Peterson plea deal...

[frosted]

Ah, I didn't realize that. Thanks for clearing that up!

Regardless of the "agreement", it looks like the NFLPA believes AD should be reinstated immediately and I can only assume that the NFLPA would know the ins and outs of the exempt list agreement.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... -peterson/

I think the NFLPA is arguing (and rightfully so, per the agreement) that he should be reinstated from the commisioner's/exempt list immediately, and until his punishment has been doled out. However, the point I was making, is that tacking on more games as punishment is not unfair, if Adrian's union did in fact work on his behalf to come to the agreement that it did with the NFL. It is unfair that they are not reinstating him right now (and until the actual punishment comes down), if the agreement also calls for that.

[Mothman]

I will add, there is supposedly an agreement that was reached between the NFL and the NFLPA when Adrian agreed to go on the Commisioner's/Exempt List that may include language that, in a round about way (not directly stated), concedes that time spent on the list is not considered as "punishment". At least that's what I got out of this:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... l-charges/

Peterson may have a legitimate argument that he should be allowed to play prior to his hearing and until formal 'punishment', but if what Florio stated is true, it may be inferred that the punishment for the situation was always coming, regardless of any time he agreed to sit out.

Sure, but I think most of us have assumed that all along. I think the point is that he's already missed half a season so logically, it makes sense to give him a "suspension", consider the 8 games missed as time served and fine him an amount equivalent to the number of games missed under a suspension. They obviously have the option to just ignore the 8 games missed and suspend him for additional games but I think that would be a political move designed to placate sponsors and outraged football fans rather than a fair move or appropriate punishment. It's certainly a debatable point though and in the end, the commissioner will do whatever he wants to do (or whatever the owners him to do).

[Mothman]

The real failure here is the court system. Once again, America shows that if you are rich, you are entitled to escape justice. I have had to testify in many dcfs abuse cases. None of the perps would have gotten a sweet little slap on the wrist like AP did. The pictures of the injuries, his own admission of guilt , and the victim statements of this being a recurrent pattern of abuse are damning. BUT, now that the corrupt court has dismissed this as a minor offense the NFL is in the absurd position of likely being the body that will enforce the most stern consequence! Corporate America is not required to be our source of justice, this should not end up on Goodells shoulders. What a joke...

The court system grants first-time offenders charged with negligent injury to a child probation and fines all the time and not just if those offenders are rich. Not every crime deserves or receives the heaviest punishment allowable by law. Circumstances, including sociocultural background, are often given consideration.

As for the "recurrent pattern of abuse" you mention above: no such pattern has been established.

As for Goodell: he hasn't been given any more responsibility in this situation than he had in the first place. He was always going to have to rule on a violation of league policy and that's all he's being asked to do now. He's not being asked, or required, "to be our source of justice" and that's certainly not the attitude he should bring to his decision.

[Purple bruise]

The court system grants first-time offenders charged with negligent injury to a child probation and fines all the time and not just if those offenders are rich. Not every crime deserves or receives the heaviest punishment allowable by law. Circumstances, including sociocultural background, are often given consideration.

As for the "recurrent pattern of abuse" you mention above: no such pattern has been established.

As for Goodell: he hasn't been given any more responsibility in this situation than he had in the first place. He was always going to have to rule on a violation of league policy and that's all he's being asked to do now. He's not being asked, or required, "to be our source of justice" and that's certainly not the attitude he should bring to his decision.

Great points Jim and I am curious to hear Chicago's, who is a is a doctor and has testified numerous times in child abuse cases, view points.

[GQVikesFan]

NFL could have a hard time getting Peterson’s court file

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... ourt-file/

It seems like the NFL and the Commish are trying to delay this as long as possible..

[The Breeze]

I don't really like sounding off negatively..... but I must admit that I'm not very impressed with the ownership of this franchise when it comes to honesty and transparency. It seems to be a common thing about the NFL owners in general....the league and it's ambiguities. I miss the young Al Davis....and I enjoy guys like Mark Cuban who aren't so afraid of challenging the status quo. They are too few IMO.

Players are required to be commodities beyond the norm. While owners have Goodell to take the brunt of any clearly defined, constructive criticism.
That appears to be his main job..... Sheriff of NFLingham.

I understand that the Wilfs hands are considerably tied up with all of this due to sponsors strong arming. When it comes to who rules the roost, owners become ordinary pawns to some degree when it comes to sponsors. I just get that they, Wilfs, wouldn't even know what the "right" move was if there were no pressure on them either way. Money seems to be the bottom line. But it's easy for me to criticize when it's not my money or dilemma.

