grateful zed
Footballguy
well put
This...BassNBrew said:Actually it's a complete win for the NFL. They get to be tough on child abusers while getting one of their best talents back on the field.General Tso said:I love it. A complete slap in the face to Goodell and the NFL. One day closer to Goodell getting fired...SaintsInDome2006 said:We called this, or many did, what an absolute bunch of crp that Goodell pulled, it was totally inappropriate and maybe even illegal what Goodell did.
http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/adrian-peterson-reinstated/story?id=29247428
Good for Peterson and the Union.
Goodell is out of control, has been for a long time now, and he is unfit to be Commissioner.
Except he's not on the field, the NFL has appealed, so he's still on the exempt list. A federal distrtict court has confirmed that Goodell just made rules up out of thin air but he doesn't care, he will just keep violating the league's contract with the union.This...BassNBrew said:Actually it's a complete win for the NFL. They get to be tough on child abusers while getting one of their best talents back on the field.General Tso said:I love it. A complete slap in the face to Goodell and the NFL. One day closer to Goodell getting fired...SaintsInDome2006 said:We called this, or many did, what an absolute bunch of crp that Goodell pulled, it was totally inappropriate and maybe even illegal what Goodell did.
http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/adrian-peterson-reinstated/story?id=29247428
Good for Peterson and the Union.
Goodell is out of control, has been for a long time now, and he is unfit to be Commissioner.
He was paid for the games he was suspended last season.menobrown said:One thing I'm curious about if anyone can answer. If the NFL loses the appeal on today's ruling, which basically states the NFL overstepped it's bounds in suspending him, will that entitle Peterson to collect his pay for the games he was suspended last season?
Nope, you are confusing his suspension to be being on the exempt list.He was paid for the games he was suspended last season.menobrown said:One thing I'm curious about if anyone can answer. If the NFL loses the appeal on today's ruling, which basically states the NFL overstepped it's bounds in suspending him, will that entitle Peterson to collect his pay for the games he was suspended last season?
You're right, my bad.Nope, you are confusing his suspension to be being on the exempt list.He was paid for the games he was suspended last season.menobrown said:One thing I'm curious about if anyone can answer. If the NFL loses the appeal on today's ruling, which basically states the NFL overstepped it's bounds in suspending him, will that entitle Peterson to collect his pay for the games he was suspended last season?
I agree with much of what you are saying.I truly believe the April designation was designed by both the NFL and the Vikings who I believe worked together on this entire process. Which is part of why I've been so bothered by this suspension. I'll never have proof of this but I think the Vikings worked with the NFL this entire time to keep Peterson off the field this season and give everyone time for the smoke to clear. As part of this working relationship between the NFL and Vikings they slapped the April designation on Peterson to limit his options this off-season. This was not done to be vindictive towards Peterson so much as it was to give the Vikings the upper hand when they would inevitably approach Peterson about taking a pay cut. By freezing Peterson out of the first month of free agency teams would have already made plans and severely limited Peterson's options, giving the Vikings the upper hand when they would later ask him to take a pay cut.ILUVBEER99 said:question, why does the NFL care whether he's reinstated now or in April?
Is this a bit of a conspiracy theory on my part? Sure it is. But I believe it and what's more important is I think the Peterson camp believes it which is part of what has him so upset, because he knows they are going to come to him and ask for pay cut.
Other than that this "win" by Peterson causes some other complications for the NFL and the Vikings. I asked a question earlier if this entitled Peterson to collect his pay, a little over $4million, for the games he was suspended last year. I found out the answer and the answer is yes, he absolutely can. The NFL might be able to maintain at a minimum the old 2 game policy should be in effect so he may not get it all back but he stands a good chance of only losing out on 2 game checks.
Secondly it opens up the door for players like Greg Hardy to have his suspension thrown out or at least reduced to the old policy of 2 games. It also would mean any violation a player did before the new conduct policy would be maxed at 2 games for domestic violence. So as an example if a video of Dez actually existed and came out that showed him knocking that girl out in the Wal-Mart parking lot the max he could get is 2 games.
Lastly losing this case just makes the NFL look bad, especially Roger. I don't think it puts his job in jeopardy in anyway because he is simply carrying out the owners wishes but it's a bad look for the league when they keep making up the rules as the go along. This may not matter a whole lot right now but I think could work against the NFL when it's time for the new CBA.
