View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Fri Oct 20, 2017 4:00 am



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
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'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.


Ah, I see. I sometimes forget to give enough consideration to that angle.

Quote:
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.


:lol: I'm laughing at myself because I just don't know anymore. I hope they will be good.


Sun May 21, 2017 12:20 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
I would hate to see them lose the opportunity to re-sign a starter on defense or a guy like Diggs, for example, just because Bradford has a great year.
Who knows for sure?
But I do feel this team has enough pieces to go with a big chip on their collective shoulder this season to make a deep run.
I do worry about the kicking game.
It is the Vikings so all my expectations are safely locked in a padded cell.


Sun May 21, 2017 3:53 pm
Profile
Veteran

Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2016 8:02 pm
Posts: 212
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
MrPurplenGold wrote:
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.


You should not give out incorrect stats to prove your point. Bradford was 7-7 in Philly, not 7-9, and truth be told he was 7-6, on his way to 8-6 when he left a game late vs Miami and of course Sanchez threw the game losing int but Sam got credited with the "loss" but only an uninformed fan would blindly credit W's and L's to QB's... sort of like Sam getting the Vikings the win last year at home vs Detroit only to have the defense give it up with 16 seconds left and Detroit on their on 10 yard line. Yep that was a Bradford "L" too...


Sun May 21, 2017 3:54 pm
Profile
Career Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:45 pm
Posts: 2280
Location: Hawaii
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
Mothman wrote:
If a QB needs to play indoors to be successful, he's the wrong man for the job.


I think 11-5 is pretty successful so no, Bridgewater didn't need to play indoors to be successful. I'm just saying if you're gonna start comparing the stats of two 'mediocre' QBs, you have to give some context.

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


Sun May 21, 2017 5:02 pm
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
MrPurplenGold wrote:
RFIP wrote:
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.


You should not give out incorrect stats to prove your point. Bradford was 7-7 in Philly, not 7-9, and truth be told he was 7-6, on his way to 8-6 when he left a game late vs Miami and of course Sanchez threw the game losing int but Sam got credited with the "loss" but only an uninformed fan would blindly credit W's and L's to QB's... sort of like Sam getting the Vikings the win last year at home vs Detroit only to have the defense give it up with 16 seconds left and Detroit on their on 10 yard line. Yep that was a Bradford "L" too...



There was no need for you to get personal by making an attempt at calling me an uninformed fan. If you can't keep your personal feelings out of it why participate in the conversation. You can disagree with someone without providing any personal attacks.


Sun May 21, 2017 5:23 pm
Profile
Veteran

Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2016 8:02 pm
Posts: 212
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
MrPurplenGold wrote:
MrPurplenGold wrote:
RFIP wrote:
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.


You should not give out incorrect stats to prove your point. Bradford was 7-7 in Philly, not 7-9, and truth be told he was 7-6, on his way to 8-6 when he left a game late vs Miami and of course Sanchez threw the game losing int but Sam got credited with the "loss" but only an uninformed fan would blindly credit W's and L's to QB's... sort of like Sam getting the Vikings the win last year at home vs Detroit only to have the defense give it up with 16 seconds left and Detroit on their on 10 yard line. Yep that was a Bradford "L" too...



There was no need for you to get personal by making an attempt at calling me an uninformed fan. If you can't keep your personal feelings out of it why participate in the conversation. You can disagree with someone without providing any personal attacks.


I didn't direxct my comment towards you, I am saying only an uniformed fan credits wins and loses to a QB.

YOU made an incorrect statement, actually more than one. You said; "Bradford went 7-9 with the Eagles last year and they drafted a rookie QB, played hin and didn't get any worse."

A) Bradford wasn't 7-9 in Philly and B) to compare Wentz 2016 playing for an entirely different regime than Sam did under Chip is comparing apples to tomatoes. And to say the Rams basically had the same record with and without Sam leaves out that the Rams were woefully worse with Goff last year, 0-7 to be exact.

All of which should tell you not to credit W/L's solely to any QB's.


Sun May 21, 2017 6:48 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
808vikingsfan wrote:
I think 11-5 is pretty successful so no, Bridgewater didn't need to play indoors to be successful. I'm just saying if you're gonna start comparing the stats of two 'mediocre' QBs, you have to give some context.


I agree. I made a similar point about stats on the previous page.


Sun May 21, 2017 7:06 pm
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
MrPurplenGold wrote:
RFIP wrote:


There was no need for you to get personal by making an attempt at calling me an uninformed fan. If you can't keep your personal feelings out of it why participate in the conversation. You can disagree with someone without providing any personal attacks.


I didn't direxct my comment towards you, I am saying only an uniformed fan credits wins and loses to a QB.

YOU made an incorrect statement, actually more than one. You said; "Bradford went 7-9 with the Eagles last year and they drafted a rookie QB, played hin and didn't get any worse."

A) Bradford wasn't 7-9 in Philly and B) to compare Wentz 2016 playing for an entirely different regime than Sam did under Chip is comparing apples to tomatoes. And to say the Rams basically had the same record with and without Sam leaves out that the Rams were woefully worse with Goff last year, 0-7 to be exact.

All of which should tell you not to credit W/L's solely to any QB's.



Clearly you have just stated that you perceived my argument to be that of one who believes wins and losses are credited to a QB. So whether directly or indirectly your point of reference for "uninformed fans" is directed at the point you believe I was trying to make. Either way, let's be adults about this about this and refrain from name calling when the perspective doesn't coincide with what you believe in. Because there are many people out there, both commentators and fans, who tie a franchises success to the QB position, right or wrong. This is why you see people reach for QBS in the draft and get fired or traded if their team loses, even if there are other holes on the roster.

Even if my stats weren't completely accurate my point remains the same. I think Philly and the rams are better off since they got rid of Sam Bradford. This is both from a salary cap standin and both teams have had the opportunity to draft who they feel are franchise QBs, which they didn't believe about Bradford. They did all this without any significant impact to their existing win loss record, which makes me imply he wasn't the reason they won or the reason they loss which made him replaceable. Now both teams could be wrong and Bradford could turn out to be better than both of those young QBS, but he still has plenty to prove such as consistently performing at a high level for a longer period of time.


Sun May 21, 2017 7:06 pm
Profile
Veteran

Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2016 8:02 pm
Posts: 212
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
MrPurplenGold wrote:
MrPurplenGold wrote:
Even if my stats weren't completely accurate my point remains the same. I think Philly and the rams are better off since they got rid of Sam Bradford. This is both from a salary cap standin and both teams have had the opportunity to draft who they feel are franchise QBs, which they didn't believe about Bradford. They did all this without any significant impact to their existing win loss record, which makes me imply he wasn't the reason they won or the reason they loss which made him replaceable. Now both teams could be wrong and Bradford could turn out to be better than both of those young QBS, but he still has plenty to prove such as consistently performing at a high level for a longer period of time.


The Rams are far from better without Sam and, even by your standards neither are the Eagles considering with a much better team and defense last year they went 7-9 with Wentz as their QB, 7-7 with Sam in worse situations. And Sam was 7-9 as a rookie with a Ram team coming off 5-43 the prior 3 seasons so lets not make wild statements about either of those situations just yet.

And Chip was on record, rightfully so, saying there was no way in the world the Rams trade Bradford if not for the back-to-back ACL's.

Personally I could care less if the Vikings sign him long term, his stock is only rising further and they will be left holding the bag at seasons end if they make that mistake and all the Teddy-worshipers may get their wish that he will come back and "lead them to the promised land" like before his injury.


Sun May 21, 2017 7:49 pm
Profile
Commissioner

Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 4:24 pm
Posts: 23761
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
Quote:
Personally I could care less if the Vikings sign him long term, his stock is only rising further and they will be left holding the bag at seasons end if they make that mistake and all the Teddy-worshipers may get their wish that he will come back and "lead them to the promised land" like before his injury.


Not sure his stock is rising further. He's not getting any younger, and if he plays well, he'll get signed long term. I'm just amazed anyone who's watched Bradford and Bridgewater in the NFL believes Teddy will be a better option at any point...


