NFL 2016 Head Coaching and Offseason Stuff

[stevew]

This guy is easily one of the most over valued players ever.

Why not trade a 3/4 for Josh McCown or something.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

Right with you. I get the need for a QB there, but if it's a first for Bradford then Minnesota better make a deep playoff run.

Worst part is if they don't make a run, then the value of the trade gets worse automatically by losing a better draft pick.

Good job, Vikings.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by stevew

This guy is easily one of the most over valued players ever.

Why not trade a 3/4 for Josh McCown or something.

He actually played very well toward the end of last year. I thought he was really coming into his own, which is why I liked the trade when I first heard it.

I still don't like the trade, but I see why the Vikings did it. They are opening a new stadium. They think they have a roster that can compete. (an easy kick last year has them beat the Seahawks and go deeper into the playoffs) Bradford has worked with the OC before (or the same type of system) and has played with AP.

I really do understand why the Vikings targeted him. What I don't get is why they gave up as much as they did. It isn't hard to see how it COULD work out. Bradford comes in, plays well, leads them deep into the playoffs and the Vikings become the Eagles next year when Teddy gets healthy.

But there are a lot of ways this thing can blow up too. A lot. A first rounder and more is just too much in my opinion. Time will tell.

[mckerney]

Giving up a first seems like way too much and makes me worried the team's concerned about Teddy being able to play next year. The team isn't good enough this year to mortgage the future and it's not like their window for being contenders is closing, the defense is young.

[CrescentMoonie]

A 1st in 2017 and 4th in 2018 seems like a ton. A 4th in 2017, or even a 4th each year, seems more in line with taking on that contract. Yes, he's got years of experience with Shurmur, and Norv's offense should be a good fit for what Bradford can do, but that's still such a steep price.

Why not take a flier on someone like Mettenberger?

[mckerney]

Yesterday Spielman was saying other teams were making laughable trade requests and asking for crazy things. If this is the deal he went with what could some of the other teams have been asking for?

[albionmoonlight]

I don't get it at all.

Seems like a 4th and a 4th is more appropriate.

I do think that this gives Chase Daniel a chance. He was good in NOLA as a backup. Eagles might have another QB to trade after this season if he performs like I think he will.

[jbergey22]

Bradford must still be highly valued with the GMs around the league. He got a nice contract, he has had 2 1st rounders traded for him in the past 2 years. I dont really get it either.

The Eagles did cover the signing bonus part of the contract so the Vikings financially didnt get hurt with this deal but yes giving up a 1st for a QB that has done little seems like giving away a 1st.

Teddy will probably be out til week 6 of next season. It is worrisome about his career that this move was made. I think Teddy was going to evolve a lot this year. He was playing with more confidence and aggression. He was looking sharp.

Optimistically I will say that out of any scenario for this year and what they could have done. Bradford gives them the best chance to make the playoffs. Shawn Hill wasnt getting them to the playoffs nor was any of the QBs they would have signed tomorrow. Also, Bradford(if he is who he thinks he is) is in a perfect situation to be successful and prove that he is high level NFL QB.

[Suicane75]

Love the deal from the Eagles POV obviously. The last shovel of dirt on the Chip Kelly era.

[mckerney]

Sam Bradford's injury history combined with having Matt Kalil and Andre Smith as his tackles should be something.

[Thomkal]

Vikings must be very desperate to trade a 1st and 4th for Bradford. Have to think they think they have a decent chance at a playoff spot before the injury, so had to go for it with Bradford.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I don't get it at all.

Seems like a 4th and a 4th is more appropriate.

I do think that this gives Chase Daniel a chance. He was good in NOLA as a backup. Eagles might have another QB to trade after this season if he performs like I think he will.

agreed here...wowed by this

[Ryche]

Not thrilled about giving up the first, but I understand the move. Have to take Peterson into consideration as well, can't expect more than one, maybe two more seasons out of him.

[sovereignstar v2]

A 4th and a 4th might have been more appropriate, but a 4th and a 4th doesn't get this trade done so I would say that is a bad take.

