Sam Bradford's a Viking

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

Locked
User avatar
VikingPaul73
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3371
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 5:07 pm
x 141

Re: Sam Bradford's a Viking

Post by VikingPaul73 »

Norv Zimmer wrote:
Everyone with negativity I think should stop posting it. The move is made we all as fans have to live with it because we have zero say in it. You can either support the team and get behind it or not. No use in beating a dead horse.
And what does this mean exactly? What's the point of a message board - Just as a propaganda machine so we can all be cheerleaders?

It sounds as though you are saying. "either agree with me, or shut and get off the board"

OK whatever. Rick is a genius. This was a brilliant move and Bradford will certainly lead us to a super bowl victory this year.
:roll:
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: Sam Bradford's a Viking

Post by Mothman »

VikingPaul73 wrote:They mortgaged a portion of their future and limited their ability to improve their awful OL....which needs to be done before they sniff the superbowl.
But they may have also acquired their future and they still have a second round pick, two 3rds and two 4ths so they will have opportunities to address the OL in those rounds or to trade up into the first, if that seems necessary.
User avatar
VikingPaul73
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3371
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 5:07 pm
x 141

Re: Sam Bradford's a Viking

Post by VikingPaul73 »

Mothman wrote: But they may have also acquired their future and they still have a second round pick, two 3rds and two 4ths so they will have opportunities to address the OL in those rounds or to trade up into the first, if that seems necessary.
This is true of course and if Bradford does very well (which of course I hope he does) then it will be worth it. I'm just saying that, evaluating the trade at this point, I think they are giving up more in future team building than they are getting in return (based on Bradford's injury history and performance when healthy).

That's all I'm saying.

Also, if I thought the Vikings had a legit shot at the super bowl this year with and average QB, I would think differently as well. But as I've posted (even before the devastating Bridgewater injury) I don't think that's the case given this OL.

Time will tell and I hope I'm wrong :v):
AlldayPotter
Backup
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 12:17 pm

Re: Sam Bradford's a Viking

Post by AlldayPotter »

This is a very good move on spielman's part.

Idk why everyone is so flustered about a first round pick. Losers depend on picks. Look at New England, they have had picks taken away, traded away and they still manage to be a powerhouse.

This was needed, and Bradford needed this. He is actually on a good team with good WRS. He had #### in phili and crap in st. Louis.

Plus our players deserve a winning shot and our FANS deserve it to with everything that has happened.

Bradford is a serious upgrade, and if he stays healthy and does good. We will get our picks back and then some when we tRade him away or IF we trade him away.
John_Viveiros
Career Elite Player
Posts: 2450
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2003 8:55 pm
Location: Olympia, Washington

Re: Sam Bradford's a Viking

Post by John_Viveiros »

My first reaction was that this was an over-reaction by Spielman. First and a fourth? That's way too much for a guy who is, by now, a journeyman. If he was a stud QB, he wouldn't be on his third team. Teams hang on to franchise QB's. So my first thought was that this was really bad news, on par with giving Cunningham a huge extension after the 1998 season, which meant we were getting rid of future SB winning QB Brad Johnson. And if the season falls apart, in ways we can't anticipate, but do often happen, that #1 pick could be pretty high. Remember, the 1999 season that had so much promise started 2-4, and only the switch to Jeff George (jettisoning Cunningham after six games into his five year contract) salvaged a wild card slot.

My sustained reaction... A little more measured. It's clear Shurmer spoke well of him. We have to trust our coaching staff - we really have no choice. Bradford does, in theory, know how to fling the ball downfield, and it's probable that the fantasy stat line for Vikings QB's goes up this year - although I prefer wins over stats any day. I think a bit of the issue with what I consider to be too much compensation is how much of the contract the Eagles are just eating. They are taking on his signing bonus. So they are essentially paying $11 million for our first round pick next year. I can see why they insisted on a #1. Not saying we had to give them our #1, just that it was what they were going to need to part with Sam.

