View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:39 am



Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
 AD 
Author Message
Transition Player
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 11:02 pm
Posts: 358
Post AD
Just was wondering and looked at a couple things. For the last $35 million that the Vikings have paid AD, he has produced 1610 yards rushing.
I have long been a fan of AD, but now when we see how incumbent our OL is, it makes me wonder if we invested Minnesota Vikings $$$ wisely ?
I think that he has absolutely zero bargaining power when hopefully Spielman restructures his 2017 deal, if we keep him.


Wed Nov 16, 2016 3:58 pm
Profile
Career Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 1:10 am
Posts: 2228
Location: Seattle, Wa
Post Re: AD
IIsweet wrote:
Just was wondering and looked at a couple things. For the last $35 million that the Vikings have paid AD, he has produced 1610 yards rushing.
I have long been a fan of AD, but now when we see how incumbent our OL is, it makes me wonder if we invested Minnesota Vikings $$$ wisely ?
I think that he has absolutely zero bargaining power when hopefully Spielman restructures his 2017 deal, if we keep him.


I think it's a certainty to happen. Either a restructure or they let him walk. If not, it might be time for Spielman to take a walk too.


Wed Nov 16, 2016 4:02 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 5:51 pm
Posts: 7940
Location: Kentucky
Post Re: AD
It's really just not that easy, I don't think.

If healthy, Peterson is pretty much the perfect offensive piece for the team Zimmer has built. The question is can Peterson still do it after this most recent injury and if so, for how long?

_________________
“There is a chance that if I lose 100 pounds, I could be a jockey ...” - Coach Zimmer


Wed Nov 16, 2016 4:15 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:52 am
Posts: 3432
Post Re: AD
Cliff wrote:
It's really just not that easy, I don't think.

If healthy, Peterson is pretty much the perfect offensive piece for the team Zimmer has built. The question is can Peterson still do it after this most recent injury and if so, for how long?



The eye test from the beginning of this season said, "no, he can't do it (at least not behind the line we had then)".

He is no longer worth the investment. Put that money towards a decent OL and draft a new RB from this year's strong class.


Wed Nov 16, 2016 4:52 pm
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: AD
Texas Vike wrote:
Cliff wrote:
It's really just not that easy, I don't think.

If healthy, Peterson is pretty much the perfect offensive piece for the team Zimmer has built. The question is can Peterson still do it after this most recent injury and if so, for how long?


The eye test from the beginning of this season said, "no, he can't do it (at least not behind the line we had then)".

He is no longer worth the investment. Put that money towards a decent OL and draft a new RB from this year's strong class.


But what is the investment? I think that's an open question. As PacificNorseWest wrote, it's a certainty Peterson's deal will be renegotiated after this season or else he won't be back.

He could easily be worth investing in again if the price is right. They should add another young RB whether he stays or goes.

Investing in a new OL is essential but how much money they will actually need for that is going to depend on who is available, among other things.


Wed Nov 16, 2016 5:02 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:52 am
Posts: 3432
Post Re: AD
Mothman wrote:
Texas Vike wrote:
Cliff wrote:
It's really just not that easy, I don't think.

If healthy, Peterson is pretty much the perfect offensive piece for the team Zimmer has built. The question is can Peterson still do it after this most recent injury and if so, for how long?


The eye test from the beginning of this season said, "no, he can't do it (at least not behind the line we had then)".

He is no longer worth the investment. Put that money towards a decent OL and draft a new RB from this year's strong class.


But what is the investment? I think that's an open question. As PacificNorseWest wrote, it's a certainty Peterson's deal will be renegotiated after this season or else he won't be back.

He could easily be worth investing in again if the price is right. They should add another young RB whether he stays or goes.

Investing in a new OL is essential but how much money they will actually need for that is going to depend on who is available, among other things.


True. I just anticipate that he's going to ask for an unrealistic amount of money. I fully expect him to be with another team next year or we will overpay.


Wed Nov 16, 2016 5:32 pm
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: AD
Texas Vike wrote:
True. I just anticipate that he's going to ask for an unrealistic amount of money. I fully expect him to be with another team next year or we will overpay.


