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

[bt08]

I know how good the team can be but that isn't the point. The fact of the matter is many of your commrades have a hard time admitting the obvious. It is they who are not content with having a really good kick ass team, regardless of cost

the point is, some fans, including myself, don't believe they gave up too much given the circumstances. Its pretty simple.

 

[CowboyB]

counting the winnings 2 hours into an all night poker game is pretty foolish - no?

Logical Fallacy: Apples to Oranges

If you believed yourself you'd have a wait and see stance on them overpaying but I'm pretty sure you made it clear you have your mind made up as well.... Ehem... Hypocrite

 

[eaglesnut]

They overpaid, as in they didn't need to pay that much. You diverge in that you want to be practical and a homer at the same time.

Yes they did. Eagles weren't going to take the risk for less. All this information is out there. Spielman and Roseman were both pretty open with their respective operations related to this deal.

 

[eaglesnut]

I didn't realize you had inside information

He's making stuff up. The Eagles obviously had no problem paying that much because they are the ones who chose to pay that much. And moving Bradford, after he proved he was healthy to other teams, was always in the plans. He just got "healthier" sooner because the Vikings were comparing his health to Teddy's health.

 

[eaglesnut]

Bradford

View attachment 149232

Hill

View attachment 149233


Is the difference that compelling to give up a 1st and a 4th for?

Yes. A guy that has never thrown for over 2,700 or a guy that's thrown for over 3,500 every single one of his healthy years. Is your question a joke? Do you not understand numbers or do you not understand math? Furthermore, do you have eyeballs?

 

[packerzrule]

Logical Fallacy: Apples to Oranges

If you believed yourself you'd have a wait and see stance on them overpaying but I'm pretty sure you made it clear you have your mind made up as well.... Ehem... Hypocrite

on the contrary

I already made up my mind based on what I have seen him do the last 5 seasons. What he has done so far this season is polar opposite of his past history but if you want to believe that he will maintain this performance throughout, then that is just wishful thinking.

 

[packerzrule]

Yes. A guy that has never thrown for over 2,700 or a guy that's thrown for over 3,500 every single one of his healthy years. Is your question a joke? Do you not understand numbers or do you not understand math? Furthermore, do you have eyeballs?

hahaha

you must have been one of the Eagles fans already clearing room for the Lombardi Trophy when they drafted him

 

[CowboyB]

on the contrary

I already made up my mind based on what I have seen him do the last 5 seasons. What he has done so far this season is polar opposite of his past history but if you want to believe that he will maintain this performance throughout, then that is just wishful thinking.

Why do you people consistently ignore last year and his first year and instead focus on times he was injured and had the worst offensive lines in the league, some of the worst receivers, and zero running game and zero defense?

 

[eaglesnut]

so, the Vikings gave up the draft picks based on his "ability"?

ability, schmability - it's results that count

The results so far are 4-0 and a packers loss.

 

[eaglesnut]

hahaha

you must have been one of the Eagles fans already clearing room for the Lombardi Trophy when they drafted him

We didn't draft Sam Bradford. You are clueless.

 

[CowboyB]

The results so far are 4-0 and a packers loss.

Why do you think he's so mad?

 

[packerzrule]

We didn't draft Sam Bradford. You are clueless.

I stand corrected - my apologies

 

[eaglesnut]

Why do you people consistently ignore last year and his first year and instead focus on times he was injured and had the worst offensive lines in the league, some of the worst receivers, and zero running game and zero defense?

Because they're haters. They aren't people observing the game.

 

[chf]

Do you not understand numbers or do you not understand math? Furthermore, do you have eyeballs?

Heh, numbers and math don't apply to Wilson though.

 

[packerzrule]

The results so far are 4-0 and a packers loss.

no denying that

let's see where they are at come January

 

[eaglesnut]

on the contrary

I already made up my mind based on what I have seen him do the last 5 seasons. What he has done so far this season is polar opposite of his past history but if you want to believe that he will maintain this performance throughout, then that is just wishful thinking.

It's not the polar opposite. It's a guy who has developed into a damn good QB from the inexperienced and injured QB he was in the past. Now he has the experience, we'll see about staying standing. And this year is his first year as a veteran with a healthy offseason. You people that don't think that makes a difference have wretchedly dysfunctional brains.

 

[CowboyB]

Because they're haters. They aren't people observing the game.

I had to stand up for that asshole Bradford forever. And then the piece of shit cries about wanting out of the Rams. I hate him... But I can at least be honest and have eyeballs.

 

[bt08]

no denying that

let's see where they are at come January

yeah lets, time to move on

 

[eaglesnut]

no denying that

let's see where they are at come January

Great defenses and functional passing games win all year long.

 

[packerzrule]

Yes. A guy that has never thrown for over 2,700 or a guy that's thrown for over 3,500 every single one of his healthy years. Is your question a joke? Do you not understand numbers or do you not understand math? Furthermore, do you have eyeballs?

if passing yards is your benchmark for success, then yes, the Bradford deal was worth the risk that the Vikings took

I tend to look more at TDs, INTs, completion percentages and W/L records. How did his teams fare during those 3,500+ yds passing years?