View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Oct 22, 2017 2:15 pm



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
Online
Commissioner
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Posts: 23150
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
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.

Quote:
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

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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


Wed May 17, 2017 11:22 pm
Profile
Online
Career Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:45 pm
Posts: 2313
Location: Hawaii
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
dead_poet 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.


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


Wed May 17, 2017 11:36 pm
Profile
Online
Commissioner
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Posts: 23150
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
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.

Quote:
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


Wed May 17, 2017 11:46 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
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.


Thu May 18, 2017 6:44 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:
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.


Thu May 18, 2017 8:17 am
Profile
Commissioner
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2003 9:47 am
Posts: 10040
Location: Burbank, California
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
Mothman wrote:
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.


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.


Thu May 18, 2017 9:56 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
losperros wrote:
Mothman wrote:
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.


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?


Thu May 18, 2017 10:05 am
Profile
Online
Commissioner
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Posts: 23150
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
:whistle:
Quote:
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


Thu May 18, 2017 1:27 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
dead_poet wrote:
:whistle:
Quote:
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.


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:


Thu May 18, 2017 2:31 pm
Profile
Online
Commissioner
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Posts: 23150
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
Mothman wrote:
dead_poet wrote:
:whistle:
Quote:
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.


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.

Quote:
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


Thu May 18, 2017 3:09 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
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.

Quote:
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.


Thu May 18, 2017 4:43 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
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.


Thu May 18, 2017 5:55 pm
Profile WWW
All Pro Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 11:38 pm
Posts: 1542
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
Teddy could he play this preseason...

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


Thu May 18, 2017 6:35 pm
Profile
Online
Starting Wide Receiver
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:48 pm
Posts: 17473
Location: Crystal, MN
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
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." ‪#‎SKOL2016‬


Fri May 19, 2017 8:47 am
Profile YIM 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
PurpleMustReign wrote:
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


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.


Fri May 19, 2017 10:11 am
Profile WWW
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:46 pm
Posts: 3776
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
I'm not sure what the big deal about this Bridgewater Bradford thing is. Bradford has missed game in 4 of his 7 NFL seasons and has never thrown for more than 21 touchdowns. I'm not concerned with all these other ancillary stats, the question is how many points can you score. Bradford hasn't lead any team he has played on to the playoffs, so he obviously isn't the type of QB that can carry a bad team. Teddy Bridgewater had a catastrophic knee injury and no one knows what he will be when he comes back. Truth is, the Vikings could still use an upgrade ant QB over both of these two. Truth is, I would rather have a cheap Bridgewater, if he's healthy, as a bridge to drafting a franchise QB, then an expensive Bradford and years of mediocrity.


Fri May 19, 2017 12:51 pm
Profile
Online
Career Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:45 pm
Posts: 2313
Location: Hawaii
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
Another thing that you have to take into account when comparing Bridgewater. He played his first two years in TCF Bank. As stated in the quote below, only 3 games were played indoors in 2015.

Man, it would have been nice to see him play in U.S. Bank.

Of course, I was thinking the same thing with Walsh.

Quote:
101.6 — Teddy Bridgewater’s pass rating under a roof in 2015

Before the Vikings play their final three games outdoors, they might want to try to get a roof built on top of TCF Bank Stadium — and Lambeau Field, too, if the Packers are agreeable. The Vikings have played three games this season in a dome or a stadium with a retractable roof. In those games, Bridgewater has completed 70.7 percent of his passes for an average of 275 passing yards per game, with three touchdowns, one interception and a 101.6 passer rating. Outside? The quarterback has completed just 63.4 percent of his passes for 190.8 yards per game, with six touchdowns, seven picks and a 79.7 passer rating. Perhaps it is a good thing for Bridgewater that the Vikings will move into U.S. Bank Stadium next summer.

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


Sat May 20, 2017 3:21 pm
Profile
Online
Starting Wide Receiver
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:48 pm
Posts: 17473
Location: Crystal, MN
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
Idk. I was more confident in Bradford's abilities to lead the offense than I ever was with Teddy. I don't understand why some people think Teddy is superior. Really? We are taking a three game sample from 2015 and using that as proof of something?

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." ‪#‎SKOL2016‬


Sat May 20, 2017 6:13 pm
Profile YIM 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
PurpleMustReign wrote:
Idk. I was more confident in Bradford's abilities to lead the offense than I ever was with Teddy. I don't understand why some people think Teddy is superior. Really? We are taking a three game sample from 2015 and using that as proof of something?


If a QB needs to play indoors to be successful, he's the wrong man for the job.

Last year, an NFL Personnel Director told ESPN writer Mike Sando he wondered if the Vikings’ frequent praising of Bridgewater amounted to the team "trying to convince itself". There's been a lot of that since he was drafted.


