Vikings Message Board.Com

Mothman wrote: I think it matches quite well with someone who doesn't see himself as a child-abusing monster but as a caring parent who went way overboard one time while disciplining his child and sincerely regrets it. To an awful lot of people, that one action defines Peterson but quite naturally, he doesn't see it that way. To me, the reaction you referred to above has always struck me as that of someone who sees himself as a caring parent who made a huge mistake and is hurt that people not only didn't give him the benefit of the doubt about that but eagerly believed what he claims were misrepresentations or outright falsehoods about him in the press.

Best paragraph I've read on this whole situation.

Mothman wrote: Does when he sought counseling matter that much anyway? He has been receiving counseling and has supposedly been making progress with it, which seems like the important thing to me.

Before I go any further I want to clarify that I don't have much of an opinion on which is reality (if he's actually remorseful or not) because we won't ever know for sure ... only that I can see each side. It's understandable that people think he's full of crap, and it's understandable why people want to give him the benefit of the doubt. That said ...

Him not seeking counseling earlier could demonstrate that he didn't actually think he had a problem until it started getting so much attention he was forced to show visible remorse. The abuse took place in May ... 5 months and a ridiculous amount of media attention later he decided he needed to seek parenting help? It could certainly seem like a forced decision.

I don't think anything he's said suggests he fails to understand the reason for the reaction. I got the impression he was just disappointed by the reaction. Of course, people were obviously disappointed with him too (an understatement).

I worded that poorly. I agree that Peterson understands why they were upset with him, but that kind of makes it worse that he turns it around on the people of Minnesota. He's the one who messed up, but it's the people of Minnesota who are to blame for being so upset about it, somehow.

I think it matches quite well with someone who doesn't see himself as a child-abusing monster but as a caring parent who went way overboard one time while disciplining his child and sincerely regrets it. To an awful lot of people, that one action defines Peterson but quite naturally, he doesn't see it that way. To me, the reaction you referred to above has always struck me as that of someone who sees himself as a caring parent who made a huge mistake and is hurt that people not only didn't give him the benefit of the doubt about that but eagerly believed what he claims were misrepresentations or outright falsehoods about him in the press.

I didn't feel like people were eager to believe the claims. Actually I think it's the opposite when this first became public knowledge. Or at least people on this board. If memory serves most here were in the 'lets actually wait and see what actually happened ... " camp. Of course shortly after that the images came out.

I think once the pictures came out it changed people's opinion drastically. The benefit of the doubt was over. At that point the image of the hulk-like Peterson beating a small child takes over in the minds of many ... but that's still his own fault. It's not the people of Minnesota's fault that he tarnished his image.

I'm sure he doesn't see him self as a child-abusing monster but if other people do, who's fault is that?

Sure it's easy and it's obvious that people are going to draw whatever conclusions they want no matter what he does. A thousand tearful apologies on television and contributions to charity won't change that. If people choose to believe he's insincere, they'll just see all of it as an act. If people refuse to believe Peterson is sincere, there's also no way for him to demonstrate that, as Kluwe put it, " he understands he did something wrong and that he wants to work to change that". It's not as if he can take his actions back. However, he's been in counseling, he's "said the words" that he regrets what happened, he's repeatedly expressed his love for his son, the boy's mother has allowed him to see his son again and it appears (to me anyway) that Peterson genuinely wants to be a part of his child's life. I don't see anything to contradict the idea that he means what he's been saying and because he's been saying it, and taking other action, I think it's wrong for Kluwe to perpetuate the idea that it's not happening.

I agree with you, people who have made up their minds are probably stuck there. This comes back to why I think the timeline is important. After a person has been forced to take action it's too late for most in the arena of public opinion. It's like a person in jail showing remorse. They may very well regret what they did beyond getting caught, but what will people think/say? "Well of course they regret it now, they've been caught and are in the middle of experiencing the negative repercussions".

It could be that Peterson is really sorry for his actions and not just the fact that they've been made this public ... but in the end, nobody can know for sure and with issues like that there will always be two sides disagreeing about which they think is more likely.

Media sensationalism is also a problem that skews views. Most people aren't following the case as closely as many on this board and what do they see? Headlines and images, roughly in this order;

Peterson May Have Abused Son
Peterson Abused Son and Here's the Pictures
Peterson on Exempt list
Peterson Likely Won't Play Anymore This Season
Peterson rides camel into Arabian-themed birthday party

The Ray Rice incident happening right before didn't help either. The Peterson case makes it look like a pattern while it's still fresh on everyone's mind. Yet another case of an NFL player being involved in violence against someone weaker than themselves. It makes it look like NFL players are just a bunch of out of control testosterone driven jerks.

