49ers Post Game

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
Dames
Pro Bowl Elite Player
Posts: 865
Joined: Thu May 15, 2003 10:38 am
Location: Saint Michael, MN
x 110

Re: 49ers Post Game

Post by Dames » Wed Jan 22, 2020 9:29 am

StumpHunter wrote:
Wed Jan 22, 2020 9:00 am
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 10:53 pm


You couldn’t have said it better Kapp. Bradfords ability to throw the football was just as good as anyone in the nfl.
It was?

Since he entered the league in 2010, there have been 37 QBs with 48 starts or more. Of those 37, he is 36th in TD%, 35th in YPA, 30th in passer rating and 19th in comp %.

He is right there with Blaine Gabbert in almost every stat. Bradford might be a good passer in practice, but on Sunday he was one of the worst. Which matters more?
The arm talent was there, but you're correct, the results never were. Jeff George had tremendous talent, but never put it together either. There have been an number of QBs in history like that. Kirk at least has some data to back up his contract, Bradford really didn't. He was paid and traded for multiples times on potential alone.

Bottom line: Bradford was VERY risky trade based on his stats and injury history, and there was likely some arrogance involved thinking we were going to be the ones to finally fix him. Statistically he has his best year with us, so... yay? Yes, it could have worked out, but the chances were not high. What he did here was pretty much exactly in line with what he did his entire career, including the injury.
0 x
Damian

User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38078
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 272

Re: 49ers Post Game

Post by Mothman » Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:04 am

Pondering Her Percy wrote:
Wed Jan 22, 2020 9:09 am
You say I'm splitting hairs but you're saying you're using the word "properly" and teetering the line of questioning my intelligence because I'm not using the literal definition.
I didn't say or imply anything about your intelligence.

Please try not to bog discussions down in semantic arguments. When I applied the word "journeyman" to Cousins, I provided it with context so my use of the word would be clearly understood ("He's better than most players who fit that description but he's not an extraordinary or colorful player. He's a reliably skilled NFL starter"). If my application of "journeyman" troubles you, please just mentally plug in "average" or something similar that means "a reliably skilled NFL starter who isn't an extraordinary player" to you. There's no need to bog threads down in discussions about the meaning of a word like "journeyman" or the difference between rebuilding and reloading when meanings are already clear within context.
0 x

StumpHunter
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1527
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:55 am
x 173

Re: 49ers Post Game

Post by StumpHunter » Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:08 am

Dames wrote:
Wed Jan 22, 2020 9:29 am
StumpHunter wrote:
Wed Jan 22, 2020 9:00 am

It was?

Since he entered the league in 2010, there have been 37 QBs with 48 starts or more. Of those 37, he is 36th in TD%, 35th in YPA, 30th in passer rating and 19th in comp %.

He is right there with Blaine Gabbert in almost every stat. Bradford might be a good passer in practice, but on Sunday he was one of the worst. Which matters more?
The arm talent was there, but you're correct, the results never were. Jeff George had tremendous talent, but never put it together either. There have been an number of QBs in history like that. Kirk at least has some data to back up his contract, Bradford really didn't. He was paid and traded for multiples times on potential alone.

Bottom line: Bradford was VERY risky trade based on his stats and injury history, and there was likely some arrogance involved thinking we were going to be the ones to finally fix him. Statistically he has his best year with us, so... yay? Yes, it could have worked out, but the chances were not high. What he did here was pretty much exactly in line with what he did his entire career, including the injury.
I think you make an excellent point. The Vikings got the BEST case scenario with Bradford, and it amounted to a 7-8 record with him starting. It was never going to work out. Ever.

