Adrian Peterson Sweepstakes ***Officially reinstated (again) and merged***

[pansophy]

Can you explain to me why if we get Peterson we can't improve the defense?

Where does the money to pay Peterson come from? Cutting Carr? Who else do you cut / restructure? You not only have to pay Peterson but also replace the guys we get rid of to do it. If Peterson does decline how does the team recover from that? They already restructured Romo which leverages the future and if Peterson starts falling apart that even more future dead money.

 

[Sydla]

Wait a minute.....you aren't serious about this? The ONLY way you would feel good about Peterson on the cowboys would be if he were to get cut and play for McFadden contract?
So basically you just hate the guy or think he adds absolutely nothing to the team.....Wow...are you sure?

It's simply stunning reading some people's comments.

So if the Vikes cut Peterson and we signed him for a deal that was three times as big as McFadden's, it would appaerntly be a bad deal.

LOL.

 

[pansophy]

The way I look at it? You're in a rebuild when Romo (and Peterson) go anyway. There isn't a reliable option on this roster when Romo hangs 'em up, and even if you do find one between now and then, that guy will be a rookie, working off of an inexpensive rookie deal. That deal will allow you to be able to absorb whatever dead money is left on Romo's deal. And similarly, a rookie running back would allow you to absorb whatever hit you have remaining from Peterson's deal.



And while there are no guarantees, you can certainly do things to increase your chances.

Yes, if someone could guarantee me that we win a super bowl if we sign Peterson then of course I would say yes as well. The point is exactly about uncertainty. Even having the best running back in the league doesn't ensure us winning the super bowl - we had that last year by A LOT and it only got us part of the way there. We need some balance...

 

[jnday]

Well I have to disagree Jim, look how much the defense improved last year with Murray toting the rock. Hypothetically speaking if IF the team brings in AD they are pretty much set on offense. I agree with Big dog those great teams not only had great RBs but they had great defenses. That first pick could be a guy like Bryon Jones or Edwards Jr or any of the top players on defense. Whomever is there and whomever is better. This team has already begun addressing the defensive side of the ball. Hardy, RoMac, Brink, Gachkar, and now there is speculation the team is interested in Stevie Brown. I don't get the group of you that continue to argue the point on bringing AD in. I really don't get it. He improves this team dramatically and it is not even debatable. This is not some far fetched zoner homer opinion this is based on the opinions outside of this blog. Everything you guys throw out there is based purely on opinion everything we put out there is based on fact, stats, articles, and quotes.

I am not crazy about investing valuable resources for a 30 year old RB, but you have a great point about how much better the defense played due to the running game controlling the time of possession. Blindness is the only excuse for not seeing how much better the defense played when they were not dead tired from being on the field so much of the game. This is the very reason that I want an elite RB brought to the team this offseason. A fresh defense can play much better when they are not wore down and an elite running game can keep them fresh. I don't think any RB can step in and have the same effect no matter how good the oline may be. It isbnotvdmart to draft a RB in the later rounds because some fan's opinions are that any RB will do miracles with this line. I had rather see AP on the roster than see the team go down in flames with jag RBs.

 

[Sydla]

Where does the money to pay Peterson come from? Cutting Carr? Who else do you cut / restructure? You not only have to pay Peterson but also replace the guys we get rid of to do it. If Peterson does decline how does the team recover from that? They already restructured Romo which leverages the future and if Peterson starts falling apart that even more future dead money.

Carr stinks. Frankly, I am perplexed why people are so hesitant to get rid of him. He's not worth what he's paid and for the same logic that some here have that you can find a cheaper RB in the draft instead of paying Peterson, you could draft a kid like Peters or the kid from Wake Forest or Byron Jones and likely get similar production at a fraction of the cost of Carr.

Some here can't have it both ways. You can't lament the fact that paying Peterson is silly because you can find a cheaper alternative in the draft than turn around and worry about the possibility of having to cut Carr to make room for Peterson.

 

[Stash]

Well it doesn't matter what I think. Stephen Jones came out and said that he had a report showing him the drop off for RB's after 30 to explain/justify why we didn't make a bigger push to keep Murray. They have also let it known that their belief is that the OL is what made the running game what it is. They gave Williams a signing bonus to stay on the team. They signed McFadden so that we could draft BPA and not have to draft a RB in the 1st or 2nd round.

There is nothing about this that screams desperation for a RB, so I can't see us trading for Peterson or paying him big money if he is released.

http://www.star-telegram.com/sports/nfl/dallas-cowboys/cowboys-corner-blog/article16694900.html

Even more telling was this quote from vice president Stephen Jones when discussing Murray: “To me, what you can do is be consistent every year like [Hall of Fame running back and NFL rushing king] Emmitt Smith was. You are even more unique if you can do it every year. It’s well documented he was injured every year until this last year.”

Peterson may be the closest thing to Smith when it comes to consistency, and there is no question he is unique in production and skills as the best back in the league.

He is a franchise back. He is the outlier, the exception to the rule, when considering the metrics at running back.

