Adrian Peterson News & Football related discussion
- Thread starter KFP
- Start date
I think it's disappointing not to face Adrian Peterson. I'm not sure how much a win versus Minny WITH AP would have told us, but a win against them WITHOUT him tells us absolutely zero. A loss to the Vikes minus their best player, OTOH, tells us a LOT about the Pats, none of it good. Just get the W and hope for the best moving forward, I guess.
This is definitely AP football news. Apparently Vikings officials are meeting today and a decision is expected to be announced as early as tomorrow regarding AP's future with the team per Palantonio.
His tone sounds like he knows AP will be released, as Greg Hardy suits up for the Panthers today. Is this an overreaction to cut ties coming on top of the Rice situation? What type of personal conduct suspension will Goodell lay down?
Rice will have trouble catching on with another team but with a sincere public apology and admission of his questionable parenting skills could someone pick up AP as the greatest bargain on the market? Would Bill/Kraft take that risk? Would anyone? Did I mention Greg Hardy is actually playing football today?
His tone sounds like he knows AP will be released, as Greg Hardy suits up for the Panthers today. Is this an overreaction to cut ties coming on top of the Rice situation? What type of personal conduct suspension will Goodell lay down?
Rice will have trouble catching on with another team but with a sincere public apology and admission of his questionable parenting skills could someone pick up AP as the greatest bargain on the market? Would Bill/Kraft take that risk? Would anyone? Did I mention Greg Hardy is actually playing football today?
As to A, you have to wonder if the Vikings are thinking "let's tank and have a star QB to open our new stadium around in 2 years". The Vikes are going nowhere as long as AP is on the team and they don't build up around him, and he's too old to figure into long term plans. He's literally the only reason to see the games, and now he's damaged goods. He's a liability at this point.
The Vikings already took that approach. They have a guy named Bridgewater that they just drafted already waiting in the wings. And AP is most definitely not the only reason to see them. They have a pretty good group of defensive players, and one of the most exciting playmakers in football in Cordarelle Patterson. This is not an automatic win because AP is out. Certainly a bit easier game, but not automatic, and I imagine that BB and the Pats won't be taking them lightly no matter who the running back is going to be. At least, they better not be.
Ok, then tank to build a good defense over a couple of seasons.
I'm not convinced Bridgewater is going to be any good, besides.
The point is that with AP in 2014 and 2015, they will be stuck somewhere between 4-12 and 9-7, barring something really unusual. That does them no good. Given that they won't have problems selling out the stadium this year and next due to the appeal of outdoor football, they really don't risk much if they tank with an eye on 2016 and beyond.
I'm not convinced Bridgewater is going to be any good, besides.
The point is that with AP in 2014 and 2015, they will be stuck somewhere between 4-12 and 9-7, barring something really unusual. That does them no good. Given that they won't have problems selling out the stadium this year and next due to the appeal of outdoor football, they really don't risk much if they tank with an eye on 2016 and beyond.
And fuck it, I'll say it. If they cut AP, I've got no issues with the Pats signing him. Of course, I got no issues with the Pats signing Rice, or Hernandez or anyone else. So long as the league is going to let a guy play and they aren't going to miss games in jail, put them on the Pats. I'm not a sponsor, these guys are not my role models, they aren't my kid's role models and I don't really give much of a shit what they do outside the lines unless it directly affects me and my family. If they are your or your kids role models and you're concerned about some "message" it might send, go watch bowling.
The difference between Rice Hernandez and AP is intent. AP is the product of not knowing how to properly parent in today's society. Rice probably whooped on his wife more than once and Stevie Wonder could probably see the evidence to convict Hernandez. I can't see how any rational person would compare AP to Hernandez.Deathofthebambino said:
For me personally I run far and fast from Hernandez if he were available today as he has a history of being a terrible human being. Rice has one known incident but it was a doozy......I'd sign him but only after the swarm around him dies down some.Deathofthebambino said:
I would sign AP tomorrow provided that his statement was appropriate and remorseful in that he simply doesn't know any better from how he was taught. I'd group AP with Michael Vick, who I felt similar about despite my love/passion for dogs, rather than with Rice and certainly not in the same stratosphere as Hernandez.
