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
dead_poet
Commissioner
Posts: 24451
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by dead_poet » Wed May 17, 2017 11:22 pm

Mothman wrote: I'm certainly no expert but it's not just an opinion I arrived at casually.
I'm in the same boat. Obviously I just see something slightly (or perhaps a bit more than slightly) different.
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.
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.

Sam Bradford

> 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

Teddy Bridgewater

> 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
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?
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. :D 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.
Bridgewater delivered some pretty crummy performances in his 2 seasons, some of them in big games.
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.
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.
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.
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 should've specified: I meant talent development/QB proficiency.
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.
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!
“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
808vikingsfan
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3361
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:45 pm
Location: Hawaii

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by 808vikingsfan » Wed May 17, 2017 11:36 pm

dead_poet wrote: 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."
Is it possible that Bradford has already expressed to the team he's not making any decisions until next year? Wouldn't it benefit him greatly if he waits it out?
Joined: Aug 2006
Deleted: Sept 12 2014
Reborn: Sept 17 2014

User avatar
dead_poet
Commissioner
Posts: 24451
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by dead_poet » Wed May 17, 2017 11:46 pm

808vikingsfan wrote:Is it possible that Bradford has already expressed to the team he's not making any decisions until next year?
Yes, though I'm sure he and his agent would be willing to/are fine with discussing preliminaries. I'm guessing players (especially vets) would like to have the stability (and guaranteed money) sooner rather than later.
Wouldn't it benefit him greatly if he waits it out?
Possibly. On one hand he would have even more leverage and could get several teams to bid on him, driving up his price tag. On the other hand, if he waits it out and tears his ACL in week 8 (or regresses for whatever reason), he may end up costing himself some cash.
“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: 37384
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by Mothman » Thu May 18, 2017 6:44 am

dead_poet wrote:What do you recall your impressions of Bradford those first two seasons?
I saw him as a physically talented player on some bad teams. He was inconsistent which of course, can be attributable in part to youth and circumstances, as it can with Bridgewater. Unlike Bridgewater, I remember Bradford's arm strength and accuracy standing out to me but I also remember thinking that he settled for the short stuff a little too readily and turned it over too often.

I don't think there's a vast distance between Bradford and Bridgewater but Bradford has more "arm talent" and is further along in his development. Importantly, he's already reached that point so the continued development isn't assumed or hypothetical.
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. :D 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.
:lol: His predecessors didn't set a high standard.

You're correct about the # of rushing attempts. The Vikings were 4th in the league in 2015.

Your comments above lead back to a chicken-and-the-egg argument that's hard to settle. I didn't think Bridgewater was being held back because they were leaning on Peterson. I contend they leaned on Peterson because Bridgewater needs that kind of run support to be successful. When teams were able to limit Peterson or take him out of the equation, when the Vikings ended up leaning on Bridgewater instead, he faltered more often than not and it tended to result in losses, often blowouts with little offensive production. I agree with the assessment that he's a "Tier 3 QB" who needs a heavy run game/defense to win.

I think the TD and yardage numbers would be better if he had played better. The scoring opportunities were there, as indicated by the Vikings 39 FG attempts in the 2015 regular season (4th most in the league). They were among the top 10 in FG attempts in 2014 too.

A run-heavy offense with major liabilities in pass-blocking doesn't set the team up for passing proliferation but neither does an overly timid QB with a limited skill set and unfortunately, that's how I see Bridgewater.
Maybe. But he's shown a bit of that "He just knows how to win" about him.
I don't really buy that. I think he "knows how to win" when a productive running game and strong defense do the heavy lifting.
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!
I hope so too, for his sake.

User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 37384
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by Mothman » Thu May 18, 2017 8:17 am

dead_poet wrote: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."
He seems to be handling it well. I wasn't wondering about it in the sense that I'm concerned about him not being mature or creating a problem. Rather, I'm thinking it would be hard to be in Bradford's position, with the team showing no interest in contract talks and the coach professing his love for Teddy Bridgewater. It must feel as if his future with the Vikings doesn't hinge on his own performance but rather on Bridgewater's recovery.

User avatar
losperros
Commissioner
Posts: 10041
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2003 9:47 am
Location: Burbank, California

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by losperros » Thu May 18, 2017 9:56 am

Mothman wrote: He seems to be handling it well. I wasn't wondering about it in the sense that I'm concerned about him not being mature or creating a problem. Rather, I'm thinking it would be hard to be in Bradford's position, with the team showing no interest in contract talks and the coach professing his love for Teddy Bridgewater. It must feel as if his future with the Vikings doesn't hinge on his own performance but rather on Bridgewater's recovery.
Regarding the future, the only true way to settle matters is head-to-head competition between Bradford and Bridgewater. I'm hoping Teddy's health can rebound one hundred percent or the competition is likely to never happen.

User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 37384
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by Mothman » Thu May 18, 2017 10:05 am

losperros wrote: Regarding the future, the only true way to settle matters is head-to-head competition between Bradford and Bridgewater. I'm hoping Teddy's health can rebound one hundred percent or the competition is likely to never happen.
Another problem with that is timing. Will there be a point where Bridgewater is healthy enough to engage in that competition with Bradford while both players are still under contract with the Vikings?

User avatar
dead_poet
Commissioner
Posts: 24451
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by dead_poet » Thu May 18, 2017 1:27 pm

:whistle:
Teddy Bridgewater was a magician in the final minutes of games. His ability to pick up first downs and have a high completion percentage made him a dangerous quarterback last season even if it didn’t translate into a lot of passing yards or touchdowns.

In fact, Pro Football Reference compiled a list of all the quarterbacks to throw the ball 10 times or more in the season and Teddy Bridgewater was their number one ranked passer in the final two minutes of games.