I'm sure there will be a negotiation but he may not stubbornly demand a truly unreasonable deal. It will be interesting...


Wed Nov 16, 2016 5:42 pm
Profile
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pm
Posts: 6333
Post Re: AD
Members of this board had one of the most lengthy, interesting conversations on this subject, beginning the day after the Vikings lost to Seattle in last year's playoffs. It's interesting to look back at this point and see that the same questions are coming up again.

In that thread, I indicated that I thought the Vikings might cut him prior to the 2016 football year, but I would cheer for him no matter what. I was wrong. The Vikings brought him back.

In retrospect, it has hurt the Vikings. He has played very little. His odds of playing again this year are no better than even. Combined with Bradford's salary, the Vikings had no cap flexibility, which hurt us when our offensive line started going down like bowling pins.

Having said that, I'm in no way saying that the Vikings were wrong in bringing him back. There's no way that I or anyone else could have predicted everything that has happened, particularly the injuries. It's just an interesting perspective nearly a year later.

It's also incredibly interesting (and really, really sad) to consider the aftershocks of the Teddy Bridgewater injury. First, Bradford's inability to extend plays has really hurt him, given the awfulness of our O-line. Teddy had the ability to make a play when the protection broke down -- that MAY have made the difference in a game or two. Also, Bradford's salary, combined with AP's, made it impossible for us to go after a Staley or a Thomas when the injuries DID hit. And finally, we've lost a first-round draft pick and a conditional pick, which will hurt us in the future. All because of a freak accident in a meaningless September practice. It sucks.

As for 2017, the landscape obviously changes. The Vikings are in desperate need of cap space, so there's no way they pay $18 million for a 32-year-old running back. That means there is no chance -- none -- that AP plays for the Vikings unless that contract is restructured. Will he accept a lower deal from the Vikings? We'll see. I have my doubts.

_________________
Image


Wed Nov 16, 2016 9:51 pm
Profile
Packers Suck

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:40 pm
Posts: 2993
Post Re: AD
J. Kapp 11 wrote:
Members of this board had one of the most lengthy, interesting conversations on this subject, beginning the day after the Vikings lost to Seattle in last year's playoffs. It's interesting to look back at this point and see that the same questions are coming up again.

In that thread, I indicated that I thought the Vikings might cut him prior to the 2016 football year, but I would cheer for him no matter what. I was wrong. The Vikings brought him back.

In retrospect, it has hurt the Vikings. He has played very little. His odds of playing again this year are no better than even. Combined with Bradford's salary, the Vikings had no cap flexibility, which hurt us when our offensive line started going down like bowling pins.

Having said that, I'm in no way saying that the Vikings were wrong in bringing him back. There's no way that I or anyone else could have predicted everything that has happened, particularly the injuries. It's just an interesting perspective nearly a year later.

It's also incredibly interesting (and really, really sad) to consider the aftershocks of the Teddy Bridgewater injury. First, Bradford's inability to extend plays has really hurt him, given the awfulness of our O-line. Teddy had the ability to make a play when the protection broke down -- that MAY have made the difference in a game or two. Also, Bradford's salary, combined with AP's, made it impossible for us to go after a Staley or a Thomas when the injuries DID hit. And finally, we've lost a first-round draft pick and a conditional pick, which will hurt us in the future. All because of a freak accident in a meaningless September practice. It sucks.

As for 2017, the landscape obviously changes. The Vikings are in desperate need of cap space, so there's no way they pay $18 million for a 32-year-old running back. That means there is no chance -- none -- that AP plays for the Vikings unless that contract is restructured. Will he accept a lower deal from the Vikings? We'll see. I have my doubts.



Im not trying to nitpick your post, but the idea that Bradford has been some sort of liability is incorrect, imo.

Bradford has the decision making, thowing ability, release, and all around QB ability to more then make up anything lost by Bridgewaters ability to scramble in the pocket and evade rushers.

