| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
JBURGE25
Joined: 25 Jan 2012
Posts: 16904
Location: Canadia
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 1:52 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
There's also the difference that Peterson is the Vikings star player. Quarless is not. We can afford to put him on the PUP
_________________
FF Big Brother III Winner  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
MNPackfan32
Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 9999
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| JBURGE25 wrote: | | There's also the difference that Peterson is the Vikings star player. Quarless is not. We can afford to put him on the PUP |
At the same time, they are paying him $100 million, if anything they should be more carefull with the franchise player than some back up TE. But they see him as ticket sales going out the window if he doesn't play.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
incognito_man
Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 38092
Location: Madison
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 3:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| MNPackfan32 wrote: | | What if they did rush him back and he wasn't healthy, and thats why he only got 22 carries in the 2 games following his ankle injury. They put him on a "pitch count" since he wasn't healthy but wanted to give people a reason to be excited about a Vikings game. But incog pleas address the initial points you are dodging, about the same injury yet the Packers are giving their player 12 more weeks to recover. Sure doesn't seem like the Vikings are being overly cautious with Peterson like the Packers are with Quarless. |
Your whole notion is absurd. It doesn't deserve discussion beyond this and I'm not going to entertain it any further. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MNPackfan32
Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 9999
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| incognito_man wrote: | | MNPackfan32 wrote: | | What if they did rush him back and he wasn't healthy, and thats why he only got 22 carries in the 2 games following his ankle injury. They put him on a "pitch count" since he wasn't healthy but wanted to give people a reason to be excited about a Vikings game. But incog pleas address the initial points you are dodging, about the same injury yet the Packers are giving their player 12 more weeks to recover. Sure doesn't seem like the Vikings are being overly cautious with Peterson like the Packers are with Quarless. |
Your whole notion is absurd. It doesn't deserve discussion beyond this and I'm not going to entertain it any further. |
Its absurd to think they are rushing him back when they gave him 12 weeks less than another player for the same injury?  Doesn't sound too crazy to me.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Polaris
Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 3544
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
As I found out during the whole Nick Collins discussion, "absurd" means "I don't agree with you so I'm going to marginalize your opinion rather than spending time advancing a cogent argument."
Clearly, Peterson is an important part of what Minnesota wants to do on offense. Cleary, they'd like him on the field if at all possible. If he's not ready, it'd be stupid in the first degree to rush him onto the field. Do I think Minnesota is capable of being stupid? Oh yeah, absolutely.
But none of us have conducted a physical examination of Peterson, or seen him workout, or even asked him how he's feeling. The people who have think he's ready enough to play.
I would not accuse Minnesota of reckless disregard for the welfare of their players. Stupidity sometimes, sure. But not reckless disregard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
incognito_man
Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 38092
Location: Madison
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Polaris wrote: | As I found out during the whole Nick Collins discussion, "absurd" means "I don't agree with you so I'm going to marginalize your opinion rather than spending time advancing a cogent argument."
Clearly, Peterson is an important part of what Minnesota wants to do on offense. Cleary, they'd like him on the field if at all possible. If he's not ready, it'd be stupid in the first degree to rush him onto the field. Do I think Minnesota is capable of being stupid? Oh yeah, absolutely.
But none of us have conducted a physical examination of Peterson, or seen him workout, or even asked him how he's feeling. The people who have think he's ready enough to play.
I would not accuse Minnesota of reckless disregard for the welfare of their players. Stupidity sometimes, sure. But not reckless disregard. |
No, absurd means absurd.
This
| Quote: | | It's not like the Vikings have ever really cared if on of their players got seriously hurt or died on the field |
is absurd. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Polaris
Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 3544
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
You may think it's absurd. I may think it's absurd. Other people may think it's absurd. But that would just be our opinion.
I think it would be stronger if you simply made your point and let people decide for themselves what is, and isn't, absurd.
If you recall, people thought I was being absurd because I thought that Nick Collins was finished with the Packers and that Thompson had already made his mind up on the matter before the final medical report. I was called a troll, and worse, as people attempted to marginalize my opinion because it didn't mesh with the groupthink here.
I don't agree with MNPackfan32's opinion on this. I thought the statement you referenced above was over the top hyperbole. But I'm really unhappy with the attitude here that we'll just marginalize the opinions of people we disagree with. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
incognito_man
Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 38092
Location: Madison
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Polaris wrote: |
I don't agree with MNPackfan32's opinion on this. I thought the statement you referenced above was over the top hyperbole. But I'm really unhappy with the attitude here that we'll just marginalize the opinions of people we disagree with. |
I don't think we need to take cheap, hyperbolic and untrue shots at an entire organization just because they are our rivals. It's how feisty, name-calling debates always start on here.
