Why the Vikings didn't overpay for Sam Bradford...

[fordman84]

No argument, but I do think the Vikes would be 4-0 with Hill also.

Exactly. And they would have a 1st rounder next year to keep drafting well, as they have said they are doing.

Freaking butt-fumble could lead this defense to 4-0.

 

[PnkPanther]

If you can find someone that loses a QB and will overpay for Sam, then you are right. I doubt the same situation arises mid-season next year. You won't trade Sam in the offseason in case Teddy has a setback, so it has to be a deadline trade.

I don't see it happening. I see Sam walking after 2017 when his contract is up and you will have paid a 1st+ for about 19 games.

Possible, or Sam plays well, keeps the job and they trade Teddy. Probably wouldn't garner a first for either, but potentially trade chip. I'm not saying for certain it will be, but one option

Vikings weren't comfortable with their back up situation BEFORE Teddy got hurt. They tried to sign Nick Foles who ended up in KC. Shaun Hill is a competent back up that can fill in a pinch, but I dont think he could could go 16 games and I don't think we'd be 4-0.

Vikings believed their roster was worthy of competing for a super bowl and losing Teddy took a hit. They needed a starting QB 8 days prior to season start. The number of teams with 2 starting QB's (much less 1 in some cases) is small. Other teams smelled blood and knew they had vikings bent over a barrel so to speak. According to Rick other teams wanted a player (most likely Anthony Barr or Diggs) and picks for QB's vikings viewed as a back up. Bradford has history with Shurmur whose on our coaching staff and was available. Eagles initially wanted TWO first rounders for him. But Vikings felt they should go all in, and through 4 games, their defense is showing why. Rick had another deal in place, but they decided Bradford was best option

So, yes, they overpaid, but they were forced to. They gambled they were ready to compete now, than 5 years from now, or two years from now. Going with Hill is essentially punting on the season. Vikings other QB for record is hurt because he kicked in his door during off season.

It's fair to say they overpaid and it's fair to criticize them to not be prepared to lose Teddy for extended time. The reality is they had 2 options, punt on the season or take a gamble. Vikings have found players throughout draft and have an extra 3rd already next year.

Also through prior trades, Vikings have had extra first rounds prior years.

The draft has become such event NFL fans look forward to it and I think it skews. Situation dictated they overpay.

I would be skeptical they'd be 4-0 with Hill. I'm not sure what other QB's were made available, but I doubt that list is exciting and I'm sure teams wanted more than a throw away draft pick for them.

So far so good and 2 draft picks wont doom vikings future, the pick is likely to be a late pick, and if they want back in the first have the ammo to do so.

 

[PnkPanther]

Exactly. And they would have a 1st rounder next year to keep drafting well, as they have said they are doing.

Freaking butt-fumble could lead this defense to 4-0.

Possible, but I prefer Bradford to Sanchez and it's not close. I would've said that prior to Season as well

 

[Manster7588]

Pink Panther is getting upset with the anti Bradford talk.

 

[bt08]

Pink Panther is getting upset with the anti Bradford talk.

because this thread won't die, even when we're 4-0 folks are still on here saying we overpaid for him. I think its time to "let it go"

 

[PnkPanther]

Pink Panther is getting upset with the anti Bradford talk.

I agree we overpaid, but ignoring context seems foolish. We didn't trade for Bradford to be the guy to carry the team, we paid for him to do his job so teams aspirations weren't derailed by having to rely on 37 year old journeyman with same Physique I have

 

[Manster7588]

because this thread won't die, even when we're 4-0 folks are still on here saying we overpaid for him. I think its time to "let it go"

The Vikes are 4-0 because of their D, not because of Bradford and their conservative O. I will freely admit I underestimated their D, it's been amazing and it's not like they played against a bunch of scrub offenses. I'm saying Minny is winning the same way I said we can't count Denver out, it's because of their D.
I had no idea that D was this good. The only way I'll say Minny didn't overpay is if they win the SB, any thing less you all threw away a 1st and likely longtime starter, for a rental.

 

[Manster7588]

I agree we overpaid, but ignoring context seems foolish. We didn't trade for Bradford to be the guy to carry the team, we paid for him to do his job so teams aspirations weren't derailed by having to rely on 37 year old journeyman with same Physique I have

If you agree, why the face palms for us saying they overpaid?

 

[PnkPanther]

If you agree, why the face palms for us saying they overpaid?

they're for saying Hill/Sanchez could've lead us to 4-0

 

[BUD]

Bradford is worth it..

 

[Manster7588]

they're for saying Hill/Sanchez could've lead us to 4-0

Watching that D I do think Hill could have you at 4-0

 

[PnkPanther]

Watching that D I do think Hill could have you at 4-0

I'm skeptical. Bradford can stretch the field, Hill cannot. Hill's arm strength is sub-par, worse than Teddy who didn't have a cannon either. Defenses could compact throwing lanes. MN didn't have an offensive TD in game Hill started.

Bradford gives us a better shot to do damage in the playoffs than Hill, which is the goal of the Vikings

 

[fordman84]

Situation dictated they overpay.

That's all you need to say. So you agree with me that they overpaid. That's the point of the thread and all I've said.

 

[fordman84]

Possible, but I prefer Bradford to Sanchez and it's not close. I would've said that prior to Season as well

No doubt you do, I would too. But doesn't mean the Vikes didn't overpay for Sam.

 

[fordman84]

Pink Panther is getting upset with the anti Bradford talk.

I'm not speaking anti-bradford. I'm saying the vikings paid too much for him. They didn't need to give up a 1st in order to be 4-0. Unless they win the SB, they overpaid.

 

[fordman84]

because this thread won't die, even when we're 4-0 folks are still on here saying we overpaid for him. I think its time to "let it go"

bullshit. when you win a SB then the price was worth it. Until then you paid a 1st and at least a 4th for a guy that hasn't been a game changer.

 

[fordman84]

I agree we overpaid, but ignoring context seems foolish. We didn't trade for Bradford to be the guy to carry the team, we paid for him to do his job so teams aspirations weren't derailed by having to rely on 37 year old journeyman with same Physique I have

And that is all I'm saying. But you and other Vikes fans have an issue when I say it.

 

[fordman84]

they're for saying Hill/Sanchez could've lead us to 4-0

I've seen nothing from Sam that shows otherwise. He hasn't won any games, he just hasn't lost them. That is a game manager, and Hill has proven even this year that he can do the same.

If Sam were putting up 300+ yards and 3 TD's in a shootout that won by 4 points then I would say he is why they won. But he's not.

 

[CowboyB]

@SJ76 @PhillyGreen @chf

Shhhhhhh

 

[Win TWINS!!!]

That's all you need to say. So you agree with me that they overpaid. That's the point of the thread and all I've said.

You play to win now. Not next year or the year after. Roster turnovers and injuries should tell you as much. There's no guarantee that this same defense will be the same in following years.

I don't believe Hill or Sanchez or any of the other names thrown out there, would have us 4-0 right now. Even still, could any of those QBs be counted on for a full season? Hill.... probably not.

Did they over pay? Yes - but not by as much as you and others have been claiming.