_________________
"Follow my lead today, whos goona be the big dog with me?" - Aaron Rodgers, February 6th, 2011


Wed Nov 16, 2016 10:26 pm
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 7:21 pm
Posts: 816
Post Re: AD
I think either way, him restructuring or waive him we draft a running back with a decent pick next year. 2nd or 3rd round.


Thu Nov 17, 2016 7:21 am
Profile
Commissioner
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2003 9:47 am
Posts: 10040
Location: Burbank, California
Post Re: AD
Norv Zimmer wrote:
I think either way, him restructuring or waive him we draft a running back with a decent pick next year. 2nd or 3rd round.


Sure, as long as the Vikings pick up some decent OL players through the draft and/or free agency first and foremost.

If we've all learned one thing, it's that nobody can run behind this current stumbling offensive line.


Thu Nov 17, 2016 10:58 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4377
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: AD
Jordysghost wrote:
J. Kapp 11 wrote:
Members of this board had one of the most lengthy, interesting conversations on this subject, beginning the day after the Vikings lost to Seattle in last year's playoffs. It's interesting to look back at this point and see that the same questions are coming up again.

In that thread, I indicated that I thought the Vikings might cut him prior to the 2016 football year, but I would cheer for him no matter what. I was wrong. The Vikings brought him back.

In retrospect, it has hurt the Vikings. He has played very little. His odds of playing again this year are no better than even. Combined with Bradford's salary, the Vikings had no cap flexibility, which hurt us when our offensive line started going down like bowling pins.

Having said that, I'm in no way saying that the Vikings were wrong in bringing him back. There's no way that I or anyone else could have predicted everything that has happened, particularly the injuries. It's just an interesting perspective nearly a year later.

It's also incredibly interesting (and really, really sad) to consider the aftershocks of the Teddy Bridgewater injury. First, Bradford's inability to extend plays has really hurt him, given the awfulness of our O-line. Teddy had the ability to make a play when the protection broke down -- that MAY have made the difference in a game or two. Also, Bradford's salary, combined with AP's, made it impossible for us to go after a Staley or a Thomas when the injuries DID hit. And finally, we've lost a first-round draft pick and a conditional pick, which will hurt us in the future. All because of a freak accident in a meaningless September practice. It sucks.

As for 2017, the landscape obviously changes. The Vikings are in desperate need of cap space, so there's no way they pay $18 million for a 32-year-old running back. That means there is no chance -- none -- that AP plays for the Vikings unless that contract is restructured. Will he accept a lower deal from the Vikings? We'll see. I have my doubts.



Im not trying to nitpick your post, but the idea that Bradford has been some sort of liability is incorrect, imo.

Bradford has the decision making, thowing ability, release, and all around QB ability to more then make up anything lost by Bridgewaters ability to scramble in the pocket and evade rushers.


Agree 100%. Everyone seems to forget that one of Teddy's biggest flaws last year, was holding onto the ball TOO long. Bradford actually gets it out pretty quick

_________________
Image


Thu Nov 17, 2016 11:11 am
Profile
All Pro Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:45 am
Posts: 1269
Post Re: AD
Bradford is "good enough" of a QB for a team with a great defense and an average Ol...we dont have ANY OL...

Teddy can scramble a little and has the "great gift" of being good at throwing the ball out of bounds when needed rather then a desperate INT....beyond that he is still very much an unproven commodity with no sign of being a deep threat and with a horribly trashed knee, he might not be a good scrambler anymore.

AP is a luxury item we cannot afford. It is a disgusting fact to face but we need an entire rebuild on the OL. We have little cap room. AP is is way over priced for his age and health. Time to move on.


Thu Nov 17, 2016 11:18 am
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player

Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 12:20 pm
Posts: 975
Post Re: AD
Jordysghost wrote:


Im not trying to nitpick your post, but the idea that Bradford has been some sort of liability is incorrect, imo.

Bradford has the decision making, thowing ability, release, and all around QB ability to more then make up anything lost by Bridgewaters ability to scramble in the pocket and evade rushers.


I agree...moving forward lets assume the OL will be better, which in turn will allow SB to make more plays. Notice I said better....not great. I for one believe that SB is a better QB than Bridge (before the injury obviously). Need a fund--me account for the OL though.


