The Teddy Bridgewater Thread

[losperros]

The Chili special?

Good name for it. OTOH, I hate to think the Vikings ever go back to Chili Ball.

[mansquatch]

Jim, I'm the one of the folks who has been making that point 5 or 6 times.

However, you are right. Inevitably they are going to get into a game where the opponent makes plays on offense and they are going to need to come from behind.

After the 2012 campaign I heard a bit from Nate Silver about how to spot good vs. lucky football teams. Essentially his case was that teams that win in the margin, ie wins by 3 or fewer points may not be as good as their record. I think the 2012 Vikings were an example of this, especially since it took a historic campaign from AP just to get to the playoffs. The 2013 season makes the case also... man that defense was BAD.

This squad is similar to that group in many ways. The QB inadequacy vs. the potency of the rushing attack is deja vu. I will argue that the defense this year is superior to the 2012 group, but the 2012 group wasn't bad, it finished in the top half of the league. So very similar.

So let's look at our close games this year, we've had 4:
KC, STL, DEN, and CHI. We went 3-1 in that stretch which probably means we should be a 6-3 team vs. 7-2. I might argue that we should have beaten SF to bring it back up to 7-2, but we didn't. We'll go conservative and say we are probably +1 in the luck category.

I think the STL and DEN games are a wash. In both cases we played a team similar to ourselves: Very strong defense, struggling offense. We won the game at home and barely lost the game at home. KC and CHI were games I didn't see, but they sounded like cases that fit what you are alluding to: An opponent makes plays and the offense needs to make something happen to get the win. I know Chicago was that way since Teddy needed big plays late in the 4th to get that W.

In the playoffs we might not be able to pull off such a comeback, which I sense is your fear. However, I think it is worth giving Teddy some credit here. We almost did pull off such a comeback against the league's best defense on the road. Again, a missed field goal was the difference and Teddy played a solid game that day. So in that respect there is some history to support a view that against tough competition TB can make it happen. Of course it all comes back to the thread title, can he do it consistently?

[Boon]

not really saying much other than slow down folks.

[dead_poet]

not really saying much other than slow down folks.

OMG. Teddy is better than Aaron Rodgers. That much is clear to me now. Whew! Now I don't have to worry about things.

[Boon]

OMG. Teddy is better than Aaron Rodgers. That much is clear to me now. Whew! Now I don't have to worry about things.

[dead_poet]

[Mothman]

Jim, I'm the one of the folks who has been making that point 5 or 6 times.

Well, it IS a good point...

However, you are right. Inevitably they are going to get into a game where the opponent makes plays on offense and they are going to need to come from behind.

After the 2012 campaign I heard a bit from Nate Silver about how to spot good vs. lucky football teams. Essentially his case was that teams that win in the margin, ie wins by 3 or fewer points may not be as good as their record. I think the 2012 Vikings were an example of this, especially since it took a historic campaign from AP just to get to the playoffs. The 2013 season makes the case also... man that defense was BAD.

... and that team lost a lot of very close games. If they'd won most of those games, they might have been another example of one of those teams that win in the margin. Interesting stuff! thanks for sharing it.

This squad is similar to that group in many ways. The QB inadequacy vs. the potency of the rushing attack is deja vu. I will argue that the defense this year is superior to the 2012 group, but the 2012 group wasn't bad, it finished in the top half of the league. So very similar.

I feel the same way. It's almost eerily similar (but the defense is better... at least to this point).

So let's look at our close games this year, we've had 4:
KC, STL, DEN, and CHI. We went 3-1 in that stretch which probably means we should be a 6-3 team vs. 7-2. I might argue that we should have beaten SF to bring it back up to 7-2, but we didn't. We'll go conservative and say we are probably +1 in the luck category.

I think the STL and DEN games are a wash. In both cases we played a team similar to ourselves: Very strong defense, struggling offense. We won the game at home and barely lost the game at home. KC and CHI were games I didn't see, but they sounded like cases that fit what you are alluding to: An opponent makes plays and the offense needs to make something happen to get the win. I know Chicago was that way since Teddy needed big plays late in the 4th to get that W.

In the playoffs we might not be able to pull off such a comeback, which I sense is your fear.

That's part of it but I also worry about getting to the playoffs. As I understand it, the Vikes played one of the weakest schedules in the league in the first half of the season and they'll play one of the toughest (based on current records) in the second half. I'm concerned that a winning strategy against weaker teams may not continue to be a winning strategy against better teams because the margin of error has already been tight and they lost to the best team they faced. The Vikes don't turn it over much but they don't force a lot of turnovers either. They don't allow a lot of points but they don't always score a lot either.

