Adrian Peterson Will Stay With The Vikings, But Will The Vikings Stay In Minnesota?

by Brandon on Sep 10, 2011 11:29 PM CDT in Green Bay Packers News

I've been wondering all summer (take a look at this Fan Post if you're wondering too) whether the Vikings were going to leave Minneapolis for Los Angeles, but I never consider even the possibility that RB Adrian Peterson would ever leave their franchise behind. They won't let him go until his time is past, and from what I saw from him this preseason, he's as strong and fast as ever.

So the news that he signed a contract extension isn't much of a surprise. It's another $100 million contract in name, but over the next 3 years, he'll be paid $40 million, which is $9 million more than the Titans just agreed to pay RB Chris Johnson over the same time period. He didn't give them a hometown discount, but he's certainly one of the few players who deserve to be paid a premium. Which running back is going to be better than him over the next three seasons?

Tweet Comment 25 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Bad Spending

So now the Vikings have sunk $20 million guaranteed into an inside linebacker and $36 million guaranteed to a running back, both of whom play at the least important positions on their respective sides of the ball. If big bucks for running backs was the ticket for success in the NFL, we would have seen the Titans playing the Vikings in the last few Super Bowls. Unfortunately for the Vikings, running back is a sink hole for money. Ziggy Wilf was caught in a tough spot – trade the team’s best player to free up cash to build a better team, or overpay for the least important offensive position to keep the fans happy as your team slides into mediocrity.

Contrast that to TT, who traded perhaps the most popular player in team history because TT thought, correctly, that he had a younger guy ready to play at the same level. Same with letting the oft-injured, 30-year-old fan favorite Cullen Jenkins walk and using the cash savings to sign younger players like Josh Sitton, and hopefully Nelson and Finley. (I think Grant will be the next out the door if Green shows anything this year.)

The Packers have a core of a dozen of pro bowl or near pro bowl players on both sides of the ball. The Vikings have two fat contracts at plug-and-play positions and no depth. The Packers will contend for titles the next several seasons. The Vikings? Their team motto should be “Six and Ten!”

Nitschke never wore an earring!

by Packer Pete on Sep 11, 2011 8:25 AM CDT reply actions 3 recs

I don't think I could agree with you more

And it makes me very thankful to be a Packers fan

"IF CARDS CAN SIGN SUPPAN THEY CAN GIVE ME A HOME"

by Buddhasillegitimatechild38 on Sep 11, 2011 11:06 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions

Completely Disagree

MLB is one of the most important positions in any defense. They are responsible for getting and calling the plays, checking out to other plays, and ensuring every one on the defense is on the same page. They need to be able to cover and tackle very well. Just look at Ray Lewis, and how important he is to the Ravens. Its the same reason why Hawk is important for us, and why we signed him to a good sized contract even if he isn’t the best at his position. It’s one of the reasons why our defense was horrible in 2008, because Barnett went out for the season. Losing your MLB on defense. is like loosing you QB on offense.

As far as Peterson, he’s one of the top 10 players in the league. I don’t think anyone is worth $100 million, but that contract was set by the market. He will and has win games for them single handed. If their defense wasn’t on the decline, and they had a decent O-line, the Vikings could ride AP to the Superbowl. When defensive coordinators game plan for the Vikings, they plan to stop AP, not anyone else. If it weren’t for him, the Vikes would have lost far more games over the past few years.

by Shoes31 on Sep 11, 2011 11:15 AM CDT up reply actions

Division Titles

The Vikings won consecutive division titles two and three years ago. They had a top defense and Peterson had huge rushing years, yet they couldn’t “ride” Peterson to the Super Bowl. Now, as you point out, the defense is on the decline and the O Line is weak. Would be nice to have some of that RB and LB cash available to build some depth and talent.

Nitschke never wore an earring!

by Packer Pete on Sep 11, 2011 8:22 PM CDT up reply actions

The Vikings were a Super Bowl team 2 years ago.

Someone just got in their way.

