Vikings RB Adrian Peterson wants to return, open to pay cut

[losperros]

Just saw this.... A wide receiver with our first pick? Man, I hope not...

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-c ... ock-draft/

The absolute last thing the Vikings should do. I can't imagine them being that dumb. At least I hope not.

Seems feasible and I'd be happy with that, as long as we draft a RB in, say, round 4 or 5, maybe even higher.

Works for me.

I'm just hoping the Vikings honestly realize the OL has to be improved in a big way or no RB will do well.

[PurpleKoolaid]

A lot of us that that would happen last year, and look what Rick got us.

[mansquatch]

A lot of us that that would happen last year, and look what Rick got us.

He was the top rusher in the NFL in 2015. They were not really in a favorable position to bargain last offseason. This season their position is much stronger.

He did squat in 2016 and his contract IS silly. However, 3 years ago he was the best / only decent skill player on the team. His last full season he delivered and put up strong numbers. So the guy does have some equity and our 2016 rushing attack was putrid. I think there is a decent to strong case that even an 80% AP is still likely better for the Vikings than Asiata/Mckinnon. (McKinnon's durability is highly suspect...)

Regardless, his contract value is WAY too high for that level of production. So what is he willing to come down to and is that enough for the Vikings to address their critical needs at Tackle? OR... is there a viable option out there in either the draft or FA that the Vikings feel can be better than McKinnon/Asiata/2017 AP? There is likely a case that a Ray Rice/Darren Sproles type player might fit what the Vikings want to do better than a more power forward rusher like AP. That being said, AP is still probably REALLY, REALLY good at what he does. So what is better for the offense? A better fit, or a slightly older HOF talent? A question of incrementals and hard to judge without seeing both sides.

My sense is that the most likely outcome is that AP will be back on "more team friendly" deal. A FA guy that could make the incremental difference tolerable will probably be expensive, which is what the Vikings are trying to avoid by re-negotiating AP's contract.

Time will tell, but that is my current sense of things. I think the Team would be really stupid to undermine it's ability to deal for the FA Tackles by saddling itself with a giant RB contract. There is way too much at stake given where the rest of the roster is at. (This view assumes that FA T are worth the money.)

[Pondering Her Percy]

He was the top rusher in the NFL in 2015. They were not really in a favorable position to bargain last offseason. This season their position is much stronger.

He did squat in 2016 and his contract IS silly. However, 3 years ago he was the best / only decent skill player on the team. His last full season he delivered and put up strong numbers. So the guy does have some equity and our 2016 rushing attack was putrid. I think there is a decent to strong case that even an 80% AP is still likely better for the Vikings than Asiata/Mckinnon. (McKinnon's durability is highly suspect...)

Regardless, his contract value is WAY too high for that level of production. So what is he willing to come down to and is that enough for the Vikings to address their critical needs at Tackle? OR... is there a viable option out there in either the draft or FA that the Vikings feel can be better than McKinnon/Asiata/2017 AP? There is likely a case that a Ray Rice/Darren Sproles type player might fit what the Vikings want to do better than a more power forward rusher like AP. That being said, AP is still probably REALLY, REALLY good at what he does. So what is better for the offense? A better fit, or a slightly older HOF talent? A question of incrementals and hard to judge without seeing both sides.

My sense is that the most likely outcome is that AP will be back on "more team friendly" deal. A FA guy that could make the incremental difference tolerable will probably be expensive, which is what the Vikings are trying to avoid by re-negotiating AP's contract.

Time will tell, but that is my current sense of things. I think the Team would be really stupid to undermine it's ability to deal for the FA Tackles by saddling itself with a giant RB contract. There is way too much at stake given where the rest of the roster is at. (This view assumes that FA T are worth the money.)

Good post. There is no doubt in my mind that he is better than McKinnon/Asiata combo. And no PK it's not "and look where Ricky got us". Like mansquatch said, he was the leading rusher in the NFL and put up very good numbers last year. He was a big reason we got to the playoffs. I dont blame us for holding onto him. However, now, it's a perfect time to have him take a pay cut or cut him outright AND bring in a stud rookie. I've said over and over again, the only way I am satisfied with AP remaining a Viking is IF he takes a pay cut AND we draft a rookie. If he is kept at his current salary or takes a pay cut and we DONT draft a RB, I'll really start to question Spielman. Especially with how good this RB class is.

Side note: The whole "Ricky" thing is quite annoying and tiring

[mansquatch]

I'm just hoping the Vikings honestly realize the OL has to be improved in a big way or no RB will do well.

There was an interview with Spielman that was posted online today. In the short 2:30 clip he states what their main priority is in the offseason. I know this will surprise a lot of people, but he actually said Offensive Line.

