Vikings Message Board.Com

J. Kapp 11 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 11:50 am

Pondering Her Percy wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 11:18 am

Thielen wasnt nearly as emerged in 2016 as he was in 2017. And you can thank Bradford for helping him get to that point. By the looks of it, the plan was starting Thielen alongside Diggs until Treadwell was ready. In turn, Bradford and Thielen took off running. He had nearly 1,000 yards and wasnt nearly as involved early on that year as he was all of 2017

I go back to the opening game of 2017 as a prime example of what Sam Bradford could have been. As good as we were in 2017, I wonder how good we'd been if both Bradford and Cook had stayed healthy.

I'd post the video of that game, but the NFL is blocking it. Here's the link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vrd7PNylP3Q

We were FAST all over the field on offense. Thielen, Diggs, Cook, McKinnon, Jarius Wright. Guys running all over the place. And Bradford was delivering seeds to those guys. As you said, Bradford played his early years under Jeff Fisher, A.K.A. The Quarterback Killer. He was a talented dude who simply got hurt a lot.

Exactly and not only that but I remember Thielen and Diggs both specifically raving about Bradford and how good of a passer he was.

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 11:09 am

J. Kapp 11 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:44 am
Whatever, man.

I'm trying hard to get along with you, but it seems you just HAVE to win every argument.

Guess what. I don't care who's better between Bortles and Bradford, Trubisky or Johnny Freaking Unitas. I don't care. This entire stats exercise misses the point. I understand WHY the Vikings made the trade. You don't, because you knew better. Congratulations. Can we please leave it there?

I went overboard, but this is one of my favorite topics to post about.

Every year, every team has a needs they need to fill. Every year there is a best player available to fill those needs. It is the GM's job to decide what those needs are, who that best players available to fill those needs are, and then to decide whether the cost for acquiring that best player is worth it, or if it would hurt the team more than that player would help it.

Rick was successful in identifying a need on the team, but failed in both of the other two when Teddy went down. Bradford was arguably not the best player available to fill the QB need, and even if he was, the cost of what he gave up to get him wasn't even close to what Bradford could ever contribute.

Is that a fair assessment?

It's fair. But I still don't agree.

Again, go back to the opening game of 2017. That season was a blast, but I can only imagine what might it have been if Bradford and Cook had somehow stayed healthy. I mean, we put up 29 on the Saints, and that was only going 3-for-6 in the red zone. That Vikings offense could move the ball with ease. Then came the mysterious knee injury, and Bradford was done.

The trade, in the end, did not work out. But I don't blame Rick Spielman for making it. Yes, we overpaid. And if you want to blame Spielman for not having something better than Shaun Hill behind Teddy, I'll jump right in there with you. I just have a fundamental difference of opinion as to the need to make the trade. We had nothing behind Teddy, and a great roster waiting to explode. For a team like that, you gamble when things like Teddy's injury happen. Sometimes you lose.

J. Kapp 11 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 11:50 am
I go back to the opening game of 2017 as a prime example of what Sam Bradford could have been. As good as we were in 2017, I wonder how good we'd been if both Bradford and Cook had stayed healthy.

I'd post the video of that game, but the NFL is blocking it. Here's the link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vrd7PNylP3Q

We were FAST all over the field on offense. Thielen, Diggs, Cook, McKinnon, Jarius Wright. Guys running all over the place. And Bradford was delivering seeds to those guys. As you said, Bradford played his early years under Jeff Fisher, A.K.A. The Quarterback Killer. He was a talented dude who simply got hurt a lot.

I high some high hopes after that game. Bradford looked awesome. It really does make you wonder what could have been. Not to take anything away from Keenum of course, who obviously had a lot to say about how 2017 went, but Bradford was dead-on in game 1. Probably wouldn't have changed a thing about the way our season ended though.

It's funny on highlights hearing Gruden say, "this is a no-name receiving core, but man are they getting things done" . They are certainly not no-name anymore are they?

J. Kapp 11 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:12 pm

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 11:09 am

I went overboard, but this is one of my favorite topics to post about.

Every year, every team has a needs they need to fill. Every year there is a best player available to fill those needs. It is the GM's job to decide what those needs are, who that best players available to fill those needs are, and then to decide whether the cost for acquiring that best player is worth it, or if it would hurt the team more than that player would help it.

