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

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

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by Demi » Fri May 05, 2017 8:01 pm

chicagopurple wrote:QB is such a critical position that in every draft, you should pretty much always take a highly rated QB if he is available to you. It is the most critical part of the team, it is the hardest thing to find, and even if you have a Tom Brady.....you are still one injury away from becoming a bottom dweller if your QB goes down..
And if Brady went down, neither Bridgewater or Garoppolo would likely win a single playoff game. Or any number of veteran backups or high profile rookies. You need a good QB. You need to find one. And winning a few regular season games against some bum #### team isn't going to mean anything when you face fully established teams once the playoffs start. The issue is finding those players. And watching any number of Qbs play, you realize they aren't those players. And yet teams invest huge contracts in them for some slightly above average play when they are finally required to actually take some snaps.

And always take a highly rated QB? Then mention Tom Brady? He wasn't rated at all. You just need to look for one. Highly rated or not. Which is part of the problem this team has had. They don't even try. Then they throw a high pick at a "rated" QB. How has that worked out? Look at some picks. Heck, look at the Bears this year!

Obviously you need a QB. But it seems just as obvious you don't need to force a QB. How many teams that needed a QB just took one because of that, and bombed. And how many teams needed a QB, but signed a guy like Favre or Petyon and made a run with it. A better run than they made by throwing early picks at the position just because they had a need at the position?
This is going to blow up in their collective faces and probably this year now. Teddy will be around "the guys" from day 1 and Sam will know it's Teddy's team. This WILL divide the locker room.
You really think players on this team think this is Teddy's team? The only people that think this is Teddy's team are media members who have articles to write. And maybe incompetent front office members who dream of "QB competitions" going into the preseason. Everyone, fans, media, and players know this is Bradford's team. And even if Teddy is healthy Bradford is still the better QB...

And as important as the position is, Bridgewater isn't going to make the difference between a successful season and not. He just isn't good enough to make that big of an impact...
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 » Fri May 05, 2017 10:34 pm

Demi wrote: And if Brady went down, neither Bridgewater or Garoppolo would likely win a single playoff game. Or any number of veteran backups or high profile rookies. You need a good QB. You need to find one. And winning a few regular season games against some bum #### team isn't going to mean anything when you face fully established teams once the playoffs start. The issue is finding those players. And watching any number of Qbs play, you realize they aren't those players. And yet teams invest huge contracts in them for some slightly above average play when they are finally required to actually take some snaps.

And always take a highly rated QB? Then mention Tom Brady? He wasn't rated at all. You just need to look for one. Highly rated or not. Which is part of the problem this team has had. They don't even try. Then they throw a high pick at a "rated" QB. How has that worked out? Look at some picks. Heck, look at the Bears this year!

Obviously you need a QB. But it seems just as obvious you don't need to force a QB. How many teams that needed a QB just took one because of that, and bombed. And how many teams needed a QB, but signed a guy like Favre or Petyon and made a run with it. A better run than they made by throwing early picks at the position just because they had a need at the position?
You really think players on this team think this is Teddy's team? The only people that think this is Teddy's team are media members who have articles to write. And maybe incompetent front office members who dream of "QB competitions" going into the preseason. Everyone, fans, media, and players know this is Bradford's team. And even if Teddy is healthy Bradford is still the better QB...

And as important as the position is, Bridgewater isn't going to make the difference between a successful season and not. He just isn't good enough to make that big of an impact...
Teddy is doing his best RG3 imitation on social media with his cute videosof his workouts then tonight he posts "his proudest moment that still brings me chills...when I played with 1 leg and a broken hand and beat (some crummy team) at Louisville..." If you are on twitter I suggest you take a look and you will SEE countless (literally 30-40+) replies ALL "can't wait to you come back for the Vikings and prove the doubters wrong!"

I'm telling you, you've been warned. This QB situation has been botched yet again because they don't want to cut ties with Teddy.

The QB MUST be the leader. This team now has two.
0 x

User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 37531
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by Mothman » Sat May 06, 2017 7:17 am

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/1931 ... -minnesota
Even though the Vikings declined quarterback Teddy Bridgewater's fifth-year option earlier this week, coach Mike Zimmer maintained on Friday he wants Bridgewater to resume his playing career in Minnesota when he's ready to be back on the field.

Zimmer also said he's more optimistic than ever about Bridgewater making a return from injuries to his left knee.

"I love Teddy Bridgewater," Zimmer said. "The guy is working his rear end off. He continues to fight every single day. Everything about him when he's rehabbing and doing the work he has to do is the exact same way he approaches life. I'm excited. I'm probably more optimistic now about him actually playing than I have been at any point in time. But he's still got a long ways to go."
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 » Sat May 06, 2017 7:38 am

0 x

User avatar
808vikingsfan
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3532
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:45 pm
Location: Hawaii

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by 808vikingsfan » Sat May 06, 2017 2:46 pm

RFIP wrote: Teddy is doing his best RG3 imitation on social media with his cute videosof his workouts then tonight he posts "his proudest moment that still brings me chills...when I played with 1 leg and a broken hand and beat (some crummy team) at Louisville..." If you are on twitter I suggest you take a look and you will SEE countless (literally 30-40+) replies ALL "can't wait to you come back for the Vikings and prove the doubters wrong!"

