Vikings Message Board.Com

I hope he does return. McKinnon and Asiata wouldn't be enough moving forward and they would need to spend a draft pick, most likely, on a RB. If they just re-sign AP, then it's one less thing to worry about this offseason and one more move that can be directed elsewhere...Oline, perhaps.

Exactly lol. The salt on this board and other Vikings fan forums sites is ridiculous. It is like everyone feels Peterson is forcing Minnesota to pay him this money.

No, they're just aware that he is making as much as he is, and the money could be better used elsewhere. I'm not mad at *him* because of what he makes, I'm mad at the team keeping him in part because of what he makes. There are other issues he has that have nothing to do with his pay check that make me want to see him gone regardless of pay. His skill set, his mind set, the direction of the team. Age. Just to name a few.

It sounds like lip service anyway. He wanted out before. You really think he's going to take a small contract to stay here over signing a similar deal with another team after his history here? The only way he's returning is if he's taking a pay cut that makes him more than the open market would pay him.

How much did AD make last season?

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

Mothman wrote:If Peterson's overpaid, it's certainly not his fault so it seems to me that some of the anger and resentment being expressed is misdirected.

Just to put a little perspective on the math being tossed around above: Peterson played in 103 of his first 112 regular season games with the Vikings (and if I recall correctly, he didn't miss any of the postseason games). In other words, he played in over 90% of the the team's games over that period. He played in all 16 games in 2015 too so the teeth-gnashing about missed time basically boils down to a handful of games in his first 7 seasons, plus 2014 and 2016. I'm not going to get into discussing 2014. That's a minefield. Suffice to say he was the catalyst for that missed time, it could have been avoided and there's good reason to be upset about it.

This season? Injuries happen, especially to older players. The Vikes knew the risks and they rolled the dice. All Peterson did was sign on the dotted line and all we have to do is look to last season to understand why the Vikings were willing to take the risk. With Peterson in the lineup for 16 games and carrying the ball 327 times, the Vikings had their only winning season thus far under Zimmer, won a division title, had the league's leading rusher and the #4-ranked running game. This season they ended up with the league's worst running game and missed the playoffs.

They got their money's worth in 2015. They didn't in 2016. So it goes. It's happened to them with highly-paid players before and it will undoubtedly happen again. Severe injuries are a harsh reality in the NFL.

Hold on a minute. Peterson did far more than just sign on the dotted line. He and his agent were all over the media after the 2014 debacle, claiming the Vikings somehow COST him upwards of $10 million. Yes, the Vikings caved and offered him the money, but don't tell me Peterson and his agent had nothing to do with it.

And you're right, AP played most of the Vikings' games until 2014. He even opened the season in 2012 when there should have been no earthy possibility of it. But ... let's look at the past three years, not an insignificant period of time. There we find a participation statistic that not even you can argue -- he's been paid $37 million over the past three seasons and has played a grand total of 20 games. That's money poorly spent, and I don't want the Vikings to repeat that mistake.

You constantly lambast Vikings management for not taking care of the QB situation, then failing to address the O-line situation -- those are appropriate complaints. Yet you're OK with paying a single player $37 million for 20 games in 3 years? Frankly that baffles me.

I'm not angry at Adrian Peterson, even for guilting the Vikings into overpaying him. I just don't want the Vikings to sign him. There are plenty of reasons why, wise use of the salary cap being just one. I've outlined those reasons earlier in this thread, so I won't repeat them. Suffice to say, you'll never convince me the Vikings have gotten their money's worth just because he won a rushing title.

Demi wrote: No, they're just aware that he is making as much as he is, and the money could be better used elsewhere. I'm not mad at *him* because of what he makes, I'm mad at the team keeping him in part because of what he makes.

Fair enough. I cannot disagree that the 18 million cap savings wouldn't benefit the team. However, this still a HOF HB we are talking about. Hard for me to just walk away from him without SOMETHING better behind him. McKinnon and Asiata aren't better players.

Demi wrote: There are other issues he has that have nothing to do with his pay check that make me want to see him gone regardless of pay. His skill set, his mind set, the direction of the team. Age. Just to name a few.

Hard to say for certain if his skill set was truly declining this year. He barely played and when he did, it was behind a pathetic offensive line. I will agree that age probably has not been kind to his agility and speed - which I expect to see some of a drop off in next season.

Demi wrote: It sounds like lip service anyway. He wanted out before. You really think he's going to take a small contract to stay here over signing a similar deal with another team after his history here? The only way he's returning is if he's taking a pay cut that makes him more than the open market would pay him.

I don't think there was any concrete evidence he wanted out from Minnesota - despite what was said in 2014. Most of it was verbal posturing and power positioning between the new man in charge and the franchise player.

