PDA

View Full Version : Vikings trade for Mike Wallace



Tad7
03-13-2015, 07:13 PM
according to everyone

A 5th round pick to Miami for WR Mike Wallace and a 7th round pick!

jessejames09
03-13-2015, 07:28 PM
Awesome, my initial thought was Patterson would be involved. Jennings Wallace Chuck Johnson and Patterson seems like a good mix of talented veterans and young guys with potential.

MaxVike
03-13-2015, 07:31 PM
There is no downside in this trade…nicely done Spielman …

Suick
03-13-2015, 07:35 PM
800+ yds and 10 TD's last year for a 5th round pick and we get a 7th round?

What's the catch?

Tad7
03-13-2015, 07:38 PM
The risk is the money he's owned

$9.85 million in 2015, $11.45 million in 2016 and $11.45 million in 2017. Only 3 million of guaranteed money is left though.

it's a good risk to take.

Suick
03-13-2015, 07:39 PM
Oh............

618

PInfante97
03-13-2015, 07:54 PM
so wwe basically traded Matt Cassell for Mike Wallace... Slick Rick strikes again ... suck it C Mac D

Tad7
03-13-2015, 08:01 PM
Armando Salguero (had this trade news first, writes for the Miami Herald) says Wallace "isn't thrilled" about being traded to Minnesota. lol...just great

johnkdbr
03-13-2015, 08:09 PM
I was hoping if WR Cooper was on the board at 11 we would take him. Now with this trade it looks more like OL or CB. I wouldn't mind CB but I think the best pick would be OL....AP will probably be back & Teddy needs some hogs up front.

PInfante97
03-13-2015, 08:24 PM
Armando Salguero (had this trade news first, writes for the Miami Herald) says Wallace "isn't thrilled" about being traded to Minnesota. lol...just great

Zim will smack the shit out of him

thorshammer
03-13-2015, 10:11 PM
I didn't see this one coming but now we have a true burner which could make for some interesting football if he buys in.

drakkar
03-14-2015, 07:59 AM
Like the trade, just hope he doesn't become a cancer in the locker room..

PInfante97
03-14-2015, 09:00 AM
Like the trade, just hope he doesn't become a cancer in the locker room..

Well said... read the guys twitter.. he way more hood then anyone else in that locker room...

but now if we keep Adrian then go ahead put 8 in the box.. we dare ya

Braddock
03-14-2015, 09:40 AM
Zim will smack the shit out of him

Lol - but in all honesty, I think that's the thing we have going for us. With Zim being such a "players' coach", Wallace may not buy into the Vikings, but hopefully he buys into Zimmer.

PurplePowerPunch
03-14-2015, 09:55 AM
Zim will smack the shit out of him

Yeah he would.

PurplePowerPunch
03-14-2015, 10:00 AM
Well said... read the guys twitter.. he way more hood then anyone else in that locker room...

but now if we keep Adrian then go ahead put 8 in the box.. we dare ya

Well said. With the addition of Wallace, we can blow the top right off of defenses around the league. Good-bye 8-9 man fronts. Hello Big plays!!!



SKOL

MaxVike
03-14-2015, 10:47 AM
Mike Wallace's 2009 Scout.com WR ranking http://profootball.scout.com/a.z?s=127&p=9&c=12&yr=2009&nid=83&lnid=124&rc=4&pid=16
WR 21 Mike Wallace SR 6-0/189/- Mississippi New Orleans, LA

Mike Wallace's Combine Results http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/mike-wallace?id=81877

Speed to burn…underrated hands and decent Red Zone target due to quickness. I am optimistic that Jennings, Wright, Johnson, and Rudy, can work the under routes and that McKinnon/Asiata/Ellison can work the flats with Wallace's presence. Hell, there has got to be a role for Patterson, regardless of his ability to pick up the offense. Certainly has to help the run game too.

