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

[Stash]

That's your argument? Because there weren't "pro-bowl lineman" that the stats are wrong about them having a top 10 offensive line in run blocking?

I'm asking the question. Is it a top 10 line because the players are actually Pro Bowl good, or is it because they happen to be blocking for an all world running back who makes them look good? I know Peterson was making the Pro Bowl regularly for his work. Where are those linemen making it for theirs? Our line had a great season and we rightfully put 3 in there. Where are those fro the Vikings?

Sorry if you want to disregard what he's been running behind. His first few years in the league he wasn't running behind a great line (They weren't terrible though), which is why I say he was FAR more impressive back then.

And sorry if your case once again falls apart.

We've already had the debate about Murray. Pretty sure I won that debate, so let's not do that again.

We can put anything you want to a forum vote and let the masses decide who 'wins' or 'loses' anything. You just say the word.

 

[Sydla]

So he's benefited from a top 10-11 offensive line 3 out of the past 4 years. His second best season came behind a pretty average offensive line.

You said he's run behind a Top 10 offensive line for much of his career. That's apparently false.

 

[Stash]

But if you note, I said "most" people that would like Peterson also don't want to give up the farm to get him either. One poster who wants to give up top picks for him doesn't refute my point.

No, it's yet another thing a guy with no case and nothing to back it up is wrong about. He likes to argue, he's just not good at it.

 

[Stash]

According to Football Outsiders. Since 2007, here are their Vikings rankings for run blocking OLs

2007 - 16th
2008 - 17th
2009 - 20th
2010 - 11th
2011 - 18th
2012 - 10th
2013 - 10th

So not sure where one can support the claim that he's run behind Top 10 OLs for much of his career. One advanced statistics analysis suggests otherwise.

Good luck getting a response on these facts from others, but what stands out even more to me was Peterson's 2012 performance. He did that well and that line still only ranked 10th. It speaks to me about how dominant he truly is.

 

[mattjames2010]

You said he's run behind a Top 10 offensive line for much of his career. That's apparently false.

Yes, apparently. I thought their offensive line in 2011, in terms of run blocking was better. Though, Peterson was injured in 2011 and I wonder how the run blocking was before the injury.

But this is clear, Peterson has benefited from a far better offensive line than he did earlier in his career. My point was earlier, that people make the claim that the Vikings didn't have a good offensive line. He did, apparently.

 

[mattjames2010]

Good luck getting a response on these facts from others, but what stands out even more to me was Peterson's 2012 performance. He did that well and that line still only ranked 10th. It speaks to me about how dominant he truly is.

That's still a damn good line, they weren't pushovers. Now, 2008 and him rushing for over 1,700 yards, now that's far more impressive.

 

[Sydla]

Their OL was pretty much league average over the course of his career and the potential OL the Cowboys could put on the field in 2015 dwarfs anything the Vikings every put in front of him.

So with that in mind, if the Vikes come to us and suggest they'll send us Peterson for say a 3rd rounder and maybe a 4th or 5th next year and Peterson will redo his deal............ it's pretty much a no brainer risk to take IMO.

 

[DallasDW00ds0n]

When AP finishes top 5 in rushing again this year, all these haters are gonna be on here going "I told you ... Dallas needed AP!"... Meanwhile we throw out another year of Ro.o with McFadden and a rookie

 

[mattjames2010]

Their OL was pretty much league average over the course of his career and the potential OL the Cowboys could put on the field in 2015 dwarfs anything the Vikings every put in front of him.

But it wasn't in 2010, 2012, and 2013. Only one of those seasons did he have a big year, outside of that? He was doing what he always did.

 

[Stash]

Run from what? I'm not the one making claims that the Cowboys are interested in him, others here have. I'm going by this: Until there are reliable sources saying that the Dallas Cowboys are interested in Peterson, there is absolutely no reason to think there is. What do we know now? We are very interested in the RBs in this draft. You can bring up the "smokescreen" nonsense.

What 'reliable source' are you talking about? What qualifies? Maybe you don't know this (like a LOT of things), but the Cowboys organization would be charged with something called tampering if the publicly commented on a player under contract from another team.

Insanity? Um, we have two players on "Prove it" deals right now. That's not insanity, it's good management; something both Jerry and Stephen seem to be implementing.

Peterson has a Hall of Fame career of 'prove it'. You're presenting leaps of logic and loops where he's not the same player until he steps foot on the field, which is impossible until the new season starts.

Anything else?

Plenty. You're terrible at this.