It's like they are waiting for the NFL to tell them how to value one of their players, when there seems to be a clear cut agreement about his reinstatement with the union...and it's not just any player for the Vikings. Regardless of what he did, he's done soooo much for this franchise. Loyalty goes beyond paychecks....

If they aren't going to at least speak up for him I don't know why they didn't cut him at the beginning of this....ohh wait, yes I do. They want maximum reward for the least amount of risk or effort. Cowardly. At the very least they owe it to him to be straight with him. That's assuming they haven't behind closed doors. Who knows?

All this stuff about fear of public backlash over the evil of AD is tragic considering the track record of the entity making the decisions on all of this.

bleh...my hippy roots are showing just some thoughts that cropped up after reading the various takes here and there.....

[Mothman]

I don't really like sounding off negatively..... but I must admit that I'm not very impressed with the ownership of this franchise when it comes to honesty and transparency. It seems to be a common thing about the NFL owners in general....the league and it's ambiguities. I miss the young Al Davis....and I enjoy guys like Mark Cuban who aren't so afraid of challenging the status quo. They are too few IMO.

Players are required to be commodities beyond the norm. While owners have Goodell to take the brunt of any clearly defined, constructive criticism.
That appears to be his main job..... Sheriff of NFLingham.

I understand that the Wilfs hands are considerably tied up with all of this due to sponsors strong arming. When it comes to who rules the roost, owners become ordinary pawns to some degree when it comes to sponsors. I just get that they, Wilfs, wouldn't even know what the "right" move was if there were no pressure on them either way. Money seems to be the bottom line. But it's easy for me to criticize when it's not my money or dilemma.

It's like they are waiting for the NFL to tell them how to value one of their players, when there seems to be a clear cut agreement about his reinstatement with the union...and it's not just any player for the Vikings. Regardless of what he did, he's done soooo much for this franchise. Loyalty goes beyond paychecks....

If they aren't going to at least speak up for him I don't know why they didn't cut him at the beginning of this....ohh wait, yes I do. They want maximum reward for the least amount of risk or effort. Cowardly. At the very least they owe it to him to be straight with him. That's assuming they haven't behind closed doors. Who knows?

All this stuff about fear of public backlash over the evil of AD is tragic considering the track record of the entity making the decisions on all of this.

bleh...my hippy roots are showing just some thoughts that cropped up after reading the various takes here and there.....

Well, the Wilfs haven't exactly shown a lot of backbone since taking ownership so I understand where you're coming from...

It's possible that they just don't want to conduct their business in the public eye. Behind the scenes, they may be lobbying Goodell and the league hard to get Peterson reinstated. On the other hand, they may be cowering away, hoping that the NFL suspends Peterson for the remainder of the season so they can just release him without ever having to face the quandary of whether or not to play him or the PR difficulties that might accompany such a decision.

It would be nice if they were out front with whatever is going on but that's just not their style.

Personally, I think the smart play for everyone involved here would be for the NFL to reinstate Peterson, fine him a substantial amount (6-8 game checks), give at least a percentage of that money to charity and then work with Peterson and the Vikings to rehabilitate his image and help him be a force for good. He's in a unique position to help increase awareness and perhaps initiate positive change in regard to some controversial issues. From what I understand, he's done a great deal of charity work with kids over the years. Expand that work and perhaps focus on charity work with children who are victims of abuse. Working to help such kids, and interacting with them, could be good for Peterson himself, a way to help alter his own perspective and change the learned behavior that led to this whole mess in the first place.

Over the years, Peterson's been a good ambassador for the Vikes and the league. If Ray Lewis could go on to be the same with the Ravens even after his legal issues, there's no reason Peterson can't do likewise.

On top of all that, the Vikes now have a golden opportunity to renegotiate Peterson's contract and retain him at a more manageable price.

Maybe I'm being completely naive but I see an opportunity for all of this to lead to something good for everyone involved and rather than disassociating themselves from Peterson, I think the Vikes should embrace the opportunity to help their star, themselves and the perhaps a lot of children who need it. They ta;k about family, about supporting their players, about doing the right thing... do it. Support someone who needs it and help him help others.

I fear Goodell and the Wilfs won't have the backbone to turn these lemons into lemonade.

[The Breeze]

I completely agree about the opportunity here. Well stated~

I also agree about the backbone stuff, unfortunately...and that was the general tone of my comment, really.

Maybe Peterson needs to lead here? He's been quiet for 8 weeks. Maybe it's time to put the bong down and get out there in the public eye and connect with some projects that raise awareness around this stuff.

Seems like everyone is a little tentative in terms of action.

