Poll: Will and should the Cowboys obtain Adrian Peterson?

Will and should the Cowboys obtain Adrian Peterson?

They will. And they should. Even if it costs a first.

It makes us the most talented team in the NFC. Peterson is a beast. Put him behind this line and wow....

Our window is basically this year. Maybe..... maybe next. Let's go for it.

I don't see anywhere to vote.

So, I vote maybe.

Midswat said:

They will. And they should. Even if it costs a first.

It makes us the most talented team in the NFC. Peterson is a beast. Put him behind this line and wow....

Our window is basically this year. Maybe..... maybe next. Let's go for it.

Keep reading...

Hell to the fuck no. I wouldn't give more than a 4th at best.

I would go as high as a 2nd and throw in a 2016 pick. Something like a 4th round pick that can become a 3rd or 2nd depending on how Peterson does.

At the same time, if Peterson doesn't cave, I think we wait it out and they cut him.

Iamtdg said:

Hell to the fuck no. I wouldn't give more than a 4th at best.

Keep reading...

I thought similar until we buttfucked our cap with the Romo restructure.

Our window is now. Go for it.

I actually think we should, but I'm not sure we will. Haven't followed it lately, but I still have a feeling he plays for Minny this year. Don't think anyone wants to trade for that contract, and I think any new contract would be a pay cut. He still has a few months to get over his hurt feelings.

Main reason I think we should, despite the high cost, isn't even how great a player he is. It's that he would ensure we stay run-heavy. If we go with a mishmosh committee, we could easily return to Tony carrying the entire team in a heartbeat.

Yes and yes. Peterson takes us over the top.

As far as compensation, I'd consider the first if it meant Gurley was off the board and Peterson took a pay cut. Otherwise a second or third with a pick next year should get it done too.

Cards will be the only other team we have to worry about and the rumor was they're already willing to part with a second. I don't think the Vikes cut him, and it would be foolish to bank on that anyway. Send the high pick to get a great player and we're a favorite in the NFC.

How can Peterson be the final piece of the puzzle when his predecessor ran for 1,845 yards and 13 TDs? Like 1,900 yards will get us over the hump? If we're gonna add someone and pay him millions of dollars, make sure he plays defense.

There is just no damn way I give a first or even a second for a 30 year old RB who has shown a history of injuries and now has baggage on top of it.

Peterson, Gurley, or even if we still had Murray, it's kind of preposterous (to me anyway) that we still give one guy 400 carries. It simply won't be happening, with Tony's health tons better than last year, as it should be.

Most people think what we saw last year represents a new direction we'll now stick with, and I don't believe that. I believe what we saw last year was a aberration out of the necessity of Tony's back issues. Next year, we will go back to what we saw the four years prior to last year - pass happy, and running the ball only grudgingly. That's Garrett. He's not a "run first" guy and never will be, no matter how well it works every time it is tried.

What evidence is there that there's been a major offensive philosophy change in Dallas? They go run-heavy one year, and suddenly we assume this will continue? When we have a history here of four years prior, when it wasn't that way?

I don't buy that. I doubt we see even 300 carries out of one guy. And doubt we have even 400 carries total for all backs, the whole year. In 2013 we had a TEAM TOTAL of only 336 rushing carries. The year before that it was 355 total. The year before that - ooooh - 408 total.

Besides the aberrant last season, we simply haven't been a run-first team.

So, I really don't think we go after Peterson even if he is somehow available and not overly expensive, for the same reasons we really weren't in the hunt to keep Murray - it's simply not the direction they want to go. It's not their real philosophy.

Tony will be back and healthy, and he will get 525 pass attempts next year instead of 100 less like he had last year. He is the star of the team, he is the guy we're invested in.

If he gets traded to the Cowboys, or any other team, they are not going to just automatically inherit Peterson's current salary.

Peterson currently has 3 years left on his deal:
2015 $12,750,000
2016 $14,750,000
2017 $16,750,000

3 years $44,250,000

Realistically, he was never going to see that last year at $16.75M as a 33-yer old RB. He would have maybe received $27.5M the next 2 years.

Also, the Vikings immediately gain $13M in cap room and have him completely off the books before 2016, if they cut or trade him.

