Adrian Peterson Status Updates (1 Viewer)

[cstu]

What contractual rights does he have that are being breached?: IF there was an agreement to release AP from the exempt list after conclusion of the case, then you are looking at breach of oral contract, bad faith on the NFL, good faith by AP and the union, and possible fraud and detrimental reliance.

This is the main issue IMO. Goodell had a right to suspend Peterson for 6 games under the new Domestic Violence policy. Instead he chose to make a deal with Peterson to put him on the exempt list pending the outcome of the court case. With the outcome much more favorable to Peterson than the original charge then Goodell should not have the right to punish Peterson for an additional 6 games.

IMO Peterson can be required to pay 6 games in salary as part of a retroactive suspension but he shouldn't be suspended additional games. The NFLPA is behind him on this.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

You must be kidding. Absolute power leads people to being more bold, not less.

Sure, sometimes, although I think that's more of a fictional construct than a fact of reality. Goodell's made some mistakes but he's not stupid. The league has been skating on thin ice for months now, and I said weeks ago and continue to believe that they will move slowly and cautiously through this process.

The Saints embarrassment didn't stop him from ruling without due process in the Rice case

What "due process?" People have used that phrase a lot but that's a legal thing. Rice had his due process in court, as did Peterson.

The NFLPA is saying that Goodell deceived them.

Of course. What we don't know is whether Goodell actually deceived them, or whether they're just framing the situation in a way most favorable to Peterson (which is basically their job).

Really? There was an agreement with AP to go on the exempt list. Do we know what happened? This is from the article I posted:

With the NFL and the Vikings desperate to come up with a way to keep Peterson off the field under circumstances in which neither the league nor the team could discipline him

That bargain worked two ways. The NFL got something out of it too. A deal was made, an agreement.

Right, they had an agreement to put Peterson on the commissioner's exempt list, which was beneficial in some ways to all parties involved. We don't know if there was any agreement as to what would happen after that. The NFLPA is arguing that now that the legal case is over, Peterson needs to be immediately reinstated, but we don't know if that was ever the deal. I find it hard to believe it would be, honestly, but I don't know. None of us does.

Wait a second and back up - IF the deal was that AP would be released from the exempt list (IF, as the NFLPA claims) then he should have been released at that time as agreed and then the NFL could proceed with its determination. AP should be returned back to square 1 and the NFL and the Vikes have to deal with the situation. They do not get top hold AP in limbo ad infinitum.

Sure, IF that was the agreement then the league should hold up its end of the bargain.

 

[cstu]

He clearly missed ap on the wire and is now pissed that a contender smartly grabbed him and is praying ap doesn't return. By the way half the stuff you said false to is actually false

Funny. I get the feeling those that keep arguing for AP to come back ASAP are desperate owners who held onto him all this time (or Vikings homers). Works both ways...think about that before you start throwing this around

I traded for AP in dynasty right after he was put on the exempt list since I believed there was a chance he could settle the court case quickly and return week 11. Nothing has changed for me.

 

[JoeyJoJoJuniorShabadoo]

He clearly missed ap on the wire and is now pissed that a contender smartly grabbed him and is praying ap doesn't return. By the way half the stuff you said false to is actually false

Funny. I get the feeling those that keep arguing for AP to come back ASAP are desperate owners who held onto him all this time (or Vikings homers). Works both ways...think about that before you start throwing this around

I traded for AP in dynasty right after he was put on the exempt list since I believed there was a chance he could settle the court case quickly and return week 11. Nothing has changed for me.

Good for you?

 

[Raiderfan32904]

Contractual rights: Breach of oral contract? seriously? admissible in what court of law. Lack of good faith? hearsay

Due Process rights breached: How do you know AP doesn't know what Goodell knows? Are you inside that situation? This is pure speculation on your part and your spin hatred of Goodell. Just your gut talking here.

Right to pursue career: Based on hearsay? oral agreements? Anyone who accepts admin 8 weeks paid leave with the assumption that he'll be immediately reinstated deserves what they get for not getting it down on paper. Oral agreements are dry farts in the wind.

CBA right being breached: Where is the CBA not being adhered to? Specifics please. This answer is nebulous.

Right to defend his name: By pleading no contest in the courts, he is admitting to an issue that directly triggers a 6 game suspension in the conduct policy. If he was able to clear his name in court, he'd have every right to defend his name. Now, he falls under the due process that the NFL must implement to protect their interests over and above AP's. He put himself in this situation. He had his right to defend his name, and he relinquished it.

