View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Oct 22, 2017 9:36 pm



Reply to topic  [ 157 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater 
Author Message
Online
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pm
Posts: 6350
Post Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
From Tom Pelissero via Twitter
Quote:
#Vikings informed Teddy Bridgewater they’re declining his option, source said. No setback. No nerve issue. Just can’t injury-guarantee him.

2:03 pm • 1 May 2017

Understand the Vikings not picking up the option, but sad for TB. He's a good guy who deserved better.

_________________
Image


Mon May 01, 2017 4:58 pm
Profile
Fenrir
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:28 pm
Posts: 10511
Location: Hawaii
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
Wonder what he means by "no setback." Great to hear there is no nerve damage.


Mon May 01, 2017 6:13 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
S197 wrote:
Wonder what he means by "no setback."


I just took it to mean this decision isn't due to a new development or an as-yet-unreported setback in Bridgewater's recovery.


Mon May 01, 2017 6:44 pm
Profile
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
S197 wrote:
Wonder what he means by "no setback." Great to hear there is no nerve damage.



Could be related to the tweet that Peter King posted earlier today.
Image



He later edited his post to this
Image

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


Mon May 01, 2017 6:58 pm
Profile
Veteran

Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2016 8:02 pm
Posts: 212
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
Why does no one seem to understand what is REALLY going on here?

If TB is on PUP all season, which is a REAL possibility, then this year becomes voided and the Vikings have until NEXT May to pick up his 5th 9would then be SIXTH) year option.

I mean this has been reported everywhere, how has it not found its way to this board???

Plain and simple I think the Vikings are playing both ends against the middle and are going to get caught without ANY QB because Sam ain't signing ANY long term deal where the rug can be pulled out from under him again BUT, that said, Bridgewater is FAR from gone in Minny as of right now.


Mon May 01, 2017 7:26 pm
Profile
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 3:12 pm
Posts: 5528
Location: The Great White North
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
RFIP wrote:
Why does no one seem to understand what is REALLY going on here?

If TB is on PUP all season, which is a REAL possibility, then this year becomes voided and the Vikings have until NEXT May to pick up his 5th 9would then be SIXTH) year option.

I mean this has been reported everywhere, how has it not found its way to this board???

Plain and simple I think the Vikings are playing both ends against the middle and are going to get caught without ANY QB because Sam ain't signing ANY long term deal where the rug can be pulled out from under him again BUT, that said, Bridgewater is FAR from gone in Minny as of right now.


If Teddy isn't ready to take snaps and perform football movements by this summer, odds that he'll ever play again drop dramatically in my view. I don't think the Vikings are playing around here at all - I think Bridgewater's injury was simply too severe for him to recover to the degree necessary to play football.


Tue May 02, 2017 12:06 am
Profile
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 9:52 pm
Posts: 7673
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
I think Teddy can overcome it as soon as anyone. But do the Vikes want to say goodbye to Sam anytime soon? I think we go 8-8 again, and if we do, I want Teddy to be qb, BUT HE HAS TO SHOW HE IS READDY. oTHERWISE, EXTEND sb now AND BUT THIS ALL TO REST. Im not going to lie, im pull for Teddy, but i will be happy with SB if they make up their minds right away. Its not like he is a rookie.


Tue May 02, 2017 1:45 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate

Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:44 pm
Posts: 3213
Location: Coon Rapids, MN
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
I think they'll sit on it until next year. If they are stuck on SB they'll Franchise him and pay him big ticket money. This situation stinks, but RIGHT NOW, their best move is to be patient.

_________________
Winning is not a sometime thing it is an all of the time thing - Vince Lombardi


Tue May 02, 2017 8:40 am
Profile
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
Latest news out is that Teddy has nerve damage, and much like Sharif, this is not something that will heal. What a crappy way to end a career that never really had a chance to shine.


Tue May 02, 2017 8:55 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
There are conflicting reports about the nerve damage but Tom pelissero (who is pretty reliable0 is still reporting that Bridgewater didn't suffer nerve damage.

The info about the nerve damage seems to stem froma report by peter King that was changed shortly after it was originally posted. It appears King may have simply made a mistake and corrected it.

