PDA

View Full Version : What If Peterson Misses the First 6 Games?



mountainviking
06-28-2012, 12:08 PM
VikesCentric: What if Adrian Peterson misses the first six games? | StarTribune.com (http://www.startribune.com/sports/blogs/160671685.html)

Pretty interesting breakdown, and likely pretty true.


By my count, the first four games of the season should result in two wins and two losses, no matter if Peterson plays or not. The difficulty is that Weeks 5 and 6 both seem like winnable games, but perhaps not if the team is missing its most explosive player.

That assumes Peterson is 100% healthy, though, and even if he is ready for Week 1 itís highly unlikely heíll be his usual, explosive self. Most running backs arenít back to their previous level of play until the second season after their injury, and some are never the same.

I donít envy the Vikings front office on this one. If their star player, who theyíre paying $8 million this year, declares himself healthy in training camp, it will be nearly impossible to keep him off the field. While going the PUP route would erase the temptation to put him in game action before heís truly ready, it feels like an unrealistic scenario. The best course of action would probably be to carry him on the active roster, but donít suit him up until Week 5. If heís even 90 percent of his old self, having him on the field in Weeks 5 and 6 might be the difference between a 4-2 start and a 2-4 start.


But, I think the best bet is to hold him out weeks 1 and 2, and see where he's at. I think he will be ready before most weaker humans would, why lock him out for 6 weeks? Specially since he could certainly improve our chances in weeks 4,5,6...?

tastywaves
06-28-2012, 01:02 PM
VikesCentric: What if Adrian Peterson misses the first six games? | StarTribune.com (http://www.startribune.com/sports/blogs/160671685.html)

Pretty interesting breakdown, and likely pretty true.



But, I think the best bet is to hold him out weeks 1 and 2, and see where he's at. I think he will be ready before most weaker humans would, why lock him out for 6 weeks? Specially since he could certainly improve our chances in weeks 4,5,6...?

I think you go by the doctors/AD on his rehab, more than the situation. If he's strong enough to go week 1, then play him in a limited role and see how he rebounds.

jargomcfargo
06-28-2012, 01:47 PM
Peterson isn't going to win this team a superbowl this year. This team wont even sniff the playoffs until Ponder comes around.
I hope they have the good sense to wait until AD is healthy enough to play.

Dibbzz
06-28-2012, 02:21 PM
I'd definitely would hold him out for the first two weeks as those should be winnable games. Week 3 at home against San Francisco I'd re-evaluate the situation with the team doctors and medical staff to see where he's at at that point. Depending on how the team and Toby Gerhart are playing I'd hold him out as long as he needs to get healthy, even if that does mean missing up to half of the year. No sense in letting our best player get re-injured just because you feel like you need him in there to win games. Gerhart is no Peterson but he should be serviceable enough to get us through the first few weeks. Plus if we really are going to be employing these "2 tight end sets" like they've been telling us, our passing attack should hopefully open up the running game. That's all wishful thinking of course. Even if we are 2-4 after the first 6 games though, if Peterson still isn't ready, keep him on the sidelines as long as it takes for him to get 100%, even if that does mean for him to miss the entire year.

C Mac D
06-28-2012, 02:43 PM
I guess we aren't winning the Super Bowl.

tastywaves
06-28-2012, 03:20 PM
I'd definitely would hold him out for the first two weeks as those should be winnable games. Week 3 at home against San Francisco I'd re-evaluate the situation with the team doctors and medical staff to see where he's at at that point. Depending on how the team and Toby Gerhart are playing I'd hold him out as long as he needs to get healthy, even if that does mean missing up to half of the year. No sense in letting our best player get re-injured just because you feel like you need him in there to win games. Gerhart is no Peterson but he should be serviceable enough to get us through the first few weeks. Plus if we really are going to be employing these "2 tight end sets" like they've been telling us, our passing attack should hopefully open up the running game. That's all wishful thinking of course. Even if we are 2-4 after the first 6 games though, if Peterson still isn't ready, keep him on the sidelines as long as it takes for him to get 100%, even if that does mean for him to miss the entire year.

What if he is deemed to be at 100% on week one?

jmcdon00
06-28-2012, 03:26 PM
I'm expecting him to play by week 1. Modern medicine is amazing, and I think he will be 100% or close enough.