View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sat Oct 21, 2017 12:01 am



Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
 Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him 
Author Message
Starter
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2016 4:38 am
Posts: 183
Post Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
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.

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


Mon Feb 27, 2017 2:59 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:52 am
Posts: 3432
Post Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
Maelstrom88 wrote:
https://www.google.com/amp/www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/michael-vick-officially-retires-says-vikings-dropped-the-ball-by-not-signing-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.


Mon Feb 27, 2017 7:54 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
Posts: 3225
Post Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
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.


Mon Feb 27, 2017 8:50 am
Profile
All Pro Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:02 am
Posts: 1616
Post Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
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.


Mon Feb 27, 2017 9:30 am
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player

Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 12:20 pm
Posts: 975
Post Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
No chance I would want Vick over SB.......pipe dream by Vick


Mon Feb 27, 2017 12:38 pm
Profile
Commissioner
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2003 9:47 am
Posts: 10040
Location: Burbank, California
Post Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
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.


Mon Feb 27, 2017 1:16 pm
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 11:07 pm
Posts: 501
Post Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
Vick played terribly in his years as a backup.


Mon Feb 27, 2017 7:11 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 5:51 pm
Posts: 7956
Location: Kentucky
Post Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
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.

_________________
“There is a chance that if I lose 100 pounds, I could be a jockey ...” - Coach Zimmer


Tue Feb 28, 2017 7:05 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
Posts: 3225
Post Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
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.


Tue Feb 28, 2017 8:12 am
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player

Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 12:20 pm
Posts: 975
Post Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
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.


Tue Feb 28, 2017 8:37 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
Posts: 3225
Post Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
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.


Tue Feb 28, 2017 8:43 am
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player

Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 12:20 pm
Posts: 975
Post Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
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?


Tue Feb 28, 2017 8:46 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
Posts: 3225
Post Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
autobon7 wrote:
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?


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.


Tue Feb 28, 2017 8:53 am
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player

Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 12:20 pm
Posts: 975
Post Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
fiestavike wrote:
autobon7 wrote:
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?


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:


Tue Feb 28, 2017 9:03 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
Posts: 3225
Post Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
autobon7 wrote:
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:


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?


Tue Feb 28, 2017 9:12 am
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
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 see your point but it's been clear from the start that one of the reasons they made the trade was because Bradford could play for them for at least 2 years, not just one. They knew they couldn't count on on Bridgewater coming back in 2017. However, I think your basic point that they traded a first round pick for a potential "rental" at QB is still valid.

The problem is, to justify the expense, they probably need to either win the Super Bowl next season or Bradford has to become a long term solution at QB worthy of that first round investment.


Tue Feb 28, 2017 9:26 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 5:51 pm
Posts: 7956
Location: Kentucky
Post Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
fiestavike wrote:
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.


I think Bradford also gives the Vikings a bit of flexibility in drafting. The 2017 draft would almost certainly be a QB in the 1st round anyway because there would be an urgent need. Which puts the Vikings back into the "draft a Christian Ponder type" situation. Bradford played well enough in my opinion for starting QB to not be an area of concern going into the 2017 season. In the end, we used a 1st round pick and got a QB except we know what we have (and don't have) in Bradford. That may actually be a good thing considering the Vikings history at drafting QB over the last 10ish years. The Vikings relying on a rookie right out of the gate at QB doesn't seem to agree with them.

Quote:
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.


It really comes down to your opinion of Bradford. I was pretty happy with him. His play with the condition of the offensive line was pretty impressive to me. It seems like he impressed you far less :)

_________________
“There is a chance that if I lose 100 pounds, I could be a jockey ...” - Coach Zimmer


Tue Feb 28, 2017 9:36 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
Posts: 3225
Post Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
Mothman wrote:
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 see your point but it's been clear from the start that one of the reasons they made the trade was because Bradford could play for them for at least 2 years, not just one. They knew they couldn't count on on Bridgewater coming back in 2017. However, I think your basic point that they traded a first round pick for a potential "rental" at QB is still valid.

