Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
TheFanatic

Adrian Peterson Status Updates

Recommended Posts

Highly doubt Hardin would have taken a plea if they were still unsure as to the Vikings' stance in this matter.

:goodposting:

A full 6-game suspension would result in a loss of $4.4 million dollars. So there's no way that Peterson would voluntarily expose himself to that kind of loss unless there was some kind of agreement or understanding between Peterson and the Vikings and the NFL.

Otherwise, he would have been better off taking his chances in court. If he goes to trial in December and is found not guilty, then he gets his full salary in 2014 without missing any games in 2015.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peterson is done with the Vikings; although few if any are taking this stance if your analyze it from a purely football/team management perspective, it makes a ton more sense to trade AP for a 2nd rounder than it does to bring him back to the team. This is nothing against AP as a player but his huge contract is an albatross that is going to weigh down this team for the foreseeable future. He is signed through 2017 with cap hits of 15.4 million, 15.0 million, and 17.0 million respectively. This is way too much to pay any running back irregardless of talent which is why no other back in the league makes within 5 million per season of AP; let alone a back entering his age 30 season. When the news first came down, there was no way that Min could move on from AP due to zero clarity regarding his potential replacement. However, anyone who has watched Jerrick Mckinnon for the past few months can easily see that he has a tremendous amount of talent and the ability to become a very quality feature back if not star in this league. Im not saying he is or ever will be AP, few if any are, but given his talent and his limited contract ($656,000 in 2015) it makes all the sense in the world to continue developing Mckinnon with the eye to making him the permanent feature back next season. For those skeptical of this opinion, take a moment to ponder this question: is this team better next season with AP as currently constituted or with Mckinnon and 3 potential top flight free agents bought with the 15.4 million made available with AP's departure? Looking at next years free agent class this could include a superstar guard in Mike Iupati for 6-7 million, a stabilizing/leading presence at Right tackle in Doug Free for 4 million along with another play-maker on defense with the final 4+ million and a potential future starter with the 2nd rounder they receive for Peterson. It makes too much sense from a purely football/team perspective to make this move...This team isnt going to contend for at least 2 more seasons at which point AP will be 32. Its time to move on, footballs a business.

Edited by brnichols87

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Highly doubt Hardin would have taken a plea if they were still unsure as to the Vikings' stance in this matter.

:goodposting:

A full 6-game suspension would result in a loss of $4.4 million dollars. So there's no way that Peterson would voluntarily expose himself to that kind of loss unless there was some kind of agreement or understanding between Peterson and the Vikings and the NFL.

Otherwise, he would have been better off taking his chances in court. If he goes to trial in December and is found not guilty, then he gets his full salary in 2014 without missing any games in 2015.

If the NFL considers the eight games he missed sufficient time in lieu of a suspension, don't you think they still have to fine him? Is it a situation where Peterson and his lawyer think getting fined for six game checks (or eight), having the right to play and getting credit for an "accrued" season is better than getting paid for weeks 2-9 he missed games and no pay/no play until week 17?

At some point I think he forfeits six+ game checks so is the "accrued" season what his lawyer is hoping for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Highly doubt Hardin would have taken a plea if they were still unsure as to the Vikings' stance in this matter.

:goodposting:

A full 6-game suspension would result in a loss of $4.4 million dollars. So there's no way that Peterson would voluntarily expose himself to that kind of loss unless there was some kind of agreement or understanding between Peterson and the Vikings and the NFL.

Otherwise, he would have been better off taking his chances in court. If he goes to trial in December and is found not guilty, then he gets his full salary in 2014 without missing any games in 2015.

Maybe, maybe not. Sure, he may have been found not guilty. He also may have been found guilty of a felony, which a grand jury had determined cause to prosecute, facing the possibility of 2 years in jail. He's a pariah even pleading down to a misdemeanor. I'll be less shocked if the Vikes cut AP vs. playing him in 2014. I wouldn't agree with it personally, but doubt the team will perform PR gymnastics re: sponsors when it is almost inconceivable AP is in their 2015 plans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Highly doubt Hardin would have taken a plea if they were still unsure as to the Vikings' stance in this matter.

:goodposting:

A full 6-game suspension would result in a loss of $4.4 million dollars. So there's no way that Peterson would voluntarily expose himself to that kind of loss unless there was some kind of agreement or understanding between Peterson and the Vikings and the NFL.