Right to work: On this one point, I have to somewhat agree. The NFL must decide to suspend him or activate him in a timely process. Most people won't be happy with what the NFL considers timely, but this is a very complicated issue, and many i's must be dotted and t's must be crossed before they can deliver a suitable outcome.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Goodell had a right to suspend Peterson for 6 games under the new Domestic Violence policy. Instead he chose to make a deal with Peterson...

...Goodell should not have the right to punish Peterson for an additional 6 games.

You can't have it both ways. It's not an "additional" six games if Goodell opted not to suspend Peterson earlier in the year. The Vikings, the NFL, and Peterson mutually agreed to the exempt list solution, instead of a suspension, while the legal case played out. That never precluded the league from taking its own disciplinary action once the trial was over, regardless of the legal outcome.

With the outcome much more favorable to Peterson than the original charge then

I think this horse has been thoroughly beaten to death, no need to keep beating it.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

But the league doesn't believe that being placed on the exempt list = being disciplined.

I just can't see such a position standing up to scrutiny

Sure, he got paid his regular salary, but he was denied all of the other benefits of playing

If he was denied anything like you say, the benefit of playing say....just remember it was voluntary. No one kicked him out or forced him in any way. It was of his own choosing.

but we all know that it wasn't truly voluntary and if it went to court, a judge would see how flimsy "voluntary" is....

A court of law will not argue against a piece of evidence signed by Peterson that is legal and binding. A judge will examine the document, and ask, "what seems to be the contention here, that you were coerced? Is this true Mr. Peterson?" What do you think will happen next?

 

[Jerry Curl]

What contractual rights does he have that are being breached?: IF there was an agreement to release AP from the exempt list after conclusion of the case, then you are looking at breach of oral contract, bad faith on the NFL, good faith by AP and the union, and possible fraud and detrimental reliance.

This is the main issue IMO. Goodell had a right to suspend Peterson for 6 games under the new Domestic Violence policy. Instead he chose to make a deal with Peterson to put him on the exempt list pending the outcome of the court case. With the outcome much more favorable to Peterson than the original charge then Goodell should not have the right to punish Peterson for an additional 6 games.

IMO Peterson can be required to pay 6 games in salary as part of a retroactive suspension but he shouldn't be suspended additional games. The NFLPA is behind him on this.

The commissioners hands are tied here. He opened the can of worms by extending the exempt list that has not been used in years for a guy who has not been convicted of anything or has been suspended for anything. His lawyers know what they have in the binding agreement that they agreed to when being put on the list, hence why they are so strong in their challenge along with the NFLPA. Since it is Minnesotas bye week the commish has some leeway until his hand is forced.

Whats ironic about this is AP is coming back and there isnt anything the commissioner can do about it. In the sweet irony that the guy who has the be all end all power of punishment has zero power here because he took it away from himself with the new agreement he had Peterson sign when he put him on the list.

Now to the years accrued, the league new of that article and so did the NFLPA, they agreed to it. So according to their agreement Peterson is suspended since he was forced to miss enough games to accrue a season earned towards pension.

Everything else is mumbo jumbo to argue over, those are the only things that matter. This will be time served, pay back 6 game checks and the back to normal. The commish has many outs so he wont look bad, but I just love the fact that you can tell from the leagues comments their back is against the wall and has only one out.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Not that it's really even worth a response, but to the idiot contingent that thinks this whole discussion is based on whether or not people own Peterson, I've been clear about that all along:

In one league I own him and am trying to trade him away. If there are no takers I'll probably cut him when I need to (short benches) unless at that point there's a clear indication that he'll be back later in the season.

In the other league I tried to trade for him. Sent an offer of Asiata + WR for Peterson + better WR. Got rejected.

Are people dropping Peterson? Already dropped?

He got dropped in my league this week. I picked him up.

I guess a lot of people's opinions of this case are strongly influenced by the impact it will have on their magic football team, but I can assure you that that's not the case for me, at least. Believe it or not, it actually is possible for reasonable people to have intelligent, fact-based discussions about these issues without choosing a side based on their fantasy football roster.

 

[weebs]

Not that it's really even worth a response, but to the idiot contingent that thinks this whole discussion is based on whether or not people own Peterson, I've been clear about that all along:

In one league I own him and am trying to trade him away. If there are no takers I'll probably cut him when I need to (short benches) unless at that point there's a clear indication that he'll be back later in the season.

In the other league I tried to trade for him. Sent an offer of Asiata + WR for Peterson + better WR. Got rejected.

Are people dropping Peterson? Already dropped?

He got dropped in my league this week. I picked him up.

I guess a lot of people's opinions of this case are strongly influenced by the impact it will have on their magic football team, but I can assure you that that's not the case for me, at least. Believe it or not, it actually is possible for reasonable people to have intelligent, fact-based discussions about these issues without choosing a side based on their fantasy football roster.