I already told you! I deal with the god damn receivers so the linebackers don’t have to! I have coverage skills; I’m good at covering people! Can’t you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?!

by msc32887 on Sep 11, 2011 11:02 PM CDT up reply actions

I figured this would come up...

but I don’t necessarily agree. It would be nice if you could get guys for cheaper, but this is what the new CBA was intended to do. You don’t have to pay rookies that much anymore so you put it into your veteran guys instead. This money would have gone to Ponder at #12 instead.

In Every Climb and Place....

I am an ass hat.

by PhoenicianPakFan on Sep 11, 2011 12:56 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

I hope they stay there.

thing is, 2 of the 4 biggest markets in North America don’t have teams (LA and Toronto). I think Jacksonville and Oakland should be the two that get moved (if the NFL does want to expand into Canada), given the size of their respective markets and the fact that neither has been doing especially well (on the field or financially) for the last several years.

I’d say Minnesota should always have a team, given the passion for football that exists there, and the fact that the fans have never had trouble filling up the stadium. But with the way they’ve been mismanaged for the last several years, and the lack of a long term stadium deal, there’s no knowing whether the league will feel the same way.

when life gives you melons, you might be dyslexic...

by sheehan on Sep 11, 2011 10:04 AM CDT reply actions

expansion

I don’t see the NFL going to Toronto and going head to head w/ the CFL, not they wouldn’t win that “battle” but it wouldn’t seem right to do it. And Toronto isn’t nearly as large a market as Mexico CIty, which has a population rivaling LA. I think Mexico City is the next place the NFL goes after LA.

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Sep 11, 2011 10:20 AM CDT up reply actions

I think the NFL is definitely interested in the Canadian market.

Buffalo has been flirting with the idea for a few years now by playing a home game in Toronto. The NFL won’t have a team in Mexico City any time soon. Mexico isn’t as interested in football as Canada is, and there are numerous safety and health concerns involved with playing in Mexico City. As the US National Soccer Team has experienced, the smog is incredibly bad (and has caused players to cough up sludge and blood in the past), the altitude is too high, and the fans are not exactly friendly. I realize the third point relates to soccer more than football, but some of the same fans that lead chants for Osama Bin Laden and throw things on the field when the US Soccer team plays there will be attending the football games as well. In addition to this, Toronto is a much wealthier city, and would be able to afford the cost of a stadium (and its fans could afford the cost of a ticket) better than the residents of Mexico City could.

"I'm tired of pretending I'm not a rock star from Mars."

by Kuhl on Sep 11, 2011 10:43 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

Yes. I fund it very sad myself that Buffalo has the best chance of moving to Canada

They’re such a good football town, but I agree Canada before Mexico. Mexico City is a povertous, gross, dangerous place that makes poor logistical sense

"IF CARDS CAN SIGN SUPPAN THEY CAN GIVE ME A HOME"

by Buddhasillegitimatechild38 on Sep 11, 2011 11:13 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions

a povertous, gross, dangerous place that makes poor logistical sense

But enough about Detroit, Buffalo, Jacksonville, and Baltimore . . . .

by GinSlinger on Sep 11, 2011 11:22 AM CDT up reply actions

I lol'd. Also, I'm from St Louis, number in crime and murder over Detroit most of the last decade

And going number two the other years, trust me, I know

"IF CARDS CAN SIGN SUPPAN THEY CAN GIVE ME A HOME"

by Buddhasillegitimatechild38 on Sep 11, 2011 11:47 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions

And by logistically I meant terrain not distance

"IF CARDS CAN SIGN SUPPAN THEY CAN GIVE ME A HOME"

by Buddhasillegitimatechild38 on Sep 11, 2011 11:45 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions

Mexico City

I’ve been saying for about ten years that the NFL must seriously consider Mexico City (at least) in any future plans. The downsides I see to it are at least two: 1) Pollution is a rather big problem there, given the NFL’s recent concern for player safety, are they going to put players in a workspace that OSHA might consider harmful (add to the pollution the high altitude which I understand will multiply the effects), and 2) player/team safety and travel (even more international flights may be a headache for the league given all the post-9/11 restrictions, and then there’s the violence in Mexico which is not [yet] a major factor in MC).

