Football Adrian Peterson: 7 years, $100 million - Page 3

Hammock Parties · 01:20 PM

.

Bet he doesn't see half.

$36 million guaranteed.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...ee-on-new-deal

Quote:

The Minnesota Vikings have reached agreement on a new contract with Adrian Peterson that could keep the running back in Minnesota for the rest of his career.

Peterson is signing a seven-year, $100 million deal with $36 million guaranteed, a league source tells PFT.

The contract means there’s a good chance that the 26-year-old Peterson will retire a Viking.

Peterson’s deal is the biggest to date for a running back, topping both the five-year, $43 million deal with $21 million guaranteed for DeAngelo Williams and the four-year, $53.5 million contract with $30 million guaranteed for Chris Johnson.

beach tribe · 09-10-2011, 04:01 PM

[QUOTE=Backwards Masking;7892886]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sedated

Crazy how they could pay both jared allen AND their RB, but we couldn't.

QUOTE]

Not to mention how they broke the bank with Favre. Funny how most teams will do everyhthing possible to aquire and retain Pro Bowlers no matter the cost while our owners make saving money the priority when in the same situation.

We just made Tamba the 2nd Highest paid pass rusher in the league, and have re-signed every player that has earned a contract since Pioli has been here. Do not use Carl Peterson's ass hole tactics as a barometer of how we pay our players. We also landed Jamaal Charles, and Brandon Albert in the JA trade, so even that example is pointless.
Not to mention the fact that it has been proven that pay-roll, and winning do not, in any way, go hand in hand when it comes to winning.

Backwards Masking · 09-10-2011, 04:04 PM

[QUOTE=beach tribe;7892905]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeachTribe

We just made Tamba the 2nd Highest paid pass rusher in the league, and have re-signed every player that has earned a contract since Pioli has been here. Do not use Carl Peterson's ass hole tactics as a barometer of how we pay our players. We also landed Jamaal Charles, and Brandon Albert in the JA trade, so even that example is pointless.
Not to mention the fact that it has been proven that pay-roll, and winning do not, in any way, go hand in hand when it comes to winning.

Sorry if I'm critical of giving away Pro Bowlers, I definitely agree it's nice to see out new leaders taking responsiblity for paying and keeping talent the way Carl failed us so many times. I know they don't always go hand and hand, but it's been proven time and time again big pay rolls statistically increase the chances of winning, no?

beach tribe · 09-10-2011, 04:04 PM

And BTW, how many SBs have the Vikes won by paying (over-paying) huge amounts of money to their players.
It's also pretty unanimous that it was not a good idea to give this kind of money to a RB.

beach tribe · 09-10-2011, 04:05 PM

[QUOTE=Backwards Masking;7892912]

Quote:

Originally Posted by beach tribe

Sorry if I'm critical of giving away Pro Bowlers, I definitely agree it's nice to see out new leaders taking responsiblity for paying and keeping talent the way Carl failed us so many times. I know they don't hand and hand, but it's been proven time and time again big pay rolls statistically increase the chances of winning, no?

No absolutely NOT. Studies show that big pay rolls do NOT in any way increase the chance of winning. the average pay-roll of SB winners is 15th IIRC.

-King- · 09-10-2011, 04:09 PM

[QUOTE=Backwards Masking;7892912]

Quote:

Originally Posted by beach tribe

Sorry if I'm critical of giving away Pro Bowlers, I definitely agree it's nice to see out new leaders taking responsiblity for paying and keeping talent the way Carl failed us so many times. I know they don't always go hand and hand, but it's been proven time and time again big pay rolls statistically increase the chances of winning, no?

Not at all.
Posted via Mobile Device

**DaFace** · 09-10-2011, 04:13 PM

If it did, the Redskins would be a dynasty.

Backwards Masking · 09-10-2011, 04:38 PM

[QUOTE=;7892915]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BEACHRIBE

No absolutely NOT. Studies show that big pay rolls do NOT in any way increase the chance of winning. the average pay-roll of SB winners is 15th IIRC.

Hey, 15th out of 32 teams means the numbers are still slightly in my arguments favor

. I can't believe it's that low in the NFL though, that's actually pretty amazing. Still, when it comes to all sports, I have to imagine it rings true over a wide range, especially factoring in NBA and, worse, MLB.

CoMoChief · 09-10-2011, 06:04 PM

Charles needs to fire his agent lol

Consistent1 · 09-10-2011, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beach tribe

And BTW, how many SBs have the Vikes won by paying (over-paying) huge amounts of money to their players.
It's also pretty unanimous that it was not a good idea to give this kind of money to a RB.

What kind of money? Making standard high-end dollars these days with bullshit inflated overall numbers that are about 80% sure to never happen. NFL contract numbers are complete bullshit in this way.

Hammock Parties · 09-10-2011, 06:46 PM

Chiefs Pantalones · 09-10-2011, 06:48 PM

Why you pay so much for a RB considering their short lifespan anymore is beyond me...

big cahones · 09-10-2011, 06:50 PM

I think it's ridiculous what these ****ing guys are getting paid, let alone a running back. The Vikings are reeruned. No matter how good you are at football there is no reason any one of these players should be making more than 10 million a year. Paying players this kind of money is what made baseball a joke for me.

09-10-2011, 04:04 PM	#33
beach tribe Keep doubting J MFing Houston Join Date: May 2007 Location: ft.lauderdale Casino cash: $4828036	And BTW, how many SBs have the Vikes won by paying (over-paying) huge amounts of money to their players. It's also pretty unanimous that it was not a good idea to give this kind of money to a RB.
Posts: 21,429

09-10-2011, 04:13 PM	#36
DaFace Kind of a mod Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Donkey Land Casino cash: $2046899	If it did, the Redskins would be a dynasty.
Posts: 51,753

09-10-2011, 06:04 PM	#38
CoMoChief Mahomes Dynasty Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Parts Unknown Casino cash: $8052254	Charles needs to fire his agent lol
Posts: 39,156

09-10-2011, 06:46 PM	#40
Hammock Parties I'll be back. Join Date: Nov 2002 Casino cash: $4730478	__________________ Chiefs game films
Posts: 277,744

09-10-2011, 06:48 PM	#41
Chiefs Pantalones GO CHIEFS!!!!!! Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Kansas City Casino cash: $7918717	Why you pay so much for a RB considering their short lifespan anymore is beyond me... __________________ Don't be fooled by my username, I'm white.
Posts: 26,630

09-10-2011, 06:50 PM	#42
big cahones Starter Join Date: Sep 2011 Casino cash: $10004900	I think it's ridiculous what these ****ing guys are getting paid, let alone a running back. The Vikings are reeruned. No matter how good you are at football there is no reason any one of these players should be making more than 10 million a year. Paying players this kind of money is what made baseball a joke for me.
Posts: 151