Don't just take my word for it, Fran and I agree!

[VikingLord]

I see some of your points but... you are intimating that the cap space spent on AP should have been better used to acquire a player at a more important position to the team, maybe a QB like the last several Super Bowl winners have had and if so what QB? Did you want Kolb? What was available? AP, as I mentioned was , is the face of this team and there wasn't an option at QB that I am aware of especially if they would have not resigned him to use said money to bring in a QB (again what QB)? They secured AP and then spent a first round pick on a young tallented franchise QB in Ponder and yeah we will all see how that plays out.
The Mckinnie release, to me anyway, was a no brainer. He seemed as if he played harder and tried until he got his money then He came in fat and out of shape with his usual have assed attempt to live up to his reputation. He nearly got Favre killed on several occassions the last year he played. He did take up valuable cap space that after his leaving helped the Vike's sign the "franchise".
Maybe just maybe the organization at that time saw an old former Pro Bowl QB almost take them to the Super Bowl and thought that another former old All Pro QB, Mcnabb might be able to do the same thing. Much of the team was in place. 20/20 hindsight is a marvelous thing.

I would say this:

- Keep cap space where you can. There is no need to spend money unless the player/position warrants it. If there is no attractive place to put the money, wait, because there will be.
- Make sure you know what the market is before you make an offer. RB is a de-valued position in the NFL. AD is a very talented player, but he happens to play RB and that is not as valuable to teams in general. The Vikes set the market without any knowledge of what AD might have commanded.
- McKinnie was valued enough at the time *by this same coaching and management team* that they extended him. Hindsight may be 20-20, but since the current team is the team that made the mistake, that should give you pause when it comes to the other moves they make.

[VikingLord]

It sounds like you're suggesting they would have been better off not re-signing Peterson since you consider his contract a mis-allocation of resources.

Nope, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying knowing the state of the RB position in the modern NFL it was better to let AD hit the open market and let the market set a value rather than set the market as the Vikings did. I highly doubt any other team in the league would have offered AD what the Vikings ended up offering him, and in the event they did, at least the Vikings would know they paid market value. They just pulled the trigger before they had to IMHO, and the amount of money they tied up in the position very well could come back to haunt them in the future if the team improves.

Childress isn't simply a scapegoat. The decisions made (from 2006-2010 had a huge impact on what followed and that impact is still being felt. As for who will be at fault if the Vikes struggle this season (and they almost certainly will)... how is that unclear? Spielman's in charge of the football operation. Frazier is the coach. Ownership put them in place. If you need someone to blame other than the players actually playing the games, there they are: the coach and GM and ownership... just like on so many other NFL teams.

But it's not the same, because let's say Spielman determines Frazier needs to go. He goes to the Wilfs and says that, but he can't make the move because the Wilfs like Frazier. And now they're back on the unaccountability bandwagon. Who is at fault in that situation if things don't get better?

Perhaps when they are clearly facts? Let's see what happens and if they end up 3-13 or 4-12, we can look at how it happened and revisit the subject. Maybe they will be much better than that and instead of worrying about who to blame you can be encouraged by the team's visible improvement. What's the point in pre-determining blame for a W/L record that doesn't exist yet? Why so much focus on who is at fault and who can be blamed when the season hasn't even begun? The Vikings have made some very significant changes in the past two years. I think we need to give them time to take hold. There will be plenty of time to play the blame game down the road.

There is always plenty of time. So far, 50+ years of it and no Superbowl win yet.

My bottom line is that these owners don't know what they're doing when it comes to making football decisions. They've been at the helm for 8 years and do not seem to have gotten it quite yet. While changes have been made, they continue to meddle in the mechanics of the football operation instead of finding and then allowing an experienced professional to run the team from top-to-bottom. I agree that none of us knows what will happen, but in my opinion the team still has structural headwinds that are going to act against it's continued improvement. They may improve despite those, but they'll have to work harder and get luckier than the other teams in the NFC North to do it. All of their primary opponents in the North have a clear GM with hire/fire power all the way down the chain of command, including coaches. I'm sure the owners retain input into that person's decisions, as do the coaches, but the buck stops there. As a result, those teams are not actively working against a structural impediment, and IMHO it shows in their ability to become and remain competitive relative to each other and the other teams in the league.

