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

[Fredd]

2400+ posts for something that may never happen....good times

 

[superonyx]

Let me ask you this; throwing out that it is Peterson involved in this. Throwing out that it could possibly be the Cowboys who benefit. Do you really want players to be able to get away with this and benefit from this? Do you really want to see the NFL cave to players who try to dictate to a team who they will play for regardless of whether they are under contract or not? I don't want to see that happen. Not at all.

I don't want to see Peterson benefit from this because I don't want to see other players pulling it in the years to come. Switch it around. What if Dez decides he wants to go to another team in 3 years, even after signing a long term contract? I think Peterson getting what he wants harms the NFL in the long term. Yeah, it may help the Cowboys in the short term or Tampa Bay or whatever team gets him but long term, I think it harms the game.

The Vikings didn't support Peterson at all when this went down. This isn't just a situation of a player wanting to change to a team to win a Super Bowl. Surely you can see how unique this situation is. If Dez was involved with this and the Cowboys didn't publicly support him like the Vikings did with Peterson then I would fully expect Dez to feel betrayed and want to no longer play for an organization that he didn't feel connected to. It's not like he is leaving because he is chasing more money. If he is willing to play the Bucs then this really is about more than winning or money. I believe a controversial situation like this is different than many want to admit. Peterson was defiant towards Goodell and the league because he truly feels that he has the right to discipline his children in the way he was disciplined by his father. You may not agree with him but at least try and understand why he feels the way he does. Also remember that he had a child Die at the hands of an abusive man 2 years ago. He may feel like he is being portrayed as the same as the man who murdered his other child.

 

[esloan]

Marcus Allen collapsed way before 30....I never realized how over rated he realty


The Vikings didn't support Peterson at all when this went down. This isn't just a situation of a player wanting to change to a team to win a Super Bowl. Surely you can see how unique this situation is. If Dez was involved with this and the Cowboys didn't publicly support him like the Vikings did with Peterson then I would fully expect Dez to feel betrayed and want to no longer play for an organization that he didn't feel connected to. It's not like he is leaving because he is chasing more money. If he is willing to play the Bucs then this really is about more than winning or money. I believe a controversial situation like this is different than many want to admit. Peterson was defiant towards Goodell and the league because he truly feels that he has the right to discipline his children in the way he was disciplined by his father. You may not agree with him but at least try and understand why he feels the way he does. Also remember that he had a child Die at the hands of an abusive man 2 years ago. He may feel like he is being portrayed as the same as the man who murdered his other child.

Support him? *** were the Viking supposed to say? "We fully support our running back, Adrian Peterson, in the beating of his child!"?? Every single team out there would distance themselves. Every. Single. One. Additionally, after being ridiculed in public and convicted in the court of law, if Peterson still thinks what he did was the correct way to do it, well, he has bigger issues and I really don't want him here.

 

[superonyx]

Support him? *** were the Viking supposed to say? "We fully support our running back, Adrian Peterson, in the beating of his child!"?? Every single team out there would distance themselves. Every. Single. One. Additionally, after being ridiculed in public and convicted in the court of law, if Peterson still thinks what he did was the correct way to do it, well, he has bigger issues and I really don't want him here.

After the team met with Peterson and they discussed what was happening they should have came to a mutual understanding of how both sides were going to proceed. This isn't that complicated. You can excuse the team but since Peterson is willing to walk away from millions to not play for them it's obvious they didn't handle this in the best way.

To answer your question....yes I would expect the organization to show public support for the character of a player who was the face of the franchise. They know Peterson better than we do. They made the decision to alienate him when he needed support. So I blame them as much as I blame him.
Dallas treated Josh Brent much better than the Vikings treated Peterson and brent was accused of killing another man.

 

[Silver N Blue]

Thank you, sir.

I think the people wanting Peterson here are looking at the short term and I can not really blame them for that. Short term it really, really looks great. Cowboys get a phenomenal RB, build upon last season with a strong running game and an improved defense with Hardy and Lee in the lineup. Possibly win a Super Bowl. That sounds great. Sign me up!

But long term? That is a different story. We may be stuck with an aging RB for the next 4 years and we could be paying him big money. Of course, it depends on the contract he would agree too but that is a possibility. We will have to give up draft picks, possibly multiple. That also has an impact on the long term future of the team.

