Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him

A forum for the hard core Minnesota Vikings fan. Discuss upcoming games, opponents, trades, draft or what ever is on the minds of Viking fans!

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Maelstrom88
Franchise Player
Posts: 442
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2016 4:38 am

Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him

Post by Maelstrom88 » Mon Feb 27, 2017 2:59 am

https://www.google.com/amp/www.cbssport ... g-him/amp/

Do you guys agree? I actually would rather have signed Vick and kept our first round pick but what's done is done.
0 x
Offseason Goal: Draft durable, tough, intelligent offensive lineman who are dependable technicians and avoid penalties aka drive killers.

User avatar
Texas Vike
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3669
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:52 am

Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him

Post by Texas Vike » Mon Feb 27, 2017 7:54 am

Maelstrom88 wrote:https://www.google.com/amp/www.cbssport ... g-him/amp/

Do you guys agree? I actually would rather have signed Vick and kept our first round pick but what's done is done.

No, I don't agree at all. Bradford played very well and I think Vick's retirement speaks for itself--a reflection of how the league perceives his talents in 2017.
0 x

User avatar
fiestavike
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3571
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am

Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him

Post by fiestavike » Mon Feb 27, 2017 8:50 am

I think its another case of short term vs long term.

As Zimmer recently said, Bradford is a great thrower. I think that's a fair comment that leaves plenty of room for his shortcomings.
If everything around him is great, Bradford will put up good numbers, but there's a reason he's been bouncing around. His shortcomings are real.

The trade for Bradford makes sense if you think we're 'in a window' and he can play well enough to get you over the hump, but doesn't make sense if you think we have a ways to go.

Its my honest opinion that Shaun Hill could have taken the Vikings to 8-8, 9-7 without having to overhaul the offense...but we would still be in the market for a QB. Of course, Bradford might be had for a 4th or 5th from the Eagles at this juncture just to slough off his salary.

I think it was a bonehead move to trade for Bradford. I fear the Wilf's didn't want to open the stadium with a Shaun Hill lead team and a bunch of empty seats and scrambled around to get Bradford. But I wouldn't have signed Vick in any case.
0 x

User avatar
IrishViking
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:02 am

Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him

Post by IrishViking » Mon Feb 27, 2017 9:30 am

Yeah... no. Maybe six years ago?

Glad you seem to have turned your life around regarding dogs but I don't think you are on the upswing career wise at 36 haha.
0 x

autobon7
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1044
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 12:20 pm

Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him

Post by autobon7 » Mon Feb 27, 2017 12:38 pm

No chance I would want Vick over SB.......pipe dream by Vick
0 x

User avatar
losperros
Commissioner
Posts: 10041
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2003 9:47 am
Location: Burbank, California

Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him

Post by losperros » Mon Feb 27, 2017 1:16 pm

If I was the GM, I wouldn't have signed Vick if he was the last QB on the planet. And not just because of his disgusting dog business.

Vick was a heartbreaker. He was always good enough for some cool highlight reels during the season, which made one think he was going to be a stud, but he couldn't find his way to a Championship Game if he bought tickets to it. Despite running up some impressive stats, Vick couldn't find the end zone enough as a passer, and got intercepted or fumbled too often during critical situations. Add to that he was rather injury prone.

Quite honestly, I think Michael Vick was one of the most overrated players in the NFL while he played. Just my two cents.

Bradford isn't Tom Brady, that's true. But he should be good for Shurmur's offense once the Vikings clean up the OL and get a RB who fits the system.
0 x

User avatar
720pete
Pro Bowl Elite Player
Posts: 628
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 11:07 pm

Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him

Post by 720pete » Mon Feb 27, 2017 7:11 pm

Vick played terribly in his years as a backup.
0 x

User avatar
Cliff
Site Admin
Posts: 8503
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 5:51 pm
Location: Kentucky

Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him

Post by Cliff » Tue Feb 28, 2017 7:05 am

The Vikings certainly didn't make a mistake as far as not choosing Vick if you ask me.

