Bradford's "unloader brace"
Bradford was wearing what Sugarman said was an “unloader brace” on his left knee that “unloads the part of the knee joint that has the stress, that’s why he wears the knee brace.”
Does this really sound like someone who was ready to play? He needed to wear a brace to reduce the weight load in his knee joint. He had a noticeable limp which may be from his injury, or could have been caused by the restricted movement of the knee brace itself to protect the joint. Either way, just another headscratching move by this staff who thought an immobile QB when healthy could be effective with his injury and a restrictive brace.
That line was scrolling across the bottom of the Redzone on Sunday. Like every time they flashed through who was playing on Monday night.
Did they get the teams backwards?
Doesn't change any of my or TBro or MGB.or Jor-Els points or questions.
@"prairieghost" said: The national media has been all over this, saying that the Vikings have jeopardized Bradford's career by sending him out before he was ready, that the Vikings are irresponsible....yada, yada, yada....It's BS. I can guarantee that if we had lost that game with Keenum playing from start to finish then the media would proclaim the Vikings the stupidest bunch of SOBs in the NFL for sitting Bradford for a game that he was ready to play. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
If Zimmer had started Keenum, lost, and been criticized, he would have said, "Sam could not play, we saw he was not comfortable when he practiced." How would he have been damned? Sure, Bradford would be criticized for some reason, and some might say Zimmer was overly cautious. But no one would have eyewitness evidence to contradict Zimmer saying Bradford wasn't ready to go.
This is being debated because the team said Bradford was ready and the entire world could see he was not. We and ESPN and whoever else are debating this because Bradford's game condition does not agree with the idea he could have looked good in practice.
@"Jor-El" said:@"prairieghost" said: The national media has been all over this, saying that the Vikings have jeopardized Bradford's career by sending him out before he was ready, that the Vikings are irresponsible....yada, yada, yada....It's BS. I can guarantee that if we had lost that game with Keenum playing from start to finish then the media would proclaim the Vikings the stupidest bunch of SOBs in the NFL for sitting Bradford for a game that he was ready to play. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
If Zimmer had started Keenum, lost, and been criticized, he would have said, "Sam could not play, we saw he was not comfortable when he practiced." How would he have been damned? Sure, Bradford would be criticized for some reason, and some might say Zimmer was overly cautious. But no one would have eyewitness evidence to contradict Zimmer saying Bradford wasn't ready to go.This is being debated because the team said Bradford was ready and the entire world could see he was not. We and ESPN and whoever else are debating this because Bradford's game condition does not agree with the idea he could have looked good in practice.
So there would have been no conspiracies about Bradford holding himself out or Zimmer being scared or Spielman tanking the season? Zimmer had an answer for all the questions raised above, but that doesn't stop the theories.
For what it's worth (which ain't much when folks already have their minds made up), PA was saying that Bradford looked great in practice all week. If that's so, then why would Zimmer be quick to give him the hook (especially when he could've just been rusty- and may have been able to work through it)?
@"greediron" said:@"Jor-El" said:@"prairieghost" said: The national media has been all over this, saying that the Vikings have jeopardized Bradford's career by sending him out before he was ready, that the Vikings are irresponsible....yada, yada, yada....It's BS. I can guarantee that if we had lost that game with Keenum playing from start to finish then the media would proclaim the Vikings the stupidest bunch of SOBs in the NFL for sitting Bradford for a game that he was ready to play. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
If Zimmer had started Keenum, lost, and been criticized, he would have said, "Sam could not play, we saw he was not comfortable when he practiced." How would he have been damned? Sure, Bradford would be criticized for some reason, and some might say Zimmer was overly cautious. But no one would have eyewitness evidence to contradict Zimmer saying Bradford wasn't ready to go.This is being debated because the team said Bradford was ready and the entire world could see he was not. We and ESPN and whoever else are debating this because Bradford's game condition does not agree with the idea he could have looked good in practice.
So there would have been no conspiracies about Bradford holding himself out or Zimmer being scared or Spielman tanking the season? Zimmer had an answer for all the questions raised above, but that doesn't stop the theories.
Allow me an an analogy.In WWII, D-Day was launched at Eisenhower's directive on June 6, 1944. People had been urging him to invade Europe earlier, in 1943 or even sooner. But Eisenhower insisted on waiting until they were sure to have the sufficient advantage to make success more likely. Did people second-guess the delay or speculate that it should have been sooner? Sure, but no one can show an earlier invasion would have worked.
But suppose he invaded in 1943 and the Allies were repelled; in fact, the invasion was obviously not ready, with insufficient landing craft, no Mulberry docks, ships unable to even cross the channel.
