Vikings Message Board.Com

fiestavike wrote: Those are all fair points and I think these are complicated societal issues, especially when society has many different standards within the whole big picture.

I had an ex girlfriend who was raised in foster homes and where boys who misbehaved were forced to spend the day dressed in girls clothing and other similarly bizarre and psychologically abusive punishments. That to me is clearly beyond the pale of acceptable discipline. To me the Peterson crime is a matter of degree. Unless one rejects corporal punishment entirely, I think its pretty clear that Adrian was trying to administer a type of punishment that generally does fall within societies standards but used excessive force and/or an inappropriate item, and/or to a child too young to be disciplined in such a way. I think its fair to criticize him for this and I personally do find what he did objectionable for all of those reasons, but IMO its unfair to label him a "child abuser" based on this unfortunate event. Every parent has made mistakes when raising their children at different points and I don't think his judgement was good but it wasn't so far outside the bounds of what is societally acceptable that he deserves some of the vitriol he has received.

*Mods feel free to delete if you think this is beyond the bounds of reasonable discussion, I tried to phrase carefully and make what I think is a fair response to some other posts in this thread which are more critical of Peterson.

Really great stuff here. You've summed up my feelings quite well and eloquently.

Here's the thing ... even our mistakes have consequences. If I get in a car drunk and kill somebody, I didn't mean to kill that person. My judgment was poor, but I"m not a murderer. That being said, it's a terrible mistake, and it's a mistake that I would have to pay dearly for. Why? Because society has determined that driving drunk is a crime, and killing someone when you drive drunk is worse. You don't get to say, "It's not a crime unless TMZ catches me," or "Others have driven drunk and not gotten arrested."

Obviously Adrian's mistake isn't as serious as vehicular manslaughter, but it's the point that matters. He disciplined his child. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, it's admirable. But he lost control and took it too far, as determined by society's standards (which, by the way, are TODAY'S standards, not those of some bygone time in history). That action has consequences, and Adrian is facing those. It does not, however, rise to the level of "Adrian Peterson is a child abuser."

J. Kapp 11 wrote: Really great stuff here. You've summed up my feelings quite well and eloquently.

Here's the thing ... even our mistakes have consequences. If I get in a car drunk and kill somebody, I didn't mean to kill that person. My judgment was poor, but I"m not a murderer. That being said, it's a terrible mistake, and it's a mistake that I would have to pay dearly for. Why? Because society has determined that driving drunk is a crime, and killing someone when you drive drunk is worse. You don't get to say, "It's not a crime unless TMZ catches me," or "Others have driven drunk and not gotten arrested."

Obviously Adrian's mistake isn't as serious as vehicular manslaughter, but it's the point that matters. He disciplined his child. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, it's admirable. But he lost control and took it too far, as determined by society's standards (which, by the way, are TODAY'S standards, not those of some bygone time in history). That action has consequences, and Adrian is facing those. It does not, however, rise to the level of "Adrian Peterson is a child abuser."

Ok, I think those are all fair points as well. My question, and we can take this to PM if the mods would rather this conversation not take place here, is just what determines "societies standard". Is it a simple majority? Is it national? regional? by state? Is there room, and if so how much, for divergent cultural standards, say from immigrants, generational differences, etc? I don't claim to have a great answer for this.

fiestavike wrote: Those are all fair points and I think these are complicated societal issues, especially when society has many different standards within the whole big picture.

I had an ex girlfriend who was raised in foster homes and where boys who misbehaved were forced to spend the day dressed in girls clothing and other similarly bizarre and psychologically abusive punishments. That to me is clearly beyond the pale of acceptable discipline. To me the Peterson crime is a matter of degree. Unless one rejects corporal punishment entirely, I think its pretty clear that Adrian was trying to administer a type of punishment that generally does fall within societies standards but used excessive force and/or an inappropriate item, and/or to a child too young to be disciplined in such a way. I think its fair to criticize him for this and I personally do find what he did objectionable for all of those reasons, but IMO its unfair to label him a "child abuser" based on this unfortunate event. Every parent has made mistakes when raising their children at different points and I don't think his judgement was good but it wasn't so far outside the bounds of what is societally acceptable that he deserves some of the vitriol he has received.

