View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:55 pm



Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
 Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him 
Author Message
Pro Bowl Elite Player

Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 12:20 pm
Posts: 993
Post Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
fiestavike wrote:

Seriously, Bradford's last year is what we got for our first round pick. THAT'S IT. Its not really relevant how great he was or wasn't or what the circumstances were. It doesn't change the fact that they rented Bradford for one year in exchange for a 1st round pick.


So you are not expecting SB to return? Just trying to understand where you are coming from with the "one year" comment.


Tue Feb 28, 2017 10:53 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
Posts: 3226
Post Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
autobon7 wrote:
fiestavike wrote:

Seriously, Bradford's last year is what we got for our first round pick. THAT'S IT. Its not really relevant how great he was or wasn't or what the circumstances were. It doesn't change the fact that they rented Bradford for one year in exchange for a 1st round pick.


So you are not expecting SB to return? Just trying to understand where you are coming from with the "one year" comment.


I've explained it several times in this thread and in direct response to some of your posts.


Tue Feb 28, 2017 11:04 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 5:51 pm
Posts: 8066
Location: Kentucky
Post Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
fiestavike wrote:
Unless they traded for Bradford now. Or if they prefer Garapollo, Cousins, Tyrod Taylor, or a drafting a Rookie. They would have all these options...and they would have their 1st round pick to boot.


Perhaps they could have waited until the season ended and all of those options still be available ... but that's basically telling the rest of the team that you gave up on the season. In a year where you think you can be a contender that just doesn't seem realistic.

Quote:
I don't think it comes down to that. I think it comes down to the reality that they gave up a 1st rounder for 1 season of play.


Are they only going to have Bradford for one season? That doesn't seem likely to me. I expect he'll be under contract with the Vikings beyond that one year, even if it's for more money than you might like.

**Edit - I think I understand your one year comment better now. They didn't know if he'd be worth more than that when they made the trade. Is that the logic? My apologies if you've explained already, I didn't see it.

_________________
"Everyone has a plan 'till they get punched in the mouth." - Mike Tyson


Tue Feb 28, 2017 11:24 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
Posts: 3226
Post Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
Cliff wrote:
**Edit - I think I understand your one year comment better now. They didn't know if he'd be worth more than that when they made the trade. Is that the logic? My apologies if you've explained already, I didn't see it.


No, the point is that if they had not traded for him last season, they could trade for him (or anyone else) this season. If they wanted Bradford, they would be able to get him and his 18 million dollar salary for far less than a 1st round pick right now.

They could basically be in the exact same situation as they are now and still have a first round pick.

All they gained was having Bradford last season. That's the only difference.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said they didn't want to "give up" on last season. That might not be realistic, but what they did was irresponsible. They gave up a 1st round pick for one season of play.


Tue Feb 28, 2017 11:32 am
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player

Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 12:20 pm
Posts: 993
Post Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
fiestavike wrote:
Cliff wrote:
**Edit - I think I understand your one year comment better now. They didn't know if he'd be worth more than that when they made the trade. Is that the logic? My apologies if you've explained already, I didn't see it.


No, the point is that if they had not traded for him last season, they could trade for him (or anyone else) this season. If they wanted Bradford, they would be able to get him and his 18 million dollar salary for far less than a 1st round pick right now.

They could basically be in the exact same situation as they are now and still have a first round pick.

All they gained was having Bradford last season. That's the only difference.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said they didn't want to "give up" on last season. That might not be realistic, but what they did was irresponsible. They gave up a 1st round pick for one season of play.


I still agree with what Jim said.....no guarantee that Bradford would have been available after the season. We would also be competing with other QB hungry teams no doubt. Hell if he would have had an awesome season and went to the playoffs the Eagles would prolly ride that wagon another year. I just can't see the Vikings throwing away a season to HOPE that they can land a worthy QB. Now THAT would be irresponsible.


Tue Feb 28, 2017 11:46 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 5:51 pm
Posts: 8066
Location: Kentucky
Post Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
fiestavike wrote:
They gave up a 1st round pick for one season of play.


I understand what you're saying but logically it doesn't make sense to me. They will have had Bradford last year and this year which is already two and I think they're likely to sign him into the future as well which they have a much better chance of doing with him on the team.

_________________
"Everyone has a plan 'till they get punched in the mouth." - Mike Tyson


Tue Feb 28, 2017 12:00 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
Posts: 3226
Post Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
Cliff wrote:
fiestavike wrote:
They gave up a 1st round pick for one season of play.