According to the information, Bridgewater had a very impressive 155.4 passer rating during that time...
http://thevikingage.com/2016/06/10/viki ... -nfl-best/

Also owns the record for the best completion percentage for a QB through his first two NFL seasons in NFL history.
“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: 37384
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by Mothman » Thu May 18, 2017 2:31 pm

dead_poet wrote::whistle: http://thevikingage.com/2016/06/10/viki ... -nfl-best/

Also owns the record for the best completion percentage for a QB through his first two NFL seasons in NFL history.
That's a nice stat to have on his resumé but it's also a consequence of what I consider a shortcoming in his game: he's a check down champ.

The other stat is pretty meaningless as far as I'm concerned, at least without far more context. It's the kind of stat that's been used to puff Bridgewater up in the press and at sites like PFF since he arrived in Minnesota. It might as well read, "Sure, he struggles to get the team into the end zone but have you seen his 3rd quarter completion percentage on the road, between 11-15 yards from the line of scrimmage when there are no more than 5 cheerleaders visible on the sidelines and a squirrel has darted onto the field? It's unbelievable!" :tongue:

User avatar
dead_poet
Commissioner
Posts: 24451
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by dead_poet » Thu May 18, 2017 3:09 pm

Mothman wrote: That's a nice stat to have on his resumé but it's also a consequence of what I consider a shortcoming in his game: he's a check down champ.
#2 in passes 10-20 yards

https://www.profootballfocus.com/qbs-in ... passing-2/

Completed 52.6% of passes 16+ yards in 2015, 12th best in the NFL.

Also, checking down might be a necessity when you have the least time per dropback when you're the most pressured QB.
The other stat is pretty meaningless as far as I'm concerned, at least without far more context. It's the kind of stat that's been used to puff Bridgewater up in the press and at sites like PFF since he arrived in Minnesota. It might as well read, "Sure, he struggles to get the team into the end zone but have you seen his 3rd quarter completion percentage on the road, between 11-15 yards from the line of scrimmage when there are no more than 5 cheerleaders visible on the sidelines and a squirrel has darted onto the field? It's unbelievable!" :tongue:
Is it not better than the alternative? Poo on it if you want, I like that quality.
“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: 37384
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by Mothman » Thu May 18, 2017 4:43 pm

dead_poet wrote:#2 in passes 10-20 yards

https://www.profootballfocus.com/qbs-in ... passing-2/

Completed 52.6% of passes 16+ yards in 2015, 12th best in the NFL.
How many cheerleaders were visible on the sidelines?

Also, checking down might be a necessity when you have the least time per dropback when you're the most pressured QB.[/quote]

Aa lot of that was due to his own indecision.

The stat is another one of those deconstructed stats that's a nice little achievement on it's own but tells us very little about his overall effectiveness as a QB.
Is it not better than the alternative? Poo on it if you want, I like that quality.
Yes, it's nice that he had a great passer rating over the final 2 minutes of games in 2015 and nobody is saying he doesn't have some good qualities as a QB but a 2 minute stats doesn't speak to overall performance any more than his completion percentage on passes of 16+ yards does. They're cherry-picked to make him look good. The 2 minute simply doesn't tell us much about his overall game or even that much about how he actually performs in the final 2 minutes. His rating is high because he threw 2 TDs under those circumstances and no INTs. Of course, he also took 4 sacks and lost 2 fumbles. Those 2 turnovers don't count against that passer rating but they hurt. The TDs were both against the Bears, the first came @Chicago in a game where Bridgewater was awful for most of the previous 58 minutes and then hit Diggs on an intermediate route that Diggs turned into a TD on a great run after the catch. The other was a short pass to Zach Line late in a blowout win, not exactly a clutch play in a crucial moment.

All of that's fine. TD passes are TD passes and throwing them is always good. My point is the stat that should be kept in perspective, the context should be considered and none of it speaks to the overall quality of his game.

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 » Thu May 18, 2017 5:55 pm

dead_poet wrote:#2 in passes 10-20 yards

https://www.profootballfocus.com/qbs-in ... passing-2/

Completed 52.6% of passes 16+ yards in 2015, 12th best in the NFL.
http://presnapreads.com/

Bradford - 65% on 21+ yard throws. #1 in NFL. Only two QBs were above 60. Tom Brady 38%. Rodgers/Rivers below 50%. #themoreyouknow
Not easy being a Vikes fan and staying an "unbiased" creator of Sidestream Football. This is my therapy. SKOL.

User avatar
halfgiz
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1767
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 11:38 pm

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by halfgiz » Thu May 18, 2017 6:35 pm

Teddy could he play this preseason...

https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-vi ... preseason/

User avatar
PurpleMustReign
Starting Wide Receiver
Posts: 18398
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:48 pm
Location: Crystal, MN
Contact:

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by PurpleMustReign » Fri May 19, 2017 8:47 am

halfgiz wrote:Teddy could he play this preseason...

https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-vi ... preseason/
If that was true I don't think they would have declined his option.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
The Devil whispered in the Viking's ear, "There's a storm coming." The Viking replied, "I am the storm." ‪#‎SKOL2017 #BringitHome‬

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 19, 2017 10:11 am

PurpleMustReign wrote: If that was true I don't think they would have declined his option.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
Jamarcus Russell could throw the ball 60 yards from his knees. Teddy's arm didn't get injured, its being able to confidently practice and play on a freshly rebuilt leg. It'd be nice to see a recovery that quickly though, I'm sure he's working hard.
Not easy being a Vikes fan and staying an "unbiased" creator of Sidestream Football. This is my therapy. SKOL.

Post Reply