Speaking of Ray Rice, the same could be said for him. Sure, he might sincerely regret punching his (now wife) in the face. He's said as much. I think he's in counseling too ... but people just can't un-see the video. I wonder how much worse it would be if there were actually video of Peterson punishing his son rather than just the images of the aftermath.

Mothman wrote: It doesn't seem fair to me at all because he's perpetuating this idea:

Exactly right Jim and as I said he needs to keep his "pie hole shut"

Cliff wrote:I go any further I want to clarify that I don't have much of an opinion on which is reality (if he's actually remorseful or not) because we won't ever know for sure ... only that I can see each side. It's understandable that people think he's full of crap, and it's understandable why people want to give him the benefit of the doubt. That said ...

Understood.

Him not seeking counseling earlier could demonstrate that he didn't actually think he had a problem until it started getting so much attention he was forced to show visible remorse. The abuse took place in May ... 5 months and a ridiculous amount of media attention later he decided he needed to seek parenting help? It could certainly seem like a forced decision.

We don't know when he sought help. As I said, he stated in September that he had met with a psychologist but he didn't say he met with the psychologist in September. He might have met with that person earlier, during the summer, perhaps even more than once. It's not clear so I think we should be cautious about judging him based on when he sought parenting help, since we don't really have that information (and meeting with a psychologist isn't the only way to seek such help). Isn't actually seeking the help more important than precisely when he may have realized he needed it?

What we do know is that he sought help months before the league insisted on it in November.

I worded that poorly. I agree that Peterson understands why they were upset with him, but that kind of makes it worse that he turns it around on the people of Minnesota. He's the one who messed up, but it's the people of Minnesota who are to blame for being so upset about it, somehow.

He hasn't deflected blame or responsibility for his actions. He's the one who messed up but does that fact render every reaction, no matter how extreme or emotional or personal, just fine or couldn't others have messed up as well? Somehow, discussions of this subject always end up back at that original bottom line of "he messed up" and while I understand why, and I understand that 'messed up" is a pretty mild way to characterize what happened, I don't see that initial fact as something that overrides everything else. Personally, I feel the entire "Peterson vs. the People of Minnesota" aspect of things has been blown out of proportion. As I've pointed out before, in the same interview in which he made the comments that so upset Minnesotans, he also stated that he loved the state and would love to return to the Vikings for the fans. I thought it was pretty clear within the context of the interview that he wasn't painting with a broad brush and condemning the reactions of everybody in the state but that he was primarily upset with people in the Minnesota media.

I didn't feel like people were eager to believe the claims. Actually I think it's the opposite when this first became public knowledge. Or at least people on this board. If memory serves most here were in the 'lets actually wait and see what actually happened ... " camp. Of course shortly after that the images came out.

I think once the pictures came out it changed people's opinion drastically. The benefit of the doubt was over. At that point the image of the hulk-like Peterson beating a small child takes over in the minds of many ... but that's still his own fault. It's not the people of Minnesota's fault that he tarnished his image.

Nobody is claiming the people of Minnesota tarnished his image. Everyone, including Peterson himself, seems crystal clear on the catalyst for all of this and I'm not aware of Peterson ever doing anything but taking personal responsibility for it. He reportedly did so with the police and he certainly hasn't tried to shift blame for his actions onto anyone else since then.

When I wrote about people being eager to believe, I wasn't talking about the initial allegations, I was talking about the sloppy, unsubstantiated material the Star Tribune published about him, which I think was clearly a big part of what he was talking about when he referred to people in Minnesota digging stuff up and kicking him when he was down. Since the initial allegations, people have bought into false or unsubstantiated reports of Peterson stuffing leaves in his child's mouth, abusing his charity's credit card, smoking weed before a drug test, etc, despite the absence of any real supporting evidence.

I agree with you, people who have made up their minds are probably stuck there. This comes back to why I think the timeline is important. After a person has been forced to take action it's too late for most in the arena of public opinion. It's like a person in jail showing remorse. They may very well regret what they did beyond getting caught, but what will people think/say? "Well of course they regret it now, they've been caught and are in the middle of experiencing the negative repercussions".