As to the CFL, it’s not exactly head-to-head as the season’s don’t perfectly align, and I think Toronto is perfectly capable of filling the stadium once a week if the home schedules are aligned properly.

by GinSlinger on Sep 11, 2011 10:44 AM CDT up reply actions

Another issue with Mexico City

No FA will go to a place where they need a body guard to avoid being abducted and held for ransom.

"I'm tired of pretending I'm not a rock star from Mars."

by Kuhl on Sep 11, 2011 11:46 AM CDT up reply actions

If they moved an NFL team there...

the violence against Americans would increase due to the number traveling/living there. Right now, many only go to safer areas if to the country at all and they still committ violence to a lot of Americans.

Mex City could be long term plans, along with Canadian cities, but not until the current safety issues are solved.

In Every Climb and Place....

I am an ass hat.

by PhoenicianPakFan on Sep 11, 2011 12:58 PM CDT up reply actions

You've been saying for 10 years the NFL should consider Mexico City

then list the 2 reasons why they never will consider them.

by Wisfan on Sep 11, 2011 9:26 PM CDT up reply actions

Never?

That’s a pretty strong word when revenue is at stake.

by GinSlinger on Sep 12, 2011 5:52 AM CDT up reply actions

Memory's a little fuzzy, but,

wasn’t there some sort of Canadien legal reason why, in the 1970s, the WFL’s Toronto Northmen (who signed the Dolphins’ Larry Csonka, Jim Kiick and Paul Warfield) got moved to Memphis, and renamed the Southmen, before they ever played their first game?

"Perfection is not attainable,
but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."

"It's a great day to be great, baby!"

Skol is a four-letter word.

The Munsters of the Midway still suck!

by NorthStarr on Sep 12, 2011 1:33 AM CDT up reply actions

Speaking of Csonka,

he now lives here,
and does TV ads for a local spinal clinic. :)

"Perfection is not attainable,
but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."

"It's a great day to be great, baby!"

Skol is a four-letter word.

The Munsters of the Midway still suck!

by NorthStarr on Sep 12, 2011 1:35 AM CDT up reply actions

The Zonk lives in Alaska?

Sweet! He used to ref American Gladiator too! I loved that show back in the day.

In Every Climb and Place....

I am an ass hat.

by PhoenicianPakFan on Sep 12, 2011 1:43 AM CDT up reply actions

there's a lot more money in Toronto than there is in Mexico City

and there’s a lot more big corporations based there, and a lot more media. So for the purposes of the NFL, it would be a bigger market than Mexico City.

when life gives you melons, you might be dyslexic...

by sheehan on Sep 12, 2011 11:03 AM CDT up reply actions

The problem is that they HAVE had problems filling the stadium.

They have struggled to meet blackout quotas consistently this decade.

One example: http://www.aolnews.com/2009/01/02/vikings-still-facing-blackout-jared-allen-resorts-to-begging/

Speaking of movement, if anyone goes to Canada it’ll be Buffalo. Jacksonville really doesn’t have a very solid fan base there, I could see them moving eventually. Oakland won’t move under Al Davis, after that we’ll see.

by msc32887 on Sep 11, 2011 11:09 PM CDT up reply actions

Is market size the only thing to consider?

If so why did Houston get a team before LA? It is can and will the market support a team for that sport? LA for a decade showed only passive desire for a new team, even when the NFL was expanding.

It is not only the size of the market, but the market’s desire and ability to activley support a franchise. LA has shown interest, but for the longest time it was not intense interest.

Preemptive Palomino, lets talk political stuff elsewhere .
Second City Hockey, Is it October 7th yet?
Recovering rec whore.

by Toews-makes-funny-faces on Sep 12, 2011 11:01 AM CDT up reply actions

If the NFL moves to Toronto it will probably have to be Buffalo

Otherwise I believe the Bills will fight it tooth and nail. I think that there are a lot of Buffalo fans in southern Ontario who would jump ship if a new Toronto team appearaed, and the Bills would stand to lose money.

I lived the last two years in Ontario and heard from the locals how hard the Sabres were fighting attempts for a KW hockey team (although I don’t know anything about revenue sharing, if it exists, in the NHL so it might be less of an issue for football).

by Packer Logician on Sep 11, 2011 1:55 PM CDT reply actions