Right but all of your discussions is just making assumptions and guessing what will happen. We need to shut this thread down and bump it when real facts emerge.

 

[mbuehner]

What contractual rights does he have that are being breached?: IF there was an agreement to release AP from the exempt list after conclusion of the case, then you are looking at breach of oral contract, bad faith on the NFL, good faith by AP and the union, and possible fraud and detrimental reliance.

This is the main issue IMO. Goodell had a right to suspend Peterson for 6 games under the new Domestic Violence policy. Instead he chose to make a deal with Peterson to put him on the exempt list pending the outcome of the court case. With the outcome much more favorable to Peterson than the original charge then Goodell should not have the right to punish Peterson for an additional 6 games.

IMO Peterson can be required to pay 6 games in salary as part of a retroactive suspension but he shouldn't be suspended additional games. The NFLPA is behind him on this.

The commissioners hands are tied here. He opened the can of worms by extending the exempt list that has not been used in years for a guy who has not been convicted of anything or has been suspended for anything. His lawyers know what they have in the binding agreement that they agreed to when being put on the list, hence why they are so strong in their challenge along with the NFLPA. Since it is Minnesotas bye week the commish has some leeway until his hand is forced.

Whats ironic about this is AP is coming back and there isnt anything the commissioner can do about it. In the sweet irony that the guy who has the be all end all power of punishment has zero power here because he took it away from himself with the new agreement he had Peterson sign when he put him on the list.

Now to the years accrued, the league new of that article and so did the NFLPA, they agreed to it. So according to their agreement Peterson is suspended since he was forced to miss enough games to accrue a season earned towards pension.

Everything else is mumbo jumbo to argue over, those are the only things that matter. This will be time served, pay back 6 game checks and the back to normal. The commish has many outs so he wont look bad, but I just love the fact that you can tell from the leagues comments their back is against the wall and has only one out.

Whats to stop Goodell from spending three months on the investigation and then fining AP the 6 game checks? Sure, APs lawyers and the NFLPA could pitch a fit about it... and go to court, which will take months and months.

There is nothing clear cut here. The bottom line is if the NFL wants AP to play this season, he will play. If they don't, he wont. Anybody telling you anything else is wearing rose colored glasses.

 

[ff_arkitct]

Has anyone tried to trade him in their league to see what they can get while there's so much speculation? Might be the only time to get any value for him.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Some quality contributions here:

Guy who drafted ADP and dropped him last week? Sorry for your loss.

Did you drop ADP recently or something. The writing is on the wall and your are going ostrich mode.

Troll or you drafted him and dropped him?

I think raider is a troll

Raider is just grasping at straws. Face it guy you didn't grab Peterson fast enough but you have to accept it....he is playing again this year.

Oh hey, look at that:

This will be the biggest WW rush I can think of in a long time, due to not only timing (News stirring up on Sunday just before WW locked for kick off and plea agreement potentially reached on Tuesday with most WW's running Wednesday morning) but also due to the situation - AP with fresh legs and the Vikings in the hunt.

Spend all your FAAB/pray he falls to you in snake WW.

So glad I dropped sims in all my leagues for him right before kickoff Sunday.

 

[JimmyJabroni]

NFL could have a hard time getting Peterson’s court file

Posted by Mike Florio on November 7, 2014, 8:20 AM EST
The word “irony” gets misused all the time. So why not go ahead and risk misusing it here?

After the Ray Rice elevator video emerged, the NFL devoted plenty of time and effort to explaining how the league legally couldn’t have gotten that which they didn’t try very hard to get. And now that the NFL is considering what to do with Adrian Peterson after the conclusion of his legal case, the NFL is asking for something that it possibly won’t be able to get

.

Which may or may not be irony.

On Thursday, the NFL advised Peterson that the league wants all information from his case as the first step of the league’s internal review. Since the case involved an alleged victim under the age of 18, neither Peterson nor his lawyer, Rusty Hardin, may be able to disclose any information regarding the case, without a court order.

It’s a very common approach regarding any legal issues involving minors. Identities are concealed, files are sealed. In some situations, hearings are closed to the public.

And so Peterson quite possibly will tell the NFL he can’t disclose the information (if Peterson or Hardin even have it), the NFL quite possibly will delay the review of his case in response, and the agreement that Peterson would be on the Commissioner-Exempt list only until his legal case was resolved quite possibly will be violated for an even longer period of time than previously believed.

 

[Insein]

Interesting arguments by IE and Saintsinadome. I can certainly see both sides here but ultimately it comes down to how much the NFL believes the public still cares about the issue. Unfortunately society is fickle and if the issue is a couple months old, the reaction from the masses will not be great.