The problem is, to justify the expense, they probably need to either win the Super Bowl next season or Bradford has to become a long term solution at QB worthy of that first round investment.


But Bradford could've be had now, either for a late round pick or in Free Agency. Everything that goes forward from this point really isn't stemming from that 1st. They gave that up for last year and last year only. However they attempt to justify it as more than that is nonsense.


Tue Feb 28, 2017 9:37 am
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player

Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 12:20 pm
Posts: 975
Post Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
fiestavike 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?[/quote]

If we entered this offseason in need of a QB then we would most likely use the 1st round pick on an unproven (at NFL lvl) player with zero guarantees. At this point we have a better than average QB that is a known commodity. He does have a history of injury but played every game he was asked last year. Our season fell apart not because of SBs play.....it could have played out differently with 2-3 more wins and a trip to the playoffs. I prefer to go with a known commodity as opposed to a question mark (like Siemian, Goff, etc).


Tue Feb 28, 2017 9:38 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
Posts: 3225
Post Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
Cliff wrote:

I think Bradford also gives the Vikings a bit of flexibility in drafting. The 2017 draft would almost certainly be a QB in the 1st round anyway because there would be an urgent need.


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.



Cliff wrote:
It really comes down to your opinion of Bradford. I was pretty happy with him. His play with the condition of the offensive line was pretty impressive to me. It seems like he impressed you far less :)


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.


Tue Feb 28, 2017 9:43 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
Posts: 3225
Post Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
autobon7 wrote:

If we entered this offseason in need of a QB then we would most likely use the 1st round pick on an unproven (at NFL lvl) player with zero guarantees. At this point we have a better than average QB that is a known commodity. He does have a history of injury but played every game he was asked last year. Our season fell apart not because of SBs play.....it could have played out differently with 2-3 more wins and a trip to the playoffs. I prefer to go with a known commodity as opposed to a question mark (like Siemian, Goff, etc).


Why? If you like Bradford, you could have him. The Eagles just drafted a 1st round QB, they are already cash strapped, and Sam Bradford is due 18 million dollars. He would not be an Eagle this year no matter what. The Eagles really fleeced us. Its not quite Hershall Walker, but its somewhere around the Percy Harvin deal, with Rick as the loser in this one.


Tue Feb 28, 2017 9:47 am
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
fiestavike wrote:
But Bradford could've be had now, either for a late round pick or in Free Agency. Everything that goes forward from this point really isn't stemming from that 1st. They gave that up for last year and last year only. However they attempt to justify it as more than that is nonsense.



Ah, I see your point now. Of course, the difference between trading for him and waiting for him to hit free agency is that a trade guaranteed the Vikings would get their player. As a free agent, Bradford would have had other options. It's also worth noting that he was slated to be the Eagles starter last season. There's no way to know how their QB situation would have played out if that had been the case. If he had stayed, played well and the Eagles and had made the playoffs, would they have been willing to part with him at all, much less for a late round pick? I doubt he could have been acquired for the latter, even with Wentz waiting in the wings and even if they hadn't made the playoffs. 29 year old starting QBs are more valuable than that.


Tue Feb 28, 2017 9:49 am
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player

Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 12:20 pm
Posts: 975
Post Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
Mothman wrote:
fiestavike wrote:
But Bradford could've be had now, either for a late round pick or in Free Agency. Everything that goes forward from this point really isn't stemming from that 1st. They gave that up for last year and last year only. However they attempt to justify it as more than that is nonsense.



Ah, I see your point now. Of course, the difference between trading for him and waiting for him to hit free agency is that a trade guaranteed the Vikings would get their player. As a free agent, Bradford would have had other options. It's also worth noting that he was slated to be the Eagles starter last season. There's no way to know how their QB situation would have played out if that had been the case. If he had stayed, played well and the Eagles and had made the playoffs, would they have been willing to part with him at all, much less for a late round pick? I doubt he could have been acquired for the latter, even with Wentz waiting in the wings and even if they hadn't made the playoffs. 29 year old starting QBs are more valuable than that.


Excellent point Jim.....goes back to my "known commodity" point I was trying to make.


