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

User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 37409
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by Mothman » Sun May 21, 2017 12:20 pm

Nunin wrote:I'm not worried too much about them losing Sam. I'm concerned that they will have a bad cap situation as a result of waiting...which to me is a poor plan.
Ah, I see. I sometimes forget to give enough consideration to that angle.
Time will tell.
I like the way the offseason is shaping up other than that.
I think it's a good team in the making.
:lol: I'm laughing at myself because I just don't know anymore. I hope they will be good.
0 x

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 » Sun May 21, 2017 3:53 pm

I would hate to see them lose the opportunity to re-sign a starter on defense or a guy like Diggs, for example, just because Bradford has a great year.
Who knows for sure?
But I do feel this team has enough pieces to go with a big chip on their collective shoulder this season to make a deep run.
I do worry about the kicking game.
It is the Vikings so all my expectations are safely locked in a padded cell.
0 x

RFIP
Veteran
Posts: 212
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2016 8:02 pm

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by RFIP » Sun May 21, 2017 3:54 pm

MrPurplenGold wrote: What does Bradfords draft status or previous trade value have anything to do with his current monetary value? Bradford went 7-9 with the Eagles last year and they drafted a rookie QB, played hin and didn't get any worse. In 2015, the year sam bRadford got traded from the rams, their record actually got better by a game. Sam Bradford is an average QB at best. He's not going to lose too many games but he won't win many games either. He needs more than one year of average success with the Vikings for me to consider any long term extension.
You should not give out incorrect stats to prove your point. Bradford was 7-7 in Philly, not 7-9, and truth be told he was 7-6, on his way to 8-6 when he left a game late vs Miami and of course Sanchez threw the game losing int but Sam got credited with the "loss" but only an uninformed fan would blindly credit W's and L's to QB's... sort of like Sam getting the Vikings the win last year at home vs Detroit only to have the defense give it up with 16 seconds left and Detroit on their on 10 yard line. Yep that was a Bradford "L" too...
0 x

User avatar
808vikingsfan
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3462
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:45 pm
Location: Hawaii

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by 808vikingsfan » Sun May 21, 2017 5:02 pm

Mothman wrote:If a QB needs to play indoors to be successful, he's the wrong man for the job.
I think 11-5 is pretty successful so no, Bridgewater didn't need to play indoors to be successful. I'm just saying if you're gonna start comparing the stats of two 'mediocre' QBs, you have to give some context.
0 x
Joined: Aug 2006
Deleted: Sept 12 2014
Reborn: Sept 17 2014

User avatar
MrPurplenGold
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:46 pm

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by MrPurplenGold » Sun May 21, 2017 5:23 pm

MrPurplenGold wrote: You should not give out incorrect stats to prove your point. Bradford was 7-7 in Philly, not 7-9, and truth be told he was 7-6, on his way to 8-6 when he left a game late vs Miami and of course Sanchez threw the game losing int but Sam got credited with the "loss" but only an uninformed fan would blindly credit W's and L's to QB's... sort of like Sam getting the Vikings the win last year at home vs Detroit only to have the defense give it up with 16 seconds left and Detroit on their on 10 yard line. Yep that was a Bradford "L" too...

There was no need for you to get personal by making an attempt at calling me an uninformed fan. If you can't keep your personal feelings out of it why participate in the conversation. You can disagree with someone without providing any personal attacks.
0 x

RFIP
Veteran
Posts: 212
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2016 8:02 pm

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by RFIP » Sun May 21, 2017 6:48 pm

MrPurplenGold wrote:
There was no need for you to get personal by making an attempt at calling me an uninformed fan. If you can't keep your personal feelings out of it why participate in the conversation. You can disagree with someone without providing any personal attacks.
I didn't direxct my comment towards you, I am saying only an uniformed fan credits wins and loses to a QB.

YOU made an incorrect statement, actually more than one. You said; "Bradford went 7-9 with the Eagles last year and they drafted a rookie QB, played hin and didn't get any worse."

A) Bradford wasn't 7-9 in Philly and B) to compare Wentz 2016 playing for an entirely different regime than Sam did under Chip is comparing apples to tomatoes. And to say the Rams basically had the same record with and without Sam leaves out that the Rams were woefully worse with Goff last year, 0-7 to be exact.

All of which should tell you not to credit W/L's solely to any QB's.
0 x

User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 37409
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by Mothman » Sun May 21, 2017 7:06 pm

808vikingsfan wrote:I think 11-5 is pretty successful so no, Bridgewater didn't need to play indoors to be successful. I'm just saying if you're gonna start comparing the stats of two 'mediocre' QBs, you have to give some context.
I agree. I made a similar point about stats on the previous page.
0 x

User avatar
MrPurplenGold
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:46 pm

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by MrPurplenGold » Sun May 21, 2017 7:06 pm

MrPurplenGold wrote: I didn't direxct my comment towards you, I am saying only an uniformed fan credits wins and loses to a QB.

YOU made an incorrect statement, actually more than one. You said; "Bradford went 7-9 with the Eagles last year and they drafted a rookie QB, played hin and didn't get any worse."