[mondry]

I don't really like sounding off negatively..... but I must admit that I'm not very impressed with the ownership of this franchise when it comes to honesty and transparency. It seems to be a common thing about the NFL owners in general....the league and it's ambiguities. I miss the young Al Davis....and I enjoy guys like Mark Cuban who aren't so afraid of challenging the status quo. They are too few IMO.

Players are required to be commodities beyond the norm. While owners have Goodell to take the brunt of any clearly defined, constructive criticism.
That appears to be his main job..... Sheriff of NFLingham.

I understand that the Wilfs hands are considerably tied up with all of this due to sponsors strong arming. When it comes to who rules the roost, owners become ordinary pawns to some degree when it comes to sponsors. I just get that they, Wilfs, wouldn't even know what the "right" move was if there were no pressure on them either way. Money seems to be the bottom line. But it's easy for me to criticize when it's not my money or dilemma.

It's like they are waiting for the NFL to tell them how to value one of their players, when there seems to be a clear cut agreement about his reinstatement with the union...and it's not just any player for the Vikings. Regardless of what he did, he's done soooo much for this franchise. Loyalty goes beyond paychecks....

If they aren't going to at least speak up for him I don't know why they didn't cut him at the beginning of this....ohh wait, yes I do. They want maximum reward for the least amount of risk or effort. Cowardly. At the very least they owe it to him to be straight with him. That's assuming they haven't behind closed doors. Who knows?

All this stuff about fear of public backlash over the evil of AD is tragic considering the track record of the entity making the decisions on all of this.

bleh...my hippy roots are showing just some thoughts that cropped up after reading the various takes here and there.....

Yeah, I totally agree with you, but I try to put myself in the Wilfs shoes too. There are so many parties involved and there's no way to make all of them happy. You got the Sponsors making threats, you have Goodell's camp saying a suspension looms, you got the NFLPA making their statements. I don't like it either but if I'm the Wilfs it's much much safer to have the outcome determined by LAW rather than opinion. If the NFLPA fights and eventually gets Adrian on the field, they can say "well it's in his contract that we have to let him play" or if Goodell suspends him "well the commissioner suspended him, nothing we can do about it".

I'd love for them to come out and say "we want adrian on the field, we support him" but it's just such a risky move I can't really blame them for not taking it.

[mailman]

AD has been quiet for the last eight weeks because he was under judicial review. Any statment he made could be would be used by the prosecution in any trial or negotiation, and you know with the gottcha media they would lay all sorts of vebal land mines for him. Now he is under probation and stupid remarks could lead to incarceration.

[Mothman]

Yeah, I totally agree with you, but I try to put myself in the Wilfs shoes too. There are so many parties involved and there's no way to make all of them happy. You got the Sponsors making threats, you have Goodell's camp saying a suspension looms, you got the NFLPA making their statements. I don't like it either but if I'm the Wilfs it's much much safer to have the outcome determined by LAW rather than opinion. If the NFLPA fights and eventually gets Adrian on the field, they can say "well it's in his contract that we have to let him play" or if Goodell suspends him "well the commissioner suspended him, nothing we can do about it".

I'd love for them to come out and say "we want adrian on the field, we support him" but it's just such a risky move I can't really blame them for not taking it.

I wonder how risky it really is... almost any hit they would take from it would likely be a short-term hit (which, I suppose could still be costly) but this Star Tribune poll suggests that a vast majority of fans likely want Peterson back on the field:

http://www.startribune.com/polls/281481 ... 7&vote.y=9

Sponsors are mainly concerned with what the public thinks. If the majority of fans are behind a move, I doubt the Vikes would lose much, if anything, in the way of corporate sponsorship by supporting Peterson if they got out in front of this thing and helped him to help himself (and more importantly, others).

[Orion]

We love you Adrian!

-every Vikings fan

[The Breeze]

It's a tricky issue. There are all kinds of angles and points of views.

I'm not sure there is an actual calculable risk.....it's a murky...unknown risk . The lack of balls is depressing.

But again it's not my franchise.....easy for me to say I'd be different.

The Viking fanbase seems a bit nuanced to me....not so hardcore as some other institutions. But that's just an assumption. And it seems like a lot of people who aren't committed fans but are part of the community have a lot to say about it.

[Purpnation]

We love you Adrian!

-every Vikings fan

Speak for yourself, I would much prefer if our star player wasn't a child beating moron. We could be competing for a division title if he had been out there.

[Purpnation]

Just because you have a troll like opinion doesnt mean many others do. And way to over exaggate the situation. Does that give you warm fuzzies when you do that?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Yea, right. Who cares if a 300LB man beats 5 year olds with sticks, what troll job!