Quote: @silverjoel said:
@ greediron said:
@ silverjoel said:
He was benched in Arizona prior to this "report" of bone on bone missed practices for extremely poor QB play. He passed a physical with the Cardinals in the off-season. He was never listed on any injury reports this year. There have always been reports about him not working out in the weight room and such. And from who is quote coming?
The reason he is not on the Vikings or Cardinals is because he is not a good QB and definitely not worth what he has been paid.
So basically he hasn't been practicing since he was benched. Kinda makes sense if it is bone on bone. That has to be extremely painful. Kinda like how he looked that brief stint against Chicago last year, unable to move and looked afraid to take any hits lest they hit the knees.
He was a good QB, but he is done. Not sure why a team would risk so much when it was known he was in rough shape. Perhaps they were desperate?
Let me see if I have your reasoning correct. Bradford had this knee issue the entire season, but it didn't affect him at practice until he was benched (again, due to very bad QB play) in the fourth quarter of the third game. Then the knee was just too bad to practice. Why wouldn't the Cardinals place him on IR and cut him in the offseason? He only makes more money if he was active. Can a team even cut an "injured" player without an injury settlement?
Again, not on injury report and passed his physical earlier. Further, Bradford has a history of being petty. Maybe he stopped practicing because he was benched and wasn't in any future plans for the Cardinals and that is why they cut him mid-season.
Oh, about the Bears game, that was one of the most Bradford ever moved around while with the Vikings. I don't understand the admiration for essentially a one year Viking who "led" the team to a 7-8 record after one of the most dominant defensive starts to a season had the Vikings at 5-0 (defense was at or very very near the top in every defensive category).
So I don't have any affection for Bradford. I was one that wasn't that impressed with his dink and dunk completion record. And no, the bears game was pitiful, Bradford couldn't move and basically fell down when contacted by the rush.
As to your assessment that he was petty and didn't lift, I won't question your sources, but given your history on this subject, I chose to not believe you.
My point was, after being demoted to 3rd string, i doubt he had much motivation to push through the pain. Call it petty or call it what it is, a painful knee that isn't worth dealing with. As to the Cardinals, they signed the deal, they chose to pay him with the known fact that his knee was bone on bone.
Quote: @Purple Haze said:
@ silverjoel said:
He was benched in Arizona prior to this "report" of bone on bone missed practices for extremely poor QB play. He passed a physical with the Cardinals in the off-season. He was never listed on any injury reports this year. There have always been reports about him not working out in the weight room and such. And from who is quote coming?
The reason he is not on the Vikings or Cardinals is because he is not a good QB and definitely not worth what he has been paid.
Actually he is a very good QB, he just could not stay healthy his entire career. He has only played 14 or more games 4 times in his 9 year career and two of those seasons were his first and third years when the Rams were horrible. In his 30 full games with the Vikings he had 42 TD's - 19 Int's, 67% completion, 274 Yds/game. Thats not a bad QB. He did fleece the NFL for a bunch of money though, but if there is a team willing to pay why not take it.
Wait - what?? He may have had 30 (I think 33 actually) games on our roster, but he was only active for 17, and in that time, he threw 23 TD passes with 5 INTs. Not too bad per active game, but if you consider that we paid him for 2 seasons and barely got 1 season...not a good QB for the Vikings.
I was personally excited by the acquisition of Bradford because I imagined he might have a career revival of the type Jim Plunkett enjoyed once with the Raiders. But that was an unlikely longshot and everyone who makes football decisions professionally should have known that...it was a lottery ticket, but the Vikings paid the price (14th overall pick in 2017) of a blue-chip stock.
If this thread, with the loss of the potential comp pick confirmed, is where each of us makes final judgment of the trade for Bradford, the key question is: how much worse would the Vikings have fared if we had just used Shaun Hill in 2016? My guess is we would have ended up about 6-10 - a disappointing year, but that 8-8 season was hardly a treasure. Trading for Bradford was a bad decision and failure.
Quote: @greediron said:
@ silverjoel said:
@ greediron said:
@ silverjoel said:
He was benched in Arizona prior to this "report" of bone on bone missed practices for extremely poor QB play. He passed a physical with the Cardinals in the off-season. He was never listed on any injury reports this year. There have always been reports about him not working out in the weight room and such. And from who is quote coming?
The reason he is not on the Vikings or Cardinals is because he is not a good QB and definitely not worth what he has been paid.
So basically he hasn't been practicing since he was benched. Kinda makes sense if it is bone on bone. That has to be extremely painful. Kinda like how he looked that brief stint against Chicago last year, unable to move and looked afraid to take any hits lest they hit the knees.
He was a good QB, but he is done. Not sure why a team would risk so much when it was known he was in rough shape. Perhaps they were desperate?
Let me see if I have your reasoning correct. Bradford had this knee issue the entire season, but it didn't affect him at practice until he was benched (again, due to very bad QB play) in the fourth quarter of the third game. Then the knee was just too bad to practice. Why wouldn't the Cardinals place him on IR and cut him in the offseason? He only makes more money if he was active. Can a team even cut an "injured" player without an injury settlement?