I think it is also important to point out Case looked like an MVP candidate under Shurmur throwing to Diggs and Theilen. Bradford just looked okay. Since Case is a journeyman backup, what does that say about Bradford's season?
0 x

mansquatch
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3828
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:44 pm
Location: Coon Rapids, MN
x 112

Re: 49ers Post Game

Post by mansquatch » Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:23 am

I think you guys are taking the Bardford trade way out of context. They had Sean Hill at QB and nobody else when they made that transaction. They didn't know if Teddy would ever play another snap. The impetus of that move was to try and salvage the 2016 season that they were going into with a roster that was a missed kick from winning a playoff game. Hindsight is 20/20, we ended up starting 8 different players at Tackle due to concentration of injuries at the position, Norv Turner got exposed as not really being the OC we needed, and Blair Walsh went full headcase. In Retrospect tanking the season might have been better for the Franchise in the long run, but I find it hard to fault the GM for making that trade.

Also Bradford was never put in a situation where he could excel in 2016. That the worst OL situation in Vikings history with aforementioned 8 starters at Tackle. That year was so bad that I think fans still have a hangover from it. I would remind people of his one and only game in 2017 where he completely lit up the Saints. Then his knees sabotaged him. Always felt bad for that guy, he had a legendary arm and great attitude. His body wouldn't hold up.

This trade was the aftermath of one of the two examples of crazy bad luck the Vikings have had on Offense during the Zimmer era. (The other one was Sparano's death.)

Another fun topic is the Offensive Coaching hires. Talk about Bi-Polar disorder...

I rated Stefanski as mostly average: He had his positives but also had some warts in big games. Curious to see what we get next. I'm kind of hoping they hire Jay Gruden, but I'm not sure if that will be another Shurmer or another JDF.
1 x
Winning is not a sometime thing it is an all of the time thing - Vince Lombardi

User avatar
J. Kapp 11
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7884
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pm
x 582

Re: 49ers Post Game

Post by J. Kapp 11 » Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:44 am

StumpHunter wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 6:25 pm
J. Kapp 11 wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:54 pm

Look, I never said it was a good trade. History has shown us that it wasn't, but not because Bradford played poorly. I still remember Sean McDonough's "Bradford can't miss" call in the third quarter of our season-opening rout of the Saints in 2017. It was one of the most amazing displays of spinning a football I can remember. I also remember Dalvin Cook rushing for 127 yards and wondering who in the world was going to stop our offense. Unfortunately, that's when Bradford reverted to his alter ego, Sam Glassford.

All I'm saying is that I understood the trade at the time. It was a gamble that didn't pay off. And hey, if you were singing that "impending disaster" tune when the Vikings were 5-0, or when Bradford was racking up 346 yards and a 143 passer rating against the Saints, then congratulations ... you're far more of a Nostradamus than I am. Still, I'll politely disagree with your position that any reasonable person could see from the beginning that it was a certain disaster.

And for the record, I'm not sure Mitchell Trubisky is an upgrade over Blake Bortles. And neither would be mistaken for a healthy Sam Bradford (a rare occurrence, I'll admit), who had as much arm talent as anyone in the game. Bradford, it could be argued, was an upgrade over Teddy Bridgewater.
Now you have gone and done it.

You tell me which QB is the better QB:
QB A: 81 passer rating, 3.4 TD %, 2.3 INT %, 60.1 Comp %, 6.45 YPA and a 25-37 W-L record with 0 playoff appearances.
QB B: 85.8 passer rating, 3.8 TD %, 2.3 INT %, 63.4 Comp %, 6.7 YPA and a 23-18 W-L record with 1 playoff loss.
QB C: 81 passer rating, 3.9 TD %, 2.8 INT %, 59.3 Comp %, 6.7 YPA and a 24-49 W-L record with 2-1 in the playoffs.
QB D: 84.9 passer rating, 4.0 TD %, 2.4 INT %, 61.8 Comp %, 6.8 YPA and a 17-18 W-L 0 playoff appearances.

Now, QB D is the best QB statistically by a small margin over QB B, QB B has the best record and QB C showed the most promise in the playoffs.

QB A is the worst statistically, managed to never make the playoffs in despite 5 seasons of starting, had a horrible W-L record and are the stats for the QB we gave up a 1st round pick for at the time of the trade.

QB D is the guy who we couldn't possibly go a full season with as a starter.

QB B and C are Trubisky and Bortles.

