View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Mon Oct 23, 2017 3:01 am



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
Career Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:45 pm
Posts: 2323
Location: Hawaii
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
Older article.


The future of the Vikings’ quarterback situation

Quote:
Coming out of the bye week, the Vikings attempted to implement more of Norv Turner’s classic deep developing routes and seven-step drops. The result was complete disaster. In back-to-back losses, Bradford was sacked 11 times and posted a 79.6 rating. There was no time to go through progressions, as you can see on plays like this:


Quote:
Bradford failed to average over 7.0 per attempt in seven of nine games after the bye week, which forced the Vikings’ defense to keep them in game after game. This issue is not solely on the offensive line – this is Bradford’s history as a professional quarterback. The 29-year-old quarterback averages 6.6 yards per attempt for his career, the third lowest mark of any active quarterback.

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


Fri May 12, 2017 5:04 am
Profile
Commissioner
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Posts: 23166
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
SidestreamFB Pete wrote:
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...


This is incredibly premature. We don't know if Sam would even want to sign that deal. He may want to play out his contract and see what his value is. He'd have leverage in what may be his last chance for a large, multi-year contract. And the Vikings wouldn't trade him for a late-round pick if they have no other option (assuming Teddy isn't ready or himself).

One thing I'm sure of: Rick will not allow us to go into 2018 with a journeyman or rookie when we have potentially two guys currently on the roster that are able to take us to a Super Bowl. Not when he can extend or franchise Sam between now and then.

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


Fri May 12, 2017 5:57 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
SidestreamFB Pete wrote:
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...


:lol: That does seem possible...

Keep in mind, we're in mid-May so there are still months ahead in which they could work out a deal with Bradford if they choose to go that route. That said, this is the the team that went into the 2013 offseason with no QB other than Joe Webb under contract and went into this offseason without a starting-caliber offensive tackle signed so although they often think ahead with contracts, there's also some history of "flying by the seat of the pants" decision-making.


Fri May 12, 2017 6:31 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
dead_poet wrote:
SidestreamFB Pete wrote:
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...


This is incredibly premature. We don't know if Sam would even want to sign that deal. He may want to play out his contract and see what his value is. He'd have leverage in what may be his last chance for a large, multi-year contract. And the Vikings wouldn't trade him for a late-round pick if they have no other option (assuming Teddy isn't ready or himself).

One thing I'm sure of: Rick will not allow us to go into 2018 with a journeyman or rookie when we have potentially two guys currently on the roster that are able to take us to a Super Bowl. Not when he can extend or franchise Sam between now and then.
Agreed that we don't really know what Sam's market value is. And yes, we could franchise tag. I'm just salty cause I'm scared they are banking on Teddy coming back. The guy is still only running in pools. They should plan as if Teddy isn't going to be a good NFL qb again after being out of the game so long, but keep the door open incase he is.

Then again maybe they are just acting naive to build his trade value or get a little leverage in Sammy contract situation.

_________________
Not easy being a Vikes fan and staying an "unbiased" creator of Sidestream Football. This is my therapy. SKOL.


Fri May 12, 2017 6:35 am
Profile WWW
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:
This is incredibly premature. We don't know if Sam would even want to sign that deal. He may want to play out his contract and see what his value is. He'd have leverage in what may be his last chance for a large, multi-year contract. And the Vikings wouldn't trade him for a late-round pick if they have no other option (assuming Teddy isn't ready or himself).

One thing I'm sure of: Rick will not allow us to go into 2018 with a journeyman or rookie when we have potentially two guys currently on the roster that are able to take us to a Super Bowl. Not when he can extend or franchise Sam between now and then.


I wish I was confident they had even one QB who could potentially take them to a Super Bowl!

The Vikings are in a difficult position. Bridgewater's future is very hazy. Bradford's a very talented player but, as the article 808vikingsfan posted above points out, his game isn't without it's issues or question marks.

