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

[KalEl]

For the record, and as I said above, I think both are disgusting. Also for the record, the reason I don't want Peterson here has nothing to do with what he did. He did it. He faced charges. He was punished. It is over. The only reason this was brought up was because someone said that the Vikings did not stand behind him and I think they stood behind him as much as they could considering what he did and the photos that were released.

The reason I think the Peterson situation was worse is a.) A child was the victim and I have a soft spot for kids. and b.) Jerry Brown got in that car knowing Josh Brent was drunk. Does that make it right? Hell no but he got in that car anyway. Both situations are horrible and both men were punished. As far as I am concerned, what happened in the past is over, as long as it never happens again.

I am against Peterson coming here because of what we may have to potentially give up not because of what he did in the past.

I stand corrected. Thanks for your clarification

 

[tyke1doe]

I don't know that they wait that long...maybe early on draft day... Maybe before draft. They can't play it that "precise" can they? Lol

Like trying to hit a stock or real estate just as it peaks but before it drops.

The good thing about this draft is that first-round is on Thursday and the second-round is on a Friday. Between days, there's A LOT that can be done in the way of negotiations.

 

[KalEl]

If reports are accurate that they have been offered a second round draft pick, I really hope most of you are backing off this. A second round pick for a 30 year old RB is crazy.

I agree. A 3rd this year or a 2nd from next year (because he have extra picks next year)

 

[tyke1doe]

Haha....
I thought that's why we signed Hardy and traded away 2 picks to move down to 34 last year to draft Demarcus Lawrence?

We traded two picks to move down to draft DL? I thought you trade away picks to move up. Did I miss something? We got fleeced.

 

[JBS]

You guys put way too much emphasis on players being interested in winning

Sure, players would love to be on a team that wins...but it isn't coming at the expense of their wallet...not sure why people think otherwise

Sure, there are exceptions...but not many

 

[khiladi]

You guys put way too much emphasis on players being interested in winning

Sure, players would love to be on a team that wins...but it isn't coming at the expense of their wallet...not sure why people think otherwise

Sure, there are exceptions...but not many

And that is normally after they already made as much money as they could and now want the ring. That still doesn't mean they go cheap, just give a little discount.

 

[ufcrules1]

I doubt Peterson would only give 50 percent. And if the coaching staff detected that, they could suspend him or find some other way to make him suffer.

Again, I think you underestimate the stubbornness of owners and franchises, particularly people who have power and can and will exercise it.

Maybe I do.. those guys have tons of money to burn so they can do whatever they want but truth be told it will hurt their team for years to come. I personally feel that Peterson is going to be traded before the draft. I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

The good thing about this draft is that first-round is on Thursday and the second-round is on a Friday. Between days, there's A LOT that can be done in the way of negotiations.

Indeed.

I wonder if it benefits them to wait after first round?

Or does it just say, "we ain't going there for 30 year old RB"?

Or does it mean, they get nothing and cut him.....

These and many others questions will be answered.... "tune in tomorrow...well...(4/30 -5/1/15 anyways)— same Bat-Time, same Bat-Channel!"

 

[iceberg]

I've seen some speculation that he's simply leveraging to get more guaranteed money from the Vikings. If that's actually true, I'd pull out of this whole deal and let him rot there. I have no interest in being used just to get him more guaranteed money. But at this point, I don't believe that to be true.

well, if you get right down to it, 99% of this *is* speculation for either side. you can't say the year off helps, they can't say it hurts. we simply don't know so every vague argument "the other side gives" is met with yet another argument that is pretty much just as vague. you don't believe it to be true, they do. who knows for sure?

I see where folks have concerns regarding money and draft picks. But what I take issue with is the grey area the other side seems to hide in. I've stated that I wouldn't give up a 1st rounder, the folks against just say 'high draft picks'. I've stated that I would be OK with a 3 year deal for $25 million. Others just say "I'm not paying big money".

I can state that, despite my being on the 'pro' side, I do have my limits and wouldn't want to see the team overpay in either picks or money.

i don't think anyone wants BIG MONEY but defining BIG MONEY is now the issue and a whole nother topic.

What I would like to see is more of the 'con' side make the effort to clearly define their positions rather than dealing in vague terms.

I see the worries about the number '30', but I would hope people factor in the year off from wear and tear as well.

