Page 19 of 24

Re: Bridgewater Down

Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 8:43 pm
by CbusVikesFan
MountainGirl wrote:Trade with the Bengals for AJ Mccarron.
Isn't that something. We could have easily drafted McCarron. How good would the Vikings be and how smart would Rick look? Instead they went the cheap way and now they and we pay. I'm pretty pissed about it. Stupidity if you ask me for not addressing this sooner.
I would give the Bengals a 2nd rounder and would give serious consideration for a first.

Re: Bridgewater Down

Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 9:07 pm
by beerfan
I figured I'd tune in to the Packers/Chiefs game to watch Aaron Murray since some people on here want us to make a trade for him. I am not impressed at all. Lots of innaccurate throws. I know it's only one game, but I don't see anything that makes me think he could be a potential upgrade over anyone we currently have. I think a lot of people just want him because they want a young backup with a recognizable name.

Re: Bridgewater Down

Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 9:34 pm
by PurpleMustReign
beerfan wrote:I figured I'd tune in to the Packers/Chiefs game to watch Aaron Murray since some people on here want us to make a trade for him. I am not impressed at all. Lots of innaccurate throws. I know it's only one game, but I don't see anything that makes me think he could be a potential upgrade over anyone we currently have. I think a lot of people just want him because they want a young backup with a recognizable name.
I liked him in college, and he has had some good games in the NFL. I would be ok with getting him, and I think he could be a very good QB at some point.

Re: Bridgewater Down

Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 9:48 pm
by PurpleHalo
PurpleMustReign wrote: I liked him in college, and he has had some good games in the NFL. I would be ok with getting him, and I think he could be a very good QB at some point.
From Georgia right? I know he was somewhat touted coming out. But do they keep both him and Foles? He could be available Saturday.

Re: Bridgewater Down

Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 10:01 pm
by Husker Vike
If we really want to contend for the NFC championship we need to find a QB that is a significant upgrade over Hill. That is the bottom line, we could try and see if McCown or any other journeyman could contribute , but if we are really playing to win we must find someone more established and that will cost a lot.

Re: Bridgewater Down

Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 10:10 pm
by PurpleHalo
Husker Vike wrote:If we really want to contend for the NFC championship we need to find a QB that is a significant upgrade over Hill. That is the bottom line, we could try and see if McCown or any other journeyman could contribute , but if we are really playing to win we must find someone more established and that will cost a lot.
Yep this is true! Look at the history of indoor teams winning big.

Some names: Warner, Manning, Brees. You can add Aikman to that list, if you consider that a dome they played in. No other indoor teams have a ring. This is no accident, you have to score in climate controlled stadiums. Game managers are a waste of time, unless you play outdoors. Could a team buck that trend one year? Sure, anything is possible. But it would take close to perfection.

Re: Bridgewater Down

Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 10:42 pm
by Pondering Her Percy
I like Murray but he definitely didnt look good tonight. Threw 2 picks

Re: Bridgewater Down

Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2016 2:21 am
by John_Viveiros
Norv Zimmer wrote: Fair weather fans annoy the piss outta me!
I think your definition of "fair weather fans" is different from everyone else's - certainly different than mine. I'm a fair weather fan of the Twins. If they're winning, I'll watch some games, and I'll follow them in the playoffs. But I won't really follow them in the season, especially a season like they're having now.

I don't think the Vikes have a shot at the Superbowl this year any more, but I'll live and die with the team and watch every game. I don't think anyone considers that to mean that I'm a fair weather fan.

Re: Bridgewater Down

Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2016 5:45 am
by dead_poet

Re: Bridgewater Down

Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:50 am
by 720pete
CbusVikesFan wrote: Isn't that something. We could have easily drafted McCarron. How good would the Vikings be and how smart would Rick look? Instead they went the cheap way and now they and we pay. I'm pretty pissed about it. Stupidity if you ask me for not addressing this sooner.
I would give the Bengals a 2nd rounder and would give serious consideration for a first.
Just out of curiousity I looked at McCarron's draft position and Vikings roster on draft day - May 8th 2014.

In 2014 McCarron was drafted Rd 5 pick 164. The Vikings, Rd 5 pick 145 selected Dave Yankey. Yankey is no longer on the Vikings roster.

During the draft, the Vikings QB depth chart consisted of Teddy Bridgewater (Drafted Round 1), Matt Cassel, who had just signed a 2-year contract in March, and Christian Ponder. At that point Cassel was the clear #1 with Ponder and Bridgewater fighting for 2-3. A few weeks into the 2014 season, Cassel broke his foot and went on injured reserve and Teddy was thrust into the starting role to be backed up by Ponder.

Re: Bridgewater Down

Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2016 12:01 pm
by Cliff

Re: Bridgewater Down

Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2016 4:59 pm
by chicagopurple
Spielman is sticking with Hill......and we are screwed.
Another year of spinning our wheels and watching AP age.
I guess the upside is that our OL cant be held responsible for the destruction of a new good QB if we dont have a good QB.........

Re: Bridgewater Down

Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2016 5:07 pm
by Mothman
chicagopurple wrote:Spielman is sticking with Hill......and we are screwed.
Another year of spinning our wheels and watching AP age.
I guess the upside is that our OL cant be held responsible for the destruction of a new good QB if we dont have a good QB.........

He has little choice but to go with Hill for now. Heinicke's hurt, Stave's not ready and at the moment, I don't think there's anybody out there, available, who knows the system. Almost anybody they bring in will need some time to get up to speed.

He's said they intend to add a QB. Let's see who they add.

Re: Bridgewater Down

Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:46 am
by Ohjay
Tuesday was truly a horrible day. I really feel for Teddy and despite the bad injury I'm really glad it didn't end up worse than it did.
Hopefully Teddy can get some tips from AP and come back as an MVP :govikes:


Also a shoutout to HardcoreVikesFan who gave his opinion on tuesday what kind of injury it could've been. Truly appreciate that knowledgeable input(even if it was speculation based on what we knew from social media).

Re: Bridgewater Down

Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2016 1:27 pm
by Mothman
Just how bad is Teddy Bridgewater’s injury?
“In my 17 years with the Chargers, we never had an ambulance come,” said orthopedic surgeon David Chao, San Diego’s team doctor from 1997 to 2013. “I’ve never had a 911 call for a football player injury.”
Considering that Bridgewater dislocated his knee, Chao explained that Bridgewater tore at least two knee ligaments, possibly three, and potentially even all four (the ACL, MCL, PCL, and LCL), though the last scenario is unlikely considering it was non-contact.

The NFL sees dozens of non-contact knee injuries every year, and a handful of multi-ligament injuries, but Bridgewater’s is far more severe and fortunately more rare. It’s potentially worse than the multi-ligament injury suffered by former running back Marcus Lattimore, which prevented him from ever playing an NFL snap. And it was more severe than the knee injury suffered by former Notre Dame linebacker Jaylon Smith, who was able to watch the rest of the game while standing on the sideline. Lattimore and Smith suffered subluxations, not a true knee dislocation. The difference with Smith, however, is that he reportedly suffered nerve damage, which is a major hindrance for him to return to pre-injury form, while Bridgewater reportedly did not injure his nerves.