View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Tue Oct 17, 2017 1:46 pm



Reply to topic  [ 157 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater 
Author Message
Commissioner

Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 4:24 pm
Posts: 23761
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
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?

Quote:
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...


Fri May 05, 2017 8:01 pm
Profile
Veteran

Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2016 8:02 pm
Posts: 212
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
Demi wrote:
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?

Quote:
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...


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.


Fri May 05, 2017 10:34 pm
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/1931 ... -minnesota

Quote:
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."


Sat May 06, 2017 7:17 am
Profile
Veteran

Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2016 8:02 pm
Posts: 212
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
Mothman wrote:
http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/19316893/mike-zimmer-wants-teddy-bridgewater-resume-playing-career-minnesota

Quote:
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."



Bingo


Sat May 06, 2017 7:38 am
Profile
Career Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:45 pm
Posts: 2270
Location: Hawaii
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
RFIP wrote:
Demi wrote:
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?

Quote:
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...


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.

_________________
Joined: Aug 2006
Deleted: Sept 12 2014
Reborn: Sept 17 2014


Sat May 06, 2017 2:46 pm
Profile
Veteran

Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2016 8:02 pm
Posts: 212
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
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.


Mon May 08, 2017 4:40 am
Profile
Commissioner
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Posts: 23063
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
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

_________________
“Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that.” --- Bill Shankly


Tue May 09, 2017 3:48 pm
Profile
Starting Wide Receiver
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:48 pm
Posts: 17443
Location: Crystal, MN
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
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

_________________
The Devil whispered in the Viking's ear, "There's a storm coming." The Viking replied, "I am the storm." ‪#‎SKOL2016‬


Wed May 10, 2017 9:13 am
Profile YIM WWW
All Pro Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:45 am
Posts: 1269
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
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.


Wed May 10, 2017 10:45 am
Profile
Veteran

Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2016 8:02 pm
Posts: 212
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
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.


Wed May 10, 2017 4:56 pm
Profile
Starting Wide Receiver
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:48 pm
Posts: 17443
Location: Crystal, MN
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
RFIP wrote:
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.

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

_________________
The Devil whispered in the Viking's ear, "There's a storm coming." The Viking replied, "I am the storm." ‪#‎SKOL2016‬


Wed May 10, 2017 5:20 pm
Profile YIM WWW
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 6:28 pm
Posts: 6592
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
PurpleMustReign wrote:
RFIP wrote:
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.

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).

_________________
A Randy Moss fan for life. A Kevin Williams fan for life.


Wed May 10, 2017 7:28 pm
Profile
Fenrir
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:28 pm
Posts: 10490
Location: Hawaii
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
RFIP wrote:
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.


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.


Wed May 10, 2017 7:35 pm
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:40 am
Posts: 567
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
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.


Wed May 10, 2017 8:05 pm
Profile
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pm
Posts: 6333
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
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.

_________________
Image


Wed May 10, 2017 8:29 pm
Profile
Commissioner
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Posts: 23063
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
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


Wed May 10, 2017 8:39 pm
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:40 am
Posts: 567
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
@DP
Teddy got 5 yrs for that pick...whereas Bradord gets 2. That was my point.


Wed May 10, 2017 8:59 pm
Profile
Commissioner
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Posts: 23063
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
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%.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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).

Quote:
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


Wed May 10, 2017 9:07 pm
Profile
Commissioner
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Posts: 23063
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
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


Wed May 10, 2017 9:08 pm
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:40 am
Posts: 567
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
@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.


Wed May 10, 2017 9:16 pm
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.


Wed May 10, 2017 9:38 pm
Profile
Commissioner
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Posts: 23063
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
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


Wed May 10, 2017 9:40 pm
Profile
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pm
Posts: 6333
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
dead_poet wrote:
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%.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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).

Quote:
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.

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


Wed May 10, 2017 9:48 pm
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:40 am
Posts: 567
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
@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.


Wed May 10, 2017 9:51 pm
Profile
Commissioner
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Posts: 23063
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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


Wed May 10, 2017 9:52 pm
Profile
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pm
Posts: 6333
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
Mothman wrote:
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.

Quote:
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.

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


Wed May 10, 2017 10:03 pm
Profile
Commissioner
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Posts: 23063
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
J. Kapp 11 wrote:
DP, you like Teddy. I get it. And I like Bradford.


I don't not like Bradford. :)

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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


Wed May 10, 2017 10:11 pm
Profile
Career Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:45 pm
Posts: 2270
Location: Hawaii
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
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


Thu May 11, 2017 2:09 am
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.


Thu May 11, 2017 6:26 am
Profile
Backup
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 11:34 am
Posts: 62
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
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.


Thu May 11, 2017 8:50 pm
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 157 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.