As far as your last point, I suppose we will have our answer this offseason. I want him to stay on a reduced salary, but I fully understand if the team simply cuts him and runs with the 18 million.

J. Kapp 11 wrote:Hold on a minute. Peterson did far more than just sign on the dotted line. He and his agent were all over the media after the 2014 debacle, claiming the Vikings somehow COST him upwards of $10 million. Yes, the Vikings caved and offered him the money, but don't tell me Peterson and his agent had nothing to do with it.

The Vikings were under no obligation to pay him what they've paid him the last two years. They negotiated and agreed to his current contract. That was entirely their choice. They could have simply walked away and if they had done so after 2014, almost nobody would have blamed them. They made their own bed here.

And you're right, AP played most of the Vikings' games until 2014. He even opened the season in 2012 when there should have been no earthy possibility of it. But ... let's look at the past three years, not an insignificant period of time. There we find a participation statistic that not even you can argue -- he's been paid $37 million over the past three seasons and has played a grand total of 20 games.

I didn't argue it. I acknowledged it by specifically posting that most of the missed time had occurred in 2014 and 2016.

You constantly lambast Vikings management for not taking care of the QB situation, then failing to address the O-line situation -- those are appropriate complaints. Yet you're OK with paying a single player $37 million for 20 games in 3 years? Frankly that baffles me.

You're making an assumption. I'm okay with the contract he signed but I never said I was happy with the overall results. There's a difference. If someone had asked me 3 years ago if I would have been okay with the Vikings paying Peterson $37 million to perform in just 20 games, I would have answered no. However, we both know it doesn't work that way. Nobody knew he'd miss nearly 2 entire seasons of football. I was okay with the deals they signed under the assumption that he'd play in the majority of 48+ games over 3 seasons and because I think he's been extremely valuable to the team when healthy. Their QB situation (ie: a starter on his rookie contract) made that feasible under the salary cap rules. In theory, I have no problem with his deal. In reality, it obviously didn't work out very well. I'm not disputing that.

I'm not angry at Adrian Peterson, even for guilting the Vikings into overpaying him. I just don't want the Vikings to sign him. There are plenty of reasons why, wise use of the salary cap being just one. I've outlined those reasons earlier in this thread, so I won't repeat them. Suffice to say, you'll never convince me the Vikings have gotten their money's worth just because he won a rushing title.

Please note that I didn't try to convince you they got their money's worth over 3 years. I said they got their money's worth in 2015.

I understand your reasons for wanting the team to move on. They're reasonable. I'd prefer to see him stay but if they choose to move on, it will be an understandable decision. Just to be clear, I don't want him to stay under the terms of his current contract. I want to see the Vikings renegotiate his contract and adjust it to a much more reasonable, team-friendly deal. I think that was the intent from the start since the contract was structured to escalate wildly in 2017. If he won't renegotiate, releasing him is simply a no-brainer. If he will, then I think a whole slew of additional considerations come into play.

Salary cap just got raised by 12 million too. Teams will have to make sure they don't blow it all this year I think. Will be easy for any team to grab discount free agents the year after.

I'm mixed on this one. I get what a potentially healthy AP can bring to the table. However this team's biggest offensive strengths are it's WR and QBs. That is who we are right now. I wonder if AP's one dimensional nature is a big enough hindrance to offset the positives he brings at his current age? It seems like we'd benefit more from a Ray Rice/ Darren Sproles type back.

I'm sure I'm not stating anything new here, this is just where I'm at on the situation.

mansquatch wrote:I'm mixed on this one. I get what a potentially healthy AP can bring to the table. However this team's biggest offensive strengths are it's WR and QBs. That is who we are right now.

Perhaps but that's not how it should remain. With or without Peterson, the Vikings need to have an effective running game.

I wonder if AP's one dimensional nature is a big enough hindrance to offset the positives he brings at his current age? It seems like we'd benefit more from a Ray Rice/ Darren Sproles type back.

I'm sure I'm not stating anything new here, this is just where I'm at on the situation.

I think it's less that he's a one-dimensional player and more that he's too often been used in a one-dimensional way. He still strikes me as far more of an asset than a potential hindrance, although that obviously depends on factors like health, age and salary.

Now that they've decided Shurmur will be the OC going forward, they need to figure out exactly what they want to do offensively and make their decisions based on that.

Mothman wrote:Please note that I didn't try to convince you they got their money's worth over 3 years. I said they got their money's worth in 2015.

I guess we see it differently. See, I don't think the Vikings got their money's worth, even in 2015.