Then on top of it, what if Eisenhower INSISTED that the Allies had planned and conducted mock invasions, and he said that it always worked great in the practice invasions and he can't understand what went wrong. But there are witnesses who could see the invasion was obviously not well-prepared. To them, it seems like Eisenhower can't be right about the practice invasions going well.
Don't you think the second case, going too early and looking unprepared and failing and the leader claiming he thought they were prepared, would generate a lot more controversy? Even if the Allies eventually won the war by turning to a backup
QBinvasion, in the latter case people witnessed the failure. Complaints about delaying would have just been speculation with no demonstrated evidence.However, Eisenhower would NEVER, NEVER have made excuses. I have read the statements he prepared in case of failure and there is no question he would have personally accepted full responsibility for any failure.
Mike Zimmer, sir, is no Eisenhower.
Pardon the historical speculation...
lol. And none of us are anything but armchair coaches and GMs. So I will take his word (and others who saw Bradford practice) over all these.
@"pumpf" said: For what it's worth (which ain't much when folks already have their minds made up), PA was saying that Bradford looked great in practice all week. If that's so, then why would Zimmer be quick to give him the hook (especially when he could've just been rusty- and may have been able to work through it)?because it doesnt fit with agendas or people that think they are smarter than medical professionals, professional athletic trainers, professional athletes and professional coaches.
the fact that he wore a brace means jack shit, players play with limiting braces all the time, but some people hear a new word and freak the hell out and run around spouting shit like they know what it is. of course those of use that trust the professionals are just sheep, or lemmings, or any of a number of other belittling terms that internet experts like to throw around.
arent message boards fun!
Just my opinion, but I have to believe that this lingering knee issue with Bradford has cost him a long term deal here in Minnesota. There is just no way the Vikings can jump in with him knowing this issue could be something that could flare up at any time and could ultimately cut his career short. I think the Vikings let him walk in free agency after this season.
Bridgewater is still an unknown with his knee. He's another one you can't count on long term and will also be a free agent after the season.
To me, the best option is to sign Case Keenum to a moderate extension and look to once again draft the QB of the future. Not sure the Vikings would get in on big money bidding over Kirk Cousins and Jimmy Garopollo. This should definitely be an interesting offseason in Minnesota when it comes to the QB position.
@"supafreak84" said: Just my opinion, but I have to believe that this lingering knee issue with Bradford has cost him a long term deal here in Minnesota. There is just no way the Vikings can jump in with him knowing this issue could be something that could flare up at any time and could ultimately cut his career short. I think the Vikings let him walk in free agency after this season.Bridgewater is still an unknown with his knee. He's another one you can't count on long term and will also be a free agent after the season.
To me, the best option is to sign Case Keenum to a moderate extension and look to once again draft the QB of the future. Not sure the Vikings would get in on big money bidding over Kirk Cousins and Jimmy Garopollo. This should definitely be an interesting offseason in Minnesota when it comes to the QB position.
I agree to an extent, I wouldn't throw a lot of guaranteed money at Sam anymore, but an incentive deal based on games played is still possible imo depending on how quickly he is able to bounce back from this, and if they can find a better brace to help reduce the chance of future flare ups.
Teddy is still up on the air. Depending on what the docs say, he could be completely fine and have only marginally more risk of future injury than any kid coming out of college. If his contract tolls I think rolling with Sam on a very team friendly deal and Teddy on a tolled contract might be a good plan while we find out what we have in a young guy.
They will know by seasons end if Sloter is for real if he is, grab a mid round draft pick to come in and compete for the #3 spot with him, if not we need to go first or second round and get a guy that should be competing for the #2 spot in a year or possibly a starter.
With all the potential talent at the position expected in the draft, I don't expect the free agent market to he quite as blistering this offseason. Even if theRE is big first year money, I expect the total guaranteed size of the contracts for guys like cousins Bradford and even maybe garrappalo to be more prove it deals or incentive laden. Cousins doesn't impress consistently enough, Bradford's knee, and jg is unproven....hard to overspend in the year of the QB imo.
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.
@"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.
@"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.
@"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.
@"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?
@"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. ;)
@"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.
@"Wetlander" said:@"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.
Sadly I don't even think it is up in the air anymore. It is like a deflated balloon. If it truly is bone on bone in his knee, doubt there is any way they do any kind of contract with him, except maybe a one year incentive laden one while waiting for Sloter if Teddy doesn't make it back to full health.
Edit Post (mod action — author will see a notice)
Warn Poster
Suspend User (3 days)
The user will be suspended for 3 days and will receive an email with the reason and information about how to appeal.