Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Flyfreak

++ UPDATE: AP requests a trade to the Cowboys - Reinstated

  

43 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you think AP will be traded to the Cowboys?

    • Yes
      11
    • No
      32


Recommended Posts

 

i think most of us feel like last season represented drastic overachievement, rather than a reflection of team superiority. we see the exact same kinds of games that we saw during the 8-8 seasons, except that the breaks finally went DAL's way. DAL didn't come in and impose their will on a lot of teams--they fought and scratched, and managed to find a way to win. from the outside, DAL might look like a juggernaut. from the inside, fans see a vast array of weaknesses and problems.

 

and yes, the defense was miles away from being any good. this changed with two moves--getting hardy and keeping mcclain. these guys have a ripple effect, increasing the value of lawrence, crawford, and mincey, as well as putting lee in the best position to succeed. it also helps the secondary, which is mediocre at best.

 

i stand by my earlier post. without a top-10 defense, DAL is not going to make the SB. a high-end RB could help mask defensive inadequacies, but neither murray nor AP was going to magically make them a top-10 unit. acquiring elite talent on the defensive side of the football might. so the team made the proper money decision--hardy and mcclain over murray/AP.

Great post... I understand where your coming from better now and I found it all very interesting. I see your points.

 

From the outside perspective though: I feel you didn't necessarily overachieve.

Ok Murray probably did - But, an upgrade with AP would nullify that and give you basically the same kind of year/or better.

 

Your Def also may have been masked by that running game. But, what I saw was a new approach this year that changed everything. You kind of took the page out of our book that we've been doing, and went to a complete power running game and ball control offense. At least for the most part or until you couldn't get away with it. You tied Romo up a bit (Also why I called him a Game Manger earlier when we were discussing all this)

 

This new approach helped lots of issues in my view:

-Romo made less mistakes

-Romo didn't over press and played more relaxed football and better overall choices

-Romo was put into better managable reads and easy conversions

-The game plan became unpredictable for D's.

-Your Oline matured and other young players as well.

-Your def stayed off the field more, and fresher, and less exposed overall. This creates the overachieve aspect, but doesn't mean it will fall back to the norm.

 

SO, what I'm saying is I don't think you should say "You finally got the breaks?"

 

You played like a playoff team all year. You deserved every win. And I know for a fact, when you came to Seatle, this method crushed us and you played our own style of football. Like S.F. had been playing. You smashed us with your running game and let Romo move the chains with short yardage.

 

Now, I understand the needs for your Def upgrades. But, that's a done deal now. Romo has made room for you guy's and I'm sure you can work it out to make sense. AP would bring this style and smash running game to new level. Between AP upgrade, Two def adds/signings, new Def draft prospects, then I don't see how you can say your that far away. Even if last year overachieved, with those additions you would be that much better then last year. You should be "staying the course."

 

All you need to do is get that bye and home field. GB coming into your place would make up that differance of you winning or not. Again, Romo needs the one last chance before he's done. That's really the key & problem with how your thinking.

 

You could have also not waisted money on McFadden. That part makes this all harder and probably a mute point.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

This new approach helped lots of issues in my view:

-Romo made less mistakes

-Romo didn't over press and played more relaxed football and better overall choices

-Romo was put into better managable reads and easy conversions

-The game plan became unpredictable for D's.

 

 

i agree with most of what you posted, but i'm going to pay especial interest to this, because we see romo quite differently. you're quite right that the commitment to the run game helped romo. but it did so not by shielding him from anything, but rather by executing the overall scheme properly.

 

the thing is, garrett's offensive scheme derives from coryell's, but through norv turner and ernie zampese. why is this important? the old air coryell attack (1980s san diego) was designed as a pass-first offense. unlike the west coast scheme (which emphasizes quick ball movement), air coryell is downfield-oriented. this much of the scheme has been retained. but turner and zampese modified the offense somewhat, and their version combines the downfield concepts with a power running game. this is exactly how the dynasty DAL offense worked--emmitt, emmitt, aikman, emmitt, aikman, emmitt.

 

unfortunately, garrett lost touch with the power run component of the offense (unsurprising for a very young former QB). as a result, romo was basically playing with half of an offensive scheme for most of his career. other top QBs (peyton, brees, rodgers) all play within offensive systems that were designed to be pass-first--those systems were tailored to substitute short passing for rushing attempts. romo didn't--he had been forced to play with just the passing half of a run-first offense, usually with inferior pass protection.

