Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt said: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.
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: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.
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: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.
soxfan121 said:But we are some time from determining how Peterson handles this and whether he deserves a second chance.
Awesome Fossum 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?
The Vikings have initially taken an “all options on the table” approach to the future of running back Adrian Peterson, but one report says the scope is narrower than that.
According to Bart Hubbuch of the New York Post, the “only certainty is Peterson won’t be released” as a result of his indictment on felony child abuse charges in Texas.
That leaves continued deactivation as an option (at least for three weeks, since it’s a de facto suspension), and the possibility exists for a trade as well.
Adam Caplan @caplannfl 1m
#Vikings announced that Adrian Peterson will play and practice this week.
http://www.vikings.com/news/article-1/Statement-From-The-Vikings-Regarding-Adrian-Peterson/ffba4f28-6620-44b5-b707-241c1ea783b2?campaign=social_20140915_31638756Eden Prairie, MN (September 15, 2014) – Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson will fully participate in this week’s practices and meetings and is expected to play this Sunday in New Orleans.
The following statement is from Vikings Owners Zygi Wilf and Mark Wilf:
Today’s decision was made after significant thought, discussion and consideration. As evidenced by our decision to deactivate Adrian from yesterday’s game, this is clearly a very important issue. On Friday, we felt it was in the best interests of the organization to step back, evaluate the situation, and not rush to judgment given the seriousness of this matter. At that time, we made the decision that we felt was best for the Vikings and all parties involved.
To be clear, we take very seriously any matter that involves the welfare of a child. At this time, however, we believe this is a matter of due process and we should allow the legal system to proceed so we can come to the most effective conclusions and then determine the appropriate course of action. This is a difficult path to navigate, and our focus is on doing the right thing. Currently we believe we are at a juncture where the most appropriate next step is to allow the judicial process to move forward.
We will continue to monitor the situation closely and support Adrian’s fulfillment of his legal responsibilities throughout this process.
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'm assuming that Goodell will suspend him anyway
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: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?
HomeRunBaker said: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).
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 $uspension would allow Peterson to be activated for......you got it, Week 5's Thursday Nights national game vs Green Bay.
The league, nor the Vikings, suspended Peterson for yesterday's games. He was a healthy scratch and was paid for sitting out. Plus, this doesn't coincide with my con$piracy theory of AP returning for the Thursday Night national game.glennhoffmania said:
I'd assume that week 2 would count towards any time served so he'd be back for week 4, no?
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?
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:
*Snip*
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.
*Snip*
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:I'm snipping redsahx's post because I can't highlight it from the mobile. Full post about 30 minutes ago for full context...
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.
"I never imagined being in a position where the world is judging my parenting skills or calling me a child abuser because of the discipline I administered to my son."
Ralphwiggum said: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.
Jungleland said: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.
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:It's giving the NFL an out, should Roger choose to take it, but saying "This is a family matter that the NFL has no interest in pursuing beyond letting the legal system play out."
johnmd20 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.
Ralphwiggum 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.
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:The Vikings are such a shit franchise.
Maybe, but in any group of almost 1700 individuals you're going to have a few bad apples.HomeRunBaker said: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?
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.
Ed Hillel said: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!
Ed Hillel said: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
JimBoSox9 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.