What if Bradford starts Sunday night before he's developed sufficient chemistry with the receivers and really good knowledge of the playbook? What happens if he struggles out of the gate? What if the Vikings have < 7 points at the half and Bradford has thrown a pick? How forgiving will we, as Vikings fans be? Will they/we start chanting for Hill? How long of a leash do we/the coaches give him if he appears to be worse than Hill was in week 1?
My thoughts are the coaching staff needs to be 100% sure Sam is a legitimate upgrade to Hill and it's not even close before turning the reins over. Because once the switch is made for the guy you gave up a 1st and a 4th for...well...there's no turning back. I won't equate it to the Freeman debacle, but this is something that has to go well.
I don't know if I can take reading comments like, "Oh my God. Put Hill back in" after what was traded. Then dealing with the back-and-forth.
I'm not saying Bradford is going to be awful. But I'm nervous about my own and other fans' expectations.
I really HOPE this doesn't happen.
Another scenario is that Bradford sees 7 man fronts all game and winds up with a poorer stat line than Hill did in week 1... but AD has 250 yards rushing and 2 TDs and the Vikings win. Would people be screaming to put Hill back in for week 3????
Mothman wrote:
Yes, even I could jump over that bar and I inspired the movie title "White Men Can't Jump". He has a much better speaking voice than I do so that's probably a good thing.
If anybody equated me with Dick Stockton, I'd be pretty upset. Dude's older than dirt and has been blowing calls since Tommy Heinsohn was calling NBA games with him at CBS.
Did you guys hear his call when Harrison Smith blew up the Tennessee back for a loss in the second half?
"And that's a big tackle for loss by Chad Greenway!"
I'm like, "Dude, Greenway isn't even on the field."
At this point I think Bradford would be slightly better then Hill. Hill hasnt set the bar real high. If Bradorf face the same pressure I would expect better results, even if he doesnt know the offense as well. Hes just a better QB. And we need the better QB against a divisional foe like the Packers. That being said, I think Zimmer gives the nod to hill again.
What if Bradford starts Sunday night before he's developed sufficient chemistry with the receivers and really good knowledge of the playbook? What happens if he struggles out of the gate? What if the Vikings have < 7 points at the half and Bradford has thrown a pick? How forgiving will we, as Vikings fans be? Will they/we start chanting for Hill? How long of a leash do we/the coaches give him if he appears to be worse than Hill was in week 1?
My thoughts are the coaching staff needs to be 100% sure Sam is a legitimate upgrade to Hill and it's not even close before turning the reins over. Because once the switch is made for the guy you gave up a 1st and a 4th for...well...there's no turning back. I won't equate it to the Freeman debacle, but this is something that has to go well.
I don't know if I can take reading comments like, "Oh my God. Put Hill back in" after what was traded. Then dealing with the back-and-forth.
I'm not saying Bradford is going to be awful. But I'm nervous about my own and other fans' expectations.
I just can't see that happening. Bradford can't be worse than Hill, especially if he gets protection. Could he miss some reads? Sure. Could he misfire on a few passes? That could happen too. But even if he performs no better than Hill did in the opener he's still going to get some slack because its his first game as a Viking and he hasn't had much time to prepare. He'd have to do really bad for there to be any sizable level of criticism of him I would think.
What if Bradford starts Sunday night before he's developed sufficient chemistry with the receivers and really good knowledge of the playbook? What happens if he struggles out of the gate? What if the Vikings have < 7 points at the half and Bradford has thrown a pick? How forgiving will we, as Vikings fans be? Will they/we start chanting for Hill? How long of a leash do we/the coaches give him if he appears to be worse than Hill was in week 1?
My thoughts are the coaching staff needs to be 100% sure Sam is a legitimate upgrade to Hill and it's not even close before turning the reins over. Because once the switch is made for the guy you gave up a 1st and a 4th for...well...there's no turning back. I won't equate it to the Freeman debacle, but this is something that has to go well.
I don't know if I can take reading comments like, "Oh my God. Put Hill back in" after what was traded. Then dealing with the back-and-forth.
Brace yourself, we will almost certainly hear them. I seriously doubt this will be a smooth transition, even if Bradford plays Sunday and has a great first game. Fans aren't likely to be too forgiving but that can't concern Zimmer and company. They just have to worry about winning.