Salaries (cap hit) of the Past 5 NFL Rushing Leaders
2012 -- Adrian Peterson, Minnesota ($12.7 million)
2013 -- LeSean McCoy, Philadelphia ($4.95 million)
2014 -- DeMarco Murray, Dallas ($1.55 million)
2015 -- Adrian Peterson, Minnesota ($13 million)
2016 -- Ezekiel Elliott, Dallas ($4.5 million)

When you look at it comparatively, AP's salary is just ... out of whack. Sadly, being the league's leading rusher doesn't mean that much anymore.

That being said, you are certainly right in the fact that the Vikings were the ones who made the deals, so shame on them.

Mothman wrote:I understand your reasons for wanting the team to move on. They're reasonable. I'd prefer to see him stay but if they choose to move on, it will be an understandable decision. Just to be clear, I don't want him to stay under the terms of his current contract. I want to see the Vikings renegotiate his contract and adjust it to a much more reasonable, team-friendly deal. I think that was the intent from the start since the contract was structured to escalate wildly in 2017. If he won't renegotiate, releasing him is simply a no-brainer. If he will, then I think a whole slew of additional considerations come into play.

The entire situation with AP is kind of sad.

NFL contracts are so ... deceiving. I mean, Adrian Peterson signs for 6 years and $86 million a few years ago, and a couple of years later they're renegotiating because, well, it's not REALLY $86 million. Remember Donovan McNabb's deal with Washington a few years ago? Everybody was up in arms. How can they give an aging quarterback a $78-million contract? Well, that's because with only $3.5 million guaranteed, the Redskins were NEVER going pay him a tenth of that $78 million. The only guys whose contracts have any chance of going to term are guys like Brady and Rodgers, who are nearly irreplaceable.

I understand why the NFL has to be set up that way ... injuries alone would make fully guaranteed contracts hugely problematic. But it's just a weird situation that sets up arguments and contentious situations like the one we're seeing here with Adrian Peterson. Part of my issue was the way he and his agent took advantage of a situation HE caused by beating his son. But at the same time, the Vikings were never going to honor the entire $86 million of that deal, so who was really bilking whom?

Which brings me back to why this is sad. AP is one of my favorite players of all Vikings ever. But I can't bring myself to hope he returns. I want a team with a strong offensive line, and a team that's not built around a running back. It just doesn't work in today's NFL.

mansquatch wrote:I'm mixed on this one. I get what a potentially healthy AP can bring to the table. However this team's biggest offensive strengths are it's WR and QBs. That is who we are right now. I wonder if AP's one dimensional nature is a big enough hindrance to offset the positives he brings at his current age? It seems like we'd benefit more from a Ray Rice/ Darren Sproles type back.

I'm sure I'm not stating anything new here, this is just where I'm at on the situation.

I agree with you completely. Now let's take that thought to its logical (and startling) conclusion.

If we agree that AP is basically a 2-down back (not everybody on VMB agrees, but most analysts do), then ...
1. AP has to be taken out on third down, meaning he's not the team's best back in passing situations.
2. We are passing more and more as a substitute for the running game on early downs.
3. Therefore, AP is not the best back on his own team, let alone the NFL.

This is less about AP and more about what the NFL has become. It's a game built on passing, and that includes short passing to substitute for the running game. Since we are finally starting to ask our running backs to do what the rest of the NFL has been doing for a long time, Jerick McKinnon is our best back.

This concludes today's blasphemous testimony.

J. Kapp 11 wrote: I guess we see it differently. See, I don't think the Vikings got their money's worth, even in 2015.

Salaries (cap hit) of the Past 5 NFL Rushing Leaders
2012 -- Adrian Peterson, Minnesota ($12.7 million)
2013 -- LeSean McCoy, Philadelphia ($4.95 million)
2014 -- DeMarco Murray, Dallas ($1.55 million)
2015 -- Adrian Peterson, Minnesota ($13 million)
2016 -- Ezekiel Elliott, Dallas ($4.5 million)

When you look at it comparatively, AP's salary is just ... out of whack. Sadly, being the league's leading rusher doesn't mean that much anymore.

We definitely see it differently because I think it meant a lot to the 2015 Vikings. Peterson was a productive and stabilizing force for them, a huge key to their division title. Comparatively, his salary was out of whack with that of other backs in the league but his value to the Vikings was substantial.

That being said, you are certainly right in the fact that the Vikings were the ones who made the deals, so shame on them.

Exactly. There's certainly an argument to be made that spending the money elsewhere might have ultimately been more beneficial but it was a management choice to spend it as they did.

The entire situation with AP is kind of sad.

NFL contracts are so ... deceiving. I mean, Adrian Peterson signs for 6 years and $86 million a few years ago, and a couple of years later they're renegotiating because, well, it's not REALLY $86 million. Remember Donovan McNabb's deal with Washington a few years ago? Everybody was up in arms. How can they give an aging quarterback a $78-million contract? Well, that's because with only $3.5 million guaranteed, the Redskins were NEVER going pay him a tenth of that $78 million. The only guys whose contracts have any chance of going to term are guys like Brady and Rodgers, who are nearly irreplaceable.

