Vikings Message Board.Com

Purple Reign wrote:
Yeah, we had the lead 20-14 at half time against Washington, but you normally can't expect the defense to shut out the other team for a whole half. If we could put up 20 points the first half we should be able to score something the second half. I don't believe you can put all the blame on the defense for the Washington game. Yes, I know this is picky, but Detroit didn't drive 99 yards. It was officially 68 yards before they kicked the tying field goal, but I do understand your point.

Yep offense laid an egg the 2nd half of that game.
You got some time check out the drives...interesting.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/b ... 130was.htm

I'll smoke the wings

J. Kapp 11 wrote:By the way, really good discussions happening on here today. It's nice to see that we can disagree like gentlemen. Lots of great points being made on all sides of every argument. Everybody wants the same thing ... we just have different views on how to get there.

Sometimes I wish we all could sit down face-to-face and have a great talk about our team over wings and beers.

Ponder sucks!

VikingPaul73 wrote: Ponder sucks!

Gah! You beat me to it!

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

Sorry to have left fellas, Christmas decorating, cleaning of garage, mowing and edging the yard, and getting yard watered before the light show tomorrow.
Anyways, a get together would be a great time. i am wanting to go to the combine. One of my bucket list of things to do, but I wish I could do it annually.

Also, Heinecke ?? Has he ever pushed anyone though ? How good is he really ? He's a great QB with the 3rd stringers and practice squad. Would you feel that we had a chance at getting to the playoffs with him at the helm ?

Purple Reign wrote: Did I miss something? I thought Detroit won that game.

Of course, I'm just saying that it doesn't take away from what Bradford did. He had a deficit in the 4th quarter and put the team in a position to win... in a position where they had greater than a 99.9% chance of victory. I'm not a Bradford supporter by any stretch, but I calls 'em likes I sees 'em and Bradford put together a game-winning touchdown drive.

Iron Lion wrote: Of course, I'm just saying that it doesn't take away from what Bradford did. He had a deficit in the 4th quarter and put the team in a position to win... in a position where they had greater than a 99.9% chance of victory. I'm not a Bradford supporter by any stretch, but I calls 'em likes I sees 'em and Bradford put together a game-winning touchdown drive.

Are you saying that any drive that takes the lead is a 'game-winning' drive? They are 'lead-changing' drives, but there can only be 1 'game-winning' drive per game, plus the team has to actually win the game before you can call it a game-winning drive.

Purple Reign wrote:
Are you saying that any drive that takes the lead is a 'game-winning' drive? They are 'lead-changing' drives, but there can only be 1 'game-winning' drive per game, plus the team has to actually win the game before you can call it a game-winning drive.

As stats go, Bradford did not have a game-winning touchdown drive. If you want to take things away from your QB, don't let me stop you.

Iron Lion wrote: As stats go, Bradford did not have a game-winning touchdown drive. If you want to take things away from your QB, don't let me stop you.

What am I taking away from Bradford? He wasn't credited with a game-winning drive so how can it be taken away from him? Your logic doesn't make any sense.

Purple Reign wrote: What am I taking away from Bradford? He wasn't credited with a game-winning drive so how can it be taken away from him? Your logic doesn't make any sense.

I understand what he's saying.

Upthread, you wrote: "I just feel like he is not the type of quarterback to lead a team back to win a game. At least teddy had that over bradford, example is the wild card playoff game (thanks walsh). Bradford is not clutch."

Iron Lion's point is Bradford demonstrated the capability you're saying he lacks at the end of regulation in the first game against the Lions. He led the Vikings to what would have been a game-winning score. It just didn't end up actually being a game-winning score because the Vikings defense collapsed in the final 23 seconds and allowed the Lions to drive for a FG and force OT. The Lions won the game but Bradford demonstrated he is capable of being clutch and leading the team on the kind of drive it takes to win a game late.

Your own example illustrates the same point using a similar situation. Bridgewater led the Vikes on what should have been a game-winning drive at the end of last year's wildcard game. Unfortunately, Walsh missed the kick.

Put simply: Walsh's missed kick = the Vikings defensive collapse against Detroit. Both QBs led the team on late drives that should have clinched wins. Both games were lost anyway.

IIsweet wrote:On another note, can we please also draft a QB that will push the starter and provide quality depth ???
Let's be proactive as opposed to reactive !

Nah...It's time to overcompensate and draft nothing but offensive lineman. Teddy will be back to push Sam, after all.

Iron Lion wrote: As stats go, Bradford did not have a game-winning touchdown drive. If you want to take things away from your QB, don't let me stop you.

Game WINNING drive? No.

But he did EVERYTHING he could have to win that first game. Lead a long TD drive to take the lead only to have his defense cough it it in regulation then lose it in OT, without Bradford ever touching the ball again.

If YOU want to hold that against the QB I can't help you.

Mothman wrote: I understand what he's saying.

Upthread, you wrote: "I just feel like he is not the type of quarterback to lead a team back to win a game. At least teddy had that over bradford, example is the wild card playoff game (thanks walsh). Bradford is not clutch."

Iron Lion's point is Bradford demonstrated the capability you're saying he lacks at the end of regulation in the first game against the Lions. He led the Vikings to what would have been a game-winning score. It just didn't end up actually being a game-winning score because the Vikings defense collapsed in the final 23 seconds and allowed the Lions to drive for a FG and force OT. The Lions won the game but Bradford demonstrated he is capable of being clutch and leading the team on the kind of drive it takes to win a game late.

Your own example illustrates the same point using a similar situation. Bridgewater led the Vikes on what should have been a game-winning drive at the end of last year's wildcard game. Unfortunately, Walsh missed the kick.

Put simply: Walsh's missed kick = the Vikings defensive collapse against Detroit. Both QBs led the team on late drives that should have clinched wins. Both games were lost anyway.

Sorry Jim, but I didn't say any of those things - you must have me confused with someone else (PurpleMustReign maybe?). The only thing I responded to was the 'game-winning drive' statement, pointing out that it really isn't a 'game-winning drive'. I've never said anything negative about Bradford. I wouldn't have said anything if he had said potential game-winning drive, but he didn't say that and that is the only thing I was referring to.

Purple Reign wrote:Sorry Jim, but I didn't say any of those things - you must have me confused with someone else (PurpleMustReign maybe?).

You're right, I'm very sorry. I was thinking you wrote that but it was someone else.

Nevertheless, the explanation is the same. You're talking about the fact that it wasn't literally a game-winning drive and Iron Lion is saying that drive illustrates Bradford's capability of leading a clutch, game-winning drive.

Mothman wrote: You;re right, I'm very sorry. I was thinking you wrote that but it was someone else.

Nevertheless, the explanation is the same. You're talking about the fact that it wasn't literally a game-winning drive and Iron Lion is saying that drive illustrates Bradford's capability of leading a clutch, game-winning drive.

Yes, that is what I was saying - it wasn't literally a game-winning drive and that is the only point I was making. I understood what Iron Lion was trying to say - just pointing out his terminology was incorrect. Plus the fact that my first post referring to it was in jest (game-winning - I thought Detroit won the game? ) but somehow it turned into I was slamming Bradford.

IIsweet wrote:On another note, can we please also draft a QB that will push the starter and provide quality depth ???
Let's be proactive as opposed to reactive !

So 2 Quarterbacks and 5 offensive linemen next draft?