On the other hand, if he'd accept being a two-down back who isn't the featured offensive weapon, the Patriots are well-stocked with third-down options.
I wonder if there are vets who just want a peek behind the Patriots curtain to see what it sounds like.
Hard to predict this one, but I'm with you.
Hard to really gauge AP considering how colossally terrible that O-Line was and a limited sample size. I won't believe AP is cooked until I see it...he's a freak.
I think this is a good point. Blount got the carries and 18 touchdowns to go with them. And Peterson would likely fill the exact same roll. This is a good pitch to Peterson. At the same time Blount in past seasons has got about half as many carries as he did this year. Plus we seem to have more depth at running back this year than last--Burkhead, Lewis is healthy, White is more experienced.
Sure, he is less expensive than what the media is reporting AP wants. I doubt the Patriots pay that amount.
I get not liking the idea, but there's no reason to think they are giving the guy $5 mil right now. Let's wait and see if they sign him, and on what terms first...
Since NE has the reputation for paying short money, couldn't the upshot of a not-signing just as easily be, "They think he's got a lot left, but they are unwilling to pay for it"?
I think he's a fit on the field. The only sticking points to me is whether Kraft wants to associate with the shitstorm that comes with Peterson off the field and money. The fact that he's coming in for a visit signals to me that RK is OK with his off the field stuff.
When I first saw this, I thought it screamed "BB is bringing AP in for a visit so that Blount accepts the fact that he is getting $1.5 million to re-sign with the Pats."
I thiought of this type of play as well, but it also reminded me of this rule change for this season:
I guess that will come down to what they consider a "backfield player" in motion
I should say that while I am *vehemently* against corporeal punishment, the texts between AP and his ex suggested to me something that was cultural not malicious in its nature. Peterson seemed to have absolutely no idea that what he was doing was wrong -- it was how he was raised, he felt he had grown up into a man being raised that way and thought he was punishing his child appropriately. Obviously, it's not right -- and is absolutely the wrong way to discipline a child.
Seconded. Don't want him at any price.
You may be right about this, BTW. That was absolutely horrible -- and I should probably reacquaint myself with the facts of the case. I was simply saying in my previous post that there was something surprising to me about how completely ... innocent Peterson was in describing the abuse, tho that word feels wrong to use. It was hard for me to reconcile with the acts themselves.
It's really hard to put yourself in another person's shoes. I agree that there was definitely a sense that he viewed what he did as normal and was surprised it wasn't -- although some of the texts indicated that he knew he had gone too far by hitting the child in the genital area. I don't know if he was being duplicitous or not. He did seem genuine. Still, I just have a problem getting past doing what he did to a 4 year old boy and have trouble imagining that while he was doing it it didn't feel wrong, whatever his moral calibration on normal based on his life experience.
Very fair perspective.