Yes, please."I've heard rumors, Arizona," Peterson's father said. "I've also heard the rumors of Indianapolis and the Colts, going there with a quarterback the caliber of (Andrew) Luck. I've also heard the Cowboys, coming back home with the Cowboys, behind that offensive line that they have."
I love a good conspiracy theory but I'm not following this. Peterson is under contract for the next 3 years, so he isn't a Free Agent himself before April 15. He can't talk to other teams until he is released. He would talk to other teams under the table whether he's suspended or not. However, the Vikes control his fate regardless of where any talks between AP and other teams go. I don't think that changes whether or not he's suspended until April 15 unless I'm missing something, which is possible.I truly believe the April designation was designed by both the NFL and the Vikings who I believe worked together on this entire process. Which is part of why I've been so bothered by this suspension. I'll never have proof of this but I think the Vikings worked with the NFL this entire time to keep Peterson off the field this season and give everyone time for the smoke to clear. As part of this working relationship between the NFL and Vikings they slapped the April designation on Peterson to limit his options this off-season. This was not done to be vindictive towards Peterson so much as it was to give the Vikings the upper hand when they would inevitably approach Peterson about taking a pay cut. By freezing Peterson out of the first month of free agency teams would have already made plans and severely limited Peterson's options, giving the Vikings the upper hand when they would later ask him to take a pay cut.ILUVBEER99 said:question, why does the NFL care whether he's reinstated now or in April?
The issue is that other free agent RBs will be signing with teams on March 10th. If Peterson's status is not resolved until April 15th, then his trade value will drop and it will give the Vikings leverage to convince Peterson to renegotiate his contract.I love a good conspiracy theory but I'm not following this. Peterson is under contract for the next 3 years, so he isn't a Free Agent himself before April 15. He can't talk to other teams until he is released. He would talk to other teams under the table whether he's suspended or not. However, the Vikes control his fate regardless of where any talks between AP and other teams go. I don't think that changes whether or not he's suspended until April 15 unless I'm missing something, which is possible.I truly believe the April designation was designed by both the NFL and the Vikings who I believe worked together on this entire process. Which is part of why I've been so bothered by this suspension. I'll never have proof of this but I think the Vikings worked with the NFL this entire time to keep Peterson off the field this season and give everyone time for the smoke to clear. As part of this working relationship between the NFL and Vikings they slapped the April designation on Peterson to limit his options this off-season. This was not done to be vindictive towards Peterson so much as it was to give the Vikings the upper hand when they would inevitably approach Peterson about taking a pay cut. By freezing Peterson out of the first month of free agency teams would have already made plans and severely limited Peterson's options, giving the Vikings the upper hand when they would later ask him to take a pay cut.ILUVBEER99 said:question, why does the NFL care whether he's reinstated now or in April?
Ahh, ok I think I get it, but teams can talk with the Vikes if they are interested in ADP. On paying the $12.75M, I would have bet my left arm during 2014 that it would never happen. I've recently done a 180, as I'm now convinced the Vikes pay it on principle as a reaction to ADP/Dogra antics. It's a continuation of me not understanding ADP's end game throughout this ordeal. If he wants back on the field, then why become a NFLPA pawn that will force an obvious impasse? If he wants off the Vikes, why lower his own trade value by posturing himself as the guy who may not want to come back to the Vikes? At this point the only logical conclusion is AP must be intent on staying with the Vikes under his current contract, and if so, bravo AP, bravo.Peterson may be under contract, but the Vikings have no intention of paying the $12.75 million that he's owed in 2015. They will try to trade him OR get him to renegotiate for a lower salary.
By saying he wants off the Vikings he's making sure he's cut and not traded. No team is going to trade for him if they know the Vikes have to cut him. Then he can sign with the team of his choice (Dallas).Ahh, ok I think I get it, but teams can talk with the Vikes if they are interested in ADP. On paying the $12.75M, I would have bet my left arm during 2014 that it would never happen. I've recently done a 180, as I'm now convinced the Vikes pay it on principle as a reaction to ADP/Dogra antics. It's a continuation of me not understanding ADP's end game throughout this ordeal. If he wants back on the field, then why become a NFLPA pawn that will force an obvious impasse? If he wants off the Vikes, why lower his own trade value by posturing himself as the guy who may not want to come back to the Vikes? At this point the only logical conclusion is AP must be intent on staying with the Vikes under his current contract, and if so, bravo AP, bravo.Peterson may be under contract, but the Vikings have no intention of paying the $12.75 million that he's owed in 2015. They will try to trade him OR get him to renegotiate for a lower salary.