Ben Goessling has written a good piece about Bridgewater's situation for ESPN. It ends with this:

http://www.espn.com/blog/minnesota-viki ... -has-to-go

Quote:
And if Bridgewater does return to the active roster sometime this fall, his contract would expire in March. He'd undoubtedly be looking to start in 2018, meaning the Vikings would have to decide if they'd seen enough to pick him over Bradford (provided they hadn't already signed Bradford at that point). Essentially, while there remains a path for Bridgewater to start for the Vikings again, the team isn't currently pointed in that direction. Something would have to change to get it there.

That's why Monday's decision was at once prudent and unsurprising. Cheery statements about Bridgewater's recovery are one thing; in the uncharitable world of the NFL, eight-figure financial commitments are another. It's possible the 24-year-old quarterback will still earn one of those from the Vikings, but he's going to have to meet a heavy burden of proof to make that happen.


Tue May 02, 2017 9:05 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
RFIP wrote:
Why does no one seem to understand what is REALLY going on here?

If TB is on PUP all season, which is a REAL possibility, then this year becomes voided and the Vikings have until NEXT May to pick up his 5th 9would then be SIXTH) year option.

I mean this has been reported everywhere, how has it not found its way to this board???


It's been discussed here. There are probably just people who didn't see that discussion.

Quote:
Plain and simple I think the Vikings are playing both ends against the middle and are going to get caught without ANY QB because Sam ain't signing ANY long term deal where the rug can be pulled out from under him again BUT, that said, Bridgewater is FAR from gone in Minny as of right now.


It's hard to tell if the Vikings comments about Bridgewater are primarily intended to be encouraging and supportive or if they indicate a genuine belief he can still be their starter down the road. I suspect Bradford's fate is in his own hands or, more precisely, that it hinges mainly on his performance this year. If he stays healthy and plays well enough to convince the Vikings he should remain their starter going forward, the job will likely be his, with a lucrative extension and an assurance that he is the starter. If he feels too threatened by Bridgewater (or any other young QB) at that point to sign, good luck to him elsewhere. A starting QB needs to be able to handle competition.


Tue May 02, 2017 9:15 am
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:40 am
Posts: 567
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
As of now, when each is fully healthy, I find SB to be the superior QB by a decent margin. It's especially obvious when running a system like like Turner's.
The conundrum is that, IMO, TB was miscast in Norv's system...like most of the offense was.
TB has lots of potential for growth and would be a stud in the type of system Shurmur looks to be employing. SB will be good in it also...just older and less likely to scare teams with his feet, although he can get out and move the chains.
-
It'd be a tough choice if TB makes a full recovery. Neither would want to play second fiddle given the need for starters leaguewide.
Personally, if I'm calling the shots...., I let TB go just because I don't think I could trust that knee going forward...especially as a starting QB who has so little overall experience in the league vs Bradford.


Tue May 02, 2017 9:24 am
Profile
Backup

Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 12:17 pm
Posts: 73
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
What is it looking like for QBs next year in draft? Better than this years?

If sam does well and goes 10-6 or better than we should extend him, otherwise if we play poorly we should look to draft QB next year.

Sucks for Teddy, but we can't sit and wait forever


Tue May 02, 2017 9:37 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
AlldayPotter wrote:
What is it looking like for QBs next year in draft? Better than this years?


As I understand it, at this point next year's draft is being viewed as a deep draft for the QB position.

Quote:
If sam does well and goes 10-6 or better than we should extend him, otherwise if we play poorly we should look to draft QB next year.


I think they should draft one anyway!


Tue May 02, 2017 10:11 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate

Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:44 pm
Posts: 3213
Location: Coon Rapids, MN
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
Just going to throw this log on the fire...

Premise #1: SB has a better arm than TB.

Premise #2: TB has far better mobility than SB.

So... assuming both are healthy in 2018, who do we want?

To me the mobility adds an ability to produce something from nothing. It also helps offset some protection issues.

However... a QB in the NFL is a passer first. Can TB do enough of what SB can do with his arm to be viable? This latter question is not that dissimilar to the one we were asking before TB got hurt coming out of 2015. Basically the question was, could TB throw 10 more TDs, maybe 500 more yards and keep his INT numbers down? If yes, we felt we had a chance to contend.

SB actually did produce those numbers, more or less, last year despite all the OL woes and sabotaged drives.

Teddy is 24. SB is 29.

Do we go for the guy who has done what we hoped for and hope with better protection he does more? Or do we go for the guy we hope can do what we need, plus has legs?

