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

autobon7
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1030
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 10:53 am

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.

User avatar
fiestavike
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3472
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 11:04 am

autobon7 wrote: 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.

User avatar
Cliff
Site Admin
Posts: 8311
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 11:24 am

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.
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 'til they get punched in the mouth." - Mike Tyson

User avatar
fiestavike
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3472
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 11:32 am

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.

autobon7
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1030
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 11:46 am

fiestavike wrote: 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.

User avatar
Cliff
Site Admin
Posts: 8311
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 12:00 pm

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 'til they get punched in the mouth." - Mike Tyson

User avatar
fiestavike
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3472
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 12:09 pm

Cliff wrote: 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

User avatar
Maelstrom88
Transition Player
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2016 4:38 am

Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him

Post by Maelstrom88 » Tue Feb 28, 2017 12:25 pm

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.
Last edited by Maelstrom88 on Tue Feb 28, 2017 1:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Offseason Goal: Draft durable, tough, intelligent offensive lineman who are dependable technicians and avoid penalties aka drive killers.

User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 37379
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him

Post by Mothman » Tue Feb 28, 2017 1:02 pm

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.

User avatar
halfgiz
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1767
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 11:38 pm

Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him

Post by halfgiz » Tue Feb 28, 2017 1:51 pm

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.

User avatar
fiestavike
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3472
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 1:58 pm

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.

User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 37379
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him

Post by Mothman » Tue Feb 28, 2017 2:10 pm

fiestavike wrote: 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.

User avatar
fiestavike
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3472
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 2:45 pm

Mothman wrote:
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.

autobon7
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1030
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 3:40 pm

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

User avatar
S197
Fenrir
Posts: 11230
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:28 pm
Location: Hawaii

Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him

Post by S197 » Tue Feb 28, 2017 7:24 pm

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.

Post Reply