But they don't "have to" cut him just because he is whining. It not like he is Mark Sanchez. He is actually quite good when he plays. Vikings will just have to lower their asking price that is all.By saying he wants off the Vikings he's making sure he's cut and not traded. No team is going to trade for him if they know the Vikes have to cut him. Then he can sign with the team of his choice (Dallas).Ahh, ok I think I get it, but teams can talk with the Vikes if they are interested in ADP. On paying the $12.75M, I would have bet my left arm during 2014 that it would never happen. I've recently done a 180, as I'm now convinced the Vikes pay it on principle as a reaction to ADP/Dogra antics. It's a continuation of me not understanding ADP's end game throughout this ordeal. If he wants back on the field, then why become a NFLPA pawn that will force an obvious impasse? If he wants off the Vikes, why lower his own trade value by posturing himself as the guy who may not want to come back to the Vikes? At this point the only logical conclusion is AP must be intent on staying with the Vikes under his current contract, and if so, bravo AP, bravo.Peterson may be under contract, but the Vikings have no intention of paying the $12.75 million that he's owed in 2015. They will try to trade him OR get him to renegotiate for a lower salary.
Yeah, well my position is that isn't going to happen if he's saying it is what he wants publically, They aren't going to cut a player who takes that sort of public stance, just for precedence. His better chancer of getting out of dodge is playing nice while pressuring a trade behind the scenes.By saying he wants off the Vikings he's making sure he's cut and not traded. No team is going to trade for him if they know the Vikes have to cut him. Then he can sign with the team of his choice (Dallas).Ahh, ok I think I get it, but teams can talk with the Vikes if they are interested in ADP. On paying the $12.75M, I would have bet my left arm during 2014 that it would never happen. I've recently done a 180, as I'm now convinced the Vikes pay it on principle as a reaction to ADP/Dogra antics. It's a continuation of me not understanding ADP's end game throughout this ordeal. If he wants back on the field, then why become a NFLPA pawn that will force an obvious impasse? If he wants off the Vikes, why lower his own trade value by posturing himself as the guy who may not want to come back to the Vikes? At this point the only logical conclusion is AP must be intent on staying with the Vikes under his current contract, and if so, bravo AP, bravo.Peterson may be under contract, but the Vikings have no intention of paying the $12.75 million that he's owed in 2015. They will try to trade him OR get him to renegotiate for a lower salary.
"You want to leave the Vikings? Haha, the joke's on you - we're going to pay you $13M to stay!"Yeah, well my position is that isn't going to happen if he's saying it is what he wants publically, They aren't going to cut a player who takes that sort of public stance, just for precedence. His better chancer of getting out of dodge is playing nice while pressuring a trade behind the scenes.By saying he wants off the Vikings he's making sure he's cut and not traded. No team is going to trade for him if they know the Vikes have to cut him. Then he can sign with the team of his choice (Dallas).Ahh, ok I think I get it, but teams can talk with the Vikes if they are interested in ADP. On paying the $12.75M, I would have bet my left arm during 2014 that it would never happen. I've recently done a 180, as I'm now convinced the Vikes pay it on principle as a reaction to ADP/Dogra antics. It's a continuation of me not understanding ADP's end game throughout this ordeal. If he wants back on the field, then why become a NFLPA pawn that will force an obvious impasse? If he wants off the Vikes, why lower his own trade value by posturing himself as the guy who may not want to come back to the Vikes? At this point the only logical conclusion is AP must be intent on staying with the Vikes under his current contract, and if so, bravo AP, bravo.Peterson may be under contract, but the Vikings have no intention of paying the $12.75 million that he's owed in 2015. They will try to trade him OR get him to renegotiate for a lower salary.