I understand what you're saying but logically it doesn't make sense to me. They will have had Bradford last year and this year which is already two and I think they're likely to sign him into the future as well which they have a much better chance of doing with him on the team.


Image


Tue Feb 28, 2017 12:09 pm
Profile
Starter
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2016 4:38 am
Posts: 183
Post Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
I think the real problem is it showed Spielman's incompetence in not really having a long-term plan if Teddy Bridgewater had a season-ending injury. They clearly we're not comfortable with Shaun Hill for more than a game or two and in my opinion your backup quarterback has to be someone you can count on for the whole season if need be. They should have drafted another quarterback that they were developing behind Teddy and they felt comfortable with should Teddy go down for a long time instead of having to go into panic mode and give up a first-round pick on a guy who's blown out his ACL twice. Of course they also should have invested more in the offensive of line than just guys off the scrap heap but whatever.

_________________
Offseason Goal: Draft durable, tough, intelligent offensive lineman who are dependable technicians and avoid penalties aka drive killers.


Last edited by Maelstrom88 on Tue Feb 28, 2017 1:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Tue Feb 28, 2017 12:25 pm
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37219
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
Maelstrom88 wrote:
I think the real problem is it showed Spielman's incompetence in not really having a long-term plan if Teddy Bridgewater had a season-ending injury. They clearly we're not comfortable with Shaun Hill for more than a game or two and in my opinion your backup quarterback has to be someone you can count on for the whole season if need be. They should have drafted another quarterback that they were developing behind Teddy and they felt comfortable with should Teddy go down for a long time instead of having to go into panic mode and give up a first-round pick on a guy who's blown out his ACL twice. Of course they also should have invested more in the offensive of line then just guys off the scrap heap but whatever.


:appl:

That was definitely the real problem.


Tue Feb 28, 2017 1:02 pm
Profile
All Pro Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 11:38 pm
Posts: 1611
Post Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
I think they had a plan..
They should have had Heinicke. What was the chance that he would be on the injury list with that kind of injury.

What makes you think that Shurmur didn't have say in who they got for QB.
Norv wasn't coming back this year. He was gone. So maybe they have who they want.


Tue Feb 28, 2017 1:51 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
Posts: 3226
Post Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
Maelstrom88 wrote:
I think the real problem is it showed Spielman's incompetence in not really having a long-term plan if Teddy Bridgewater had a season-ending injury. They clearly we're not comfortable with Shaun Hill for more than a game or two and in my opinion your backup quarterback has to be someone you can count on for the whole season if need be. They should have drafted another quarterback that they were developing behind Teddy and they felt comfortable with should Teddy go down for a long time instead of having to go into panic mode and give up a first-round pick on a guy who's blown out his ACL twice. Of course they also should have invested more in the offensive of line than just guys off the scrap heap but whatever.


They also could have responded by signing or trading for a less costly option. They didn't have to panic and blow a first round pick.


Tue Feb 28, 2017 1:58 pm
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37219
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
fiestavike wrote:
Maelstrom88 wrote:
I think the real problem is it showed Spielman's incompetence in not really having a long-term plan if Teddy Bridgewater had a season-ending injury. They clearly we're not comfortable with Shaun Hill for more than a game or two and in my opinion your backup quarterback has to be someone you can count on for the whole season if need be. They should have drafted another quarterback that they were developing behind Teddy and they felt comfortable with should Teddy go down for a long time instead of having to go into panic mode and give up a first-round pick on a guy who's blown out his ACL twice. Of course they also should have invested more in the offensive of line than just guys off the scrap heap but whatever.


They also could have responded by signing or trading for a less costly option. They didn't have to panic and blow a first round pick.



No, they didn't. While the move does reek of desperation, Halfgiz raises an interesting point: if I remember correctly, it's been reported that Shurmur was involved in the decision to get Bradford. It's entirely possible they went out and "got their guy" for the long term and that's why they made the trade. After all, Bridgewater's probably done as a Viking and i doubt they thought Heinicke was their future at the position.


Tue Feb 28, 2017 2:10 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
Posts: 3226
Post Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
Mothman wrote:
fiestavike wrote:
Maelstrom88 wrote:
I think the real problem is it showed Spielman's incompetence in not really having a long-term plan if Teddy Bridgewater had a season-ending injury. They clearly we're not comfortable with Shaun Hill for more than a game or two and in my opinion your backup quarterback has to be someone you can count on for the whole season if need be. They should have drafted another quarterback that they were developing behind Teddy and they felt comfortable with should Teddy go down for a long time instead of having to go into panic mode and give up a first-round pick on a guy who's blown out his ACL twice. Of course they also should have invested more in the offensive of line than just guys off the scrap heap but whatever.