That isn't hyperbole, that is cold hard facts. We traded a 1st for a guy who you can't really give a good argument for being better than Blake Bortles...or our backup that season for that matter.

Wins, stats, potential, nothing really there to argue for Bradford being the best of that group. That is fricken sad.
Whatever, man.

I'm trying hard to get along with you, but it seems you just HAVE to win every argument.

Guess what. I don't care who's better between Bortles and Bradford, Trubisky or Johnny Freaking Unitas. I don't care. This entire stats exercise misses the point. I understand WHY the Vikings made the trade. You don't, because you knew better. Congratulations. Can we please leave it there?
2 x
Image
Go ahead. I dare you.
Underestimate this man.

StumpHunter
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1527
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:55 am
x 173

Re: 49ers Post Game

Post by StumpHunter » Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:54 am

mansquatch wrote:
Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:23 am
I think you guys are taking the Bardford trade way out of context. They had Sean Hill at QB and nobody else when they made that transaction. They didn't know if Teddy would ever play another snap. The impetus of that move was to try and salvage the 2016 season that they were going into with a roster that was a missed kick from winning a playoff game. Hindsight is 20/20, we ended up starting 8 different players at Tackle due to concentration of injuries at the position, Norv Turner got exposed as not really being the OC we needed, and Blair Walsh went full headcase. In Retrospect tanking the season might have been better for the Franchise in the long run, but I find it hard to fault the GM for making that trade.

Also Bradford was never put in a situation where he could excel in 2016. That the worst OL situation in Vikings history with aforementioned 8 starters at Tackle. That year was so bad that I think fans still have a hangover from it. I would remind people of his one and only game in 2017 where he completely lit up the Saints. Then his knees sabotaged him. Always felt bad for that guy, he had a legendary arm and great attitude. His body wouldn't hold up.

This trade was the aftermath of one of the two examples of crazy bad luck the Vikings have had on Offense during the Zimmer era. (The other one was Sparano's death.)

Another fun topic is the Offensive Coaching hires. Talk about Bi-Polar disorder...

I rated Stefanski as mostly average: He had his positives but also had some warts in big games. Curious to see what we get next. I'm kind of hoping they hire Jay Gruden, but I'm not sure if that will be another Shurmer or another JDF.
The context doesn't make it better. The exact same context associated with any other team has Vikings fans laughing at that team for making such a dumb trade.

I keep see people bringing up 1 single game in an 80+ game career as the evidence that Sam was a good QB. Seems silly, but let's apply that same logic to Hill. He won his first game in 2016, I guess we can assume he would have won all his games in 2016?

We traded for one of the worst statistical QBs in the past decade, gave up a first in a draft with at least one HOF QB, and it is a fact the cap space and pick we gave up to Philly helped them beat us and win the SB the very next season.

What we gave up couldn't have gone any worse for the Vikings, and it is kind of comical just how badly it went.

But yeah, one of the worst starting QBs of the decade was really going to take us to the SB if only the line hadn't had so many injuries and AP had stayed healthy. Matt Kahlil and an aging AP were clearly the difference between 8-8 and a SB champion. Totally worth it.
0 x

User avatar
Bowhunting Viking
Pro Bowl Elite Player
Posts: 540
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2018 11:39 am
Location: Convoy, Ohio
x 205

Re: 49ers Post Game

Post by Bowhunting Viking » Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:57 am

mansquatch wrote:
Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:23 am
I think you guys are taking the Bardford trade way out of context. They had Sean Hill at QB and nobody else when they made that transaction. They didn't know if Teddy would ever play another snap. The impetus of that move was to try and salvage the 2016 season that they were going into with a roster that was a missed kick from winning a playoff game. Hindsight is 20/20, we ended up starting 8 different players at Tackle due to concentration of injuries at the position, Norv Turner got exposed as not really being the OC we needed, and Blair Walsh went full headcase. In Retrospect tanking the season might have been better for the Franchise in the long run, but I find it hard to fault the GM for making that trade.