I don't really know how one can present a side against his original claim, or even that's it is necessary simply because it was so absurd.
It really wasn't a legitimate point worth starting a debate over. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChaRisMa
Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Posts: 8821
Location: Hunting
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
The idea that Minnesota somehow cares less about athletes than other organizations.... Is absurd.
Absurd: Wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate.
It's absurd because it's an unreasonable, illogical, and inappropriate stance. It's pretty Trollololol.
When someone says something is absurd, they are saying that it doesn't make sense because there is no evidence to support the statement.
In this case, Polaris, because I also agree that arguments are too "I disagree. So I'm just going to say the opposite and give no reason why I feel I am right". I ask what we can come up with to support the statement that Minnesota doesn't value NFL players' health like they should.
I'll start. Jim Marshall shot himself and played the same week. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MNPackfan32
Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 9999
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Obviously the Vikings wont have a party in the streets if one of their players die on the field and I have referenced other teams like the Browns mishandling of Colt McCoy's concussion last year. The Vikings were an example and many other teams are guilty of the same things they have done, but they were the first team that came to mind.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DavidatMIZZOU
Joined: 09 Apr 2009
Posts: 14007
Location: The ZOU
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I deleted this because it was mean...
_________________
GO PACK GO!
| mistakebytehlak wrote: |
My god it must be so terrible to have three teams that consistently make the playoffs |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MNPackfan32
Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 9999
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
And yet nobody has answered the bit about AP coming back 12 weeks earlier than Quarless, even though Q can run up a hill and jump onto a box. And we have seen proof that Adrian isn't the recovery freak people like to hype him to be.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JCamGOPACKGO
Joined: 14 Jan 2012
Posts: 767
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Really my only issue with this forum is how some try their best to sh1t on others just cuz they have a differing opinion. Seen it many times and it seems to be the same few repeat offenders. The board will improve drastically when everyone respects their fellow fan and keeps discussion closer to debate than argument...
_________________
Shout out to justo on the avatar! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TedThompson
Joined: 01 Aug 2011
Posts: 802
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| MNPackfan32 wrote: | | And yet nobody has answered the bit about #1 AP coming back 12 weeks earlier than Quarless, even though Q can run up a hill and jump onto a box. And we have seen proof that Adrian isn't the recovery freak people like to hype him to be. |
#1- Is AP back? Is he playing this week? I'll believe that when I see that.
#2- I'm not sure people need to preface everything with "I think". If someone thinks what I said, predict, guess is absurb, that's fine and I take no offense to that.
Again, this is a place where opinions are expressed, and some will be proven to be right and some wrong. No big deal because none of us are always right, and none are always wrong.
Some of you said over a year ago that letting go of Cullen Jenkins was a mistake. Were those people proven right? Even that still gets debated by some.
Some advocated, at the time of the draft and not 20/20 hindsight, that the Packers should select OLB Brooks Reed in that draft.
Yet the Packers won every game until December 18th, so was Sherrod the right pick or should it have been Reed?
Those are the debates I enjoy.
Back to this topic: I love Nick Collins and miss him tremendously. I am very bitter that his career was snuffed out just like that, for many reasons. He was just entering his prime.... quite a few years younger than Ed Reed and Polamalu... I think ascending to the top.
And just like Sterling Sharpe almost 2 decades ago, this franchise lost a very great player in the middle of their prime.
I also am mad about the play because it wasn't Collins fault that no LB's covered J Stewart, and nobody before him could tackle him.
And Collins is not a head-hunter like Louis Delmas.... these things should happen to guys like Delmas, but not Collins.
_________________
"It's the same old Jay," Woodson told ESPN afterward. "We just need to be in position. Jay will throw us the ball." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PackFan4Life
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650
Location: De Pere, WI
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| incognito_man wrote: | | Polaris wrote: |
I don't agree with MNPackfan32's opinion on this. I thought the statement you referenced above was over the top hyperbole. But I'm really unhappy with the attitude here that we'll just marginalize the opinions of people we disagree with. |
I don't think we need to take cheap, hyperbolic and untrue shots at an entire organization just because they are our rivals. It's how feisty, name-calling debates always start on here.
I don't really know how one can present a side against his original claim, or even that's it is necessary simply because it was so absurd.
It really wasn't a legitimate point worth starting a debate over. |
You all can debate this either way, I don't care. But I will say with a smile and certainty, that anything that further marginalizes our bitter rivals is a good thing. Whether it may seem absurd or not I don't care, they are our rivals and deserve it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