That was always a possibility anyway. I don't think it was their preference, but that's what will most likely happen at this point IMHO. The team has 20+M in cap space. What I'm saying is they were far more likely to cut him before he made trading him more difficult. Also if they were to cut him, it would be at the last possible moment before the money is guaranteed, not a nice gesture given to some team players, who are let go early to give them a leg up. I just question the whole approach, but we'll see."You want to leave the Vikings? Haha, the joke's on you - we're going to pay you $13M to stay!"Yeah, well my position is that isn't going to happen if he's saying it is what he wants publically, They aren't going to cut a player who takes that sort of public stance, just for precedence. His better chancer of getting out of dodge is playing nice while pressuring a trade behind the scenes.By saying he wants off the Vikings he's making sure he's cut and not traded. No team is going to trade for him if they know the Vikes have to cut him. Then he can sign with the team of his choice (Dallas).Ahh, ok I think I get it, but teams can talk with the Vikes if they are interested in ADP. On paying the $12.75M, I would have bet my left arm during 2014 that it would never happen. I've recently done a 180, as I'm now convinced the Vikes pay it on principle as a reaction to ADP/Dogra antics. It's a continuation of me not understanding ADP's end game throughout this ordeal. If he wants back on the field, then why become a NFLPA pawn that will force an obvious impasse? If he wants off the Vikes, why lower his own trade value by posturing himself as the guy who may not want to come back to the Vikes? At this point the only logical conclusion is AP must be intent on staying with the Vikes under his current contract, and if so, bravo AP, bravo.Peterson may be under contract, but the Vikings have no intention of paying the $12.75 million that he's owed in 2015. They will try to trade him OR get him to renegotiate for a lower salary.
With the Vikings maintaining that they will keep him, other teams interested in a RB will likely get one in early in FA or spend their cap space on other positions. Then when April 15 rolls around, APs choices in FA will be limited, making a lower offer from the Vikings be a little more appealing.That was always a possibility anyway. I don't think it was their preference, but that's what will most likely happen at this point IMHO. The team has 20+M in cap space. What I'm saying is they were far more likely to cut him before he made trading him more difficult. Also if they were to cut him, it would be at the last possible moment before the money is guaranteed, not a nice gesture given to some team players, who are let go early to give them a leg up. I just question the whole approach, but we'll see."You want to leave the Vikings? Haha, the joke's on you - we're going to pay you $13M to stay!"Yeah, well my position is that isn't going to happen if he's saying it is what he wants publically, They aren't going to cut a player who takes that sort of public stance, just for precedence. His better chancer of getting out of dodge is playing nice while pressuring a trade behind the scenes.By saying he wants off the Vikings he's making sure he's cut and not traded. No team is going to trade for him if they know the Vikes have to cut him. Then he can sign with the team of his choice (Dallas).Ahh, ok I think I get it, but teams can talk with the Vikes if they are interested in ADP. On paying the $12.75M, I would have bet my left arm during 2014 that it would never happen. I've recently done a 180, as I'm now convinced the Vikes pay it on principle as a reaction to ADP/Dogra antics. It's a continuation of me not understanding ADP's end game throughout this ordeal. If he wants back on the field, then why become a NFLPA pawn that will force an obvious impasse? If he wants off the Vikes, why lower his own trade value by posturing himself as the guy who may not want to come back to the Vikes? At this point the only logical conclusion is AP must be intent on staying with the Vikes under his current contract, and if so, bravo AP, bravo.Peterson may be under contract, but the Vikings have no intention of paying the $12.75 million that he's owed in 2015. They will try to trade him OR get him to renegotiate for a lower salary.
Not a good way to convince future free agents to sign.That was always a possibility anyway. I don't think it was their preference, but that's what will most likely happen at this point IMHO. The team has 20+M in cap space. What I'm saying is they were far more likely to cut him before he made trading him more difficult. Also if they were to cut him, it would be at the last possible moment before the money is guaranteed, not a nice gesture given to some team players, who are let go early to give them a leg up. I just question the whole approach, but we'll see.
Edited to be less snarky: I doubt future FAs bat an eye if the Vikings use all the time they have trying to avoid releasing a future HOFer.Not a good way to convince future free agents to sign.That was always a possibility anyway. I don't think it was their preference, but that's what will most likely happen at this point IMHO. The team has 20+M in cap space. What I'm saying is they were far more likely to cut him before he made trading him more difficult. Also if they were to cut him, it would be at the last possible moment before the money is guaranteed, not a nice gesture given to some team players, who are let go early to give them a leg up. I just question the whole approach, but we'll see.