Otherwise, he would have been better off taking his chances in court. If he goes to trial in December and is found not guilty, then he gets his full salary in 2014 without missing any games in 2015.

take his chance in court? are you serious? Plea it down for a first offender. Going to trial would be a terrible move. His lawyer did what was in his best interest. His lawyer has no idea what the NFL will do just like any of us.

Now ADP will certainly go after the league if he doesnt like their decision

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The timing couldn't have been worse for AP on the heels of the Ray Rice incident. Ultimately, the AP situation almost became a bit of a witch hunt. In the end he got charged with a misdemeanor and if he had gone to court likely would have beat the charges altogether.

Rusty Hardin is his lawyer, Hardin's telling him he'll likely beat the charges, Peterson's getting paid, and Peterson chooses a plea bargain instead?

Highly unlikely

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Highly doubt Hardin would have taken a plea if they were still unsure as to the Vikings' stance in this matter.

:goodposting:

A full 6-game suspension would result in a loss of $4.4 million dollars. So there's no way that Peterson would voluntarily expose himself to that kind of loss unless there was some kind of agreement or understanding between Peterson and the Vikings and the NFL.

Otherwise, he would have been better off taking his chances in court. If he goes to trial in December and is found not guilty, then he gets his full salary in 2014 without missing any games in 2015.

Trials are not like what you see on TV shows where everything wraps up neatly in 30 minutes with some commercials in between. It's not just about taking your chances in court, it's about not having the process drag on and then having to appeal if you lose. And if he lost, he would have paid for his defense team, plus the lost salary, plus the costs to appeal, and he would have went to jail. Going to trial was probably the worst possible option.

Edited by TwinTurbo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peterson is done with the Vikings; although few if any are taking this stance if your analyze it from a purely football/team management perspective, it makes a ton more sense to trade AP for a 2nd rounder than it does to bring him back to the team. This is nothing against AP as a player but his huge contract is an albatross that is going to weigh down this team for the foreseeable future. He is signed through 2017 with cap hits of 15.4 million, 15.0 million, and 17.0 million respectively. This is way too much to pay any running back irregardless of talent which is why no other back in the league makes within 5 million per season of AP; let alone a back entering his age 30 season. When the news first came down, there was no way that Min could move on from AP due to zero clarity regarding his potential replacement. However, anyone who has watched Jerrick Mckinnon for the past few months can easily see that he has a tremendous amount of talent and the ability to become a very quality feature back if not star in this league. Im not saying he is or ever will be AP, few if any are, but given his talent and his limited contract ($656,000 in 2015) it makes all the sense in the world to continue developing Mckinnon with the eye to making him the permanent feature back next season. For those skeptical of this opinion, take a moment to ponder this question: is this team better next season with AP as currently constituted or with Mckinnon and 3 potential top flight free agents bought with the 15.4 million made available with AP's departure? Looking at next years free agent class this could include a superstar guard in Mike Iupati for 6-7 million, a stabilizing/leading presence at Right tackle in Doug Free for 4 million along with another play-maker on defense with the final 4+ million and a potential future starter with the 2nd rounder they receive for Peterson. It makes too much sense from a purely football/team perspective to make this move...This team isnt going to contend for at least 2 more seasons at which point AP will be 32. Its time to move on, footballs a business.

Yeah the sponsors for the new stadium don't want him and his contract is not what any team would want for an almost 30 year old RB, regardless of his HOF career credentials. This incident gives the Vikings a legitimate out to move on from him without angering the fan base. From a business standpoint, it certainly makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Highly doubt Hardin would have taken a plea if they were still unsure as to the Vikings' stance in this matter.

:goodposting:

A full 6-game suspension would result in a loss of $4.4 million dollars. So there's no way that Peterson would voluntarily expose himself to that kind of loss unless there was some kind of agreement or understanding between Peterson and the Vikings and the NFL.

Otherwise, he would have been better off taking his chances in court. If he goes to trial in December and is found not guilty, then he gets his full salary in 2014 without missing any games in 2015.

Trials are not like what you see on TV shows where everything wraps up neatly in 30 minutes with some commercials in between. It's not just about taking your chances in court, it's about not having the process drag on and then having to appeal if you lose. And if he lost, he would have paid for his defense team, plus the lost salary, plus the costs to appeal, and he would have went to jail. Going to trial was probably the worst possible option.