Keep in mind, this scenario can change dramatically as information is learned. Teddy's health, Sam's play this year, etc.

Given what we know today, I think the most likely scenario is that SB is the starter going forward. This is mostly based on the fact that TB had a potentially career ending injury and we just do not have any tangible reason to believe he isn't done beyond hope. I hope he does come back and makes this decision a hard one. It would be a great feel good story and great for Teddy, but it just doesn't feel like a likely outcome.

_________________
Winning is not a sometime thing it is an all of the time thing - Vince Lombardi


Tue May 02, 2017 10:31 am
Profile
Backup

Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 1:31 pm
Posts: 71
Location: Southwest Missouri
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
I think Premise #2 is blown out of the water by the nature of TB's injury, right?


Tue May 02, 2017 10:49 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
5thWave wrote:
I think Premise #2 is blown out of the water by the nature of TB's injury, right?


Yes, that's likely.


Tue May 02, 2017 10:57 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate

Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:44 pm
Posts: 3213
Location: Coon Rapids, MN
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
5thWave wrote:
I think Premise #2 is blown out of the water by the nature of TB's injury, right?


It's certainly possible. But it is also possible that he makes a full recovery. We do not know enough to do anything other than speculate. If he can't move around the whole discussion is silly, his career is likely over.

One thing we do know: The Vikings HAVE NOT extended Sam Bradford. The media are dramatizing the fact that the Purple declined TB's 5th year option, but the fact that they haven't extended Sam probably might imply that there remains a material amount of hope for Teddy, such that the Front Office is choosing to wait before committing completely to Sam. I doubt they'd risk having to place the Franchise tag on Bradford if they felt there was no hope for Teddy to return.

Also, they haven't tried adding any additional QBs. Some might opine that this is simply bad GM decision making, but it might also mean that the TB train hasn't left the station just yet.

Again, pure speculation on my part.

_________________
Winning is not a sometime thing it is an all of the time thing - Vince Lombardi


Tue May 02, 2017 11:05 am
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:40 am
Posts: 567
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
Arm strength and mobility aside, what really separates the two for me is SB's willingness and ability to pull the trigger and throw with authority into tight windows, on time with excellent accuracy.
A guy can have all kinds of arm strength and mobility...but if he's not willing to gun it in there it's a waste IMO.
Bradford has never really played poorly or shown a lack of top tier ability IMO, he has been injured... a lot. He has also never had the same coordinator or offense for two seasons, which is unbelievable to me...but so go the Rams these days.
-
I really like TB, I just prefer what SB brings.


Tue May 02, 2017 11:16 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate

Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:44 pm
Posts: 3213
Location: Coon Rapids, MN
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
Nunin wrote:
Arm strength and mobility aside, what really separates the two for me is SB's willingness and ability to pull the trigger and throw with authority into tight windows, on time with excellent accuracy.
A guy can have all kinds of arm strength and mobility...but if he's not willing to gun it in there it's a waste IMO.
Bradford has never really played poorly or shown a lack of top tier ability IMO, he has been injured... a lot. He has also never had the same coordinator or offense for two seasons, which is unbelievable to me...but so go the Rams these days.
-
I really like TB, I just prefer what SB brings.


FWIW, right now I agree with you. His play reminds me a bit of what Tom Brady does with the football which I think could be really good for us if they can protect him.

Time will tell.

_________________
Winning is not a sometime thing it is an all of the time thing - Vince Lombardi


Tue May 02, 2017 11:28 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
mansquatch wrote:
5thWave wrote:
I think Premise #2 is blown out of the water by the nature of TB's injury, right?


It's certainly possible.


Honestly, it's probable. A relatively small percentage of athletes even return to their sport after suffering that injury and virtually none of them have returned with the same degree of mobility and functionality they possessed prior to injury. His mobilty will almost certainly be compromised. It's just a question of how much...

Quote:
One thing we do know: The Vikings HAVE NOT extended Sam Bradford. The media are dramatizing the fact that the Purple declined TB's 5th year option, but the fact that they haven't extended Sam probably might imply that there remains a material amount of hope for Teddy, such that the Front Office is choosing to wait before committing completely to Sam.


It might imply that but it could also simply mean they aren't ready to make a huge financial commitment to Bradford beyond this season. After all, he still has something to prove too.

