I've answered questions regarding his injury from a medical background, and given insight on the likelihood of his return to playing quite well. If it's common knowledge that I am really not sure why others have asked me what the outlook would be for an injury such as his. I am very sorry you don't like the opinion I hold, nor does it jive well what you hope your team has waiting for you to cheer for next year. I don't write the medical books, I just report what I know what's in them and what I have seen professionally. You can keep holding onto hope and being snarky. I'll keep being excellent to everyone in here!
Yes Vikings fans know that Teddy Bridgewater had a serious injury that he may never come back from, or if he does come back from it, he may not be the same in terms of his mobility and skills he had prior to the injury. None of us need to be doctors to know that. The odds are against Bridgewater being able to play at the same level.
So since we know this, you with your medical background should also be aware of it.
So if Teddy Bridgewater has less than a 50% chance of returning to the same level of ability he had before the injury, clearly they need another QB in case he cannot recover well enough to play again.
You have not provided any additional insight on this issue that Vikings fans have not already been made aware of.
So (and I am assuming you do know that Bridgewater has long odds to return to previous form following the injury) if you know that Bridgewater has the odds against him to come back and be a starter again, why in the world would you say that the Vikings wasted a 1st round pick trading for Bradford? It should be obvious that the Vikings needed a QB upgrade from Hill and no way of knowing if Teddy can come back or not, so the trade got the Vikings a starting caliber QB for a 1st round pick.
How many QB from the 2017 will be 1st round picks? Who will actually be available when the Eagles pick (with the Vikings 1st rounder).
How many of them will be better than Bradford in 2017? I don't think any of them will be. Wentz wasn't. Now Wentz may have a promising future and be a better QB than Bradford in time, but he wasn't last season and he likely won't be this season either.
Wentz is one of the better QB to come out recently.
So your position that the Vikings wasted a pick trading for Bradford is invalidated by the fact that Teddty's injury was so serious, as obviously the Vikings needed a better QB than Hill to be competitive last season and this upcoming season. The return on investment with Bradford is better than any rookie QB that will be available to the Vikings and Bradford has enough useful seasons left of his career that the Vikings can extend him and have the QB position covered for the next three to five years if they want to.
So lets just see who the Eagles take with that pick. I am confident that Bradford will be more valuable over the next 3 seasons for a team trying to win now than any rookie would be.
So make up your mind. Was it a good trade under the circumstances? Does the trade make the Vikings a better team than it would have been without it? WIthout the trade the Vikings would be looking at using that pick at QB if one were available to them and then the long term deveopment of that young QB while the rest of the team ages and gets more expensive.
I think the answer is resoundingly yes. The only way it would be a wasted pick is if Bridgewater is able to fully recover and beat out Sam Bradford for the job in 2017. Even then it isn't a waste if the Vikings end up trading Bradford to another team and recoup some of the assets they gave up for him.
It is not excellent of you to come into a rival teams thread and troll Vikings fans. Don't act like you are doing anything else, because you are not.