Vikings Message Board.Com

Mothman wrote: That's interesting! If Peterson is reinstated, it will be very interesting to see how the Vikes handle it.

The Vikings are paying his salary. Might as well make him work for it.

He plays.

This guy can still torch defenses. If the goal is winning and Peterson makes them better, which he does and does very well, then he needs to be on the field. That includes next year.

Fran Tarkenton has a history of being a hardliner -- especially when it comes to professional athletes in trouble... It's his nature, and that's fine. But his opinion about Peterson was quite predictable.

PacificNorseWest wrote:He plays.

This guy can still torch defenses. If the goal is winning and Peterson makes them better, which he does and does very well, then he needs to be on the field. That includes next year.

Unfortunately the real goal isn't about winning, it's about making money. If the Wilf's feel keeping Peterson will hurt their bottom line then he will be gone.

Purple Reign wrote: Unfortunately the real goal isn't about winning, it's about making money. If the Wilf's feel keeping Peterson will hurt their bottom line then he will be gone.

No doubt that's in the equation. There are some fans that will never forgive Peterson and might punish the Vikings by boycotting them. But most fans want the Vikings to win too... and it's hard to disagree that the chances of winning games are better with Peterson than without him. So (at least for this year) he plays if he can. Next year is something else entirely.

It appears to me that the Peterson problem, and the "dragging it out," might be working out just the way the NFL, Goodell, other owners like JJones and even A. Peterson want it, and that is that AP plays next year in another uniform. It's the way everyone else except most Vikings fans, players and probably coaches want it.

...wisdom ? Who knows...

Purple Reign wrote: Unfortunately the real goal isn't about winning, it's about making money. If the Wilf's feel keeping Peterson will hurt their bottom line then he will be gone.

I guess it depends on how big their balls are. In the end, the Wilfs are still gonna make money. They have a state-of-the-art stadium being built that already has a line out the door to host big-time events, led by the the Super Bowl in 2018.

The sponsorship is an area i'm none too familiar with, but I'm sure they'd be able to find others if the current one's drop out. And are the current sponsors really willing to let someone else come in when the Vikings will be bringing in millions of dollars more than they already do, in the very near future? I don't know. It's easy for a small fry like me to say, but with what's on the horizon, winning should be paramount. Everything else is already falling into place, not to mention that these things tend to ease with time. I think it's a gamble worth taking. Actually, I don't think it's a gamble at all.

I could also see the Vikings take a fresh start approach, but that begs the question...WHO THE HELL CAN REPLACE ADRIAN PETERSON?!

indianation65 wrote:It appears to me that the Peterson problem, and the "dragging it out," might be working out just the way the NFL, Goodell, other owners like JJones and even A. Peterson want it, and that is that AP plays next year in another uniform. It's the way everyone else except most Vikings fans, players and probably coaches want it.

...wisdom ? Who knows...

The key word is "might". We really don't know what will happen next week... or who wants what. Peterson may have his suspension upheld. However, if I was a betting man (I'm not), I'd wager that Peterson plays if he is eligible for any games this year. If he isn't, there is nothing to wager on. What we do know is that the Vikings could have cut him long ago, but didn't, and have continued to pay him even though he is not playing. I think that says something.

There are a lot of reasons Peterson might be playing in another uniform next year -- and some of them have nothing to do with child endangerment. For example, cutting Peterson would be a good way to free up money under the cap to sign a decent free agent offensive lineman. That actually might (again "might") make sense. It's all speculation at this point, anyway. Once the result of the appeal is known, decisions can be made. For now, everyone is sitting tight.

PacificNorseWest wrote: I guess it depends on how big their balls are. In the end, the Wilfs are still gonna make money. They have a state-of-the-art stadium being built that already has a line out the door to host big-time events, led by the the Super Bowl in 2018.

The sponsorship is an area i'm none too familiar with, but I'm sure they'd be able to find others if the current one's drop out. And are the current sponsors really willing to let someone else come in when the Vikings will be bringing in millions of dollars more than they already do, in the very near future? I don't know. It's easy for a small fry like me to say, but with what's on the horizon, winning should be paramount. Everything else is already falling into place, not to mention that these things tend to ease with time. I think it's a gamble worth taking. Actually, I don't think it's a gamble at all.

I could also see the Vikings take a fresh start approach, but that begs the question...WHO THE HELL CAN REPLACE ADRIAN PETERSON?!

I think the Wilf's have already shown how big their balls are when they tried reinstating AP after 1 game and then caved in to pressure when some sponsors threatened to pull out.

Purple Reign wrote: I think the Wilf's have already shown how big their balls are when they tried reinstating AP after 1 game and then caved in to pressure when some sponsors threatened to pull out.

Nothing to do with ball size it is all about business, which is after all what the NFL is all about.

And winning is good for business.

PacificNorseWest wrote:And winning is good for business.

Yes, it is, but not at any cost. If that was the only thing that mattered, then the Wilf's wouldn't have caved in to sponsor pressure the 3rd game of the year and reversed their decision to play AP.

Anyone read Souhan's piece speculating that AD will become a Cowboy? That Murray is a "rented mule" about to be a FA that will leave Dallas. I think it's a poorly argued article, but would like to hear other responses here. His only support is AD's now infamous phone call to Jerry Jones when the Vikes let go of Coach Frazier (but had not yet hired Zimmy). AD was really disgruntled, that's all I saw it indicating. I do think his point that corporal punishment is more widely accepted in TX, so AD won't be publicly rejected like he may be in Minny. But that's not likely to be the most important point in where he ends up playing.

Texas Vike wrote:Anyone read Souhan's piece speculating that AD will become a Cowboy? That Murray is a "rented mule" about to be a FA that will leave Dallas. I think it's a poorly argued article, but would like to hear other responses here. His only support is AD's now infamous phone call to Jerry Jones when the Vikes let go of Coach Frazier (but had not yet hired Zimmy). AD was really disgruntled, that's all I saw it indicating. I do think his point that corporal punishment is more widely accepted in TX, so AD won't be publicly rejected like he may be in Minny. But that's not likely to be the most important point in where he ends up playing.

I haven't read the article, but it's just yet another example of what I believe the whole "AD wants to end his career in Dallas" thing getting blown out of proportion. It's actually starting to irritate me at this point. I don't know if it will or won't happen at this point, but the media and fans alike are starting to talk like it's a foregone conclusion, I've even seen some suggest this whole conspiracy theory that Peterson doesn't want to play this year and has intentionally created a rift between him and the Vikings so that he can go play for Dallas, which is beyond ridiculous.

Although, if Peterson does leave and go to Dallas, I wouldn't be the least bit upset replacing him with Murray if we had the chance