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

[Silver N Blue]

More from the tree of All Day:

Question: If the Cowboys can get Peterson for a 2nd rd pick, do you think Jerry looks at it like, I can either get a transcendent RB or take some college kid at pick? Where do I sign up for Peterson?
Bob Sturm: I think so. Again, I don’t like it at all. They had 3 choices this offseason for RB (maybe 4). Choice 1 was pay the NFL rushing champion to stay here (which he wanted to do). They passed. Choice 2 would be take a RB and although he is unproven, he will cost about $4m for 4 years (or $1m per season). So, the price is worth it. Choice 3 is to trade a top pick AND pay Peterson “Murray money”. This makes no sense because of age, work load, and the fact he costs you a 1st or 2nd round pick when Murray would not cost you any of that. Choice 4 is to use McFadden and Randle and see how that works. Peterson, to me, is the worst choice. However, he is Adrian Peterson and that is plenty exciting for all involved, I admit.

 

[Silver N Blue]

You really haven't disputed a single thing I've said in this thread.

So yeah, I'd say I do.

yeah actually i have but your narrow minded point of view only sees what mattjames wants to see...i have seen you in other threads doing the same thing with others....your not fooling anyone...then again i doubt you can see that....anyway..

 

[mickswag]

More from the tree of All Day:

Question: If the Cowboys can get Peterson for a 2nd rd pick, do you think Jerry looks at it like, I can either get a transcendent RB or take some college kid at pick? Where do I sign up for Peterson?
Bob Sturm: I think so. Again, I don’t like it at all. They had 3 choices this offseason for RB (maybe 4). Choice 1 was pay the NFL rushing champion to stay here (which he wanted to do). They passed. Choice 2 would be take a RB and although he is unproven, he will cost about $4m for 4 years (or $1m per season). So, the price is worth it. Choice 3 is to trade a top pick AND pay Peterson “Murray money”. This makes no sense because of age, work load, and the fact he costs you a 1st or 2nd round pick when Murray would not cost you any of that. Choice 4 is to use McFadden and Randle and see how that works. Peterson, to me, is the worst choice. However, he is Adrian Peterson and that is plenty exciting for all involved, I admit.

While this is true, I disagree with Sturm here. Murray is not Peterson and it's not even close. AP>Murray, all day.

 

[pansophy]

While this is true, I disagree with Sturm here. Murray is not Peterson and it's not even close. AP>Murray, all day.

3 years ago I'd agree. Even if AP runs for 1400 yards for the Viks this year and everyone screams that he would have run for 1800 behind our OL, I'll just say that we had that last year and didn't win. So it's really not where we need to spend our money.

I'll take defensive help.

 

[Zimmy Lives]

Giving up draft picks for AP would be a huge mistake, IMO. He will not put this team over the top. That's all I am going to say about that.

 

[pacy]

3 years ago I'd agree. Even if AP runs for 1400 yards for the Viks this year and everyone screams that he would have run for 1800 behind our OL, I'll just say that we had that last year and didn't win. So it's really not where we need to spend our money.

I'll take defensive help.

Yes we had that last year BUT we lost it. Now we have to spend money on it.

 

[Stash]

You're reaching.

Maybe you think so, but I really don't care. Nor do I need your agreement or approval. I know what one year contracts mean, and that's not 'long term building'.

We restructured because it was a necessity to sign draft picks. We didn't do it to sign every big name FA under the sun.

They also restructured to be able to pay Hardy (the big name, big money free agent they've already acquired) and to re-sign McClain (on a one year, win now deal).

You really just don't have a grasp on what a "Win now" is at all if you used that as an example.

Do me a favor and don't dare lecture me of 'having a grasp' of anything.

I don't know who you think you are, but I need no validation from you - on anything.

 

[mattjames2010]

Maybe you think so, but I really don't care. Nor do I need your agreement or approval. I know what one year contracts mean, and that's not 'long term building'.



They also restructured to be able to pay Hardy (the big name, big money free agent they've already acquired) and to re-sign McClain (on a one year, win now deal).



Do me a favor and don't dare lecture me of 'having a grasp' of anything.

I don't know who you think you are, but I need no validation from you - on anything.

What are you not understanding here? Hardy and McClain are on PROVE IT DEALS. Hardy had off the field issues, he's a year removed from football, he needs to come back and prove he'll stay out of trouble along with playing at a high level. McClain, the same thing. He has off the field problems, he couldn't stay healthy last season; he stays healthy and out of trouble, he gets a long term contract (If they choose to accept). This is not a "Let's bring them in for a year to win a championship before letting them go" deal, they aren't getting long term contracts for obvious other reasons.

