Vikings Message Board.Com

VikingLord wrote: This sums it up.

I think the NFL is extremely unlikely to reinstate Peterson this season. It's taken way too many recent black eyes and the last thing the NFL can afford is even the suggestion that it doesn't take these things seriously.

And even if the league were to OK it, the Wilfs and the Vikings would then have to weigh the local impact and whether they could survive any backlash that might come from sponsors and local media. While a lot of hardcore Vikings fans might find a way to be OK with AD back on the field, a lot of other people less focused on the team might not care to see that, and they could create a lot of negative noise about it.

So I just don't see it, not from the league or the Vikings, at least not this year.

And quite honestly, that might not be such a bad thing for the long-term development of the offense. Look at it this way - without AD back there as a tackle-breaking crutch, the offensive line has to learn how to functionally pass block as a unit. Bridgewater has to learn how to play the role of an actual pro QB versus a guy who hands it off to AD and looks for "safe" short and medium routes in the passing game. And the team has to find a way to create more big plays the way most pro offenses have to do it - via the pass, so this forces the offense to evolve and the players within it to become more well-rounded and capable of doing it over the longer term.

If AD does sit the rest of this season and the Vikings continue to win, he's almost certainly never going to suit up in Purple again unless he's willing to take a massive pay cut. I don't know if Goodell will factor that into his decision or not (my guess is not), but that fact is likely to be the only reason the Wilfs might attempt to brave the storm of public criticism and put AD back on the field if the NFL clears him. They are still paying him, and this would be a tragic end to an otherwise great career as a Viking.

denburch wrote: I honestly don't think the NFLPA will sit still for them not re-activating Peterson this season. When it comes down to it, he has missed 8 games for a misdemeanor. I think "taking your time" on the decision is a good PR move, but I would be very surprised if he doesn't return this year.

VikingLord wrote:Look at it this way - without AD back there as a tackle-breaking crutch

the offensive line has to learn how to functionally pass block as a unit.

Bridgewater has to learn how to play the role of an actual pro QB versus a guy who hands it off to AD and looks for "safe" short and medium routes in the passing game.

And the team has to find a way to create more big plays the way most pro offenses have to do it - via the pass,

so this forces the offense to evolve and the players within it to become more well-rounded and capable of doing it over the longer term.

@TomPelissero -- NFL has informed Adrian Peterson his case will be reviewed for discipline and he has opportunity for a hearing before it's handed down.

@AdamSchefter -- It is "highly unlikely" that anything with Adrian Peterson will be resolved until next week, at the earliest, per sources.

dead_poet wrote:

chicagopurple wrote:dont bet on any public opinion swaying in favor of a nearly 300 lb man who tore open a 5 year old boys scrotum, There arent that many fools in America...yet.

dead_poet wrote:NFL.com's Ian Rapoport reports Adrian Peterson's paid leave is "not considered discipline" by the NFL, and that a suspension "looms."

chicagopurple wrote:dont bet on any public opinion swaying in favor of a nearly 300 lb man who tore open a 5 year old boys scrotum, There arent that many fools in America...yet.

PacificNorseWest wrote: Kinda dumb. Not playing is not playing. I get if they want to fine him for game checks received during his time out, but tacking on more games is poor.

Yes, I'm bitter.

PacificNorseWest wrote: Kinda dumb. Not playing is not playing. I get if they want to fine him for game checks received during his time out, but tacking on more games is poor.

Yes, I'm bitter.