Thu Nov 17, 2016 12:14 pm
Profile
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pm
Posts: 6333
Post Re: AD
Jordysghost wrote:
J. Kapp 11 wrote:
Members of this board had one of the most lengthy, interesting conversations on this subject, beginning the day after the Vikings lost to Seattle in last year's playoffs. It's interesting to look back at this point and see that the same questions are coming up again.

In that thread, I indicated that I thought the Vikings might cut him prior to the 2016 football year, but I would cheer for him no matter what. I was wrong. The Vikings brought him back.

In retrospect, it has hurt the Vikings. He has played very little. His odds of playing again this year are no better than even. Combined with Bradford's salary, the Vikings had no cap flexibility, which hurt us when our offensive line started going down like bowling pins.

Having said that, I'm in no way saying that the Vikings were wrong in bringing him back. There's no way that I or anyone else could have predicted everything that has happened, particularly the injuries. It's just an interesting perspective nearly a year later.

It's also incredibly interesting (and really, really sad) to consider the aftershocks of the Teddy Bridgewater injury. First, Bradford's inability to extend plays has really hurt him, given the awfulness of our O-line. Teddy had the ability to make a play when the protection broke down -- that MAY have made the difference in a game or two. Also, Bradford's salary, combined with AP's, made it impossible for us to go after a Staley or a Thomas when the injuries DID hit. And finally, we've lost a first-round draft pick and a conditional pick, which will hurt us in the future. All because of a freak accident in a meaningless September practice. It sucks.

As for 2017, the landscape obviously changes. The Vikings are in desperate need of cap space, so there's no way they pay $18 million for a 32-year-old running back. That means there is no chance -- none -- that AP plays for the Vikings unless that contract is restructured. Will he accept a lower deal from the Vikings? We'll see. I have my doubts.



Im not trying to nitpick your post, but the idea that Bradford has been some sort of liability is incorrect, imo.

Bradford has the decision making, thowing ability, release, and all around QB ability to more then make up anything lost by Bridgewaters ability to scramble in the pocket and evade rushers.

Yeah, in reading this today, I realize the post is coming off as me calling Bradford a liability. That's not what I meant to say, but I worded it poorly.

Bradford has done a great job. The only thing I mean is that on plays where protection breaks down, it usually results in a sack. Bridgewater has (had?) an illusiveness that allowed him to extend plays and make something out of nothing. Given the state of our O-line, that could have been a helpful thing in a couple of these losses. Or ... he could have performed poorly in areas where Bradford excels.

It's really just meant as a "look at all the dominoes that have fallen" as a result of Teddy's injury. Thanks for pointing out the flaw in my original post.

_________________
Image


Thu Nov 17, 2016 12:54 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate

Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:44 pm
Posts: 3210
Location: Coon Rapids, MN
Post Re: AD
Their cap situation should improve. Walsh is out. Kalil is going to get a more team friendly deal. (maybe) Fusco will likely be asked to alter his contract.

AP is most definitely going to have a far lower cap number. The question is how much will he accept vs. the reality of what he is worth. Dallas is not going to pay him now that they have their new star. So who is going to cut a big check for him?

CP84 is another, very interesting contract. I think he is gone for more oppotunity unless something changes. The Pat Schurmer change seems to have helped, but it still isn't like it was with Musgrave.

Plenty more on this topic. Plenty.

_________________
Winning is not a sometime thing it is an all of the time thing - Vince Lombardi


Thu Nov 17, 2016 1:49 pm
Profile
Starter
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2016 4:38 am
Posts: 183
Post Re: AD
mansquatch wrote:
Their cap situation should improve. Walsh is out. Kalil is going to get a more team friendly deal. (maybe) Fusco will likely be asked to alter his contract.

AP is most definitely going to have a far lower cap number. The question is how much will he accept vs. the reality of what he is worth. Dallas is not going to pay him now that they have their new star. So who is going to cut a big check for him?