However, I think it is worth giving Teddy some credit here. We almost did pull off such a comeback against the league's best defense on the road. Again, a missed field goal was the difference and Teddy played a solid game that day. So in that respect there is some history to support a view that against tough competition TB can make it happen. Of course it all comes back to the thread title, can he do it consistently?

Yes, can he do it consistently and just how much of it is really his doing in the first place? Upon close examination, it always feels to me like this ability he supposedly has to lead the team from behind is heavily reliant on big plays from others. He's played his part but there's a common theme in some of these oft-referenced come-from-behind performances. For example. in Denver, Bridgewater is given credit for leading the team from behind with 10 second half points on 2 drives. One of those drives was a 38 yard drive that ended in a field goal and the other was a 97 yard drive (impressive) capped by a 48 yard TD from Peterson. He did some nice work on both but it was really Peterson that turned the long drive into a TD drive.

Against the Bears, Bridgewater is given credit for engineering the comeback but I think Diggs and Johnson were the bigger heroes. The former turned a relatively short pass into a 40 yard TD with a great move and run and the latter made a great play to catch a pass that was thrown late and directly at a defender. Again, Teddy did his part but these weren't terribly impressive plays by standards of pro QB performance.

Last year, against the Jets, Bridgewater "directed" a comeback win in OT by throwing a pass to Wright behind the line which was then run 87 yards for a TD.

The common theme is skill position players making big plays. Bridgewater has played his role, kept his composure and made some impressive plays (and he did lead them to a tie that became an OT win in Tampa last year). However, I don't see a lot of QB magic in these performances, a "switched-on" player that directed drives and dissected defenses late in games. I see other playmakers making the magic. If that can continue with Bridgewater in the role of facilitator, great, but I'm not sure it's reliable.

There's another common theme as well: poor production from the offense has led to most of those comeback situations.

What I want to see is a more productive passing game that keeps the team out of those situations and helps the Vikings go from a team that's winning close games by running the ball, playing good defense and avoiding turnovers to a team that's winning more decisively and can present high-quality opponents with a dual-threat offense.

What I don't want to see is more of the same mediocre, bottom third of the league-level QB play that has plagued this team for the better part of a decade. Zimmer obviously has something good going with this defense, AD is still in his prime (how much longer?), good special teams play, etc. ... I want to see them make the most of it.

Sorry that post became so long.

[mosscarter]

the comparison to rodgers is ridiculous. why not examine the fact that when bridgewater when on his run at the end of last year it was against bad teams, and for the most part we've played bad teams most of this year. the rams were 4-3 and i believe oakland was .500 or near .500, but look at the rest of the teams we've played? they are BAD teams. he should have a winning record for the love of god. the defense, the running game, and the coach are why this team is 7-2. not teddy bridgewater at all.

[PurpleMustReign]

Missing wide open receivers is something Ponder did a lot. I realize there is a lot going on se of these plays... But the play Jim showed above scares me. A QB has to be able to see that stuff. That is really disappointing.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[fiestavike]

Good God. What a bunch of nervous Nellies.

[Mothman]

Good God. What a bunch of nervous Nellies.

Bah... I'm not exactly quaking in my boots here and I doubt anybody else is either. We're just talking about an aspect of the team as we see it. I've watched enough football to know that in this era, teams built like the Vikings, with the kind of passing game they're fielding, usually don't advance very far in the postseason even if they get there. I just want to see them succeed.

[John_Viveiros]

Another factor to think about with Bridgewater - they are playing completely to Peterson's strengths, and not to Teddy's. From http://espn.go.com/blog/minnesota-vikin ... ridgewater
[disclaimer - yes, I realize that a lot of you don't like the ESPN QBR.]

Last season's Vikings team did not have Adrian Peterson. ...the Vikings tailored their offense around rookie quarterback Teddy Bridgewater, running 64.8 percent of their plays, including 44.7 percent of their handoffs, out of the shotgun or pistol. Bridgewater posted a 69.7 QB Rating when in those sets, compared to a 19.6 rating under center

They've largely scrapped the shotgun handoffs they were giving Peterson early this season, returning to a power running game with multiple-tight end sets and emerging fullback Zach Line. They've had Bridgewater under center 52.6 percent of the time

Bridgewater has been more efficient than he was as a rookie, both in the shotgun and under center. He's 11th in the league with a QBR of 71.0 in the shotgun, and he's jumped up to 49.8 under center

So he's gone from being under center 30% of the time to 53% of the time. He clearly plays better QB according to ESPN when in the shotgun. Does anyone know where we can look at the standard QB rating splits by formation? I'd be interested to see if they also show improvement in both realms. It may be that Teddy looks like he's less effective than last year because we are threatening the run more by having him under center, where a QB can't scan the field in the same way.