We're all assuming this offseason that the Vikes will bounce back from a bad finish and be a good team. They probably will but if the trend we saw after the bye last season were to continue and the team only ended up winning 5 or 6 games this season, that could impact how they handle the QB position too.


Fri May 12, 2017 7:49 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
Mothman wrote:
dead_poet wrote:
This is incredibly premature. We don't know if Sam would even want to sign that deal. He may want to play out his contract and see what his value is. He'd have leverage in what may be his last chance for a large, multi-year contract. And the Vikings wouldn't trade him for a late-round pick if they have no other option (assuming Teddy isn't ready or himself).

One thing I'm sure of: Rick will not allow us to go into 2018 with a journeyman or rookie when we have potentially two guys currently on the roster that are able to take us to a Super Bowl. Not when he can extend or franchise Sam between now and then.


I wish I was confident they had even one QB who could potentially take them to a Super Bowl!

The Vikings are in a difficult position. Bridgewater's future is very hazy. Bradford's a very talented player but, as the article 808vikingsfan posted above points out, his game isn't without it's issues or question marks.

We're all assuming this offseason that the Vikes will bounce back from a bad finish and be a good team. They probably will but if the trend we saw after the bye last season were to continue and the team only ended up winning 5 or 6 games this season, that could impact how they handle the QB position too.


Yeah, the best worst case scenario is we go 2-14 over 8-8. Have a shot at a good QB in draft. Started my film study on Rosen and Darnold. I can't buy into the hype yet, but a few more games to watch and they have another college season to develop.

_________________
Not easy being a Vikes fan and staying an "unbiased" creator of Sidestream Football. This is my therapy. SKOL.


Fri May 12, 2017 8:09 am
Profile WWW
Commissioner
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Posts: 23166
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
SidestreamFB Pete wrote:
Agreed that we don't really know what Sam's market value is. And yes, we could franchise tag. I'm just salty cause I'm scared they are banking on Teddy coming back. The guy is still only running in pools. They should plan as if Teddy isn't going to be a good NFL qb again after being out of the game so long, but keep the door open incase he is.


What? Teddy is further along than that.

http://m.startribune.com/teddy-bridgewa ... ign=buffer

https://twitter.com/UReady4Football/sta ... 0791181313

He's also drop back passing.

As Zimmer said, he still has a ways to go, but it's May 12.

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


Fri May 12, 2017 8:34 am
Profile
Commissioner
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Posts: 23166
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
SidestreamFB Pete wrote:
Mothman wrote:
dead_poet wrote:
This is incredibly premature. We don't know if Sam would even want to sign that deal. He may want to play out his contract and see what his value is. He'd have leverage in what may be his last chance for a large, multi-year contract. And the Vikings wouldn't trade him for a late-round pick if they have no other option (assuming Teddy isn't ready or himself).

One thing I'm sure of: Rick will not allow us to go into 2018 with a journeyman or rookie when we have potentially two guys currently on the roster that are able to take us to a Super Bowl. Not when he can extend or franchise Sam between now and then.


I wish I was confident they had even one QB who could potentially take them to a Super Bowl!

The Vikings are in a difficult position. Bridgewater's future is very hazy. Bradford's a very talented player but, as the article 808vikingsfan posted above points out, his game isn't without it's issues or question marks.

We're all assuming this offseason that the Vikes will bounce back from a bad finish and be a good team. They probably will but if the trend we saw after the bye last season were to continue and the team only ended up winning 5 or 6 games this season, that could impact how they handle the QB position too.


Yeah, the best worst case scenario is we go 2-14 over 8-8. Have a shot at a good QB in draft. Started my film study on Rosen and Darnold. I can't buy into the hype yet, but a few more games to watch and they have another college season to develop.


If the Vikings draft a QB in R1 I'll eat my hat.