I understand why the NFL has to be set up that way ... injuries alone would make fully guaranteed contracts hugely problematic. But it's just a weird situation that sets up arguments and contentious situations like the one we're seeing here with Adrian Peterson. Part of my issue was the way he and his agent took advantage of a situation HE caused by beating his son. But at the same time, the Vikings were never going to honor the entire $86 million of that deal, so who was really bilking whom?

Which brings me back to why this is sad. AP is one of my favorite players of all Vikings ever. But I can't bring myself to hope he returns. I want a team with a strong offensive line, and a team that's not built around a running back. It just doesn't work in today's NFL.

I agree that it's sad but I've never felt the Vikings needed to be built around Peterson (at least not in a literal sense). I still don't feel that way. I think he's been the centerpiece of their offense for the better part of a decade primarily because they've failed in almost every season except 2009 to put the kind of QB and passing game in place that would take the focus off him and make him a huge asset to a balanced offense rather than the focal point of the offense. When they actually did that, they had a top 5 offense and far from that having a negative impact on his production, he scored 18 TDs and had about 1800 combined yards. Imagine what his career might have looked like if Vikings management had actually been able to build around him in the sense that they started with him as a keystone of their offense and then paired him with a highly effective passing game for a good 7 years. It could have been something special.

Yet another sad irony is that this season, when the Vikings had the best QB they've had since that 2009 season, the OL was absolutely terrible when blocking the run and Peterson missed most of the season anyway.

I want a team with a strong offensive line too but I don't think Peterson's presence on the roster impacts that one way or another. One of the reasons I've ripped into management so much has been that, given the money they've paid Peterson and the fact that they've spent a significant portion of his career trying to develop young QBs as starters, having a truly strong OL should have been among their top priorities every season.

They Vikes have had a HOF-caliber (and literally MVP-caliber) talent on their roster for a decade and they've largely squandered the opportunity that presented to them. To me, that's the saddest part of all this. They pulled a "Detroit Lions".

J. Kapp 11 wrote:I agree with you completely. Now let's take that thought to its logical (and startling) conclusion.

If we agree that AP is basically a 2-down back (not everybody on VMB agrees, but most analysts do), then ...
1. AP has to be taken out on third down, meaning he's not the team's best back in passing situations.
2. We are passing more and more as a substitute for the running game on early downs.
3. Therefore, AP is not the best back on his own team, let alone the NFL

This is less about AP and more about what the NFL has become. It's a game built on passing, and that includes short passing to substitute for the running game. Since we are finally starting to ask our running backs to do what the rest of the NFL has been doing for a long time, Jerick McKinnon is our best back.

I understand what you're saying but I don't think it holds up under scrutiny. Settinga side the fact that peterson is quite obviously the best back on the team, he was also more productive as a receiver than McKinnon was in 2015 and he caught a higher percentage of passes targeted to him as well. That percentage was higher than McKinnon's in 2016 too. The latter had 13 more catches in expanded duty this year than Peterson had in 2016 and taht resulted in just 33 more yards.

I truly believe this is one of those situations where perception doesn't meet reality. Peterson's skill set has long been more diverse than he gets credit for and I see no reason why he couldn't fit into a more pass-oriented offense as well as either of his current backups do. He has literally demonstrated his ability to do that in the past.

For me, the only frustrating thing about AD's game is the fumbles, which often come at very inopportune times. I believe he's still a great back and hopefully he'll remember that the Vikings paid him up front like he wanted and now needs a large scale back for the betterment of the team.

Mothman wrote:I agree that it's sad but I've never felt the Vikings needed to be built around Peterson (at least not in a literal sense). I still don't feel that way. I think he's been the centerpiece of their offense for the better part of a decade primarily because they've failed in almost every season except 2009 to put the kind of QB and passing game in place that would take the focus off him and make him a huge asset to a balanced offense rather than the focal point of the offense. When they actually did that, they had a top 5 offense and far from that having a negative impact on his production, he scored 18 TDs and had about 1800 combined yards. Imagine what his career might have looked like if Vikings management had actually been able to build around him in the sense that they started with him as a keystone of their offense and then paired him with a highly effective passing game for a good 7 years. It could have been something special.

You won't get an argument out of me about how it should have been or should be. It was as if Vikings management believed 2012 was the template for offensive success, not 2009.

The problem is that as long as 28 is in the backfield, Vikings management is going to make him the focal point. And THAT is precisely why I don't want him re-signed. The only way this group is going to extricate itself from the "we gotta get AP his carries" mentality is if he's not on the roster.