Not to mention circus-like media coverage of a prosecutor calling witness after witness testifying to facts, possibly even lesser known prior acts, in effort to paint Peterson as a POS. Just reading news articles and the police account of the child describing Peterson's 'whooping room' was damning; just imagine televised testimony by witnesses, the doctor, etc. Even if he was ultimately found not guilty, I don't think you put that sort of genie back in the bottle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I washed my hands of the stress and traded Roethlisberger, AP, McKinnon, Mike Floyd for Stafford, Calvin and A Morris. Probably bites me if AP plays but I have Rodgers too and had to capitalize on Ben's hot streak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just picked him up. Probably no decision till Wednesday next week. The bye week gives them the illusion of "thoroughly investigating" the matter. If the Vikings played Sunday, he'd be cleared by Friday to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like the mother is willing to move forward. Guess it helps his case with the NFL/public opinion?

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11827905/mother-adrian-peterson-son-supports-plea-deal

MINNEAPOLIS -- The mother of Adrian Peterson's son agrees with the plea deal the Minnesota Vikings star reached on Tuesday and doesn't want Peterson's career to be harmed by the child abuse case that has already taken the running back off the field for eight games this season, according to a statement released by her attorney.
The mother of Vikings RB Adrian Peterson's son said Wednesday she supports a plea deal that gave Peterson probation on a charge of abusing the boy.
Peterson pleaded no contest Tuesday to one misdemeanor count of reckless injury to a child, after he injured his 4-year-old son in May while disciplining him with a wooden switch. He hasn't played since the Vikings' season opener Sept. 7 and is awaiting a decision from NFL commissioner Roger Goodell about whether he will face additional league sanctions or be allowed to resume his career.
In a statement, attorney Kelly Dohm said "the entire matter has been very difficult for all involved parties." The statement did not name the boy's mother but said, "She has valued her friendship with Mr. Peterson over the last seven years. She and Mr. Peterson have shared a parental relationship for four years with a fun, beautiful little boy. My client knows that Mr. Peterson loves their son very much and has confidence that he will remain an involved parent with their son throughout his life.
"My client asks the media and the public to respect her and their son's privacy. My client has no interest in Mr. Peterson's career being harmed and hopes that the NFL will not impose any additional punishment on him."
Peterson's attorney, Rusty Hardin, said on ESPN's "Mike & Mike" on Wednesday that Peterson never intended to injure his son while administering discipline in May, and while Hardin added that Peterson has not changed his mind about the usefulness of corporal punishment, he was sorry for what happened to his son.
"He loves his son. He wants to get back in a relationship with him," Hardin said. "He obviously hates what has happened to him and his reputation and the public perception. This is a guy who was incredibly active with his foundation, did all kinds of things for kids, had a great relationship with his kids, and all of that has just been tremendously disheartening for him. But on the other hand, he's an optimistic guy, and he's a workout fiend. All he's had time to do while he's sat and waited for this to be resolved is to work out, so he's probably in better shape than if he had been playing.
"He wants to rehabilitate his image within the public, and people's perception, because he and everybody close to him knows that it's a wrong perception. He's a caring and loving father. He loves kids, and he hates that this happened."
Hardin said he hopes Peterson "doesn't fall prey to all these publicized events involving other people, which had nothing to do with his situation." He said a grand jury informed him Sept. 4 that it had declined to charge Peterson only to return on Sept. 11 and tell Hardin it was reconsidering Peterson's case, three days after a surveillance video of Ray Rice abusing his then-fiancée surfaced on TMZ.
In conjunction with his first court appearance on Oct. 8, Peterson admitted to a worker conducting his drug test that he "smoked a little weed." That admission, according to ESPN NFL Insider Ed Werder, could factor into Goodell's review of whether to reinstate Peterson, though Hardin said Peterson told the truth when he could have lied about smoking marijuana.
"I'm not saying he gets special credit for doing something the law says he shouldn't do," Hardin said. "People make mistakes. He made a mistake. That doesn't make it right. It doesn't excuse it. It does mean that when he does accept his responsibility, he should be allowed to move forward."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Circumstances are very different and yet this thread is eerily similar to the Josh Gordon thread. I fully expect both to be starting for my Peyton Manning-led squad in a few weeks. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Circumstances are very different and yet this thread is eerily similar to the Josh Gordon thread. I fully expect both to be starting for my Peyton Manning-led squad in a few weeks. :-)

Enjoy your fantasy league championship title, my friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing...everyone was so sure he was done for the year. What has changed? We knew he wasn't getting jail time or getting charged with a felony.