I'm telling you, you've been warned. This QB situation has been botched yet again because they don't want to cut ties with Teddy.

The QB MUST be the leader. This team now has two.
I can see your point but does it really matter? If Bradford takes care of business this season, It won't be an issue. A deep playoff run and no one will remember how to spell Bridgewater.

For me, it's still a wait and see for Bradford. I haven't seen enough of his total package to know if he has what it takes to lead a team.
0 x
Joined: Aug 2006
Deleted: Sept 12 2014
Reborn: Sept 17 2014

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

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by RFIP » Mon May 08, 2017 4:40 am

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... ibly-ugly/

Posted by Mike Florio on May 7, 2017, 9:14 PM EDT

With the Vikings not picking up the fifth-year option on quarterback Teddy Bridgewater’s 2014 first-round contract, he’s due to become a free agent in 2018. Unless his contract tolls by a year.

The Collective Bargaining Agreement contains a provision that plainly states the contract will toll if he remains on the Physically Unable to Perform through the sixth game of the 2017 regular season. With Bridgewater still recovering from a devastating knee injury suffered last August, a decision to leave him on the PUP list at the start of the regular season guarantees that he’ll be on PUP for the first six games, because: (1) the window to exit PUP doesn’t open until after Week Six; and (2) the Vikings don’t have a bye in the first six weeks of the season.

Given that a tolled contract means Bridgewater would be bound to the Vikings for two straight years at $1.354 million (his 2017 base salary), Bridgewater and the NFL Players Association will be ready to challenge a PUP designation by the team, if Bridgewater and the union believe he can pass a physical. The stakes will be high and the feelings could get raw; as one source with knowledge of the situation explained it to PFT, a disagreement could lead to a “huge” battle, with the NFL and the Vikings on one side and the NFLPA and Bridgewater on the other.

Said Vikings G.M. Rick Spielman on Friday’s PFT Live: “We know the rule very well. We’ve talked to the Management Council, we understand everything that’s involved with it, but again it’s something from a contractual standpoint that I’d rather not comment on. But there are specific rules there, and we’re quite aware of what the rules are.”

Here’s where the situation morphs from potentially contentious to flat-out confusing. A league source tells PFT that the NFL’s Management Council has interpreted the relevant language of the CBA in past cases to require the player to spend the entire year on the PUP list in order to toll the contract. PFT has asked both the NFL (multiple times) and the Vikings whether that contention is accurate, and there has been no response from either the league or the team.

The silence invites speculation as to whether the Vikings and/or the NFL intend to interpret the provision as written moving forward, reducing the tolling threshold from a full year to six games. And why wouldn’t they take that position? It’s a management-friendly right the league has secured at the bargaining table. The notion that the Management Council has interpreted the language in a way that provides a gratuity to the players makes no sense.

Regardless of whether Bridgewater must spend six weeks or the full year on PUP, a disagreement could be looming that could eventually poison the relationship between player and team, if it’s not handled properly by everyone involved.
0 x

User avatar
dead_poet
Commissioner
Posts: 24642
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by dead_poet » Tue May 09, 2017 3:48 pm

Take PA how you want but he's hearing Teddy could be ready by mid-season. Does "ready" = "active"? Big question. My money is on Week 10, if at all.

https://twitter.com/JReidDraftScout/sta ... 5631467520
0 x
“Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that.” --- Bill Shankly

User avatar
PurpleMustReign
Starting Wide Receiver
Posts: 18711
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:48 pm
Location: Crystal, MN

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by PurpleMustReign » Wed May 10, 2017 9:13 am

I would be shocked if he ever takes another snap let alone is "ready" in mid-season. And that isn't good justification for not extending Bradford. If Teddy is some how able to get ready to play, trade him.

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." ‪#‎SKOL2018

User avatar
chicagopurple
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1269
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:45 am

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by chicagopurple » Wed May 10, 2017 10:45 am

I think of Stussy and his blown out back, Loadholt and his ruptured bilat achilles, injuries that NEVER go back to normal....and how the Vikes wasted time and roster spaces on "loyalty" to these veterans when it was pretty obvious that they were never going to be quality starters again.

I hope they arent going down the same track with Teddy.

If Bradford is really a top line starter he needs to be the unquestioned leader. The NFL is not a charity, feel good stories are for teams going nowhere but trying to butter up the fans. All the PT in the world wont fix damaged nerves in your legs. As said above, if he shows any potential to recuperate, and we can get a good trade deal from a team in need, it would be foolish to retain him.
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 » Wed May 10, 2017 4:56 pm

chicagopurple wrote:I think of Stussy and his blown out back, Loadholt and his ruptured bilat achilles, injuries that NEVER go back to normal....and how the Vikes wasted time and roster spaces on "loyalty" to these veterans when it was pretty obvious that they were never going to be quality starters again.