As far asking if Bradford was the right choice, it's all in your perception. In hindsight, after the team missed the playoffs, there's an argument to be made that it wasn't worth it. On the other hand, if you think Bradford can be the team's quarterback for the next 5+ years and play at an above average level then it was probably worth it. That said, if I was calling the shots I'd still go after QBs in the draft. This year I don't expect that to happen due to the shortcomings on the offensive line but I'd like to see them draft another QB in the first two rounds in 2018. They need to get out of the habit of waiting until they have draft QB for need.
0 x

User avatar
fiestavike
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3571
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am

Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him

Post by fiestavike » Tue Feb 28, 2017 8:12 am

Cliff wrote: As far asking if Bradford was the right choice, it's all in your perception. In hindsight, after the team missed the playoffs, there's an argument to be made that it wasn't worth it. On the other hand, if you think Bradford can be the team's quarterback for the next 5+ years and play at an above average level then it was probably worth it.
The trouble with that calculation is that they could have him now for far less than a 1st. As you said, they didn't make the playoffs anyway. Its hard to make a case that they didn't give up all that capital for ONE SEASON, and it turned out to be an 8-8 season. The only added value is that Bradford got a season under his belt in "the system". But they changed the system, and he already knows Shurmur's system. Is that worth a 1st round pick? Also, the Vikings might be in position to go after a Cousins in FA or Garapollo via trade, or to select another QB with their 1st, depending on how the season had finished.
Cliff wrote: That said, if I was calling the shots I'd still go after QBs in the draft. This year I don't expect that to happen due to the shortcomings on the offensive line but I'd like to see them draft another QB in the first two rounds in 2018. They need to get out of the habit of waiting until they have draft QB for need.
This is true. I don't think the Vikings are going to commit to Bradford for the long term anyway if its going to cost them 20 million a season. He's not that guy. Would he be willing to sign a long term deal at 10-12 million a season? Maybe the Vikings would commit to him in that case.

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.
0 x

autobon7
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1044
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 12:20 pm

Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him

Post by autobon7 » Tue Feb 28, 2017 8:37 am

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.
0 x

User avatar
fiestavike
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3571
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am

Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him

Post by fiestavike » Tue Feb 28, 2017 8:43 am

autobon7 wrote: 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.
0 x

autobon7
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1044
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 12:20 pm

Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him

Post by autobon7 » Tue Feb 28, 2017 8:46 am

fiestavike wrote:
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]

Had they not made the trade then they would have written off the season before it even started. They felt they were in a win now situation (which I agree with) and had to make a move. If they made the POs would you also say that it was the wrong move?
0 x

User avatar
fiestavike
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3571
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am

Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him

Post by fiestavike » Tue Feb 28, 2017 8:53 am

autobon7 wrote: 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.
Had they not made the trade then they would have written off the season before it even started. They felt they were in a win now situation (which I agree with) and had to make a move. If they made the POs would you also say that it was the wrong move?
That's basically the argument. They gave up a 1st for one season worth of play. There's no other way to honestly look at it. I don't think that can be justified as a responsible move by a GM, and I think the decision was, perhaps, driven by opening a new stadium, not by the teams best interest.

Yes, it was the wrong move, even if they made the playoffs.
0 x

autobon7
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1044
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 12:20 pm

Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him

Post by autobon7 » Tue Feb 28, 2017 9:03 am

fiestavike wrote: That's basically the argument. They gave up a 1st for one season worth of play. There's no other way to honestly look at it. I don't think that can be justified as a responsible move by a GM, and I think the decision was, perhaps, driven by opening a new stadium, not by the teams best interest.

Yes, it was the wrong move, even if they made the playoffs.
We will have to agree to disagree..... :tongue:
0 x

User avatar
fiestavike
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3571
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am

Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him

Post by fiestavike » Tue Feb 28, 2017 9:12 am

autobon7 wrote: We will have to agree to disagree..... :tongue:
that's fine, but which part do you disagree with? That it was for one season? that is wasn't worth it? That it wouldn't be worth it even if the team made the playoffs?
0 x

Post Reply