FireChan

So, because AP's actions were worse, Minnesota doesn't deserve scrutiny for they way they handled things? Is that what you're telling me? I still haven't seen the sympathy, you haven't shown me a quote. I think that every poster in this topic who didn't say "child-beating scum," got painted with your very subtle broad brush.

Show me one instance of "sympathy" for AP.

The 49ers said, "we're waiting for due process, then we'll deal with it." And they dealt with it 6 or 9 months later. The Vikings grabbed as many headlines as they could in that same span with their actions. I know you know they screwed up.

They would've signed him to that deal for a one year rental? What if they didn't find a suitor?

Ask Ray McDonald if no team will stick to their guns. How many headlines did he grab? The Vikings are a case study of how a business should NOT act in the event of a legal scandal. Period. AP might suck, but he's not wrong that the Vikings suck too.

Why would Miami not be able to include a NTC?

Still time for him to grab #2.

Yep. They threw AP on the sword to try to maintain their image. Which I get from a business perspective, but not after you've said you're "backing" AP as he handles this. Not only did they go back on their statements, they made the media exposure ten times worse.

So what? The Vikings organization made a big show of supporting him, then bailed on him. Remember the "he's suspended from practice, he's practicing, he's suspended again," week? His organization acted like clowns. Incorrect. They suspended/inactivated him, then let him play, then suspended him again. All while making a big show of their support. He should reasonably expect that the organization either stick to their guns after making public comments, or not make those comments. They acted like morons.

Not pretend to stand by him then bail in 12 hours?

Well, to be fair, Luck won 10 of his first 14 games. Clearly he's destined for mediocrity.

4merper4mer thinks Luck has us all bamboozled. He's good. Don't worry.

Why?

He voted for Johnson the second time.

Actually, I don't. Only because the Vikings first stood by him, then jumped ship in the course of a day. Talk about sticking with your convictions.

Deadspin ‏@Deadspin 5m5 minutes ago Adrian Peterson's agent: "We want out of Minnesota." http://deadsp.in/0RyfSm1 View summary 3 retweets 1 favorite

All I've been trying to say. EJ would be regarded as the second coming if he came out his rookie year and threw 2800 yards, 20 TD's and 15 INT's in '98 or '81. Now, that's just adequate.

Leave them be, says Justice.

Yep. But that's besides the point in this instance. I want birddog to answer my Cuba analogy. What would the US have to do?

No. Stop that.

I'm saying what qualified as "suck" 20 years ago is not what qualifies as "suck" today. The standards have changed. So comparing EJ's rookie season to Montana's is bananas. Indy had the sixth highest passing yard total in the NFL when Peyton was a rookie. SIXTH! They would've been 18th in 2013. Are we gonna pretend like that means nothing still? Or, can we agree, that a top 6th passer in the NFL is a lot different that the bottom 14th?

Ask the Iron Dome. What do you think they'd have to do if they couldn't thwart their enemies' attacks? What would the US do if Cuba launched rockets at us, and we couldn't stop 99.9% of the civilian casualties?

Except Peyton Manning was a rookie 20 years ago dude. That's why it's ridiculous to compare his rookie season to EJ's, it was a different game. The NFL 20 years ago is almost as different from the modern NFL as college. Answer me this. Why was Luck's rookie year so much better than Peyton's? I'll wait.

I don't. I really really don't. Look at Matt Ryan's rookie stats. How do they compare to stats from the 80s? Or Cam Newton's? Or Jay Cutler's first full season? I can go on and on and on. There will be your Ben Roethlisbergers, who don't put up gaudy stats as rookies, but win, but it's clear the trend of a franchise or at least above average QB is having better, young seasons than the older greats. That's just the new NFL. Joe Montana's 1981 season, his first almost full one in his third year in the NFL, is nothing special compared to this day and age. It's just not. We can look at two QB's that give us the best view of that, and not even all the way back to the 80s. Compare Peyton Manning's first year stats to Andrew Luck's. Peyton is a Hall of Famer. And his rookie year wasn't even nearly close to Luck's. It's not as though Luck was ten times the prospect either. Would you argue that 23 year old Luck was better than 23 year old Peyton? I wouldn't. But still, blew him out of the water, numbers wise. In finality, you're incorrect. You really are. Comparing EJ's stats to the 80s or 90s is less than meaningless. Even if you wanna compare him to the greats still playing, right now, somewhere, there's a Jets fan claiming that Geno's rookie year "was a lot like Peyton's," and he's not wrong. But he's wrong that it means anything.

Stats in the 80s have just about as much bearing on the NFL as a con flip.