Mon May 22, 2017 9:02 pm
Profile
Starting Wide Receiver
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:48 pm
Posts: 17454
Location: Crystal, MN
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
Demi wrote:
Quote:
I'm just amazed anyone who's watched Bradford and Bridgewater in the NFL believes Teddy will be a better option at any point...


Me too but there were some people who thought Ponder was a decent QB too.

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


Mon May 22, 2017 9:08 pm
Profile YIM WWW
Career Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:45 pm
Posts: 2280
Location: Hawaii
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
Demi wrote:
Quote:
Personally I could care less if the Vikings sign him long term, his stock is only rising further and they will be left holding the bag at seasons end if they make that mistake and all the Teddy-worshipers may get their wish that he will come back and "lead them to the promised land" like before his injury.


Not sure his stock is rising further. He's not getting any younger, and if he plays well, he'll get signed long term. I'm just amazed anyone who's watched Bradford and Bridgewater in the NFL believes Teddy will be a better option at any point...


Because there are other qualities that make a QB successful other than a strong arm.

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


Mon May 22, 2017 9:45 pm
Profile
Commissioner

Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 4:24 pm
Posts: 23761
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
808vikingsfan wrote:
Demi wrote:
Quote:
Personally I could care less if the Vikings sign him long term, his stock is only rising further and they will be left holding the bag at seasons end if they make that mistake and all the Teddy-worshipers may get their wish that he will come back and "lead them to the promised land" like before his injury.


Not sure his stock is rising further. He's not getting any younger, and if he plays well, he'll get signed long term. I'm just amazed anyone who's watched Bradford and Bridgewater in the NFL believes Teddy will be a better option at any point...


Because there are other qualities that make a QB successful other than a strong arm.


You think Bradford has a strong arm? What makes a QB successful that Bridgewater has that Bradford doesn't? :wallbang:


Mon May 22, 2017 10:30 pm
Profile
Career Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:45 pm
Posts: 2280
Location: Hawaii
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
Demi wrote:
808vikingsfan wrote:
Because there are other qualities that make a QB successful other than a strong arm.


You think Bradford has a strong arm? What makes a QB successful that Bridgewater has that Bradford doesn't? :wallbang:


Leadership, good feel in the pocket, ability to extend plays.

And yes, I've watched him for a season, I think he has a strong arm.

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


Mon May 22, 2017 11:13 pm
Profile
Starting Wide Receiver
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:48 pm
Posts: 17454
Location: Crystal, MN
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
808vikingsfan wrote:
Demi wrote:
808vikingsfan wrote:
Because there are other qualities that make a QB successful other than a strong arm.


You think Bradford has a strong arm? What makes a QB successful that Bridgewater has that Bradford doesn't? :wallbang:


Leadership, good feel in the pocket, ability to extend plays.

And yes, I've watched him for a season, I think he has a strong arm.

I agree Bradford has a strong arm. However he has more confident of a pocket presence than Teddy ever will and he can extend plays although not as well as Teddy.

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


Tue May 23, 2017 5:49 am
Profile YIM WWW
Career Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:45 pm
Posts: 2280
Location: Hawaii
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
PurpleMustReign wrote:
808vikingsfan wrote:
Leadership, good feel in the pocket, ability to extend plays.

And yes, I've watched him for a season, I think he has a strong arm.

I agree Bradford has a strong arm. However he has more confident of a pocket presence than Teddy ever will and he can extend plays although not as well as Teddy.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


I would argue about pocket presence. We've seen a few times last year where he didn't feel the pressure early enough and was stripped of the ball. Bradford can definitely get the ball out quicker though which I really like.

Doesn't really matter though. Until Teddy is 100% (if ever), Bradford is the Vikings QB. I just think some people forget how effective TB was in 2015. Remember the playoffs? How bad the conditions were? He drove his team to the 9 yard line with seconds left in the game. I think that last drive defines how the team sees Teddy.

For me, it's not about the arm, or how pretty the deep ball is, or the stats. It's about getting the job done when it matters. I think more often than not, Teddy did that. I hope Bradford can do the same.


