, we still had plenty of money to burn this offseason.

I understand the importance of finance in football, obviously you want to optimize your payroll, and ideally everyone would be making less than 15M. In today's world that just isn't very realistic, and of all of the players to be paid that kind of money, I'd rather it be paid to Peterson than almost anyone else. Franchise players that you can build around are worth a lot of money. I don't understand why we're trying to pretend that Peterson is just another running back, which is essentially what you all are doing by saying that "no RBs are worth 15M" and that "you can't pay a RB that much".

Great post

[Just Me]

No, it's not ok to pay either of them that much. But you said if it was an issue you'd be on board, it's an issue. We're cutting players because of how much they're making and our salary cap status.

We didn't have to cut either player. There's a difference between asking them to take a pay cut to make their salary commensurate with their value/ability and "having to cut them" to pay their salary.

You don't ask him to take a pay cut before cutting him if it isn't a cap issue. So he's ok to be on the roster and starting at a lower salary but the same other issues? We had to be under the cap by Thursday of that week, and suddenly it comes up. There were other issues, but if he had agreed to take a pay cut, he was still on the roster. Despite being 400 lbs and a bad practice away from a heart attack. And then left tackled a super bowl team.

Yes you do. Again, it is the value of the player that determines what he is paid. Just because a player is not worth what you originally offered for him, doesn't mean that he has NO value. It almost sounds like you are saying the only two options facing teams are the player performs up to his contract or you cut him. McKinnie had value, just not the value of his original contract. The Vikings simply weren't going to pay him for a performance well below what they were expecting. When McKinnie didn't want to do that, he was gone. Baltimore paid him and then found out what we already knew: A very talented tackle that was mailing it in on half the plays, and was overweight. He wasn't even a consistent starter with the Ravens. He kept flipping between starter and backup because of his issues with the Ravens. Is/was that kind of money worth a "part-time" tackle? We can get them at well below the price McKinnie was demanding, hence the move. PS - The Ravens defense won that Super Bowl. Ray Lewis had more to do with that than McKinnie (whom had next to nothing to do with it).

Yep. And a hell of a lot more than a HB. Which is an asset that we have. That we could possibly move to improve multiple other positions. Get in a better salary position. And likely not impact the teams on the field performance all that much. Packers won a super bowl with Brandon Jackson as their starting half back...and plenty of teams have had success without an elite "generational" back. More have had success with average running backs than with the best backs in the league.

True, and John Elway, as great as he was, lost Super Bowls until Terrell Davis enabled him to win 2 in a row. Look, I'm not saying that an MVP Running Back = Automatic Super Bowl. I'm saying that you don't take a 'step backwards' at that position unless you have to and I don't believe that's the case. I do think you are underestimating the drop off in the rushing game (as well as indirectly affecting the passing game) if we go from Peterson to an "average back." Do you think Cassel has the talent to carry the team if we go to an "average" running attack?

They had an average rushing attack. With average rushers. In Indy the offense succeeded for years, because of Manning. Not because of Joseph Addai.

We'll agree to disagree on this one. Addai actually had some pretty good years (and some bad ones) and would have been a part of that success (He rushed for 1081 the year they won the Super Bowl). His worst year was also the Colt's worst year where they lost in the wild card round (one-and-done) with Peyton Manning under center. Before that (duing the Manning era) the Colts also had Edgerrin James and Marshal Faulk for running backs, so it's not like Manning didn't have help with a decent running attack.

Nope. Wilson isn't going to get to a super bowl with an average rushing attack and a below average defense...just like Tebow wasn't. But an elite top 3 QB like Manning? Makes Denver from a wild card team to a super bowl contender. Year in and year out.

Or...he can get s decent running back in Marshawn Lynch which only enhances his ability and makes the Seahawks offense less one-dimensional, and win the Super Bowl. (The Seahawks were 4th in rushing in 2013)

Has nothing to do with stats. Has to do with watching him pretend to block, and passes bounce off his hands...

At least some balls (43 anyway) didn't "bounce of his hands" if he's putting up those kind of reception yardage numbers. I think you are exaggerating here. Do you know how many passes Peterson actually drops? The answer is here (for 2013). It's 2.5%. Even rounding up to his DISFAVOR means Peterson drops 3 of every 100 passes thrown to him. He dropped 1 of 29 passes thrown to him last year. Seems like a parroted "issue" that has no basis in actual fact.