Also Bradford was never put in a situation where he could excel in 2016. That the worst OL situation in Vikings history with aforementioned 8 starters at Tackle. That year was so bad that I think fans still have a hangover from it. I would remind people of his one and only game in 2017 where he completely lit up the Saints. Then his knees sabotaged him. Always felt bad for that guy, he had a legendary arm and great attitude. His body wouldn't hold up.

This trade was the aftermath of one of the two examples of crazy bad luck the Vikings have had on Offense during the Zimmer era. (The other one was Sparano's death.)

Another fun topic is the Offensive Coaching hires. Talk about Bi-Polar disorder...

I rated Stefanski as mostly average: He had his positives but also had some warts in big games. Curious to see what we get next. I'm kind of hoping they hire Jay Gruden, but I'm not sure if that will be another Shurmer or another JDF.
Looks like Gruden is getting hired by the Jags so it looks like that won't happen.
I agree with you about Bradford. It was a shame that guys knees were so frail. I just wonder what type of career he could have had if he would have been able to stay healthy. Like you said, he and Jeff George both had incredible arms. Unfortunately George was an arrogant jerk who alienated teammates, felt it was all about him and basically pissed away a great opportunity.
Bradford's situation was more unfortunate in that the guy had great character, attitude and was all about team. That dude had an incredible arm and was deadly accurate. It is just sad injuries had to constantly derail him. I also still remember that game when he carved up the Saints. I remember many other times watching him and just be amazed at his arm.
I'm not going into the debate about the trade to bring him to Minny. I am just agreeing with you about the talent and potential that he had, and unfortunately was hindered by injuries.
0 x
I just wanna die as a Super Bowl Champion Viking Fan!!

User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38078
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 272

Re: 49ers Post Game

Post by Mothman » Wed Jan 22, 2020 11:05 am

mansquatch wrote:
Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:23 am
I think you guys are taking the Bardford trade way out of context. They had Sean Hill at QB and nobody else when they made that transaction. They didn't know if Teddy would ever play another snap. The impetus of that move was to try and salvage the 2016 season that they were going into with a roster that was a missed kick from winning a playoff game. Hindsight is 20/20, we ended up starting 8 different players at Tackle due to concentration of injuries at the position, Norv Turner got exposed as not really being the OC we needed, and Blair Walsh went full headcase. In Retrospect tanking the season might have been better for the Franchise in the long run, but I find it hard to fault the GM for making that trade.

Also Bradford was never put in a situation where he could excel in 2016. That the worst OL situation in Vikings history with aforementioned 8 starters at Tackle. That year was so bad that I think fans still have a hangover from it. I would remind people of his one and only game in 2017 where he completely lit up the Saints. Then his knees sabotaged him. Always felt bad for that guy, he had a legendary arm and great attitude. His body wouldn't hold up.
It's not hard to fault Spielman for that trade. The context is being considered:

— As you said, they had Sean Hill at QB. That's not a point in Spielman's favor. It's damning that the team's primary backup was a player he had so little confidence in that he immediately made a costly trade to "salvage" the season rather than going with Hill. In short: either the Vikings made a terrible choice in making Hill the #2 in the first place or they made a rash decision to trade for Bradford (or both!).

— The roster was a missed kick from winning a wildcard playoff game. They weren't a missed kick from the Super Bowl. There was little reason to believe they were getting to the latter with Bridgewater in 2016 and even less to think they could trade for a guy with Bradford's history, have him start immediately and get there.

— Yes, they suffered OL injuries but that line was awful from the start (and had been in need of work for years).

— Bradford's knees "sabotaged him" and nobody wanted to see that happen but it doesn't require hindsight to see he was an injury risk, especially behind a problematic line. His injury history was well known. Shouldn't that have weighed heavily into a team's decision to spend a first round pick on a QB for the third time in 6 years?
This trade was the aftermath of one of the two examples of crazy bad luck the Vikings have had on Offense during the Zimmer era. (The other one was Sparano's death.)
True... but it's hard to see that as a mitigating factor in Spielman's favor. It's an unfortunate reality in the NFL that players can be injured and miss an entire season or more at any time. That's why depth is important. Why were the Vikings completely unprepared (at least in their own estimation) for that possibility at QB?