Finally, what I said above is long term as well. Every time a player, especially a big name player, gets away with something like this, it inspires other players to do the same. I don't want to see Dez deciding he had been 'disrespected' (which is Peterson's excuse) and trying to force a trade. I don't want to see another defensive lineman decide he doesn't like a coach here and trying to get out even when he is under contract. It is bad for NFL, it is bad for the game and, in the end, it will be bad for the Cowboys.

Again, sorry your opinion. I want AD here but not because of anything short term because I want this team to win a SB. I also want this team to be consistant year in and year out. In now way does bringing AD in here change that.

 

[esloan]

After the team met with Peterson and they discussed what was happening they should have came to a mutual understanding of how both sides were going to proceed. This isn't that complicated. You can excuse the team but since Peterson is willing to walk away from millions to not play for them it's obvious they didn't handle this in the best way.

To answer your question....yes I would expect the organization to show public support for the character of a player who was the face of the franchise. They know Peterson better than we do. They made the decision to alienate him when he needed support. So I blame them as much as I blame him.
Dallas treated Josh Brent much better than the Vikings treated Peterson and brent was accused of killing another man.

Brent was accused of a drunk driving accident that killed another man. I am sorry but that is different from intentionally beating your child bad enough that it leaves marks two weeks later. Once those pictures were released, there is not a single team that would have stood by Peterson. Those pictures were damning. There is now way a team is going to go on record supporting a player after pictures like that come out. Especially when that player straight up admitted that the marks were made by him.

Additionally, the Vikings were about as sensitive as one could be about the incident. Their statement indicated the seriousness of the issue but said that Peterson deserved a presumption of innocence. I am not sure what else you or Peterson expected from them.

Today’s decision was made after significant thought, discussion and consideration. As evidenced by our decision to deactivate Adrian from yesterday’s game, this is clearly a very important issue. On Friday, we felt it was in the best interests of the organization to step back, evaluate the situation, and not rush to judgment given the seriousness of this matter. At that time, we made the decision that we felt was best for the Vikings and all parties involved.

To be clear, we take very seriously any matter that involves the welfare of a child. At this time, however, we believe 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.

 

[esloan]

Again, sorry your opinion. I want AD here but not because of anything short term because I want this team to win a SB. I also want this team to be consistant year in and year out. In now way does bringing AD in here change that.

Sorry. Your opinion.

See I can do it too!

 

[Silver N Blue]

San Fran stood by McDonald after his domestic violence last year. So again your opinion you have no fact to back up no team would have stuck by Peterson. NO fact.

 

[khiladi]

A complaint that has gone nowhere. AD has plenty of money. The team doesn't have to budge but they will when its time to use a roster spot for a disgruntled player that they have to pay $12 million. Especially if that player is playing games with an injury or simply not giving his all.

Who even knows if it has gone nowhere or not? Further, Ratliff hasn't done anything for the Bears, even when given time to rest. Maybe Dallas has said it's not worth pursuing anyways. Maybe they have gotten some money back that we haven't heard about.

 

[Silver N Blue]

Sorry. Your opinion.

See I can do it too!

No mine is based on fact such as the salary cap going up next year, such being able to still draft this year, next year, and the final fact that w/o question AD is the best RB in the NFL and would help this team. All facts...

 

[esloan]

San Fran stood by McDonald after his domestic violence last year. So again your opinion you have no fact to back up no team would have stuck by Peterson. NO fact.

Yep. They stood by him right up until they released him. They waited out the first accusation and cut him on the second. The Vikings stood by Peterson by not releasing him but there is no way they were going to support him publicly after those pictures were released.

 

[khiladi]

Nope, another myth. Murray averaged around what every other RB did with the "home run hitting".

Huh? That statement does not in any way establish the point you want it to, which apparently is that Murray didn't leave yards on the field, and he was a home run hitter. So are you trying to establish he was superior in this respect or just average?

Not every other RB in the league rushed for 1800 yards, but neither did every other RB in the league have around 1000 yards of those 1800 yards occur before he even got hit by the first defender, meaning not every RB had the OL opening up holes for him to run through before even getting touched and having a chance to get going full-speed in what was many times a one-cut zone blocking scheme of Callahan's. Nor was every other RB in the league running against defenses that were playing cover-2 deep because of Dallas vertical passing attack of Romo and Dez, meaning teams not stacking the line giving him chances for Murray to get going full speed before being brought down.

