Vikings Message Board.Com

dead_poet wrote:That's the question. Probably comes down to $$, as it usually does.

I wonder...

I've reached the point where I'm not convinced that's even a big concern for the Vikings this year. With the cap going up, a decent amount of cap room and other, logical ways of creating more, they appear more than capable of carrying Peterson's contract "as is" in 2015 and worrying about restructuring it (or moving on) in 2016. They were willing to pay Allen more just a year ago so they've established a willingness to pay big money like that for a player they value. The press has been hammering away at us with information about the devaluation of RBs in the NFL, the top salaries of RBs, etc. for years now and it seems like there's an underlying assumption that Peterson's contract is prohibitive but we have no idea if the Vikings see it that way. I guess we'll know soon enough...

Mothman wrote:I've reached the point where I'm not convinced that's even a big concern for the Vikings this year. With the cap going up, a decent amount of cap room and other, logical ways of creating more, they appear more than capable of carrying Peterson's contract "as is" in 2015 and worrying about restructuring it (or moving on) in 2016. They were willing to pay Allen more just a year ago so they've established a willingness to pay big money like that for a player they value. The press has been hammering away at us with information about the devaluation of RBs in the NFL, the top salaries of RBs, etc. for years now and it seems like there's an underlying assumption that Peterson's contract is prohibitive but we have no idea if the Vikings see it that way. I guess we'll know soon enough...

I agree. I think they may approach him about some kind of re-structure, but ultimately he probably plays under his current contract. Jared Allen is a good example of how they operate. It's honestly a nod to Brzezinski for consistently keeping the team in a great position, cap-wise.

dead_poet wrote: I agree. I think they may approach him about some kind of re-structure, but ultimately he probably plays under his current contract. Jared Allen is a good example of how they operate. It's honestly a nod to Brzezinski for consistently keeping the team in a great position, cap-wise.

Yes, Brzezinski does a great job at that year after year. No question about it.

Aside from money, what happens if a better team makes some noise about AD? I wonder how important playing on a team that might get him a SB ring is to Peterson, even if it isn't the Vikings? I know that's been discussed but I can't get it off my mind.

As I've said before, I wish this entire process was over.

I'm very glad to see the Vikings finally deciding to back up Peterson publicly.

losperros wrote:Yes, Brzezinski does a great job at that year after year. No question about it.

Aside from money, what happens if a better team makes some noise about AD? I wonder how important playing on a team that might get him a SB ring is to Peterson, even if it isn't the Vikings? I know that's been discussed but I can't get it off my mind.

As I've said before, I wish this entire process was over.

I do too.

As for another team "making noise"... the tampering rules are supposed to prevent that sort of thing, although there are probably ways around them. Peterson IS under contract so unless he'd be willing to hold out and demand a trade (which seems unlikely to me, all things considered) I don't think that's a big worry right now.

That "legal tampering week" before free agency only applies to free agents, but I'm sure that Tom Condon could get a call about Cobb or Maclin or Ponder (just to name a few clients) and Peterson could come up in the discussion.

losperros wrote:
Good point. Then again, Harvin wanted out. Does Peterson?

I think most of the noise we've heard regarding AD wanting out has been centered around his contract. He doesn't strike me as the headcase that Harvin turned out to be. Plus, there's nothing about the Vikings specifically that contributed to AD's situation, and thus nothing he could run from in Minnesota that wouldn't just follow him wherever he went. So as long as the Vikings pay him I doubt he'd go anywhere else or even want to go anywhere else.

Assuming the Vikings don't draft a RB high, I think it's likely Spielman will just pay him and see what happens. There are the more remote possibilities that AD will be cut outright (would have already happened if the Vikings wanted to part ways with him), or that he is traded (unlikely due to the current contract that would likely need to be renegotiated prior to the trade). There is also the message the Vikings and the Wilfs would be sending to other potential free agent signings and players negotiating extensions - the Vikings stand by their contracts and their players. That could be a deciding factor for some players if they are weighing multiple options during free agency.

I honestly don't think what AD wants or what the Vikings want here is actually the biggest potential issue. I see the biggest potential issue being the league reinstating him. They reinstated Ray Rice within weeks of banning him, but AD remained banned all year and is still banned. The league obviously feels it's on pretty solid ground with this situation, and I'd say if Goodell doesn't feel AD has done his penance and is genuinely remorseful for what he did, there is a good chance AD won't be reinstated in April. The fact that the decision rests in the hands of pretty much one person is disturbing indeed, as even if AD has done everything asked of him, I could still see Goodell reinterpreting the rules to suit his tastes and/or the public image he wants to convey regarding domestic violence issues.

I was surprised when AD wasn't reinstated last time, but I would be SHOCKED if he's not reinstated this time. I just don't think the public support would be with the NFL; it was very tenuous last time.

DKSweets wrote:I was surprised when AD wasn't reinstated last time, but I would be SHOCKED if he's not reinstated this time. I just don't think the public support would be with the NFL; it was very tenuous last time.

He shouldn't have to be reinstated at all. When was the last time a player had a 6 game suspension and had to be reinstated?


Hint: Never.

I was reading on another forum and came across someone who was in the courtroom during the Peterson hearing. Something he brought up which I have not heard before anywhere in the press is very interesting to me. And maybe the NFL hung themselves with it. Maybe not. I don't normally quote from other forums but I found this to be to interesting to pass up.

Maybe the kicker from the entire case came in the NFLPA’s 10 minute rebuttal period when Mr. Kessler pulled out an invitation from the league for the NFLPA to join them on December 16th for a conversation to amend the current CBA with the new domestic abuse policy. What’s peculiar about this, Peterson’s “retroactive” punishment came down the pipe from the league on the evening of December 12th, 2014. That’s four whole days after the league had already punished based on the pretense of the new policy. That’s not even to mention that Goodell announced the new policy for the first time on August 28th, months after the awful situation between Peterson and his 4-year old son took place.

http://vikingsjournal.com/topic/1356-ar ... s-hearing/

So, 4 days after suspending Peterson under the "New" policy they invite the Union to discussions to put the "New" policy into the CBA. Essentially admitting that the "New" policy is not part of the CBA.

Don't get me wrong Peterson is incredible, but I am starting to really have doubts that he can stay out of trouble and drama

In the last few years there just seems to be more and more, bad things surrounding him.

Not of of these things have been his fault but there just seems to be an ever increasing amount of
bad decisions on all those around him....

Raptorman, that is a fascinating piece of information.

jackal, I think that's really unfair. Adrian can only control himself, not others. If you're basing your opinion based on his two arrests, I will probably disagree but I can at least understand why you think that way. But to base your opinion of him off of actions of others is not indicative of the decisions he will make moving forward.

Raptorman wrote:I was reading on another forum and came across someone who was in the courtroom during the Peterson hearing. Something he brought up which I have not heard before anywhere in the press is very interesting to me. And maybe the NFL hung themselves with it. Maybe not. I don't normally quote from other forums but I found this to be to interesting to pass up.
http://vikingsjournal.com/topic/1356-ar ... s-hearing/

So, 4 days after suspending Peterson under the "New" policy they invite the Union to discussions to put the "New" policy into the CBA. Essentially admitting that the "New" policy is not part of the CBA.

Overheard on Twitter..

Teddy Bridgewater @teddyb_h2o
April 15th..

Boom!

frosted wrote:Overheard on Twitter..
Boom!

I don't get it.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk