Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

A forum for the hard core Minnesota Vikings fan. Discuss upcoming games, opponents, trades, draft or what ever is on the minds of Viking fans!

Moderator: Moderators

dead_poet
Commissioner
Posts: 24788
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
x 108

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by dead_poet »

Nunin wrote:It's a funky situation with Bradford. I understand any reluctance in extending him.
But there are 2 things:
They gave up a 1st rd pick for him.
What pick did the Vikings use on Teddy?

Needless to say this talking point doesn't really hold any water for me. They've invested relatively the same amount in each player.
“Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that.” --- Bill Shankly
Nunin
Pro Bowl Elite Player
Posts: 567
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:40 am

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by Nunin »

@DP
Teddy got 5 yrs for that pick...whereas Bradord gets 2. That was my point.
dead_poet
Commissioner
Posts: 24788
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
x 108

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by dead_poet »

J. Kapp 11 wrote: Sam Bradford is a far better quarterback than Teddy Bridgewater, even if Bridgewater is completely healthy.
And I go back to the caveat that Bradford has had the advantage of being a seasoned player. Teddy had 28 starts and had certainly not shown his ceiling so you're not comparing apples-to-apples. It is not inconceivable that Teddy's ceiling could be (or could've been, depending on the injury) higher than Sam Bradford's. Bradford didn't reach his ceiling after 28 starts. Teddy's stats after 26 starts are on par (and in many cases better) than Bradford's. Hell, Teddy's completion percentage was a more-than-respectable 65% vs. Sam's at the time 57%.
Teddy simply can't make the throws that Sam can.
Again, I don't buy this. Teddy's accuracy has been a strength. There are multiple articles out there that track and profess as much. I'm pretty sure he led the league in "accuracy percentage" in 2015. However despite that inflated due to short throws caused by a terrible offensive line, he also graded out even better on throws 10-19 yards.
Think about this. Last year, Bradford had one of the shortest distances-per-throw in the NFL, if not the shortest. Yet the Vikings were still 12th in the NFL in pass plays of 20 or more yards. You don't do that unless you make the most of the few downfield opportunities you do have. Yes, there's some RAC there, but not THAT much. The truth is that Sam Bradford was among the very top in the league in passer rating on downfield throws, even though he was always under pressure on those throws.
In the last year in which they both played (2015), Sam Bradford had 46 20+-yard plays. Teddy had 41. Teddy's passer rating was also marginally better that year.
And when it comes to deep outs and dig routes and other passes that take zip and velocity, there's simply no comparison between SB and TB.
Absolutely. Sam has the better arm. But Teddy certainly doesn't have a noodle.
Teddy's more mobile -- or at least he was. So what? Without a competent O-line, neither is going to win. With a good O-line, I'd rather have the better passer.
I like Sam, really, but there are few quarterbacks I want when the pocket is collapsing than Teddy. He's cool as ice and one of the best when facing pressure (which was pretty much constantly).
So I can only go by what I can see and measure -- by that standard, SB wins in a landslide.
It remains to be seen if/when Teddy comes back and how a year away affects him but I don't share the opinion SB is far and away the better QB. He's more proven and had a good 2016 for sure. But in case it's not clear, it drives me nuts that people assume 2015 Teddy encapsulates who he is and will forever be as a player.

I still hold out hope Teddy can make the same (or greater) leap as Sam. Even if he's ultimately not here in 2018 or 2019, I'll be rooting for the kid.
“Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that.” --- Bill Shankly
dead_poet
Commissioner
Posts: 24788
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
x 108

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by dead_poet »

Nunin wrote:@DP
Teddy got 5 yrs for that pick...whereas Bradord gets 2. That was my point.
Sorry, I still don't see it. If your point wasn't draft capital spent I don't follow. Wouldn't that signify the Vikings got better value by getting Teddy for 5 years?
“Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that.” --- Bill Shankly
Nunin
Pro Bowl Elite Player
Posts: 567
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:40 am

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by Nunin »