Like it or not these players ARE the role models for kids. We can hem and haw all we want but at the end of the day these are the players kids root for and idolize for their performance on the field, not off the field. Kids don't separate the two at least I know I didn't when I was young. Shit, I was most impressed by Steve Garvey's escapades off the field than on!
HRB, I think you are just one step ahead of the process but you may be onto something. What matters most is how Peterson handles it from here. What is said in a deposition is different from what happens afterwards. If he is truly contrite and holds himself accountable without excuses (like Brandon Marshall has, like Mike Vick has) and becomes an advocate for awareness and behavior change, then you are probably right.
But we are some time from determining how Peterson handles this and whether he deserves a second chance. Trial, decision, reaction will make that clear.
But we are some time from determining how Peterson handles this and whether he deserves a second chance. Trial, decision, reaction will make that clear.
soxfan121 said:
I think I know what you're getting at, but I'm curious: A second chance at what? Our love and affirmation? Playing in the NFL? Or being a caregiver to a child?
Awesome Fossum said:
All of the above. America loves a redemption story. If he "serves the time" and is contrite and humbled by the experience, he probably deserves a second chance. The last will be determined by the courts and/or his future sexual partners and may happen even if he's the worst person in the world.
HRB cited Vick and I think it's a good example. Vick did despicable, awful things. Maybe on your personal sliding scale of awful what Vick did does not compare to what Peterson is accused of, but that is beside the point. Vick served his time and has worked to raise awareness and funds related to ending animal cruelty. He publicly took responsibility and vowed to change his behavior - and it appears that he has done just that.
But all of this is premature. Maybe what has been reported thus far is not the full story and Peterson is a monster. Maybe he's a guy who didn't know what he was doing was wrong because it was done to him as a child. We don't know yet. But if he makes no excuses and accepts responsibility, he'll deserve a "second-chance" because everyone who makes an effort to change deserves that opportunity.
If, OTOH, he is a monster or doesn't change his ways, he should be held accountable for that and never play in the NFL again, not to mention prison, etc.
A thought I am struggling with both with AP and Rice is that these guys did terrible things and should be punished as such. But when did the NFL become a one strike league, I feel they don't deserve to have their few years of true earning potential ended because of one bad mistake. Then again, I would never want the Pats to trade for or sign Rice or AP from a rooting perspective as I am disgusted by them. Does this make sense/do I come off as a terrible person?
These guys are public figures and the owners have every right to decide that they don't want guys like Rice or AP suiting up for them. Both have earned millions playing football, I wouldn't feel badly for either guy if they never played another down in the NFL. Plus, IMO the league would be better if guys knew that part of the deal that comes along with being an NFL player is not to hit women and children.
That said, Peterson will almost assuredly get another chance with someone, probably the Vikings. Rice I'm not so sure about, but really that has less to do with what each guy did and more to do with (a) the fact that Rice was caught on video doing what he did, and (b) sadly the fact that Rice is not that good anymore and Peterson is (which of course is the problem to begin with).
That said, Peterson will almost assuredly get another chance with someone, probably the Vikings. Rice I'm not so sure about, but really that has less to do with what each guy did and more to do with (a) the fact that Rice was caught on video doing what he did, and (b) sadly the fact that Rice is not that good anymore and Peterson is (which of course is the problem to begin with).
While I understand the due process argument, we're in a situation at least similar to Ray Rice's, as there are pictures. I'm assuming that the Vikings have been in contact with Peterson over the matter, and if he has confirmed that the pictures are authentic and the comments he made about whipping his kid in the testicles while he made the kid put leaves in his mouth are true, then this is not going to help the NFL's image or give the public much confidence about the league/organizations being serious about actually addressing the issues.
I'm assuming that Goodell will suspend him anyway, so this really doesn't change anything on the field. But I agree with Ed that this decision won't help from a PR perspective.
Goodell, since he likely has universal support among the owners for retaining him, could show his arrogance and completely mess with America's souls while creating even more attention and keeping his league on the front page.......and suspend Peterson for 2 games (as he originally did with Rice).glennhoffmania said:
I know some think I'm joking but the Ravens game Thursday night drew a 13.7 ratings share which is insane! A two-game $uspension would allow Peterson to be activated for......you got it, Week 5's Thursday Nights national game vs Green Bay.