The team that trades for him is going to rip up the deal and give him a 3-year deal worth approx the $27M he had coming the next 2 years. Something like this:

Signing bonus $12M ($18M* guaranteed)
2015 season $2M* base + $4M prorated bonus = $6M cap hit
2016 season $5M* base + $4M prorated bonus = $9M cap hit
2017 season $8M base (which he will never see) + $4M prorated bonus = $12M cap hit AND more likely $8M in cap savings when cut

the $18M guaranteed comes from $12M signing bonus, $2M 2015 salary, and $4M of $2016.
Plus, there could be playing time incentives like we saw with Hardy.

The team does this to get his 2015 cap number down from $12.75M to $6M.

Peterson does this because he goes from having zero guaranteed money to getting $18M guaranteed, and $12M of it immediately.


Current scenario versus potential scenario
2015 - $12.75M base salary (divided over 17 weeks) versus $14M [$12M signing bonus plus $2M (divided over 17 weeks)]
2016 - $14.75 base salary *not guaranteed (divided over 17 weeks) versus $5M *$4M guaranteed (divided over 17 weeks)
2017 - $16.75M base salary *not guaranteed versus $8M base salary (divided over 17 weeks) --Most likely not seeing this year in either scenario.

I dont think they need him. If they did get him i think he would help the team. Id rather leave that situation alone and draft a 1st round running back.

Restructuring Tony bought 12 mil in cap space. I hope they use most of it on defense. They're going to need it.

The window of opportunity for this team is open now and for only a few more seasons (at most). I think the Cowboys should go for broke.

Given the short amount of time that these Cowboys will be a plausible championship contender, it's best not to draft a rookie RB and count on him to become the "bell-cow back" (I hate that term). You'd have to wait for the rookie to get acclimated to the offense, the league, pass blocking schemes, etc. ... and, of course, there is absolutely no guarantee that he'll become a high quality pro (see Trent Richardson, Felix Jones, etc.).

Adrian Peterson is already up to speed.

With the emergence of the OL, I feel certain that we'll continue to see the Cowboys operate a run-heavy offense over the next several seasons. So this team needs a high quality back.

Wouldn't it be great if, in addition to Peterson, Darren McFadden proves that he has something left and becomes a significant upgrade over Dunbar? Behind the Dallas OL, the Peterson - McFadden combination really could turn out to be tough to defend.

bbgun said:

How can Peterson be the final piece of the puzzle when his predecessor ran for 1,845 yards and 13 TDs? Like 1,900 yards will get us over the hump? If we're gonna add someone and pay him millions of dollars, make sure he plays defense.

Keep reading...

Pass rush is the final piece of the puzzle.

But if Demarco got 1800 behind this line, Peterson matches or exceeds that MINUS the costly, game costing fumbles.

ZeroClub said:

Given the short amount of time that these Cowboys will be a plausible championship contender, it's best not to draft a rookie RB and count on him to become the "bell-cow back" (I hate that term). You'd have to wait for the rookie to get acclimated to the offense, the league, pass blocking schemes, etc. ... and, of course, there is absolutely no guarantee that he'll become a high quality pro (see Trent Richardson, Felix Jones, etc.).

Keep reading...

Exactly. Especially if it's a Gurley, who can't even practice until, when, very close to the regular season. No way they'd trust him in pass protection. And with Williams' history of lousy pass pro and McFadden's injury history, that's a thin line to Tony throwing it 50 times per game again.

To iamtdg... Does Peterson really have much of an injury history other than the one torn ACL? And he recovered faster than anyone else in history when that happened.

ThoughtExperiment said:

To iamtdg... Does Peterson really have much of an injury history other than the one torn ACL? And he recovered faster than anyone else in history when that happened.

Keep reading...

Yes, he has been injured in some manner in almost every season. Granted, the ACL is the worst of it, but he has been hurt a lot.

Midswat said:

Pass rush is the final piece of the puzzle.

But if Demarco got 1800 behind this line, Peterson matches or exceeds that MINUS the costly, game costing fumbles.

Keep reading...

... and I think defenses would have an even tougher time not selling out against the run with Peterson in the backfield, thereby further opening up the passing game.

In short, with Peterson, the Dallas offense would present the same extremely difficult dilemma to defenses that Aikman, Smith, and Irvin did in the early 90's.

As good as Murray was last year, he wasn't an Emmitt Smith-level threat. Peterson would be.

ZeroClub said:

With the emergence of the OL, I feel certain that we'll continue to see the Cowboys operate a run-heavy offense over the next several seasons.

Keep reading...

There's nothing at all to indicate that, besides the one year wonder of last season. Basic, core philosophies don't change - they get put on the back burner due to circumstances such as Tony's back issues.