*Mods feel free to delete if you think this is beyond the bounds of reasonable discussion, I tried to phrase carefully and make what I think is a fair response to some other posts in this thread which are more critical of Peterson.

I think it's fine and appreciate your effort to phrase it carefully. However...

fiestavike wrote:Ok, I think those are all fair points as well. My question, and we can take this to PM if the mods would rather this conversation not take place here, is just what determines "societies standard". Is it a simple majority? Is it national? regional? by state? Is there room, and if so how much, for divergent cultural standards, say from immigrants, generational differences, etc? I don't claim to have a great answer for this.

I do think that discussion probably extends beyond the parameters of Vikings Talk. PM or perhaps even the "Bar" section might be a better place to have it. It's certainly worthy of discussion.

Adrian Peterson - RB - Vikings

The NFL rejected a request from Adrian Peterson's camp for immediate reinstatement following his plea deal Tuesday.

The NFL isn't going to make any hasty decisions here. Per ESPN's Ed Werder, they will examine the court documents/police record in the case, convene experts, hold a hearing with Peterson and the NFLPA, consult with the Vikings and the union and then possibly apply the personal conduct policy. Considering Peterson has been suspended (with pay) since Week 1, it's only fair that the matter is resolved quickly. He's hoping to play in Week 11 now that all his legal matters are resolved.
Source: Foxsports.com
http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/nfl- ... eal-110514

dead_poet wrote:Adrian Peterson - RB - Vikings

The NFL rejected a request from Adrian Peterson's camp for immediate reinstatement following his plea deal Tuesday.

The NFL isn't going to make any hasty decisions here. Per ESPN's Ed Werder, they will examine the court documents/police record in the case, convene experts, hold a hearing with Peterson and the NFLPA, consult with the Vikings and the union and then possibly apply the personal conduct policy.

... all while no doubt checking, re-checking and then triple-checking the feelings of their corporate sponsors and doing their best to take the the "temperature" of public opinion.

Thanks for the link!

dead_poet wrote:Adrian Peterson - RB - Vikings

The NFL rejected a request from Adrian Peterson's camp for immediate reinstatement following his plea deal Tuesday.

The NFL isn't going to make any hasty decisions here. Per ESPN's Ed Werder, they will examine the court documents/police record in the case, convene experts, hold a hearing with Peterson and the NFLPA, consult with the Vikings and the union and then possibly apply the personal conduct policy. Considering Peterson has been suspended (with pay) since Week 1, it's only fair that the matter is resolved quickly. He's hoping to play in Week 11 now that all his legal matters are resolved.
Source: Foxsports.com
http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/nfl- ... eal-110514

If they have to "reinstate" Peterson, does that mean that the NFL views the exempt list as a suspension? There's been some question whether or not it's technically a "suspension".

Mothman wrote: ... all while no doubt checking, re-checking and then triple-checking the feelings of their corporate sponsors and doing their best to take the the "temperature" of public opinion.

Thanks for the link!

I bet that the Vikes trade him hopefully for some players/ draft choices after this season. Running back position has been solved thanks to Rick drafting Mckinnon.

Purple bruise wrote:
I bet that the Vikes trade him hopefully for some players/ draft choices after this season. Running back position has been solved thanks to Rick drafting Mckinnon.

I think the contract makes that prohibitive. Their options after this season are to cut him, pay him on his current contract, or get him to take a pay cut. I doubt he would take the paycut as part of a trade because he could choose where he wanted to go as a Free Agent so I don't see any way we have any leverage in terms of trading him. Hopefully he will be willing to restructure.

Thanks for the link![/quote]
I bet that the Vikes trade him hopefully for some players/ draft choices after this season. Running back position has been solved thanks to Rick drafting Mckinnon.[/quote]

I think the contract makes that prohibitive. Their options after this season are to cut him, pay him on his current contract, or get him to take a pay cut. I doubt he would take the paycut as part of a trade because he could choose where he wanted to go as a Free Agent so I don't see any way we have any leverage in terms of trading him. Hopefully he will be willing to restructure.[/quote]

If he is eager to play and put this behind him (I do not see any Viking sponsors wanting to support the team if he is on the field) then I could easily see him going to the Texans for say Foster and a late round pick. Much of his remaining contract is not guaranteed so he could renegotiate a new contract with another team.

dead_poet wrote:Adrian Peterson - RB - Vikings

The NFL rejected a request from Adrian Peterson's camp for immediate reinstatement following his plea deal Tuesday.