Rick was successful in identifying a need on the team, but failed in both of the other two when Teddy went down. Bradford was arguably not the best player available to fill the QB need, and even if he was, the cost of what he gave up to get him wasn't even close to what Bradford could ever contribute.

Is that a fair assessment?

It's fair. But I still don't agree.

Again, go back to the opening game of 2017. That season was a blast, but I can only imagine what might it have been if Bradford and Cook had somehow stayed healthy. I mean, we put up 29 on the Saints, and that was only going 3-for-6 in the red zone. That Vikings offense could move the ball with ease. Then came the mysterious knee injury, and Bradford was done.

The trade, in the end, did not work out. But I don't blame Rick Spielman for making it. Yes, we overpaid. And if you want to blame Spielman for not having something better than Shaun Hill behind Teddy, I'll jump right in there with you. I just have a fundamental difference of opinion as to the need to make the trade. We had nothing behind Teddy, and a great roster waiting to explode. For a team like that, you gamble when things like Teddy's injury happen. Sometimes you lose.

There is zero evidence to indicate Bradford's season would have continued to be even close to that first game and and entire career to prove it wouldn't.

I don't think we disagree on the need for the trade. There was absolutely a need that existed. What I think we disagree on, is the wisdom of overpaying to fill that need with a QB of Sam Bradford's skill level. I think it is always a bad move to trade a first for a bottom 10 starter, no matter the need, you think Sam Bradford still had potential to be great 6 years into a terrible career, and was worth risking the future of the franchise for the immediate season.

I will stop now because I feel like I am arguing water is wet with people who think it is very dry.

J. Kapp 11 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 11:50 am
I'd post the video of that game, but the NFL is blocking it. Here's the link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vrd7PNylP3Q

Whoops, that took me down the rabbit hole. I just lost an hour+ watching 2017 highlights. This is your fault Kapp.

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:32 pm

J. Kapp 11 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:12 pm
It's fair. But I still don't agree.

Again, go back to the opening game of 2017. That season was a blast, but I can only imagine what might it have been if Bradford and Cook had somehow stayed healthy. I mean, we put up 29 on the Saints, and that was only going 3-for-6 in the red zone. That Vikings offense could move the ball with ease. Then came the mysterious knee injury, and Bradford was done.

The trade, in the end, did not work out. But I don't blame Rick Spielman for making it. Yes, we overpaid. And if you want to blame Spielman for not having something better than Shaun Hill behind Teddy, I'll jump right in there with you. I just have a fundamental difference of opinion as to the need to make the trade. We had nothing behind Teddy, and a great roster waiting to explode. For a team like that, you gamble when things like Teddy's injury happen. Sometimes you lose.

There is zero evidence to indicate Bradford's season would have continued to be even close to that first game and and entire career to prove it wouldn't.

I don't think we disagree on the need for the trade. There was absolutely a need that existed. What I think we disagree on, is the wisdom of overpaying to fill that need with a QB of Sam Bradford's skill level. I think it is always a bad move to trade a first for a bottom 10 starter, no matter the need, you think Sam Bradford still had potential to be great 6 years into a terrible career, and was worth risking the future of the franchise for the immediate season.

I will stop now because I feel like I am arguing water is wet with people who think it is very dry.

And there is also zero evidence to indicate that if Bradford had stayed healthy that his season couldn't have continued to show him continue to perform for the majority of the season either. As you know as a fan sometimes a guy is put in the right situation, with the right team and and becomes a huge piece of the puzzle of being a successful, and possibly a Championship team. I seriously doubt that you expected Foles to go on the great run he did and end up leading the Eagles to become the SB Champs AND be the MVP.
Just maybe if Bradford was able to stay healthy and play that whole season, and of course other things also fell in line, how can we sit here and say that he couldn't have went all the way. Just like we can't sit here and say that if he didn't get injured that it was a slam dunk that we would have been the SB champs.
I know after the way he tore apart the Saints I was at least excited about what could be. And from what I have read there are others here that also seem to have had a boost of confidence and hope after that game that Bradford just may be on the brink of breaking through, along with his team, of doing something special.
So some here have that opinion and that's the way they saw it.
You obviously don't see it that way. That's fine.
But honestly sometimes I see where people take your points and opinions in you posts as coming across that they are pretty much morons because their opinions don't align with yours.
I know once when I talked in a PM to you when I felt I crossed the line in a comment to you, I believe in the game chat, that you said no biggie because normally you really don't even look who you are replying to.
But it's also obvious here that you do have several people that you seem to have alot of back n forths that can start to get heated.
I'm not trying to become one of those. I'm just saying that sometimes your parting shots, like the one above using the arguing about water analogy just seem needless and quite frankly, bordering on arrogance, as I said, creating the image that you seem to feel like your opinion is the only correct one.
In this one, about whether Bradford could have kept lightning it up the way he did opening night and have a very successful season is something NONE of us can positively say would or not have happened, because he was injured and wasn't able to show us that scenerio.
He may have had a magic season, or he could have stayed healthy and just played average or stunk. We will never know.
But just because some posters here believe that it was a possibility, and obviously you don't, doesn't make your opinion any more important or valid than anyone else's. It just makes it different. Plain and simple.
I'm not starting a fight with you here, because I do enjoy the majority of your posts. But I also honestly see why some people do get frustrated with you and end up doing off on back and forth battles that seem to just keep going.
Just food for thought. I am saying all this as civil as possible and hope you take it that way, in the spirit that it was intended.
Hope your cool with that. I am not trying to start one of those battles with you. And I won't fall into it. Just trying to hope to bring to your attention why sometimes people do seem to take you comments and seem to let them get under their skin and then its DING.. Round 1.

