Vikings Message Board.Com
http://vikingsmessageboard.com/

Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
http://vikingsmessageboard.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29813
Page 5 of 6

Author:  Mothman [ Sun May 21, 2017 12:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

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.

Quote:
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.

Author:  Nunin [ Sun May 21, 2017 3:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

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.

Author:  RFIP [ Sun May 21, 2017 3:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

MrPurplenGold wrote:
RFIP wrote:
MrPurplenGold wrote:
Valid point, so let me rephrase. What kind of extension do you give a QB who has missed games in 4 of his 7 NFL seasons, has never thrown more than 21 TDS and has never taken his team to the playoffs?


I think you forgot; "AND was the #1 overall pick by the worst football team of the past 1/4 century (5-43 pre-Bradford), then coming off TWO ACL's he still garnered a second round pick + a starting QB...THEN a year later was traded for a 1st & 3rd round pick and is now the NFL's single season comp % leader in addition to having the highest down field comp % while making Adam Thielen a household name...as he played behind the worst OL the NFL has ever seen...oh and has never thrown more ints than tds"

Hmm, I must admit I am finding it difficult to find comps for this one...


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...

Author:  808vikingsfan [ Sun May 21, 2017 5:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

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.

Author:  MrPurplenGold [ Sun May 21, 2017 5:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

MrPurplenGold wrote:
RFIP 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...



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.

Author:  RFIP [ Sun May 21, 2017 6:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

MrPurplenGold wrote:
MrPurplenGold wrote:
RFIP 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...



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.

Author:  Mothman [ Sun May 21, 2017 7:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

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.

Author:  MrPurplenGold [ Sun May 21, 2017 7:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

MrPurplenGold wrote:
RFIP 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.



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.

Author:  RFIP [ Sun May 21, 2017 7:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

MrPurplenGold wrote:
MrPurplenGold wrote:
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.


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.

Author:  Demi [ Mon May 22, 2017 9:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Quote:
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...

Author:  PurpleMustReign [ Mon May 22, 2017 9:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Demi wrote:
Quote:
I'm just amazed anyone who's watched Bradford and Bridgewater in the NFL believes Teddy will be a better option at any point...


Me too but there were some people who thought Ponder was a decent QB too.

Author:  808vikingsfan [ Mon May 22, 2017 9:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Demi wrote:
Quote:
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...


Because there are other qualities that make a QB successful other than a strong arm.

Author:  Demi [ Mon May 22, 2017 10:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

808vikingsfan wrote:
Demi wrote:
Quote:
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...


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:

Author:  808vikingsfan [ Mon May 22, 2017 11:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Demi wrote:
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:


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.

Author:  PurpleMustReign [ Tue May 23, 2017 5:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

808vikingsfan wrote:
Demi wrote:
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:


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

Author:  808vikingsfan [ Tue May 23, 2017 6:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

PurpleMustReign wrote:
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


I would argue about pocket presence. We've seen a few times last year where he didn't feel the pressure early enough and was stripped of the ball. Bradford can definitely get the ball out quicker though which I really like.

Doesn't really matter though. Until Teddy is 100% (if ever), Bradford is the Vikings QB. I just think some people forget how effective TB was in 2015. Remember the playoffs? How bad the conditions were? He drove his team to the 9 yard line with seconds left in the game. I think that last drive defines how the team sees Teddy.

For me, it's not about the arm, or how pretty the deep ball is, or the stats. It's about getting the job done when it matters. I think more often than not, Teddy did that. I hope Bradford can do the same.


Bridgewater to Rudolph final drive vs SEA

Author:  Mothman [ Tue May 23, 2017 6:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

808vikingsfan wrote:
I would argue about pocket presence. We've seen a few times last year where he didn't feel the pressure early enough and was stripped of the ball.


The same thing happened to Bridgewater a few times in 2015, most notably at the end of the Arizona game. It happens to pretty much every QB at times.

Quote:
Doesn't really matter though. Until Teddy is 100% (if ever), Bradford is the Vikings QB. I just think some people forget how effective TB was in 2015. Remember the playoffs? How bad the conditions were? He drove his team to the 9 yard line with seconds left in the game. I think that last drive defines how the team sees Teddy.


It's interesting how perceptions differ. To me, that game reinforces how ineffective Bridgewater was in 2015. The team struggled on offense most of the day (conditions contributed to that) and never got into the end zone, even though Bridgewater had a receiver open for a TD in a 3rd-and-goal situation (he didn't see it and threw an incompletion to a back who was both covered and short of the goal line). That pass you posted was his only completion on the final drive and it was a 9 yard out that Rudolph turned into a 24 yard gain. Don't get me wrong: Bridgewater was poised in that situation. He showed the kind of calm leadership you want from a QB with a playoff game on the line and between that completion and a pass interference penalty, they got into scoring position. However, it wasn't like he sharply drove the team downfield with impressive, memorbale passes. He completed a simple out route.

Quote:
For me, it's not about the arm, or how pretty the deep ball is, or the stats. It's about getting the job done when it matters.


It matters all the time.

Author:  808vikingsfan [ Tue May 23, 2017 8:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Mothman wrote:
However, it wasn't like he sharply drove the team downfield with impressive, memorbale passes. He completed a simple out route.

As compared to an interception? How many times have we seen a player melt under pressure? You see it as a simple pass. I see it as execution under extreme pressure.



Mothman wrote:
It matters all the time.