[losperros]

There was an interview with Spielman that was posted online today. In the short 2:30 clip he states what their main priority is in the offseason. I know this will surprise a lot of people, but he actually said Offensive Line.

Good to hear!

[PurpleMustReign]

Didn't he say that last year?

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

[Mothman]

Didn't he say that last year?

Yes, at least about as much as he tends to definitively say anything.

http://www.startribune.com/vikings-offe ... 369375761/

[losperros]

Yes, at least about as much as he tends to definitively say anything.

http://www.startribune.com/vikings-offe ... 369375761/

Well, that's just great. If Rick and the team's staff overlook the offensive line during the draft and free agency, the offense will be doomed again. Either these guys want to fill the gaps with talent or they don't.

[Mothman]

Well, that's just great. If Rick and the team's staff overlook the offensive line during the draft and free agency, the offense will be doomed again. Either these guys want to fill the gaps with talent or they don't.

Hopefully, they learned from last year.

[mansquatch]

They didn't "overlook" it last year. They went into the offseason saying it was their biggest priority. Zimmer at one point said something to the effect of "The most important thing for us to do is fix the OL." The way they went about fixing it didn't turn out well. The original plan going into 2016 was to replace / move 4 of 5 starters from 2015. Injuries, the Mike Harris whatever-it-is thing, Sullivan not being up to snuff, and Loadholt's retirement all scuttled that plan by week 2.

Their "fix" is certainly subject to criticism, but to say they overlooked the problem is false.

[Texas Vike]

They didn't "overlook" it last year. They went into the offseason saying it was their biggest priority. Zimmer at one point said something to the effect of "The most important thing for us to do is fix the OL." The way they went about fixing it didn't turn out well. The original plan going into 2016 was to replace / move 4 of 5 starters from 2015. Injuries, the Mike Harris whatever-it-is thing, Sullivan not being up to snuff, and Loadholt's retirement all scuttled that plan by week 2.

Their "fix" is certainly subject to criticism, but to say they overlooked the problem is false.

I think it is a matter of semantics. When many of us say they "overlooked" the OL, we mean that they did not address it with due diligence. The defenders of the FO opine that they dealt with it the best they could with the resources that they had; the critics believe that they really didn't... they just slapped together a very suspect group, patted their hands and called it good.

If they don't make a more serious commitment to upgrading the talent at OL this offseason, they will lose a lot of the fanbase.

[losperros]

They didn't "overlook" it last year. They went into the offseason saying it was their biggest priority. Zimmer at one point said something to the effect of "The most important thing for us to do is fix the OL." The way they went about fixing it didn't turn out well. The original plan going into 2016 was to replace / move 4 of 5 starters from 2015. Injuries, the Mike Harris whatever-it-is thing, Sullivan not being up to snuff, and Loadholt's retirement all scuttled that plan by week 2.

Their "fix" is certainly subject to criticism, but to say they overlooked the problem is false.

Sounds as if you're calling me a liar.

If stating my opinion bothers you so much, then put me on your kill list.

There, problem solved.

[losperros]

I think it is a matter of semantics. When many of us say they "overlooked" the OL, we mean that they did not address it with due diligence. The defenders of the FO opine that they dealt with it the best they could with the resources that they had; the critics believe that they really didn't... they just slapped together a very suspect group, patted their hands and called it good.

If they don't make a more serious commitment to upgrading the talent at OL this offseason, they will lose a lot of the fanbase.

Agreed. The due diligence is exactly what I'm talking about when I say the Vikings overlooked the OL. The OL was limping along as a unit in 2015, which why the team's plan of replacing 4 or 5 starters existed. Then what happened? They drafted a WR with the first pick. After that some not so good OL starters went down to injury, which can happen. But they were replaced by more bad players. Where were the good starters and the depth in both 2015 and 2016?

I'm going to stick with the "overlooked" part. It just appears as if not enough research and effort went into the supposed rebuilding.

[mansquatch]

I acknowledged that their solution was not effective. However, the fact that they deployed a solution, good or bad, indicates that they were in fact looking at the problem. Therefore, to say they "overlooked it" isn't accurate or fair, IMO.

@LOSPERROS: I would say at worst we have a difference of opinion. I do not feel that at any point I questioned your integrity or honesty. If I came across that way I apologize.

My main goal is articulating this difference is to get people to focus on the issue. If you want to criticize the FO, then do it where there is some meat on the bone: Their solution not only didn't work, in the end the OL was worse in 2016 than in 2015.

Where there is a lot of debate between myself and PHP on one side and mostly Jim and a few other on the other side is with regards to how much of the solution's failure was due to bad luck vs. bad decision making. That has been beaten a to bloody pulp, so no need to get into again here.