This move sets Vikes up for BPA or trade at #11. My guess is they have their optimal OLineman in mind, and if he's not there, may trade. But, I will not be surprised with anything other than Center, TE, or QB with the pick.

rockymtdan
03-14-2015, 11:18 AM
so wwe basically traded Matt Cassell for Mike Wallace... Slick Rick strikes again ... suck it C Mac D

:rofl:

Thats was the first thing that came to mind when I saw the news and
Ponder to purgatory. Good day!

RK.
03-14-2015, 11:31 AM
Lol - but in all honesty, I think that's the thing we have going for us. With Zim being such a "players' coach", Wallace may not buy into the Vikings, but hopefully he buys into Zimmer.

For 9.85 million bucks he had better buy in.

MaxVike
03-14-2015, 01:47 PM
For 9.85 million bucks he had better buy in.


http://www.vikings.com/media-vault/videos/Wallace_Arrives_at_Winter_Park_Meets_Coach_Zimmer/17151772-d2d5-4add-9448-af401e22176c

I think all will be fine.

VikingMike
03-14-2015, 02:10 PM
And Greg Jennings is released. Opens up $5M cap space.

http://www.vikings.com/news/article-1/Vikings-Release-Greg-Jennings/0d4a1bf5-cb11-4c7f-981e-583c914f22f3?campaign=social_20150314_42102096&adbid=576805940181090304&adbpl=tw&adbpr=25545388

VikingMike
03-14-2015, 02:54 PM
According to Ben Goessling @GoesslingESPN

League source says #Vikings asked Jennings to restructure, but sides couldn't reach an agreement.

Tad7
03-14-2015, 02:55 PM
That sucks..he was willing to take a pay cut (Wolfson reports down to 6 million) and finally has the type of WR teammate to help him be effective in the right role here.

VikingMike
03-14-2015, 03:01 PM
Teddy is really going to miss him...he's a class act.

Braddock
03-14-2015, 03:25 PM
Jennings cut hurts. We need his hand and reach. First action of this FA period that I wholeheartedly disagree with.

snowinapril
03-14-2015, 05:11 PM
http://www.vikings.com/media-vault/videos/Wallace_Arrives_at_Winter_Park_Meets_Coach_Zimmer/17151772-d2d5-4add-9448-af401e22176c

I think all will be fine.

"Let's do this."

Sounds like Teddy and him can work out together in Miami. That would be great........!

No worries, these guys are professionals until crap breaks down and the team starts losing then people get pissy.

Heck I get pissy when things break down at work. I get over it. That is what I remember about the season before last, Wallace was frustrated, last season, not so much upset.

snowinapril
03-14-2015, 05:22 PM
Too bad about Jennings, difficult to pay both and still get value.

The catches that I remember last season for Wallace were not burner routes. They were a lot of sideline and over the middle routes without going deep. I guess I am trying to say, that he is not just a speedster. I see him using his body to position for the catch a lot and able to catch one handed, not just a "I got to get open catch with 2 hands guy" like Jennings.

snowinapril
03-14-2015, 05:44 PM
The trade was made before the Dolphins had to pay Wallace's $3 million bonus this weekend.

Wallace led the Dolphins in receiving yards (862) and touchdowns (10) and was second in receptions (67) this past season. He joins a Vikings team that was on the hunt for playmakers after completing just 17 passes of 20 yards or more. According to ESPN Stats & Information, that was tied for the seventh-lowest figure in the league.

"We want to have a lot of speed offensively, and we feel like that will help a lot," coach Mike Zimmer told ESPN, as he walked into dinner with former Tampa Bay Buccaneers defensive end Michael Johnson, who is visiting the Vikings this weekend. "With [Vikings receiver] Charles Johnson, it opens up more things for the runners, it opens up more things for the tight end. And with [quarterback] Teddy [Bridgewater], you know, he plays so damn accurate. It opens things up."
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12477833/mike-wallace-traded-minnesota-vikings-miami-dolphins

Throws of 20+ Yards, Last 2 Seasons

Wallace Stills
Targets 54 30
Rec. 12 15
Rec. Yds. 460 710<<
TD 2 7
>>47.3 Yds per Rec (leads all NFL WR)
-- ESPN Stats & Information

Dolphins think they got the better deal. This goes with my point, he isn't an efficient (or as efficient) of a deep threat. Wallace is 12 of 54 for 460 yds and 2 Tds on the 20 plus yard throws. Some of that is due to the QB and offensive system.

mountainviking
03-15-2015, 04:30 PM
I'm a bit bummed about cutting Jennings. Would have been real nice to keep both, as I feel they fill different roles as WRs...one is the deep route burner, while the other is the route running tactician, and a better role model/team mate.