[stevew]

I think something like a conditional 3rd(that turns into a second if they make the playoffs or a first if they win a playoff game) and a 4th would have been more in line with what he should have gone for.

[stevew]

The fourth-round pick in 2018 can escalate to as much as a second-rounder if the Vikings win the Super Bowl and Bradford plays 80% of the snaps, a person with knowledge of the deal said, speaking on condition of anonymity because details were to remain private.

I guess if you win the superbowl, you make that trade every time.

[Suicane75]

Eagles gonna start Wentz. I'll be damned.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by mckerney

Yesterday Spielman was saying other teams were making laughable trade requests and asking for crazy things. If this is the deal he went with what could some of the other teams have been asking for?

My exact thought as well. I'll have to check out that chapter when he writes his book.

[JPhillips]

I hope the Bengals didn't turn down that deal for McCarron.

[Bobble]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

Yes, he's got years of experience with Shurmur, and Norv's offense should be a good fit for what Bradford can do, but that's still such a steep price.

I read this as "tears of experience" and was about to award you Post of the Day. As it is, you'll have to share the award with my subconscious.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

Eagles gonna start Wentz. I'll be damned.

The Browns are the big winners here then.

[Julio Riddols]

Originally Posted by Atocep

The Browns are the big winners here then.

Super weird that a team would seemingly throw away a season when another team owns their 1st rounder.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Julio Riddols

Super weird that a team would seemingly throw away a season when another team owns their 1st rounder.

So Watson is truly the big loser here

[Suicane75]

What do they care if it's the 1st or 30th pick. It isn't theirs. If they think he can handle it, let him play.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Atocep

The Browns are the big winners here then.

No, the Browns are never winners.

Fate will see to that.

[stevew]

The Niners having 3 of the first 36 draft picks from 2011 and all 3 of them being QB's is pretty random.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

So Watson is truly the big loser here

That's not funny. Don't even suggest that, please. Lol

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

That's not funny. Don't even suggest that, please. Lol

Well, the Browns still need a long term QB. They will have multiple picks VERY high in the draft and will be able to get whatever player they want, either by having the pick or being able to trade.

As Watson is going to be the top QB in a weak class. . . I would say he has a pretty high likelihood of wearing Orange again next year, it just won't be bright orange. It'll be burnt.

[Arles]

Still trying to figure out this Josh Sitton situation with Green Bay. Basically, the team cut him on the final cutdown day pretty much out of the blue. I guess he's on the last year of his deal and wanted a new contract, but this seems a little odd. The team really doesn't have a replacement (Lane Taylor - yawn) and Sitton was in good enough health to get a 3-year, $21 million deal from Chicago. Maybe more will come out, but I just don't see why the Pack just didn't keep Sitton for the season and then let him walk.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Arles

Still trying to figure out this Josh Sitton situation with Green Bay. Basically, the team cut him on the final cutdown day pretty much out of the blue. I guess he's on the last year of his deal and wanted a new contract, but this seems a little odd. The team really doesn't have a replacement (Lane Taylor - yawn) and Sitton was in good enough health to get a 3-year, $21 million deal from Chicago. Maybe more will come out, but I just don't see why the Pack just didn't keep Sitton for the season and then let him walk.

Reminds me of when the Steelers cut Porter. He got a huge deal afterwards. Although it was much earlier in the offseason.

[bhlloy]

Seems like a strange one, especially as the Packers offense hasn't exactly looked like the juggernaut it has been in previous years. I can't imagine what would make you want to release your best lineman on top of that

[Atocep]

Pff had Sitton as a top 6 guard last year. He's 30, but still a good deal for Chicago.

[albionmoonlight]

Saints Twitter was losing its mind over Sitton. Good job by Chicago not letting him out the building.

[Arles]

Several layers to why Green Bay Packers cut Josh Sitton - Green Bay Packers Blog- ESPN

But two days after the Packers surprisingly cut the three-time Pro Bowl selection, McCarthy gave every reason to think the decision was more than just about X's and O's or finances.