This week will be spent weighing and guaging what a public response would be. If they think there will be a backlash, the NFL will suspend AP longer. If they feel there won't be, then he plays as early as week 11. Simple as that. Whatever additional minutia they decide upon (fines, community service, apologies) is just fluff to how much flak the NFL thinks they will get. Not how much the media thinks or one person thinks, but the NFL themselves.

 

[weebs]

And pulling "facts" out of your ### is considered contributing. Lol.

 

[ryno1980]

According to this poll, Public opinion in Minnesota has changed as time has passed, not that Goodell would really care about this. But it is interesting.

Poll: Should Adrian Peterson rejoin the Vikings with his case settled?
Results

# of votes



% of votes

Yes, he should rejoin the team right away

14088

72%



Yes, but not until he serves a longer suspension

1932

10%



No, he should not play again for the Vikings

3552

18%



Total Votes

19572




Editor's note: Instant polls are intended as entertainment. They are not considered to be true measurements of public opinion.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

NFL could have a hard time getting Peterson’s court file

Posted by Mike Florio on November 7, 2014, 8:20 AM EST
The word “irony” gets misused all the time. So why not go ahead and risk misusing it here?

After the Ray Rice elevator video emerged, the NFL devoted plenty of time and effort to explaining how the league legally couldn’t have gotten that which they didn’t try very hard to get. And now that the NFL is considering what to do with Adrian Peterson after the conclusion of his legal case, the NFL is asking for something that it possibly won’t be able to get

.

Which may or may not be irony.

On Thursday, the NFL advised Peterson that the league wants all information from his case as the first step of the league’s internal review. Since the case involved an alleged victim under the age of 18, neither Peterson nor his lawyer, Rusty Hardin, may be able to disclose any information regarding the case, without a court order.

It’s a very common approach regarding any legal issues involving minors. Identities are concealed, files are sealed. In some situations, hearings are closed to the public.

And so Peterson quite possibly will tell the NFL he can’t disclose the information (if Peterson or Hardin even have it), the NFL quite possibly will delay the review of his case in response, and the agreement that Peterson would be on the Commissioner-Exempt list only until his legal case was resolved quite possibly will be violated for an even longer period of time than previously believed.

Since the case involved an alleged victim under the age of 18, neither Peterson nor his lawyer, Rusty Hardin, may be able to disclose any information regarding the case, without a court order. ...

And so Peterson quite possibly will tell the NFL he can’t disclose the information (if Peterson or Hardin even have it)...

Wow, so the NFL conditions AP's return on his responsiveness in providing information which he cannot legally provide.

 

[JimmyJabroni]

NFL could have a hard time getting Peterson’s court file

Posted by Mike Florio on November 7, 2014, 8:20 AM EST
The word “irony” gets misused all the time. So why not go ahead and risk misusing it here?

After the Ray Rice elevator video emerged, the NFL devoted plenty of time and effort to explaining how the league legally couldn’t have gotten that which they didn’t try very hard to get. And now that the NFL is considering what to do with Adrian Peterson after the conclusion of his legal case, the NFL is asking for something that it possibly won’t be able to get

.

Which may or may not be irony.

On Thursday, the NFL advised Peterson that the league wants all information from his case as the first step of the league’s internal review. Since the case involved an alleged victim under the age of 18, neither Peterson nor his lawyer, Rusty Hardin, may be able to disclose any information regarding the case, without a court order.

It’s a very common approach regarding any legal issues involving minors. Identities are concealed, files are sealed. In some situations, hearings are closed to the public.

And so Peterson quite possibly will tell the NFL he can’t disclose the information (if Peterson or Hardin even have it), the NFL quite possibly will delay the review of his case in response, and the agreement that Peterson would be on the Commissioner-Exempt list only until his legal case was resolved quite possibly will be violated for an even longer period of time than previously believed.

Since the case involved an alleged victim under the age of 18, neither Peterson nor his lawyer, Rusty Hardin, may be able to disclose any information regarding the case, without a court order. ...

And so Peterson quite possibly will tell the NFL he can’t disclose the information (if Peterson or Hardin even have it)...

Wow, so the NFL conditions AP's return on his responsiveness in providing information which he cannot legally provide.

Possibly. It sounds like speculation on Florio's part but according to his Wiki page he used to be a lawyer, so maybe he's on to something.

 

[ryno1980]

Not that it's really even worth a response, but to the idiot contingent that thinks this whole discussion is based on whether or not people own Peterson, I've been clear about that all along:

In one league I own him and am trying to trade him away. If there are no takers I'll probably cut him when I need to (short benches) unless at that point there's a clear indication that he'll be back later in the season.

