Who would be our QB, Jim? I think the essential fact that has to be considered about the SB trade is that the FO felt that they had the talent to compete for the SB, therefore we did not want to develop a young QB, which would almost inevitably be a 2-3 year process at best. SB solves that problem. Whom else could we have acquired at a better price that would provide the same talent level now, not possibly in three years?Mothman wrote: I definitely don't think it was a laughable move but honestly, I don't think it's absurd to question it either and I like Bradford. Teams paid a hefty price to move up and select QBs yesterday but the Vikings obviously wouldn't have been obligated to use the first round pick they traded for Bradford on a QB. They could have used it to address any position.
There's a lot to consider, including Bradford's uncertain future with the team. Did the Vikings give up first and fourth round picks so Bradford can be a two year "rental" for them at QB? In terms of team-building and resource allocation, how do we weigh a first round pick for 2 years of service at a very high salary against 4 years of potential service at a rookie salary with the option for a 5th year at a higher rate?
Eventually, we can factor in how Bradford performs, what happens with him after 2017, etc. but if he's not a Viking after 2 years, I'd consider it a debatable use of a first round pick.
In terms of R2 and R3: I'm just hoping for interior line and good decisions. I really hope they stay away from Mixon.
Regarding the financial issue: I don't see him as a rental. I think he showed plenty of reasons to extend him last season. We need what he offers and he fits well with Shurmur.
You're against drafting Mixon, eh?
I'm not too excited about that prospect either. That punch... ugh. And yet, I so fully understand that self-control develops late; literally, the part of the brain associated with judgment does not fully develop until mid twenties. But still... that punch. I'd like a higher character guy.