You could be right and the Wilfs will set the new model for NFL success. I hope so, but hope isn't going to cut it for me at this point. I'd much rather the Vikes just copy the heck out of anyone who is where they want to be.

[The Breeze]

He may not have been an a$$ here, but his body of work since retiring suggests flaming a$$dom.

you mean to say that you didn't love "That's Incredible"? ....

[Mothman]

But it's not the same, because let's say Spielman determines Frazier needs to go. He goes to the Wilfs and says that, but he can't make the move because the Wilfs like Frazier. And now they're back on the unaccountability bandwagon. Who is at fault in that situation if things don't get better?

It's a hypothetical problem that may never arise. I don't know what else to say about it. I can't consider it an obstacle to success unless it becomes an actual problem. Heck, maybe the Wilfs just hedged their bets a little when promoting Spielman and want to see how he performs as GM this year before granting him that last piece of authority. Until it becomes a real issue, I'm willing to accept Kevin Siefert's take on it:

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/tag/_/ ... f/count/16

The one check on Spielman's power is supervision of the coaching staff. He will make roster and player decisions once reserved for the head coach in the old structure, but coach Leslie Frazier will continue to report directly to owners Zygi and Mark Wilf. "Ownership will make that determination on the head coach," Spielman said. From everything I can tell, however, that's an issue of semantics. The Wilfs would be circumventing their apparent intent if they didn't listen to the advice of the man they've placed in charge of "all football-related activities." If Spielman wants to fire the head coach and/or hire a new one, I imagine the Wilfs will consent.

My bottom line is that these owners don't know what they're doing when it comes to making football decisions. They've been at the helm for 8 years and do not seem to have gotten it quite yet. While changes have been made, they continue to meddle in the mechanics of the football operation instead of finding and then allowing an experienced professional to run the team from top-to-bottom.

Again, I'll refer to the Siefert quote (and blog entry) above. As he said, it may just be an issue of semantics. The Wilfs hired an experienced professional and placed him in charge of football operations. Right now, with an incumbent head coach the GM seems fine with, they don't appear to be meddling at all and any structural impediment you perceive is currently dormant. It's the Schrodinger's cat of football problems. Until the box is opened, we won't know if it's a "dead" problem or a "living" one. If your worries become reality and the GM comes into conflict with ownership about the head coach and is overruled, I agree that will be a serious issue but it's a scenario that may never develop.

You could be right and the Wilfs will set the new model for NFL success. I hope so, but hope isn't going to cut it for me at this point.

Hope is all we're ever going to have until the Vikings win a Super Bowl, no matter how they structure the front office.

[Mothman]

Nope, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying knowing the state of the RB position in the modern NFL it was better to let AD hit the open market and let the market set a value rather than set the market as the Vikings did. I highly doubt any other team in the league would have offered AD what the Vikings ended up offering him, and in the event they did, at least the Vikings would know they paid market value. They just pulled the trigger before they had to IMHO, and the amount of money they tied up in the position very well could come back to haunt them in the future if the team improves.

If I recall correctly, most of the guaranteed money was at the front end of the contract so it shouldn't hurt them long term and they don't seem to be facing cap problems in the short term.

Peterson was set to be a UFA in 2012, not an RFA. If they had let him hit the open market, they would have lost any control they had over re-signing him. He could have gone anywhere and he probably would have with a good offer because star players in their prime tend to feel under-appreciated if not disrespected when their teams show no interest in re-signing them.

You could argue that the market had already set a high price with big contracts for Chris Johnson and DeAngelo Williams and although the RB position has been de-valued compared to what it was in the '70s, before rule changes increased emphasis on the passing game, teams are still giving big contracts to RBs. Along with AD and the other two players mentioned above, the Ravens just gave Ray Rice a big contract and the Bears just signed Matt Forte to a very lucrative deal. The Texans gave Arian Foster a substantial contract as well. teams clearly value these players enough to not only pay them big bucks but to pay them before they hit free agency (which is why you don't see many star RBs inking huge free agent deals).