The Vikings cut ways with peterson due to sponsors and public opinion. Maybe time has healed wounds. But I bet they are more concerned with sponsors than with getting AP back, especially if he's leaving after the year.

They are 4-5 in a business thats object is to win. Peterson is a difference maker. Maybe they are concerned with that.

AP could have been playing for the Vikings this entire time. It was ultimately their choice to put AP on the Commissioner's Exempt List. They might regret that decision now, but I don't think we can simply assume that they don't care about sponsors and public opinion at all. Their own actions in this case up to this point suggest the exact opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AP could have been playing for the Vikings this entire time. It was ultimately their choice to put AP on the Commissioner's Exempt List. They might regret that decision now, but I don't think we can simply assume that they don't care about sponsors and public opinion at all. Their own actions in this case up to this point suggest the exact opposite.

I think the whole "Commissioner's Exempt List" was a mutual decision by Goodell and the Vikings to do a little damage control. It was in everyone's best interest to make it look like the Vikings were taking a stand when in reality they were just kicking the can down the road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a worse punishment than making him play football for the Minnesota Vikings? ;)

In all seriousness though, the games missed should count towards his suspension and an equivalent fine should be given out. This whole thing has been blown out of proportion for a a first offense due to the Ray Rice scandal. He should be required to attend some parenting/rehab/psych classes or whatever would be relevant for this situation. If he gets charged with anything similar again, then I would support a much more severe punishment. There are NFL players with much more violent records that no one seems to care about.

In today's age with the twitterverse, everyone wants to burn everyone at the stake immediately, when in reality, after a few weeks pass and an appropriate punishment is handed out everyone is willing to forgive and move on, assuming there is some assurance the offending has changed their behavior and taking action to make sure it won't happen again. I do think ADP needs to make an official apology statement, especially since his statements were in denial especially at first. He needs to admit he was wrong and say he is changing his parenting behavior and getting counseling, and if he does that I would have no problem reinstating him immediately.

EDIT: Also I meant this post more from the angle the NFL needs to take from a PR perspective and am not trying to make any type of Child Rea statements as I have no interest in debating that.

Edited by GreenNGold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doing "time served" and docking him for 6 weeks pay amounts to over $5 million. And yes, at that point it would defacto be the equivalent of a 6 week suspension, along with 2 weeks of paid leave.

The key issue in my opinion is the service time. If Goodell does not go "time served" and tags on a 6 week suspension from today going forward, then AP misses out on a full year of service from a pension standpoint. Given the short life span of NFL careers I would think that this amounts to many millions of dollars in lost pension money for AP. And I'd think the Players Union would fight this tooth and nail. Just think about the precedent that could set.

According to the NFL CBA (linked below), AP would miss out on $560 a month (beginning at age 55 and continuing for the duration of his life) for not accruing a year of service during the 2014 season. Over 30 years, that's a loss of about $200,000 (minus taxes).

The lost accrued season and pension funds are essentially insignificant for AP. All the parties involved are going to know it. It's just a useful potential out for the Commissioner if he's looking for one.

http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/PDFs/General/2011_Final_CBA_Searchable_Bookmarked.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AP could have been playing for the Vikings this entire time. It was ultimately their choice to put AP on the Commissioner's Exempt List. They might regret that decision now, but I don't think we can simply assume that they don't care about sponsors and public opinion at all. Their own actions in this case up to this point suggest the exact opposite.

I think the whole "Commissioner's Exempt List" was a mutual decision by Goodell and the Vikings to do a little damage control. It was in everyone's best interest to make it look like the Vikings were taking a stand when in reality they were just kicking the can down the road.

There might have been a conversation there, but the Vikings were the only ones who could put him on the list.

The Vikings wouldn't have taken their best player off the field if all they cared about (at the time) was winning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing...everyone was so sure he was done for the year. What has changed? We knew he wasn't getting jail time or getting charged with a felony.