Brace yourself, we will almost certainly hear them. I seriously doubt this will be a smooth transition, even if Bradford plays Sunday and has a great first game. Fans aren't likely to be too forgiving but that can't concern Zimmer and company. They just have to worry about winning.
As long as there aren't any post-game questions about who Zimmer will start in week 3 I'll be ok (assuming Bradford starts)
“Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that.” --- Bill Shankly
J. Kapp 11 wrote:If anybody equated me with Dick Stockton, I'd be pretty upset. Dude's older than dirt and has been blowing calls since Tommy Heinsohn was calling NBA games with him at CBS.
Did you guys hear his call when Harrison Smith blew up the Tennessee back for a loss in the second half?
"And that's a big tackle for loss by Chad Greenway!"
I'm like, "Dude, Greenway isn't even on the field."
Awww, it wasn't that kind of jab! I just meant the voice
S197 wrote:There's not a day goes by I don't feel regret about missing that FG. Not because I Walshed it, because you think Gould should be here 'stead of me. I look back on the way I was: a young, stupid kid who had a terrible case of the yips. I want to talk to him. I want to try to talk some sense to him, tell him the way things are. But I can't. That kid's long gone, and this old shanker is all that's left. I got to live with that. Lost my confidence? It's just a #### phrase. So you go on and drop me from your fantasy lineup, sonny, and stop wasting my time. Because to tell you the truth, I don't give a ####.
I find I’m so excited I can barely sit still or hold a thought in my head. I think it’s the excitement only a Vikings fan can feel, with a good young team at the start of a long journey whose conclusion is uncertain. I hope we can make it to the Super Bowl. I hope to see precision passes that stick to our receiver’s hands. I hope the Lombardi Trophy is as shiny in Zimmer’s hands as it has been in my dreams. I hope.
J. Kapp 11 wrote:If anybody equated me with Dick Stockton, I'd be pretty upset. Dude's older than dirt and has been blowing calls since Tommy Heinsohn was calling NBA games with him at CBS.
Did you guys hear his call when Harrison Smith blew up the Tennessee back for a loss in the second half?
"And that's a big tackle for loss by Chad Greenway!"
I'm like, "Dude, Greenway isn't even on the field."
1. I am surprised by the AD hate! It looked to me like he missed 1 hole, but other than that he was swarmed instantly. 8 or 9 guys in the box every single play!!
2. I get the concept of establishing the run but sheeeesshhhh....with 9 guys in the box, you PASS!!!. As others have questioned....I really wonder how much liberty Hill had to audibilize. As an old man one of his few strengths should be the ability to change a play once he sees the defense....but Norv is so hard-headed it wouldn't shock me if audibilizing wasn't an option. would love to know.
3. Can't remember who said it (either Cliff or DP I think but I don't feel like sifting through the posts) but he summed up my feelings perfectly by saying that 'paraphrasing' people were happy with Hill because of the LOW expectations.
That was Cliff's comment.
4. See #3. If it weren't for AD commanding the defenses he does, then I think Hill would have had an ugly start. But I was pleasantly surprised by his performance (between the 20s). He missed Diggs WIDE open for a sure TD, but other than that (and the fact that his passes looked like a turtle walking through molasses) he did what you'd expect a reasonably somewhat decent backup to do....he took what the D gave him and did not turn the ball over. Good enough to beat a below average team on the road.
5. See #1 and #4......Shaun Hill should buy AD a nice gold watch for giving him the Titan D looks that he got on Sunday.
Hopefully, if Bradford gets those same looks he'll be as willing to throw downfield as Hill was but will have more overall success. I also hope Turner empowers him to audible and if he does, I hope Bradford takes advantage of it because as you said, when the opposing team has 9 guys in the box, you PASS! Either that, or you'd better have the power running game to actually beat those formations and it doesn't look to me like this OL is ready for that at all.
If Bradford can be as decisive as Hill.....with more arm strength and accuracy.....then I think we could have something here. Trouble is, Hill has been in the system for over 2 years now and Bradford for less than 2 weeks, so thinking Bradford can be as decisive as Hill was is extremely optimistic, unfortunately
It is... but I'm hoping anyway! I expect GB to sell out to stop peterson so I think Bradford will actually get some of those looks you mentioned (assuming he plays).
I’m not as certain that the difference between Hill and Bradford are that great even now. Hill IMO had 2 major advantages over Bradford in the short term. Familiarity with the offense and snaps/time with the other players.