RBs still go off the board in the top 10 of the draft too (Trent Richardson went 3rd this year, C. J. Spiller went 9th in 2010, Darren McFadden went 4th in 2008 and, of course, Peterson was drafted 7th in 2007).

It would be ludicrous to argue that RBs are as important as QBs in today's NFL but teams clearly still value the position.

[dead_poet]

The only question is, what was AD's real worth when they extended him? With many positions, letting star players hit FA is a bad idea because the market for them is clear, but what exactly is the market for star RBs? I've seen plenty of examples of very talented RB's holding out and the team they are holding out from doesn't seem too eager to break. Chris Johnson, Matt Forte, MJD... Lot's of very talented guys who don't seem to have a ton of leverage when it comes to their own teams.

My point is: who cares? If he's "overpaid" by two or three million a year or $10 million in guarantees but it doesn't prohibit you from signing key players to extensions it matters little to me. Whenever AD steps on the field (healthy) he's typically the best player out there. You want to talk worth? I think it all boils down to this: Adrian Peterson on your team significantly improves your chances of winning games. If you don't agree with that statement, I'd be curious to hear why. Especially after Sunday's effort. I'd argue his influence is felt moreso than Forte, Steven Jackson, Chris Johnson or Jamaal Charles. Getting paid more than them makes sense when considering his skillset and game-changing influence. I think you're placing too much emphasis on the "RB is a declining position" thing. You try and extend your best skill position point-scorers in the prime of their careers. At least, I do. Particularly when the advantage to doing so greatly outweighs the potential, theoretical negative impact.

"Overpaid" by $5 million a year, $20 million in guarantees or whatever makes little sense to me when ownership has the resources and it's not detrimental to the signing of other key cogs. We can revisit this a few years down the line when some of the young players will be seeking extensions, but I don't see Harvin not getting his because of Peterson. Ownership isn't giving a ridiculous amount of money to a punter, guard or return specialist. They're giving it to the player outside of quarterback (which doesn't warrant the $$....yet) that has the biggest impact on games. That makes all kinds of sense to me. If Ponder was the best at his position and so was AD and they were the same age and we had to make a case for one over the other with the same talent level replacements behind them, you go Ponder. I get that. But I'm also fine with them not playing hardball with a guy that's been the face of the franchise, best player on the team since he was drafted, consumate professional, contributes to the community and a positive role model. Ownership could have played hardball, let him enter free agency, tried to squeeze out the best deal for a few million less while risk losing him altogether. That's not the type of message they want to send. They want to send the message that if you work hard, stay out of trouble (obviously the bar non-fight issue wasn't a factor then) then you're rewarded.

I also think they've shown in the past they don't make a huge investment if they don't think it's worth it (i.e. letting Rice walk for a ridiculous contract and the same with Edwards). They deemed AD worth the $$ paid. As long as it's not detrimental, I'm fine with it.

And I can't think of the last star RB who inked a huge FA deal. So it seems that for the teams that choose to retain the "star" RB, that's where the big money deals are coming from, not necessarily from competition within the FA market or even trades that would suggest a value.

Perhaps that's because their team doesn't want them to reach free agency? I don't remember the last star RB that reached free agency, which I think is just as telling. Teams' use of the franchise tag protects them a bit and skews this discussion a little in my mind. For what it's worth, here are the top paid RBs.