I see the 'injury' worry, but I hope people factor in his amazing recovery ability and exceptional genetics.

If I'm totaling up the plusses and minuses, I see a lot more plusses than minuses. As long as the draft and financial compensations aren't out of hand.

except those plusses are in many places just as speculative as the minuses. you base if off petersons history, they base if off the % of him ever being who they saw now well over a year ago. you see the year off as a plus and i would say that's because you are "pro-peterson" not because it actually is. calling it a minus is likely "anti-peterson" and because they don't want him.

i would have liked to have seen just negatives w/o BUT WAIT in this, but that's a lot to ask, i know. (being serious, not condescending so please don't take it that way) as you've been one of the more vocal people on the wagon. it really sounds like nothing really scares you about peterson except contract stuff and the cost to get him here. i'd agree on both counts that it simply won't be worth much because 2-3 years is at best the most you can look forward to. even then, to me, there's a lot to prove just to beat the odds on NOT falling into the much greater math percentage of his best years are in fact behind him.

the plusses i see (w/o having to tag on a negative)
he is a vet RB and we could use that right now because i also agree we have a window here to get this done.
his history does show productivity despite the odds on his injury recovery.
even if he's not the peterson of 4 years ago, he can still get the job done i feel and given the line he would have, it would only help him, help us.

the minuses:
most RB's do decline after 30. if you expect peterson of old, you'll be disappointed. if you just expect a solid RB to be a part of a team, i can see the fit better.
cost. given the $$$ he has guaranteed if $ is a factor, he won't leave. he'll take the money and go to work every day. if he's in it for the $ on one hand, i don't blame him, on the other, get it where you are now.
taking a developing players spot. not huge to me because if they're developing they can't help us make a run NOW. if things were different then this logic would hold more water. but we're not building, we're trying to win now and that's a different game.
health concerns will linger until he proves otherwise, making all this a huge gamble, bringing this back to cost.

given all you put above, cost is our common "let's not go crazy" and for the rest, i think we see the same things just differently. in the end, i did what i asked you to do and there are more plusses to having him come to the cowboys than negatives with cost, and health concerns leading the pack, but potential definitely something to consider.

 

[Stash]

Indeed.

I wonder if it benefits them to wait after first round?

Or does it just say, "we ain't going there for 30 year old RB"?

Or does it mean, they get nothing and cut him.....

These and many others questions will be answered.... "tune in tomorrow...well...(4/30 -5/1/15 anyways)— same Bat-Time, same Bat-Channel!"

I think that after the Vikings' own pick at #11, their options get worse, not better.

If they have a trade partner at that point, they could move Peterson and draft Gurley, getting the best back in the draft as his replacement.

If they wait, not only will potential trade partners fill their own needs and no longer need Peterson, but the Vikings will have that many fewer options themselves to find his replacement.

 

[Stash]

well, if you get right down to it, 99% of this *is* speculation for either side. you can't say the year off helps, they can't say it hurts. we simply don't know so every vague argument "the other side gives" is met with yet another argument that is pretty much just as vague. you don't believe it to be true, they do. who knows for sure?

I would be willing to meet in the middle and consider that issue a wash.

i don't think anyone wants BIG MONEY but defining BIG MONEY is now the issue and a whole nother topic.

And I request those referencing it state exactly what they mean.

except those plusses are in many places just as speculative as the minuses. you base if off petersons history, they base if off the % of him ever being who they saw now well over a year ago. you see the year off as a plus and i would say that's because you are "pro-peterson" not because it actually is. calling it a minus is likely "anti-peterson" and because they don't want him.

All fair points.

i would have liked to have seen just negatives w/o BUT WAIT in this, but that's a lot to ask, i know. (being serious, not condescending so please don't take it that way) as you've been one of the more vocal people on the wagon. it really sounds like nothing really scares you about peterson except contract stuff and the cost to get him here. i'd agree on both counts that it simply won't be worth much because 2-3 years is at best the most you can look forward to. even then, to me, there's a lot to prove just to beat the odds on NOT falling into the much greater math percentage of his best years are in fact behind him.