Sat May 20, 2017 6:45 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
At this moment, I cannot recall the Vikes last playoff victory. Stats are stats IMO, not meaningless, but also not everything. TB has done nothing that Ponder didn't do in terms of getting to the post season and losing (although Webb played in Ponder's season)
Sam has never played in the post season period.
Sam had his best season ever last year. Teddy has a wrecked knee. No one else on the roster is worth a mention IMO.
Sam has the hot hand and the best opportunity, regardless of talent, to lead this team anywhere significant. I hope he crushes it this year...and I think it's foolish to not extend him now.
But it ain't my money.
Oh yeah...2009 was the last playoff win.


Sat May 20, 2017 7:39 pm
Profile
Online
Starting Wide Receiver
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:48 pm
Posts: 17473
Location: Crystal, MN
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
Mothman wrote:
PurpleMustReign wrote:
Idk. I was more confident in Bradford's abilities to lead the offense than I ever was with Teddy. I don't understand why some people think Teddy is superior. Really? We are taking a three game sample from 2015 and using that as proof of something?


If a QB needs to play indoors to be successful, he's the wrong man for the job.

Last year, an NFL Personnel Director told ESPN writer Mike Sando he wondered if the Vikings’ frequent praising of Bridgewater amounted to the team "trying to convince itself". There's been a lot of that since he was drafted.

I agree. And that article brings up a great point about the Vikings trying to convince themselves that Teddy is the man.

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." ‪#‎SKOL2016‬


Sat May 20, 2017 7:42 pm
Profile YIM WWW
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:46 pm
Posts: 3776
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
PurpleMustReign wrote:
Idk. I was more confident in Bradford's abilities to lead the offense than I ever was with Teddy. I don't understand why some people think Teddy is superior. Really? We are taking a three game sample from 2015 and using that as proof of something?

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk



The best ability is availability. What kind of extension do you give someone who has missed games in 4 of the 7 seasons they have played?


Sat May 20, 2017 7:58 pm
Profile
Veteran

Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2016 8:02 pm
Posts: 212
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
MrPurplenGold wrote:
PurpleMustReign wrote:
Idk. I was more confident in Bradford's abilities to lead the offense than I ever was with Teddy. I don't understand why some people think Teddy is superior. Really? We are taking a three game sample from 2015 and using that as proof of something?

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk



The best ability is availability. What kind of extension do you give someone who has missed games in 4 of the 7 seasons they have played?


Well the Steelers gave Big Ben $100+ mil and he's missed games in TEN of his 13 seasons. Just sayin...


Sat May 20, 2017 9:48 pm
Profile
Online
Starting Wide Receiver
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:48 pm
Posts: 17473
Location: Crystal, MN
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
MrPurplenGold wrote:
PurpleMustReign wrote:
Idk. I was more confident in Bradford's abilities to lead the offense than I ever was with Teddy. I don't understand why some people think Teddy is superior. Really? We are taking a three game sample from 2015 and using that as proof of something?

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk



The best ability is availability. What kind of extension do you give someone who has missed games in 4 of the 7 seasons they have played?


So, you would take Todd Bouman over Tom Brady? Brady missed more games than Bouman did.

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


Sat May 20, 2017 11:41 pm
Profile YIM WWW
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:46 pm
Posts: 3776
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
RFIP wrote:
MrPurplenGold wrote:
PurpleMustReign wrote:
Idk. I was more confident in Bradford's abilities to lead the offense than I ever was with Teddy. I don't understand why some people think Teddy is superior. Really? We are taking a three game sample from 2015 and using that as proof of something?

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk



The best ability is availability. What kind of extension do you give someone who has missed games in 4 of the 7 seasons they have played?


Well the Steelers gave Big Ben $100+ mil and he's missed games in TEN of his 13 seasons. Just sayin...


Valid point, so let me rephrase. What kind of extension do you give a QB who has missed games in 4 of his 7 NFL seasons, has never thrown more than 21 TDS and has never taken his team to the playoffs?


Sun May 21, 2017 7:16 am
Profile
Veteran

Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2016 8:02 pm
Posts: 212
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
MrPurplenGold wrote:
Valid point, so let me rephrase. What kind of extension do you give a QB who has missed games in 4 of his 7 NFL seasons, has never thrown more than 21 TDS and has never taken his team to the playoffs?


I think you forgot; "AND was the #1 overall pick by the worst football team of the past 1/4 century (5-43 pre-Bradford), then coming off TWO ACL's he still garnered a second round pick + a starting QB...THEN a year later was traded for a 1st & 3rd round pick and is now the NFL's single season comp % leader in addition to having the highest down field comp % while making Adam Thielen a household name...as he played behind the worst OL the NFL has ever seen...oh and has never thrown more ints than tds"

Hmm, I must admit I am finding it difficult to find comps for this one...