@DP
Sorry, I think I'm confusing it by using TB as an example.
Any 1st rd pick the team has rights to for 4 yrs plus the option.
They only have rights to Bradford for 2yrs yet they used a first rd pick to aquire him. Doesn't seem like good value to me...unless they extend him.
I suppose they could franchise him if they don't extend him.
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by Mothman »

dead_poet wrote:Again, I don't buy this. Teddy's accuracy has been a strength. There are multiple articles out there that track and profess as much
Most of the articles I've seen along those lines tend to conflate accuracy with completion percentage, which is misleading (that's one of the reasons I always try reinforce the difference between the two). Bradford is a genuinely accurate passer. He places the ball much more accurately than Bridgewater, particularly on throws downfield, where there's practically no comparison between the two. Bridgewater had a good completion percentage but I wouldn't describe him as an above average passer in terms of actual accuracy.
Absolutely. Sam has the better arm. But Teddy certainly doesn't have a noodle.
It's not a noodle but it's underwhelming by NFL standards. :( When I've seen him play in person (outside) many of his passes looked like they were arriving in slow motion. The lack of velocity really stood out.
It remains to be seen if/when Teddy comes back and how a year away affects him but I don't share the opinion SB is far and away the better QB. He's more proven and had a good 2016 for sure. But in case it's not clear, it drives me nuts that people assume 2015 Teddy encapsulates who he is and will forever be as a player.
I can understand that. There's no way for us to know whether he could have become a significantly better QB than he was in 2015 but we can probably say with confidence that his road to achieving that is now more difficult and more unlikely than ever.

Personally, I don't think the decision to extend Bradford's deal should be conditional on Bridgewater at all. The Vikings should view it independently because Bridgewater is just way too much of a long shot now to view it any other way.
dead_poet
Commissioner
Posts: 24788
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
x 108

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by dead_poet »

Nunin wrote:@DP
Sorry, I think I'm confusing it by using TB as an example.
Any 1st rd pick the team has rights to for 4 yrs plus the option.
They only have rights to Bradford for 2yrs yet they used a first rd pick to aquire him. Doesn't seem like good value to me...unless they extend him.
I suppose they could franchise him if they don't extend him.
I see what you mean now. Thanks for clarifying.

Part of me sees the value in franchising Sam and paying Teddy's 5th year option, but that'd be a lot of cash for one year. I keep going back and forth trying to decide what Rick might do. I think it ultimately comes down to how Sam plays. If he has a down year or ends up with a myriad of injuries, that'll make it such a hard gamble after the season. Knowing our luck, that's exactly what will happen.

Given the extent of Teddy's injury, I do ultimately think the "safe" thing to do would be to extend Sam and let Teddy go (if it was just an ACL or something I'd probably have a different opinion...though Rick may not have traded for Sam if that was the case). I just don't know if that'll end up being the smartest decision if Teddy is able to resume where he left off. Sam isn't getting any younger and it's not like he hasn't racked up time in the infirmary. See what happens when you have to potentially good quarterbacks? Nothing but trouble.

I suppose I can take solace in whatever decision is made will end up being the wrong one.
“Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that.” --- Bill Shankly
J. Kapp 11
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9771
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pm
x 1857

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by J. Kapp 11 »

dead_poet wrote: And I go back to the caveat that Bradford has had the advantage of being a seasoned player. Teddy had 28 starts and had certainly not shown his ceiling so you're not comparing apples-to-apples. It is not inconceivable that Teddy's ceiling could be (or could've been, depending on the injury) higher than Sam Bradford's. Bradford didn't reach his ceiling after 28 starts. Teddy's stats after 26 starts are on par (and in many cases better) than Bradford's. Hell, Teddy's completion percentage was a more-than-respectable 65% vs. Sam's at the time 57%.
Again, I don't buy this. Teddy's accuracy has been a strength. There are multiple articles out there that track and profess as much. I'm pretty sure he led the league in "accuracy percentage" in 2015. However despite that inflated due to short throws caused by a terrible offensive line, he also graded out even better on throws 10-19 yards.
In the last year in which they both played (2015), Sam Bradford had 46 20+-yard plays. Teddy had 41. Teddy's passer rating was also marginally better that year.
Absolutely. Sam has the better arm. But Teddy certainly doesn't have a noodle.
I like Sam, really, but there are few quarterbacks I want when the pocket is collapsing than Teddy. He's cool as ice and one of the best when facing pressure (which was pretty much constantly).
It remains to be seen if/when Teddy comes back and how a year away affects him but I don't share the opinion SB is far and away the better QB. He's more proven and had a good 2016 for sure. But in case it's not clear, it drives me nuts that people assume 2015 Teddy encapsulates who he is and will forever be as a player.

I still hold out hope Teddy can make the same (or greater) leap as Sam. Even if he's ultimately not here in 2018 or 2019, I'll be rooting for the kid.
DP, you like Teddy. I get it. And I like Bradford.

But there is no comparison in arm talent. None. It's not close, and it never will be. You don't suddenly grow a gun like Bradford's. That's what my eyes tell me, as well as just about talking head who claims to know quarterback play. You can throw all the stats you want at it, or cite Teddy's relative inexperience, and it still comes out the same. Teddy Bridgewater simply does not have the physical gifts of Sam Bradford. Sure, 2015 may not be Teddy's ceiling. But that ceiling is still significantly lower than where Sam Bradford is right now. And where the biggest knock on Bradford has been his health, that certainly isn't a positive comparison for Teddy at this point.

Look, I like Teddy Bridgewater. What's not to like? He's a fine young man, and given his humble beginnings in Miami Dade County, he's an inspiration. If he recovers, he can be a serviceable NFL quarterback. And if he's not a Viking, I will share your sentiment in rooting for him. But if I'm running the Vikings, Sam Bradford is my quarterback.
Image
Go ahead. I dare you.
Underestimate this man.
Nunin
Pro Bowl Elite Player
Posts: 567
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:40 am

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by Nunin »

@DP
lol exactly.
One other concern that would be detrimental is that they don't extend Sam, he has a huge year and his pricetag escalates significantly...
The Vikes will have to pay, one way or the other.
dead_poet
Commissioner
Posts: 24788
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
x 108

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by dead_poet »

Mothman wrote:Most of the articles I've seen along those lines tend to conflate accuracy with completion percentage, which is misleading (that's one of the reasons I always try reinforce the difference between the two). Bradford is a genuinely accurate passer. He places the ball much more accurately than Bridgewater, particularly on throws downfield, where there's practically no comparison between the two. Bridgewater had a good completion percentage but I wouldn't describe him as an above average passer in terms of actual accuracy.
Without a concrete metric, it's hard to say. Because I have the impression that Teddy's accuracy is as good as Sam's (and I'm talking ball placement). I will say that to this point in Teddy's career compared to this point in Sam's career that Sam's deep ball accuracy is superior. While that's important, I would say that that may be a bit blown out of proportion given the amount of times a "deep ball" is actually thrown per game. On short to intermediate throws, I think they're both accurate but, again, I'd give the nod to Teddy on those levels. Absent an objective metric, this is unfortunately somewhat subjective.
It's not a noodle but it's underwhelming by NFL standards. :( When I've seen him play in person (outside) many of his passes looked like they were arriving in slow motion. The lack of velocity really stood out.
Sure, but the weird part is that he makes it work. I don't recall many instances where it has hurt him (for example caused interceptions). And, again, there's also a level of difference between Teddy and Shaun Hill. Teddy has necessary arm strength. He also makes up for it with what I would consider above-average anticipation and ball placement.
I can understand that. There's no way for us to know whether he could have become a significantly better QB than he was in 2015 but we can probably say with confidence that his road to achieving that is now more difficult and more unlikely than ever.
You might be able to say that. I'm not prepared to yet. I think it's been delayed. I wouldn't call it unlikely.
Personally, I don't think the decision to extend Bradford's deal should be conditional on Bridgewater at all. The Vikings should view it independently because Bridgewater is just way too much of a long shot now to view it any other way.
We'll see. If Teddy was yet to resume running or something at this point I may share a different point of view. However videos I've seen give me reason for optimism.
“Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that.” --- Bill Shankly
J. Kapp 11
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9771
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pm
x 1857

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by J. Kapp 11 »

Mothman wrote: Most of the articles I've seen along those lines tend to conflate accuracy with completion percentage, which is misleading (that's one of the reasons I always try reinforce the difference between the two). Bradford is a genuinely accurate passer. He places the ball much more accurately than Bridgewater, particularly on throws downfield, where there's practically no comparison between the two. Bridgewater had a good completion percentage but I wouldn't describe him as an above average passer in terms of actual accuracy.
It's not a noodle but it's underwhelming by NFL standards. :( When I've seen him play in person (outside) many of his passes looked like they were arriving in slow motion. The lack of velocity really stood out.
I've seen them both live, and there is absolutely no comparison. I watched Sam Bradford play last year at U.S. Bank, and I walked away incredibly impressed. He played that day against Carson Palmer, widely regarded as having one of the biggest arms in the NFL, and there was no discernible difference in arm strength. Bradford also puts the ball on the money, as you said Jim.

I remember coming away from that game PINING for an offensive line. Even though the Vikings won fairly easily, Bradford was under intense pressure all game long (thankfully, so was Carson Palmer, especially in the second half) and we had zero running game. The Vikings could've put up 40+ against Arizona if the line performed even at replacement level.
Image
Go ahead. I dare you.
Underestimate this man.
dead_poet
Commissioner
Posts: 24788
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
x 108

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by dead_poet »

J. Kapp 11 wrote:DP, you like Teddy. I get it. And I like Bradford.
I don't not like Bradford. :)
But there is no comparison in arm talent. None. It's not close, and it never will be. You don't suddenly grow a gun like Bradford's. That's what my eyes tell me, as well as just about talking head who claims to know quarterback play. You can throw all the stats you want at it, or cite Teddy's relative inexperience, and it still comes out the same. Teddy Bridgewater simply does not have the physical gifts of Sam Bradford.
If physical gifts were all it took, Ryan Mallett would be on his way to Canton. I know you probably didn't mean it like that but "arm talent"/velocity is but one attribute of successful quarterbacks. And yeah, I'll say it, it's probably not even one of the most vital. When I evaluate quarterbacks, I look to see if they have enough to make it. Kind of like WRs and speed. If you're a 4.6 40-guy, you have what it takes. Anything more is gravy. Give me the between-the-ears stuff, the placement, anticipation, pressure accuracy, progression, information interpretation, reading coverages, audibles, 4th quarter comebacks, etc. I'm much more interested in that stuff than I am cannons.

And, why not, I'm going to put this here too. Skip to 2:00.



54 MPH velocity is a above average from recent combine velocities (which typically range from 46-59 MPH)

http://blogs.ourlads.com/2017/03/16/qua ... 2008-2015/

Going by the SS math, it takes about six MPH difference for a one-yard separation. Sam probably has a 57-58 MPH or so arm. I don't know if it's like night and day. And, again, a completion is a completion if it gets there in .5 seconds or .65 seconds.
Look, I like Teddy Bridgewater. What's not to like? He's a fine young man, and given his humble beginnings in Miami Dade County, he's an inspiration. If he recovers, he can be a serviceable NFL quarterback. And if he's not a Viking, I will share your sentiment in rooting for him. But if I'm running the Vikings, Sam Bradford is my quarterback.
I get it. I like them both. It's refreshing, I suppose, to possibly have a debate between two potentially competent guys for a change. The more I studied Teddy, the more I liked him. I dug his progression and his game. And I'm still a bit raw from having a rug yanked out from under me during what I thought was going to be a special year (despite the offensive line's shortcomings). I'll support Sam if they end up going with him long-term (I felt really sorry for him wallowing away in St. Louis) but I can't help but hope for a full Teddy recovery and a higher ceiling. Would be quite a comeback story.
“Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that.” --- Bill Shankly
808vikingsfan
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3927
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:45 pm
Location: Hawaii
x 151

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by 808vikingsfan »

dead_poet wrote: The more I studied Teddy, the more I liked him. I dug his progression and his game. And I'm still a bit raw from having a rug yanked out from under me during what I thought was going to be a special year (despite the offensive line's shortcomings). I'll support Sam if they end up going with him long-term (I felt really sorry for him wallowing away in St. Louis) but I can't help but hope for a full Teddy recovery and a higher ceiling. Would be quite a comeback story.