 

[Silver N Blue]

Latest on AP---sure to appease mattjames, the dead guy from the matrix, and doom.....

An NFL general manager told Bleacher Report's Mike Freeman that he believes the Raiders are "right there" in the mix to trade for Adrian Peterson.
ESPN Raiders reporter Bill Williamson adds that he "keeps hearing" Oakland connected to Peterson. GM Reggie McKenzie has been trying to add star power to his roster and Peterson would certainly fit the bill. And the Raiders are one team with the cap space to take on A.D.'s $12.75 million cap hit. It's definitely concerning for Latavius Murray owners that McKenzie has seemed hellbent on adding talent to his backfield, first flirting with DeMarco Murray and now Peterson.
Related: [SIZE=+0]Raiders[/SIZE]

 

[Stash]

Yes, apparently. I thought their offensive line in 2011, in terms of run blocking was better. Though, Peterson was injured in 2011 and I wonder how the run blocking was before the injury.

But this is clear, Peterson has benefited from a far better offensive line than he did earlier in his career. My point was earlier, that people make the claim that the Vikings didn't have a good offensive line. He did, apparently.

What do you know? Yet another mistake...

 

[Sydla]

But it wasn't in 2010, 2012, and 2013. Only one of those seasons did he have a big year, outside of that? He was doing what he always did.

I am beginning to come around to roo's point. You are so far in the tank to rip any potential deal to get Peterson that you can't back down now.

Again, Peterson never, ever, ever, ever played behind a line as good as the one he could play behind if he ended up in Dallas.

Even at his age, for the right price, only a total fool would say no.

And FWIW, I think the odds aren't good in our favor to get him anyway.

 

[Silver N Blue]

When AP finishes top 5 in rushing again this year, all these haters are gonna be on here going "I told you ... Dallas needed AP!"... Meanwhile we throw out another year of Ro.o with McFadden and a rookie

Exactly I told WG yesterday if they don't bring in AP or draft a bellcow..I will create the thread " Why the cowboys running game failed this year"..

 

[Stash]

That's still a damn good line, they weren't pushovers. Now, 2008 and him rushing for over 1,700 yards, now that's far more impressive.

Again, who was there? What Pro Bowl linemen did he have? Who paved the way for him and earned the deserved accolades?

If this line was so great, the men involved would have been recognized for it. If they weren't, they weren't.

 

[dallasdave]

Again, who was there? What Pro Bowl linemen did he have? Who paved the way for him and earned the deserved accolades?

If this line was so great, the men involved would have been recognized for it. If they weren't, they weren't.

 

[mattjames2010]

What 'reliable source' are you talking about? What qualifies? Maybe you don't know this (like a LOT of things), but the Cowboys organization would be charged with something called tampering if the publicly commented on a player under contract from another team.



Peterson has a Hall of Fame career of 'prove it'. You're presenting leaps of logic and loops where he's not the same player until he steps foot on the field, which is impossible until the new season starts.



Plenty. You're terrible at this.

And I have never once said that Jerry or Stephen needed to comment on this right now, did I? Don't put words in my mouth, that **** annoys me.

And what part of "Prove it deal" are you not understanding? It's straight forward. A prove it deal is just that, SHOW US YOU STILL GOT IT! IF you still have it, THEN you get the bigger contract.

You've had trouble understanding this for a while now. I don't get what is complicated with it.

 

[erod]

But it wasn't in 2010, 2012, and 2013. Only one of those seasons did he have a big year, outside of that? He was doing what he always did.

Peterson : other running backs :: Scarlett Johannsen : nunnery

 

[mattjames2010]

Again, who was there? What Pro Bowl linemen did he have? Who paved the way for him and earned the deserved accolades?

If this line was so great, the men involved would have been recognized for it. If they weren't, they weren't.

This is idiotic. Do you understand how terrible the league is with touting offensive lines or lineman? Have you seen over-the-hill lineman making the pro-bowl before? Andre Gurode? Jeff ******* Saturday?

Saturday was pretty much benched in 2012 and made the damn probowl!

 

[erod]

And I have never once said that Jerry or Stephen needed to comment on this right now, did I? Don't put words in my mouth, that **** annoys me.

And what part of "Prove it deal" are you not understanding? It's straight forward. A prove it deal is just that, SHOW US YOU STILL GOT IT! IF you still have it, THEN you get the bigger contract.

You've had trouble understanding this for a while now. I don't get what is complicated with it.

He already has a contract. What part of that do you not get?