CP84 is another, very interesting contract. I think he is gone for more oppotunity unless something changes. The Pat Schurmer change seems to have helped, but it still isn't like it was with Musgrave.

Plenty more on this topic. Plenty.


I'm hoping they can work with AP. I think he still has tread on his tires and is a leader for this team. I would just move on from Kalil the turnstile and CO84 and his total apathy as a blocker.

_________________
Offseason Goal: Draft durable, tough, intelligent offensive lineman who are dependable technicians and avoid penalties aka drive killers.


Thu Nov 17, 2016 2:27 pm
Profile
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pm
Posts: 6333
Post Re: AD
mansquatch wrote:
Their cap situation should improve. Walsh is out. Kalil is going to get a more team friendly deal. (maybe) Fusco will likely be asked to alter his contract.

AP is most definitely going to have a far lower cap number. The question is how much will he accept vs. the reality of what he is worth. Dallas is not going to pay him now that they have their new star. So who is going to cut a big check for him?

CP84 is another, very interesting contract. I think he is gone for more oppotunity unless something changes. The Pat Schurmer change seems to have helped, but it still isn't like it was with Musgrave.

Plenty more on this topic. Plenty.

If I'm reading it right, Walsh will count $1.65 million against the cap next year. Not a crippling hit by any means.

Funny how good Kalil is starting to look right now, compared to what we're running out there at tackle. Matt Kalil, even at his below-average level of 2015, would be a major upgrade for us at this point. That being said, I hope the Vikings make a major play for an impact left tackle, as well as depth and talent across the front. With a reasonably decent O-line, this team would be scary.

Definitely agree on AP. He's going to have to accept a much smaller number if he wants to play at all. It's a stinky way for his Vikings career to wind down, if that's what ends up happening, but a 32-year-old running back coming off a season on IR can't expect to make huge bank. The fan base loves him, but this is still a business.

I really hope Shurmur ramps up the usage of CP84, and that the Vikings make a big play to keep him. I really like him. There's a fire burning in him right now that I haven't seen in quite awhile, and it just feels like when this guy totally figures it out, he's going to tear up the league. He's closer than ever. Seriously hoping they start using him down the field more, instead of just bubble screens and gadget plays. He looks poised to become a good all-around receiver.

_________________
Image


Thu Nov 17, 2016 3:16 pm
Profile
Commissioner
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2003 9:47 am
Posts: 10040
Location: Burbank, California
Post Re: AD
J. Kapp 11 wrote:
Definitely agree on AP. He's going to have to accept a much smaller number if he wants to play at all. It's a stinky way for his Vikings career to wind down, if that's what ends up happening, but a 32-year-old running back coming off a season on IR can't expect to make huge bank. The fan base loves him, but this is still a business.


It's painful for me to think of AD not being on the team but you're so right about it being a business. The Vikings are going to need money for building up other parts of the team as well. They can ill afford to overspend on Peterson at this point in his career. I really hate saying that. :(

J. Kapp 11 wrote:
I really hope Shurmur ramps up the usage of CP84, and that the Vikings make a big play to keep him. I really like him. There's a fire burning in him right now that I haven't seen in quite awhile, and it just feels like when this guy totally figures it out, he's going to tear up the league. He's closer than ever. Seriously hoping they start using him down the field more, instead of just bubble screens and gadget plays. He looks poised to become a good all-around receiver.


I completely agree. The Vikings really need to get this guy re-signed. Patterson loves playing and he goes all out whether it's on special teams as a returner or gunner, or if he's playing offense. He definitely could and should be doing a lot more as a WR. He's still only 25 years old so he has plenty of good years ahead, and I doubt he'd be all that expensive. Patterson has stated he wants to remain with the Vikings.


Thu Nov 17, 2016 6:48 pm
Profile
Career Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 1:10 am
Posts: 2228
Location: Seattle, Wa
Post Re: AD
J. Kapp 11 wrote:
mansquatch wrote:
Their cap situation should improve. Walsh is out. Kalil is going to get a more team friendly deal. (maybe) Fusco will likely be asked to alter his contract.