[Mothman]

Another factor to think about with Bridgewater - they are playing completely to Peterson's strengths, and not to Teddy's. From http://espn.go.com/blog/minnesota-vikin ... ridgewater
[disclaimer - yes, I realize that a lot of you don't like the ESPN QBR.] So he's gone from being under center 30% of the time to 53% of the time. He clearly plays better QB according to ESPN when in the shotgun. Does anyone know where we can look at the standard QB rating splits by formation? I'd be interested to see if they also show improvement in both realms. It may be that Teddy looks like he's less effective than last year because we are threatening the run more by having him under center, where a QB can't scan the field in the same way.

It's certainly another factor worth considering. Thanks for the link, John. I'd point you to the QB splits info you're after if I knew where to find them.

I really liked the part of that article where Zimmer talked abut the flexibility he learned from his father. That willingness to adapt immediately brought Bill Belichick to mind.

Anyway, back to Bridgewater... the section of the article quoted below really stood out to me:

"He does not make very many negative plays," quarterbacks coach Scott Turner said. "He's a very smart player, and he understands what it takes to win. We've played some very good defenses in the first half of the season, and we've had opportunities that we didn't make the most of. Some of that's on Teddy; some of that's on some other people. But I see the progress, and I feel like a lot of things, we're really close. If we keep pushing, we're going to make some of those plays."

There's little doubt the Vikings would like to see Bridgewater play freer at times; Zimmer noted last week how well the 23-year-old has handled late-game situations, and would like to see him carry some of his mentality in two-minute drills over to the rest of the game. And Scott Turner said he'll often remind Bridgewater to "turn it loose."

"We trust him as a player," Turner said. "We trust that Teddy's going to make the right decisions. I think, for the most part, he does. I agree with Coach Zimmer that he needs to turn it loose. I do think, though, that there is a fine line. We've played some good defenses; our defense is playing unbelievable. We're not giving the defense the ball in plus territory by making mistakes. With a guy like Teddy, who we do really trust, you can take the shots, and if they're not there, check down; be smart, and not just force something."

It sounds to me like Bridgewater's coaches are basically asking him to do what I, and some other fans here, have been suggesting: play more freely and turn it loose. In other words, make more plays. As Turner said, there's a fine line. I don't think anybody wants overly reckless play from TB but falling on the safe, "check down" side of the fine line isn't good either. Playing under center rather than in the shotgun may be having some impact on his game but I get the feeling it's more that he plays "tight", that he tries to play it too safe it too safe. It's not hard to read between the lines and see that his coaches are thinking along similar lines.

[mosscarter]

why does everyone keep blaming norv turner? it is clear we have a qb who cannot stretch the field with the football. what world are you people living in have you actually watched the games? this guy cannot throw down the field whatsoever. the second half of the oakland game was the most pathetic performance of a qb since the big #7. and if you ask me, bridgewater is no better than ponder at this point. neither could throw down the field and teddy is developing the same "happy feet." 140 yards passing are you freaking serious? that is a joke in the nfl and it is a shame because this is the best defense we've had in 15 years. imagine big ben, rodgers, manning (eli even), brees, rivers, palmer, dalton, carr, or even tannehill in this offense. i didn't even mention brady or newton and i shouldn't have too. teddy bridgewater has been atrocious this season end of story. it makes me sick to watch bridgewater because i know he has zero killer instinct inside the red zone whatsoever. even the games when he played pretty decent; how many times did walsh kick field goals (i believe it was against san diego). i think walsh kicked 6 field goals because teddy cannot throw the ball and nail his receivers when we need it; he's a clone of ponder.

[Lars]

Bah... I'm not exactly quaking in my boots here and I doubt anybody else is either. We're just talking about an aspect of the team as we see it. I've watched enough football to know that in this era, teams built like the Vikings, with the kind of passing game they're fielding, usually don't advance very far in the postseason even if they get there. I just want to see them succeed.

As do we all, Jim. One of these days hell will freeze over and the Vikings will win a Super Bowl.

The jury is still out on Bridgewater. That much is certain. We all know that he's the guy for now.

And the jury is still out on this year's team. It's been fun to watch them. It's a hell of a lot more fun to watch them win. I tend to agree with you about the likelihood that this team will go very deep in the playoffs -- when and if that happens. But I see a lot of potential in the players, the system, and the schemes Zimmer has brought to Minnesota. I think he is getting the most out of his players (Bridgewater included). We are lucky to have him. And if Zimmer believes in Bridgewater's potential... (and of course he does), well, I'm optimistic that Bridgewater will become a decent Pro QB. For now it's "wait and see".