So when you say he was among the rest of the RBs in the league in regards to 'home-run hitting' I'm not sure if your trying to make it into a positive or what...

 

[superonyx]

Brent was accused of a drunk driving accident that killed another man. I am sorry but that is different from intentionally beating your child bad enough that it leaves marks two weeks later. Once those pictures were released, there is not a single team that would have stood by Peterson. Those pictures were damning. There is now way a team is going to go on record supporting a player after pictures like that come out. Especially when that player straight up admitted that the marks were made by him.

Additionally, the Vikings were about as sensitive as one could be about the incident. Their statement indicated the seriousness of the issue but said that Peterson deserved a presumption of innocence. I am not sure what else you or Peterson expected from them.

Today’s decision was made after significant thought, discussion and consideration. As evidenced by our decision to deactivate Adrian from yesterday’s game, this is clearly a very important issue. On Friday, we felt it was in the best interests of the organization to step back, evaluate the situation, and not rush to judgment given the seriousness of this matter. At that time, we made the decision that we felt was best for the Vikings and all parties involved.

To be clear, we take very seriously any matter that involves the welfare of a child. At this time, however, we believe 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.

I am posting from an iPad so I can't link the articles which go into more details about how the Vikings feels he was ambushed by the Vikings. The league didn't decide to put him on the commissioners exempt list. It was the Vikings decision to reach out to the league And remove Peterson from the team. Adrian feels they made a business decision and did what they felt was best for their business.....well it sounds like they were wrong because they now have alienated a player that was the best player to ever play for them.

You obviously don't want to see all sides of this because you want to feel that you won an internet arguement.
The point you originally made was about how you don't want him to be able to get his way and you linked a scenario where Dez was pulling this stunt.....I simply showed you how this is a unique situation. Regardless of how you feel about Peterson it has been shown that this isn't a stunt and something that is unique enough that it isn't a threat to ruin your favorite game.

This is a situation where the Vikings made a business decision and helped create this problem. They over reacted after the Ray rice video came out and the Ravens faced scrutiny.

 

[superonyx]

Yep. They stood by him right up until they released him. They waited out the first accusation and cut him on the second. The Vikings stood by Peterson by not releasing him but there is no way they were going to support him publicly after those pictures were released.

They stood by him by reaching out to Goodell and suspending him after they decided to let him play the first week. The league didn't suspend Peterson. The Vikings made the decision and now they have to deal with the fallout from that decision. Peterson is known to be fiercely loyal and expects the same. If the league suspended him it may have been different. It was the Vikings ownership who asked the league to suspend him.

 

[Silver N Blue]

Yep. They stood by him right up until they released him. They waited out the first accusation and cut him on the second. The Vikings stood by Peterson by not releasing him but there is no way they were going to support him publicly after those pictures were released.

You and the other what 3...hboy, jarjarbinks (mjames), Jim (doors dude) continue to add things after you have been trumped...you cant use the second offense or compare it to AD cause he has only had one...you made a statement no team would stand by him...your wrong its your opinion and nothing more..i provided one exampe of a team standing by a player..stick with the facts...we are talking about one offense per player..not one for x player and two for y player...and to come out and say you will "laugh" at another cowboys fan for wanting the team we root for to get better is just upsurd..and quite frankly not a real fan...fans can debate, have differences, and even disagree but REAL fans stick together and want the same common goal and that is for thier team to hoist that trophy over their head...that is a fan...if AD comes here i am not going to come on here like some childish kid and laugh..what good does that do? If I am wrong I have already stated I have no qualm admitting that like I did with Hardy...I was wrong I did not think he would be brought in...so be it...but you know what come Sunday I am going to be cheering the kraken on not making statements about laughing at my brothers and sisters...i guess that is the difference in my generation and yours...stick with the facts.

 

[superonyx]

Brent was accused of a drunk driving accident that killed another man. I am sorry but that is different from intentionally beating your child bad enough that it leaves marks two weeks later. Once those pictures were released, there is not a single team that would have stood by Peterson. Those pictures were damning. There is now way a team is going to go on record supporting a player after pictures like that come out. Especially when that player straight up admitted that the marks were made by him.