AP is most definitely going to have a far lower cap number. The question is how much will he accept vs. the reality of what he is worth. Dallas is not going to pay him now that they have their new star. So who is going to cut a big check for him?

CP84 is another, very interesting contract. I think he is gone for more oppotunity unless something changes. The Pat Schurmer change seems to have helped, but it still isn't like it was with Musgrave.

Plenty more on this topic. Plenty.

If I'm reading it right, Walsh will count $1.65 million against the cap next year. Not a crippling hit by any means.

Funny how good Kalil is starting to look right now, compared to what we're running out there at tackle. Matt Kalil, even at his below-average level of 2015, would be a major upgrade for us at this point. That being said, I hope the Vikings make a major play for an impact left tackle, as well as depth and talent across the front. With a reasonably decent O-line, this team would be scary.

Definitely agree on AP. He's going to have to accept a much smaller number if he wants to play at all. It's a stinky way for his Vikings career to wind down, if that's what ends up happening, but a 32-year-old running back coming off a season on IR can't expect to make huge bank. The fan base loves him, but this is still a business.

I really hope Shurmur ramps up the usage of CP84, and that the Vikings make a big play to keep him. I really like him. There's a fire burning in him right now that I haven't seen in quite awhile, and it just feels like when this guy totally figures it out, he's going to tear up the league. He's closer than ever. Seriously hoping they start using him down the field more, instead of just bubble screens and gadget plays. He looks poised to become a good all-around receiver.



Vikings should have cap space...But can they sign the right guys? That remains to be seen. We're talking already about a complete overhaul of an entire position group. Maybe they keep Berger, he's been decent, so we're talking 4 new starters. Not just 4 new starters are needed though, but 4 starters who will also be upgrades. Daunting, but not impossible, however it's a very painstaking process given the entirety of the roster outside the OL group is in their prime and more than capable talent that is ready to make a run right now. Not much room for error. I'd settle for lightning in a bottle if it means a Super Bowl.


Thu Nov 17, 2016 7:03 pm
Profile
Transition Player
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 11:02 pm
Posts: 358
Post Re: AD
AD has been paid nearly $22,000 per yard rushing over the past 3 years.... Per Yard !!!
His salary has to be reworked...
Someone mentioned the great RB class in the draft this year. We need to land one !
Anyways, we definitely need to bring in better OL. Guys that better fit Shurmur's offense going forward.
I think that we have Boone as 1 OG but finding other pieces will be a priority. Maybe a restructured Kalil can move to RT ?
Harris... will he be back?

Lots of questions and right now we're being exposed for all of the shortcomings of this team.
Really think that Spielman should be watching his back. This is the team that he built and signed.


Fri Nov 18, 2016 11:09 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:46 pm
Posts: 3776
Post Re: AD
mansquatch wrote:
Their cap situation should improve. Walsh is out. Kalil is going to get a more team friendly deal. (maybe) Fusco will likely be asked to alter his contract.

AP is most definitely going to have a far lower cap number. The question is how much will he accept vs. the reality of what he is worth. Dallas is not going to pay him now that they have their new star. So who is going to cut a big check for him?

CP84 is another, very interesting contract. I think he is gone for more oppotunity unless something changes. The Pat Schurmer change seems to have helped, but it still isn't like it was with Musgrave.

Plenty more on this topic. Plenty.


http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/minnesota-vikings/cap/2017/

spotrac is estimating the Vikings will have a little over 13.5 million in cap space next year. What has to be considered is AD and Sam Bradford will county for 35 million in cap space. Including teddy bridgewater the vikings will have almost 20 million tied up in the quarterback position. This doesn't include any future contracts or trying to resign Kalil or Munnerlyn (whom I think they desperately need to resign). This also doesn't include cutting someone like Shariff Floyd who would free up about 7 million in cap space or Jarius Wright who would save about 1.5 million in cap space.

Now 2017 won't have a lot of free agent lineman worth looking at. One person they might want to take a look at is Ron Leary out of Dallas, he could replace Fusco. Most teams should have plenty of room to sign their own free agents and overpay for existing UFA, but the Vikings would be at the bottom of the league in cap space for 2017 in their current predicament. Maybe the Vikings even looking at trading AD to Cleveland for Joe Thomas. Cleveland has plenty of Cap space to absorb AD's contract.


