http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000694979/article/vikings-trading-for-eagles-qb-sam-bradford

Holy Moses, is this shocking. The Vikings apparently trade their 2017 1st round pick and a 4th to the Eagles for Bradford. Is it wrong to assume the long-term news for Teddy is grim for them to burn a 1st round pick on a QB so soon?

(09-03-2016, 11:49 AM)Nately120 Wrote: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000694979/article/vikings-trading-for-eagles-qb-sam-bradford

Holy Moses, is this shocking.  The Vikings apparently trade their 2017 1st round pick and a 4th to the Eagles for Bradford.  Is it wrong to assume the long-term news for Teddy is grim for them to burn a 1st round pick on a QB so soon?

This trade really surprises me. It doesn't make too much sense to me. 

Let's say that yes, Bridgewater's injury is potentially career threatening, is Sam Bradford really worth the prospect that you could have gotten with that first overall pick? I know it's a win-now league, but that seems extreme. 

And if it's not career threatening and it's probable that Teddy is back beginning of next year a la Brady, Palmer, and however many others, you just burnt a first (and whatever late rounder it was) for essentially a one year renter. 

Not to mention Bradford might be joining Bridgewater on IR at any moment. 

Surprised they didn't go after a reputable backup like McCarron instead. Bradford stunk it up last year in Philly so no wonder they wanted him gone. Vikings were desperate for a QB, but to give up a first rounder?

To be fair, last year in Philly was a mismatch between type of QB and offensive system. Bradford is much better suited to Norv Turner's system in Minnesota. Plus he is a QB who REALLY needs pass protection - and the Vikes have a good OL. Maybe he will realize that this is his last chance and put the sweat equity needed into it and make it work.

(09-03-2016, 02:44 PM)guyofthetiger Wrote: Surprised they didn't go after a reputable backup like McCarron instead. Bradford stunk it up last year in Philly so no wonder they wanted him gone. Vikings were desperate for a QB, but to give up a first rounder?

Like Joelist said, Minny is a better fit. That said, I think it's a little unfair to say Bradford "stunk it up". He threw for 3700 yards in 14 games, completed 65% and had a respectable 86.4 passer rating. It's more likely that Philly moved on because Bradford was brought in by Chip Kelly, and the new regime selected a young QB 2nd overall to be the long term future.

This is probably one of the worst trades in recent history. They would have been better off trading a 4th to cleveland for McCown.

(09-04-2016, 12:21 AM)Aquapod770 Wrote: This is probably one of the worst trades in recent history. They would have been better off trading a 4th to cleveland for McCown.

Reports were that the Browns were asking way too much for McCown, so it was probably a 2nd rounder they wanted. Possibly more.

(09-04-2016, 12:55 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Reports were that the Browns were asking way too much for McCown, so it was probably a 2nd rounder they wanted. Possibly more.

Really?  I know RGIII is hardly a lock to play more than 3 games there, but this Browns office seems to want to trade everyone who has been there for more than 6 months for ANYTHING.  McCown possibly played in a Norv system (he's been everywhere, so it's possible) but he probably wouldn't be able to hit the ground running and he's the only QB option who is OLDER than Hill (older than the hills?) so he'd be a 1-year rental to the max.  Why not just roll with the old guy who knows the system?  Though McCown technically outplayed Bradford last season, so who knows.

(09-04-2016, 12:55 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Reports were that the Browns were asking way too much for McCown, so it was probably a 2nd rounder they wanted. Possibly more.

If I was going with a win now mentality I'd probably take Bradford over McCown. There's a much higher injury risk, but between the two I still believe Bradford has the higher ceiling. Staying healthy and having a solid line in front of him would do wonders for him. The only other guy I'd consider is Kaepernick but I don't think hell be the same from his harbaugh years.

(09-04-2016, 01:21 PM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: If I was going with a win now mentality I'd probably take Bradford over McCown. There's a much higher injury risk, but between the two I still believe Bradford has the higher ceiling. Staying healthy and having a solid line in front of him would do wonders for him. The only other guy I'd consider is Kaepernick but I don't think hell be the same from his harbaugh years.

McCown plays way too hard for his age and he's always a risk to get himself killed.  I think he concussed himself on the first drive of the season last year because he dove head fist into the endzone, for starters.  McCown actually plays some very good football in short bursts (see his numbers last year in Cleveland and his stint with the Bears) but buying high for Bradford seems like a 2+ year plan to me; something McCown wouldn't be.

I think this move is more indicative of Bridgewater's injury than anything else.  The Vikings may very well need to move on at QB, so why not drop a 1st right now and salvage the 2016 season to boot?

Also, how strange is it that the past 2 QBs to demand a trade were both moved for a 1st round pick plus? Bradford was a persona non grata in Philly after his meager holdout, anyways.