The NFL isn't going to make any hasty decisions here. Per ESPN's Ed Werder, they will examine the court documents/police record in the case, convene experts, hold a hearing with Peterson and the NFLPA, consult with the Vikings and the union and then possibly apply the personal conduct policy. Considering Peterson has been suspended (with pay) since Week 1, it's only fair that the matter is resolved quickly. He's hoping to play in Week 11 now that all his legal matters are resolved.
Source: Foxsports.com
http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/nfl- ... eal-110514

So what does this mean for him playing the next game?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

PurpleMustReign wrote: So what does this mean for him playing the next game?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Nothing has been decided. With the Vikings on bye, the league has some extra time. Of course, Goodell could take all the time he wants as it's really his decision.

dead_poet wrote: Nothing has been decided. With the Vikings on bye, the league has some extra time. Of course, Goodell could take all the time he wants as it's really his decision.

He can take all the time he want's. However, there are already rumblings on the NFL dragging their feet on the issue. If you don't see something my Monday I suspect the press will be all over the NFL and Goodell for it.

I see no reason why it shouldn't move quickly from a redtape standpoint. Everything seems straight forward as far as reviewing the document and meeting with the correct individuals etc....it could happen in 3-4 days IMO.

I think the reality is more to what Jim and maybe a couple others alluded to, they are weighing the issue of how sponsors are going to influence the decision which is based on said sponsors view of the public's perception.

Seems to me the legal/morality side to this is over and now it's back to business as usual.

As someone here said somewhere: AD has pretty much defined himself as a bit of a D-bag by his promiscuity and plain ignorance of social norms(whatever that means)....not that he is, by any means, alone in that category. That really hurts more than the crime IMO.

It seems likely that some corporate bean counters will have a huge say in this and I don't see the ownership challenging any decisions made there, if recent history is any indication.

There is no way on earth that I believe that this is solely Goodell's call....I'm not even convinced that he dresses himself.

I am hoping that we hear something tomorrow. I have always read that if you want to sneak something by, the best day to do a "media dump" was on a Friday. We shall see. Let's hope they bring him back, make him pay for some of those weeks he was off, then we can move on.

Mothman wrote: ... all while no doubt checking, re-checking and then triple-checking the feelings of their corporate sponsors and doing their best to take the the "temperature" of public opinion.

Thanks for the link!

This sums it up.

I think the NFL is extremely unlikely to reinstate Peterson this season. It's taken way too many recent black eyes and the last thing the NFL can afford is even the suggestion that it doesn't take these things seriously.

And even if the league were to OK it, the Wilfs and the Vikings would then have to weigh the local impact and whether they could survive any backlash that might come from sponsors and local media. While a lot of hardcore Vikings fans might find a way to be OK with AD back on the field, a lot of other people less focused on the team might not care to see that, and they could create a lot of negative noise about it.

So I just don't see it, not from the league or the Vikings, at least not this year.

And quite honestly, that might not be such a bad thing for the long-term development of the offense. Look at it this way - without AD back there as a tackle-breaking crutch, the offensive line has to learn how to functionally pass block as a unit. Bridgewater has to learn how to play the role of an actual pro QB versus a guy who hands it off to AD and looks for "safe" short and medium routes in the passing game. And the team has to find a way to create more big plays the way most pro offenses have to do it - via the pass, so this forces the offense to evolve and the players within it to become more well-rounded and capable of doing it over the longer term.

If AD does sit the rest of this season and the Vikings continue to win, he's almost certainly never going to suit up in Purple again unless he's willing to take a massive pay cut. I don't know if Goodell will factor that into his decision or not (my guess is not), but that fact is likely to be the only reason the Wilfs might attempt to brave the storm of public criticism and put AD back on the field if the NFL clears him. They are still paying him, and this would be a tragic end to an otherwise great career as a Viking.