My guess is that the snap thing is getting equalized quickly since Hill spent most of the pre-season as the backup. So he had backup QB reps, and probably starter reps the week before Bradford arrived. IMO, it is safe to assume that Hills’ reps haven’t been full time, so the question on chemistry/timing is “how long” before Bradford can overtake Hill in establishing that timing/chemistry with the starters? One can probably assume that if it is not this week it will probably be next week. I think this issue is rapidly deteriorating if it hasn’t already. Bradford just won’t be ready if they are not giving him snaps in practice, so they are likely to be giving him reps.
The other issue, and I think this is the bigger one right now, is terminology / communication. How long before Sam can get it to point where he is viable on game day? 1 week was probably not enough time, especially with game planning and all of that going on. Is 2 weeks enough? Possibly. Depends on Sam.
Finally, the biggest thing on a team built like the Vikings is protecting the football. Hill’s performance was good enough on Sunday because of no turnovers combined with our defensive talent. If we put Bradford out there how much more risk is there to the take/give? Is this risk justified by potential offensive production? Keep in mind that if Petersen gets back on track, that will probably swing one, if not two of these field goals to TDs. So it might not all be on the QB to get some more PF. (This is more "The bar is really low right now" than anything else.) The AP thing is an ongoing debate as well, but the point is there are two avenues to “add juice” to the offensive performance we saw last Sunday.
This is my view of the situation: The Sam vs. Hill thing is a toss up this week. I could see them playing it safe with Hill and hoping the Defense can keep them in the game. (not unreasonable, although Rhodes injury is issue) I can see them viewing Bradford as a calculated risk to try and put GB in an early season hole. It is also possible that Bradford is ready.
Winning is not a sometime thing it is an all of the time thing - Vince Lombardi
mansquatch wrote:I’m not as certain that the difference between Hill and Bradford are that great even now. Hill IMO had 2 major advantages over Bradford in the short term. Familiarity with the offense and snaps/time with the other players.
My guess is that the snap thing is getting equalized quickly since Hill spent most of the pre-season as the backup. So he had backup QB reps, and probably starter reps the week before Bradford arrived. IMO, it is safe to assume that Hills’ reps haven’t been full time, so the question on chemistry/timing is “how long” before Bradford can overtake Hill in establishing that timing/chemistry with the starters? One can probably assume that if it is not this week it will probably be next week. I think this issue is rapidly deteriorating if it hasn’t already. Bradford just won’t be ready if they are not giving him snaps in practice, so they are likely to be giving him reps.
The other issue, and I think this is the bigger one right now, is terminology / communication. How long before Sam can get it to point where he is viable on game day? 1 week was probably not enough time, especially with game planning and all of that going on. Is 2 weeks enough? Possibly. Depends on Sam.
Finally, the biggest thing on a team built like the Vikings is protecting the football. Hill’s performance was good enough on Sunday because of no turnovers combined with our defensive talent. If we put Bradford out there how much more risk is there to the take/give? Is this risk justified by potential offensive production? Keep in mind that if Petersen gets back on track, that will probably swing one, if not two of these field goals to TDs. So it might not all be on the QB to get some more PF. (This is more "The bar is really low right now" than anything else.) The AP thing is an ongoing debate as well, but the point is there are two avenues to “add juice” to the offensive performance we saw last Sunday.
This is my view of the situation: The Sam vs. Hill thing is a toss up this week. I could see them playing it safe with Hill and hoping the Defense can keep them in the game. (not unreasonable, although Rhodes injury is issue) I can see them viewing Bradford as a calculated risk to try and put GB in an early season hole. It is also possible that Bradford is ready.
I think at a macro level it becomes a faith question. You will not win against the packers putting up 0 TDs on offense over 90% of the time. Do you trust that Hill can put up a TD or two without a turnover or do you assume that Bradford with his greater assets on paper can put up TDs with fewer turnovers.
I am leaning towards a Bradford start but I wouldn't bet money on it.
News came out today via my news feed, that Bradford has all first team reps this week. Can't recall source, may have been Daily Norseman, so take with grain of salt. If true, that would basically settle the debate. How likely is Hill to start with ZERO first team reps leading up to a game?
Winning is not a sometime thing it is an all of the time thing - Vince Lombardi
He has a much better speaking voice than I do so that's probably a good thing.