On the other hand, Wallace seems to have added some more routes to his repertoire too, and I do like our young guys in Wright, CP, CJ, and Thielen.

Now just freaking make sure we get our all star running back back in action, and let Wallace and crew shine vs. man coverage with no safeties past 10 yards!!! BAAAHWOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

;)

jargomcfargo
03-15-2015, 10:37 PM
Just watched Fins highlights- long passes to Wallace. It is impressive how fast he is and how often he beats coverage. He was often wide open but Tannenhill couldn't hit him.
Teddy and this guy are going to make some noise in the NFCN if the line blocks better on passing plays.

midgensa
03-16-2015, 08:50 AM
I REALLY wanted Mike Wallace a couple of years ago. His raw speed is fantastic. He would have really worked with Cassel (not so much with Ponder).

I am curious to see what Teddy gives us down the field with him. Wallace has pretty decent hands and can go get the ball, which is why he is more than just a speedster. He is certainly an upgrade over Jennings for this offense and I am excited to see what happens. If Teddy can get the ball downfield.

C Mac D
03-16-2015, 11:04 AM
Wait... people actually think this is a good trade? I mean, we didn't give up much but we're taking on a bloated contract for an underachieving player. Wallace hasn't even broken 1,000 yards since 2011. He finished 37th in the league in receiving yards last season... while Tannehill was ranked 11th in yards, so it's not like he had a slouch at QB.

Let me be clear to everyone, this is not a good trade for us at all. Luckily we didn't give up to much, but his attitude is not what we need around a young/developing lockeroom.

I don't care about losing Greg Jennings too much. He wasn't worth the money either. We're pretty much just exchanging one disappointing receiver for another. Yet another strike against our GM. GO SPIELMAN!!!

Tad7
03-16-2015, 11:52 AM
His 2013 and 2014 numbers were better than any Vikings WR and supposedly that offense wasn't a good fit for him. Obviously the Vikings have confidence that Norv and Teddy will make the right fit for him here. His contract is high, but if trading for him was the only way to ensure a need gets filled, it could be worth it.

or there is also the chance you're completely right. Teddy won't hit the deep ball and the weather will hit 30 degrees and Wallace will become an @$$hole

lol..we'll see

C Mac D
03-16-2015, 01:02 PM
His 2013 and 2014 numbers were better than any Vikings WR and supposedly that offense wasn't a good fit for him. Obviously the Vikings have confidence that Norv and Teddy will make the right fit for him here. His contract is high, but if trading for him was the only way to ensure a need gets filled, it could be worth it.

or there is also the chance you're completely right. Teddy won't hit the deep ball and the weather will hit 30 degrees and Wallace will become an @$$hole

lol..we'll see

Trust me, he won't break 1,000 yards and will last two seasons here. Call it a hunch.

NodakPaul
03-16-2015, 01:07 PM
Wait... people actually think this is a good trade? I mean, we didn't give up much but we're taking on a bloated contract for an underachieving player. Wallace hasn't even broken 1,000 yards since 2011. He finished 37th in the league in receiving yards last season... while Tannehill was ranked 11th in yards, so it's not like he had a slouch at QB.

Let me be clear to everyone, this is not a good trade for us at all. Luckily we didn't give up to much, but his attitude is not what we need around a young/developing lockeroom.

I don't care about losing Greg Jennings too much. He wasn't worth the money either. We're pretty much just exchanging one disappointing receiver for another. Yet another strike against our GM. GO SPIELMAN!!!