In the other league I tried to trade for him. Sent an offer of Asiata + WR for Peterson + better WR. Got rejected.

Are people dropping Peterson? Already dropped?

He got dropped in my league this week. I picked him up.

I guess a lot of people's opinions of this case are strongly influenced by the impact it will have on their magic football team, but I can assure you that that's not the case for me, at least. Believe it or not, it actually is possible for reasonable people to have intelligent, fact-based discussions about these issues without choosing a side based on their fantasy football roster.

There's plenty of logical reasons he could or should play this year, posted on this board and from reputable journalists, attorney's involved (yes, obviously some bias there but intelligent arguments nonetheless) and among plenty of other objective people. Pretending that you're the only one looking at it objectively is arrogant.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Pretending that you're the only one looking at it objectively is arrogant.

Good thing I didn't do that.

 

[Jerry Curl]

I am calling it now, after his handling of Rice, the commish is going to lose his job over this AP case. If he does anything other than let AP play he will be taken to court by AP and the NFLPA, AGAIN, and lose. He is spending too much time in court.

Goodell is about to be forced out because he cant make the right decision even when his hands are tied and forced. The NFLPA is going to use a larger hammer that they will not negotiate with the NFL as long as he is commish. Watch.

 

[I Am the Stig]

Not that it's really even worth a response, but to the idiot contingent that thinks this whole discussion is based on whether or not people own Peterson, I've been clear about that all along:

In one league I own him and am trying to trade him away. If there are no takers I'll probably cut him when I need to (short benches) unless at that point there's a clear indication that he'll be back later in the season.

In the other league I tried to trade for him. Sent an offer of Asiata + WR for Peterson + better WR. Got rejected.

Are people dropping Peterson? Already dropped?

He got dropped in my league this week. I picked him up.

I guess a lot of people's opinions of this case are strongly influenced by the impact it will have on their magic football team, but I can assure you that that's not the case for me, at least. Believe it or not, it actually is possible for reasonable people to have intelligent, fact-based discussions about these issues without choosing a side based on their fantasy football roster.

In other words you are trolling

 

[BigJim®]

According to this poll, Public opinion in Minnesota has changed as time has passed, not that Goodell would really care about this. But it is interesting.

Poll: Should Adrian Peterson rejoin the Vikings with his case settled?Results # of votes % of votes Yes, he should rejoin the team right away 14088

72% Yes, but not until he serves a longer suspension 1932

10% No, he should not play again for the Vikings 3552

18% Total Votes 19572 Editor's note: Instant polls are intended as entertainment. They are not considered to be true measurements of public opinion.

I noticed that also. However, for certain types of topics there is that 70 percent silent majority who respond anonymously to polls, and that 10% who are so outraged they protest loudly. Playing a child beater feel like one of those types of topics. At least it was 2 months ago.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

Pretending that you're the only one looking at it objectively is arrogant.

Good thing I didn't do that.

How dare IE have an argument based on facts, and devoid of conjecture like all the other posters opining. He must be arrogant!

 

[Raiderfan32904]

I am calling it now, after his handling of Rice, the commish is going to lose his job over this AP case. If he does anything other than let AP play he will be taken to court by AP and the NFLPA, AGAIN, and lose. He is spending too much time in court.

Goodell is about to be forced out because he cant make the right decision even when his hands are tied and forced. The NFLPA is going to use a larger hammer that they will not negotiate with the NFL as long as he is commish. Watch.

Yeah, I could see Goodell losing his job for a variety of reasons. Mainly because he no longer serves the purpose of the owners he protects. He may indeed be the fall guy someday. But that still doesn't change the fact that Peterson is likely on ice this entire year. That is the thread topic right?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

In other words you are trolling

That's pretty much the conclusion I'd expect someone of your intellect to reach.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I am calling it now, after his handling of Rice, the commish is going to lose his job over this AP case. If he does anything other than let AP play he will be taken to court by AP and the NFLPA, AGAIN, and lose. He is spending too much time in court.

Goodell is about to be forced out because he cant make the right decision even when his hands are tied and forced. The NFLPA is going to use a larger hammer that they will not negotiate with the NFL as long as he is commish. Watch.

Yeah, I could see Goodell losing his job for a variety of reasons. Mainly because he no longer serves the purpose of the owners he protects. He may indeed be the fall guy someday. But that still doesn't change the fact that Peterson is likely on ice this entire year. That is the thread topic right?

There is a Goodell thread, so maybe this belongs there, but didn't MLB basically do the same thing with Vincent? Lots of differences between the MLB then and the NFL now but the straw breaking camels' backs was the Steve Howe affair.

