Vikings Message Board.Com

I'm just surprised that anyone would think that QB is a short term problem for this roster? I can see the longer view as Sam is 29, but even then we are likely to get 5 more seasons out of him.

There are places this team needs to add talent. I know it is strange, but for once QB isn't one of them.

mansquatch wrote:I'm just surprised that anyone would think that QB is a short term problem for this roster? I can see the longer view as Sam is 29, but even then we are likely to get 5 more seasons out of him.

There are places this team needs to add talent. I know it is strange, but for once QB isn't one of them.

I didn't interpret HardcoreVike's comments to mean that he views QB as a short term problem for the Vikings but rather that they should be wary of making a an expensive, long term commitment to Bradford after one season. I agree with that. Unless they really need the cap room they could create by renegotiating his contract, I think they might be wise to wait and see how things go next season before making a longer commitment, if his performance in 2017 merits such a commitment.

I think adding QB talent remains a need, just a less urgent need.

I was not saying that at anyone in particular.

To be frank: If Bradford plays 16 games in 2017 and gives us the same level of performance we saw in 2016 he'll warrant a long term deal. I wouldn't be surprised to see him get one this offseason, although I think it would be both pre-mature and unlikely. Bradford gave us the best QB play we've had since 2009.

There are several reasons to think his 2017 numbers will improve.
1.) He will have a full season of OTAs, Mini-camp, Training Camp, etc with his teammates.
2.) He will not lost the first month of the season on a learning curve
3.) It seems likely he'll be playing in the same system with same coaches for a full season, ie no mid-season "system change."

The above I think are a given and not controversial. Here are some more that might be more dubious:
4.) It is improbable that the OL will be "as" decimated by injuries next year or play as poorly as it did in 2016. (It is the Vikings, it might be worse... ).
5.) The running game should improve from it's current status as toilet bowl cleaner.

I think barring a major injury we'll probably see Sam's numbers increase from 2016.

I think the Vikings needs to accomplish three main things Vikings this offseason to be a serious contender:

1.) Zimmer figure out how to coach 16 games consistently and not "lose his team" in 2-4 games
2.) OL improve from current dung heap status to at least "average"
3.) Rushing game crawl out of the cellar.

These are not insurmountable goals. The defense is good enough that average in the botom 2 categories will probably propel them higher in the rankings due to the strength of the rest of the roster.

mansquatch wrote:I was not saying that at anyone in particular.

To be frank: If Bradford plays 16 games in 2017 and gives us the same level of performance we saw in 2016 he'll warrant a long term deal. I wouldn't be surprised to see him get one this offseason, although I think it would be both pre-mature and unlikely. Bradford gave us the best QB play we've had since 2009.

Agreed.

There are several reasons to think his 2017 numbers will improve.
1.) He will have a full season of OTAs, Mini-camp, Training Camp, etc with his teammates.
2.) He will not lost the first month of the season on a learning curve
3.) It seems likely he'll be playing in the same system with same coaches for a full season, ie no mid-season "system change."

We probably will see a system change but presumably, it will be to a system Bradford has played in previously, under Shurmur. I assume you put "system change" in quotes above because of the mid-season change at OC, knowing that even though Shurmur changed up the playcalling a bit, he was still primarily using Turner's playbook, terminology, etc. since an actual mid-season system change was out of the question.

Anyway, that's a technicality. He'll have a full offseason and continuity at OC and that should be beneficial (I certainly hope so). Hopefully, his teammates will adjust well if Shurmur introduces a new playbook, new terminology, etc.

The above I think are a given and not controversial. Here are some more that might be more dubious:
4.) It is improbable that the OL will be "as" decimated by injuries next year or play as poorly as it did in 2016. (It is the Vikings, it might be worse... ).
5.) The running game should improve from it's current status as toilet bowl cleaner.

Let's hope both areas improve significantly but unfortunately, as you've indicated, that's not a given. If they can improve the blocking and actually put together a solid 9or better) running game, it could potentially benefit Bradford quite a bit.