Somehow I knew you would be able to find some way to look at this in a negative light. Kind of a weak argument though, I really expected better from you C Mac. But I guess it's hard when the Vikings really didn't give up much for him... ;)

I like this trade. I wish Jennings wasn't a casualty of it, but he was not worth the money we were paying him and he didn't want to restructure. Wright will have to fill into Jenning's role, with Wallace and Johnson stretching the field, and Rudolph working underneath. If AD actually comes back and we address some line issues in the draft or remaining FA, I think we will have a decent offense.

tastywaves
03-16-2015, 01:10 PM
We'll see. Tannehill doesn't have a great arm for deep throws and is largely blamed by many for Wallace's dropoff.

Teddy isn't exactly a deep ball specialist either, but appears to be significantly better than Tannehill.

Jennings is hard to understand how much was him vs. the multitude of QB's he dealt with in his tenure with the Vikings, but he clearly underperformed per his contract.

Wallace and Norv seem like a good fit.

C Mac D
03-16-2015, 01:20 PM
Somehow I knew you would be able to find some way to look at this in a negative light. Kind of a weak argument though, I really expected better from you C Mac. But I guess it's hard when the Vikings really didn't give up much for him... ;)

I like this trade. I wish Jennings wasn't a casualty of it, but he was not worth the money we were paying him and he didn't want to restructure. Wright will have to fill into Jenning's role, with Wallace and Johnson stretching the field, and Rudolph working underneath. If AD actually comes back and we address some line issues in the draft or remaining FA, I think we will have a decent offense.

NODAK! Glad my negative attitude brought you out of hiding! Seems like my "weak" argument has more valid points than yours though ;)

But c'mon, you can't be serious... you like this trade? The only perk I can see of this whole debacle is Wright getting more playing time, which I've been screaming for a long time now.

Peterson isn't coming back.

midgensa
03-16-2015, 03:45 PM
NODAK! Glad my negative attitude brought you out of hiding! Seems like my "weak" argument has more valid points than yours though ;)

But c'mon, you can't be serious... you like this trade? The only perk I can see of this whole debacle is Wright getting more playing time, which I've been screaming for a long time now.

Peterson isn't coming back.

I knew that you would bag on this because you bag on everything Speilman does, but this was a perfectly fine trade.

Wallace can stretch the field. There is little doubt about it. He is four years younger than Jennings. Is not really a heavier contract and was better the last two years than Jennings over that period. It is an upgrade, plain and simple, without costing us much.

I think Peterson might not be coming back, but only when Arizona and Dallas get desperate and decide to pony up a first rounder. That would be fine by me.

Is Mike Wallace going to be an All Pro for us? Probably not. A Pro Bowler? Possibly, but probably not. An upgrade over Greg Jennings and a much-needed vertical threat for Teddy? Almost assuredly. Minimal loss if it doesn't work. But, something that could yield decent reward.

Now, can Teddy get the ball that far downfield accurately?

C Mac D
03-16-2015, 04:08 PM
Meh... you guys can believe that this is a fine trade if you want, but Wallace brings nothing to the table for us. Time will prove me right.

There's a reason he's on his 3rd team in the past 4 seasons.

MaxVike
03-16-2015, 11:00 PM
Trust me, he won't break 1,000 yards and will last two seasons here. Call it a hunch.

Interesting, trust, is earned. Also, you puking at 10 TD's??? I'm looking for an impactful team player...1,000 yards is one metric of impact.

snowinapril
03-16-2015, 11:53 PM
Meh... you guys can believe that this is a fine trade if you want, but Wallace brings nothing to the table for us. Time will prove me right.

There's a reason he's on his 3rd team in the past 4 seasons.

Red Zone target. 9 of 10 TDs in the Red Zone last season.

He can body up and get enough separation to get up and get the ball.

He can go deep and use not just speed (CP), he can use his deceleration and acceleration to make the QB look better.

He has a quick first step. He has the ability to stop and start so he can get defenders to bite and/or bust on by them.