 

despite these limitations, he has been incredibly productive throughout his career. but being the only offensive threat (due to playcalling) usually meant that if he didn't make huge plays, DAL would lose. so yeah, he was forced to gamble--he didn't have a choice. but here's the funny part--whenever the playcallers committed to creating a run threat (2007 and 2009), DAL made the playoffs regardless of whether or not the guys in the backfield were any good. romo didn't need much backfield talent--just enough of a run game to complete the offensive scheme.

 

so it has never really been a romo problem--the issue has been a scheme problem. romo in a pass-first scheme (the no-huddle) is godlike. over the last 8 years, DAL fans have become very used to seeing this. DAL will screw around for the whole first half, accomplishing nothing due to weird or predictable playcalling from the sidelines. then romo gets the ball with 1:30 left before halftime, and 70 seconds later they're in the end zone. 39 seconds left against ARI? romo drives them into FG range...and the kicker misses. a min left against NYG? miracle drive, TD pass...but replay shows that dez put his hand down out of bounds. another perfect drive against BAL? dez drops the 2-point conversion. the final drive that same game? kicker misses a FG as time expires.

 

you get the idea. it isn't a matter of sheltering romo against mistakes. it's a matter of giving him a complete offensive scheme to work with. so i'll suggest that your list isn't wrong--it's just in the wrong order.

 

1. the commitment to calling running plays completed the DAL offensive scheme.

2. because defenses had to deal with a legitimate run threat, they couldn't tee off on romo.

3. by continuing to call running plays even when they weren't working, the offensive line ground down opposing front sevens.

4. over time, this helped keep the offense on schedule D&D-wise.

5. so in addition to keeping defenses honest and beating them up, the commitment to called run plays meant that romo was not repeatedly forced into the position of having to gamble everything on big plays (as has been the case in the past).

 

 

the SEA game is an excellent example of this. DAL kept pounding away, even though it wasn't really working for 3 quarters (aside from a 38-yard randle run into an 8-man box). by the 4th, the hawks were just beaten up. but it took romo to make yet another miracle play on 3rd and 20 with 3 min left to keep DAL from being closed out.

 

at risk of being repetitive (probably way too late for that :ninja: ), i'll conclude by saying that the difference in performance last season was not so much the backfield talent as it was a playcalling commitment. DAL history shows that romo doesn't need a lot of RB talent in order to succeed--he just needs enough to complete the scheme. there is no question that keeping murray or adding AP would help the offense. but i still maintain that improving the defensive talent was the right way to make the team more competitive in january.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

i agree with most of what you posted, but i'm going to pay especial interest to this, because we see romo quite differently. you're quite right that the commitment to the run game helped romo. but it did so not by shielding him from anything, but rather by executing the overall scheme properly.

 

the thing is, garrett's offensive scheme derives from coryell's, but through norv turner and ernie zampese. why is this important? the old air coryell attack (1980s san diego) was designed as a pass-first offense. unlike the west coast scheme (which emphasizes quick ball movement), air coryell is downfield-oriented. this much of the scheme has been retained. but turner and zampese modified the offense somewhat, and their version combines the downfield concepts with a power running game. this is exactly how the dynasty DAL offense worked--emmitt, emmitt, aikman, emmitt, aikman, emmitt.

 

unfortunately, garrett lost touch with the power run component of the offense (unsurprising for a very young former QB). as a result, romo was basically playing with half of an offensive scheme for most of his career. other top QBs (peyton, brees, rodgers) all play within offensive systems that were designed to be pass-first--those systems were tailored to substitute short passing for rushing attempts. romo didn't--he had been forced to play with just the passing half of a run-first offense, usually with inferior pass protection.

 

despite these limitations, he has been incredibly productive throughout his career. but being the only offensive threat (due to playcalling) usually meant that if he didn't make huge plays, DAL would lose. so yeah, he was forced to gamble--he didn't have a choice. but here's the funny part--whenever the playcallers committed to creating a run threat (2007 and 2009), DAL made the playoffs regardless of whether or not the guys in the backfield were any good. romo didn't need much backfield talent--just enough of a run game to complete the offensive scheme.

