Vikings Message Board.Com

where are you, Demi?
I'm curious to hear your take on this.

Texas Vike wrote:Well, Sanchez's doesn't exactly whisper sweet nothings in my ear.

I can see your point, but I think Bradford has way more promise than Sanchez. I'm not happy to part with as much as we did, but I like the idea of giving Bradford a go this year.

I like the idea of giving him a go for two, letting Bridgewater have as much recovery time as necessary and then seeing where things stand. Like you, I think Bradford has more promise than Sanchez. I don't know if that promise equates to a 1st and 4th round pick so i definitely see DP's point but I feel like their career trajectories are moving in opposite directions. I'm expecting Bradford to be more of a game manager this year as he gets to know the offense but hopefully, by year's end, he'll be feeling pretty comfortable in it. Once he settled into the Eagles offense last year, he finished the season really strong.

I've always felt like he was a player who could thrive if he could just stay in a stable, healthy situation. I hope he's found that. He's never been on a more talented team than this year's Vikings.

Most of all, this is a move that gets me excited. I think it may be the right coaching/player/system combination to really work... in time.

Sam Bradford is in the building.
3:04 PM - 3 Sep 2016

dead_poet wrote:
The latter. I do not believe Bradford is a first and a 4th better of a player than Sanchez. His career speaks for itself.

DP Shurmur had both of them at Philly. So I think probably his opinion probably factored in.

If the O-line can protect him, the team will put the ball in the end zone...gotta believe.

Addendum: cowboys signed Mark Sanchez...I've been busy for the last 3 hours. Maybe you cats already know this.

...wisdom

PurpleHalo wrote: A 2nd if they win the super bowl, a 3rd if they make it to the conference title game.

Totally worth it. I would sacrifice Jim for a superbowl.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

S197 wrote: Totally worth it. I would sacrifice Jim for a superbowl.

Let me guess: you'd throw me into a volcano. You Hawaiians...

dead_poet wrote: The latter. I do not believe Bradford is a first and a 4th better of a player than Sanchez. His career speaks for itself.

You get what you pay for in QBs. Sam may not be worth what he cost us but he's better than the free option in our circumstances. I'll at least wait and see how he does before deciding it was a bad move. And trust me I've never been a Bradford fan but if he can limit mistakes and play somewhat better than Teddy (not that hard) we should be fine.

After digesting this for a bit I think I am liking this move.......on one condition......if he stays healthy. If he goes down in a ball of flames then I'm sure I won't have such a fuzzy feeling. Just goes to show you where the organization feels they are at the moment.....on the verge of a big season so under the circumstances they felt the need to make a big move after what happened to TB. So now that we are pulling out all the stops I'm so ready for game one I can't stand it. Skol

Mothman wrote:
Let me guess: you'd throw me into a volcano. You Hawaiians...

Oh you'd barely feel a thing, take one for the team!

dead_poet wrote: True. Most Hall of Fame QBs are already All-Pros by that time. QBs never need time to develop.

Would you rather have Manziel then Bradford too? You act as if Bradford is some great downgrade from Bridgewater but when faced with the fact that he is likely a statistical upgrade you seem to use Teddys youth as an excuse.[/quote]

Youth isn't an excuse. It's what happens when you're young. Do people not understand that QBs can develop? Am I nuts? What is the great Aaron Rodgers had to start out of the gate? It's not absurd to believe one can see Teddy developing and that as a young (there's that excuse again!) QB in a run-first system behind an embarrassment of an o-line that he wasn't going to put up crazy numbers anyway!

I have no idea what Manziel has to do with anything. I think most of our miscommunication is you're seeing and evaluating Teddy as a veteran on a balanced or pass-dominant offense, and not a guy going into his third season on a run-first team.[/quote]

Sorry, you just seem to imply that Bradford is some on field downgrade from Teddy, when really it appears to be other way around thus far in Bridgewaters career. Maybe thats not correct and my perception on what you are thinking is off.

My thinking is this certainly isn't a great deal and probably not even a good deal. But you have to do something to save the season and I think Bradford gives a better chance than a McCarron, Murray, etc.

The Vikings think they have a window, and windows are small in the NFL so you can't just throw in the towel on the season before it starts. The good news is the team has the extra 3rd and will still have a 4th after the trade. Spielman in my opinion is an above average GM but he sucks at contingency planning at the QB position. At the very least we finally have some depth when Teddy is back next year.

Looking at the contracts, the major ones are on the o-line (Kalil, Smith, Berger, Harris all on their last year) so the draft focus is likely to be on the line next year regardless. This team probably has this year and the next as a potential window, then you have to start making tough decisions on who you keep because a ton of guys are coming up for contract in 2018.

So you just gotta go for it. Even if they come up short this year, next year looks pretty good. And let's not forget where the super bowl is next year.

Cowboys may be in hot water with league for signing Sanchez before NFL issued official transaction… dlvr.it/MB5D96 #reddit #nfl

S197 wrote: Oh you'd barely feel a thing, take one for the team!

Throw me in!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0-Qz-aeaU4

S197 wrote: Totally worth it. I would sacrifice Jim for a superbowl.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Lol

Cold is temporary. Purple Pride is forever.