It's clear that Spielman panicked in the wake of Bridgewater's injury and that he was unprepared for that eventuality. It's not atypical for the Vikings over the last 13 years to lack decent depth at QB or to have serious OL issues. Indeed, I'd argue that these tend to be trademarks of Spielman era Vikings teams.
Another fun topic is the Offensive Coaching hires. Talk about Bi-Polar disorder...
I think that's because there doesn't appear to be a clear, unifying vision for the team at work. I don't think Spielman's ever had one and Zimmer obviously came to MN to be a head coach, run his defense and hope he could find an OC that would run the offense well enough for him to basically forget about it.
0 x

User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38078
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 272

Re: 49ers Post Game

Post by Mothman » Wed Jan 22, 2020 11:06 am

J. Kapp 11 wrote:
Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:44 am
Guess what. I don't care who's better between Bortles and Bradford, Trubisky or Johnny Freaking Unitas.
Just for the record, it's probably Unitas. ;)
0 x

StumpHunter
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1527
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:55 am
x 173

Re: 49ers Post Game

Post by StumpHunter » Wed Jan 22, 2020 11:09 am

J. Kapp 11 wrote:
Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:44 am
StumpHunter wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 6:25 pm

Now you have gone and done it.

You tell me which QB is the better QB:
QB A: 81 passer rating, 3.4 TD %, 2.3 INT %, 60.1 Comp %, 6.45 YPA and a 25-37 W-L record with 0 playoff appearances.
QB B: 85.8 passer rating, 3.8 TD %, 2.3 INT %, 63.4 Comp %, 6.7 YPA and a 23-18 W-L record with 1 playoff loss.
QB C: 81 passer rating, 3.9 TD %, 2.8 INT %, 59.3 Comp %, 6.7 YPA and a 24-49 W-L record with 2-1 in the playoffs.
QB D: 84.9 passer rating, 4.0 TD %, 2.4 INT %, 61.8 Comp %, 6.8 YPA and a 17-18 W-L 0 playoff appearances.

Now, QB D is the best QB statistically by a small margin over QB B, QB B has the best record and QB C showed the most promise in the playoffs.

QB A is the worst statistically, managed to never make the playoffs in despite 5 seasons of starting, had a horrible W-L record and are the stats for the QB we gave up a 1st round pick for at the time of the trade.

QB D is the guy who we couldn't possibly go a full season with as a starter.

QB B and C are Trubisky and Bortles.

That isn't hyperbole, that is cold hard facts. We traded a 1st for a guy who you can't really give a good argument for being better than Blake Bortles...or our backup that season for that matter.

Wins, stats, potential, nothing really there to argue for Bradford being the best of that group. That is fricken sad.
Whatever, man.

I'm trying hard to get along with you, but it seems you just HAVE to win every argument.

Guess what. I don't care who's better between Bortles and Bradford, Trubisky or Johnny Freaking Unitas. I don't care. This entire stats exercise misses the point. I understand WHY the Vikings made the trade. You don't, because you knew better. Congratulations. Can we please leave it there?
I went overboard, but this is one of my favorite topics to post about.

Every year, every team has a needs they need to fill. Every year there is a best player available to fill those needs. It is the GM's job to decide what those needs are, who that best players available to fill those needs are, and then to decide whether the cost for acquiring that best player is worth it, or if it would hurt the team more than that player would help it.

Rick was successful in identifying a need on the team, but failed in both of the other two when Teddy went down. Bradford was arguably not the best player available to fill the QB need, and even if he was, the cost of what he gave up to get him wasn't even close to what Bradford could ever contribute.