The Vikings cut ways with peterson due to sponsors and public opinion. Maybe time has healed wounds. But I bet they are more concerned with sponsors than with getting AP back, especially if he's leaving after the year.

They are 4-5 in a business thats object is to win. Peterson is a difference maker. Maybe they are concerned with that.

AP could have been playing for the Vikings this entire time. It was ultimately their choice to put AP on the Commissioner's Exempt List. They might regret that decision now, but I don't think we can simply assume that they don't care about sponsors and public opinion at all. Their own actions in this case up to this point suggest the exact opposite.

AP could have been playing for the Vikings this entire time. It was ultimately their choice to put AP on the Commissioner's Exempt List. They might regret that decision now, but I don't think we can simply assume that they don't care about sponsors and public opinion at all. Their own actions in this case up to this point suggest the exact opposite.

I think the whole "Commissioner's Exempt List" was a mutual decision by Goodell and the Vikings to do a little damage control. It was in everyone's best interest to make it look like the Vikings were taking a stand when in reality they were just kicking the can down the road.

AP could have been playing for the Vikings this entire time. It was ultimately their choice to put AP on the Commissioner's Exempt List. They might regret that decision now, but I don't think we can simply assume that they don't care about sponsors and public opinion at all. Their own actions in this case up to this point suggest the exact opposite.

I think the whole "Commissioner's Exempt List" was a mutual decision by Goodell and the Vikings to do a little damage control. It was in everyone's best interest to make it look like the Vikings were taking a stand when in reality they were just kicking the can down the road.

There might have been a conversation there, but the Vikings were the only ones who could put him on the list.

The Vikings wouldn't have taken their best player off the field if all they cared about (at the time) was winning.

EastonBlues, The Commissioner is the only person who can put anyone on the "Commissioner's Exempt List." Not the Vikings, not AP... just the Commish.

The fact people do not understand that is an important thing to understand. Especially when your whole conversation is off the basis of someone other than the commish putting him there. Tough to take someones conversation seriously when they are mistaken on an important point.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doing "time served" and docking him for 6 weeks pay amounts to over $5 million. And yes, at that point it would defacto be the equivalent of a 6 week suspension, along with 2 weeks of paid leave.

The key issue in my opinion is the service time. If Goodell does not go "time served" and tags on a 6 week suspension from today going forward, then AP misses out on a full year of service from a pension standpoint. Given the short life span of NFL careers I would think that this amounts to many millions of dollars in lost pension money for AP. And I'd think the Players Union would fight this tooth and nail. Just think about the precedent that could set.

I do believe you are right. Not only that, I'm starting to get the feeling that Peterson and Hardin are doing Rog and the NFL a favor by agreeing to any concessions at all.

Public opinion doesnt matter when contracts are involved and thats what the CBA is and the section that people are referring to is pretty damming to Roger and his decision. I have said his hands will be tied by that article of the CBA and Peterson will play once he is able to make a decision. The time it takes to make a decision is what worries me. We know the NFLPA and Hardin are pushing for swift resolutions.

tell that to josh Gordon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EastonBlues, The Commissioner is the only person who can put anyone on the "Commissioner's Exempt List." Not the Vikings, not AP... just the Commish.

The fact people do not understand that is an important thing to understand. Especially when your whole conversation is off the basis of someone other than the commish putting him there. Tough to take someones conversation seriously when they are mistaken on an important point.

You're absolutely right. I didn't understand this either, and I have no idea why everyone is stating/reporting that the Vikings put him there. Thanks for the correction.

Found this in the player's manual, for those who are interested:

"The Exempt List is a special player status available to clubs only in unusual circumstances. The List includes those players who have been declared by the Commissioner to be temporarily exempt from counting within the Active List limit. Only the Commissioner has the authority to place a player on the Exempt List; clubs have no such authority, and no exemption, regardless of circumstances, is automatic. The Commissioner also has the authority to determine in advance whether a player’s time on the Exempt List will be finite or will continue until the Commissioner deems the exemption should be lifted and the player returned to the Active List."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EastonBlues, The Commissioner is the only person who can put anyone on the "Commissioner's Exempt List." Not the Vikings, not AP... just the Commish.