As far as the #1 pick... As long as we weren't drafting a WR in round one (Williamson, Patterson, Treadwell?), it's a bad loss for us. I'd take two years of Bradford now in exchange for the last four years of Cordarelle Patterson, but I wouldn't do the same for Harrison Smith - that's a huge loss.
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: Sam Bradford's a Viking

Post by Mothman »

VikingPaul73 wrote: This is true of course and if Bradford does very well (which of course I hope he does) then it will be worth it. I'm just saying that, evaluating the trade at this point, I think they are giving up more in future team building than they are getting in return (based on Bradford's injury history and performance when healthy. That's all I'm saying.

Also, if I thought the Vikings had a legit shot at the super bowl this year with and average QB, I would think differently as well. But as I've posted (even before the devastating Bridgewater injury) I don't think that's the case given this OL.

Time will tell and I hope I'm wrong :v):
I'm pretty much with you on the Super Bowl. I wouldn't rule it out as a possibility this year but I'm not convinced the team will rise to that level. I'll be thrilled if they do!

What I like about the move is that it's not a one year "rental", which I think would have been a terrible idea. Bridgewater's injury meant they were going to have spend the resources to re-address the QB position one way or another, either now or next offseason. It's possible a first round pick (or at least a relatively high pick) was going to the QB position either way.

It's going to be interesting to see how it all plays out.
akvikingsfan
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1397
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 7:06 pm
Location: Kathleen, GA
x 15
Contact:

Re: Sam Bradford's a Viking

Post by akvikingsfan »

I view this as similar to the Allen trade (a first and two thirds). The Vikings *needed* a quarterback for this season. Rick went and got one. Yea it sucks giving up a first, but as everyone has said if Bradford can lead to a deep playoff run it's worth it. Hopefully he will be able to pick up the playbook quick enough to start by the time the Packers come to town in week 2. I have little to no hope of him starting next weekend.
TSonn
Career Elite Player
Posts: 2127
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2014 11:52 am
Location: Michigan
x 132

Re: Sam Bradford's a Viking

Post by TSonn »

Mothman wrote:
What I like about the move is that it's not a one year "rental", which I think would have been a terrible idea. Bridgewater's injury meant they were going to have spend the resources to re-address the QB position one way or another, either now or next offseason. It's possible a first round pick (or at least a relatively high pick) was going to the QB position either way.

It's going to be interesting to see how it all plays out.
And Philly is paying 11m of Bradford's contract this year!
User avatar
MrPurplenGold
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3826
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:46 pm
x 4

Re: Sam Bradford's a Viking

Post by MrPurplenGold »

Mothman wrote: But they may have also acquired their future and they still have a second round pick, two 3rds and two 4ths so they will have opportunities to address the OL in those rounds or to trade up into the first, if that seems necessary.

The vikings acquired a player the Eagles thought so highly of that they traded up to get a rookie QB to replace him. They also only gave him a 2 year deal which means they weren't even sure that he could be a franchise QB. Show me a successful QB that has moved around as much as Bradford has, I doubt there are any. At the end of the day the Vikings were desperate and they made a desparation move they hope pans out. Bradford hasn't done anything statiscally to show he is any better than Bridgwater with about twice the amount of time in the league.

I give this move 2 thumbs down. Even if they were concerned about Bridgewater future you could make this move next year for a lot less.
mike2mike
Starter
Posts: 184
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 9:40 pm
x 11

Re: Sam Bradford's a Viking

Post by mike2mike »

Jordysghost wrote: Im not understanding how you write off Bradford as 'Not going to be elite' but somehow think Teddy being injured is going to be the difference between a possible dynasty or not. :confused: That seems oddly one sided, Teddy wasn't exactly tearing the league a new one prior to injury either.
By dynasty I am looking at the next decade or so. By possible I refer to the trajectory the team was headed to get a few pieces together within an offseason or two and what it takes to keep the team together while adding new pieces to get there to be consistently 10-6 or better and consistently be a playoff contender.

This move forces some rebuilding period at some point. I'm not saying it won't be worth it if somehow this year or next we win a Super Bowl either.

