You're simply wrong about that. Inadequate means "lacking the quality or quantity required; insufficient for a purpose". It's not false to say Hill fit that description or that Spielman's choice to settle for him as a backup fits it. It's an accurate description and if it were otherwise, the trade wouldn't have been necessary.Pondering Her Percy wrote:First of all, I never once said backup QBs DONT matter. Second of all, I said I wasnt a fan of Hill either and we could've done better.
Also, I know it's a small sample size but Brett Hundley is not a good QB IMO. Hence why he was originally a projected first rounder and then rapidly dropped to the 5th round. There was a reason for that. In NFL play, he was 2 for 10 for 17 yards and 1 INT for a QBR of 5.9. So he dropped from first round consideration to the 5th round and has shown nothing in the NFL but you're so sure the Packers would stick with him?? Hmmmm. You're giving the Packers much more credit than they deserve on that one thats for sure.
Either way, you and Jim are blowing what I said way out of proportion. I never once said the backup QB position doesnt matter. I'm just saying the chances of one pulling a playoff birth or a SB out of his arse are very low. And the fact that we had an opportunity to trade for a QB like Bradford was a great move IMO.
You're both missing the whole point behind the Bradford deal. Teddy's injury wasnt just an injury for this year and we'd have him back the following year. It was a possible CAREER ending injury. I'm sure if we lost Teddy for JUST this year, we wouldve rolled with a backup QB. That wasnt the case. We wouldnt have been relying on a backup for just this year. We'd be relying on a backup for well over a year. No team does that. This is WHY we traded for Bradford. It's very seldom you just turn to your backup QB after this kind of injury and say "ok you're the QB of the future now". You can use Dallas all you want but Dallas had to draft a QB because of Romo's age and back issues. We had a young, non-injury prone QB at the time. We put a veteran behind him that he could learn from which 95% of NFL teams do to their young QB.
So my point behind this whole argument is that it's 110% false that the Bradford deal had to do with the "inadequate choices" by Spielman.
The word is being used correctly.
Which is why a team's backup should be capable of filling in for more than just a few games. If a team is relying on a backup that can't do that, they haven't sufficiently backed up their starter. It's still not clear who they want to become "the face of the franchise" so that part of your argument doesn't hold water. It's not even clear if the starting QB for 2018 is on the roster, although I'd say Bradford has a good shot at the job.There is a HUGE difference between relying on a backup for a few games or the remainder of a season compared to relying on a backup to become the face of your franchise.
We're all aware of the situation. The point here is there are better, smarter ways to handle the backup position and it's long past time the Vikings changed their approach.Spielman drew the short straw on this one and it was just terrible luck. Hate Spielman all you want, say I defend him all you want. Bottom line is, that is bad luck. YES he couldve had a better backup but it's very seldom you just hand the keys over to your backup QB to become the franchises QB for the next 5+ years. That was the situation we were in this past year.
Oh, and enough of this "hate Spielman" garbage (and I use that word because I'm tired of this accusation being leveled against people). I don't hate him. I doubt HardcoreVikesfan hates him either. Criticizing the man isn't the same as hating him and Spielman absolutely deserves criticism for his role in the Vikings ongoing mediocrity.