The fact people do not understand that is an important thing to understand. Especially when your whole conversation is off the basis of someone other than the commish putting him there. Tough to take someones conversation seriously when they are mistaken on an important point.

You're absolutely right. I didn't understand this either, and I have no idea why everyone is stating/reporting that the Vikings put him there. Thanks for the correction.

Found this in the player's manual, for those who are interested:

"The Exempt List is a special player status available to clubs only in unusual circumstances. The List includes those players who have been declared by the Commissioner to be temporarily exempt from counting within the Active List limit. Only the Commissioner has the authority to place a player on the Exempt List; clubs have no such authority, and no exemption, regardless of circumstances, is automatic. The Commissioner also has the authority to determine in advance whether a player’s time on the Exempt List will be finite or will continue until the Commissioner deems the exemption should be lifted and the player returned to the Active List."

:thumbup:

Just important to make sure everyones on the same page on that. While I think the commish;s hands are tied, he is still the only one who can remove him from that list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NFL rejected a request from Adrian Peterson's camp for immediate reinstatement following his plea deal Tuesday.

Source: Foxsports.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, what does this mean?

Peterson was cut in one of my league's very early this morning and I immediately picked him up, so now I'm on this merry-go-round.

I assume that this doesn't really have much of an impact on anything? It just means that Peterson is not eligible immediately, not really saying anything about what could happen at anytime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NFL rejected a request from Adrian Peterson's camp for immediate reinstatement following his plea deal Tuesday.

Source: Foxsports.com

Wouldn't look good for the NFL to reinstate him without going to the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he completes the terms of the agreement—a $4,000 fine, 80 hours of community service, parenting classes, and two years of probation—the case will be wiped from his record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he completes the terms of the agreementa $4,000 fine, 80 hours of community service, parenting classes, and two years of probationthe case will be wiped from his record.

I think this thread is about his status with the NFL, not his status with the legal system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think he's facing a suspension. He just plead "no contest" to child endangerment (or whatever the actual blood-sucking lawyer-speak is)... isn't that a fancy way of pleading guilty (without really having to say that he did anything wrong).

Personal conduct policy should now kick in, no?

Give him some time to knock out that community service.

Edited by Dizzy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deadspin ‏@Deadspin 8m8 minutes ago

Report: NFL rejected immediate reinstatement for Adrian Peterson. http://deadsp.in/InnBB6x

Well yea. They're not going to just say "alright go back to work" when they have a bye week to at least provide the illusion that they are thinking hard about it.

Wednesday next week, he'll be at practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NFL has to do its own due process on this matter. Peterson's clan were imprudent to think an immediate reinstatement plea would even be considered this early from the leauge office. Rog will take his sweet time with this matter, and make sure Peterson is adjuticated to the letter of his conduct policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NFL has to do its own due process on this matter. Peterson's clan were imprudent to think an immediate reinstatement plea would even be considered this early from the leauge office. Rog will take his sweet time with this matter, and make sure Peterson is adjuticated to the letter of his conduct policy.

So... about a week then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NFL has to do its own due process on this matter. Peterson's clan were imprudent to think an immediate reinstatement plea would even be considered this early from the leauge office. Rog will take his sweet time with this matter, and make sure Peterson is adjuticated to the letter of his conduct policy.

I agree. Personally I don't think he'll play again this season, but nothing is going to surprise me.

I have to believe that Peterson's (legal) team knew there was a close-to-zero chance for instant reinstatement... but hey, it doesn't hurt to ask.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NFL has to do its own due process on this matter. Peterson's clan were imprudent to think an immediate reinstatement plea would even be considered this early from the leauge office. Rog will take his sweet time with this matter, and make sure Peterson is adjuticated to the letter of his conduct policy.

They knew it would be rejected but did it to show they strongly believe he should be reinstated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think he's facing a suspension. He just plead "no contest" to child endangerment (or whatever the actual blood-sucking lawyer-speak is)... isn't that a fancy way of pleading guilty (without really having to say that he did anything wrong).

Personal conduct policy should now kick in, no?

Give him some time to knock out that community service.

A finding of guilt was deferred for two years. In the meantime he can complete his community service and parenting classes and have it wiped from his record before that ever happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he completes the terms of the agreementa $4,000 fine, 80 hours of community service, parenting classes, and two years of probationthe case will be wiped from his record.