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


Fri May 12, 2017 8:35 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:
SidestreamFB Pete wrote:
Agreed that we don't really know what Sam's market value is. And yes, we could franchise tag. I'm just salty cause I'm scared they are banking on Teddy coming back. The guy is still only running in pools. They should plan as if Teddy isn't going to be a good NFL qb again after being out of the game so long, but keep the door open incase he is.


What? Teddy is further along than that.

http://m.startribune.com/teddy-bridgewa ... ign=buffer

https://twitter.com/UReady4Football/sta ... 0791181313

He's also drop back passing.

As Zimmer said, he still has a ways to go, but it's May 12.


He definitely has a long way to go, both in his recovery and his development as a quarterback. Agility drills and videos of him dropping back to pass are one thing. How his knee will hold up to the rigors of the game is another matter entirely and that concerns me. Unless he can not only come back this year but demonstrate, in games, that he has what it takes to merit a contract extension and a commitment to him as the starter in 2018, I think the Vikes would be nuts to consider that as a serious option, especially because I still don't think he was a very good quarterback when he was actually healthy and starting.

You're probably right in being confident the Vikings won't draft a QB in R1 next year but drafting one in 2018 should already be an option on the table, under serious consideration, because despite investing 3 first round picks in the position over the last 7 years, it's still not clear they have a long term solution at QB.


Fri May 12, 2017 9:08 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
Exactly, don't forget he still has to practice every day when/if he returns to get back into the swing of things. He has a lot of ground to make up. As a QB that did not have a strong arm and relied on touch/accuracy being off his feet for so long is huge. Getting the touch back on his passes and chemistry with the receivers would take countless hours of practice, not to mention the games where he will take some hits to that leg.

We're talking about nerve damage here. Seeing a drop-back highlight doesn't mean too much. Especially when no one in the organization has said anything more than "he's getting closer" or "he's got a good attitude". If it looked good they would probably say something more concrete.

_________________
Not easy being a Vikes fan and staying an "unbiased" creator of Sidestream Football. This is my therapy. SKOL.


Fri May 12, 2017 9:44 am
Profile WWW
Commissioner
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Posts: 23166
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
Teddy doesn't have nerve damage.

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


Fri May 12, 2017 9:54 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
dead_poet wrote:
Teddy doesn't have nerve damage.

I stand corrected.

http://www.dailynorseman.com/2017/5/1/1 ... generating

http://zonecoverage.com/2017/vikings/pe ... ve-damage/

Didn't know King jumped the gun!

_________________
Not easy being a Vikes fan and staying an "unbiased" creator of Sidestream Football. This is my therapy. SKOL.


Fri May 12, 2017 9:57 am
Profile WWW
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
Well, Teddy-talk kills me. Nice guy, will leave it with this. I hope Teddy can come back and be our starter next year on a nice cheap deal and play effectively. There have been no signs to say he will, except for the twitter clips, but he's a nice guy and I'm rooting for him.

_________________
Not easy being a Vikes fan and staying an "unbiased" creator of Sidestream Football. This is my therapy. SKOL.


Fri May 12, 2017 10:00 am
Profile WWW
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
SidestreamFB Pete wrote:
Well, Teddy-talk kills me. Nice guy, will leave it with this. I hope Teddy can come back and be our starter next year on a nice cheap deal and play effectively. There have been no signs to say he will, except for the twitter clips, but he's a nice guy and I'm rooting for him.


You're nicer than me. :)

I hope Teddy can come back and be some other team's starter because I just wasn't unimpressed by his actual performance as Vikings QB and I'm frankly tired of watching Vikings QBs who flirt with all-time low team records and lead passing attacks that inevitably end up among the least productive in the league. I think he has a relatively low ceiling as a QB, especially after suffering that injury. I'd rather see the Vikes move on, even if he is healthy. However, I know that's unlikely to happen with a coach and fan base that adore him.

Flame on!