Again, not on injury report and passed his physical earlier. Further, Bradford has a history of being petty. Maybe he stopped practicing because he was benched and wasn't in any future plans for the Cardinals and that is why they cut him mid-season.
Oh, about the Bears game, that was one of the most Bradford ever moved around while with the Vikings. I don't understand the admiration for essentially a one year Viking who "led" the team to a 7-8 record after one of the most dominant defensive starts to a season had the Vikings at 5-0 (defense was at or very very near the top in every defensive category).
So I don't have any affection for Bradford. I was one that wasn't that impressed with his dink and dunk completion record. And no, the bears game was pitiful, Bradford couldn't move and basically fell down when contacted by the rush.
As to your assessment that he was petty and didn't lift, I won't question your sources, but given your history on this subject, I chose to not believe you.
My point was, after being demoted to 3rd string, i doubt he had much motivation to push through the pain. Call it petty or call it what it is, a painful knee that isn't worth dealing with. As to the Cardinals, they signed the deal, they chose to pay him with the known fact that his knee was bone on bone.
Ok. If you have access, watch 2016 @ Eagles or 2016 @ Bears or 2017 preseason. All of those games looked like 2017 @ Bears.
As to this "report", there are two rumors within it: Bradford hadn't practiced for 5 weeks and his knee is injured (bone on bone).
First part, no reporter noticed that Bradford wasn't practicing for those 5 weeks and the Cardinals didn't list Bradford on the injury report, even though they would be required to by league rules. So, why would the Cardinals hide not practicing and refuse to list Bradford on the injury report?
Second part, Bradford was skiing in the offseason, per Zimmer and other reports. Skiing is very hard on knees. He practiced all through raining camp and the first 3 or 4 weeks of the season (depending on when you consider 5 weeks ago). Plus, an NFL team cannot release an injured player.
I'm not big on conspiracy theories, but it would have to go something like the Cardinals didn't let reporters see practice and hid his injury, without concern about possible fines by the league, so they could try to trade him and recoup some money/draft pick.
Here's simpler explanation. Bradford was promised the starting job, per the Cardinals coach (you can look it up if you want). Bradford was at practice, again per the Cardinals coach (you can look it up if you want). Bradford was benched because the Cardinals scored a total of 20 points through the first three games and was ineffective. Cardinals cut Bradford because he wasn't in their future plans (I'm sure they tried to trade him, but that's speculation), thus giving Bradford a chance to get on another team.
You can choose to believe whatever you want. The workout stuff is rumor(take it up with Mike Morris if you want), but Bradford sitting out for awhile after the Eagles drafted Wentz (can't remember if he asked for a trade off the top of my head) is widely publicized.
My position on the subject is pretty clear: the Vikings as a team over an individual player. All of 2016 we had to hear how Bradford was doing amazing things, but the team was letting him down. The defense needed to step up, the OL was the worst in history, needed another WR, needed a new TE, needed a new OC and my favorite, fire Zimmer. It was a terrible year, "somehow" sandwiched by roughly the same team winning NFCN titles.
Quote: @Jor-El said:
@ Purple Haze said:
@ silverjoel said:
He was benched in Arizona prior to this "report" of bone on bone missed practices for extremely poor QB play. He passed a physical with the Cardinals in the off-season. He was never listed on any injury reports this year. There have always been reports about him not working out in the weight room and such. And from who is quote coming?
The reason he is not on the Vikings or Cardinals is because he is not a good QB and definitely not worth what he has been paid.
Actually he is a very good QB, he just could not stay healthy his entire career. He has only played 14 or more games 4 times in his 9 year career and two of those seasons were his first and third years when the Rams were horrible. In his 30 full games with the Vikings he had 42 TD's - 19 Int's, 67% completion, 274 Yds/game. Thats not a bad QB. He did fleece the NFL for a bunch of money though, but if there is a team willing to pay why not take it.
Wait - what?? He may have had 30 (I think 33 actually) games on our roster, but he was only active for 17, and in that time, he threw 23 TD passes with 5 INTs. Not too bad per active game, but if you consider that we paid him for 2 seasons and barely got 1 season...not a good QB for the Vikings.
I was personally excited by the acquisition of Bradford because I imagined he might have a career revival of the type Jim Plunkett enjoyed once with the Raiders. But that was an unlikely longshot and everyone who makes football decisions professionally should have known that...it was a lottery ticket, but the Vikings paid the price (14th overall pick in 2017) of a blue-chip stock.
If this thread, with the loss of the potential comp pick confirmed, is where each of us makes final judgment of the trade for Bradford, the key question is: how much worse would the Vikings have fared if we had just used Shaun Hill in 2016? My guess is we would have ended up about 6-10 - a disappointing year, but that 8-8 season was hardly a treasure. Trading for Bradford was a bad decision and failure.
My bad, I inadvertently included his 14 game season with Philly. But my point was regardless of what we paid him and the fact we lost a comp pick for him is he is not a bad QB when healthy. Those post I originally responded to said he isnt a very good QB. In hindsight was it a bad deal for the Vikings ?, yes it sucks. If he could have stayed healthy we would not even be having this conversation.
|
