Mike Zimmer might be Vikings' best shot with Adrian Peterson By Ben Goessling
At this point, with Peterson still harboring concerns about returning to Minnesota following his suspension last season, Zimmer might be the man with the best shot to fix it.
The coach is prohibited from participating in meetings with players before the start of the Vikings' offseason workout program on April 20, and unless U.S. District Court Judge David Doty orders the NFL to reinstate Peterson sooner, the running back can't rejoin the league until at least April 15 anyway. But if Peterson is unsure who he can trust, and uneasy about whether people will be honest with him, Zimmer's words at least have the potential to cut through that.
"Coach Zimmer -- I love that guy, even though I only played one game for him," Peterson said on Thursday night. "Coach (Norv) Turner, Kirby (Wilson), the running backs coach, I have a lot of respect for those guys there. But it boils down to just my family and I being happy."
If Peterson decides he can't be happy in Minnesota -- and he still sounded unsure about that prospect on Thursday night -- he said he knows the Vikings won't force him to stay. Still, the team hasn't planned on cutting Peterson, and it seems unlikely they will give up without taking another shot to reconcile things at this point.
It would ultimately be Zimmer, Turner, and Wilson who Peterson deals with on a daily basis, not ownership or the front office. Perhaps Zimmer can, at the very least, convince Peterson to sign up for one year of holy terror on the field, prove to everyone what kind of player he still is and move on from there. Perhaps Peterson's concerns are too deep-seeded for that to work. But it's clear the coach earned Peterson's respect in their short time working together, and the Vikings should at least give Zimmer a chance to try.
Bottom line is he has been treated as well as anyone could have expected to have been treated given the situation. His family wants to stay in Texas? Fine. I literally just few from Dallas to MSP yesterday, took around 2 hours. Hell my mothers commute was that for a while when I was growing up.
Hes an entitled Manlet I used to love AP but I am really getting tired of his victim crap. He messed up. People hounded him over it, it has by and larged stopped. He is confusing two facedness with forgiveness. Its not that we didn't have your back then and now we do Peterson. We actively choose not to have your back because of what you did and you had EARN, in some eyes, a second chance. Figure out how the world works. No one betrayed you at all. You have a team that wants you back, a coach that wants you back, and by and large a fan base that wants you back.
IMHO this is sour grapes over someone realizing that the world revolves around them a bit less then they thought. Either he figures it out or I'll be fine with the Vikings cutting him for nothing.
The Breeze wrote:I feel the same way. Just play and go from there.
If he is seriously and determinedly discontent to the point of holding out and forcing an issue, which is what his tone might be suggesting....then trade him to the highest bidder and move on.
yezzir wrote:Adrian is a thick-headed dunce. I've heard subtle little side comments from media members that he is not the sharpest branch on the tree, but these comments to ESPN confirm it. He doesn't get it.
"Just having the time to sit back and clear my mind, this has really changed me mentally," he said. "My approach to things is going to be on a different level. With the things I've been through the last year, things definitely have more meaning. When I'm able to apply that when I'm working out and getting ready for something, it's always a great thing. It's always great when I'm able to put in great quality work. I'm ready to shock the world."
Lots of good points made in this thread, but the above quote is what gives me hope and that I choose to focus on. I believe he'll end up playing for us and I look forward to him fulfilling these words with deeds.
fiestavike wrote:
The Grand Jury never indicted him for child abuse, he was never tried for child abuse. This is the kind of sloppy and hyperbolic language that has riddled the entire episode and made it so dishonest and inflammatory.
No, he was indicted for injury to a child. Does that make it better? He pled to even less. Doesn't change the fact he struck his kid repeatedly with a stick that left marks a week later. What makes it dishonest and inflammatory is people playing semantic games to try and somehow make what he did sound better.
Texas Vike wrote:
Lots of good points made in this thread, but the above quote is what gives me hope and that I choose to focus on. I believe he'll end up playing for us and I look forward to him fulfilling these words with deeds.
Finally a sensible post. I just don't see the horrible words that others are in his quotes. It astounds me the reactions this is getting. Dan Barriero made me want to punch my car radio on the way home today. It is a gross overreaction to something that we don't have all of the facts and information on. We don't know the question asked. We don't know the tone in which the answers were given. We don't know if all of AD's words were printed. This is nothing more than a typical ESPN "reporter" trying to drum up some attention for himself.
The Devil whispered in the Viking's ear, "There's a storm coming." The Viking replied, "I am the storm." #SKOL2018
IrishViking wrote:Its a lucky thing that I am not in charge of the Vikings because if I was Peterson would play out the remainder of his contract on the bench. Not traded, not cut, not released or anything. He'd spend the rest of his contract sitting watching Asiata score touchdowns.
This guy has literally no idea what he is talking about anymore. I would say that this is posturing but its so poorly done I have to think that he just somehow managed to get past the child proof lock that his handler put on his door and found the phone. It must be so difficult to work with this man.
He gets that no one, NO ONE, is going to pay him 15 million right? Odds are no one will pay him 10 million. He wants to go to Texas fine but just be honest. It has nothing to do with what some Hipster posted on social media or how butthurt his wife got over people doing their jobs and covering sports news. Its because in his estimation Dallas has a better chance to win a superbowl next year. Period.
Which despite their great performance this year and even though I was pulling for them (Dallas) I feel that last years was an anomaly and not them finally gelling I see them getting 9 wins if they are lucky.
I'd say I hope he never gets a ring but if he stays with the Vikings that might not be the best route.
Seriously though. If I was in charge he would be the highest paid water boy in the league.
I wish you were my boss. "You're becoming a liability and I don't like your attitude. I'm definitely not going to fire you and let you be happy somewhere else, I'm just going to pay you more than everyone else to sit in the break room."
Demi wrote:
No, he was indicted for injury to a child. Does that make it better? He pled to even less. Doesn't change the fact he struck his kid repeatedly with a stick that left marks a week later. What makes it dishonest and inflammatory is people playing semantic games to try and somehow make what he did sound better.
Confusing moral distinctions with "semantic games" isn't very insightful.
I am not a defender of Peterson, but I am a defender of honest respectful discourse as well as moral clarity. I don't intend this to be an insult, but you consistently frame issues in a way that paints any alternate view as beyond the pale. Unfortunately this is the new norm in our national discourse
Obviously, the Grand Jury thought there was a distinction between child abuse and injury to a child. That distinction seems pretty obvious to me. Doesn't it seem evident to you that the same action can have different levels of moral culpability? Suppose a man is struck by a car and killed. In one case the driver was going way too fast or texting and driving, in the other he intended to kill the pedestrian and ran him down. The driver has culpability in either case but the moral gulf between the two acts is pretty distinct. To call the driver a "murderer" would only be appropriate in one of those two cases. Does this really elude you or are you simply trying, again, to paint a picture in which to disagree with you is to be "beyond the pale"?
chicagopurple wrote:not since he tore open a little boys scrotum.....some folks just dont find that respectable, but hey, to each their own.......
I'm not sure whether to point out the obvious dishonesty of this post or ask the more constructive question.
Do you think Peterson intended to injure his son's scrotum?
*edit, perhaps more important than seeking clarity on particulars of this issue is to highlight that false narrative created by chicagopurple here. "Agree with me, or you support tearing open boys scrotums". This is so disrespectful to the rest of us and just a completely dishonest framing of an argument. Its a cheap and intellectually lazy trick, and frankly, he should be embarrassed.
