Vikings Message Board.Com

chicagopurple wrote:Can he throw deep balls accurately? Not frequently but seemingly better then Teddy.

It's my opinion that Bradford's accuracy has gotten worse since he's gotten here. Definitely more happy feet, but I guess I'd have happy feet behind this line too.

Mothman wrote:
"Probably"? Based on a handful of decent pre-season games?

Heinecke has shown a little promise, but its based more on Bradford's limitations. At his best he is slightly above average. He is a middling QB with no upside and too many fatal flaws to ever be elite or anything close to it.

The point is that longterm, Bradford will never be the answer. Three teams have found that firsthand, and the rest of the league already knows. And my main point is that this team is making bad, shortsighted decisions, like trading for Bradford, and like sticking with him when its obvious he doesn't amount to much, and he's compounding the problems the team already has. Instead they should be looking longterm for someone with the capicity to make better out of the opportunities the offense has on the field (however limited), or addressing the problems at the root of their struggles (OL) with the same resources.

fiestavike wrote: I think this team would be at least 6-4 (if not better) with Shaun Hill under center.

Heinecke would be the most sensible play longterm. Can he play at least as good as Sam? probably, but let's find out. If the Vikings move on from Bradford, and Peterson, along with several other players who carry 0 or minimal cap hits, they can clear between 50-60 million to work on the offensive line.

Wow. These are extraordinarily over-reaching, fantastical estimates.

fiestavike wrote:
Heinecke has shown a little promise, but its based more on Bradford's limitations. At his best he is slightly above average. He is a middling QB with no upside and too many fatal flaws to ever be elite or anything close to it.

The point is that longterm, Bradford will never be the answer. Three teams have found that firsthand, and the rest of the league already knows. And my main point is that this team is making bad, shortsighted decisions, like trading for Bradford, and like sticking with him when its obvious he doesn't amount to much, and he's compounding the problems the team already has. Instead they should be looking longterm for someone with the capicity to make better out of the opportunities the offense has on the field (however limited), or addressing the problems at the root of their struggles (OL) with the same resources.

We made a "short-sighted" decision because we thought we had a chance at a deep playoff run with a decent starting QB. Shaun Hill is not even a starting QB, Bradford is. He's roughly average in most statistical categories but that means half the league's starting QBs are worse than him, therefore qualifying him as decent. None of which means we shouldn't look to shore up the OL.

Purple Martin wrote:We made a "short-sighted" decision because we thought we had a chance at a deep playoff run with a decent starting QB. Shaun Hill is not even a starting QB, Bradford is. He's roughly average in most statistical categories but that means half the league's starting QBs are worse than him, therefore qualifying him as decent. None of which means we shouldn't look to shore up the OL.

Well said.

The deepest flaw exposed by the Bradford trade is the one that necessitated it in the first place. For a decade now, the Vikings have been drafting young QBs in the first or second round (Jackson, Ponder, Bridgewater) and then putting all of their eggs in one basket and settling for backups who have little to no shot at becoming long term starters themselves. The Bradford trade was a direct consequence of their insistence on repeating the same mistake again.

There's definitely an argument to be made that the Vikings don't use their resources wisely enough and there's also an argument to be made that they didn't accurately assess their chances to make a deep playoff run in the first place, although it's harder to make that argument when such a run remains possible.

i wouldn't say bradford clearly isn't the long term answer. what he has done behind no offensive line whatsoever, or run game has been pretty impressive. only 2 interceptions? if he had more time to throw he would be playing better.

Mothman wrote:
Well said.

The deepest flaw exposed by the Bradford trade is the one that necessitated it in the first place.

this is the truth IMO

Purple Martin wrote:
We made a "short-sighted" decision because we thought we had a chance at a deep playoff run with a decent starting QB. Shaun Hill is not even a starting QB, Bradford is. He's roughly average in most statistical categories but that means half the league's starting QBs are worse than him, therefore qualifying him as decent. None of which means we shouldn't look to shore up the OL.

The idea that a deep playoff run could justify such a decision is the problem. I guess if you think Bradford could develop into an elite QB it would change the equation, but given that (to my eyes) he is fatally flawed to never be more than average, it was a terrible move. Either the Vikings are back to their eternally coming up short ways of mortaging resources for a short term goal (deep playoff run) or they got their analysis of Sam Bradford terribly wrong, almost to the point of a fireable offense.

I'm Joining You Norv, #### this team

Laserman wrote:I'm Joining You Norv, #### this team