Is that a fair assessment?
1 x

StumpHunter
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1527
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:55 am
x 173

Re: 49ers Post Game

Post by StumpHunter » Wed Jan 22, 2020 11:11 am

Mothman wrote:
Wed Jan 22, 2020 11:05 am
mansquatch wrote:
Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:23 am
I think you guys are taking the Bardford trade way out of context. They had Sean Hill at QB and nobody else when they made that transaction. They didn't know if Teddy would ever play another snap. The impetus of that move was to try and salvage the 2016 season that they were going into with a roster that was a missed kick from winning a playoff game. Hindsight is 20/20, we ended up starting 8 different players at Tackle due to concentration of injuries at the position, Norv Turner got exposed as not really being the OC we needed, and Blair Walsh went full headcase. In Retrospect tanking the season might have been better for the Franchise in the long run, but I find it hard to fault the GM for making that trade.

Also Bradford was never put in a situation where he could excel in 2016. That the worst OL situation in Vikings history with aforementioned 8 starters at Tackle. That year was so bad that I think fans still have a hangover from it. I would remind people of his one and only game in 2017 where he completely lit up the Saints. Then his knees sabotaged him. Always felt bad for that guy, he had a legendary arm and great attitude. His body wouldn't hold up.
It's not hard to fault Spielman for that trade. The context is being considered:

— As you said, they had Sean Hill at QB. That's not a point in Spielman's favor. It's damning that the team's primary backup was a player he had so little confidence in that he immediately made a costly trade to "salvage" the season rather than going with Hill. In short: either the Vikings made a terrible choice in making Hill the #2 in the first place or they made a rash decision to trade for Bradford (or both!).

— The roster was a missed kick from winning a wildcard playoff game. They weren't a missed kick from the Super Bowl. There was little reason to believe they were getting to the latter with Bridgewater in 2016 and even less to think they could trade for a guy with Bradford's history, have him start immediately and get there.

— Yes, they suffered OL injuries but that line was awful from the start (and had been in need of work for years).

— Bradford's knees "sabotaged him" and nobody wanted to see that happen but it doesn't require hindsight to see he was an injury risk, especially behind a problematic line. His injury history was well known. Shouldn't that have weighed heavily into a team's decision to spend a first round pick on a QB for the third time in 6 years?
This trade was the aftermath of one of the two examples of crazy bad luck the Vikings have had on Offense during the Zimmer era. (The other one was Sparano's death.)
True... but it's hard to see that as a mitigating factor in Spielman's favor. It's an unfortunate reality in the NFL that players can be injured and miss an entire season or more at any time. That's why depth is important. Why were the Vikings completely unprepared (at least in their own estimation) for that possibility at QB?

It's clear that Spielman panicked in the wake of Bridgewater's injury and that he was unprepared for that eventuality. It's not atypical for the Vikings over the last 13 years to lack decent depth at QB or to have serious OL issues. Indeed, I'd argue that these tend to be trademarks of Spielman era Vikings teams.
Another fun topic is the Offensive Coaching hires. Talk about Bi-Polar disorder...
I think that's because there doesn't appear to be a clear, unifying vision for the team at work. I don't think Spielman's ever had one and Zimmer obviously came to MN to be a head coach, run his defense and hope he could find an OC that would run the offense well enough for him to basically forget about it.
This.
0 x

User avatar
Pondering Her Percy
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7398
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Location: Watertown, NY
x 360

Re: 49ers Post Game

Post by Pondering Her Percy » Wed Jan 22, 2020 11:18 am

StumpHunter wrote:
Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:08 am
Dames wrote:
Wed Jan 22, 2020 9:29 am

The arm talent was there, but you're correct, the results never were. Jeff George had tremendous talent, but never put it together either. There have been an number of QBs in history like that. Kirk at least has some data to back up his contract, Bradford really didn't. He was paid and traded for multiples times on potential alone.

Bottom line: Bradford was VERY risky trade based on his stats and injury history, and there was likely some arrogance involved thinking we were going to be the ones to finally fix him. Statistically he has his best year with us, so... yay? Yes, it could have worked out, but the chances were not high. What he did here was pretty much exactly in line with what he did his entire career, including the injury.
I think you make an excellent point. The Vikings got the BEST case scenario with Bradford, and it amounted to a 7-8 record with him starting. It was never going to work out. Ever.