Quote:
Also, they haven't tried adding any additional QBs. Some might opine that this is simply bad GM decision making, but it might also mean that the TB train hasn't left the station just yet.


Well, TB is still on the roster so that "train" is hanging around. Their current approach to the position is pretty typical of what we've seen under Spielman so I don't think we should read too much into the fact that they haven't drafted another QB. Spielman seems to wait on that until he's practically forced by circumstances to make a move.

All of this will be sorted out in time but if the Vikings haven't been proceeding since last September with a strategy that assumes Bridgewater is unlikely to ever play for them again, I think they've been making a mistake.


Tue May 02, 2017 11:35 am
Profile
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
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.


Tue May 02, 2017 12:27 pm
Profile
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
A long way from playing football but this is nice to hear
Quote:
J.R.‏
@JReidDraftScout

"He (Bridgewater) has started to dropback and is throwing some passes as part of his rehab."

-Rick Spielman

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


Tue May 02, 2017 1:50 pm
Profile
Veteran

Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2016 8:02 pm
Posts: 212
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
PurpleKoolaid wrote:
I think Teddy can overcome it as soon as anyone. But do the Vikes want to say goodbye to Sam anytime soon? I think we go 8-8 again, and if we do, I want Teddy to be qb, BUT HE HAS TO SHOW HE IS READDY. oTHERWISE, EXTEND sb now AND BUT THIS ALL TO REST. Im not going to lie, im pull for Teddy, but i will be happy with SB if they make up their minds right away. Its not like he is a rookie.


At the risk of sounding condescending (which I try not to do) you sound like spmeone who attaches wins and loses to QB's, which is a poor way to judge them overall.

If you think that "10-6 Teddy" was in ANY WAY better than "8-8 Sam" was last year you do not understand QB play in this league.

Bradford has been dealt one of the worst hands since day 1 ANY QB ever has. He was drafted by a miserable team with a first time HC in Spags. The Rams were a COMBINED 5-43 in the 3 years prior to Sam. Bradford was throwing the ball 40, then 50 times a game AS A ROOKIE, to no-name wr's. He still wn OROY and had the Rams within a nats eye lash of winning the west his rookie year. He got hurt early on year 2 (high ankle) and tried playing through it for a few weeks until he just made it too bad to even stand on. Spags got canned and Fisher came on board with zero idea how to run an offense.

Bradford was lighting it up in 2013 (first ACL year) to the tune of 14 tds/4 ints in 6.5 games before he tore his ACL in Carolina.

Tore it again in the PS at Cleveland in 14' and from there he ended up in Philly where after a slow start he was as good as any QB in the last 7-8 gaes of 2015. And then we all saw what he did last year posting a 99+ rating, 20/5 tds/ints

If they screw around and let this guy walk when he is clearly heading to even greater heights it will be a major mistake.

Teddy's a "nice" QB but he was never as good as Sam prior to the injury, and its a joke to conseider he would be "if the Vikings go 8-8 this year.."


Tue May 02, 2017 5:29 pm
Profile
Online
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pm
Posts: 6350
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
RFIP wrote:
PurpleKoolaid wrote:
I think Teddy can overcome it as soon as anyone. But do the Vikes want to say goodbye to Sam anytime soon? I think we go 8-8 again, and if we do, I want Teddy to be qb, BUT HE HAS TO SHOW HE IS READDY. oTHERWISE, EXTEND sb now AND BUT THIS ALL TO REST. Im not going to lie, im pull for Teddy, but i will be happy with SB if they make up their minds right away. Its not like he is a rookie.


At the risk of sounding condescending (which I try not to do) you sound like spmeone who attaches wins and loses to QB's, which is a poor way to judge them overall.

If you think that "10-6 Teddy" was in ANY WAY better than "8-8 Sam" was last year you do not understand QB play in this league.

Bradford has been dealt one of the worst hands since day 1 ANY QB ever has. He was drafted by a miserable team with a first time HC in Spags. The Rams were a COMBINED 5-43 in the 3 years prior to Sam. Bradford was throwing the ball 40, then 50 times a game AS A ROOKIE, to no-name wr's. He still wn OROY and had the Rams within a nats eye lash of winning the west his rookie year. He got hurt early on year 2 (high ankle) and tried playing through it for a few weeks until he just made it too bad to even stand on. Spags got canned and Fisher came on board with zero idea how to run an offense.