 

[I Am the Stig]

Pretending that you're the only one looking at it objectively is arrogant.

Good thing I didn't do that.

How dare IE have an argument based on facts, and devoid of conjecture like all the other posters opining. He must be arrogant!

It's the need to feel compelled to debate or argue over a topic that there is no vested intrest that is argued.

Here is the deal: People picked up AP on the speculation that he might play again this season. Simply being a contrarian hipster doesn't really say anything more than you don't believe AP will play again this season.

Those who picked up AP are speculating that he might.

I happened to pick him up. I could afford to and I'll hold until I hear a definitive ruling or an amazing WW player appears.

It is really that simple, all the nonsense under the premise of "factual discussion" is total BS because none of you know anything of importance or consequence regarding this matter. All any of you have are opinions based on Twitter feeds.

So speculate to your hearts content but don't believe that you actually "know" anything of merit or validity.

But IE, don't kid yourself into thinking that you are playing anything but the troll. And if you think you are serving some higher intellectual purpose by gracing this forum with your "factual discussion", well as you said, it is "magic football" so get over yourself and repeat "it is magic football" to yourself.

 

[skinsrule05]

What contractual rights does he have that are being breached?: IF there was an agreement to release AP from the exempt list after conclusion of the case, then you are looking at breach of oral contract, bad faith on the NFL, good faith by AP and the union, and possible fraud and detrimental reliance.

This is the main issue IMO. Goodell had a right to suspend Peterson for 6 games under the new Domestic Violence policy. Instead he chose to make a deal with Peterson to put him on the exempt list pending the outcome of the court case. With the outcome much more favorable to Peterson than the original charge then Goodell should not have the right to punish Peterson for an additional 6 games.

IMO Peterson can be required to pay 6 games in salary as part of a retroactive suspension but he shouldn't be suspended additional games. The NFLPA is behind him on this.

The commissioners hands are tied here. He opened the can of worms by extending the exempt list that has not been used in years for a guy who has not been convicted of anything or has been suspended for anything. His lawyers know what they have in the binding agreement that they agreed to when being put on the list, hence why they are so strong in their challenge along with the NFLPA. Since it is Minnesotas bye week the commish has some leeway until his hand is forced.

Whats ironic about this is AP is coming back and there isnt anything the commissioner can do about it. In the sweet irony that the guy who has the be all end all power of punishment has zero power here because he took it away from himself with the new agreement he had Peterson sign when he put him on the list.

Now to the years accrued, the league new of that article and so did the NFLPA, they agreed to it. So according to their agreement Peterson is suspended since he was forced to miss enough games to accrue a season earned towards pension.

Everything else is mumbo jumbo to argue over, those are the only things that matter. This will be time served, pay back 6 game checks and the back to normal. The commish has many outs so he wont look bad, but I just love the fact that you can tell from the leagues comments their back is against the wall and has only one out.

When you talk in absolutes like this it makes you sound silly. If it was as clear cut as you make it out to be there wouldn't be all this discussion here and in the media. You would sound better if you said "in my opinion" because that is all it is.

 

[Jerry Curl]

What contractual rights does he have that are being breached?: IF there was an agreement to release AP from the exempt list after conclusion of the case, then you are looking at breach of oral contract, bad faith on the NFL, good faith by AP and the union, and possible fraud and detrimental reliance.

This is the main issue IMO. Goodell had a right to suspend Peterson for 6 games under the new Domestic Violence policy. Instead he chose to make a deal with Peterson to put him on the exempt list pending the outcome of the court case. With the outcome much more favorable to Peterson than the original charge then Goodell should not have the right to punish Peterson for an additional 6 games.

IMO Peterson can be required to pay 6 games in salary as part of a retroactive suspension but he shouldn't be suspended additional games. The NFLPA is behind him on this.

The commissioners hands are tied here. He opened the can of worms by extending the exempt list that has not been used in years for a guy who has not been convicted of anything or has been suspended for anything. His lawyers know what they have in the binding agreement that they agreed to when being put on the list, hence why they are so strong in their challenge along with the NFLPA. Since it is Minnesotas bye week the commish has some leeway until his hand is forced.

Whats ironic about this is AP is coming back and there isnt anything the commissioner can do about it. In the sweet irony that the guy who has the be all end all power of punishment has zero power here because he took it away from himself with the new agreement he had Peterson sign when he put him on the list.

Now to the years accrued, the league new of that article and so did the NFLPA, they agreed to it. So according to their agreement Peterson is suspended since he was forced to miss enough games to accrue a season earned towards pension.

