What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Adrian Peterson Status Updates (3 Viewers)

BassNBrew said:
General Tso said:
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.
I love it. A complete slap in the face to Goodell and the NFL. One day closer to Goodell getting fired...
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.
This...

 
BassNBrew said:
General Tso said:
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.
I love it. A complete slap in the face to Goodell and the NFL. One day closer to Goodell getting fired...
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.
This...
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 whole premise that the owners are happy with Goodell is a complete presumption. Nobody knows this. The only pro league I recall ever throwing out a commissioner was MLB with Fay Vincent, and MLB then lifted the veil and just put an owner in charge. Most NFL owners just don't care enough to do something about it and as we all know for some internal political reason a small handful of owners matter more than the rest. That Goodell is constantly getting caught lying, cheating on his league's own contracts, making up whole allegations, creating fake investigations with no rules and no transparency, denying due process and getting caught in the act is just plain bad. The idea that no one else could do his job is pure bunk. The sport is like a juggernaut, they offer less and less actual game on tv and people buy it. They change the rules of the game so it's less like football and people buy it. They move the games away from home stadiums and people buy it. They screw over players and coaches and even fans and people buy it. So do I. But the fact that the commissioner is a complete disgrace is not changed, he is. And I'm not sure there aren't repercussions of any kind, the issue isn't whether the league is making money but rather instead it's how much money they should be making but aren't, and another issue is the long term stability of the game (competitiveness is the league's hallmark, it is the golden goose which separates the NFL from all other pro sports, regularly introduce rules and decisions which arbitrarily alter whole seasons and that can change). And the union is angry and the next round of negotiations should be a lot of rancor and the union will demand greater control over activities and better transparency. Yes they made the wrong choice last time, but that may likely change now that they see what a mistake they made. And Goodell is out of control, and when people get out of control they finally end up making one huge mistake that causes serious damage, and at this rate I think one day that might just happen, though we can't imagine what that will entail at this point. Apathy and inertia on the part of the owners will beget its own reward one day.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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?
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?
He was paid for the games he was suspended last season.
Nope, you are confusing his suspension to be being on the exempt list.

 
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?
He was paid for the games he was suspended last season.
Nope, you are confusing his suspension to be being on the exempt list.
You're right, my bad.

 
Wouldn't it be a hoot if the Colts traded for him? He wouldn't cost much as far as picks go (probably late pick) and the Colts are CAP Happy. I'm sure the Vikings would like to clear the books and get him out of town. As far as what I feel about ADP the last year, well, he's paid the price already. It's time for everyone to leave ADP alone and let him make a living.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ILUVBEER99 said:
question, why does the NFL care whether he's reinstated now or in April?
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.

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.
I agree with much of what you are saying.

However if it is true that the NFL and Vikings are working together then it is vindictive since it practically eliminates any leverage AP has.

I disagree that this makes the NFL look bad. The NFL takes a tough stance on the violence, while demonizing the NFLPA and AP. People do not care if the NFL and or the Vikings violate the CBA, his rights under the CBA, that the NFLPA is leagally obligated to defend AP, they want justice anyway it can be applied. This becomes a win win for the league, regardless of the outcome AP and the NFLPA will look bad.

 
ILUVBEER99 said:
question, why does the NFL care whether he's reinstated now or in April?
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.
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.

 
ILUVBEER99 said:
question, why does the NFL care whether he's reinstated now or in April?
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.
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.
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.

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.

 
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.
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.
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.
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).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
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.
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).
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
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.
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).
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.

 
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.
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.
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).
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.
"You want to leave the Vikings? Haha, the joke's on you - we're going to pay you $13M to stay!"

 
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.
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.
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).
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.
"You want to leave the Vikings? Haha, the joke's on you - we're going to pay you $13M to stay!"
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.

 
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.
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.
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).
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.
"You want to leave the Vikings? Haha, the joke's on you - we're going to pay you $13M to stay!"
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.
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think a lot of teams will be queasy about the PR issue. I don't know if they'll be falling all over themselves. And just on the football side, the cliff for RBs comes out of nowhere and at about this age.

I think the game is becoming and will become even more about depth.

 
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.
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.
Not a good way to convince future free agents to sign.
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
cstu said:
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.
Not a good way to convince future free agents to sign.
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/

 
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 offered him to an owner for Odell beckham. Have not heard back nor do I expect him to accept.
You SHOULD hear back, and it shouldn't be pretty. What a horrible offer.

If rebuilding, you almost have to be happy with just about any 1st. Rather take pretty much any future 1st over a pick in the 10-12 range this year, but unless there is some kind of bidding war between 2-3 team who all need a RB and have a lot of assets, I can't see his average trade haul being much more than that.

 
question, why does the NFL care whether he's reinstated now or in April?
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.
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.
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.

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.
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.

 
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.
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.
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.
That will change if he's traded to the Colts ;)

 
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....

 
I traded him for a likely early 2016 1st (should be a top 4). I've got to wait a year, but I think I made the correct move.

 
Fantasy trade alert:

Three way trade between the Cowboys, Vikings, and Eagles. Vikes get McCoy, Cowboys get AP, Eagles get Cowboys 2nd rd pick. Vikes save face by getting an All Pro RB to replace AP, Jerry gets his guy, Eagles dump McCoy's big salary and get a chip in their pursuit of Mariota. Eagles then sign Spiller whom they tried to acquire last year. :popcorn:

 
He gone

According to vikingsterritory.com. Been trying to trade him for weeks
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.

 
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....
The discipline theories of parenting are very different in the Northeast than in the South.

Acceptance, moving forward and all that...I imagine Southern teams and their fans/society offer a better environment for him.

Vermont doesn't have a team but for example, it doesn't seem the best idea to move to a state where they have an "OMG you spank your kid" mindset.

I'm not looking to discuss what's proper nor whether what he did was ok or not, just to state that different societies seem to feel different about how to reprimand a child. I would imagine he wants to move forward and past the events of the past year

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I figured some people might disagree about the trade value for Peterson proposed in this article.

I have read others who think Peterson's value is a 2nd and 4th round pick.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top