Teddy has touch, and Wallace will be able to accentuate that touch pass, Jennings, not so much.

tarkenton10
03-17-2015, 10:31 AM
NODAK! Glad my negative attitude brought you out of hiding! Seems like my "weak" argument has more valid points than yours though ;)

But c'mon, you can't be serious... you like this trade? The only perk I can see of this whole debacle is Wright getting more playing time, which I've been screaming for a long time now.

Peterson isn't coming back.

Cmac D While your rant has some merit there is a very good upside to Wallace whether you like it or not. He can blow the top off a defense, with eight in the box stopping Peterson he should light it up with just a go route. And the longer it lingers the better the chance that Peterson will play for us. Teams are running out of money and he is still here, that is a good sign. The only team left that is realistically looking at AP is Arizona and that is fading fast.

My one head scratcher with Ricky this offseason was Jennings, do you realize that we only saved three million in cutting him. Jennings is definitely worth three million when looking at the NFL WR landscape, I really don't know what he was thinking?

Our WR corp would have been a good one with Wallace, Jennings, Johnson, Wright and Patterson.

tarkenton10
03-17-2015, 10:36 AM
Meh... you guys can believe that this is a fine trade if you want, but Wallace brings nothing to the table for us. Time will prove me right.

There's a reason he's on his 3rd team in the past 4 seasons.

You have to understand this was a very little risk high reward. We basically traded Cassel for Wallace. I would make that trade every time, we have no cap money on this guy after next year, we can cut him if he doesn't work out. He is the type of WR we need with AP in the backfield. Teams will not want to game plan AP where they have to put eight men in the box and let Wallace blow by them or stop Wallace and AP runs wild. That is a nightmare scenario for any DC in the NFL.

C Mac D
03-17-2015, 11:33 AM
Cmac D While your rant has some merit there is a very good upside to Wallace whether you like it or not. He can blow the top off a defense, with eight in the box stopping Peterson he should light it up with just a go route. And the longer it lingers the better the chance that Peterson will play for us. Teams are running out of money and he is still here, that is a good sign. The only team left that is realistically looking at AP is Arizona and that is fading fast.

My one head scratcher with Ricky this offseason was Jennings, do you realize that we only saved three million in cutting him. Jennings is definitely worth three million when looking at the NFL WR landscape, I really don't know what he was thinking?

Our WR corp would have been a good one with Wallace, Jennings, Johnson, Wright and Patterson.

It's not a "rant" just because I disagree with your opinion.

And you keep referring to defenses scheming against Peterson... he's more than likely not coming back to Minnesota, at least that's the impression from both sides. Why is an Arizona trade fading fast? That's just a baseless claim.

Jennings wasn't anything special and wasn't even worth $3M we saved. That should tell you something. He was essentially putting up Bernard Berrian/Bobby Wade-esque stats. We can plug-and-play any WR to put up 700 yards and 4 or 5 TD's. I realize a lot of Vikings liked the name "Greg Jennings" but his production simply didn't justify his costs. Sorry for the dose of reality. Personally I like the move because now we have one less mouth to feed on offense... it's time to get Jarius Wright the ball.

Patterson is 4-5/KR... he'll be a non-factor moving forward, if he's even on the roster come September. Another home-run by Spielman.

C Mac D
03-17-2015, 11:36 AM
You have to understand this was a very little risk high reward. We basically traded Cassel for Wallace. I would make that trade every time, we have no cap money on this guy after next year, we can cut him if he doesn't work out. He is the type of WR we need with AP in the backfield. Teams will not want to game plan AP where they have to put eight men in the box and let Wallace blow by them or stop Wallace and AP runs wild. That is a nightmare scenario for any DC in the NFL.

I understand, but I just don't think Wallace is as good as everyone is expecting. We'll have a malcontent WR with little motivation. If he lights it up, I'll gladly be wrong, but he was benched multiple times last season for a reason.