Fri May 12, 2017 10:20 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
Mothman wrote:
SidestreamFB Pete wrote:
Well, Teddy-talk kills me. Nice guy, will leave it with this. I hope Teddy can come back and be our starter next year on a nice cheap deal and play effectively. There have been no signs to say he will, except for the twitter clips, but he's a nice guy and I'm rooting for him.


You're nicer than me. :)

I hope Teddy can come back and be some other team's starter because I just wasn't unimpressed by his actual performance as Vikings QB and I'm frankly tired of watching Vikings QBs who flirt with all-time low team records and lead passing attacks that inevitably end up among the least productive in the league. I think he has a relatively low ceiling as a QB, especially after suffering that injury. I'd rather see the Vikes move on, even if he is healthy. However, I know that's unlikely to happen with a coach and fan base that adore him.

Flame on!


Like I said initially, I think Bradford is the right move. He's never really had a healthy season with a good supporting cast. I was pretty impressed with what he was able to do with such poor blocking last year. The problem is the Vikes's brass apparent infatuation with Teddy. He WAS progressing nicely, but takes that trajectory back to point 'A'. At best.

We should lock down Bradford ASAP, he is talented enough to trade away if a better option presents itself. I mean, we gave up a first for him.

_________________
Not easy being a Vikes fan and staying an "unbiased" creator of Sidestream Football. This is my therapy. SKOL.


Fri May 12, 2017 10:35 am
Profile WWW
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
SidestreamFB Pete wrote:
Like I said initially, I think Bradford is the right move. He's never really had a healthy season with a good supporting cast. I was pretty impressed with what he was able to do with such poor blocking last year. The problem is the Vikes's brass apparent infatuation with Teddy. He WAS progressing nicely, but takes that trajectory back to point 'A'. At best.

We should lock down Bradford ASAP, he is talented enough to trade away if a better option presents itself. I mean, we gave up a first for him.


That's a good point. He's talented enough to trade away but his contract would impact their ability to trade him so to some extent, all of this depends on what kind of deal it would actually take to lock him down as well as what other options they explore. I'm not nuts about the situation but I understand why the Vikings might be willing to roll the dice here, wait and see how things look in December or January and prepare themselves to sign Bradford to a new deal in the period between the season's end and the beginning of free agency, if that's what they need to do. They'll have the franchise tag as a fallback option, although it could be expensive and can sometimes lead to bad blood.

It's a difficult situation.


Fri May 12, 2017 10:52 am
Profile
Commissioner
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Posts: 23166
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
Mothman wrote:
SidestreamFB Pete wrote:
Well, Teddy-talk kills me. Nice guy, will leave it with this. I hope Teddy can come back and be our starter next year on a nice cheap deal and play effectively. There have been no signs to say he will, except for the twitter clips, but he's a nice guy and I'm rooting for him.


You're nicer than me. :)

I hope Teddy can come back and be some other team's starter because I just wasn't unimpressed by his actual performance as Vikings QB and I'm frankly tired of watching Vikings QBs who flirt with all-time low team records and lead passing attacks that inevitably end up among the least productive in the league. I think he has a relatively low ceiling as a QB, especially after suffering that injury. I'd rather see the Vikes move on, even if he is healthy. However, I know that's unlikely to happen with a coach and fan base that adore him.

Flame on!


I just disagree with the assumption Teddy wasn't very good after two seasons. Given the league-worst pass-blocking in the infancy of his career I was impressed with the progression. I can't help but think that if you watched Bradford in his first two years (or, heck, maybe a handful of QBs) that you'd have the same thought and discounted them as well! 2nd-year Bradford was NOT the Bradford we saw in 2016. I don't see how Teddy's career arc/improvement couldn't have taken a similar path. This obsession with instant success from the hardest position on the field is mind-blowing. I can't believe you think another rookie/2nd year guy would've performed significantly​ better in the same situation.

I guess you just get two years now to prove your worth, circumstances be damned.

Hurrumph.

P.s. I also realize that Sam has a much better chance of starting in 2018 (and possibly beyond). I'm fine with that if he plays as well or better than he did last year.