Yeah, I consider him to be an exceptional talent, and therefore an exception to the 'dead by 30' rule. Truly special running backs, which I consider Peterson to be, have remained highly productive after 30. But I can't convince everyone to agree with that, you either do, or you don't.

the plusses i see (w/o having to tag on a negative)
he is a vet RB and we could use that right now because i also agree we have a window here to get this done.
his history does show productivity despite the odds on his injury recovery.
even if he's not the peterson of 4 years ago, he can still get the job done i feel and given the line he would have, it would only help him, help us.

Agreed on all counts. And I still believe that he's a superior running back to the one we lost. And if the 'rule' is that I can't give him a plus for a year of rest, I don't want to hear anyone dinging him for it either.

the minuses:
most RB's do decline after 30. if you expect peterson of old, you'll be disappointed. if you just expect a solid RB to be a part of a team, i can see the fit better.
cost. given the $$$ he has guaranteed if $ is a factor, he won't leave. he'll take the money and go to work every day. if he's in it for the $ on one hand, i don't blame him, on the other, get it where you are now.

Yeah, if it's simply about money? I'm out, have fun fighting with the Vikings on that!

taking a developing players spot. not huge to me because if they're developing they can't help us make a run NOW. if things were different then this logic would hold more water. but we're not building, we're trying to win now and that's a different game.

And I'm not worried about that one bit. Even if Peterson bombs somehow, what's to stop this team from drafting a running back next year?

health concerns will linger until he proves otherwise, making all this a huge gamble, bringing this back to cost.

I don't see where any concerns would come from as he was just fine when last we saw him and any reports about his workouts have been glowing.

given all you put above, cost is our common "let's not go crazy" and for the rest, i think we see the same things just differently. in the end, i did what i asked you to do and there are more plusses to having him come to the cowboys than negatives with cost, and health concerns leading the pack, but potential definitely something to consider.

Definitely, I can see both sides, but its clear where I personally see the more positives.

 

[JoeBoBBY]

I am making this trade with a mindset that bringing in AP will equal deep Playoffs/Super Bowl wins.
If I didn't believe he would significantly raise the odds for Playoffs/Super Bowl wins, why would I even consider signing him at this point with Romos window, and at his age?

This isn't a long term scenario. 2 years tops. maybe 3; Structure the contract accordingly.
In my opinion, no other move we could make , at this point, does more for Romos window.

What is my price for that? The price of my team having a chance to win a Super Bowl for the first time in two decades??

I know, "We will have wasted a 1st or second and get nothing out of it, its too much of a risk" I know, I get it. But thats the game, isnt it?

We have made Romo the franchise QB and paid a boatload, and haven't even sniffed a Super Bowl. I love Romo and I wouldve done the same thing; But, it hasn't paid off.

The goal is the Super Bowl. Well, it should be at least.

 

[Alexander]

In before someone says "smokescreen".

 

[JoeBoBBY]

In before someone says "smokescreen".

well, thats disappointing.

 

[mickswag]

 

[pansophy]

Yeah, I consider him to be an exceptional talent, and therefore an exception to the 'dead by 30' rule. Truly special running backs, which I consider Peterson to be, have remained highly productive after 30. But I can't convince everyone to agree with that, you either do, or you don't.

Why would being an exceptional talent make him more immune to the effects of aging? Aging isn't just about wear and tear in the body, but physiologic changes occur whereby individuals have reduced fitness and reflexes.

You might argue that an 80% Peterson is still worth 1300 yards behind our OL, but I'd argue that we could get that from a 22 year old on a rookie salary.

Plus a rookie is going to improve while Peterson can only get worse. It's not just about next year but the next and 3 to 4 years.

 

[Alexander]

Oh that tricky tricky Stephen trying to deceive us all.

 

[JoeBoBBY]

ummmmmmm Thats right to the point. I think the AP to Dallas move, is ...done. Some other team went overboard, FO said nope.

 

[erod]

I think Minnesota would take any No. 1 pick right now. Gurley plus another player in the first round solves multiple problems for them.

However, I think teams really want to avoid giving a No.1 pick.

That doesn't bode well for Dallas, because the Cowboys No. 2 is later in the round than the other teams. I think Dallas is the only team that will HAVE to give a No. 1 because of its draft position.

And yes, I still do it.

 

[Sydla]

well, thats disappointing.

It's posturing. Jones said exactly what he needed to say but I don't think what he said changes the fact that the Cowboys would have interest in Peterson for the right price.

But at htis point, the price might be ridiculously high.