Vikings RB Adrian Peterson wants to return, open to pay cut

[Mothman]

I am actually tired of Petersons costly fumbles..he also didn't play for us 2 of the last 3 years.

... and when he did, he was typically a huge asset.

I get that the fumbles are frustrating but the Vikings shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Peterson has had fumbling issues at times over the years but he's also had seasons in which ball security wasn't really an issue. He's rushed for TD totals in the double digits and he's rushed for 1200+ yards in every season in which he played more than 12 games (which is most of them). I don't think he's an asset to be discarded lightly, even at his current age and especially when the Vikings clearly need help with their running game.

[halfgiz]

... and when he did, he was typically a huge asset.

I get that the fumbles are frustrating but the Vikings shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Peterson has had fumbling issues at times over the years but he's also had seasons in which ball security wasn't really an issue. He's rushed for TD totals in the double digits and he's rushed for 1200+ yards in every season in which he played more than 12 games (which is most of them). I don't think he's an asset to be discarded lightly, even at his current age and especially when the Vikings clearly need help with their running game.

I still think it would be in our best interest to let AP hit the market. There is not kind of money out there that Peterson thinks is waiting for him.
We could always match an offer if Rick thinks it is worth matching.

We need to rebuild our OL and we could sure use that money. Plus it also helps it's a strong running back class this year.

[Mothman]

I still think it would be in our best interest to let AP hit the market. There is not kind of money out there that Peterson thinks is waiting for him.

You could be right. I'm just not convinced we really know what kind of money Peterson actually thinks is waiting for him. It's not in his best interests to talk his price down publicly so it's hard to determine his actual expectations based on his public remarks.

We need to rebuild our OL and we could sure use that money.

I agree about the line but I think this is a pretty fluid situation. How much keeping Peterson would impact their ability to sign free agents will depend on how much it costs to keep Peterson in the first place (among other things). There's also the question of which o-linemen will actually make it to free agency and whether paying them in a competitive market will be a good idea. Overpaying for mediocrity might provide some upgrade in the short term but could become a burden in the long term.

Plus it also helps it's a strong running back class this year.

Yes, and they should draft one whether they keep Peterson or not.

It will be very interesting to see how they handle all of this. Personally, I suspect a few of the free agent linemen people are hoping the Vikes can sign will be re-signed by their current teams before they even hit the market.

[halfgiz]

It will be very interesting to see how they handle all of this. Personally, I suspect a few of the free agent linemen people are hoping the Vikes can sign will be re-signed by their current teams before they even hit the market.

You are probably right about some linemen getting re-signed. There also could be a couple cap casualties that will pop up that we wasn't counting on.

It's funny....last year was going to be a big year in the offseason, with lots of decisions.
This year we got way more uncertainy and some pretty big decisions. It kind of makes last year seem small.

[Mothman]

You are probably right about some linemen getting re-signed. There also could be a couple cap casualties that will pop up that we wasn't counting on.

Good point. That happens every year.

It's funny....last year was going to be a big year in the offseason, with lots of decisions.
This year we got way more uncertainy and some pretty big decisions. It kind of makes last year seem small.

You just never know what's coming next with this sport or this team!

[Pondering Her Percy]

That depends on who else is available in free agency, what they would cost, what Kalil would cost, the state of his health, who might be available to the Vikings in the draft and how the Vikes assess those players, etc.

In other words, there are options yet to be explored.

Well there isn't going to be a whole lot of LT options and the way he's played plus the injuries, I can't imagine he's going to get some monster contract.

I think he represents another player option they need to carefully consider. The questions are similar to those at LT: what will it cost to keep him? What are their plans for the offense? What's the state of his health? How do they want to transition to a successor and who will that player be?

The Vikings running game was an embarrassment last year so they shouldn't discard a great back casually and unless Peterson's unwilling to accept reasonable adjustments to his contract, I see no reason he needs to go. I think the smart approach is to determine their plans, figure how he could fit into them and see if it works or if he's just not the right choice going forward. I realize some fans have made up their minds about that but the Vikings still sound interested. That could be posturing but I think they should be interested.

We'll see what happens.

If it costs $18 million, yes he NEEDS to go. Even if he takes a cut I'm not crazy about it. He doesnt fit this offense. Simple as that. His health? Definitely not getting any better as he ages. You draft his successor. It's a possible historic RB class. These aren't really hard questions to answer. I don't think there should be any interest. He's 32. He's not getting any younger, not getting any stronger, not getting any more elusive/agile, etc. We are absolutely out of our minds if we fail to draft a RB this year. There is too much talent. You don't see this much talent very often.