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


Fri May 12, 2017 11:09 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
dead_poet wrote:
Mothman wrote:
SidestreamFB Pete wrote:
Well, Teddy-talk kills me. Nice guy, will leave it with this. I hope Teddy can come back and be our starter next year on a nice cheap deal and play effectively. There have been no signs to say he will, except for the twitter clips, but he's a nice guy and I'm rooting for him.


You're nicer than me. :)

I hope Teddy can come back and be some other team's starter because I just wasn't unimpressed by his actual performance as Vikings QB and I'm frankly tired of watching Vikings QBs who flirt with all-time low team records and lead passing attacks that inevitably end up among the least productive in the league. I think he has a relatively low ceiling as a QB, especially after suffering that injury. I'd rather see the Vikes move on, even if he is healthy. However, I know that's unlikely to happen with a coach and fan base that adore him.

Flame on!


I just disagree with the assumption Teddy wasn't very good after two seasons. Given the league-worst pass-blocking in the infancy of his career I was impressed with the progression. I can't help but think that if you watched Bradford in his first two years (or, heck, maybe a handful of QBs) that you'd have the same thought and discounted them as well! 2nd-year Bradford was NOT the Bradford we saw in 2016. I don't see how Teddy's career arc/improvement couldn't have taken a similar path. This obsession with instant success from the hardest position on the field is mind-blowing. I can't believe you think another rookie/2nd year guy would've performed significantly​ better in the same situation.

I guess you just get two years now to prove your worth, circumstances be damned.

Hurrumph.

P.s. I also realize that Sam has a much better chance of starting in 2018 (and possibly beyond). I'm fine with that if he plays as well or better than he did last year.


I agree that Teddy's progress before the injury was great, I was very optimistic about his future going into the 2016 season.

_________________
Not easy being a Vikes fan and staying an "unbiased" creator of Sidestream Football. This is my therapy. SKOL.


Fri May 12, 2017 12:10 pm
Profile WWW
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:
I just disagree with the assumption Teddy wasn't very good after two seasons.


Well, it's an observation, not an assumption. I reached that conclusion based on careful observation of his game, both on coaches film and in person. I'm certainly no expert but it's not just an opinion I arrived at casually.

Quote:
Given the league-worst pass-blocking in the infancy of his career I was impressed with the progression. I can't help but think that if you watched Bradford in his first two years (or, heck, maybe a handful of QBs) that you'd have the same thought and discounted them as well!


Maybe but I don't really think that's relevant and I did actually see Bradford play in his first 2 seasons (though not nearly as much as I saw Bridgewater). Teddy Bridgewater is hardly the only QB I've seen extensively in his first few seasons of NFL football so it's not as if I have no basis for comparison.

Quote:
2nd-year Bradford was NOT the Bradford we saw in 2016. I don't see how Teddy's career arc/improvement couldn't have taken a similar path. This obsession with instant success from the hardest position on the field is mind-blowing. I can't believe you think another rookie/2nd year guy would've performed significantly​ better in the same situation.


I don't have an "obsession with instant success" but I found his overall performance underwhelming and I absolutely think there are other rookies/second year players who could have performed better in the same situation. I've never ignored or dismissed the fact that he was facing a learning curve and I've never claimed he couldn't get better but is it really so unreasonable to be unimpressed with a young QB that has his meager production, a QB that led a passing offense that finished near the bottom of the league 2 years in a row? Bridgewater delivered some pretty crummy performances in his 2 seasons, some of them in big games. Many Vikes fans have had a big purple crush on him since he joined the team but it's pretty easy to imagine how easily most of the people here would be dismissing him as an opposing QB worth worrying about if he played for the Bears or Packers.

Regarding his career arc: it could end up similar to Bradford's but frankly, that wouldn't be great because Bradford's career has been pretty underwhelming so far too.

Quote:
I guess you just get two years now to prove your worth, circumstances be damned.


