Alright, I Officially Hate Adrian Peterson.

by DJ C-Raig on Nov 19, 2009 11:05 AM PST

In case you're wondering, yes, Adrian Peterson appreciates having former Seahawks guard Steve Hutchinson on his side. Enough so that the Minnesota Vikings star running back laughed Wednesday when asked about that situation when speaking with Seattle reporters.

"You should see me right now," Peterson said in a conference call from Minneapolis. "I'm doing a dance because we've got him and ya'all don't.

"He's the ring leader of this offensive line. It's still funny to me how you let this guy go. He's a leader, he gets the job done. He's a beast, that's the way I explain how he is on the field."

Here's the link to the article.

And then of course there is Housh all but admitting he should have gone to Minnesota. Link.

Tweet Comment 30 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Why would you hate Adrian Peterson? I'd be pumped if I had a Hall of Fame guard blocking for me.

If anything, you should hate the Seahawks for letting him go.

I will smash your face into a jelly.

by Phil Hatzenbuehler on Nov 19, 2009 11:21 AM PST reply actions

I'd put the blame on Hutchinson/the Vikings for putting the poison pill clause in.

by LantermanC on Nov 19, 2009 11:33 AM PST up reply actions

This is the thing that gets me.

I’ve always been confused about why so many people were/are pissed at Ruskell. Hutch wanted to leave and the Vikings used the most devious tactic they could. Maybe Ruskell didn’t handle it perfectly, but there’s too much blame placed at his feet.

by thebyron on Nov 19, 2009 12:59 PM PST up reply actions

Hutch was a pro-bowl caliber guard who got away in a bizarre and seemingly preventable fashion.

People feel the need to scapegoat someone for that decision. They ignore the fact that no one had ever seen the poison pill clause before and few people could have possibly anticipated the ramifications that would have on the transition tag.

by BrianL on Nov 19, 2009 1:59 PM PST up reply actions

Hutch wasn't the first poison pill clause

although it was groundbreaking.

For what its worth, according to Doug Farrar, the Eagles openly talked about P-pilling Hutch two months before the Vikings did it.

by kearly on Nov 19, 2009 9:46 PM PST up reply actions

I don't think we really let him go.

abender20 hates freedom.

by Scruffy Lefty on Nov 19, 2009 11:57 AM PST up reply actions

Wasn't he a restricted free agent?

And weren’t the sides only something like $500,000 apart?

I will smash your face into a jelly.

by Phil Hatzenbuehler on Nov 19, 2009 12:06 PM PST up reply actions

The poison assured that we couldn't sign him.

Ruskell tried to get clever by not using the Franchise tag and save a couple hundred thousand and got burnt.

abender20 hates freedom.

by Scruffy Lefty on Nov 19, 2009 1:31 PM PST up reply actions

In fairness I think just about every GM in the league would have been burned by that poison pill clause.

by BrianL on Nov 19, 2009 2:00 PM PST up reply actions

Farrar said something the other about the Eagles hinting they were thinking about using a poison pill on Hutch

Thats the first I’d ever heard of that though.

by Nate Dogg on Nov 19, 2009 2:13 PM PST up reply actions

I want to agree

But Ruskell was probably the only GM in the NFL who wasn’t willing to franchise a player that was unanimously regarded as the best player at his position. Seriously, how many times ever in the NFL has a team just let a future HOF entering his prime to hit open FA?

by kearly on Nov 19, 2009 9:54 PM PST up reply actions

But he didn't let Hutch "hit open FA."

by redwolf75 on Nov 19, 2009 10:15 PM PST up reply actions

The transition tag isn't open free agency.

by BrianL on Nov 19, 2009 11:38 PM PST up reply actions

I disagree

The T-tag has about as much protection as the practice squad. The poison pill was just one way of bypassing it. For all intents and purposes, he was in open free agency. Why would you argue otherwise- since even the T-tag defenders say that the point of it all was for him to establish his value in an open market.

by kearly on Nov 20, 2009 7:03 PM PST up reply actions

He was transition taged

by Nate Dogg on Nov 19, 2009 2:14 PM PST up reply actions

No, that was the difference in the transition tag and the franchise tag.

They were actually several millions apart in negotiations. Ruskell, in good faith only slapped the transition tag on Hutchinson so that Hutchinson could let the market dictate his value.

Hutchinson, his agent, and Minnesota were the ones that ended up being the one to blame.

Also, people conveniently forget that Ruskell fought like hell to get Hutchinson back after he signed that bullshit contract, filing an appeal.

Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.

by Carl Shinyama on Nov 19, 2009 7:19 PM PST up reply actions

I blame Hutch the least of the 3 parties

I blame Minnesota the most for essentially cheating.

I blame Ruskell after that for not doing the obvious by Franchising.

I blame Hutch for signing the deal, but there has only been one guard in history who didn’t jump to sign a $49 million dollar deal, and he ironically also screwed the Seahawks.

by kearly on Nov 19, 2009 9:51 PM PST up reply actions