Bradford was lighting it up in 2013 (first ACL year) to the tune of 14 tds/4 ints in 6.5 games before he tore his ACL in Carolina.

Tore it again in the PS at Cleveland in 14' and from there he ended up in Philly where after a slow start he was as good as any QB in the last 7-8 gaes of 2015. And then we all saw what he did last year posting a 99+ rating, 20/5 tds/ints

If they screw around and let this guy walk when he is clearly heading to even greater heights it will be a major mistake.

Teddy's a "nice" QB but he was never as good as Sam prior to the injury, and its a joke to conseider he would be "if the Vikings go 8-8 this year.."

Good and accurate summary. Sam has always had the arm talent and the intelligence. What he's lacked is health and consistency in coaching/talent. The jury is out as to whether he has the latter in Minnesota, but at least he's getting the same OC to start this year as who finished last year.

I thought Stefon Diggs' comments last winter were pretty telling, when he said Bradford has a great arm and "loves to show it off." That goes to what Nunin said about SB's willingness to pull the trigger and put the ball into tight windows. Interestingly, he not only was the most accurate quarterback in NFL history last year, he was also among the most accurate downfield passers, even though the Vikings weren't able to throw a lot of them. The guy can flat sling it.

If the Vikings can keep Bradford healthy, he very well could prove to be an upper echelon quarterback before his career is over. I truly believe that. I've never believed that about Teddy Bridgewater, likable as he is.

_________________
Image


Wed May 03, 2017 9:22 pm
Profile
Veteran

Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2016 8:02 pm
Posts: 212
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
J. Kapp 11 wrote:
RFIP wrote:
PurpleKoolaid wrote:
I think Teddy can overcome it as soon as anyone. But do the Vikes want to say goodbye to Sam anytime soon? I think we go 8-8 again, and if we do, I want Teddy to be qb, BUT HE HAS TO SHOW HE IS READDY. oTHERWISE, EXTEND sb now AND BUT THIS ALL TO REST. Im not going to lie, im pull for Teddy, but i will be happy with SB if they make up their minds right away. Its not like he is a rookie.


At the risk of sounding condescending (which I try not to do) you sound like spmeone who attaches wins and loses to QB's, which is a poor way to judge them overall.

If you think that "10-6 Teddy" was in ANY WAY better than "8-8 Sam" was last year you do not understand QB play in this league.

Bradford has been dealt one of the worst hands since day 1 ANY QB ever has. He was drafted by a miserable team with a first time HC in Spags. The Rams were a COMBINED 5-43 in the 3 years prior to Sam. Bradford was throwing the ball 40, then 50 times a game AS A ROOKIE, to no-name wr's. He still wn OROY and had the Rams within a nats eye lash of winning the west his rookie year. He got hurt early on year 2 (high ankle) and tried playing through it for a few weeks until he just made it too bad to even stand on. Spags got canned and Fisher came on board with zero idea how to run an offense.

Bradford was lighting it up in 2013 (first ACL year) to the tune of 14 tds/4 ints in 6.5 games before he tore his ACL in Carolina.

Tore it again in the PS at Cleveland in 14' and from there he ended up in Philly where after a slow start he was as good as any QB in the last 7-8 gaes of 2015. And then we all saw what he did last year posting a 99+ rating, 20/5 tds/ints

If they screw around and let this guy walk when he is clearly heading to even greater heights it will be a major mistake.

Teddy's a "nice" QB but he was never as good as Sam prior to the injury, and its a joke to conseider he would be "if the Vikings go 8-8 this year.."

Good and accurate summary. Sam has always had the arm talent and the intelligence. What he's lacked is health and consistency in coaching/talent. The jury is out as to whether he has the latter in Minnesota, but at least he's getting the same OC to start this year as who finished last year.

I thought Stefon Diggs' comments last winter were pretty telling, when he said Bradford has a great arm and "loves to show it off." That goes to what Nunin said about SB's willingness to pull the trigger and put the ball into tight windows. Interestingly, he not only was the most accurate quarterback in NFL history last year, he was also among the most accurate downfield passers, even though the Vikings weren't able to throw a lot of them. The guy can flat sling it.

If the Vikings can keep Bradford healthy, he very well could prove to be an upper echelon quarterback before his career is over. I truly believe that. I've never believed that about Teddy Bridgewater, likable as he is.