Bridgewater to Rudolph final drive vs SEA

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


Tue May 23, 2017 6:24 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
808vikingsfan wrote:
I would argue about pocket presence. We've seen a few times last year where he didn't feel the pressure early enough and was stripped of the ball.


The same thing happened to Bridgewater a few times in 2015, most notably at the end of the Arizona game. It happens to pretty much every QB at times.

Quote:
Doesn't really matter though. Until Teddy is 100% (if ever), Bradford is the Vikings QB. I just think some people forget how effective TB was in 2015. Remember the playoffs? How bad the conditions were? He drove his team to the 9 yard line with seconds left in the game. I think that last drive defines how the team sees Teddy.


It's interesting how perceptions differ. To me, that game reinforces how ineffective Bridgewater was in 2015. The team struggled on offense most of the day (conditions contributed to that) and never got into the end zone, even though Bridgewater had a receiver open for a TD in a 3rd-and-goal situation (he didn't see it and threw an incompletion to a back who was both covered and short of the goal line). That pass you posted was his only completion on the final drive and it was a 9 yard out that Rudolph turned into a 24 yard gain. Don't get me wrong: Bridgewater was poised in that situation. He showed the kind of calm leadership you want from a QB with a playoff game on the line and between that completion and a pass interference penalty, they got into scoring position. However, it wasn't like he sharply drove the team downfield with impressive, memorbale passes. He completed a simple out route.

Quote:
For me, it's not about the arm, or how pretty the deep ball is, or the stats. It's about getting the job done when it matters.


It matters all the time.


Tue May 23, 2017 6:46 pm
Profile
Career Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:45 pm
Posts: 2280
Location: Hawaii
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
Mothman wrote:
However, it wasn't like he sharply drove the team downfield with impressive, memorbale passes. He completed a simple out route.

As compared to an interception? How many times have we seen a player melt under pressure? You see it as a simple pass. I see it as execution under extreme pressure.



Mothman wrote:
It matters all the time.



No it doesn't. Getting your team in FG position on the opening drive isn't the same as getting your team in FG position with 1:42 left behind by 1.

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


Tue May 23, 2017 8:17 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
808vikingsfan wrote:
Mothman wrote:
However, it wasn't like he sharply drove the team downfield with impressive, memorbale passes. He completed a simple out route.

As compared to an interception? How many times have we seen a player melt under pressure? You see it as a simple pass. I see it as execution under extreme pressure.


It's both. He executed a routine 9 yard out pass in a high pressure situation. As I said, he showed the kind of calm leadership you want from a QB with a playoff game on the line

Quote:
No it doesn't. Getting your team in FG position on the opening drive isn't the same as getting your team in FG position with 1:42 left behind by 1.


No, it's not but it still matters. :lol: That's the point. Good QB play isn't about getting the job done in the final 2 minutes of a game. It's about getting the job done, including in the final 2 minutes of a game.


Tue May 23, 2017 8:27 pm
Profile
Starting Wide Receiver
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:48 pm
Posts: 17454
Location: Crystal, MN
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
808vikingsfan wrote:
No it doesn't. Getting your team in FG position on the opening drive isn't the same as getting your team in FG position with 1:42 left behind by 1.



:shock:

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


Tue May 23, 2017 8:53 pm
Profile YIM WWW
Commissioner
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Posts: 23082
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
:whistle:

http://www.1500espn.com/vikings-2/2017/ ... -throwing/

_________________
“Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that.” --- Bill Shankly


Tue May 23, 2017 8:59 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


They really want to create a nice little QB controversy for themselves, don't they?


Tue May 23, 2017 9:16 pm
Profile
Commissioner
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Posts: 23082
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
Mothman wrote:


They really want to create a nice little QB controversy for themselves, don't they?


*Shrug*

Probably trying to control the narrative. Beat guys would know Teddy is out there and would report on it so why hide it in a video?

Per Tomasson, Rick will address Teddy tomorrow for the first time since the injury. Will be interesting. Can't imagine them announcing he's out for the year after the team posted this. My guess is that it'll be careful optimism with many reassurances Teddy is working hard to rehab but a ways to go.