*Edit - in 2009 he dropped 7% (4) of his passes - Full disclosure. I had only checked 2013 initially:
2007 - 10.7%
2008 - 10.3%
2009 - 7%
2010 - 10.0%
2011 - 8.7%
2012 - 5.9%
2013 - 2.5%

Still, in his worst years he dropped 1 out of 10 passes thrown to him andhe has been steadily improving since 2010... /Edit

You'll get no argument from me that blocking seems to be the weak part of his game. Zimmer has a plan to create better matchups to help Peterson succeed here. Maybe he won't succeed, but I'll wager that a better offensive strategy will yield better results. We shall soon see...

[Purple bruise]

We didn't have to cut either player. There's a difference between asking them to take a pay cut to make their salary commensurate with their value/ability and "having to cut them" to pay their salary.

Yes you do. Again, it is the value of the player that determines what he is paid. Just because a player is not worth what you originally offered for him, doesn't mean that he has NO value. It almost sounds like you are saying the only two options facing teams are the player performs up to his contract or you cut him. McKinnie had value, just not the value of his original contract. The Vikings simply weren't going to pay him for a performance well below what they were expecting. When McKinnie didn't want to do that, he was gone. Baltimore paid him and then found out what we already knew: A very talented tackle that was mailing it in on half the plays, and was overweight. He wasn't even a consistent starter with the Ravens. He kept flipping between starter and backup because of his issues with the Ravens. Is/was that kind of money worth a "part-time" tackle? We can get them at well below the price McKinnie was demanding, hence the move. PS - The Ravens defense won that Super Bowl. Ray Lewis had more to do with that than McKinnie (whom had next to nothing to do with it).


True, and John Elway, as great as he was, lost Super Bowls until Terrell Davis enabled him to win 2 in a row. Look, I'm not saying that an MVP Running Back = Automatic Super Bowl. I'm saying that you don't take a 'step backwards' at that position unless you have to and I don't believe that's the case. I do think you are underestimating the drop off in the rushing game (as well as indirectly affecting the passing game) if we go from Peterson to an "average back." Do you think Cassel has the talent to carry the team if we go to an "average" running attack?
We'll agree to disagree on this one. Addai actually had some pretty good years (and some bad ones) and would have been a part of that success (He rushed for 1081 the year they won the Super Bowl). His worst year was also the Colt's worst year where they lost in the wild card round (one-and-done) with Peyton Manning under center. Before that (duing the Manning era) the Colts also had Edgerrin James and Marshal Faulk for running backs, so it's not like Manning didn't have help with a decent running attack.
Or...he can get s decent running back in Marshawn Lynch which only enhances his ability and makes the Seahawks offense less one-dimensional, and win the Super Bowl. (The Seahawks were 4th in rushing in 2013)
At least some balls (43 anyway) didn't "bounce of his hands" if he's putting up those kind of reception yardage numbers. I think you are exaggerating here. Do you know how many passes Peterson actually drops? The answer is here. It's 2.5%. Even rounding up to his DISFAVOR means Peterson drops 3 of every 100 passes thrown to him. He dropped 1 of 29 passes thrown to him last year. Seems like a parroted "issue" that has no basis in actual fact.

You'll get no argument from me that blocking seems to be the weak part of his game. Zimmer has a plan to create better matchups to help Peterson succeed here. Maybe he won't succeed, but I'll wager that a better offensive strategy will yield better results. We shall soon see...

Demi wrote:
"They had an average rushing attack. With average rushers. In Indy the offense succeeded for years, because of Manning. Not because of Joseph Addai".
Of course he conveniently left out Marshall Faulk who starred for the Colts along with Manning

[Mothman]

At least some balls (43 anyway) didn't "bounce of his hands" if he's putting up those kind of reception yardage numbers. I think you are exaggerating here. Do you know how many passes Peterson actually drops? The answer is here. It's 2.5%. Even rounding up to his DISFAVOR means Peterson drops 3 of every 100 passes thrown to him. He dropped 1 of 29 passes thrown to him last year. Seems like a parroted "issue" that has no basis in actual fact.

It IS a parroted issue.

You'll get no argument from me that blocking seems to be the weak part of his game. Zimmer has a plan to create better matchups to help Peterson succeed here. Maybe he won't succeed, but I'll wager that a better offensive strategy will yield better results. We shall soon see...

Even as a blocker, he's not bad. There's certainly room for improvement but Peterson has made strides in that area.

Some fans seem to make up their mind about who a player is and what they can do after one or two seasons and just stick with assessment, regardless of how that player changes or grows over time. Peterson has improved as a pass catcher and blocker since his early years but there's never a shortage of people who want to overemphasize those aspects of his game as if they are enormous shortcomings.

