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
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him

Post by Mothman »

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.
Cliff
Site Admin
Posts: 9489
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 5:51 pm
Location: Kentucky
x 432

Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him

Post by Cliff »

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.
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 :)
fiestavike
Hall of Fame Inductee
Posts: 4959
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
x 395

Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him

Post by fiestavike »

Mothman wrote: 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.
"You like that!"
-- Cap'n Spazz Cousins
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 »

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).
fiestavike
Hall of Fame Inductee
Posts: 4959
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
x 395

Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him

Post by fiestavike »

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.
"You like that!"
-- Cap'n Spazz Cousins
fiestavike
Hall of Fame Inductee
Posts: 4959
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
x 395

Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him

Post by fiestavike »

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.
"You like that!"
-- Cap'n Spazz Cousins
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him

Post by Mothman »

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.
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 »

Mothman wrote:
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.
fiestavike
Hall of Fame Inductee
Posts: 4959
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
x 395

Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him

Post by fiestavike »

Mothman wrote:
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.
"You like that!"
-- Cap'n Spazz Cousins
720pete
Pro Bowl Elite Player
Posts: 654
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 11:07 pm
x 7

Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him

Post by 720pete »

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.
fiestavike
Hall of Fame Inductee
Posts: 4959
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
x 395

Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him

Post by fiestavike »

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.
"You like that!"
-- Cap'n Spazz Cousins
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 »

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.
User avatar
halfgiz
Career Elite Player
Posts: 2289
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 11:38 pm
x 111

Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him

Post by halfgiz »

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.
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him

Post by Mothman »

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.
fiestavike
Hall of Fame Inductee
Posts: 4959
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
x 395

Re: Michael Vick says Vikings dropped ball not signing him

Post by fiestavike »

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.
"You like that!"
-- Cap'n Spazz Cousins
Post Reply