If he takes a cut but we still draft a RB, I'm ok with that. But outside of that, he needs to go IMO. Keeping him and failing to draft a RB this year will make me blow my top.

[Mothman]

Well there isn't going to be a whole lot of LT options and the way he's played plus the injuries, I can't imagine he's going to get some monster contract.

Nevertheless, it's possible the team will decide they'd prefer to go in another direction.

If it costs $18 million, yes he NEEDS to go.

He's not going to be kept around at $18 million. That doesn't concern me at all because I think that's been understood since the day his current deal was signed.

Even if he takes a cut I'm not crazy about it. He doesn't fit this offense. Simple as that.

We don't yet know exactly what strategy the team plans to use on offense but Peterson's played a significant portion of his pro career in a west coast offense so I'm guessing he could still play in one just fine.

His health? Definitely not getting any better as he ages. You draft his successor. It's a possible historic RB class. These aren't really hard questions to answer. I don't think there should be any interest. He's 32. He's not getting any younger, not getting any stronger, not getting any more elusive/agile, etc. We are absolutely out of our minds if we fail to draft a RB this year. There is too much talent. You don't see this much talent very often.

If he takes a cut but we still draft a RB, I'm ok with that. But outside of that, he needs to go IMO. Keeping him and failing to draft a RB this year will make me blow my top.

I've already said they should draft an RB so we agree about that.

[Pondering Her Percy]

Nevertheless, it's possible the team will decide they'd prefer to go in another direction.

Given the market for LTs right now, what other directions are there?? An Andre Smith-like 1 year deal?? Hope to find a future LT in the 2nd or 3rd round?? All I just did was list a bunch of highly risky options. I understand it's possible. Anything is possible. But I think the smart thing to do is keep him, plus we have Hill AND we look to draft a LT. Then that doesnt force us to throw the LT into the fire week 1 because we have options like Kalil/Hill

We don't yet know exactly what strategy the team plans to use on offense but Peterson's played a significant portion of his pro career in a west coast offense so I'm guessing he could still play in one just fine.

Shurmur runs a shotgun heavy offense. Our offense struggle enough as is. Do we really want to go through with the whole, we have to put Sam under center because AP cant work out of the gun ordeal? The passing game was decent last year and any of the success we had was primarily out of the gun. So lets find someone that can run out of the gun and not someone that is one dimensional. I still say if he could run out of the gun, Teddy would have had a much better year last year than he did. You cant go into play action 7 step drops from under center with a bad OL. Norv learned that quickly.

[Mothman]

Given the market for LTs right now, what other directions are there?? An Andre Smith-like 1 year deal?? Hope to find a future LT in the 2nd or 3rd round?? All I just did was list a bunch of highly risky options. I understand it's possible. Anything is possible. But I think the smart thing to do is keep him, plus we have Hill AND we look to draft a LT. Then that doesnt force us to throw the LT into the fire week 1 because we have options like Kalil/Hill

I'm not sure Hill is much of an option.

I'm simply saying, Kalil's likely to be one option among several.

Shurmur runs a shotgun heavy offense. Our offense struggle enough as is. Do we really want to go through with the whole, we have to put Sam under center because AP cant work out of the gun ordeal?

You're asking the wrong guy because I don't buy that Peterson can't work out of the gun in the first place. I'm also hoping Shurmur will be adaptive to his personnel.

[mansquatch]

AP has said he doesn't prefer the shotgun. He'd rather be 7-8 yards deep and getting the ball on the handoff so he can leverage his extraordinary vision and then hit the hole as hard as possible to try and burst through. In interviews with some of the players they talk about how "no one" hits the hole harder that AP. OL new to the team have complained about getting run over if they do not get out of the way soon enough. (this is funny.)

I'm not sure how "much" the shotgun will impact these talents, but I can see some differences just in the physics of it all. From shotgun, AP is getting the ball sooner and probably can't go full speed as quickly since the QB has to have time to turn and deliver the rock. What impact does that hesitation have on his game? The QB is standing vs. crouched to take the handoff, does that impact AP's abilty to see the S and MLB as fast as he needs to? NFL plays happen extremely fast, so this could be meaningful.

AP over the years has shown to be the type of player who is legendary in certain aspects of the game, but quite pedestrian in others. (Pass Protection, ball security...) It isn't outside the realm of possibility that the shot gun just isn't his thing. Whether that is a physical limitation or a mental one is an open question.

[Pondering Her Percy]

I'm not sure Hill is much of an option.

