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

User avatar
MrPurplenGold
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:46 pm

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by MrPurplenGold » Fri May 19, 2017 12:51 pm

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.
0 x

User avatar
808vikingsfan
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3459
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:45 pm
Location: Hawaii

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by 808vikingsfan » Sat May 20, 2017 3:21 pm

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.
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.
0 x
Joined: Aug 2006
Deleted: Sept 12 2014
Reborn: Sept 17 2014

User avatar
PurpleMustReign
Starting Wide Receiver
Posts: 18479
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:48 pm
Location: Crystal, MN
Contact:

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by PurpleMustReign » Sat May 20, 2017 6:13 pm

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
0 x
The Devil whispered in the Viking's ear, "There's a storm coming." The Viking replied, "I am the storm." ‪#‎SKOL2017 #BringitHome‬

User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 37407
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by Mothman » Sat May 20, 2017 6:45 pm

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.
0 x

Nunin
Pro Bowl Elite Player
Posts: 567
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:40 am

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by Nunin » Sat May 20, 2017 7:39 pm

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.
0 x

User avatar
PurpleMustReign
Starting Wide Receiver
Posts: 18479
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:48 pm
Location: Crystal, MN
Contact:

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by PurpleMustReign » Sat May 20, 2017 7:42 pm

Mothman wrote: 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
0 x
The Devil whispered in the Viking's ear, "There's a storm coming." The Viking replied, "I am the storm." ‪#‎SKOL2017 #BringitHome‬

User avatar
MrPurplenGold
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:46 pm

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by MrPurplenGold » Sat May 20, 2017 7:58 pm

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?
0 x

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

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by RFIP » Sat May 20, 2017 9:48 pm

MrPurplenGold wrote:
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...
0 x

User avatar
PurpleMustReign
Starting Wide Receiver
Posts: 18479
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:48 pm
Location: Crystal, MN
Contact:

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by PurpleMustReign » Sat May 20, 2017 11:41 pm

MrPurplenGold wrote:
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.
0 x
The Devil whispered in the Viking's ear, "There's a storm coming." The Viking replied, "I am the storm." ‪#‎SKOL2017 #BringitHome‬

User avatar
MrPurplenGold
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:46 pm

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by MrPurplenGold » Sun May 21, 2017 7:16 am

RFIP wrote: 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?
0 x

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

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by RFIP » Sun May 21, 2017 7:28 am

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...
0 x

Nunin
Pro Bowl Elite Player
Posts: 567
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:40 am

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by Nunin » Sun May 21, 2017 11:02 am

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...'
0 x

User avatar
MrPurplenGold
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:46 pm

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by MrPurplenGold » Sun May 21, 2017 11:16 am

RFIP wrote: 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.
0 x

User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 37407
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by Mothman » Sun May 21, 2017 11:24 am

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.
0 x

Nunin
Pro Bowl Elite Player
Posts: 567
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:40 am

Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater

Post by Nunin » Sun May 21, 2017 11:36 am

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.
0 x

Post Reply