 

so it has never really been a romo problem--the issue has been a scheme problem. romo in a pass-first scheme (the no-huddle) is godlike. over the last 8 years, DAL fans have become very used to seeing this. DAL will screw around for the whole first half, accomplishing nothing due to weird or predictable playcalling from the sidelines. then romo gets the ball with 1:30 left before halftime, and 70 seconds later they're in the end zone. 39 seconds left against ARI? romo drives them into FG range...and the kicker misses. a min left against NYG? miracle drive, TD pass...but replay shows that dez put his hand down out of bounds. another perfect drive against BAL? dez drops the 2-point conversion. the final drive that same game? kicker misses a FG as time expires.

 

you get the idea. it isn't a matter of sheltering romo against mistakes. it's a matter of giving him a complete offensive scheme to work with. so i'll suggest that your list isn't wrong--it's just in the wrong order.

 

1. the commitment to calling running plays completed the DAL offensive scheme.

2. because defenses had to deal with a legitimate run threat, they couldn't tee off on romo.

3. by continuing to call running plays even when they weren't working, the offensive line ground down opposing front sevens.

4. over time, this helped keep the offense on schedule D&D-wise.

5. so in addition to keeping defenses honest and beating them up, the commitment to called run plays meant that romo was not repeatedly forced into the position of having to gamble everything on big plays (as has been the case in the past).

 

 

the SEA game is an excellent example of this. DAL kept pounding away, even though it wasn't really working for 3 quarters (aside from a 38-yard randle run into an 8-man box). by the 4th, the hawks were just beaten up. but it took romo to make yet another miracle play on 3rd and 20 with 3 min left to keep DAL from being closed out.

 

at risk of being repetitive (probably way too late for that :ninja: ), i'll conclude by saying that the difference in performance last season was not so much the backfield talent as it was a playcalling commitment. DAL history shows that romo doesn't need a lot of RB talent in order to succeed--he just needs enough to complete the scheme. there is no question that keeping murray or adding AP would help the offense. but i still maintain that improving the defensive talent was the right way to make the team more competitive in january.

I can agree with everything you pretty much said. Also, my list was not in any kind of order. Just a quick run down of things. I can agree with your order and list.

 

I do want to point out that in both those years you talked about 07 & 09, for one thing that was a LONG time ago when Romo was in his prime, but also he threw for some of the most attempts in his career. That's not a real committment to the running game as I see it? He had over 520-550 attempts in those years.

He also had 19 INT's in 07 so that didn't exactly work out to well IMO. They did make the playoffs..... But it was so long ago I can't even remember the details? Poor Div? Better Def? Better WR/TE? Lots of factors going back 6+ years ago.

 

I don't really see how these years relate to that much? Dallas had a pretty good 3 headed monster back then, and they could pound and find the endzone.

M. Barber, Choice, and Jones were pretty good I thought. Kind of like N.O 3 headed monster I would say. I'm not saying they were great, but pretty servicable. I really liked Barber myelf.

 

McFadden just doens't compare to me personally because he has not shown to be healthy ever. He can't pound the rock on a regular basis I believe.

I just think losing Murray defeats the goal we both talk about. Pound the rock. You won't and can't do it as much if your not netting good production early in drives.

I understand the reasons for Murray with the need for Def signings. But, AP could still work with them.

 

I know you say just the fact that they attempt to run will keep D's honest and maybe be good enough for the likes of Romo, but I don't really agree with that.

 

I think you need to put "todays romo" in the better situations. Meanning = You need good production out of the RB for 3rd and shorts, etc or even carry your team on given weeks. - (As a rule per game)

I know Romo has the ability to carry your team too, but against a good Def you better be able to pound the rock too. You will become 1 dimentional pretty quickly if the run game doesn't scare anyone. You also want long scoring drives to mask the def.

 

I guess I'm also repeating myself. Anyway, GL to you guys. I'll be interested to see how this all turns out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't really see how these years relate to that much? Dallas had a pretty good 3 headed monster back then, and they could pound and find the endzone.

M. Barber, Choice, and Jones were pretty good I thought. Kind of like N.O 3 headed monster I would say. I'm not saying they were great, but pretty servicable. I really liked Barber myelf.

 

the point precisely. barber was a 4th round pick, and choice was a 3rd. felix was a 1st rounder, but he couldn't stay on the field. and yet they represented a 3-headed monster that put up the 7th-ranked rushing offense in the league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Felix Jones was a turd from day 1... Barber was good in his role - then Jerry signed him to one of the dumbest extensions in franchise history. Only to be out done by the stupidity of the coaching staff to think Barber was an every down, starting back. Ha, talk about blow ups. That pig ran out of gas rapidly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

the point precisely. barber was a 4th round pick, and choice was a 3rd. felix was a 1st rounder, but he couldn't stay on the field. and yet they represented a 3-headed monster that put up the 7th-ranked rushing offense in the league.