I think this thread is about his status with the NFL, not his status with the legal system.

This is just for football related information.

The status of his criminal record is football related.

The other thread is for discussing child rearing.

Edited by cstu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NFL has to do its own due process on this matter. Peterson's clan were imprudent to think an immediate reinstatement plea would even be considered this early from the leauge office. Rog will take his sweet time with this matter, and make sure Peterson is adjuticated to the letter of his conduct policy.

They knew it would be rejected but did it to show they strongly believe he should be reinstated.

Maybe they need to 'strenuously object'?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Goodell will allow him to play this season, it seems like the decision comes into tomorrow so he has a full week of practice for week 11.

If he doesn't, not sure why he would suspend him now for weeks 11-16. He would just say they are still reviewing the case then suspend him 12-17 effectively ending his season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... Just important to make sure everyones on the same page on that. While I think the commish;s hands are tied, he is still the only one who can remove him from that list.

Hey Jer, curious about something I just read in that Fox article:

Peterson and Carolina Panthers defensive end Greg Hardy both agreed to be placed on the commissioner's exempt list in the wake of public pressure on the league and the players' respective teams to take them off the field while their legal processes played out. Both players have been paid their salaries in full. Many considered the moves a rare use of the exempt list, which had previously been reserved for players coming off suspensions, like former Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Michael Vick following his imprisonment on dog-fighting convictions.

Is that accurate? Do the players truly "agree" to let the commish put them on the exempt list until they can work things out? If so, what if they stop agreeing to remain there?

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... Just important to make sure everyones on the same page on that. While I think the commish;s hands are tied, he is still the only one who can remove him from that list.

Hey Jer, curious about something I just read in that Fox article:

Peterson and Carolina Panthers defensive end Greg Hardy both agreed to be placed on the commissioner's exempt list in the wake of public pressure on the league and the players' respective teams to take them off the field while their legal processes played out. Both players have been paid their salaries in full. Many considered the moves a rare use of the exempt list, which had previously been reserved for players coming off suspensions, like former Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Michael Vick following his imprisonment on dog-fighting convictions.

Is that accurate? Do the players truly "agree" to let the commish put them on the exempt list until they can work things out? If so, what if they stop agreeing to remain there?

They agree to be placed there until their legal case is resolved. Greg Hardys is not resolved, Petersons is. Rice is not on the list, so his case is irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

:thumbup:

Just important to make sure everyones on the same page on that. While I think the commish;s hands are tied, he is still the only one who can remove him from that list.

Hey Jer, curious about something I just read in that Fox article:

Peterson and Carolina Panthers defensive end Greg Hardy both agreed to be placed on the commissioner's exempt list in the wake of public pressure on the league and the players' respective teams to take them off the field while their legal processes played out. Both players have been paid their salaries in full. Many considered the moves a rare use of the exempt list, which had previously been reserved for players coming off suspensions, like former Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Michael Vick following his imprisonment on dog-fighting convictions.

Is that accurate? Do the players truly "agree" to let the commish put them on the exempt list until they can work things out? If so, what if they stop agreeing to remain there?

I assume their given a couple of options; most likely being given a paid leave is the best one for everybody so they "volunteer" for that one. The NFL commissioner seems to have absolute power and can override just about anything, toss in the weakest PA Union of all the major sports and the player really doesn't have any choice.

What would happen if MLB suspended players before their court dates, probably a strike.

Edited by KellysHeroes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peterson was facing criminal charges. Wouldn't it be a good deal for him to avoid those even if he didn't play this year? I have not been following this closely, but if I was facing criminal charges and possibly jail time I would not really be thinking about finishing out the season, I would be telling my lawyers to keep me out of jail at any cost and if that involves a plea deal so be it.

I don't buy, "The only reason he would make this deal is because he already got his ducks in a row to come back week 11, otherwise he would fight this in court."

This guy is still receiving game checks for doing nothing, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that accurate? Do the players truly "agree" to let the commish put them on the exempt list until they can work things out? If so, what if they stop agreeing to remain there?

Then the team and/or the NFL could just suspend them without pay (or in the very least de-activate them). I think both Peterson and Hardy realized that it was in their best interest to keep getting paid their full salary instead of possibly being suspended without pay.

Edited by Joe Summer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.