I'm simply saying, Kalil's likely to be one option among several.

I worded that wrong. Hill is more of the depth option there. As for a starter, I would look to keep Kalil and draft someone to compete with him. I'm not big on signing a 35 year old vet that will be here for one year then we're in the same predicament as this year with Andre Smith. If we draft someone to compete with the guy, sure. But I'd rather just keep an in-house guy that shouldnt cost much

You're asking the wrong guy because I don't buy that Peterson can't work out of the gun in the first place. I'm also hoping Shurmur will be adaptive to his personnel.

Again we're getting technical with the whole "can/cant/possible/impossible" thing. So let me rephrase this. Peterson is not effective out of the shotgun. He even came out and said it. And I'm sure Shurmur does adapt to his personnel but do you want Shurmur sticking Bradford under center way more just to "adapt" to AP when we already have a porous OL?? Doesnt make much sense if you ask me. Drafting a RB that is more familiar with a shotgun base is a much easier option than keeping a 32 year old that has questionable health, isnt getting faster/quicker and cant hold onto the football. My point is WHY pass on the opportunity this draft class brings you?? We have a slew of middle round picks that could land us some of these guys. Like I said, it's absolutely stupid on Spielman's part to keep him and NOT draft someone.

If you want to keep him at a much lower price and draft a guy for him to groom, I'm all for it. But if we go into next year with the same backfield of AP/McKinnon/Asiata I'll throw up

[Mothman]

I worded that wrong. Hill is more of the depth option there. As for a starter, I would look to keep Kalil and draft someone to compete with him. I'm not big on signing a 35 year old vet that will be here for one year then we're in the same predicament as this year with Andre Smith. If we draft someone to compete with the guy, sure. But I'd rather just keep an in-house guy that shouldnt cost much
Again we're getting technical with the whole "can/cant/possible/impossible" thing. So let me rephrase this. Peterson is not effective out of the shotgun. He even came out and said it. And I'm sure Shurmur does adapt to his personnel but do you want Shurmur sticking Bradford under center way more just to "adapt" to AP when we already have a porous OL?? Doesnt make much sense if you ask me. Drafting a RB that is more familiar with a shotgun base is a much easier option than keeping a 32 year old that has questionable health, isnt getting faster/quicker and cant hold onto the football. My point is WHY pass on the opportunity this draft class brings you?? We have a slew of middle round picks that could land us some of these guys. Like I said, it's absolutely stupid on Spielman's part to keep him and NOT draft someone.

If you want to keep him at a much lower price and draft a guy for him to groom, I'm all for it.

I replied to you earlier today, in this thread, and said I think they should draft an RB so we agree.

[mansquatch]

PHP, it is a tough nut to crack because the last full season that AP played he lead the NFL in rushing and was a significant threat in the Red Zone. The Vikings Yards Per Attempt got a lot of press in 2016 because it was so pathetic, but IMO, the bigger contribution is the Red Zone threat. Being a viable threat to score on the ground in the red zone helps the entire offense. I think it will be VERY hard for the Vikings to give that up unless AP's contract demands are egregious.

The OL thing factors into this quite a bit as well. On the contract side it is fair to ask, just how much cap space the team needs in order to chase the type of FA the team needs at Tackle? I think that is THE question.

In rebuilding mode I would say there would be zero change they'd pay top $$$ for top LT in the open market. However, this roster is built up to a point where it can contend. In light of that it makes more sense to pay somebody to fix the problem in order to maximize the window.

To me the Front Office needs to navigate a difficult web of variables to answer what I listed as question #3:

1.) How Competitive can AP be in an offense that is competitive for SB?
2.) Can they afford not having AP in the offense? (2016 would say No)
3.) How much can they pay AP and still compete for the help they need at T?
4.) If they get the help they need at T, what impact is there on Ques #1/#2/#5? (and how do they know?)
5.) What value will continuity for existing players add to the OL?

Random thoughts:
#5 has been completely lost in assessing OL performance this season. Assuming we have continuity next season, it will be a general value add. (How much?) How much boost does a good FA pickup T add alone and in conjuction with #5? I might look at the corrollary of this: How much better is the OL with even an average T vs. TJ Clemmings? (Clemmings was REALLY bad) To me this means there is A LOT of potential upside if they can slot in a more competitive player. Clemmings literally wrecked something like 40% of their drives all by himself in 2016.

#1 / #2 are tough questions to answer. AP is getting old. his history says he'll come back and compete, but NFL "norms" say every year it is less and less likely. At some point age will catch #28. Is this that year?

#3 is the ultimate question, but how they get there will be important.