No it doesn't. Getting your team in FG position on the opening drive isn't the same as getting your team in FG position with 1:42 left behind by 1.

Author:  Mothman [ Tue May 23, 2017 8:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

808vikingsfan wrote:
Mothman wrote:
However, it wasn't like he sharply drove the team downfield with impressive, memorbale passes. He completed a simple out route.

As compared to an interception? How many times have we seen a player melt under pressure? You see it as a simple pass. I see it as execution under extreme pressure.


It's both. He executed a routine 9 yard out pass in a high pressure situation. As I said, he showed the kind of calm leadership you want from a QB with a playoff game on the line

Quote:
No it doesn't. Getting your team in FG position on the opening drive isn't the same as getting your team in FG position with 1:42 left behind by 1.


No, it's not but it still matters. :lol: That's the point. Good QB play isn't about getting the job done in the final 2 minutes of a game. It's about getting the job done, including in the final 2 minutes of a game.

Author:  PurpleMustReign [ Tue May 23, 2017 8:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

808vikingsfan wrote:
No it doesn't. Getting your team in FG position on the opening drive isn't the same as getting your team in FG position with 1:42 left behind by 1.



:shock:

Author:  dead_poet [ Tue May 23, 2017 8:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

:whistle:

http://www.1500espn.com/vikings-2/2017/ ... -throwing/

Author:  Mothman [ Tue May 23, 2017 9:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater



They really want to create a nice little QB controversy for themselves, don't they?

Author:  dead_poet [ Tue May 23, 2017 9:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Mothman wrote:


They really want to create a nice little QB controversy for themselves, don't they?


*Shrug*

Probably trying to control the narrative. Beat guys would know Teddy is out there and would report on it so why hide it in a video?

Per Tomasson, Rick will address Teddy tomorrow for the first time since the injury. Will be interesting. Can't imagine them announcing he's out for the year after the team posted this. My guess is that it'll be careful optimism with many reassurances Teddy is working hard to rehab but a ways to go.

Author:  HardcoreVikesFan [ Tue May 23, 2017 9:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater



Go Teddy. Hope he can come back healthy and reclaim the job. We need a winner at the QB position: Teddy is one.

Author:  S197 [ Tue May 23, 2017 9:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

I hope he can play at some point this season. Isn't depth at QB one of the major issues we've all had for a long time? I don't understand how all of a sudden it's a controversy or a team divided, I see more options, which is always a good thing.

Author:  Mothman [ Tue May 23, 2017 10:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

S197 wrote:
I hope he can play at some point this season. Isn't depth at QB one of the major issues we've all had for a long time? I don't understand how all of a sudden it's a controversy or a team divided, I see more options, which is always a good thing.


It probably won't amount to anything because I doubt Bridgewater will be ready to play when the season begins. I just think the Vikes are recklessly fanning flames that might burn them.

Author:  PurpleMustReign [ Wed May 24, 2017 5:22 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Mothman wrote:
S197 wrote:
I hope he can play at some point this season. Isn't depth at QB one of the major issues we've all had for a long time? I don't understand how all of a sudden it's a controversy or a team divided, I see more options, which is always a good thing.


It probably won't amount to anything because i doubt Bridgewater will be ready to play when the season begins. I just think the Vikes recklessly are fanning flames that might burn them.

Correct.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

Author:  S197 [ Wed May 24, 2017 2:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Mothman wrote:
S197 wrote:
I hope he can play at some point this season. Isn't depth at QB one of the major issues we've all had for a long time? I don't understand how all of a sudden it's a controversy or a team divided, I see more options, which is always a good thing.


It probably won't amount to anything because I doubt Bridgewater will be ready to play when the season begins. I just think the Vikes are recklessly fanning flames that might burn them.


By letting him throw at OTAs or comments being made?

Author:  Mothman [ Wed May 24, 2017 2:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

S197 wrote:
Mothman wrote:
S197 wrote:
I hope he can play at some point this season. Isn't depth at QB one of the major issues we've all had for a long time? I don't understand how all of a sudden it's a controversy or a team divided, I see more options, which is always a good thing.


It probably won't amount to anything because I doubt Bridgewater will be ready to play when the season begins. I just think the Vikes are recklessly fanning flames that might burn them.


By letting him throw at OTAs or comments being made?


By comments made. Letting him throw is simply a necessary step in his rehabilitation process.

Author:  dead_poet [ Wed May 24, 2017 7:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Predictably measured comments from Rick:

http://www.twincities.com/2017/05/24/vi ... couraging/

Quote:
“This entire organization (is) just hoping that eventually he’ll be able to come back on the field, but that’s still the unknown,” general manager Rick Spielman said Wednesday.

Bridgewater, working his way back from a horrific knee injury, was not present for Wednesday’s OTA session because of a rehabilitation appointment with a doctor, Spielman said. But, he added, the quarterback’s progress has been “very encouraging.”

Spielman said Bridgewater, who suffered a torn ACL and dislocated left knee in practice Aug. 30 and missed all of the 2016 season, is not cleared for full practice and there is no timetable for when he will be.

“Part of the rehab process that you had seen (Tuesday) was that he is able to start dropping back and throwing the ball,” Spielman said. “He’s working extremely hard on his rehab, and we’ll continue to monitor his progress as he goes.”


Side note: hope you're feeling better, Jim. It's only OTAs so you have some time yet to get ready for the regular season. Hopefully you'll be 100% by camp.

Page 5 of 6 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/