You obviously have no idea what "one year deals" mean if you automatically simplify every one year deal to a "Win now" contract.

 

[Stash]

What are you not understanding here? Hardy and McClain are on PROVE IT DEALS. Hardy had off the field issues, he's a year removed from football, he needs to come back and prove he'll stay out of trouble along with playing at a high level.

And you signed him simply to allow him to repair his image and worth before seeking his fame and fortune next year? How noble!

McClain, the same thing. He has off the field problems, he couldn't stay healthy last season; he stays healthy and out of trouble, he gets a long term contract (If they choose to accept). This is not a "Let's bring them in for a year to win a championship before letting them go" deal, they aren't getting long term contracts for obvious other reasons.

Oh great, yet another act of nobility to give McClain the opportunity to increase his future asking price while asking nothing in return. Although I'm not sure when the Cowboys became strictly a charitable organization...

You obviously have no idea what "one year deals" mean if you automatically simplify every one year deal to a "Win now" contract.

If you want to see someone with 'no idea', just stand in front of a reflective surface.

I just hope that when you're proven wrong (again!), you'll at least have the decency to go away.

 

[Tabascocat]

I am in favor either way. Go young and see what happens or go all-in with AP. I do believe Romo's window is narrow but with an outstanding line, a decent QB could step in and produce. Not like Tony but hopefully good enough as long as we have the offensive weapons.....the O-Line being the most important.

In short, I will support whichever way they go

 

[mattjames2010]

And you signed him simply to allow him to repair his image and worth before seeking his fame and fortune next year? How noble!





Oh great, yet another act of nobility to give McClain the opportunity to increase his future asking price while asking nothing in return. Although I'm not sure when the Cowboys became strictly a charitable organization...





If you want to see someone with 'no idea', just stand in front of a reflective surface.

I just hope that when you're proven wrong (again!), you'll at least have the decency to go away.

Wow! It makes financial sense to give them a "Prove it deal" . You don't get locked into a contract with a player that is surrounded in question marks but still have high upside. It's the same exact thing with what we did with Henry Melton last year, we brought him in for a year to see how he recovered and if he could get back to the level of play he was at BEFORE the injury. He didn't prove himself, he went elsewhere and we weren't hurt by it.

This isn't about "charity", what are you even on about? This is the fact that both Hardy and McClain have either proved in the past to be one of the best players at their position or have the talent to be so. If Hardy plays like he did in Carolina, we try to bring him back to a longer deal. McClain stays healthy and becomes more consistent, he gets a longer contract.

Got it?

 

[casmith07]

While this is true, I disagree with Sturm here. Murray is not Peterson and it's not even close. AP>Murray, all day.

That's not what Sturm was saying. He's simply talking about opportunity cost.

 

[Stash]

Wow! It makes financial sense to give them a "Prove it deal" . You don't get locked into a contract with a player that is surrounded in question marks but still have high upside. It's the same exact thing with what we did with Henry Melton last year, we brought him in for a year to see how he recovered and if he could get back to the level of play he was at BEFORE the injury. He didn't prove himself, he went elsewhere and we weren't hurt by it.

This isn't about "charity", what are you even on about? This is the fact that both Hardy and McClain have either proved in the past to be one of the best players at their position or have the talent to be so. If Hardy plays like he did in Carolina, we try to bring him back to a longer deal. McClain stays healthy and becomes more consistent, he gets a longer contract.

Got it?

And if we happen to win now along the way, it's merely a fortunate coincidence, right?

Please...

Save your fingers and the wear and tear on your keyboard, that dog won't hunt.

 

[ROUSH8692]

As early as Friday he is eligible to practice

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000485756/article/adrian-peterson-reinstated-by-nfl

 

[mattjames2010]

And if we happen to win now along the way, it's merely a fortunate coincidence, right?

Please...

Save your fingers and the wear and tear on your keyboard, that dog won't hunt.

I've said time and time again that we are putting in place a team that can help Romo win now but we are not going to desperate measures to do so. I have said we are also doing this with the future after Romo in mind as well. You have used us signing Hardy and McClain as us being desperate in trying to get a championship, which I and others have countered.

This is what you all smart management.

 

[viman96]

Let the games begin!

 

[mattjames2010]

And Peterson has been reinstated according to NFL Network.

 

[ufcrules1]

When was the last time a team had a rookie RB starting and won a super bowl?

 

[erod]

Welp, here we go.

 

[erod]

When was the last time a team had a rookie RB starting and won a super bowl?

Dorsett did.

Did Eddie Lacy?