Feel the same. I like Sam. I like Teddy. I just felt Teddy could have been something special for a long time. Love his work ethic, his game, his intangibles. I think Bradford has a chance to be something special too.
Joined: Aug 2006
Deleted: Sept 12 2014
Reborn: Sept 17 2014
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by Mothman »

dead_poet wrote:Without a concrete metric, it's hard to say. Because I have the impression that Teddy's accuracy is as good as Sam's (and I'm talking ball placement). I will say that to this point in Teddy's career compared to this point in Sam's career that Sam's deep ball accuracy is superior. While that's important, I would say that that may be a bit blown out of proportion given the amount of times a "deep ball" is actually thrown per game. On short to intermediate throws, I think they're both accurate but, again, I'd give the nod to Teddy on those levels. Absent an objective metric, this is unfortunately somewhat subjective.


I agree, it is somewhat subjective.
Sure, but the weird part is that he makes it work. I don't recall many instances where it has hurt him (for example caused interceptions). And, again, there's also a level of difference between Teddy and Shaun Hill. Teddy has necessary arm strength. He also makes up for it with what I would consider above-average anticipation and ball placement.
We have such different interpretations of his game! :) I think his anticipation has been relatively poor. One of my biggest issues with his game was that he waited too long to make throws, waiting for receivers to clear rather than hitting them out of their breaks. That was a damaging trait in Turner's offense, which relies on precision and anticipation.

Admittedly, that's a subjective assessment too but I will say that I have seen his arm strength (or perhaps more accuirately, the velocity with which he throws) hurt him, usually in the form of incompletions rather than interceptions.
You might be able to say that. I'm not prepared to yet. I think it's been delayed. I wouldn't call it unlikely.
Respectfully, it's just hard to see how a severe knee dislocation doesn't make his road to success more unlikely than it was pre-injury. As I understand it, a relatively low percentage of athletes successfully return from a severe knee dislocation like that at all and a return is usually accompanied by a loss of range of motion and reduced capability. On top of that, assuming he does come back, he'll probably have to earn a starting job somewhere in order to become a significantly better QB than he was in 2015.
We'll see. If Teddy was yet to resume running or something at this point I may share a different point of view. However videos I've seen give me reason for optimism.
Until he shows he can play football, contact and all, at a level comparable to or better than Bradford, I just don't think they can afford to consider him a realistic option to be their starter in 2018. From a business and team management perspective, it just doesn't make sense to me, especially because I think Bradford clearly handled the job better.
SidestreamFB Pete
Backup
Posts: 62
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 11:34 am
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Contact:

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by SidestreamFB Pete »

This whole post makes me sad. Teddy was a really nice dude, and he was developing well.

The organization can say all the nice things they want about him and I can get behind that. BUT we do not have a quarterback for the 2018 season right now. You cannot expect someone to come back and play well after missing two years of football, let alone on a freshly destroyed leg.

As things stand now our options are:
A) Pay Bradford right now. Give him an extension before going into this season. We can get him at a fair rate $17-$19 mil/year. If he plays well, we just saved $3 mil/year. If he doesn't the contract should be reasonable enough to trade him for a late-round pick to a QB needy team, and we will have a high enough pick to do something in a good (not great) QB class.

B) Ride the season out and not pay Bradford. If he plays well, we have to sell-the-farm, there aren't good QBs walking the streets. If he plays poorly we will either look to Teddy (which could be a disaster similar to when he initially injured his leg) or put all of our marbles in the draft.

It looks like the Vikes' brass is going with option 'B'. And I have no idea why. They are normally good at thinking a year ahead with contracts. We may be in for a Case Keenum 2018...
Not easy being a Vikes fan and staying an "unbiased" creator of Sidestream Football. This is my therapy. SKOL.
Post Reply