Everything else is mumbo jumbo to argue over, those are the only things that matter. This will be time served, pay back 6 game checks and the back to normal. The commish has many outs so he wont look bad, but I just love the fact that you can tell from the leagues comments their back is against the wall and has only one out.

When you talk in absolutes like this it makes you sound silly. If it was as clear cut as you make it out to be there wouldn't be all this discussion here and in the media. You would sound better if you said "in my opinion" because that is all it is.

I assumed people knew it was my opinion. After all I wonder if people who always talk sports on TV, to friends, with the media or on this site always have to say my opinion when stating an opinion.

 

[skinsrule05]

But IE, don't kid yourself into thinking that you are playing anything but the troll. And if you think you are serving some higher intellectual purpose by gracing this forum with your "factual discussion", well as you said, it is "magic football" so get over yourself and repeat "it is magic football" to yourself.

Based on the amount you have added to this thread I find it odd your calling someone else a troll. If you don't agree with him state your case don't just turn to name calling.

 

[LawFitz]

LOL, this is exactly like the Josh Gordon thread. You'd think people around here would learn not to think or talk in absolutes when it comes to these situations after that debacle, but nope... Let's instead spin the <conjecture = fact> wheel over and over again until we're puking out the side.

IE and Raiderfan are tacitly saying it is dumb to roster AP right now. What they fail to recognize is that even if AP doesn't play this year, it's smart to roster him right now (if done cheaply), while we wait out the actual facts and resolution to emerge.

 

[Insein]

Was about to say its getting Gordon'd up in here.

 

[I Am the Stig]

But IE, don't kid yourself into thinking that you are playing anything but the troll. And if you think you are serving some higher intellectual purpose by gracing this forum with your "factual discussion", well as you said, it is "magic football" so get over yourself and repeat "it is magic football" to yourself.

Based on the amount you have added to this thread I find it odd your calling someone else a troll. If you don't agree with him state your case don't just turn to name calling.

In the case of this particular thread I wouldn't disagree with you but it doesn't mean I haven't read the forum and been irritated by IE's arrogance and general trolling baiting and attacking forum users.

But, it's the Internet so all is fine.

 

[I Am the Stig]

LOL, this is exactly like the Josh Gordon thread. You'd think people around here would learn not to think or talk in absolutes when it comes to these situations after that debacle, but nope... Let's instead spin the <conjecture = fact> wheel over and over again until we're puking out the side.

IE and Raiderfan are tacitly saying it is dumb to roster AP right now. What they fail to recognize is that even if AP doesn't play this year, it's smart to roster him right now (if done cheaply), while we wait out the actual facts and resolution to emerge.

Exactly. But folks would rather get into a debate about whether he does or does not play. But even if he does play again we need to debate about when he will play.

And the level of their confidence in their arm chair lawyering. I at least learned with The Josh Gordon thread that only the NFL knows.

But enjoy spouting off your pointless proclamations like you "know" anything.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

IE and Raiderfan are tacitly saying it is dumb to roster AP right now.

I never said or implied anything of the sort. I even just bumped a post indicating that I picked him up, even though my inclination all along was that he'd be suspended for the year.

Are people dropping Peterson? Already dropped?

He got dropped in my league this week. I picked him up.

In my other league I cut him back in October. I tried to pick him up this week but someone with higher priority took him.

I swear, it's like everyone just reads what they want instead of reading what's actually been written. All I've done is offer some commentary on how the situation might play out, and I've repeatedly said that neither I nor anyone else here knows how it will turn out. Had anyone asked, I'd be the first person to tell you he should be rostered, precisely because he could easily be back on the field next week.

 

[I Am the Stig]

IE and Raiderfan are tacitly saying it is dumb to roster AP right now.

I never said or implied anything of the sort. I even just bumped a post indicating that I picked him up, even though my inclination all along was that he'd be suspended for the year.

Are people dropping Peterson? Already dropped?

He got dropped in my league this week. I picked him up.

In my other league I cut him back in October. I tried to pick him up this week but someone with higher priority took him.

I swear, it's like everyone just reads what they want instead of reading what's actually been written. All I've done is offer some commentary on how the situation might play out, and I've repeatedly said that neither I nor anyone else here knows how it will turn out. Had anyone asked, I'd be the first person to tell you he should be rostered, precisely because he could easily be back on the field next week.

So, you believe AP will play again this year? Asking as redraft.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

LOL, this is exactly like the Josh Gordon thread. You'd think people around here would learn not to think or talk in absolutes when it comes to these situations after that debacle, but nope... Let's instead spin the <conjecture = fact> wheel over and over again until we're puking out the side.