When a player gets two years and a devastating knee dislocation that leads up to the end of his contract, the circumstances change. I just don't see any compelling argument for signing him to a contract extension for anything less than backup QB money and then only if he looks capable of playing at a sufficiently high level. If he sticks around and can compete for and win the starting job, great but as I said, I think he has a low ceiling. Unless he does something on the football field to dramatically change my view, I'd prefer to see the Vikes move on after this season and that doesn't seem unreasonable, although I understand why it's unpopular.


Fri May 12, 2017 12:19 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
SidestreamFB Pete wrote:
I agree that Teddy's progress before the injury was great, I was very optimistic about his future going into the 2016 season.


What was great about it? In what aspect of his game would you say you saw the most progress?


Fri May 12, 2017 12:21 pm
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
Mothman wrote:
SidestreamFB Pete wrote:
I agree that Teddy's progress before the injury was great, I was very optimistic about his future going into the 2016 season.


What was great about it? In what aspect of his game would you say you saw the most progress?


Nothing to do with the Alex Smith-like physical attributes haha. But it looked like it slowed down for him. He had control of the offense, as faulty as the O-line was.

The offensive play calling was particularly atrocious that year, we would only throw on third and long and the defense would know exactly what we were doing. But, our defense was strong enough to carry us. I don't have these numbers, but from watching every game I'd imagine Teddy faced the highest number of blitzes per passing down because it was also SOOOO obvious when we were passing.

All that said, he was often able to elude pressure and make plays happen on occasion. The game slowed down for him a lot. We called his number against Denver and Arizona (two of the top defenses that year), and we called it late. He stepped up (yes there was a fumble that lost us the AZ game, but that too was a horrible play call). But in both these games he posted pretty solid numbers, on the road. Yes, I know we lost both of these games, but I'd put that more on Norv than Teddy.

All-in-all he was becoming a very proficient game manager that would not panic and could make plays in some tight spots. He didn't lose us any games, but he kept us in a few and won us a few. Even behind a brutal o-line and a senile OC. The deep ball looked like it was coming along too.

Again, don't get me wrong. I'd be looking to sign Sam right now and let Teddy walk. At best Teddy can play at his rookie level in 2018 for > rookie money and would be a constant injury risk.

_________________
Not easy being a Vikes fan and staying an "unbiased" creator of Sidestream Football. This is my therapy. SKOL.


Fri May 12, 2017 12:36 pm
Profile WWW
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
SidestreamFB Pete wrote:
Mothman wrote:
SidestreamFB Pete wrote:
I agree that Teddy's progress before the injury was great, I was very optimistic about his future going into the 2016 season.


What was great about it? In what aspect of his game would you say you saw the most progress?


Nothing to do with the Alex Smith-like physical attributes haha. But it looked like it slowed down for him. He had control of the offense, as faulty as the O-line was.

The offensive play calling was particularly atrocious that year, we would only throw on third and long and the defense would know exactly what we were doing. But, our defense was strong enough to carry us. I don't have these numbers, but from watching every game I'd imagine Teddy faced the highest number of blitzes per passing down because it was also SOOOO obvious when we were passing.

All that said, he was often able to elude pressure and make plays happen on occasion. The game slowed down for him a lot. We called his number against Denver and Arizona (two of the top defenses that year), and we called it late. He stepped up (yes there was a fumble that lost us the AZ game, but that too was a horrible play call). But in both these games he posted pretty solid numbers, on the road. Yes, I know we lost both of these games, but I'd put that more on Norv than Teddy.

All-in-all he was becoming a very proficient game manager that would not panic and could make plays in some tight spots. He didn't lose us any games, but he kept us in a few and won us a few. Even behind a brutal o-line and a senile OC. The deep ball looked like it was coming along too.

Again, don't get me wrong. I'd be looking to sign Sam right now and let Teddy walk. At best Teddy can play at his rookie level in 2018 for > rookie money and would be a constant injury risk.