But, they were not rookies when Dallas made the playoff's those years.

 

Barber was into his 3rd year (usually prime year) by the time Dallas made the playoff's in 07, and 5th year (Breakout year) in 09.

Seems kind of similar to where Murray is right now actually.

 

Also, you have to be sure to nail a NFL caliber rookie because there are a lot of busts too. Plus we go back to the whole point of not drafting Def if your using it for RB's.

 

So the question is if you draft a rookie, can Romo wait another 3 years? And that's my point. Maybe he can, but he'll be that much older and by then your line could get stolen.

McFadden is Felix to me. He won't stay healthy to count on.

 

And again, none of these RB's (even Murray) are the kind of RB AP is. The odds you find that caliber RB in the draft become even more slim.

 

Anyway, time for me to move on. :wave:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an incredibly ignorant statement - I don't know of any this applies to.

 

Still waiting for the example of a super star rb, or any other non franchise qb, being traded for and putting a team over the top and into the promise land. Anyone?

 

The draft pick aquired from the Vikings in the Herschel Walker trade was used for Emmitt Smith who led the league in rushing and won the Super Bowl. Not his rookie year, but soon after.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ESPN's Mark Dominik -- a former NFL GM with the Buccaneers -- believes Adrian Peterson's trade value is a first-round pick and two second-rounders.

Dominik acknowledges no team would likely be willing to give up that much for Peterson, who turned 30 last month and is owed $13 million in salary and bonuses. Nevertheless, it's interesting that such compensation would even be thrown around. Former Browns GM Phil Savage suggested that a second-round pick would be "a more reasonable haul" for a team trading for Peterson.

 

 

i agree, a second round pick seems like fair compensation for ap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that makes zero sense. a guy's trade value is whatever the team can get for him. so if no one would give a first and two seconds, that's not his value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that makes zero sense. a guy's trade value is whatever the team can get for him. so if no one would give a first and two seconds, that's not his value.

it's all speculation and with his salary factored in it greatly affects the compensation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gepetto, on 10 Apr 2015 - 10:42 PM, said:

The draft pick aquired from the Vikings in the Herschel Walker trade was used for Emmitt Smith who led the league in rushing and won the Super Bowl. Not his rookie year, but soon after.

I'm very well aware of the H. Walker trade - but this doesn't apply either. Why? Mostly bcoz the Cowboys were not close to anything in 1989 - in fact we were the worst team in the league. That alone makes this comparison non applicable... But outside of that, the Walker deal just didn't involve Emmitt - it was a bonanza of players that turned us into a dynasty.

 

Just a little side humor - every time I come across someone who claims to be a deep rooted Cowboys fan, I ask them this question to find out just how nerdy of real fan they are. I ask them who Walt Yaworsky is..? If they know, then I tip my hat and welcome them to club. :)

 

(btw - w. yaworsky is the reason e. smith became a cowboy)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NFL draft insider Tony Pauline reports the Cowboys are "very high" on Wisconsin RB Melvin Gordon and are "targeting him in round one."

We've been separately told Todd Gurley is Cowboys VP Stephen Jones' No. 1 running back in the draft, but no RB boards will be finalized until Gurley visits Indianapolis this weekend for his medical recheck. What has become clear is multiple running backs will be drafted in the first round this year after the position was bypassed on day one each of the last two years.

 

 

they might as well save that pick and trade for montee ball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We had Murray for a full season last year. He didn't record a tackle, sack or interception.

 

We will never, ever, make the next step unless we can get the A. Rodgers of the world off the field on 3rd down... You don't need an 1800 yard rushing rb to win a SB - like I have asked many, point out the last time a SB winner also had the league's leading rusher? Was 1997... We've 3 1st Round, Pro Bowl/All Pro offensive lineman up front - all under the age of 25. They will be able to make whomever is back there a very productive back. Mortgaging draft picks and valuable cap space is just stupid for a 30 year old RB - even if his name is AP.

In many respects I agree with you. However, this is more about filling the stands and creating hype than it is about anything.

 

I agree. Anybody will put up good numbers behind that line. I'm pretty sure you and I could run for almost 1000 yards behind those guys.

 

That being said, ADP is still an amazing talent, and putting him behind a top line makes him even better.

 

as for trading the future.... nobody is going to trade a huge number of prospects, picks, and players for ADP now. hes too old.