I have no idea what the correct answer is. It is easy to make comments on the individual pieces, but when you start relating them to one another it gets really difficult. There is a lot of "chicken or the egg" in how those questions interact with each other. The FO has to attempt to assign value to both the individual pieces as well as the impact each piece can/will have on the other pieces and they all come together at the same time.

[Mothman]

AP has said he doesn't prefer the shotgun. He'd rather be 7-8 yards deep and getting the ball on the handoff so he can leverage his extraordinary vision and then hit the hole as hard as possible to try and burst through. In interviews with some of the players they talk about how "no one" hits the hole harder that AP. OL new to the team have complained about getting run over if they do not get out of the way soon enough. (this is funny.)

I'm not sure how "much" the shotgun will impact these talents, but I can see some differences just in the physics of it all. From shotgun, AP is getting the ball sooner and probably can't go full speed as quickly since the QB has to have time to turn and deliver the rock. What impact does that hesitation have on his game? The QB is standing vs. crouched to take the handoff, does that impact AP's abilty to see the S and MLB as fast as he needs to? NFL plays happen extremely fast, so this could be meaningful.

AP over the years has shown to be the type of player who is legendary in certain aspects of the game, but quite pedestrian in others. (Pass Protection, ball security...) It isn't outside the realm of possibility that the shot gun just isn't his thing. Whether that is a physical limitation or a mental one is an open question.

I think it goes beyond his limitations to include those of the team. Since the shotgun is a passing formation, it offers limited opportunities in the running game. The primary running plays out of that formation are draws and variations of the draw. If you have a big, running QB that opens things up a bit but that's not an asset the Vikes possess. Anyway, by it's very nature, a draw play takes away that burst to the hole of Peterson's and requires him to be more nimble and patient. However, a draw play is also an effort to deceive the defense. If it doesn't deceive the defense and create big gaps for the RB, it's effectiveness is considerably diminished. Over the years, deceiving defenses into believe they should focus on defending the pass over defending Peterson in the backfield has been difficult because the Vikings passing games typically haven't been terribly threatening.

So, not only are the physics different but the options are limited and it's harder to deceive a defense into believing the offense is planning to pass when the biggest threat on the field has typically been Peterson.

[Mothman]

PHP, it is a tough nut to crack because the last full season that AP played he lead the NFL in rushing and was a significant threat in the Red Zone. The Vikings Yards Per Attempt got a lot of press in 2016 because it was so pathetic, but IMO, the bigger contribution is the Red Zone threat. Being a viable threat to score on the ground in the red zone helps the entire offense. I think it will be VERY hard for the Vikings to give that up unless AP's contract demands are egregious.

The OL thing factors into this quite a bit as well. On the contract side it is fair to ask, just how much cap space the team needs in order to chase the type of FA the team needs at Tackle? I think that is THE question.

They paid Kalil and Smith over $14 million last year so their contracts alone open up an awful lot of money for the tackle position and it remains to be seen who will be available to sign.

In rebuilding mode I would say there would be zero change they'd pay top $$$ for top LT in the open market. However, this roster is built up to a point where it can contend. In light of that it makes more sense to pay somebody to fix the problem in order to maximize the window.

I don't know about that. It's the kind of thinking that set them up for the huge fall they took in 2011. Overpaying for talent up front could be a costly mistake in more ways than one.

Random thoughts:
#5 has been completely lost in assessing OL performance this season. Assuming we have continuity next season, it will be a general value add. (How much?) How much boost does a good FA pickup T add alone and in conjuction with #5? I might look at the corrollary of this: How much better is the OL with even an average T vs. TJ Clemmings? (Clemmings was REALLY bad) To me this means there is A LOT of potential upside if they can slot in a more competitive player. Clemmings literally wrecked something like 40% of their drives all by himself in 2016.

From which lineup would you want to create continuity? The composition of the line was constantly shifting and usually pretty bad. Those two things may not be unrelated but assuming from your comments that you don't see Clemmings remaining in the lineup, are you suggesting a line consisting of a new LT, Boone, Berger, Fusco and Sirles? Someone else?

I have no idea what the correct answer is. It is easy to make comments on the individual pieces, but when you start relating them to one another it gets really difficult. There is a lot of "chicken or the egg" in how those questions interact with each other. The FO has to attempt to assign value to both the individual pieces as well as the impact each piece can/will have on the other pieces and they all come together at the same time.

That's where a strong vision for the offense becomes important. If they have a very clear idea of what they want to do and what type of payers they need to do it, that should help guide their choices. It IS a complicated task...