Josh Brent's actions led the the death of a man. Peterson used a switch to discipline his son. So you really believe what Peterson did was worse? Neither men had evil intentions. Peterson was raised with this type of discipline and he feels it works. While he may have gone too far and I personally do not strike my children in any way I can understand his intentions were to discipline his son in the way he was disciplined as a child.

 

[khiladi]

As far as my personal take on the Vikings supporting Peterson or not, I think that whatever they did was dictated by what the NFL wanted, especially in the context of incidents like Ray Rice, if I remember correctly it occurred afterwards, and all the bad PR the NFL was taking. The NFL controls image and I hardly doubt the Vikings wanted to not play Peterson, their best player, at all.

It was probably pretty much similar to how the Colts reacted a day after Deflate-gate. They acted like they didn't know what was going on, including the Colts LB and the HC of the Colts, when the Indy reporters who broke the story stated that the call came from the agitated Assistant GM of the Colts. That call obviously informed from people down on the field and it is highly, highly unlikely that neither the HC nor the Colts LB, the HC minimum, didn't know what was going on. And this fact about the Assistant GM was in fact, confirmed after the SB by Troy Vincent, though I don't think most people realize the implications. What is pretty clear is the Colts were playing dumb was clearly the NFL telling them to be quiet despite it being an issue of integrity of the game.

That is probably how they were told to react with Peterson. This is why I don't by the excuse that Peterson wasn't supported by the Vikings and he really just wants to leave and is using it as an excuse.

 

[Stash]

Its not a one way street. The club still has to pay whatever money was guaranteed. That is written into the contract.

Which at this point is effectively nothing. They can walk away at ay time.

But that's okay...

 

[superonyx]

As far as my personal take on the Vikings supporting Peterson or not, I think that whatever they did was dictated by what the NFL wanted, especially in the context of incidents like Ray Rice, if I remember correctly it occurred afterwards, and all the bad PR the NFL was taking. The NFL controls image and I hardly doubt the Vikings wanted to not play Peterson, their best player, at all.

It was probably pretty much similar to how the Colts reacted a day after Deflate-gate. They acted like they didn't know what was going on, including the Colts LB and the HC of the Colts, when the Indy reporters who broke the story stated that the call came from the agitated Assistant GM of the Colts. That call obviously informed from people down on the field and it is highly, highly unlikely that neither the HC nor the Colts LB, the HC minimum, didn't know what was going on. And this fact about the Assistant GM was in fact, confirmed after the SB by Troy Vincent, though I don't think most people realize the implications. What is pretty clear is the Colts were playing dumb was clearly the NFL telling them to be quiet despite it being an issue of integrity of the game.

That is probably how they were told to react with Peterson. This is why I don't by the excuse that Peterson wasn't supported by the Vikings and he really just wants to leave and is using it as an excuse.

When the Vikings reversed their original decision to let Peterson play and approached the league about putting him on the commissioner's exempt list, though, Peterson felt stung. He called it an "ambush" Thursday, and he certainly noticed how quiet the Vikings were about him from Sept. 17 -- when he was placed on the exempt list -- to the end of the season. There's no doubt Peterson's actions set the ball in motion, and he's apologized for those actions. But he felt his commitment to the Vikings had earned him more support than he'd received. There's an issue there that runs deeper than money, and it's common to more players than just Peterson; in a business where employees put their well-being on the line, public backing carries untold weight.

 

[esloan]

Josh Brent's actions led the the death of a man. Peterson used a switch to discipline his son. So you really believe what Peterson did was worse? Neither men had evil intentions. Peterson was raised with this type of discipline and he feels it works. While he may have gone too far and I personally do not strike my children in any way I can understand his intentions were to discipline his son in the way he was disciplined as a child.

Yes. I think it was worse in some ways. What Brent did was horrible, no doubt, but he did what thousands of people do nightly and drive after drinking too much. In addition, the person he killed also drank too much and chose to get in the car with him. It resulted in his death. It was bad but it was an accident.

What Peterson did was intentional. He beat a child so badly that marks were still present over two weeks after the beating. In addition, the child claims he punched him in the face, though that was not proven in court due to him pleading no contest.

So, yeah, I think what Peterson did was worse. It was intentional and it was to his own child.