 

I could see them offering a 2nd round pick if they dont rework the contract. but if they rework the contract to lower their contractual committments, they may pay a bit more. I suspect it will be a package deal.

 

if minny trades him, they will get ADP to rework the contract to make it more palatable for a buyer and then they will try to get a first round pick. I cant honestly see the cowboys paying more,

 

If they have the cap space, maybe they pay a 2nd or 3rd round pick and draft a QB to learn under Romo for a year. Given Romos health, Succession planning should be important to the Cowboys. Their first round pick may be able to get them a guy they can afford to sit for a year and who can learn from Romo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to ESPN's Adam Caplan, it would take "at least a first-round pick and more compensation" for the Vikings to consider trading Adrian Peterson.

That's quite a haul for a 30-year-old running back who hasn't played since Week 1 of last season. The "compensation" the Vikings are looking for is a starting cornerback, a position they're expected to address in the draft. The Vikings' front office feels the team is "so much better" with Peterson and they're absolutely right. It may not seem like it, but Minnesota still holds all the cards. Interest in Peterson around the league has been minimal with only the Cardinals, Cowboys and Raiders in the mix.
Source: ESPN.com

 

 

i can see the cowboys doing this if they can restructure his contract

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flyfreak, on 19 Apr 2015 - 11:58 AM, said:

i can see the cowboys doing this if they can restructure his contract

Your steak rotted and went bad waiting for one of these things you see to come to fruition. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your steak rotted and went bad waiting for one of these things you see to come to fruition. :D

patience, grasshopper, patience

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

patience, grasshopper, patience

They have been kicking it around here on local radio. Just for funs said - how about AP for Dallas' 1st and M. Claiborne? Now that I might actually look at. For one I want Claiborne off the books - he's a constant reminder of a horrible, horrible draft move. And secondly of course, there is AP. Maybe if he would take $5 or $6m - have to look at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have been kicking it around here on local radio. Just for funs said - how about AP for Dallas' 1st and M. Claiborne? Now that I might actually look at. For one I want Claiborne off the books - he's a constant reminder of a horrible, horrible draft move. And secondly of course, there is AP. Maybe if he would take $5 or $6m - have to look at it.

good to see you coming around

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good to see you coming around

Not really.... AP is not going to play here for $5/6m, nor anywhere else. And Dallas is not going to pay him $8m plus to play here.

 

AP to Dallas is a pipe dream, nothing has changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really.... AP is not going to play here for $5/6m, nor anywhere else. And Dallas is not going to pay him $8m plus to play here.AP to Dallas is a pipe dream, nothing has changed.

stranger things have happened

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never ever believe what you read from any teams camps . You never know why they say and when they say it . And why would they say what they are really going to do . Best to wait and see then we all will know the truth . Tough break for the Cowboys already with the Hardy news .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course Minnesota wants a 1st Rounder and a starting CB. 👍 I would want that also. Doesn't mean they won't have to settle for a 3rd rounder and a 5th CB like Claiborne next week.

 

I'm probably forgetting lots of examples...but how often does this (a star player essentially demands a trade, and the team makes it known they are listening to offers) happen and the guy NOT end up getting traded?

 

And when a guy says he wants out, and the team makes their price known, how often do they ever actually get that price?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course Minnesota wants a 1st Rounder and a starting CB. I would want that also. Doesn't mean they won't have to settle for a 3rd rounder and a 5th CB like Claiborne next week.

 

I'm probably forgetting lots of examples...but how often does this (a star player essentially demands a trade, and the team makes it known they are listening to offers) happen and the guy NOT end up getting traded?

 

And when a guy says he wants out, and the team makes their price known, how often do they ever actually get that price?

I think it's more of a case of shooting for the moon rather than announcing their actual price. I'm sure they were happy to get a first for Harvin a couple years back. I think they'd be happy getting a first, or even an early second for AD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ESPN Vikings reporter Ben Goessling doesn't believe Adrian Peterson's beef with the franchise concerns money.