1. Adrian Peterson, Minnesota Vikings (Seven years, $100 million, $36 million guaranteed)
1,406 carries, 6,752 rushing yards, 64 rushing touchdowns, in five seasons.
137 receptions, 1,309 receiving yards, 3 receiving touchdowns

2. Chris Johnson, Tennessee Titans (Four years, $53.5 million, $30 million guaranteed)
1,187 carries, 5,646 rushing yards, 38 rushing touchdowns, in four seasons.
194 receptions, 1,426 receiving yards, 4 receiving touchdowns

3. Darren McFadden, Oakland Raiders (Six years, $60 million, $26 million guaranteed)
553 carries, 2,627 rushing yards, 16 rushing touchdowns, in four seasons.
116 receptions, 1,191 receiving yards, 4 receiving touchdowns

4. Ray Rice, Baltimore Ravens (Five years, $40 million, $24 million guaranteed)
959 carries, 4,377 rushing yards, 24 rushing touchdowns, in four seasons.
250 receptions, 2,235 receiving yards, 5 receiving touchdowns

5. Steven Jackson, St. Louis Rams (Five years, $49.3 million, $21 million guaranteed)
2,138 carries, 9,093 rushing yards, 52 rushing touchdowns, in eight seasons.
369 receptions, 3,003 receiving yards, 8 receiving touchdowns

So the Vikes inked AD to a pretty big deal, but where is the evidence he would have gotten anything near that from a team other than the Vikings?

There isn't any. But he deserved a higher salary than Chris Johnson. How MUCH more is certainly debatable (which is what we're doing!). But he does need to show he's worthy of the investment. I thought Sunday he did just that.

I don't know - but from where I sit I see the RB position as incredibly de-valued at this point. There are many successful teams that don't even have a clear starter at the position.

That's not to say they don't value the position. Maybe they've drafted poorly or had greater needs. Or were drafting too low to get a true difference-making back. Who knows? Teams still take good running backs in the first few rounds of the draft. Backs like AD are rare. I'm betting each team that doesn't have a clear starter wish like hell they did. They just have to find other ways to win because they don't have one. We're in the position where our best player IS a running back. So we lean on him. He gives us the best chance to win, so he gets the ball. What am I missing?

Does that mean that AD wouldn't have gotten a huge offer from another team if he hit FA? Maybe he would have, but at least then the Vikings would have known what the market is and still could have beat the offer.

I still think this matters little in the grand scheme of things. Particularly in the short-term. Long-term is more murky but there's the possibility it's not going to be an issue even then. I'm all for fiscal responsibility, and I've seen little with the Vikings to suggest they're irresponsible in that regard. Extending Rice for what he received in FA would've been a red flag there. I suppose I'd classify this as a yellow flag. Medium risk with very high reward. YMMV

[Mothman]

My point is: who cares? If he's "overpaid" by two or three million a year or $10 million in guarantees but it doesn't prohibit you from signing key players to extensions it matters little to me. Whenever AD steps on the field (healthy) he's typically the best player out there. You want to talk worth? I think it all boils down to this: Adrian Peterson on your team significantly improves your chances of winning games.

He's one of those players that causes a defense to adjust their strategy to account for him. I thought it clearly helped Favre have one of his best seasons in 2009. He'd never had a back like that behind him and even though the Vikes had a future Hall of Famer at QB, opposing defenses often seemed to make stopping Peterson their first priority.

[Purple bruise]

I came away from watching the Jag's game with added confidencee in the team, coach, and especially Ponder. It was a slow start against a very solid defensive unit playing with a rebuilt offensive line and with very marginal wide receivers (except for Harvin).
Unlike last year, this team did not crawl into a fetal position and lose the game. No they came out, most assuredly led by AP's play and managed to win a very tough physical game.
If you rewatch the Tarkenton video in this topic, it gives to me a lot of credence in what he says about this years team and Ponder's ability.
I keep in mind that this is a "rebuilding" year but that was a very good product that displayed itself in the second half. That win should go a long ways as a confidence builder for the whole team and especially in the team's confidence with Ponder.

[Just Me]

He's one of those players that causes a defense to adjust their strategy to account for him. I thought it clearly helped Favre have one of his best seasons in 2009. He'd never had a back like that behind him and even though the Vikes had a future Hall of Famer at QB, opposing defenses often seemed to make stopping Peterson their first priority.

Ponder's first play yesterday was a play-action (to Peterson) and a pass that was completed for a first down. Just supporting the fact that a good coach will use Peterson even when he's not actually touching the ball. The end result was because we have Peterson. Do you think a team bites on play action like that if we have "Joe Average" for a RB?