This seems like a good time to remind everybody to focus on the substance of posts and not on the person posting.

We obviously try to maintain some wiggle room about this but it really is best to keep comments to football and related topics. We're all human and occasionally we're going to get frustrated with one another but the more we keep posts about substance and not about each other, the better it is for the board and everyone involved.

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:32 pmI will stop now because I feel like I am arguing water is wet with people who think it is very dry.

Why do you have to do that? Can't you just disagree without the derogatory comments?

Bowhunter is right. You push everything from civil discussion to over-the-edge comments like this.

Please take your own advice and stop now.

J. Kapp 11 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 4:36 pm

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:32 pmI will stop now because I feel like I am arguing water is wet with people who think it is very dry.

Why do you have to do that? Can't you just disagree without the derogatory comments?

Bowhunter is right. You push everything from civil discussion to over-the-edge comments like this.

Please take your own advice and stop now.

It wasn’t meant to be a parting shot and I apologize if it came off that way.

J. Kapp 11 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:12 pm

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 11:09 am

I went overboard, but this is one of my favorite topics to post about.

Every year, every team has a needs they need to fill. Every year there is a best player available to fill those needs. It is the GM's job to decide what those needs are, who that best players available to fill those needs are, and then to decide whether the cost for acquiring that best player is worth it, or if it would hurt the team more than that player would help it.

Rick was successful in identifying a need on the team, but failed in both of the other two when Teddy went down. Bradford was arguably not the best player available to fill the QB need, and even if he was, the cost of what he gave up to get him wasn't even close to what Bradford could ever contribute.

Is that a fair assessment?

It's fair. But I still don't agree.

Again, go back to the opening game of 2017. That season was a blast, but I can only imagine what might it have been if Bradford and Cook had somehow stayed healthy. I mean, we put up 29 on the Saints, and that was only going 3-for-6 in the red zone. That Vikings offense could move the ball with ease. Then came the mysterious knee injury, and Bradford was done.

The trade, in the end, did not work out. But I don't blame Rick Spielman for making it. Yes, we overpaid. And if you want to blame Spielman for not having something better than Shaun Hill behind Teddy, I'll jump right in there with you. I just have a fundamental difference of opinion as to the need to make the trade. We had nothing behind Teddy, and a great roster waiting to explode. For a team like that, you gamble when things like Teddy's injury happen. Sometimes you lose.

There might be some areas where Bradford was better than Cousins, but I don't know what they are. Even where Cousins is weakest -- pocket presence and poise -- Bradford is even weaker. Bradford was a disaster of a trade for this franchise. He was never going to get this team anywhere meaningful and they shortsightedly blew a first round pick on him probably just to make sure they got a few more butts in the seats.

J. Kapp 11 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:59 pm

fiestavike wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:49 pm
Except Bortles is better than Sam bradford... worst pocket presence I've ever seen in my life.

And now we're throwing out hyperbole just to win an argument. Sam Bradford was one of the most gifted throwers of the football who has played in the last 25 years. He just couldn't stay healthy.

Plus, nobody was worse than Blake Bortles. Not Spurgon Wynn, not Akili Smith, not Ryan Leaf. Nobody.

See, I can sling it, too.