I understand what you're saying and I appreciate the feedback.

I'm always curious what others see in TB's game because (as you can tell) I'm just not very impressed with it.


Fri May 12, 2017 12:52 pm
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
Alex Smith 2.0
But, now: Alex Smith 2.0 that has a dicey leg and hasn't played football in a long time.

_________________
Not easy being a Vikes fan and staying an "unbiased" creator of Sidestream Football. This is my therapy. SKOL.


Fri May 12, 2017 1:25 pm
Profile WWW
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
SidestreamFB Pete wrote:
Alex Smith 2.0
But, now: Alex Smith 2.0 that has a dicey leg and hasn't played football in a long time.


... and potentially without the mobility that's important to Smith's game. :(


Fri May 12, 2017 1:31 pm
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
Mothman wrote:
SidestreamFB Pete wrote:
Alex Smith 2.0
But, now: Alex Smith 2.0 that has a dicey leg and hasn't played football in a long time.


... and potentially without the mobility that's important to Smith's game. :(


Need to plant legs hard and then use them to generate throw power too. :|

_________________
Not easy being a Vikes fan and staying an "unbiased" creator of Sidestream Football. This is my therapy. SKOL.


Fri May 12, 2017 2:06 pm
Profile WWW
Backup

Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 6:47 pm
Posts: 76
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
http://www.1500espn.com/vikings-2/2017/ ... idgewater/


Tue May 16, 2017 12:47 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
Alaskan wrote:
http://www.1500espn.com/vikings-2/2017/05/everyone-believes-teddy-bridgewater/


Thanks for the link. Bridgewater certainly seems like a person with great character.

I can't help wondering what Sam Bradford thinks when he continually hears about Mike Zimmer's love for Teddy Bridgewater.


Wed May 17, 2017 1:35 pm
Profile
Starting Wide Receiver
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:48 pm
Posts: 17481
Location: Crystal, MN
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
Mothman wrote:
Alaskan wrote:
http://www.1500espn.com/vikings-2/2017/05/everyone-believes-teddy-bridgewater/


Thanks for the link. Bridgewater certainly seems like a person with great character.

I can't help wondering what Sam Bradford thinks when he continually hears about Mike Zimmer's love for Teddy Bridgewater.



I would be livid. Thankfully Bradford isn't a diva asking to be released or somthing. This whole situation just angers me.

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


Wed May 17, 2017 4:59 pm
Profile YIM WWW
Career Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:45 pm
Posts: 2323
Location: Hawaii
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
PurpleMustReign wrote:
Mothman wrote:
Alaskan wrote:
http://www.1500espn.com/vikings-2/2017/05/everyone-believes-teddy-bridgewater/


Thanks for the link. Bridgewater certainly seems like a person with great character.

I can't help wondering what Sam Bradford thinks when he continually hears about Mike Zimmer's love for Teddy Bridgewater.



I would be livid. Thankfully Bradford isn't a diva asking to be released or somthing. This whole situation just angers me.


We'll, he did asked to be traded when Philly drafted Wentz.

I don't think Bradford is bothered though. He controls his destiny. Play well and he can pick which city he wants to play in.

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


Wed May 17, 2017 5:47 pm
Profile
Commissioner
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Posts: 23166
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
Mothman wrote:
Alaskan wrote:
http://www.1500espn.com/vikings-2/2017/05/everyone-believes-teddy-bridgewater/


Thanks for the link. Bridgewater certainly seems like a person with great character.

I can't help wondering what Sam Bradford thinks when he continually hears about Mike Zimmer's love for Teddy Bridgewater.


Hopefully he's mature about it and understands the position the coach is in. And, now knowing Teddy a little, probably gets it to some degree. Maybe he thinks, "Hey, if the situation was reversed, I'd probably want my coach talking like that about me, too."

_________________
“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 17, 2017 10:23 pm
Profile
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: No registered users and 3 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.