I agree with this. This is another failing of the initial 2-game suspension. If Goodell had suspended Rice for a year in the first place, or maybe even 8 games, the video coming out wouldn't have been as big a story because it would have reinforced the harsh punishment. It was incongruity between the 2-game punishment and what we saw on tape that made the story here, IMO. If he throws the book at him in the first place, he serves out his suspension and then there's a chance for everyone to move on here.Silverdude2167 said:
HomeRunBaker said:
I'd assume that week 2 would count towards any time served so he'd be back for week 4, no?
The league, nor the Vikings, suspended Peterson for yesterday's games. He was a healthy scratch and was paid for sitting out. Plus, this doesn't coincide with my con$piracy theory of AP returning for the Thursday Night national game.glennhoffmania said:
I'm generally in agreement here with your premise, and these topics are uncomfortable because it seems like any nuanced view on how these guys should be punished might come across as excusing or minimizing the crime. I have a 5 year old and a 3 year old. I hate what Peterson did, and I hope he just pleads guilty here and accepts that it was not excusable or remotely reasonable. That said I am not going to kill the Vikings for letting him play this week. I don't think he needs a season-long suspension, though he should get some suspension eventually. I don't view allowing him to play again as equating to the condoning of child abuse. If he commits a similar act in the future, then yeah he should look at significantly worse penalties both legally and professionally. Some people will say that NFL players don't deserve any more breaks than what others in society get for their crimes, though I also have a problem with the fact that in society people who have been previously convicted of felonies have such limited opportunities for jobs, housing, federal aid, etc. There has to be at least some opportunity to redeem oneself to society after paying for one's crimes.
As far as whether I could root for such people if they were on my team, that would depend on how sincere they are in their remorse, and whether they can show any redeeming qualities besides helping a football team.
I'm snipping redsahx's post because I can't highlight it from the mobile. Full post about 30 minutes ago for full context...redsahx said:
I'm don't think NFL players are getting any breaks here. I think they're being subjected to double jeopardy. The criminal courts are ruling on their acts, and then the NFL or their teams are punishing them on top of that. The average person would certainly have a better chance of not even having their employer find out about misconduct not related to work.
That shouldn't I suggest I find the actions of Hardy, Rice, and Peterson acceptable, or don't agree that the NFL and member team have the right to put conditions on employment (they clearly have this right). I'm just not sure they're helping themselves. I don't think they understood what they were undertaking when they decided to discipline off-field, non-football behavior. They attacked Antaeus without knowing who he was, and it shows.
Employers suspend--and often terminate--employees for off-duty conduct all the time, and for a variety of reasons. This isn't "double jeopardy" any more than it is when a man is charged with solicitation and his divorces him. There are consequences to criminal activity that extend beyond the judicial system. This is not unique to the NFL.Fred in Lynn said:
What is different here--and where I think we're on the same page--is that the NFL comports itself as a quasi-judicial body. Most employers don't concern themselves with minor offenses, unless they somehow relate to job duties. When they do concern themselves with off duty criminal activity, they generally either terminate or require the employee (if drugs/alcohol) are involved to get treatment before they can return to work. They're not so much concerned with issuing discipline.
The biggest difference is that the employees arrests are national news - and not just a blot in the local newspaper. When I was doing criminal defense work, one of the biggest issue was always "collateral consequences" whereby if a person was convicted a certain type of crime, or had a guilty plea, they would lose their job/license/scholarship etc... and so it was crafting outcomes that could make the collateral consequences palatable or negligent. For example, there was often discussion about high school students and a drug conviction/plea for a misdemeanor which may make them ineligible for federal student aide - or if a active duty serviceman was convicted of a DV crime, they could no longer possess a weapon etc...
This is no different than any other individual in the United States who goes through the justice system other than its simply more public.
This is no different than any other individual in the United States who goes through the justice system other than its simply more public.
I'm trying to find a copy online at this point, but AP and his lawyer released a pretty tone-deaf statement just read on ESPN. CNN has just one little snippet from it, which pretty much nails the tone:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/15/us/adrian-peterson-child-abuse-charges/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/15/us/adrian-peterson-child-abuse-charges/index.html
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BxmFTT5CcAAEdcG.jpg
I'm not condoning what he did in any way, and I absolutely think he should be punished, but this to me at least reads truthful. Perhaps tone deaf, but I think anything in line with how we'd want it to come across would be even more sugar coated than this.
