Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

A forum for the hard core Minnesota Vikings fan. Discuss upcoming games, opponents, trades, draft or what ever is on the minds of Viking fans!

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
808vikingsfan
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3336
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:45 pm
Location: Hawaii

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by 808vikingsfan » Fri May 12, 2017 5:04 am

Older article.


The future of the Vikings’ quarterback situation
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:
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

User avatar
dead_poet
Commissioner
Posts: 24447
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by dead_poet » Fri May 12, 2017 5:57 am

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

User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 37379
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by Mothman » Fri May 12, 2017 6:31 am

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.

User avatar
SidestreamFB Pete
Backup
Posts: 62
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 11:34 am
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Contact:

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by SidestreamFB Pete » Fri May 12, 2017 6:35 am

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.
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.

User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 37379
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by Mothman » Fri May 12, 2017 7:49 am

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.

User avatar
SidestreamFB Pete
Backup
Posts: 62
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 11:34 am
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Contact:

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by SidestreamFB Pete » Fri May 12, 2017 8:09 am

Mothman wrote: 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.

User avatar
dead_poet
Commissioner
Posts: 24447
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by dead_poet » Fri May 12, 2017 8:34 am

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

User avatar
dead_poet
Commissioner
Posts: 24447
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by dead_poet » Fri May 12, 2017 8:35 am

SidestreamFB Pete wrote: 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

User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 37379
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by Mothman » Fri May 12, 2017 9:08 am

dead_poet wrote: 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.

User avatar
SidestreamFB Pete
Backup
Posts: 62
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 11:34 am
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Contact:

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by SidestreamFB Pete » Fri May 12, 2017 9:44 am

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.

User avatar
dead_poet
Commissioner
Posts: 24447
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by dead_poet » Fri May 12, 2017 9:54 am

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

User avatar
SidestreamFB Pete
Backup
Posts: 62
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 11:34 am
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Contact:

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by SidestreamFB Pete » Fri May 12, 2017 9:57 am

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.

User avatar
SidestreamFB Pete
Backup
Posts: 62
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 11:34 am
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Contact:

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by SidestreamFB Pete » Fri May 12, 2017 10:00 am

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.

User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 37379
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by Mothman » Fri May 12, 2017 10:20 am

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!

User avatar
SidestreamFB Pete
Backup
Posts: 62
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 11:34 am
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Contact:

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by SidestreamFB Pete » Fri May 12, 2017 10:35 am

Mothman wrote: 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.

Post Reply