IE and Raiderfan are tacitly saying it is dumb to roster AP right now. What they fail to recognize is that even if AP doesn't play this year, it's smart to roster him right now (if done cheaply), while we wait out the actual facts and resolution to emerge.

Dynasty, no doubt that AP is a roster hold. Redraft, he's a huge gamble.

I had the chance to get him in waivers this week. And TBH I did put in a mild backup bid for him and didn't get him. This was well after the news that he could be reinstated. I could have easily got AP if I wanted him. But I have a serious need at my QB position with Brady on bye. I ended up spending a ton to get Sanchez and I feel comfortable with my Brady/Sanchez tandem going forward. If my record was better, I might have gone ahead and taken a flier on AP. But at 5-4, my team is in 'win now' mode. I can't take the risk of this lottery pick when I have clear short and long term needs. If AP comes back this year and beats me in the playoffs, it won't bother me. It's just a game. And my good buddy ended up getting him, so I'll just tell him congrats and move on.

As for how I feel about personally about AP, I'll leave that to the child rea thread.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

In the case of this particular thread I wouldn't disagree with you but it doesn't mean I haven't read the forum and been irritated by IE's arrogance and general trolling baiting and attacking forum users.

Since everyone's probably unfamiliar with your little backstory, The Stig mistakenly made a bunch of incorrect arguments about probability and statistics in a thread last year. After being shown repeatedly by many people (myself included) how wrong he was, he lost it, started deleting posts, whining in my inbox about how I "embarrassed him," etc. Apparently as a result he thinks all I do is troll and attack people. I'll let you reach your own conclusions.

 

[I Am the Stig]

In the case of this particular thread I wouldn't disagree with you but it doesn't mean I haven't read the forum and been irritated by IE's arrogance and general trolling baiting and attacking forum users.

Since everyone's probably unfamiliar with your little backstory, The Stig mistakenly made a bunch of incorrect arguments about probability and statistics in a thread last year. After being shown repeatedly by many people (myself included) how wrong he was, he lost it, started deleting posts, whining in my inbox about how I "embarrassed him," etc. Apparently as a result he thinks all I do is troll and attack people. I'll let you reach your own conclusions.

Do you believe AP will play again this year?

You can answer a honest thread relevant question or "attack", the choice is yours.

 

[weebs]

In the case of this particular thread I wouldn't disagree with you but it doesn't mean I haven't read the forum and been irritated by IE's arrogance and general trolling baiting and attacking forum users.

Since everyone's probably unfamiliar with your little backstory, The Stig mistakenly made a bunch of incorrect arguments about probability and statistics in a thread last year. After being shown repeatedly by many people (myself included) how wrong he was, he lost it, started deleting posts, whining in my inbox about how I "embarrassed him," etc. Apparently as a result he thinks all I do is troll and attack people. I'll let you reach your own conclusions.

Cool story. You still carry yourself like an arrogant #####.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

educated and informed = arrogant. ok

 

[JimmyJabroni]

Everson Griffin says Vikings players want Adrian Peterson back

Posted by Mike Florio on November 7, 2014, 1:37 PM EST

 

[Evilgrin 72]

It's the need to feel compelled to debate or argue over a topic that there is no vested intrest that is argued.

This sentence sucks.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Do you believe AP will play again this year?

I think there's a very low probability Peterson plays again this year.

When the story broke in September my initial gut reaction was that he was done for the year, and honestly, nothing's happened since then that would really make me change that opinion.

Look at all that arrogance! I'm ashamed of how arrogant I've been about this whole situation, claiming to "know all the facts" and whatnot.

 

[I Am the Stig]

It's the need to feel compelled to debate or argue over a topic that there is no vested intrest that is argued.

This sentence sucks.

LOL

 

[Jerry Curl]

It's the need to feel compelled to debate or argue over a topic that there is no vested intrest that is argued.

This sentence sucks.

LOL

Why do you have to use all caps?

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

In the case of this particular thread I wouldn't disagree with you but it doesn't mean I haven't read the forum and been irritated by IE's arrogance and general trolling baiting and attacking forum users.

Since everyone's probably unfamiliar with your little backstory, The Stig mistakenly made a bunch of incorrect arguments about probability and statistics in a thread last year. After being shown repeatedly by many people (myself included) how wrong he was, he lost it, started deleting posts, whining in my inbox about how I "embarrassed him," etc. Apparently as a result he thinks all I do is troll and attack people. I'll let you reach your own conclusions.

Do you believe AP will play again this year?

You can answer a honest thread relevant question or "attack", the choice is yours.

maybe?

 

[JohnnyU]

Not really interested in reading this thread, but I'll just add, if the judicial system has determined that a person isn't going to jail for a particular charge, then that person should NOT lose their job over it.