The same is true when it comes to the money. The Cowboys have been disciplined in their approach to free agency, partly because they have limited resources and partly because they have no interest in paying market price for below-market talent.

That doesn’t apply to Peterson, and while they would be challenged to find the money to fit his $12.75 million base salary under the cap, it is not out of the realm of possibility were they able to acquire him in a draft-day trade, a source said.

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/sports...orner-blog/article16694900.html#storylink=cpy

 

[superonyx]

At 31, yes I'm sure. If someone can convince me that we can sign him to a contract similar to what Murray got and that we will be okay if he rapidly declines then I'd listen to that too. But I don't see how that is possible.

You guys are acting like he is 25. He isn't and the fact is that we had the best runner by 500 yards last year and only won 1 playoff game because the defense couldn't stop other teams.

We need defense more than we need Peterson.

The difference between missing on a rookie RB is that we can just draft another guy next year. If we sign Peterson to a big contract that means less resources for the defense and if he is t productive our cap is screwed for the remainder of Romo's window.

Well he isn't 31.....Should we call him 29? You give a year and I will take one away (since he didn't play while healthy last year).

So you wouldn't give anything to Peterson because we only won 1 playoff last year with Murray?
You don't see how running the ball the way we did last year helped our defense?
So who do we need on defense that is going to make us a championship team?
Why doesn't your philosophy of just drafting another back next year if we miss on one this year not also apply to the defensive position you have in mind?
Do you see any way that our defense can improve this year by any significant way? If so then how?
Its great to be negative and point holes in others plans but you should at least have a plan to propose in its place.

 

[Stash]

Where does the money to pay Peterson come from? Cutting Carr? Who else do you cut / restructure? You not only have to pay Peterson but also replace the guys we get rid of to do it. If Peterson does decline how does the team recover from that? They already restructured Romo which leverages the future and if Peterson starts falling apart that even more future dead money.

So the only way to fix this defense is through free agency? Why can you not improve the defense through the draft? Isn't that the preferred way to do it?

In my proposal, I mentioned a 3 year contract for $25 million with half guaranteed.

With a $12.5 million signing bonus, it works out to $4.2 million per season. Add in a $1 million salary for this year and Peterson pockets $13.5 million while it costs you $5.2 in cap space this year.

 

[Sydla]

Trade a 3rd or 4th rounder for Peterson.

Cut Carr

Draft a CB like Johnson or Jones in Round 1

Draft a DL in Round 2

Win the Super Bowl in 2015.

 

[iceberg]

There isn't much going on to talk about and many fans are actually enjoying this debate. You must be also since you keep reading and chiming in.

yea, cause to take pokes at the annoying fly buzzing around you means you enjoy it.

yes, this topic does annoy me to a bit. it's shades of MCFADDEN all over again where people get so bent up about a single player they can't talk about anything else and everything is made to make their idea of what should happen, happen. it's happening here. people are drawing up every scenario in which he will, or won't, come to dallas.

in the last 3+ months of this the only NEW news is that peterson has been reinstated.

how many times can you say I WANT (or DON'T WANT) peterson before you're just tired of saying it?

 

[Stash]

Yes, if someone could guarantee me that we win a super bowl if we sign Peterson then of course I would say yes as well. The point is exactly about uncertainty. Even having the best running back in the league doesn't ensure us winning the super bowl - we had that last year by A LOT and it only got us part of the way there. We need some balance...

You're asking for something impossible, no matter who is on the roster. You could stock this team with any fantasy football roster you want and there would still be no guarantee of a championship. It's an unrealistic demand to make of anyone or any team.

What you can do is to stock your team as best you can to increase your chances for success.

And you're somehow seeing this as an either / or proposition when it's not.

Either we can acquire Peterson or we can fix the defense, but we can't possibly do both. And again I say, why not?

 

[superonyx]

yea, cause to take pokes at the annoying fly buzzing around you means you enjoy it.

yes, this topic does annoy me to a bit. it's shades of MCFADDEN all over again where people get so bent up about a single player they can't talk about anything else and everything is made to make their idea of what should happen, happen. it's happening here. people are drawing up every scenario in which he will, or won't, come to dallas.

in the last 3+ months of this the only NEW news is that peterson has been reinstated.

how many times can you say I WANT (or DON'T WANT) peterson before you're just tired of saying it?

I know what you mean. I wish it was resolved as well.
I do have to admit that I find myself checking this board and a few news wire sites a few times a day hoping for some news one way or the other.

My gut feeling is that the Vikings will play hardball with Peterson and force him into playing for them this year. Once the draft is over the market for any Peterson trades should pretty much dry up. The teams with a RB need will all have rookies they just drafted and the Vikings won't have anyone to replace him.

If Peterson really wants out of Minnesota he should be more vocal about it before the draft. Maybe he is we just don't know it...but it sounds like he is just remaining quiet.

 

[ufcrules1]

And Vikings said they want to keep him. And won't release him. So it's either a trade at their price, or they keep him. He's still under contract for 3 more years.

