Rereading my submission for the alternate-history short story contest, I realize it looks like I'm proposing a grand conspiracy. Not my intent. I just think Zimmer could have sat Bradford and received less criticism than he got for starting him when it appeared he was obviously unready. But I don't think it was anything more than a bad decision and unwillingness to admit it.
I struggle to imagine that Zimmer was intentionally putting in the guy he thought was going to be less successful. I can only imagine that he looked better or at least good enough in practice.
Quote: @Jor-El said:
Rereading my submission for the alternate-history short story contest, I realize it looks like I'm proposing a grand conspiracy. Not my intent. I just think Zimmer could have sat Bradford and received less criticism than he got for starting him when it appeared he was obviously unready. But I don't think it was anything more than a bad decision and unwillingness to admit it.
PA stated Bradford looked great in practice all week...Coaches said he looked great in practice all week. Its absolutely plausible Zimmer/Shurmur were giving Sam a chance to knock some rust off as they say - then he re-aggravated things.
This from a fan who many consider "rather jaded" and not some Zimmer shill either.
I don't know if we can beat this dead horse anymore...I'm moving on to Packer week.
Quote: @Jor-El said:
Rereading my submission for the alternate-history short story contest, I realize it looks like I'm proposing a grand conspiracy. Not my intent. I just think Zimmer could have sat Bradford and received less criticism than he got for starting him when it appeared he was obviously unready. But I don't think it was anything more than a bad decision and unwillingness to admit it.
i think people are looking at 2 issues and thinking its one problem. early in the game he was rushing his throwing process and not getting forward onto that front leg, but all reports say he was doing fine in practice so I dont think it was a matter of his leg bothering him early. after he took a weird hit and he really started to look uncomfortable i think it became a knee issue and trouble started.
what more is the coach supposed to do if a player is cleared medically and looks good in practice? the next logical step is game reps and thats what Zimmer did.
Quote: @Jor-El said:
Rereading my submission for the alternate-history short story contest, I realize it looks like I'm proposing a grand conspiracy. Not my intent. I just think Zimmer could have sat Bradford and received less criticism than he got for starting him when it appeared he was obviously unready. But I don't think it was anything more than a bad decision and unwillingness to admit it.
haha, nice way to put it. I think we all go off on our tangents now and then, only to read them later and wonder what we were smoking.
The obvious thing was that Bradford wasn't ready in hindsight. But he had good practice, claimed he was ready and so what would any coach do? I really think it was a mental issue initially and then he got sacked and the pain magnified.
I just started enjoying playing with the history analogy toy...
Yeah, hindsight is 20-20. I'm mostly irked because the decision to play Bradford probably set him back. As PF said, this is a thoroughly-beaten horse.
Been out of town the last several days so I don't know what this thread is about. Only thing I can think of is that we may have dodged a bullet here...
What if Sam doesn't get hurt? He continues to play well, we hand him a big fat contract, trade Teddy as Sam's knee lurks under the surface.
Quote: @SFVikingFan said:
@ Jor-El said:
IMO Zimmer looked at the schedule and decided Monday was a "win at any cost" game. He thought about facing the Packers after losing to the Lions and Bears, his team embarassed on MNF, and likely losing to GB and then probably Baltimore, too. He would have been 2-5 on a 4-game losing streak and 0-3 in the division...and heading to London with a slumping team. Get surprised by the Browns (London games are unpredictable) and he might have been fired on the plane home.
So he identified Chicago as the "most winnable" game and told Sam he better get back on the field ASAP. Or maybe Sam was asking to play, maybe had been for the past two weeks despite being hampered, and Zimmer gave in. Unless you believe that Sam looked just fine in practice but spontaneously regressed at game time, it doesn't seem like Zimmer acted like a head coach thinking of the best LONG-TERM interests of the franchise.
Geez that's a negative take. Assuming losses to the Bears, Packers and Ravens, even losing to the Browns? Zimmer getting fired on the way back from London?
Every single sentence in your post is just pure speculation. I'm not understanding all of the criticism of Zimmer lately. Like Bradford stated throughout the week, he felt much better, thought he could give it a go, so the team gave him a shot until it was obvious that he wasn't effective and pulled him out of the game. I don't think it has to go any deeper than that.
Jor-El being negative about something? What?
Quote: @Riphawkins said:
@ SFVikingFan said:
@ Jor-El said:
IMO Zimmer looked at the schedule and decided Monday was a "win at any cost" game. He thought about facing the Packers after losing to the Lions and Bears, his team embarassed on MNF, and likely losing to GB and then probably Baltimore, too. He would have been 2-5 on a 4-game losing streak and 0-3 in the division...and heading to London with a slumping team. Get surprised by the Browns (London games are unpredictable) and he might have been fired on the plane home.
So he identified Chicago as the "most winnable" game and told Sam he better get back on the field ASAP. Or maybe Sam was asking to play, maybe had been for the past two weeks despite being hampered, and Zimmer gave in. Unless you believe that Sam looked just fine in practice but spontaneously regressed at game time, it doesn't seem like Zimmer acted like a head coach thinking of the best LONG-TERM interests of the franchise.
Geez that's a negative take. Assuming losses to the Bears, Packers and Ravens, even losing to the Browns? Zimmer getting fired on the way back from London?
Every single sentence in your post is just pure speculation. I'm not understanding all of the criticism of Zimmer lately. Like Bradford stated throughout the week, he felt much better, thought he could give it a go, so the team gave him a shot until it was obvious that he wasn't effective and pulled him out of the game. I don't think it has to go any deeper than that.
Jor-El being negative about something? What?
The shoe fits. 
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
Been out of town the last several days so I don't know what this thread is about. Only thing I can think of is that we may have dodged a bullet here...
What if Sam doesn't get hurt? He continues to play well, we hand him a big fat contract, trade Teddy as Sam's knee lurks under the surface.
The injury history is something that was brought up here when we made the trade... Quite a few fans wanted to gloss over that fact... especially after he had a solid year last season.
The Vikings actions this off-season sure looked like a team that wanted Bradford to prove 1) he could stay healthy and 2) could have another good season before handing him a big contract.
IMO, Bradford's future with the Vikings is completely up in the air now... which is a shame, because I was excited to see him play with a better line and a good running game this season.
|