Sat Nov 19, 2016 6:15 pm
Profile
Starter
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2016 4:38 am
Posts: 183
Post Re: AD
MrPurplenGold wrote:
mansquatch wrote:
Their cap situation should improve. Walsh is out. Kalil is going to get a more team friendly deal. (maybe) Fusco will likely be asked to alter his contract.

AP is most definitely going to have a far lower cap number. The question is how much will he accept vs. the reality of what he is worth. Dallas is not going to pay him now that they have their new star. So who is going to cut a big check for him?

CP84 is another, very interesting contract. I think he is gone for more oppotunity unless something changes. The Pat Schurmer change seems to have helped, but it still isn't like it was with Musgrave.

Plenty more on this topic. Plenty.


http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/minnesota-vikings/cap/2017/

spotrac is estimating the Vikings will have a little over 13.5 million in cap space next year. What has to be considered is AD and Sam Bradford will county for 35 million in cap space. Including teddy bridgewater the vikings will have almost 20 million tied up in the quarterback position. This doesn't include any future contracts or trying to resign Kalil or Munnerlyn (whom I think they desperately need to resign). This also doesn't include cutting someone like Shariff Floyd who would free up about 7 million in cap space or Jarius Wright who would save about 1.5 million in cap space.

Now 2017 won't have a lot of free agent lineman worth looking at. One person they might want to take a look at is Ron Leary out of Dallas, he could replace Fusco. Most teams should have plenty of room to sign their own free agents and overpay for existing UFA, but the Vikings would be at the bottom of the league in cap space for 2017 in their current predicament. Maybe the Vikings even looking at trading AD to Cleveland for Joe Thomas. Cleveland has plenty of Cap space to absorb AD's contract.


I can't see a straight up AD for Thomas trade. I think Thomas has more high production years left on him than AD.

_________________
Offseason Goal: Draft durable, tough, intelligent offensive lineman who are dependable technicians and avoid penalties aka drive killers.


Sat Nov 19, 2016 8:43 pm
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:40 am
Posts: 567
Post Re: AD
i can't see anyone crazy enough to eat AD's contract.
He's gotta come way down to earth moneywise...he owes them something in that regard IMO. They've done right by him to this point.
-
I wouldn't count on re-signing Kalil. I think the guys only healthy year was his first. If they do, hopefully it's on the cheap...and a significant restructure for Fusco too.
-


Sat Nov 19, 2016 9:49 pm
Profile
Starter
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2016 4:38 am
Posts: 183
Post Re: AD
Nunin wrote:
i can't see anyone crazy enough to eat AD's contract.
He's gotta come way down to earth moneywise...he owes them something in that regard IMO. They've done right by him to this point.
-
I wouldn't count on re-signing Kalil. I think the guys only healthy year was his first. If they do, hopefully it's on the cheap...and a significant restructure for Fusco too.
-


Yeah I really would rather just move on from Kalil. He is chronically injured and I can't see that changing in the future.

_________________
Offseason Goal: Draft durable, tough, intelligent offensive lineman who are dependable technicians and avoid penalties aka drive killers.


Sun Nov 20, 2016 3:08 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:52 am
Posts: 3432
Post Re: AD
Nunin wrote:
i can't see anyone crazy enough to eat AD's contract.
He's gotta come way down to earth moneywise...he owes them something in that regard IMO. They've done right by him to this point.
-
I wouldn't count on re-signing Kalil. I think the guys only healthy year was his first. If they do, hopefully it's on the cheap...and a significant restructure for Fusco too.
-



My gut tells me that AD doesn't think he owes us anything and he's going to take the best contract that the market puts on the table. Our commitment to him through injuries and the suspension, etc. will vanish and a Vikings legend's legacy will be tarnished forever. Sorry to be so cynical, but that's my read.