The problem isn't so much Bridgewater, it's how the team will likely manage this decision and how they have limited their options with this trade. The trade to give up multiple picks in addition to the massive salary cap hit of Bradford, in addition to the impact it has on future free agents as well as resignings as well as the void at QB key requiring an additional draft pick.

It's not totally about Bridgewater, although I think he was ready in s 3rd year to make a monster leap forward.. And I mean a monster leap. Teddy was better QBR both under pressure and not under pressure than Derek Carr but his overall QBR was lower... Impossible? No, he was under pressure 45% of the time he dropped back and when under pressure the NFL QBR average drops by nearly 30 points. His drop back and release looked quicker in the offseason but the new offensive line coach looked to help significantly. Someone also posted some other stat about Eli Manning and Bridgewater and the importance of the deep ball. I don't remember the exact details but I think it was something like Teddy and Eli were average deep ball passers (20+yards) Teddy would have been above average in yards and Eli would have been below average. Teddy in training camp and preseason was on the money on deep passes. We don't know that the OL would have given him the time, but it's a safe bet that it would be improved from last year.

It's also about the trade causing the team to have a QB coming in cold with zero chemistry between WRs and minimal practice time with teammates and playbook. Pat Shurmer may be able to come up with several gameplans tailored for Bradford so he may not need to learn an entire playbook but that's still a steep learning curve for the team and a challenge for Norv and everyone else to get on the same page.

But it's mostly about consequences of actions which in turn have additional consequences and the snowball/domino effect and how tight the Vikings projected to be against the cap when you factor in all the players we should/would resign including Floyd and Rhodes entering their 5th year option years that now will be tough to keep without back loading and/or cost us a free agent at left and/or right tackle, and/or that will limit room for growth in the future through back loading or costing us other players.

Additionally the draft picks are a major deal, especially when post Teddy injury you probably ar seeing Teddy not return until midsession 2017 and not being the same player. Can you pay Teddy big money then based upon the hope that he will eventually rebound? So you have to draft a QB in 2017 or 2018 as well, and 5th year option Teddy, and how do you do that when with Bradford you probably win a couple extra games which means moving down in the draft a dozen picks in every round? The ultimate cost of Teddy's injury is not just Teddy a first rounder himself... It's not just a 1st in 2017 and 4th (or as high as a second) but it's also probably going to be a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd in 2018 which is what it will cost to move up and get a QB from the bottom half that has any potential... And it's also the cost of cap room consequences...

And it's also potentially the cost of several team members and coaches that won't fit the scheme that matches the next QBs talents... And it's also the free agent OL and draft picks that would have made the job of say the 2018 1st round QB a lot easier... And may cost us additional first round picks until we get the QB right again depending on Teddy's recovery.

Yes. It's possible Teddy makes a full recovery by mid season 2017 and after 5th year optioning him in 2018 we keep him long term and he's able to make strides forward. And perhaps we can at some point trade the QB we drafted to get something back... Even so, we'd still be missing out on a lot and improving this team to the extent that would have been possible before is long gone out the window.
dkoby
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1272
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 12:47 pm
x 9

Re: Sam Bradford's a Viking

Post by dkoby »

Mothman wrote: But they may have also acquired their future and they still have a second round pick, two 3rds and two 4ths so they will have opportunities to address the OL in those rounds or to trade up into the first, if that seems necessary.

I was wondering about the draft pick status. I thought they were pretty well stocked up on picks next draft.
The same thought crossed my mind about addressing QB in the next draft because there will still be questions regarding Bridgewaters future.
There is nothing wrong with having more than one viable option at QB.

No matter who they brought in, not everyone would agree that it would have been the right course of action.
What if they paid that for Glennon?
We don't know what teams were asking for their back ups. This might truly have been the best move. We can't know one way or the other.
The Marines I have seen around the world have the cleanest bodies, the filthiest minds,the highest morale, and the lowest morals of any group of animals I have ever seen. Thank God for the United States Marine Corps.
Elenore Roosevelt. 1945
mike2mike
Starter
Posts: 184
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 9:40 pm
x 11

Re: Sam Bradford's a Viking

Post by mike2mike »

MrPurplenGold wrote:
The vikings acquired a player the Eagles thought so highly of that they traded up to get a rookie QB to replace him. They also only gave him a 2 year deal which means they weren't even sure that he could be a franchise QB. Show me a successful QB that has moved around as much as Bradford has, I doubt there are any. At the end of the day the Vikings were desperate and they made a desparation move they hope pans out. Bradford hasn't done anything statiscally to show he is any better than Bridgwater with about twice the amount of time in the league.

