Vikings Message Board.Com

chicagopurple wrote:ANY competent NFL QB would make a huge difference for this team. We have some really good receivers and the BEST RB in the league AND a kick-#### TE.....we just have crappy QB's and coaches that can't coach talent or rookies.

spot on

mondry wrote:Who cares! Out of wedlock, what is this the 1940's? Wilt Chamberlin has like 20 kids "out of wedlock" and he's still considered one of the greatest basketball players of all time lol.

As for the cowboys, they're already going to be something like 25 million over the cap next year which means they'll be cutting players, not trading the most expensive running back in the league... Maybe if they give us Demarcus Ware and Dez Bryant in the trade hahahahah.

I think it speaks to their character. I know my view of AD has changed. Esp. when he has more money then anyone can possibly spend. He knew for a few months (or so the story goes) about his kid that dies, he didn't bother to check out who the girl he banged was hanging out with, while talking care of his son? Treating women like conquests, and not even bothering to protect yourself, them or potential children is almost extremely selfish. But if it makes ya laugh, whatever.

AD isn't going to be traded. Not until he is almost worthless as a RB. Our idiots in charge have to figure out how to use him and the passing game. They haven't yet.

80 PurplePride 84 wrote: So because he apparently isn't aware of the existence of condoms it means he's not a nice/classy guy? As long as he supports and is a father to them I don't see the big deal. The kid who just died he was never told was his until recently.

He supported that kid that died well didn't he. But then he never knew about him right? Even though his wife was a gold digger and didn't want him to wear a condom?

What kind of man, that has a family, doesn't at least wear a condom if he is out banging chics? Hes a star in the NFL, people look up to him. I have bought 7 of his jerseys for family and friends, and my godson. I Wont be doing that again.

PurpleKoolaid wrote: I think it speaks to their character.

80 PurplePride 84 wrote: So because he apparently isn't aware of the existence of condoms it means he's not a nice/classy guy? As long as he supports and is a father to them I don't see the big deal. The kid who just died he was never told was his until recently.

Father to them? He cuts the mom a check and calls it a day. Guy talks high and mighty about his Christianity. Maybe he should read the good book a little closer...

And a father to them? Finds out about a kid, takes two months and the closest he gets to the kid is talking to the mom about...paying her off. Wow what a dad.

He's not a father to them at all. Hopefully they at least have a father in their lives...that doesn't beat them to death...

Lets get back on topic.

Welcome to the human race, folks. People are not perfect. I find self-righteousness distasteful, and if we expect our heroes to be perfect we are sure to be disappointed.

Back on topic, is there any question more fraught with gnashing of teeth than one that addresses trading the face of the franchise? Let's be honest, you may entertain thoughts of a wild deal, but you never trade a guy like that in his prime. It's beyond absurd, and truly brooks no argument. If they happen to be on the downside of their career, or coming off what could be a career ending injury? Maybe. But at the top of his form at the peak of his career. Not a chance.

Doing that would be a sure way to ensure that the Vikings would become a backwater like the Packers in the 70s and 80s. No, what they need to do is say, "Hey, we have the best RB in the league and we are committed to winning a Super Bowl with him, join us and win."

BGM wrote:Welcome to the human race, folks. People are not perfect. I find self-righteousness distasteful, and if we expect our heroes to be perfect we are sure to be disappointed.

Back on topic, is there any question more fraught with gnashing of teeth than one that addresses trading the face of the franchise? Let's be honest, you may entertain thoughts of a wild deal, but you never trade a guy like that in his prime. It's beyond absurd, and truly brooks no argument. If they happen to be on the downside of their career, or coming off what could be a career ending injury? Maybe. But at the top of his form at the peak of his career. Not a chance.

Doing that would be a sure way to ensure that the Vikings would become a backwater like the Packers in the 70s and 80s. No, what they need to do is say, "Hey, we have the best RB in the league and we are committed to winning a Super Bowl with him, join us and win."

But isn't this exactly what they did with Randy Moss? He was in his prime and they traded him. I'm not sure I see the difference?

akvikingsfan wrote: But isn't this exactly what they did with Randy Moss? He was in his prime and they traded him. I'm not sure I see the difference?

And look how well that turned out. Troy Williamson = Randy Moss NOT!

Just Me wrote: And look how well that turned out. Troy Williamson = Randy Moss NOT!

I'm not advocating for it at all. I was just pointing out that not only has it happened in the NFL before, but that this very franchise has done it. If they were to trade Peterson I would be highly upset. He's one of my top 5 all time favorite Vikings.

akvikingsfan wrote: But isn't this exactly what they did with Randy Moss? He was in his prime and they traded him. I'm not sure I see the difference?

Randy Moss was never the face of the franchise. And I am on record as opposing getting rid of him. Imagine what he could have accomplished with an elite QB. Oh wait, he set the record for TD catches with Tom Brady. He was a player around which you could have built, but people became bogged down with his personal life.

akvikingsfan wrote:
I'm not advocating for it at all. I was just pointing out that not only has it happened in the NFL before, but that this very franchise has done it. If they were to trade Peterson I would be highly upset. He's one of my top 5 all time favorite Vikings.

Sure. And it is a TERRIBLE idea. Period.

akvikingsfan wrote:I'm not advocating for it at all. I was just pointing out that not only has it happened in the NFL before, but that this very franchise has done it. If they were to trade Peterson I would be highly upset. He's one of my top 5 all time favorite Vikings.

I don't think they will because of the final result from the Moss trade. (The same reason teams won't do another 'Herschel Walker' deal - because of the result). I think this is a 'fabricated' controversy. It's not going to happen...

80 PurplePride 84 wrote: I disagree. Who would you have considered the face of the franchise from 98-04 then? Culpepper is the only other choice and Moss was definitely more popular then him.

It was Culpepper (at least in the coaches eyes). IIRC part of the reason they traded Moss was because of Culpepper. Then Childress came in and basically had a conflict with Culpepper and Pepp was dealt away. FWIW I'd have rather kept Moss and lost Culpepper (which ended up happening within a year anyway).

Another reason we wouldn't get anything close to what we have into AD is, he is not a complete back. He is a bad receiver and about the worst blocking RB I have ever seen.