Sun Nov 20, 2016 11:22 am
Profile
Career Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 1:10 am
Posts: 2228
Location: Seattle, Wa
Post Re: AD
^ Hard to say and you could be right. He's seemed like a gracious Viking though through the thick and thin (minus the small blip during his legal issues where he seemed to be disappointed with how Vikings fans reacted -- so maybe not just small blip?)

I think the big thing is the teams in the race to sign him and by that I truly do mean in the race. Super Bowl contention will obviously play a part and despite what is happening with the Vikes season right now, Minnesota -- with the Super Bowl on deck in their own home next season -- might still be the place he wants to be if he hopes to accomplish that.


Regardless, I firmly believe his contract will not remain the same whether he's a Viking or not.


Sun Nov 20, 2016 11:57 am
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: AD
Texas Vike wrote:
My gut tells me that AD doesn't think he owes us anything and he's going to take the best contract that the market puts on the table. Our commitment to him through injuries and the suspension, etc. will vanish and a Vikings legend's legacy will be tarnished forever. Sorry to be so cynical, but that's my read.


He owes them no more than they owe him and I don't think their loyalty to him has ever extended beyond their own business and football interests.

Peterson's not in a position to take the best offer the market puts on the table unless the Vikings cut him. I doubt he'll be overly unreasonable about a renegotiation. I'm sure he and his representatives understand it's necessary. As I've said many times, it was clear when his current deal was signed that it was essentially a 2 year deal. Everyone involved knows he's not getting $18 million to play next year. How much he will want is purely a matter of conjecture but I suspect his representatives will also advise him that at his age, coming off a serious injury, the market will be limited.

It's up to the Vikes to make a reasonable offer if they want him to renegotiate and it's up to him to be reasonable in return. I think they do owe each other that much. If they can't come to terms it will be a shame.


Sun Nov 20, 2016 12:01 pm
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:40 am
Posts: 567
Post Re: AD
Texas Vike wrote:
Nunin wrote:
i can't see anyone crazy enough to eat AD's contract.
He's gotta come way down to earth moneywise...he owes them something in that regard IMO. They've done right by him to this point.
-
I wouldn't count on re-signing Kalil. I think the guys only healthy year was his first. If they do, hopefully it's on the cheap...and a significant restructure for Fusco too.
-



My gut tells me that AD doesn't think he owes us anything and he's going to take the best contract that the market puts on the table. Our commitment to him through injuries and the suspension, etc. will vanish and a Vikings legend's legacy will be tarnished forever. Sorry to be so cynical, but that's my read.

that's my first feeling too, but i'm open to being surprised. i think he still has good yardage left and would like to see him stay.


Sun Nov 20, 2016 12:11 pm
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:40 am
Posts: 567
Post Re: AD
Mothman wrote:
Texas Vike wrote:
My gut tells me that AD doesn't think he owes us anything and he's going to take the best contract that the market puts on the table. Our commitment to him through injuries and the suspension, etc. will vanish and a Vikings legend's legacy will be tarnished forever. Sorry to be so cynical, but that's my read.


He owes them no more than they owe him and I don't think their loyalty to him has ever extended beyond their own business and football interests.

Peterson's not in a position to take the best offer the market puts on the table unless the Vikings cut him. I doubt he'll be overly unreasonable about a renegotiation. I'm sure he and his representatives understand it's necessary. As I've said many times, it was clear when his current deal was signed that it was essentially a 2 year deal. Everyone involved knows he's not getting $18 million to play next year. How much he will want is purely a matter of conjecture but I suspect his representatives will also advise him that at his age, coming off a serious injury, the market will be limited.

It's up to the Vikes to make a reasonable offer if they want him to renegotiate and it's up to him to be reasonable in return. I think they do owe each other that much. If they can't come to terms it will be a shame.

what's a reasonable offer to you?
i really don't know....but i think $10mil is too much.
i think the sides owe it to eachother to be reasonable, i just think the team has to be serious about the longer term cap situation vs the shorter term butt in the set factor of AD. so, hopefully they aren't too far apart on the reasonable factor.


Sun Nov 20, 2016 12:17 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 34 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Knoxx and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.