I think it is also important to point out Case looked like an MVP candidate under Shurmur throwing to Diggs and Theilen. Bradford just looked okay. Since Case is a journeyman backup, what does that say about Bradford's season?
Thielen wasnt nearly as emerged in 2016 as he was in 2017. And you can thank Bradford for helping him get to that point. By the looks of it, the plan was starting Thielen alongside Diggs until Treadwell was ready. In turn, Bradford and Thielen took off running. He had nearly 1,000 yards and wasnt nearly as involved early on that year as he was all of 2017
0 x
The saddest thing in life is wasted talent and the choices you make will shape your life forever.
-Chazz Palminteri

User avatar
J. Kapp 11
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7884
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pm
x 582

Re: 49ers Post Game

Post by J. Kapp 11 » Wed Jan 22, 2020 11:31 am

Mothman wrote:
Wed Jan 22, 2020 11:06 am
J. Kapp 11 wrote:
Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:44 am
Guess what. I don't care who's better between Bortles and Bradford, Trubisky or Johnny Freaking Unitas.
Just for the record, it's probably Unitas. ;)
Clearly you're Old School ... like me!

Johnny U. was The Man. But I have to admit ... my admiration for him came AFTER the first live game I ever saw, the 52-14 blowout of the Colts in 1969 at Met Stadium (the 7 TD Kapp game). Johnny U. looked pretty bad that game. Most QBs did against that defense. I was only 9 at the time, so it took awhile for me to fully appreciate Unitas.

Ah, the good old days.
0 x
Image
Go ahead. I dare you.
Underestimate this man.

User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38078
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 272

Re: 49ers Post Game

Post by Mothman » Wed Jan 22, 2020 11:34 am

J. Kapp 11 wrote:
Wed Jan 22, 2020 11:31 am
Mothman wrote:
Wed Jan 22, 2020 11:06 am


Just for the record, it's probably Unitas. ;)
Clearly you're Old School ... like me!

Johnny U. was The Man. But I have to admit ... my admiration for him came AFTER the first live game I ever saw, the 52-14 blowout of the Colts in 1969 at Met Stadium (the 7 TD Kapp game). Johnny U. looked pretty bad that game. Most QBs did against that defense. I was only 9 at the time, so it took awhile for me to fully appreciate Unitas.

Ah, the good old days.
They were fun!

Johnny U. definitely had better days than that '69 game at Metropolitan Stadium. :)
0 x

User avatar
J. Kapp 11
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7884
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pm
x 582

Re: 49ers Post Game

Post by J. Kapp 11 » Wed Jan 22, 2020 11:50 am

Pondering Her Percy wrote:
Wed Jan 22, 2020 11:18 am
StumpHunter wrote:
Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:08 am


I think you make an excellent point. The Vikings got the BEST case scenario with Bradford, and it amounted to a 7-8 record with him starting. It was never going to work out. Ever.

I think it is also important to point out Case looked like an MVP candidate under Shurmur throwing to Diggs and Theilen. Bradford just looked okay. Since Case is a journeyman backup, what does that say about Bradford's season?
Thielen wasnt nearly as emerged in 2016 as he was in 2017. And you can thank Bradford for helping him get to that point. By the looks of it, the plan was starting Thielen alongside Diggs until Treadwell was ready. In turn, Bradford and Thielen took off running. He had nearly 1,000 yards and wasnt nearly as involved early on that year as he was all of 2017
I go back to the opening game of 2017 as a prime example of what Sam Bradford could have been. As good as we were in 2017, I wonder how good we'd been if both Bradford and Cook had stayed healthy.

I'd post the video of that game, but the NFL is blocking it. Here's the link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vrd7PNylP3Q

We were FAST all over the field on offense. Thielen, Diggs, Cook, McKinnon, Jarius Wright. Guys running all over the place. And Bradford was delivering seeds to those guys. As you said, Bradford played his early years under Jeff Fisher, A.K.A. The Quarterback Killer. He was a talented dude who simply got hurt a lot.
1 x
Image
Go ahead. I dare you.
Underestimate this man.