Sam acutally lead the league in deep ball %

"When you think of quarterbacks who are known for throwing the deep ball, a few names probably come to mind.


You might think of Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, and Matt Ryan, just to name a few. Yet, none of them led the league in accuracy on deep passes this season, and you'd probably go through at least a handful of other quarterbacks before you got to this one: Sam Bradford. That's right, Minnesota Vikings QB Sam Bradford led the league in accuracy on deep passes this season."
http://www.12up.com/posts/4386755-shock ... eep-passes


Thu May 04, 2017 7:47 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
RFIP wrote:
Sam acutally lead the league in deep ball %

"When you think of quarterbacks who are known for throwing the deep ball, a few names probably come to mind.

You might think of Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, and Matt Ryan, just to name a few. Yet, none of them led the league in accuracy on deep passes this season, and you'd probably go through at least a handful of other quarterbacks before you got to this one: Sam Bradford. That's right, Minnesota Vikings QB Sam Bradford led the league in accuracy on deep passes this season."
http://www.12up.com/posts/4386755-shock ... eep-passes


It's a pet peeve of mine and I know some people disagree with it but I the distinction between accuracy and completion percentage is important so i wish sportswriters wouldn't use the word accuracy as it's used in that article. At this point, it's used that way so often that maybe It's just something I'll have to get accustomed to but to me, conflating it with completion percentage is misleading. Accuracy is about precision. For decades, it was used in football parlance to refer to the placement of passes. Completion percentage is just about completions, which only have to be accurate to the extent that a pass is catchable. Put simply, an accurate pass doesn't have to be complete and a completed pass isn't always accurate.

Sorry, I just had to get that out! I need to do that at least once a year. :lol:

Anyway, RFIP, as you pointed out, Bradford led the league in deep ball completion percentage and that IS impressive. I hope he's able to throw more of them this season.


Thu May 04, 2017 8:21 am
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:40 am
Posts: 567
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
I was tickled to hear they got Bradford...especially after the shock of hearing about TB's knee. I was really eager to watch Teddy develop last year.
I was a little confused at the dismay on the board about the trade. Either guys were not familiar with Sam's skills or jaded by their consideration for TB or both.
-
IMO, you have to go way back to find a QB for the Vikes with a skillset comparable to SB..... although I suppose one year of Brett is in the ballpark.
-
I can list a whole page of crappy moves and/or mishandlings Spielman has been involved in since the Wilfs took over...and that's not to say he hasn't had good ones...but if they can protect Sam, provide a stable system, while developing some of the speed and talent at the skill positions, my belief is that this will go down as one of the best moves for any Viking GM.
It kinda sucks that it's only May, and I know this thread is about Teddy...but I'm excited for this team to play.
Like Kapp said, I had never yet seen enough on a consistent basis that said to me Teddy would be that caliber of QB. I feel or felt, he had the potential and was buying into his development, in spite of Norv's misfit scheme.
The injury is devastating and I would be stoked if he made it back and got a chance to compete and meet that potential...even if it's elsewhere, I just like him.
-
Time will tell and it's a long way to September.


Thu May 04, 2017 10:12 am
Profile
Veteran

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



Exactly. Which is why Minnesota is playing this all wrong and Zimmer's glowing remarks today are only going to further ruin this situation. Zimmer went above and beyond for his love for teddy to the point of saying he will play again and "implying" "for the Vikings.."

Fast forward to next year after Sam plays well again this year. Their ONLY option if they pick up TB's 5th (would be 6th) year option would be to pay him $12mil and NO WAY is Sam resigning and the Vikings are out of options at that point because you aren't tagging Sam at $21+Mil AND picking up Teddy's $12+mil option.

Soooo you are there left "believing" that a QB who would be out of action for 2 consecutive years is suddenly A OK to go, with no viable option behind him.

Sam is only going to get better and better but I'm sorry, the Vikings are playing a huge game of cat and mouse not realizing Sam is holding all the cards.

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.

It's a mess folks, don't believe it is not.


Fri May 05, 2017 7:40 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
Ima go out on a limb and say glass half empty?....with a splash of fool me once etc?


Fri May 05, 2017 7:50 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 157 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: akvikingsfan, Askani1022, Baidu [Spider], dead_poet, Google [Bot], J. Kapp 11, Raptorman and 10 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.