I'm not sure what your point is. I think Sam Bradford was a genuinely terrible QB.

ps, I don't care about winning arguments. Save that #$% for those that do.

fiestavike wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 5:41 pm

J. Kapp 11 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:59 pm
And now we're throwing out hyperbole just to win an argument. Sam Bradford was one of the most gifted throwers of the football who has played in the last 25 years. He just couldn't stay healthy.

Plus, nobody was worse than Blake Bortles. Not Spurgon Wynn, not Akili Smith, not Ryan Leaf. Nobody.

See, I can sling it, too.

I'm not sure what your point is. I think Sam Bradford was a genuinely terrible QB.

ps, I don't care about winning arguments. Save that #$% for those that do.

My point is when you use hyperbole, you don't help your position.

That said, I got chippy there, and I apologize.

I need to duck out of this conversation. Can't even have a contrary opinion around here without getting bludgeoned, and that's causing me to lose patience. Intelligent discourse where opinions are respected apparently isn't on the menu for VMB anymore. Thirteen years on this message board ... not sure I want to stick around.

J. Kapp 11 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 11:01 pm

fiestavike wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 5:41 pm

I'm not sure what your point is. I think Sam Bradford was a genuinely terrible QB.

ps, I don't care about winning arguments. Save that #$% for those that do.

My point is when you use hyperbole, you don't help your position.

That said, I got chippy there, and I apologize.

I need to duck out of this conversation. Can't even have a contrary opinion around here without getting bludgeoned, and that's causing me to lose patience. Intelligent discourse where opinions are respected apparently isn't on the menu for VMB anymore. Thirteen years on this message board ... not sure I want to stick around.

Well I know plenty on here want you to stick around kapp including myself. You’re one of the bright spots of this board and many of us enjoy your insight. I personally do because you’re consistent with telling it how it is and I respect that. But I do agree with what you are saying and this thread has caused me to lose patience too and it seems like the same consistent members that tend to cause that feeling.

This board has quickly become divided since cousins got here IMO. There are the fans that are optimistic regarding the GM, coaches, players, etc and there are fans that think this team is a dumpster fire from the GM down to the players and if one doesn’t agree with the other, all hell breaks loose. I’m not going to sit here and act like I haven’t gotten involved in it because I have. We all have at some point. And guys can sit here and say well I think this aspect is good and this aspect isn’t but bottom line is, it has divided. There are consistent groups that agree with each other and have the same views. Just look at who likes who’s posts, it’s a dead giveaway. However it’s usually the dumpster fire fans that are jumping down the optimistic ones throats more often than not IMO. And I feel like 99% of the time if you don’t come out and say spielman sucks, zimmer sucks and/or cousins sucks you’re going to get lit into over it.

We all have our opinions and like I said, you can tell who’s agreeing with who more often than not. But bottom line is, the attacking has to stop and you know who you are. I’ll be the first to say I’ve done it before in 8 years of being on here but I’ve learned overtime that’s it’s much easier to simply say, agree to disagree. Nothing is wrong with some discussion but I couldn’t tell you how many times I had to stick my neck out and say ”agree to disagree” just to get specific posters to stop with their crap.

We are all rooting for the same team and same goal. Enough is enough. We’re going to start losing valuable members (like Kapp) because of crap like this and again, you know who you are. PK continued to go down that road and eventually got banned. I don’t want to see anyone get banned. And I don’t want to see anyone leave because the ego and button pushing of some on here drive them out.

Bowhunting Viking wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 3:43 pm So some here have that opinion and that's the way they saw it.
You obviously don't see it that way. That's fine.
But honestly sometimes I see where people take your points and opinions in you posts as coming across that they are pretty much morons because their opinions don't align with yours.
I know once when I talked in a PM to you when I felt I crossed the line in a comment to you, I believe in the game chat, that you said no biggie because normally you really don't even look who you are replying to.
But it's also obvious here that you do have several people that you seem to have alot of back n forths that can start to get heated.
I'm not trying to become one of those. I'm just saying that sometimes your parting shots, like the one above using the arguing about water analogy just seem needless and quite frankly, bordering on arrogance, as I said, creating the image that you seem to feel like your opinion is the only correct one.
In this one, about whether Bradford could have kept lightning it up the way he did opening night and have a very successful season is something NONE of us can positively say would or not have happened, because he was injured and wasn't able to show us that scenerio.
He may have had a magic season, or he could have stayed healthy and just played average or stunk. We will never know.
But just because some posters here believe that it was a possibility, and obviously you don't, doesn't make your opinion any more important or valid than anyone else's. It just makes it different. Plain and simple.
I'm not starting a fight with you here, because I do enjoy the majority of your posts. But I also honestly see why some people do get frustrated with you and end up doing off on back and forth battles that seem to just keep going.
Just food for thought. I am saying all this as civil as possible and hope you take it that way, in the spirit that it was intended.
Hope your cool with that. I am not trying to start one of those battles with you. And I won't fall into it. Just trying to hope to bring to your attention why sometimes people do seem to take you comments and seem to let them get under their skin and then its DING.. Round 1.