Sun May 21, 2017 7:28 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 would extend Bradford based on what I've seen in the past 2 seasons.
He really caught fire for Philly in the second half of the season, if memory serves me.
Also, what he has done as a Viking really impressed me, given the host of hurdles the offense faced in general.
His injury history is interesting....,
The shoulder was injured in his last college game and seemed to take a long time to heal, due to the nature of the position, especially on a crap team like the Rams. IMO one of, if not THE worst run organizations in the league. Their O-line situation has been every bit as dismal as the Vikes....perhaps worse due to them not having an AD.
-
He had the ACLs and, from what I've seen, has recovered in terms of standing in there and making good throws. Who knows what could happen injury-wise? All I know is what I've seen lately (past 2 seasons)
-
He is also extremely comfortable and effective with Pat Shurmur. He was Offense ROY when they last were together. On a really crap team too...that just missed the playoffs, if memory serves.
-
In TB's case: If he doesn't make it off IR this season, which is a distinct possibility, he will have missed over half of his career thus far due to injuries. The bigger problem for him and the vikings is that his injury situation is current.
-
So, the Vikes have 2 QBs with appreaciable talent, IMO, and injury history. One is healthy, has been for a few years now, and is playing the best ball of his career.
The other is not healthy and was trending upward, IMO, as per playing ability prior to injury.
-
I understand the different reasons for not pulling the trigger on any extension.
To me it feels eerily similar to a QB who holds the ball too long. I hope I am wrong and this won't be a case of, 'he who hesitates...'


Sun May 21, 2017 11:02 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:46 pm
Posts: 3776
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
RFIP wrote:
MrPurplenGold wrote:
Valid point, so let me rephrase. What kind of extension do you give a QB who has missed games in 4 of his 7 NFL seasons, has never thrown more than 21 TDS and has never taken his team to the playoffs?


I think you forgot; "AND was the #1 overall pick by the worst football team of the past 1/4 century (5-43 pre-Bradford), then coming off TWO ACL's he still garnered a second round pick + a starting QB...THEN a year later was traded for a 1st & 3rd round pick and is now the NFL's single season comp % leader in addition to having the highest down field comp % while making Adam Thielen a household name...as he played behind the worst OL the NFL has ever seen...oh and has never thrown more ints than tds"

Hmm, I must admit I am finding it difficult to find comps for this one...


What does Bradfords draft status or previous trade value have anything to do with his current monetary value? Bradford went 7-9 with the Eagles last year and they drafted a rookie QB, played hin and didn't get any worse. In 2015, the year sam bRadford got traded from the rams, their record actually got better by a game. Sam Bradford is an average QB at best. He's not going to lose too many games but he won't win many games either. He needs more than one year of average success with the Vikings for me to consider any long term extension.


Sun May 21, 2017 11:16 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
Nunin wrote:
I would extend Bradford based on what I've seen in the past 2 seasons.
He really caught fire for Philly in the second half of the season, if memory serves me.
Also, what he has done as a Viking really impressed me, given the host of hurdles the offense faced in general.
His injury history is interesting....,
The shoulder was injured in his last college game and seemed to take a long time to heal, due to the nature of the position, especially on a crap team like the Rams. IMO one of, if not THE worst run organizations in the league. Their O-line situation has been every bit as dismal as the Vikes....perhaps worse due to them not having an AD.
-
He had the ACLs and, from what I've seen, has recovered in terms of standing in there and making good throws. Who knows what could happen injury-wise? All I know is what I've seen lately (past 2 seasons)
-
He is also extremely comfortable and effective with Pat Shurmur. He was Offense ROY when they last were together. On a really crap team too...that just missed the playoffs, if memory serves.
-
In TB's case: If he doesn't make it off IR this season, which is a distinct possibility, he will have missed over half of his career thus far due to injuries. The bigger problem for him and the vikings is that his injury situation is current.
-
So, the Vikes have 2 QBs with appreaciable talent, IMO, and injury history. One is healthy, has been for a few years now, and is playing the best ball of his career.
The other is not healthy and was trending upward, IMO, as per playing ability prior to injury.
-
I understand the different reasons for not pulling the trigger on any extension.
To me it feels eerily similar to a QB who holds the ball too long. I hope I am wrong and this won't be a case of, 'he who hesitates...'


At worst, hesitating probably means they'll have to pay a premium to keep Bradford if he has a really good season. If they choose to wait until the season is over, they'll have a month or two to negotiate with him exclusively before free agency begins and the option to use the franchise tag on him if absolutely necessary. It's unlikely they run the risk of losing him by not extending him now.

I think they're probably wise to exercise restraint at this point. Bradford probably doesn't want a short extension. He's more likely to want a long-term commitment and I don't think it's clear at this point that such a commitment would be wise.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out. I just hope the Vikes actually have a good plan.


Sun May 21, 2017 11:24 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'm not worried too much about them losing Sam. I'm concerned that they will have a bad cap situation as a result of waiting...which to me is a poor plan.
Time will tell.
I like the way the offseason is shaping up other than that.
I think it's a good team in the making.


Sun May 21, 2017 11:36 am
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: 808vikingsfan, dead_poet, IrishViking, jeg067, me4get, mossbutt, PsyDanny, Rhodes Closed, soflavike, SP1966, ThePiper and 18 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.