Player-team disputes most often involve money -- whether explicitly or implicitly -- but Goessling believes Peterson would actually be willing to accept less money to facilitate a trade out of town. The Vikings have made it clear they're amenable to paying Peterson's $12.75 million base salary, an exorbitant sum in this year's era of allegedly "devalued" running backs. Peterson would not be able to get that much money elsewhere. Peterson's beef with the Vikings concerns loyalty.
Source: ESPN.com

 

 

this has dallas written all over it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my soul . Peterson has a beef over loyalty. . The same guy that beat up his kid and called it a spanking . He should be counting himself blessed to even have a job . Let this guy walk . And I agree it's not about money it's about pride .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my soul . Peterson has a beef over loyalty. . The same guy that beat up his kid and called it a spanking . He should be counting himself blessed to even have a job . Let this guy walk . And I agree it's not about money it's about pride .

 

 

drama.

 

had he been punching the kid in the face, i'd completely agree with you, but people have inflicted corporal punishment with a switch on the legs for a long, long time. it's only recently that it has become taboo--even spanking with a paddle is considered to be 'abuse' by a lot of people these days.

 

i saw nothing in the 'abuse' pics that indicates anything worse than i and millions of other kids grew up with in the '70s, and kids aren't made any more delicate nowadays. it's culture that enfeebles them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

drama.

 

had he been punching the kid in the face, i'd completely agree with you, but people have inflicted corporal punishment with a switch on the legs for a long, long time. it's only recently that it has become taboo--even spanking with a paddle is considered to be 'abuse' by a lot of people these days.

 

i saw nothing in the 'abuse' pics that indicates anything worse than i and millions of other kids grew up with in the '70s, and kids aren't made any more delicate nowadays. it's culture that enfeebles them.

No question it's been going on for a long time . Does the fact that it has been going on for some time and that Peterson himself was also punished in the same way , Does it make it right to do the same thing to his child because it was done to him ? . When do we stop what is wrong , or do you feel like it's ok to still beat up his kids is right than after all it's been going on for a long time ? .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do i think corporal punishment is wrong? absolutely not. do i think that it can be carried too far? absolutely.

 

do i think that the widely-publicized photos conclusively show that peterson "beat up his kid" as opposed to carrying a spanking too far?

 

not really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The spanking like you said did go to far , and the pictures show a kid that was beaten. So he did beat the boy up . And now he wants respect from the NFL world . I say let this guy walk . Not on my draft board . I would rather lose without him then win with him . Peterson himself said it was the type of beaten he was given , do you thank it's right that he should do the same to his own child , even he Peterson himself said it was wrong when it was done to him ? .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The spanking like you said did go to far , and the pictures show a kid that was beaten. So he did beat the boy up . And now he wants respect from the NFL world . I say let this guy walk . Not on my draft board . I would rather lose without him then win with him . Peterson himself said it was the type of beaten he was given , do you thank it's right that he should do the same to his own child , even he Peterson himself said it was wrong when it was done to him ? .

doesn't everyone deserve forgiveness and a second chance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Appearing on Sirius NFL Radio, ESPN's Chris Mortensen said he believes there's an "80 percent" chance Adrian Peterson remains with the Vikings.

Mort did call Arizona an "interesting" potential landing spot. Based on a combination of recent national-media reports, it sounds like Peterson could end up with the Cardinals if Vikings GM Rick Spielman lowers his asking price to a mid to late second-round pick. If Spielman stays the course and demands a first-rounder in Peterson negotiations, A.D. will likely be staying in Minnesota.

 

 

i can't and won't believe that the vikes will pay out that contract

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

doesn't everyone deserve forgiveness and a second chance

Of course . Everyone because we all have been and even third and even forth . But it's also ok to have a opinion also right? . And I do I will not draft him . But God will forgive him .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course . Everyone because we all have been and even third and even forth . But it's also ok to have a opinion also right? . And I do I will not draft him . But God will forgive him .

you should forgive him as well, he's seeking counseling and needs to be your #1 pick

 

it's the only way you can show him true forgiveness

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't thank so .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

i can't and won't believe that the vikes will pay out that contract

 

If AD isn't traded during the draft, I think they're willing to pay at least 1 more year. I doubt he gets cut (perhaps barring AD flat out saying he won't play).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vikings GM Rick Spielman says he has "no interest" in trading Adrian Peterson.

If the Vikings are bluffing on their Peterson stance, it's as hard as hardball gets. "We can just end the Adrian Peterson stuff," Spielman said emphatically. "Our position has not changed. ... We have no interest in trading Adrian Peterson." It's a bit strange the Vikes are so adamant about keeping a 30-year-old running back due $12.75 million and coming off a season lost to suspension, but they must still really believe in his talent. What remains to be seen is how Peterson responds to the Vikings completely ignoring his request.

 

 

looks like all the ap drama is finally over

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×