I give this move 2 thumbs down. Even if they were concerned about Bridgewater future you could make this move next year for a lot less.
Exactly, and if they made this move next year, there would be the bennefit of having a full offseason with the playbook and coaches and players rather than a week before game 1.

The timing to the injury wasn't conducive to a productive trade. It may be a lose/lose just Ike the last Eagles Bradford/Foles trade as the Eagles lose a starter and force their rookie under pressure earlier than they wanted to which puts a lot of additional risks that probably isn't worth the compensation, particularly if he gets killed given the Lane Johnson suspension and lack of receiving options.

Meanwhile, he just doesn't have the time to gel. Hope We are wrong... One thing is clear, Bradford has had more offensive coordinators in his career than just about anyone and can learn playbooks quickly, but this quickly may be a little too much.

If we're lucky, Bradford is a late bloomer a bit like Alex Smith and probably others... And he somehow can be ready by the bye week and we can manage to win a few games before then.... If we get a QB playing at Alex Smith level by the bye week, this defense is good enough to make the playoffs (it may have been anyways!).

Bradford obviously has a different skill set. He has a great arm and probably will be good at throwing the deep ball which is going to be very important to capitalize off of 8man fronts. I like Bradford, and I don't mind the compensation if we had done this trade right after they resigned him... But this late in the preseason just seems like an overly aggressive move with obvious long term ramifications and some upside, but unclear short term benefits.
TSonn
Career Elite Player
Posts: 2127
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2014 11:52 am
Location: Michigan
x 132

Re: Sam Bradford's a Viking

Post by TSonn »

Oh my goodness. I'm a Vikings homer for sure but we need to reel in this talk of us being a dynasty. We zero playoff wins in the past 6 seasons. Sure, we're on the right trajectory but we've got a ways to go before the talk of dynasty is legitimate. Also, I'm a big Teddy fan but there was also the chance that he would have disappointed in his third year and we would have been looking for a new starter next year anyway.
Last edited by TSonn on Sat Sep 03, 2016 1:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.
mike2mike
Starter
Posts: 184
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 9:40 pm
x 11

Re: Sam Bradford's a Viking

Post by mike2mike »

dkoby wrote:
I was wondering about the draft pick status. I thought they were pretty well stocked up on picks next draft.
The same thought crossed my mind about addressing QB in the next draft because there will still be questions regarding Bridgewaters future.
There is nothing wrong with having more than one viable option at QB.

No matter who they brought in, not everyone would agree that it would have been the right course of action.
What if they paid that for Glennon?
We don't know what teams were asking for their back ups. This might truly have been the best move. We can't know one way or the other.
it's the best short term move perhaps... But if it doesn't work out?
:puke:
User avatar
halfgiz
Career Elite Player
Posts: 2311
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 11:38 pm
x 117

Re: Sam Bradford's a Viking

Post by halfgiz »

MrPurplenGold wrote:

The vikings acquired a player the Eagles thought so highly of that they traded up to get a rookie QB to replace him. They also only gave him a 2 year deal which means they weren't even sure that he could be a franchise QB. Show me a successful QB that has moved around as much as Bradford has, I doubt there are any. At the end of the day the Vikings were desperate and they made a desparation move they hope pans out. Bradford hasn't done anything statiscally to show he is any better than Bridgwater with about twice the amount of time in the league.

I give this move 2 thumbs down. Even if they were concerned about Bridgewater future you could make this move next year for a lot less.
We needed a QB now not next year.

Who would you have liked us to acquired??
Last edited by halfgiz on Sat Sep 03, 2016 1:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Locked