C Mac D
03-17-2015, 11:40 AM
Red Zone target. 9 of 10 TDs in the Red Zone last season.

He can body up and get enough separation to get up and get the ball.

He can go deep and use not just speed (CP), he can use his deceleration and acceleration to make the QB look better.

He has a quick first step. He has the ability to stop and start so he can get defenders to bite and/or bust on by them.

Teddy has touch, and Wallace will be able to accentuate that touch pass, Jennings, not so much.

Despite being mostly opinions based off stats from 2-3 years ago, some good points! Is that why he was 37th in receiving yards and eventually benched last year?

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/12/28/mike-wallace-benched-has-brandon-gibson-speak-to-media-for-him/

tastywaves
03-17-2015, 01:01 PM
Cmac D While your rant has some merit there is a very good upside to Wallace whether you like it or not. He can blow the top off a defense, with eight in the box stopping Peterson he should light it up with just a go route. And the longer it lingers the better the chance that Peterson will play for us. Teams are running out of money and he is still here, that is a good sign. The only team left that is realistically looking at AP is Arizona and that is fading fast.

My one head scratcher with Ricky this offseason was Jennings, do you realize that we only saved three million in cutting him. Jennings is definitely worth three million when looking at the NFL WR landscape, I really don't know what he was thinking?

Our WR corp would have been a good one with Wallace, Jennings, Johnson, Wright and Patterson.

According to spotrac: http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/minnesota-vikings/greg-jennings/

Jennings would have been an $11M cap hit (base salary of $9M and $2M pro-rated signing bonus) this year if he stayed on the roster and he has $6M of bonus money (dead money) left. The signing bonus money accelerates when you release a player so the full $6M counts towards this year's salary cap. So why isn't this a $5M cap relief number? Am I missing something?

midgensa
03-17-2015, 01:47 PM
According to spotrac: http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/minnesota-vikings/greg-jennings/

Jennings would have been an $11M cap hit (base salary of $9M and $2M pro-rated signing bonus) this year if he stayed on the roster and he has $6M of bonus money (dead money) left. The signing bonus money accelerates when you release a player so the full $6M counts towards this year's salary cap. So why isn't this a $5M cap relief number? Am I missing something?

Yeah ... our cap definitely saves $5 million by cutting Jennings, not $3 million. But not sure what the Wallace number is. Maybe he was including that in this?

RK.
03-17-2015, 04:02 PM
And you keep referring to defenses scheming against Peterson... he's more than likely not coming back to Minnesota, at least that's the impression from both sides. Why is an Arizona trade fading fast? That's just a baseless claim.
.


Not baseless.


The Arizona Cardinals have been name-dropped as a logical landing spot if the Minnesota Vikings choose to move on from Adrian Peterson.

While a move to the desert hasn't been ruled out, the money involved makes swapping the All-Pro running back a "major problem," according to The MMQB's Peter King.

King spoke with a Cardinals source on Sunday night who painted the three years and $45 million remaining on Peterson's deal as an "absolute non-starter" with Arizona's front office.

"We haven't had contact with the Vikings about it, to the best of my knowledge," the source said. "And there is no way we could live with those numbers. We just got (receiver) Larry Fitzgerald's contract under control. No way we'd add that salary."

King noted that trading for the soon-to-be-30 Peterson isn't a must for the Cardinals considering this year's tantalizing cast of draft-eligible running backs. Arizona picks at No. 24 and No. 55 overall and should have no problem finding help at those spots.

We haven't ruled out a Peterson trade just yet -- even to Arizona -- but teams are making it clear they aren't happy with the cash involved. Swapping Peterson for another high-priced veteran would help, but these type of deals are historically rare in the NFL.

Last week's trade frenzy aside, moving Peterson is easier said than done.


http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000479169/article/report-cards-see-adrian-petersons-contract-as-issue

C Mac D
03-17-2015, 04:30 PM
Not baseless.



http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000479169/article/report-cards-see-adrian-petersons-contract-as-issue

Still baseless. It's not like the contract issue has changed in recent weeks... so claiming that the trade is "fading fast" is baseless. From the sound of that, the trade was never on the table in the first place... but trust me, this is just part of the negotiating process. You'll see Peterson play in either Dallas or Arizona next year. Book it.