Keep in mind that we could see very little change or quite a bit of change at WR. Thielen is an RFA but I imagine they'll try to keep him and I suspect he'll show them some loyalty as well. Patterson is a free agent and Johnson is a restricted free agent. One or both of them could be gone. Diggs and Treadwell will be back. Wright is under contract but after this season, who the heck knows what will happen with him? His dead cap number for 2017 is close to $1.7 million so I would think he'll be back, not cut.

I think the Vikings needs to accomplish three main things Vikings this offseason to be a serious contender:

1.) Zimmer figure out how to coach 16 games consistently and not "lose his team" in 2-4 games
2.) OL improve from current dung heap status to at least "average"
3.) Rushing game crawl out of the cellar.

These are not insurmountable goals. The defense is good enough that average in the botom 2 categories will probably propel them higher in the rankings due to the strength of the rest of the roster.

I really think they need to improve their run defense too, at least to be a serious Super Bowl contender. Sustaining their current level of pass defense could get interesting too, since some veteran players may not be back.

This could be a very different team next year, hopefully a better one.

I think improving the offense will improve the defense. This was a top defensive unit in spite of a terrible offense that gave it almost zero help. In many cases it even had to score the points to win the games. If this offense can get it's crap together and be threat to score 24-25 points a game then the defense will see fewer rushing snaps as a result.

Put differently: I doubt there is a defensive player playing (maybe Clowney or Aaron Donald) who would provide more incremental value to our team than upgrading our offensive tackles. Replacing TJ Clemmings with even an average lineman will probably add more value than just about any other move the team could make.

We can win on ST and win on DEF. We need our offense to add to the pie. It doesn't need to be as great as the other two groups, but it needs to stop being a constant source of negative plays.

As an aside: The GB/NY game yesterday was a great example of why ST helps win games. The Giant's return game was putrid (and not just that awful kickoff error, it was the punt returns that killed them.) and prevented them from capitalizing on their excellent first half defensive performance. Please pay CP84!

Mothman wrote:

Perhaps the most overlooked part of this past season. Their run D was not good. Too often getting gashed for drive-sustaining runs. They are built on D to play with a lead so they can get the QB and cover on the back end. They need to be a lot more stout at the POA...I'm sure Floyd not playing at all didn't help but he's probably a goner now too so yes, this part of the D needs fixed.

mansquatch wrote:I think improving the offense will improve the defense. This was a top defensive unit in spite of a terrible offense that gave it almost zero help. In many cases it even had to score the points to win the games. If this offense can get it's crap together and be threat to score 24-25 points a game then the defense will see fewer rushing snaps as a result.

Put differently: I doubt there is a defensive player playing (maybe Clowney or Aaron Donald) who would provide more incremental value to our team than upgrading our offensive tackles. Replacing TJ Clemmings with even an average lineman will probably add more value than just about any other move the team could make.

We can win on ST and win on DEF. We need our offense to add to the pie. It doesn't need to be as great as the other two groups, but it needs to stop being a constant source of negative plays.

As an aside: The GB/NY game yesterday was a great example of why ST helps win games. The Giant's return game was putrid (and not just that awful kickoff error, it was the punt returns that killed them.) and prevented them from capitalizing on their excellent first half defensive performance. Please pay CP84!

Solid post....I might add that improving the LB position and DT should help the run D. I like our depth at CB, S, and ends but need to shore up the run D (and PI) to really call this an elite unit. On the other hand they need to pay CP and roll with Thielen, Patterson, Diggs, Wright, and Tread (hoping he takes the next step), solid at TE, and even a little improvement (hoping for a lot) with the OL should net more points. I like the Shurmur announcement and feel very excited to see what he can do with a full off-season at his disposal. Like many have said SB played better than any QB since 09 so what's there not to get pumped up about? Of course the big question is what they will do with AP. AP and OL.....that is the big questions. Should be interesting.