Regarding the elite QB vs. elite RB debate: it's rendered moot by the simple fact that the Vikings don't have the option to pay an elite QB because there isn't one available to them. Peterson's not in the way, preventing the Vikes from getting the next Manning or Brady. He is paid like a superstar because he is a superstar and pointing to the team's W/L record since 2007 as evidence against his value is simply engaging in an overly simplistic argument that ignores all of the other factors that contributed to that record. The Vikings record since 2007 is not purely a consequence of having Adrian Peterson on the team, nor is it evidence of his shortcomings. It's indicative of the overall quality of the team.

I think we can all agree that a better passing game to complement the running game would make the team better but again, having Peterson on the roster, at his salary, does not preclude fielding a good passing game.

Oh, and the fact that McKinnie's name still gets trotted out as if cutting his overpaid, underachieving, bad-headline-making *** was a mistake cracks me up. The Vikings absolutely made the right move there.

Peterson's salary isn't preventing the Vikings from being a contender but his presence can still help make them one.

[Funkytown]

PS - The Ravens defense won that Super Bowl.

You lost me there. I thought it took a total team effort. (Right?) I think Mr. Joe MVP Flacco played a pretty big role in the win, too. Probably why he ended up getting a big, sexy contract shortly after. Anyways, from what I remember, the Ravens D wasn't all that spectacular that year...or that game. I think their offense and defense were pretty much in the middle of the pack that year, nothing special. They were just a good team with a lot of heart...and good coaching. And maybe a little help from the football Gods with the whole Ray Lewis retiring thing. lol.

And I think Lewis had like 7 tackles that game. How many guys did McKinnie let get by him? If he managed to hold back that tough Niners D, I don't think it's fair to say Lewis played a bigger role, especially with so much certainty. I don't know the numbers, though. Just sayin'. But how do you even measure and compare that? Regardless, I think the point is, he started throughout the playoffs and the freakin' Super Bowl; he must not be completely worthless.

[Mothman]

You lost me there. I thought it took a total team effort. (Right?) I think Mr. Joe MVP Flacco played a pretty big role in the win, too. Probably why he ended up getting a big, sexy contract shortly after. Anyways, from what I remember, the Ravens D wasn't all that spectacular that year...or that game. I think their offense and defense were pretty much in the middle of the pack that year, nothing special. They were just a good team with a lot of heart...and good coaching. And maybe a little help from the football Gods with the whole Ray Lewis retiring thing. lol.

And I think Lewis had like 7 tackles that game. How many guys did McKinnie let get by him? If he managed to hold back that tough Niners D, I don't think it's fair to say Lewis played a bigger role, especially with so much certainty. I don't know the numbers, though. Just sayin'. But how do you even measure and compare that? Regardless, I think the point is, he started throughout the playoffs and the freakin' Super Bowl; he must not be completely worthless.

No, he's not completely worthless but the Vikings were right to cut him and move on.

[Funkytown]

Demi wrote:
"They had an average rushing attack. With average rushers. In Indy the offense succeeded for years, because of Manning. Not because of Joseph Addai".
Of course he conveniently left out Marshall Faulk who starred for the Colts along with Manning

For how long? A year? I don't think that explains how the Indy offense succeeded for years. Demi's argument makes more sense.

[Just Me]

For how long? A year? I don't think that explains how the Indy offense succeeded for years. Demi's argument makes more sense.

I addressed that in my post. He had Faulk, James, and Addai. The point being he nearly always had a competent rushing compliment (with a few exceptions) and when Addai had his worst year the Colts were one-and-done in the playoffs (in the WC round).

[Slick Rick]

For how long? A year? I don't think that explains how the Indy offense succeeded for years. Demi's argument makes more sense.

I think what explains it is that Indy always had a viable running game. As it relates to the topic, the Vikings would have a running game that should be considered generally elite, and could afford to sacrifice a bit in the passing game. Considering how rare it is to find a Peyton Manning type of player, I think that's just good strategy.

Also, Edgerrin James. Even Peyton had a HOF running back supporting him.

[allday1991]

For how long? A year? I don't think that explains how the Indy offense succeeded for years. Demi's argument makes more sense.

With that being said would it not make more sense to keep A.p (sense we already have him) build a great defense and look for an above average qb rather than search for a Manning type qb? Reasons being we already have one piece in Peterson; second Manning type qbs are hard to find and the vikings don't have the best track record.