“There’s a lot of things that go into this decision,” McCarthy said. “This wasn’t just one thing.”

The first public sign of trouble between Sitton and the organization came last season after Sitton criticized the offensive game plan after the Packers lost at Arizona in Week 16. Less than two weeks later, McCarthy responded to a question about players being critical of the offense by saying, “Josh Sitton needs to play guard” instead of bellyaching about play calling.

Sitton can be both charming and cantankerous and given how McCarthy and general manager Ted Thompson regularly talk about the importance of locker-room chemistry, that likely played a factor in this move.

When asked how cutting a veteran player like Sitton could impact the locker room, McCarthy said: “I’m not going to sit here and go through every variable, every component of our program, but each player is evaluated. Every person that touches the locker room has always been evaluated because the locker room is the most important room in our building, frankly, in my opinion. Decisions are made all the time about trying to improve and continue the flow of growth for our football program.”

McCarthy spoke on behalf of the organization because Thompson does not typically talk to reporters after he makes the final cuts.

As expected, McCarthy said Lane Taylor will start in place of Sitton at left guard, which means the Packers replaced one of their most reliable (Sitton missed just two games since he became a starter in 2009) and successful players with one who has two NFL starts to his credit.

It’s hard to argue that makes the Packers better on the field, even if it's only the loss of an interior lineman.

“I believe there are positions in football that are primary positions and some positions not to that level,” McCarthy said. “It’s just like any profession, when you outline job responsibility and what you’re asking each position to do, there are some positions you put in front of the others. I think we all understand that the quarterback position is the most important position in football, that goes without being said.

“To sit there and say, are you a better team or not a better team because of one player, we haven’t even played a game yet. So this is about growth for our football program. Every decision we make is in the best interest of improving all aspects of our program. This is not about one player. This about our football team.”

It’s not clear when the Packers started to sour on Sitton -- or Sitton on the Packers -- but it came to a head at some point during training camp when the team informed him and fellow guard T.J. Lang that they would not talk about new contracts for either one during the season.

As McCarthy reiterated, "once again, there’s a lot that goes into that decision."

Looks like this was a political move, not one based on football. I'm not sure this was in the best interest of the team and Lane Taylor better come out gangbusters. You don't want to cut your nose off to spite your face - and this look a lot like that kind of move.

[Atocep]

The standard locker room cancer on the way out. It may very well be the case, but i find it funny how across all sports these teams will put up with it for as long as they do and then suddenly it's a problem.

Typically, this is the way you justify to fans how why you cut a popular and/or good player.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Atocep

The standard locker room cancer on the way out. It may very well be the case, but i find it funny how across all sports these teams will put up with it for as long as they do and then suddenly it's a problem.

Typically, this is the way you justify to fans how why you cut a popular and/or good player.

But unless the combination of distraction and declining playing ability is high, why make the cut? It's not like Sitton demanded a contract or trade - the team could have easily played him this season and let him walk in FA (probably getting a compensatory pick as well). I'm wondering if his back isn't 100% and that (combined with the contract issues) made the team want to cut him before his $6 mil was vested for the season.

Time will tell, but I can't imagine the team cutting him unless he wasn't 100% in some form. He's too good a guard.

[bhlloy]

The most notable piece of that article other than the standard passive aggressive sniping of a guy on the way out the door is McCarthy saying that guards aren't that important anyway. Hardly seems like a very motivating thing to say to the guy who is replacing him.

Honestly, to me it sounds like layer 1,2 and 3 is McCarthy being butt hurt about him criticizing his playcalling last year. I don't think an injury adds up - the Bears wouldn't have thrown a 3 year deal to a guy with back injuries because that's pretty much a death sentence for a lineman.

[Arles]

Yeah, it really doesn't make sense if he was injured to get a deal from the Bears that quick. I think this was more Ted Thompson than McCarthy. McCarthy can't cut a guy without buyoff from Ted.