I hope they arent going down the same track with Teddy.

If Bradford is really a top line starter he needs to be the unquestioned leader. The NFL is not a charity, feel good stories are for teams going nowhere but trying to butter up the fans. All the PT in the world wont fix damaged nerves in your legs. As said above, if he shows any potential to recuperate, and we can get a good trade deal from a team in need, it would be foolish to retain him.

I listened to a good Vikings podcast yesterday and the 2 dudes running it echoed my sentiments to a tee. They said "this is going to be a mess...Teddy has "his" friends on the team and once he's around for practices and OTA's and other stuff how in the world is Bradford ever going to feel like this is HIS team? Then you have the issue of players constantly being asked who THEY'D rather have at QB..."

It went on from there but basically said what I said in that the FO is totally mishandling this situation and in the end they could pizz off Bradford and Teddy NOT being able to play the Vikings will be searching for a QB in 2018...

It's a mess folks, you can bank on that.
0 x

User avatar
PurpleMustReign
Starting Wide Receiver
Posts: 18711
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:48 pm
Location: Crystal, MN

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by PurpleMustReign » Wed May 10, 2017 5:20 pm

RFIP wrote:
I listened to a good Vikings podcast yesterday and the 2 dudes running it echoed my sentiments to a tee. They said "this is going to be a mess...Teddy has "his" friends on the team and once he's around for practices and OTA's and other stuff how in the world is Bradford ever going to feel like this is HIS team? Then you have the issue of players constantly being asked who THEY'D rather have at QB..."

It went on from there but basically said what I said in that the FO is totally mishandling this situation and in the end they could pizz off Bradford and Teddy NOT being able to play the Vikings will be searching for a QB in 2018...

It's a mess folks, you can bank on that.
That's why they need to extend Sam now. I actually think they should settle with Teddy. If he can come back, great just do. It for another team.

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." ‪#‎SKOL2018

User avatar
HardcoreVikesFan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6628
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 6:28 pm

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by HardcoreVikesFan » Wed May 10, 2017 7:28 pm

PurpleMustReign wrote: That's why they need to extend Sam now. I actually think they should settle with Teddy. If he can come back, great just do. It for another team.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
I would rather this team NOT sign Bradford to a premature contract based upon 'potential' and what he 'might' accomplish. I personally am tired of seeing this team sign guys to big deals prematurely (very few have lived up to expectations).
0 x
A Randy Moss fan for life. A Kevin Williams fan for life.

User avatar
S197
Fenrir
Posts: 11482
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:28 pm
Location: Hawaii

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by S197 » Wed May 10, 2017 7:35 pm

RFIP wrote:
I listened to a good Vikings podcast yesterday and the 2 dudes running it echoed my sentiments to a tee. They said "this is going to be a mess...Teddy has "his" friends on the team and once he's around for practices and OTA's and other stuff how in the world is Bradford ever going to feel like this is HIS team? Then you have the issue of players constantly being asked who THEY'D rather have at QB..."

It went on from there but basically said what I said in that the FO is totally mishandling this situation and in the end they could pizz off Bradford and Teddy NOT being able to play the Vikings will be searching for a QB in 2018...

It's a mess folks, you can bank on that.
This is a business, not a sorority. If Sam plays well and the team is winning, there won't be any controversy. If he doesn't play well and the team is losing then it's good that the Vikings have options. I didn't exactly see anyone in Dallas having these sorts of issues with Prescott/Romo factions. Sam can make this his team by how he conducts himself on the field and in the locker room.
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 » Wed May 10, 2017 8:05 pm

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.
...
If he plays as well or better than he did last season, in which he had no training camp or familarity at all with his WRs, he will cost much more than if they worked out a deal tomorrow.
...
Personally, I would extend him now and pave the way to move on from TB.
0 x

User avatar
J. Kapp 11
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7114
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pm

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by J. Kapp 11 » Wed May 10, 2017 8:29 pm

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.
...
If he plays as well or better than he did last season, in which he had no training camp or familarity at all with his WRs, he will cost much more than if they worked out a deal tomorrow.
...
Personally, I would extend him now and pave the way to move on from TB.
Totally agree.

Of course, my I've made my views on Bradford vs. Bridgewater very clear by now. That said, I'll continue to beat the drum until the team does the right thing. Sam Bradford is a far better quarterback than Teddy Bridgewater, even if Bridgewater is completely healthy.

Teddy simply can't make the throws that Sam can. 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. 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.

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.

Beyond that, it comes down to leadership. I have no idea who is the better leader, and you can bet the Vikings aren't going to say. So I can only go by what I can see and measure -- by that standard, SB wins in a landslide.
0 x
Image
Go ahead. I dare you.
Underestimate this man.