Vikings Message Board.Com

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.

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.

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?

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.

Texas Vike wrote: 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.

Mothman wrote: 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.

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...

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.

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.

I think either way, him restructuring or waive him we draft a running back with a decent pick next year. 2nd or 3rd round.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.