_________________
“Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that.” --- Bill Shankly


Tue May 23, 2017 9:23 pm
Profile
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 6:28 pm
Posts: 6592
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater


Go Teddy. Hope he can come back healthy and reclaim the job. We need a winner at the QB position: Teddy is one.

_________________
A Randy Moss fan for life. A Kevin Williams fan for life.


Tue May 23, 2017 9:26 pm
Profile
Fenrir
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:28 pm
Posts: 10495
Location: Hawaii
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
I hope he can play at some point this season. Isn't depth at QB one of the major issues we've all had for a long time? I don't understand how all of a sudden it's a controversy or a team divided, I see more options, which is always a good thing.


Tue May 23, 2017 9:56 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:
I hope he can play at some point this season. Isn't depth at QB one of the major issues we've all had for a long time? I don't understand how all of a sudden it's a controversy or a team divided, I see more options, which is always a good thing.


It probably won't amount to anything because I doubt Bridgewater will be ready to play when the season begins. I just think the Vikes are recklessly fanning flames that might burn them.


Tue May 23, 2017 10:31 pm
Profile
Starting Wide Receiver
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:48 pm
Posts: 17454
Location: Crystal, MN
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
Mothman wrote:
S197 wrote:
I hope he can play at some point this season. Isn't depth at QB one of the major issues we've all had for a long time? I don't understand how all of a sudden it's a controversy or a team divided, I see more options, which is always a good thing.


It probably won't amount to anything because i doubt Bridgewater will be ready to play when the season begins. I just think the Vikes recklessly are fanning flames that might burn them.

Correct.

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


Wed May 24, 2017 5:22 am
Profile YIM WWW
Fenrir
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:28 pm
Posts: 10495
Location: Hawaii
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
Mothman wrote:
S197 wrote:
I hope he can play at some point this season. Isn't depth at QB one of the major issues we've all had for a long time? I don't understand how all of a sudden it's a controversy or a team divided, I see more options, which is always a good thing.


It probably won't amount to anything because I doubt Bridgewater will be ready to play when the season begins. I just think the Vikes are recklessly fanning flames that might burn them.


By letting him throw at OTAs or comments being made?


Wed May 24, 2017 2:50 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:
Mothman wrote:
S197 wrote:
I hope he can play at some point this season. Isn't depth at QB one of the major issues we've all had for a long time? I don't understand how all of a sudden it's a controversy or a team divided, I see more options, which is always a good thing.


It probably won't amount to anything because I doubt Bridgewater will be ready to play when the season begins. I just think the Vikes are recklessly fanning flames that might burn them.


By letting him throw at OTAs or comments being made?


By comments made. Letting him throw is simply a necessary step in his rehabilitation process.


Wed May 24, 2017 2:55 pm
Profile
Commissioner
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Posts: 23082
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Post Re: Vikings decline 5th-year option on Bridgewater
Predictably measured comments from Rick:

http://www.twincities.com/2017/05/24/vi ... couraging/

Quote:
“This entire organization (is) just hoping that eventually he’ll be able to come back on the field, but that’s still the unknown,” general manager Rick Spielman said Wednesday.

Bridgewater, working his way back from a horrific knee injury, was not present for Wednesday’s OTA session because of a rehabilitation appointment with a doctor, Spielman said. But, he added, the quarterback’s progress has been “very encouraging.”

Spielman said Bridgewater, who suffered a torn ACL and dislocated left knee in practice Aug. 30 and missed all of the 2016 season, is not cleared for full practice and there is no timetable for when he will be.

“Part of the rehab process that you had seen (Tuesday) was that he is able to start dropping back and throwing the ball,” Spielman said. “He’s working extremely hard on his rehab, and we’ll continue to monitor his progress as he goes.”


Side note: hope you're feeling better, Jim. It's only OTAs so you have some time yet to get ready for the regular season. Hopefully you'll be 100% by camp.

_________________
“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 24, 2017 7:53 pm
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: No registered users and 9 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.