The Vikings have "No plans" on trading him. That is a creative way of saying they will trade him if the price is right. Do you really think they want a player that costs what AP is going to make who doesn't even want to be there? They know they are going to let AP go, they just want to get as much as they can for him.
Keeping him on their team only hurts them in the long run. Keep watching.. AP won't be playing for the Vikes this year.

 

[Rack]

Those are

1. AP has been a fumbling machine for most of his career

2. We don't know that.

But I'm glad even with those opinions, you still wouldn't trade for him.

Those are facts. But with our OL thr RB we draft will still help our passing game. Not as much as AP but also not nearly as expensive.

 

[gmoney112]

You're asking for something impossible, no matter who is on the roster. You could stock this team with any fantasy football roster you want and there would still be no guarantee of a championship. It's an unrealistic demand to make of anyone or any team.

What you can do is to stock your team as best you can to increase your chances for success.

And you're somehow seeing this as an either / or proposition when it's not.

Either we can acquire Peterson or we can fix the defense, but we can't possibly do both. And again I say, why not?

Haha yeah. There's more "If.. Then" statements in this thread than the Logic portion of the LSAT.

If we get Peterson.. then our defense will suck. If we want a good defense.. then we can't get Peterson.

It's not mutually exclusive. Personally, I think we could use another DL or two, but I think we're already much further ahead of the game than last year.

At this point, I'd draft a CB round 1, throw a 2nd at AD, cut Carr, and use that money to sign AD. I think a Byron Jones/Kevin Johnson rookie could replace or even improve the production from Carr, in our scheme at least. We'd lose a 2nd rounder, but with all the backs we brought in I fully expected us to take one in the 2nd anyway.

Wie then have the entire rest of the draft to improve defense, and it's not like a DE we take in the 1st or 2nd is going to start this year anyway. Lawrence/Hardy/Mincy are your starting three DE's this season, whether people like it or not.

 

[Silver N Blue]

Yes, if someone could guarantee me that we win a super bowl if we sign Peterson then of course I would say yes as well. The point is exactly about uncertainty. Even having the best running back in the league doesn't ensure us winning the super bowl - we had that last year by A LOT and it only got us part of the way there. We need some balance...

Nope but it gets us one step closer.

 

[Stash]

Haha yeah. There's more "If.. Then" statements in this thread than the Logic portion of the LSAT.

If we get Peterson.. then our defense will suck. If we want a good defense.. then we can't get Peterson.

It's not mutually exclusive. Personally, I think we could use another DL or two, but I think we're already much further ahead of the game than last year.

It seems like only one side of this argument is required to clarify their position - the pro Peterson side.

The other side deals in vague, grey areas, failing to clarify their exact positions.

At this point, I'd draft a CB round 1, throw a 2nd at AD, cut Carr, and use that money to sign AD. I think a Byron Jones/Kevin Johnson rookie could replace or even improve the production from Carr, in our scheme at least. We'd lose a 2nd rounder, but with all the backs we brought in I fully expected us to take one in the 2nd anyway.

Wie then have the entire rest of the draft to improve defense, and it's not like a DE we take in the 1st or 2nd is going to start this year anyway. Lawrence/Hardy/Mincy are your starting three DE's this season, whether people like it or not.

I wouldn't give up this year's first rounder either.

If the Vikings dig their heels in, they can keep Peterson, the bad feelings, the drama, and the possible withholding of services. And they can also hope that he doesn't suffer any sort of 'injury' after his full $12.75 million in salary is guaranteed Week One.

I'm willing to bet that they don't have the resolve to deal with all of that and I hope the Cowboys are too.

 

[khiladi]

Well it doesn't matter what I think. Stephen Jones came out and said that he had a report showing him the drop off for RB's after 30 to explain/justify why we didn't make a bigger push to keep Murray. They have also let it known that their belief is that the OL is what made the running game what it is. They gave Williams a signing bonus to stay on the team. They signed McFadden so that we could draft BPA and not have to draft a RB in the 1st or 2nd round.

There is nothing about this that screams desperation for a RB, so I can't see us trading for Peterson or paying him big money if he is released.

http://www.star-telegram.com/sports/nfl/dallas-cowboys/article16338581.html

Stephen Jones didn't just mention 30 years old, he also mentioned consistency.

“To me what you can do is be consistent every year like Emmitt Smith was,” Stephen Jones said. “You are even more unique if you can do it every year. It’s well documented he was injured every year until this last year.”

 

[erod]

The odds may have slightly increased with the bad news on Ajayi.

 

[khiladi]

I don't know what I would do if I saw arguably the best WR in the game with the de facto best RB in the league in years and when all is said and done, one of the greatest ever playing on the same team, one blocking for the other. And both of them love to hit defenders while running for daylight...

I mean can you imagine how fired up these two would get when one of them hits a defender and runs over him. Dez would be up in APs face throwing up the X every time he runs over somebody.

****.. Let's just do it... I more worried about the universe exploding in game 1 out of sheer awesomeness than financials...