Excellent post BHV! And I agree as well. Stump you and I have had our battles and by no means am I going to sit here and say I am innocent but like I said above, many times I have to simply say agree to disagree because you’re simply relentless when someone doesn’t agree with you or you don’t agree with what they posted. You’ve taken it WAY over the top too many times and like BHV said, the whole water analogy, along with others you’ve had on here is simply unnecessary. This board already lost enough valuable posters back when AP had the whole child abuse thing and the board shut down, we don’t need you sending more valuable members packing because you don’t know when to quit. I could honestly say that if Kapp or BHV were to leave the board because of you (as well as some others) I’d be right behind them and I’ve been one of the most active posters on here since I joined in 2012. I consider those guys friends and valuable members of this board that unfortunately I have yet to meet in person. But I can tell you if they go, I go. But I don’t need a response from you. Just know that you are getting under A LOT of people’s skin because of how you are acting and it’s pushing members in the wrong direction. You’re going to either get yourself banned or push members away including myself. I don’t want either to happen. So enough is enough

Fat Stupid Loser wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:33 pm

Mothman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 3:50 pm

It's not nonsense. He's a solid player with obvious limitations, several of them in the "intangibles" department. He has strong character but he doesn't bring great confidence, leadership or intangibles to the position. He's not a player you sign to a big contract and build around precisely because he lacks those qualities. Fall behind 24-0 in the playoffs with a player like Mahomes at QB and the team keeps believing they can win and, in fact, may come back to win convincingly, as the Chiefs did in the divisional round. Fall behind like that with Cousins at QB and a team will almost certainly lose and lose big.

That's a very imprecise way to make the point but any experienced fan who's watched those two players for a while should be able to see the very real difference. Statistically, Cousins looks good and he IS a good player. He has solid fundamentals, a good arm, good accuracy (most of the time) and yet, he's not an elite QB. We all know that he's not a game-changer like Mahomes, Wilson, Rodgers, Brees, Jackson, Brady (maybe not anymore?). A team can win with him but he sure doesn't seem to me like the kind of QB to give a mega-contract and build around. His history seems to reinforce that.

So your general philosophy is that you don't pay a big contract to any QB? I ask because you have named some QBs that are considered elite or game changers, but all but one fails on a regular basis to take his team on his back and win SBs. Rodgers has 1 in 17 years. Brees 2 in 20 and lots of 7-9 records in there for both of them. So why pay them? They clearly aren't worth it either. I get that philosophy, I just don't think in today's game you are consistently successful without a really good QB. Doesn't have to be a game changer, has to be really good. And the really good ones get paid. I just don't buy that if you pay a QB or a D end or whatever you can't put a good team around him.

I don't see why Mahomes is labeled a game changer? I watch him in the Champ game and he stood there and waited and waited he could still be standing there. He actually threw to quickly. That OL took over the LOS and that's what did it. Of course the guy has talent. He can throw the football very well. I want to see him drill this 49er team. That's what a game changer does. He better get ready this Bosa kid is also a game changer along with others on that team. Brady can be labeled the best ever. He got lucky and played his entire career in a division that had no challengers. The Bills appear to be that team now. They play D but that QB isn't ready yet. If he flops it's back to square one. Now with the Bills making them play they didn't make it. The 49ers put a good team around a highly paid QB. So it can be done. The blueprint is there. He's no better than Cousins and he doesn't have to throw very much. When he needs to they get beat.
History can teach lessons. Our team let Kapp walk and he was the leader. Those Ds in 1970 and 1971 were about as good as it gets. The best we ever put out there. But we had bums playing the QB position and we couldn't get through the playoffs. Kapp himself wasn't an elite passer as he showed with the Patriots and us but he was a leader. Even he needed something around him. See when he went to the Pats. He couldn't do a thing.