It could be that Peterson is really sorry for his actions and not just the fact that they've been made this public ... but in the end, nobody can know for sure and with issues like that there will always be two sides disagreeing about which they think is more likely.

Yes, nobody can know for sure but remember, the catalyst for this discussion today was Kluwe's comments and whether people choose to believe Peterson is sincere or not, I think it's irresponsible for someone like Kluwe to make a statement to the media that Peterson still "needs to show that he understands he did something wrong and that he wants to work to change that " when, in fact, those steps were already taken months ago.

Speaking of Ray Rice, the same could be said for him. Sure, he might sincerely regret punching his (now wife) in the face. He's said as much. I think he's in counseling too ... but people just can't un-see the video. I wonder how much worse it would be if there were actually video of Peterson punishing his son rather than just the images of the aftermath.

I think we both know it would be much worse.

fiestavike wrote: Best paragraph I've read on this whole situation.

Thank you.

dead_poet wrote: My vote? Keep him.

Hell no.

Given our track record of 'stellar' 2nd round picks over the years, I would never even consider that trade. Outside of Kyle Rudolph and Sidney Rice, (maybe, just maybe Cedric Griffin), our history in the 2nd round has been horrible. That is why I have been so thankful that we have not had to draft in the 2nd round since 2011.

HardcoreVikesFan wrote: Hell no.

Given our track record of 'stellar' 2nd round picks over the years, I would never even consider that trade. Outside of Kyle Rudolph and Sidney Rice, (maybe, just maybe Cedric Griffin), our history in the 2nd round has been horrible. That is why I have been so thankful that we have not had to draft in the 2nd round since 2011.

I wouldn't necessarily say the second round is skewed horribly out of our favor, though I'll admit there aren't a lot of tremendous "hits" as of late. As you mentioned, Rudolph, Griffen Rice and don't forget Loadholt are recent examples. E.J. Henderson was a second rounder as well. It'd be an interesting exercise to go back and see organizational "hit rates" of second rounders to see how the Vikings stack up to the mean.

But getting back on topic, I don't trade Peterson for a low second-rounder. But that's just me.

lol a late second rounder isn't even worth talking about. A late 1st rounder barely does it for me, I'd still want a 3rd added in either this year or next.

Basically any AD trade has to net a high enough pick to get Gurley or Gordon.

dead_poet wrote:
I wouldn't necessarily say the second round is skewed horribly out of our favor, though I'll admit there aren't a lot of tremendous "hits" as of late. As you mentioned, Rudolph, Griffen Rice and don't forget Loadholt are recent examples. E.J. Henderson was a second rounder as well. It'd be an interesting exercise to go back and see organizational "hit rates" of second rounders to see how the Vikings stack up to the mean.

But getting back on topic, I don't trade Peterson for a low second-rounder. But that's just me.

I forgot Loadholt. E.J. too, but I was more focused on recent history. I was hoping to never mention his name again, but, who could forget all-pro Tyrell Johnson? Chris Cook? Toby Gerhart? Ryan Cook? Marcus Johnson? Dontarious Thomas?

Ok. I will stop now. Too much wall banging. Lol.

everything in this situation is in the favor of the Vikings. There is a valid contract in place. They are paying a kings ransom, so he cant cry poor by any means. The team has done no wrong and if anything they were very generous to pay him a years wages to sit at home. Unless they get a GREAT offer, they have no reason to let him go elsewhere. Of Course, in APs eyes, HE will be the victim here....narcissism at its finest.
By the way, in so so many of the child abuse cases I have had to deal with, the perp virtually always claims they are just misunderstood, or it was the first time it every happened and was "just a mistake". Rarely, does one "man up" and admit they have a problem. Moreover, just like sexual predators, they never ever stop.

Anyone watch the interviews on Vikings.com? It's the first day media has access to the players and a few of them already wanted no part of Peterson talk. The others just went with the usual "we want Adrian back" comments. The longer this drags on, the more annoyed/angry they're going to get when they constantly get asked about it.

I haven't watched only read beat guys' reports and posts. None so far have mentioned talking to any Vikings player that DOESN'T want AD back, so if that's true that's news to me. Who said it?

Watch Everson's interview. He wanted nothing to do with those questions.

What player wouldnt want a monster RB on their team?...I guess the only guys who would like to see him leave are the current replacement RB's who would not see the ball much if and when he returns.

I would try to get the honey badger from them and their 2nd rounder lol. Imagine a starting secondary of Smith, Matthieu, Rhodes and Waynes should they grab him at 11