Vikings Message Board.Com

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.

Mothman wrote:He seems conflicted about the Vikings and that's probably because, according to reports, there was conflict within the Vikings about him.

Perhaps. But it sounds like it was a small majority of people (maybe just one executive). Does he really feel as though he requires complete, 100% organizational support after what he did? Does he not understand or not care the position he put the team in? I love the guy as a player as much as anyone, but focusing on a minority of the organization that may have been looking out for the best case for the franchise (probably more in line with the guy's job description) rather than his own just seems a tad uneducated and a bit petty.

The team just promoted Kevin Warren to COO and according to a report Adam Schefter made last November, Warren was working with the NFL to ensure that Peterson wouldn't be able to play last season. In other words, a highly placed and recently promoted member of the Vikings organization was working to keep him from playing for the team at the same time he and the NFLPA were trying to get him back on the field to play for them. I don't think it's difficult to understand why that might not sit well with Peterson and it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that it wouldn't sit well.

I get that, but I'd like to know more details on this. Just how was he working against him? Was he doing so because he was required by the league? What would've been the consequences for not cooperating? Maybe Warren himself was coerced into placing Peterson on the list (perhaps he was led astray when he thought it would be quite temporary and not at the discretion of Goodell as we/Peterson has been led to believe) when he thought it could be a middle-ground solution from suspending/cutting AD and letting him play.

From a business perspective, the stance he is taking may be a good way to ensure that if he plays for the Vikings in 2015, he'll be doing so under the terms of his current deal.

Yep. And if he's concerned, financially, (if he truly lost all of his sponsorships), he probably has several million reasons for not wanting to take any less.

There's a lot of unknown and unknowable in the whole situation, but publicly, there was very little support voiced for Peterson by the organization between the Radisson fiasco and a couple weeks ago. If nothing more was being said to him behind the scenes and he was receiving no assurances of support, I think its very easy to see how he would feel like he was left twisting in the breeze.

Meanwhile the press and public reaction to Peterson's actions were pretty unfair. Nobody likes being called a child abuser. Its easy to see why he wouldn't be comfortable raising his family in Minnesota at this point.

dead_poet wrote:Perhaps. But it sounds like it was a small majority of people (maybe just one executive). Does he really feel as though he requires complete, 100% organizational support after what he did? Does he not understand or not care the position he put the team in? I love the guy as a player as much as anyone, but focusing on a minority of the organization that may have been looking out for the best case for the franchise (probably more in line with the guy's job description) rather than his own just seems a tad uneducated and a bit petty

Well, if I remember correctly, he hasn't said he's unwilling to overlook it or move past it, just that he's conflicted, which seems very understandable, especially since Warren was just promoted to an even more significant position within the organization. I'm not going to call it petty because I don't know the whole story, if promises were made, friendships broken, etc.

I just don't feel informed enough to pass judgment.

I get that, but I'd like to know more details on this. Just how was he working against him? Was he doing so because he was required by the league? What would've been the consequences for not cooperating? Maybe Warren himself was coerced into placing Peterson on the list (perhaps he was led astray when he thought it would be quite temporary and not at the discretion of Goodell as we/Peterson has been led to believe) when he thought it could be a middle-ground solution from suspending/cutting AD and letting him play.

I'd like more details too but just to be clear, Schefter's report that Warren was working to keep Peterson off the field was released in late November, long after Peterson had been placed on the exempt list. I don't think the issue was that Warren helped get Peterson on the list. I think it was that he was working to keep him off the field for the remainder of the season after Peterson was placed on the list. In other words, his actions were in conflict with what Peterson and the NFLPA were trying to accomplish after Peterson's legal case had been resolved.

I'd speculate that, as the team's general counsel, Warren was probably trying to keep Peterson off the field for legal and PR reasons. The fact that he was just promoted suggests that his actions weren't exactly objectionable to ownership so that may be part of Peterson's issue as well. If I'm not mistaken, we haven't heard a peep from Zygi about this since Peterson was deactivated in September. We've heard from Mark Wilf but not Zygi.

It's clear that Peterson has some serious trust issues with someone highly placed in the organization and I wonder if it might be Zygi.