They also could have responded by signing or trading for a less costly option. They didn't have to panic and blow a first round pick.



No, they didn't. While the move does reek of desperation, Halfgiz raises an interesting point: if I remember correctly, it's been reported that Shurmur was involved in the decision to get Bradford. It's entirely possible they went out and "got their guy" for the long term and that's why they made the trade. After all, Bridgewater's probably done as a Viking and i doubt they thought Heinicke was their future at the position.


That's possible. If that's the plan, Bradford would be well served to sign a team friendly long term deal. This is likely his last stop as a legitimate longterm starter if that's the plan.

Something like 5 years, 85 million, with 25 guaranteed. 15 fully guaranteed year 1, 15 with 5 guaranteed years 2 and 3, and 20 mil with nothing guaranteed years 4 and 5.


Tue Feb 28, 2017 2:45 pm
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player

Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 12:20 pm
Posts: 993
Post Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
Interesting take from another forum....

The Minnesota Vikings knew with a 99% degree of certainty what Teddy Bridgewater's future was within 24 hours of his injury. It was only solidified after surgery a few days later. The reason they made the trade for Bradford was because they knew what the rest of the world only now seems to slowly be comprehending. For all the writers and fans that labeled the trade as a panic move were either clueless or in denial. The trade was not made for the season, or even short term. It was done for the next decade of Viking football. How that pans out remains to be seen, but the price for a decade of service from Bradford was quite reasonable. For anyone that disagrees, name a better scenario? You're the GM. Bridgewater is out, and the information you have been given indicates that his career is over. You need a QB, and the season is imminent. Throw away any chance at 2016, and wait for the draft? How long would it take to groom a 2017 draft pick to take over? 2 years, best case? That puts the window to contend back to 2019. And that's assuming you hit on a QB draft pick. FA? Who? How often do starting caliber QBs hit free agency?

The short sighted, denial driven ignorance surrounding this whole QB situation is literally mind boggling. Why it is even still a topic of discussion is just staggering. If Bradford isn't the answer, it really doesn't even matter, because without him the question remains even larger than it does with him. Everyone with any football knowledge knows that the overwhelming problem with this team is the O line. It may take a couple off seasons to get it fixed, but think about the mess this team would be in without an O line, no QB, the imminent departure of a franchise RB, and the lack of a deep threat WR. The next few years will prove that not only was RS justified in making the trade, I believe it will prove to be one of his finest moves as GM. Possibly even brilliant.
From agpilot


Tue Feb 28, 2017 3:40 pm
Profile
Fenrir
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:28 pm
Posts: 10701
Location: Hawaii
Post Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
I think there's a little truth in all of it. Bridgewater had a far more serious injury than most knew, Bradford is more than a stop gap, and they had to pay a high price for him. He's finally getting some continuity at OC and I hope that means he lives up to what he was projected at coming out of college.

The entire what he's worth now and how things played out is based purely on speculation. It's not arguable because it's not rooted in fact.


Tue Feb 28, 2017 7:24 pm
Profile
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pm
Posts: 6549
Post Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
fiestavike wrote:
autobon7 wrote:
fiestavike wrote:

I don't really see any way that the Bradford trade can be justified in hindsight. The best justification is that they took a shot at salvaging last season, and they missed the shot. But without giving up the 1st they wouldn't have even taken a shot. Its not a strong argument. It was very reckless and unimpressive.


I look at it this way.....can't blame the 8-8 season on SB. On those 2-4 games that we should have/possibly could have won does the blame fall clearly on SB? I don't think so. I would rather go into this offseason with only one large missing piece of the puzzle (the OL) rather than 2 (OL and QB). One has to remember that we were 5-0 at one point and the sky was the limit....not SB.


I don't think you got my point. I'm not blaming Sam Bradford for anything. I'm saying they gave up a 1st for him and it amounted to an 8-8 season. They could not have SB now for probably a 4th-5th as the eagles are trying to slough off salary.

It was a terrible investment.

Disagree with the investment part.

There is a very strong probability that Kirk Cousins isn't going to be available, let alone that the Vikings would have been able to win a bidding war for the guy. As for Garoppolo, the Vikings have no trade assets that would be valuable enough to obtain him in a trade. And even if they did, Bill Belichick would likely fleece the Vikings, anyway.

I look at it this way. The Vikings traded this year's first-round pick for Sam Bradford. There is no quarterback in the draft this year who is worth close to that, and any quarterback they would draft would be 2-3 years from contributing, if ever. The Vikings got experienced, first-round talent in Sam Bradford for a first and a fourth. I'll take that investment.