A) Bradford wasn't 7-9 in Philly and B) to compare Wentz 2016 playing for an entirely different regime than Sam did under Chip is comparing apples to tomatoes. And to say the Rams basically had the same record with and without Sam leaves out that the Rams were woefully worse with Goff last year, 0-7 to be exact.

All of which should tell you not to credit W/L's solely to any QB's.

Clearly you have just stated that you perceived my argument to be that of one who believes wins and losses are credited to a QB. So whether directly or indirectly your point of reference for "uninformed fans" is directed at the point you believe I was trying to make. Either way, let's be adults about this about this and refrain from name calling when the perspective doesn't coincide with what you believe in. Because there are many people out there, both commentators and fans, who tie a franchises success to the QB position, right or wrong. This is why you see people reach for QBS in the draft and get fired or traded if their team loses, even if there are other holes on the roster.

Even if my stats weren't completely accurate my point remains the same. I think Philly and the rams are better off since they got rid of Sam Bradford. This is both from a salary cap standin and both teams have had the opportunity to draft who they feel are franchise QBs, which they didn't believe about Bradford. They did all this without any significant impact to their existing win loss record, which makes me imply he wasn't the reason they won or the reason they loss which made him replaceable. Now both teams could be wrong and Bradford could turn out to be better than both of those young QBS, but he still has plenty to prove such as consistently performing at a high level for a longer period of time.
0 x

RFIP
Veteran
Posts: 212
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2016 8:02 pm

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by RFIP » Sun May 21, 2017 7:49 pm

MrPurplenGold wrote:
The Rams are far from better without Sam and, even by your standards neither are the Eagles considering with a much better team and defense last year they went 7-9 with Wentz as their QB, 7-7 with Sam in worse situations. And Sam was 7-9 as a rookie with a Ram team coming off 5-43 the prior 3 seasons so lets not make wild statements about either of those situations just yet.

And Chip was on record, rightfully so, saying there was no way in the world the Rams trade Bradford if not for the back-to-back ACL's.

Personally I could care less if the Vikings sign him long term, his stock is only rising further and they will be left holding the bag at seasons end if they make that mistake and all the Teddy-worshipers may get their wish that he will come back and "lead them to the promised land" like before his injury.
0 x

Demi
Commissioner
Posts: 23761
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 4:24 pm

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by Demi » Mon May 22, 2017 9:02 pm

Personally I could care less if the Vikings sign him long term, his stock is only rising further and they will be left holding the bag at seasons end if they make that mistake and all the Teddy-worshipers may get their wish that he will come back and "lead them to the promised land" like before his injury.
Not sure his stock is rising further. He's not getting any younger, and if he plays well, he'll get signed long term. I'm just amazed anyone who's watched Bradford and Bridgewater in the NFL believes Teddy will be a better option at any point...
0 x

User avatar
PurpleMustReign
Starting Wide Receiver
Posts: 18506
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:48 pm
Location: Crystal, MN
Contact:

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by PurpleMustReign » Mon May 22, 2017 9:08 pm

Demi wrote:
Me too but there were some people who thought Ponder was a decent QB too.
0 x
The Devil whispered in the Viking's ear, "There's a storm coming." The Viking replied, "I am the storm." ‪#‎SKOL2017 #BringitHome‬

User avatar
808vikingsfan
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3462
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:45 pm
Location: Hawaii

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by 808vikingsfan » Mon May 22, 2017 9:45 pm

Demi wrote: Not sure his stock is rising further. He's not getting any younger, and if he plays well, he'll get signed long term. I'm just amazed anyone who's watched Bradford and Bridgewater in the NFL believes Teddy will be a better option at any point...
Because there are other qualities that make a QB successful other than a strong arm.
0 x
Joined: Aug 2006
Deleted: Sept 12 2014
Reborn: Sept 17 2014

Demi
Commissioner
Posts: 23761
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 4:24 pm

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by Demi » Mon May 22, 2017 10:30 pm

808vikingsfan wrote: Because there are other qualities that make a QB successful other than a strong arm.
You think Bradford has a strong arm? What makes a QB successful that Bridgewater has that Bradford doesn't? :wallbang:
0 x

User avatar
808vikingsfan
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3462
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:45 pm
Location: Hawaii

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by 808vikingsfan » Mon May 22, 2017 11:13 pm

Demi wrote: You think Bradford has a strong arm? What makes a QB successful that Bridgewater has that Bradford doesn't? :wallbang:
Leadership, good feel in the pocket, ability to extend plays.

And yes, I've watched him for a season, I think he has a strong arm.
0 x
Joined: Aug 2006
Deleted: Sept 12 2014
Reborn: Sept 17 2014

User avatar
PurpleMustReign
Starting Wide Receiver
Posts: 18506
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:48 pm
Location: Crystal, MN
Contact:

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by PurpleMustReign » Tue May 23, 2017 5:49 am

808vikingsfan wrote: Leadership, good feel in the pocket, ability to extend plays.

And yes, I've watched him for a season, I think he has a strong arm.
I agree Bradford has a strong arm. However he has more confident of a pocket presence than Teddy ever will and he can extend plays although not as well as Teddy.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
0 x
The Devil whispered in the Viking's ear, "There's a storm coming." The Viking replied, "I am the storm." ‪#‎SKOL2017 #BringitHome‬

Post Reply