I'm not condoning what he did in any way, and I absolutely think he should be punished, but this to me at least reads truthful. Perhaps tone deaf, but I think anything in line with how we'd want it to come across would be even more sugar coated than this.
Vikings GM Spielman says they have seen the evidence regarding the abuse, but "cannot make the decision as to whether it constitutes child abuse. That's for the legal system." Again, while I respect that, why couldn't the Ravens have used that excuse? There are pictures, he apparently admitted everything he did to the child, why does a jury need to convict him for organizational discipline? This is weaksauce.
Your turn, Roger!
Your turn, Roger!
That is such bullshit. I'm not saying Peterson never deserves to play again, but leaving it up to the legal system is such a joke. The Vikings saw the pictures, heard Peterson's statement, maybe even talked with him privately about it. Hell, he's not denying or apologizing for it. The Vikings are fully capable of making a judgment call about how they view his actions and what consequences he should face (in terms of team discipline) as a result. Punting like that is just so incredibly cowardly and is the equivalent of saying that Peterson sitting for one game is punishment enough for his reprehensible actions.
Ralphwiggum said:
They made a judgement call and their judgement was that one game off was enough. Not to say that this is right, and their reasoning is tortured, but the team has the right to bulldoze forward and play their star. The NFL can certainly say differently if they want to step in.
Jungleland said:
Agreed. I don't even buy the tone-deaf beef; that was a cherry-picked sentence that reads better in context. "I was beaten as a child" + "I am a good person" = "physical discipline made me the man I made today" is one powerful fallacy to overcome. I'd imagine with a strong dash of 'parents=god', it's pretty deeply embedded in the psyche.
Unless they come up with a different method for handling off-field, non-football-related issues, I think getting out of that business is an alternative they should be discussing seriously behind closed doors. They have had a tough enough time managing football-related matters. The Rice case was a fiasco, and they're deferring to the teams right now. They had better 1) get out of it, or 2) clear the floor and contract out the duty to professionals. Though I like (1) in principle, I'm not sure they can un-ring the bell, and it will be (2).drleather2001 said:
johnmd20 said:
Then have the conviction to say it, instead of saying "we don't know if it was abuse or not, that's for the courts".
Anyway, this is exactly why the NFL needs a personal conduct policy. Because if you leave it up to the teams most of them are not going to take their star players off the field. As a result, the league needs the ability to step in.
What the fuck.
“@RapSheet: First question: What message are you sending to abuse victims? Spielman: “We feel strongly as an organization this is disciplining a child””
https://twitter.com/RapSheet/status/511592669634498560
https://twitter.com/RapSheet/status/511592669634498560
link to tweet
“@RapSheet: First question: What message are you sending to abuse victims? Spielman: “We feel strongly as an organization this is disciplining a child””
https://twitter.com/RapSheet/status/511592669634498560
https://twitter.com/RapSheet/status/511592669634498560
link to tweet
Ralphwiggum said:
Agreed. I said their reasoning was tortured and somewhat dangerous. But it is their prerogative to do this. And it's not surprising that they did.
Wait.....I thought that was the Ravens (Rice)? Or was it the Panthers (Hardy?) Or what about the 49ers (McDonald and Smith who will return later this year)? How about the Steelers and Ben? The Jets signing Vick, the Bucs with 8 arrests in past 3 years, the Lions with Suh, the Bengals for their off the field resume?drleather2001 said:
Or maybe it isn't about the individual teams and it's about the culture of the sport that attract these types of individuals. Hmmmm.
Maybe, but in any group of almost 1700 individuals you're going to have a few bad apples.HomeRunBaker said:
Ed Hillel said:
I agree that the Vikings organization comes off pretty bad here. With that caveat out of the way...
The owners shouldn't be the one to have to reprimand the player. This is the job of the commissioner's office and the league. It's why the commissioner is in the role he's in. While I think the 1 game suspension is weak, they don't have a leg to stand on until the league makes a ruling. The players union will come down hard on the Vikings for suspending a player (or not allowing him to play when healthy) who hasn't broken any league rules and hasn't gone through the complete legal process.
The commissioner's office has decided that they are the judge, jury, and executioner. As such, this type of stuff is out of the owners hands (as they want it).
While I understand the frustration with the Vikings organization, the league is structured so owners aren't the ones to hold players responsible. I'm not arguing the system isn't flawed, but you play by the rules in place.