I wonder if Chip Kelly was running the Vikings, Peterson would already be informed that the team no longer requires his services. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/02/28/more-talk-in-philly-that-mccoy-may-be-asked-to-take-a-pay-cut/cstu said:Not a good way to convince future free agents to sign.BigJim® said:That was always a possibility anyway. I don't think it was their preference, but that's what will most likely happen at this point IMHO. The team has 20+M in cap space. What I'm saying is they were far more likely to cut him before he made trading him more difficult. Also if they were to cut him, it would be at the last possible moment before the money is guaranteed, not a nice gesture given to some team players, who are let go early to give them a leg up. I just question the whole approach, but we'll see.
You SHOULD hear back, and it shouldn't be pretty. What a horrible offer.I offered him to an owner for Odell beckham. Have not heard back nor do I expect him to accept.
besides Murray who may not even become an FA the list of available RBs this off-season is pretty bad. If Peterson misses the first month of Free Agency it will hurt but not much; if cut by the Vikes he'll stay get a good pay day.The issue is that other free agent RBs will be signing with teams on March 10th. If Peterson's status is not resolved until April 15th, then his trade value will drop and it will give the Vikings leverage to convince Peterson to renegotiate his contract.I love a good conspiracy theory but I'm not following this. Peterson is under contract for the next 3 years, so he isn't a Free Agent himself before April 15. He can't talk to other teams until he is released. He would talk to other teams under the table whether he's suspended or not. However, the Vikes control his fate regardless of where any talks between AP and other teams go. I don't think that changes whether or not he's suspended until April 15 unless I'm missing something, which is possible.I truly believe the April designation was designed by both the NFL and the Vikings who I believe worked together on this entire process. Which is part of why I've been so bothered by this suspension. I'll never have proof of this but I think the Vikings worked with the NFL this entire time to keep Peterson off the field this season and give everyone time for the smoke to clear. As part of this working relationship between the NFL and Vikings they slapped the April designation on Peterson to limit his options this off-season. This was not done to be vindictive towards Peterson so much as it was to give the Vikings the upper hand when they would inevitably approach Peterson about taking a pay cut. By freezing Peterson out of the first month of free agency teams would have already made plans and severely limited Peterson's options, giving the Vikings the upper hand when they would later ask him to take a pay cut.question, why does the NFL care whether he's reinstated now or in April?
Peterson may be under contract, but the Vikings have no intention of paying the $12.75 million that he's owed in 2015. They will try to trade him OR get him to renegotiate for a lower salary.
barely been able to get that a couple of yrs ago, usually I would see him traded for a mid and future 1st. Now you'll probably get 1 of those and not both.What is Peterson's worth in dynasty leagues? Two mid-firsts? A couple young WR's?
I imagine that the owner of AP might value him a ton more since they probably held him all last year. Trying to guage how much tread he has left.
That will change if he's traded to the Coltsbarely been able to get that a couple of yrs ago, usually I would see him traded for a mid and future 1st. Now you'll probably get 1 of those and not both.What is Peterson's worth in dynasty leagues? Two mid-firsts? A couple young WR's?
I imagine that the owner of AP might value him a ton more since they probably held him all last year. Trying to guage how much tread he has left.
I don't blame the Vikings for trying to trade him, but I would be shocked if there is a team willing to take on his contract. Release him and let him go and make his own deal.He gone
According to vikingsterritory.com. Been trying to trade him for weeks
The discipline theories of parenting are very different in the Northeast than in the South.Agree, not worth 2 firsts, lol, not even one at this point. I think he's close to done (should be done imo) on a few levels: legal issues, character, age, system, NFl shift to rbbc....
You killed the thread. Grats.Again, stop with the parenting debate. That's now what this thread is for....
is this writer delusional? He thinks some team is going to trade a 1st+ for Peterson. There is zero chance that happens.
He is basing Peterson's trade value on Percy Harvin's trade value which makes absolutely no sense. Suffice it to say a 24 year old wide receiver is not equal to a 29 year old running back.is this writer delusional? He thinks some team is going to trade a 1st+ for Peterson. There is zero chance that happens.
Viking homer, simple as that.is this writer delusional? He thinks some team is going to trade a 1st+ for Peterson. There is zero chance that happens.