Adrian Peterson will not be a Viking next year.

tastywaves
03-17-2015, 05:00 PM
Still baseless. It's not like the contract issue has changed in recent weeks... so claiming that the trade is "fading fast" is baseless. From the sound of that, the trade was never on the table in the first place... but trust me, this is just part of the negotiating process. You'll see Peterson play in either Dallas or Arizona next year. Book it.

Adrian Peterson will not be a Viking next year.

Both Dallas and Arizona are pretty tight against the cap at the moment. They would need to do a fair amount of re-arranging to accomodate. Dallas' top 4 players tie up over $60M of this year's cap. That along with the general attitude that any decent back will produce behind their OL, makes it hard to believe they would fork out $10M or more a year for AD. Maybe if Jerry hadn't given Stephen more say in player contracts.

RK.
03-17-2015, 07:34 PM
Still baseless. It's not like the contract issue has changed in recent weeks... so claiming that the trade is "fading fast" is baseless. From the sound of that, the trade was never on the table in the first place... but trust me, this is just part of the negotiating process. You'll see Peterson play in either Dallas or Arizona next year. Book it.

Adrian Peterson will not be a Viking next year.

So you have gone from he won't be playing for us this year to now he won't be here next year? :rofl:

If we make the playoffs this year and AP has a season approaching 2000 yrds and it looks like we might be super bowl material the year our new stadium opens he will restructure and be here next year as well. Book it. LOL

PInfante97
03-17-2015, 08:09 PM
So you have gone from he won't be playing for us this year to now he won't be here next year? :rofl:

If we make the playoffs this year and AP has a season approaching 2000 yrds and it looks like we might be super bowl material the year our new stadium opens he will restructure and be here next year as well. Book it. LOL

2000 yards eh? Id hope so but really i think there is a better chance he fades like LT did that year then 2000 yards... probably somewhere in the middle. The best effect of Adrian would be how he would open stuff up for Teddy. My guess would be 1200 yards 10 TD's but Teddy throws 30 TDs... If that happens we are playing well into January.

RK.
03-18-2015, 10:59 AM
I don't think he will fade. The reports I read say he is in the best shape he has ever been in and is ready to play. If our OL gets fixed I think he will be at least at 1600 yrds and maybe more. Turner is a good coach when it comes to the running game. He knows how to use a star back like AP.

C Mac D
03-18-2015, 11:04 AM
So you have gone from he won't be playing for us this year to now he won't be here next year? :rofl:

If we make the playoffs this year and AP has a season approaching 2000 yrds and it looks like we might be super bowl material the year our new stadium opens he will restructure and be here next year as well. Book it. LOL

Not really sure what the difference is, I may have meant "next season" rather than "next year" but if the only issue you're finding with my argument is semantics... then I probably have a pretty solid argument.

RK.
03-18-2015, 11:20 AM
Next year would be 2016. This season is 2015. Next season is 2016. FYI

C Mac D
03-18-2015, 11:26 AM
Next year would be 2016. This season is 2015. Next season is 2016. FYI

You might want to read-up on the definition there, RK. 'Next' means "coming after the one that just came, happened" meaning this coming season is the "next" season.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/next

Again, I probably typed "next year" while arguing against some stupid point without thinking... similar to right now.

RK.
03-18-2015, 11:33 AM
Arguing against stupid points is what you do best CMacD. :rofl:

C Mac D
03-18-2015, 11:36 AM
Arguing against stupid points is what you do best CMacD. :rofl:

I know, glad someone else noticed. Feels like I'm the only one paying attention around here.

tarkenton10
03-18-2015, 12:17 PM
I know, glad someone else noticed. Feels like I'm the only one paying attention around here.

I can't afford to pay attention, can you loan me a little so I can pay attention. I promise I will conserve my money and pay attention all next month.