Tue Feb 28, 2017 9:55 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
Posts: 3225
Post Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
Mothman wrote:
fiestavike wrote:
But Bradford could've be had now, either for a late round pick or in Free Agency. Everything that goes forward from this point really isn't stemming from that 1st. They gave that up for last year and last year only. However they attempt to justify it as more than that is nonsense.



Ah, I see your point now. Of course, the difference between trading for him and waiting for him to hit free agency is that a trade guaranteed the Vikings would get their player. As a free agent, Bradford would have had other options. It's also worth noting that he was slated to be the Eagles starter last season. There's no way to know how their QB situation would have played out if that had been the case. If he had stayed, played well and the Eagles and had made the playoffs, would they have been willing to part with him at all, much less for a late round pick? I doubt he could have been acquired for the latter, even with Wentz waiting in the wings and even if they hadn't made the playoffs. 29 year old starting QBs are more valuable than that.


I suppose if he played great all last season his market might be higher, but nobody would be giving up a 1st for Bradford again. The Vikings would now be in position to pursue whoever they wanted. Frankly, I think it would be a mistake not to be investigating a player like Cousins now. 14 million of Bradford's contract is not guaranteed, and if they see Cousins as a significan't upgrade they shouldn't rule it out. Of course, that's tougher without a 1st round pick to throw in the mix. Anyway, now that they've settled for Shurmur I think Bradford is his boy for this year.


Tue Feb 28, 2017 9:56 am
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 11:07 pm
Posts: 501
Post Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
I think I'd rather have spent a first rounder on Bradford than try to spend a 1st or 2nd round pick in this draft trying to find a starting caliber QB.


Tue Feb 28, 2017 9:59 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
Posts: 3225
Post Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
720pete wrote:
I think I'd rather have spent a first rounder on Bradford than try to spend a 1st or 2nd round pick in this draft trying to find a starting caliber QB.


sigh. I give up.


Tue Feb 28, 2017 10:02 am
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player

Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 12:20 pm
Posts: 975
Post Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
Cliff wrote:

It really comes down to your opinion of Bradford. I was pretty happy with him. His play with the condition of the offensive line was pretty impressive to me. It seems like he impressed you far less :)


I'm with you Cliff......I was happy with his play/leadership/durability.


Tue Feb 28, 2017 10:06 am
Profile
All Pro Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 11:38 pm
Posts: 1542
Post Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
Well we gave a 1st for Ponder and how did that work out? Nobody is crying about that first.
The 1st for Bradford looks better.
Bradford took a pounding and we had 3 recievers that had over 800yds.
10 days before the season we lost our starting QB and our backup QB was injured. With hardly any QB's on the market, Kind of unique circumstances.


Tue Feb 28, 2017 10:21 am
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
fiestavike wrote:
I suppose if he played great all last season his market might be higher, but nobody would be giving up a 1st for Bradford again. The Vikings would now be in position to pursue whoever they wanted. Frankly, I think it would be a mistake not to be investigating a player like Cousins now. 14 million of Bradford's contract is not guaranteed, and if they see Cousins as a significan't upgrade they shouldn't rule it out. Of course, that's tougher without a 1st round pick to throw in the mix. Anyway, now that they've settled for Shurmur I think Bradford is his boy for this year.



I think so too but as you pointed out, they're still in position to pursue other options. they can cut bradford with no cap repercussions. It's not going to happen but they could do it.

Believe me, I hear you. it was a questionable choice, another "all in" roll of the dice from Vikings ownership and management.


Tue Feb 28, 2017 10:38 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
Posts: 3225
Post Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him
halfgiz wrote:
Well we gave a 1st for Ponder and how did that work out? Nobody is crying about that first.
The 1st for Bradford looks better.
Bradford took a pounding and we had 3 recievers that had over 800yds.
10 days before the season we lost our starting QB and our backup QB was injured. With hardly any QB's on the market, Kind of unique circumstances.


I've heard quite a bit of crying about that pick! :lol:

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.


Tue Feb 28, 2017 10:40 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 50 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 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.