As for Michael Vick ... the guy needs to just shut up and be retired.

_________________
Image
Go ahead. I dare you.
Underestimate this man.


Tue Feb 28, 2017 9:41 pm
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player

Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 12:20 pm
Posts: 993
Post Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
J. Kapp 11 wrote:
fiestavike wrote:

I don't really see any way that the Bradford trade can be justified in hindsight. The best justification is that they took a shot at salvaging last season, and they missed the shot. But without giving up the 1st they wouldn't have even taken a shot. Its not a strong argument. It was very reckless and unimpressive.


I look at it this way.....can't blame the 8-8 season on SB. On those 2-4 games that we should have/possibly could have won does the blame fall clearly on SB? I don't think so. I would rather go into this offseason with only one large missing piece of the puzzle (the OL) rather than 2 (OL and QB). One has to remember that we were 5-0 at one point and the sky was the limit....not SB.


I don't think you got my point. I'm not blaming Sam Bradford for anything. I'm saying they gave up a 1st for him and it amounted to an 8-8 season. They could not have SB now for probably a 4th-5th as the eagles are trying to slough off salary.

It was a terrible investment.[/quote]
Disagree with the investment part.

There is a very strong probability that Kirk Cousins isn't going to be available, let alone that the Vikings would have been able to win a bidding war for the guy. As for Garoppolo, the Vikings have no trade assets that would be valuable enough to obtain him in a trade. And even if they did, Bill Belichick would likely fleece the Vikings, anyway.

I look at it this way. The Vikings traded this year's first-round pick for Sam Bradford. There is no quarterback in the draft this year who is worth close to that, and any quarterback they would draft would be 2-3 years from contributing, if ever. The Vikings got experienced, first-round talent in Sam Bradford for a first and a fourth. I'll take that investment.



Agree......and if they were not able to attain a quality QB for 2017 then we would be pissing away 2 seasons. Simply do not agree with fiesta.


Wed Mar 01, 2017 8:56 am
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 11:07 pm
Posts: 546
Post Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
autobon7 wrote:
I look at it this way. The Vikings traded this year's first-round pick for Sam Bradford. There is no quarterback in the draft this year who is worth close to that, and any quarterback they would draft would be 2-3 years from contributing, if ever. The Vikings got experienced, first-round talent in Sam Bradford for a first and a fourth. I'll take that investment.


That's how I see it too. Picking a starting caliber QB in the draft is incredibly difficult. Just look at who gets drafted at QB recently in the 1st round:

2015 1st overall - Jameis Winston (hit)
2015 2nd overall - Marcus Mariota (hit)
2014 3rd overall - Blake Bortles (miss)
2014 22nd overall - Johnny Manziel (miss)
2014 32nd overall - Teddy Bridgwater (???)
2013 16th overall - EJ Manuel (miss)
2012 1st overall - Andrew Luck (hit)
2012 2nd overall - RG3 (???)
2012 8th overall - Ryan Tannehill (???)
2012 22nd overall - Brandon Weeden (miss)
2011 1st overall - Cam Newton (hit)
2011 8th overall - Jake Locker (miss)
2011 10th overall - Blaine Gabbert (miss)
2011 12th overall - Christian Ponder (miss)

4 hits, 7 misses, and three question marks

Vikings whiffed three times - Bridgewater, Ponder, TJack. As I see it now, Bradford has the ability to be the long-term starter at QB for this team.

Vikings QB draft history:
2014 Rd 1 pick 32 Teddy Bridgewater
2011 Rd 1 pick 12 Christian Ponder
2010 Rd 6 pick 199 Joe Webb
2008 Rd 5 pick 137 John David Booty
2007 Rd 7 pick 217 Tyler Thigpen
2006 Rd 2 pick 64 Tavaris Jackson
1999 Rd 1 pick 11 Daunte Culpepper


Fri Mar 03, 2017 9:32 am
Profile
Fenrir
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:28 pm
Posts: 10701
Location: Hawaii
Post Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
I think RG3 can be put in the miss category. Even if he somehow turns it around, the amount the skins gave up for him was a massive miss.


Fri Mar 03, 2017 4:53 pm
Profile
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 6:28 pm
Posts: 6601
Post Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
Vick would have quarterbacked us to a 28 - 3 Super Bowl lead, where we would have blown it in the final 8 minutes of the game. :wink:

_________________
A Randy Moss fan for life. A Kevin Williams fan for life.


Sat Mar 04, 2017 7:12 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 50 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.