Yep. And if he's concerned, financially, (if he truly lost all of his sponsorships), he probably has several million reasons for not wanting to take any less.

Exactly.

Mothman wrote:Well, if I remember correctly, he hasn't said he's unwilling to overlook it or move past it, just that he's conflicted, which seems very understandable, especially since Warren was just promoted to an even more significant position within the organization. I'm not going to call it petty because I don't know the whole story, if promises were made, friendships broken, etc.

I just don't feel informed enough to pass judgment.

Me either. I'm also wondering how much Peterson knows, to be honest. And misinformation and lack of information are historically not great for people when trying to form educated opinions or make decisions. But, as this is a message board, just try and stop us!

I'd like more details too but just to be clear, Schefter's report that Warren was working to keep Peterson off the field was released in late November, long after Peterson had been placed on the exempt list.

Is there an actual report or was this a blurb or Tweet from Schefter? If it's a report, I'd like to read it.

I don't think the issue was that Warren helped get Peterson on the list. I think it was that he was working to keep him off the field for the remainder of the season after Peterson was placed on the list.

How?

I'd speculate that, as the team's general counsel, Warren was probably trying to keep Peterson off the field for legal and PR reasons. The fact that he was just promoted suggests that his actions weren't exactly objectionable to ownership so that may be part of Peterson's issue as well.

So it's pretty clear Warren is the guy, right? Or are we speculating on that at this point, too?

If I'm not mistaken, we haven't heard a peep from Zygi about this since Peterson was deactivated in September. We've heard from Mark Wilf but not Zygi.

I think that's right. This was written in September and may be where some of the tension rests (though, again, the Vikings' hands were pretty tied here, weren't they?): http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300000 ... t-decision

Admitting that he "made a mistake" by not acting sooner, Minnesota Vikings owner Zygi Wilf told reporters Wednesday that deactivating Adrian Peterson was the "right decision" after the star running back was indicted Friday on a charge of reckless or negligent injury to a child.

While we haven't yet heard from Zygi, it would seem to be a strange thing for Mark to come out and show his support (and, really, start engaging in this "We love Adrian Peterson and want him back" media initiative at all organizational levels) if Zygi didn't agree with it. Of course, perhaps what Peterson did really, really affected Zygi (though one would wonder, then, why he wasn't deactivated/suspended immediately). Given this, my thoughts are the organization as a whole (Zygi included) probably supports him playing again in Purple.

Edit: See here: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... e-vikings/

I think our organization and individuals in our organization from Zygi Wilf to Mark Wilf to coach [Mike Zimmer] to [G.M.] Rick Spielman all have made it very clear that they all would welcome Adrian back once he gets all the open items resolved with the league, and I feel the exact same way,” Warren said.

I'd find it even harder to believe Warren would be talking for Zygi unless Zygi has made clear his opinion on the matter.

I also found this: http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11924 ... reinstated

"I think Adrian wants to be back here," Zimmer told ESPN. "You have to ask him. I don't know. But I know he does have an awful lot of people here who have supported him, and I don't know who he's speaking of who doesn't.

"All I know of Adrian is that he's always been great with me, always done what I've asked him to do, and I kind of go by what I see."

Sources told ESPN that the Vikings ownership -- along with general manager Rick Spielman -- have been heavily involved in effort to have him play this season, an indication they may take him back when reinstated.

dead_poet wrote:Is there an actual report or was this a blurb or Tweet from Schefter? If it's a report, I'd like to read it.

It was something in-between all of those things: a Facebook post (so I guess it's a blurb?)

https://www.facebook.com/AdamSchefter/p ... 9877537988

How?

Good question. I have no idea.

So it's pretty clear Warren is the guy, right? Or are we speculating on that at this point, too?

The only report I'm aware of that points directly to Warren is Schefter's Facebook "report" above so it's entirely possible that he isn't the guy at all.

