I'm in the same boat. Obviously I just see something slightly (or perhaps a bit more than slightly) different.Mothman wrote: I'm certainly no expert but it's not just an opinion I arrived at casually.
What do you recall your impressions of Bradford those first two seasons? I'll be honest, my memory was that he didn't have a lot of weapons or a particularly good line either. I remember feeling bad for him, thinking he had some good tools but I really don't recall specific performances. Looking over the game logs is the best I can do. They don't paint a complete story, but I think they do help.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.
> 60% completion games: 9
Total TDs: 24
Total INTs: 21
Games over 300 passing yards: 3
Games under 200 passing yards: 13
Games w. passer rating >90: 5
Games w. multi-INTs: 4
4th qtr comeback/game-winning drives:1
> 60% completion games: 22
Total TDs: 28
Total INTs: 21
Games over 300 passing yards: 5
Games under 200 passing yards: 14
Games w. passer rating >90: 13
Games w. multi-INTs: 4
4th qtr comeback/game-winning drives: 4
No. However I think more context needs to be put on that. For example, you probably agree that in order to have a good passing attack you probably need to throw the ball. The Vikings were 24th in the league in attempts in 2014 and 21st in 2015. A run-first team with major liabilities in pass-blocking doesn't typically set one up for passing proliferation. I think the Vikings were in the top-5 in rushing attempts in 2015. When you break down Teddy's two years, statistically, he fares well in most passing categories (YPA, completion %, passer rating) despite the low TD and overall yardage (which, again, could be somewhat explained by the lack of opportunities). They also didn't have a tendency to throw much when in the red zone. I feel like the passing offense was stymied by the play-calling and offensive line (and receivers not getting separation frequently enough particularly in 2014) more than Teddy's performance. Of course, this isn't saying that Teddy was some kind of God. He had certainly wasn't perfect. However few rookies are. All things considered, I would place his rookie season as "better than most." To me, that's a good foundation. Of course, some of that might be that the Vikings have set the bar so LOW with T-Jack and Ponder that maybe I'm viewing it a bit better than it truly was.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?
Sure, but he also had some pretty excellent performances in his two seasons, some of them in big games. Again, it's a matter of perspective.Bridgewater delivered some pretty crummy performances in his 2 seasons, some of them in big games.
Maybe. But he's shown a bit of that "He just knows how to win" about him. When compared to the Cutler Show, I'm sure the Bears FO (and fans) would've loved to be fielding Teddy instead. I don't know if people would think he'd give the Bears less of a chance to win than Cutler.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.
I should've specified: I meant talent development/QB proficiency.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.
I agree with everything except "low ceiling." Oh and the "move on" part, of course. I hope we can see him do something on the football field soon!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.