I think that's right. This was written in September and may be where some of the tension rests (though, again, the Vikings' hands were pretty tied here, weren't they?): http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300000 ... t-decision

In terms of public opinion, sponsorship, league wishes, etc., I'd say yes. On the other hand, just a few days earlier they said this:

http://www.breitbart.com/sports/2014/09 ... nday-game/

Owners Zygi and Mark Wilf contend that “this is a matter of due process and we should allow the legal system to proceed so we can come to the most effective conclusions and then determine the appropriate course of action. This is a difficult path to navigate, and our focus is on doing the right thing. Currently we believe we are at a juncture where the most appropriate next step is to allow the judicial process to move forward. We will continue to monitor the situation closely and support Adrian’s fulfillment of his legal responsibilities throughout this process.”

If that's what they said publicly you have to wonder what, if anything was said privately. Did they assure Peterson they would stand behind him and take the approach they outline above only to buckle a few days later and reverse course? I have no idea but if so, that may be where the trust issue lies.

While we haven't yet heard from Zygi, it would seem to be a strange thing for Mark to come out and show his support (and, really, start engaging in this "We love Adrian Peterson and want him back" media initiative at all organizational levels) if Zygi didn't agree with it. Of course, perhaps what Peterson did really, really affected Zygi (though one would wonder, then, why he wasn't deactivated/suspended immediately). Given this, my thoughts are the organization as a whole (Zygi included) probably supports him playing again in Purple.

They probably do but perhaps Zygi's support is reluctant and he's going along with the wishes of Mark, Spielman, Zimmer, etc. I don't know. That's pure speculation and it could be wildly off target but Peterson clearly mistrusts someone well-paced in the organization. I agree that would be odd for Zygi to allow Warren to speak for him if he wasn't on board with what was being said but his silence is conspicuous.

dead_poet wrote:I also found this: http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11924 ... reinstated

Interesting. Thanks!

Who knows what the heck is going on? Maybe it's all just a negotiating tactic. Hopefully, someone like Tom Pelissero will eventually shed some light on it.

Mothman wrote: Who knows what the heck is going on? Maybe it's all just a negotiating tactic. Hopefully, someone like Tom Pelissero will eventually shed some light on it.

I'd even take something from Sid Hartman. He has good sources too. I think his comments are being blown out of proportion quite frankly. He hasn't really said anything different than in months prior, it just happens that a more indepth article was written about it.

PurpleMustReign wrote: I'd even take something from Sid Hartman. He has good sources too. I think his comments are being blown out of proportion quite frankly. He hasn't really said anything different than in months prior, it just happens that a more indepth article was written about it.

I agree.

Mothman wrote:I just don't feel informed enough to pass judgment.

Sums it up for me right now.



Weird thing is, wouldn't an interview with Adrian Peterson be a big event? I would think it would be on 20/20 or a special with Barbara Walters. Instead it's a couple of quotes (from who knows when) in a small article by Goessling.

Sigh


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

808vikingsfan wrote: Sums it up for me right now.



Weird thing is, wouldn't an interview with Adrian Peterson be a big event? I would think it would be on 20/20 or a special with Barbara Walters. Instead it's a couple of quotes (from who knows when) in a small article by Goessling.

Its news because over the last few weeks we have gotten a steady stream of positive news from the Vikings about their view on AP and what appears to be his first real chance to comment on the situation himself he ... I don't know even how to describe it... ####? Complains? Even whines? Clearly he is not happy.


I personally think his comment about the how Texas didn't do it, but Minnesota did is the most telling.

Texas charged him with the crime and followed through but that apparently is water under the bridge. Minnesota social media is troll-y? Oh hell no, you made my wife mad. Thats it.


He seems to be grasping for reasons to be upset which to me indicates either A) he is really unhappy and doesn't want to be in Minnesota, B) he is extremely emotionally fragile and really doesn't grasp the gravity of what happened which, I am not at a goddell level with it, makes me worried about future off the field incidents, or there is C) he is just trying to negotiate but doing it so ham fistedly I doubt its going to end well.

When did you all turn into such sensitive softies? Omg... He could also be speaking on behalf of his wife. Just two weeks ago he said he was happy to be back in MN and "Of course" he wants to play for the Vikings next season. Man up people. Next he will say he doesn't like snow and everyone will blow up about how he is insulting the northern half of the country.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

And like was mentioned before... When were those quotes spoken? Does the article say?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk