Vikings Message Board.Com

TSonn wrote:Good point. Well, if he hits it in practice, isn't it just a matter of time before it starts happening consistently in the game?

I hope so.

from what they say, if the game was played in practice tiger woods would have won 30 majors by now. he can't take it to the course anymore the same way bridgewater can't take it to the field. and at one time tiger was the best ever, so he has the ability.

mosscarter wrote:from what they say, if the game was played in practice tiger woods would have won 30 majors by now. he can't take it to the course anymore the same way bridgewater can't take it to the field. and at one time tiger was the best ever, so he has the ability.

You would think that the month of December would have stifled your "Teddy can't play" rhetoric.

If a month of solid play doesn't mean he can play well, one putrid game doesn't mean he can't.

DK Sweets wrote:I will admit to having the blinders on for Teddy because of my preconceived notions of what he can be, but I guess I don't think his performance was as bad as everyone else does.

Early on in the season people were upset because he didn't take enough chance. Last game he took more chances and now he's being raked over the coals again.

Don't get me wrong, I understand he missed big on some plays, but let's not forget that he's still very young and he has to make some mistakes to improve.

I think he had an ugly INT and a very poor first drive, but many QBs struggle with jitters early. The story of the Vikings offense in my mind when I was watching the game was about how very few opportunities Teddy had to make some plays.

I take no exception to pointing out he had a bad game, but I feel like after his efforts in December and the limited opportunities he had in this game, we shouldn't be (again) speaking of him as a likely bust.

Well said. I think the main thing was this game displayed his primary weakness while Norv did an awful job of displaying his primary strength's and he never had a chance to get it going so it stands out is all.

DK Sweets wrote:You would think that the month of December would have stifled your "Teddy can't play" rhetoric.

If a month of solid play doesn't mean he can play well, one putrid game doesn't mean he can't.

Since I've seen at least a half dozen references to Bridgewater's December, let's not forget it began with an awful performance against Seattle. The rest if it was pretty sweet.

There's no point in anybody denying that Bridgewater is capable of playing very well and there's no point in denying he's been awful at times. He's inconsistent but it would be easier to forgive "one putrid game" if it was just one. There have been enough lousy performances to justify serious doubts about him and enough good performances for some to feel the bad are just something Bridgewater will leave behind as he develops.

I would hope we can all agree with what Kapp said earlier today: Bridgewater has to be better. The team's future is potentially very bright but they need him to improve.

mondry wrote: Well said. I think the main thing was this game displayed his primary weakness while Norv did an awful job of displaying his primary strength's and he never had a chance to get it going so it stands out is all.

A comment by Collinsworth early in the game about both teams could afford to be more risky because of the circumstances got me thinking. Would you show your hand in this game? Would this (MIN VS GB) be the right time to open the playbook? Maybe this game was called not to show much for the next game. Except for the end around by Theilen and the Mckinnon pass, I didn't see much of a difference in play calling. The fake punt kills my theory a bit. I don't know. Maybe just wishful thinking. There is no way the Vikings can win vs SEA with the pass protection and run blocking we witnessed yesterday without mixing things up.

Jim: My point was that when he had one lousy performance after a month-long period of very solid play, we shouldn't immediately go back to "the kid can't play". Name pretty much any QB from Russell Wilson to Drew Brees and you'll find serious struggles in their second year. I don't disagree that Teddy needs to play better and hit on his opportunities, but I think there's a fine balance between expecting him to play better and expecting him to not have struggles and off games.

808: I think it's an interesting point to bring up, and I would add this: playing aggressive isn't the same as opening up the playbook, particularly when speaking of the fake punt. It's very possible that the Thielen and McKinnon plays were called specifically to give the Seahawks something to think about or to open up similar plays from the same formations that they have more faith in. As far as the fake punt goes, that just commands a bit of respect from the special teams units on coverage. For that matter, these plays might have been called so that the "money" pass plays that they know they'll need in the playoffs weren't getting a lot of attention right before the Seattle game.

I'm not sure how on board I am with the theory that the Vikings called this game with intention to set up calls for the playoffs, but I don't think it's an unreasonable discussion to have.

DK Sweets wrote:Jim: My point was that when he had one lousy performance after a month-long period of very solid play, we shouldn't immediately go back to "the kid can't play". Name pretty much any QB from Russell Wilson to Drew Brees and you'll find serious struggles in their second year. I don't disagree that Teddy needs to play better and hit on his opportunities, but I think there's a fine balance between expecting him to play better and expecting him to not have struggles and off games.

808: I think it's an interesting point to bring up, and I would add this: playing aggressive isn't the same as opening up the playbook, particularly when speaking of the fake punt. It's very possible that the Thielen and McKinnon plays were called specifically to give the Seahawks something to think about or to open up similar plays from the same formations that they have more faith in. As far as the fake punt goes, that just commands a bit of respect from the special teams units on coverage. For that matter, these plays might have been called so that the "money" pass plays that they know they'll need in the playoffs weren't getting a lot of attention right before the Seattle game.

I'm not sure how on board I am with the theory that the Vikings called this game with intention to set up calls for the playoffs, but I don't think it's an unreasonable discussion to have.

Good post Dakota. I agree. I've been hard on Teddy all season but one bad game after a string of really good games doesnt worry me a whole lot. That happens to every QB in the NFL. It's all going to depend on Norv's gameplan IMO. If he sticks to what we've done vs. Arz, Chi, and NYG, Teddy should be fine. With this offensive line, you can't send everyone downfield. We just have to manage this game on both sides of the ball. A good balance on offense and defense needs to show up like they did against GB because that was the best performance I've seen in years. If we get Joseph back, it makes our defense that much better

DK Sweets wrote:Jim: My point was that when he had one lousy performance after a month-long period of very solid play, we shouldn't immediately go back to "the kid can't play".

I understand but there really is no collective "we" here with a unified opinion like that. Few people said anything as extreme as "the kid can't play" and those who went that far are in the minority. As you're saying, it makes no sense to ignore weeks of solid performance. There's a flip side to that, of course...

Name pretty much any QB from Russell Wilson to Drew Brees and you'll find serious struggles in their second year. I don't disagree that Teddy needs to play better and hit on his opportunities, but I think there's a fine balance between expecting him to play better and expecting him to not have struggles and off games.

I agree but this IS a football discussion board so even with realistic expectations, fans are going to end up posting about the QB's performance, good, bad or in-between. Just because he can be expected to experience struggles and have off games, that doesn't make discussing those performances off limits. heck, they are inevitably going to be discussed at length because they're a source of frustration. We also know that just because most QBs go through a period of developmental struggle, that doesn't mean they all emerge from it transformed into a Wilson or a Brees.

There's room for all of these different views here and until Bridgewater becomes a more finished product, nobody really knows where he'll end up. He could be a future star or a future backup and at times, he's played like both. That leaves room for a very wide range of opinions on him and it's up to him to clarify the picture.

Mothman wrote: I understand but there really is no collective "we" here with a unified opinion like that. Few people said anything as extreme as "the kid can't play" and those who went that far are in the minority. As you're saying, it makes no sense to ignore weeks of solid performance. There's a flip side to that, of course...

I know there's not a unified opinion. As a matter of fact, many people agree with me, and many more sit in the middle. It's not my fault you jumped into the discussion assuming I was talking to everyone and not just the specific group of people who think he's a bust again!

I agree but this IS a football discussion board so even with realistic expectations, fans are going to end up posting about the QB's performance, good, bad or in-between. Just because he can be expected to experience struggles and have off games, that doesn't make discussing those performances off limits. heck, they are inevitably going to be discussed at length because they're a source of frustration. We also know that just because most QBs go through a period of developmental struggle, that doesn't mean they all emerge from it transformed into a Wilson or a Brees.

There's room for all of these different views here and until Bridgewater becomes a more finished product, nobody really knows where he'll end up. He could be a future star or a future backup and at times, he's played like both. That leaves room for a very wide range of opinions on him and it's up to him to clarify the picture.

And if you read my post, you'll see that I have no issue admitting he had a bad game. You must be a mighty powerful wizard to have conjured an argument out of that!

In all seriousness, I think my point might have been misunderstood, so let me clarify what I meant: many people here saw he had a bad game. That would be hard to argue. I personally think that while it was bad, it wasn't as bad as it looked at face value (for brevity sake, read my previous posts and you'll see my reasons).

Admittedly, the "we" at the end of the post can be a bit confusing. I suppose what I meant by that is that we, as a unified fanbase, should use a bit of restraint before calling for a player to lose his job ESPECIALLY on the heels of a fantastic string of performances.

To summarize: while I think it wasn't as bad as it appeared to many people, I understand why his performance deserves criticism. I do not think it is fair for the minority to once again claim he has no future after a setback, though.

well, zimmer seems to love the kid. Chances are if the ship goes down they're both going with it so we just have to wait and see. Inconsistency is his issue, the talent is there, the ability is there. He's just flat out jekyll and hyde.

The one thing I dont like is he missed the two throws and Turner, like a pouty teenager, took his ball and left. That makes no sense. This is the pro's not high school. You drafted him, keep calling it FFS.

The thing that nobody is really taking notice to so far because everyone is focused on teddy missing the throws, is the fact green bay wasn't guarding those deep routes well at all, and they just stopped. Teddy didn't execute but Turner shares this hand in hand for not sticking with it. They stick with adrian no matter what( minus a game or two), I don't get how the QB doesn't get the same luxury

Its eerily similar to the 2012 playoff game at lambeau where webb and peterson just flat out punched them in the throat running read option like they were playing against a pop warner team, and inexplicably stopped, yeah, reminds me of that.


Tired of getting stuck with these clown OC's. Bring back billick lol

Boon wrote:well, zimmer seems to love the kid. Chances are if the ship goes down they're both going with it so we just have to wait and see. Inconsistency is his issue, the talent is there, the ability is there. He's just flat out jekyll and hyde.

The one thing I dont like is he missed the two throws and Turner, like a pouty teenager, took his ball and left. That makes no sense. This is the pro's not high school. You drafted him, keep calling it FFS.

The thing that nobody is really taking notice to so far because everyone is focused on teddy missing the throws, is the fact green bay wasn't guarding those deep routes well at all, and they just stopped. Teddy didn't execute but Turner shares this hand in hand for not sticking with it. They stick with adrian no matter what( minus a game or two), I don't get how the QB doesn't get the same luxury

Agree with this. The deep routes were there. I know Norv is probably frustrated with Bridgewater on those deep throws, but he has to let him keep trying.

DK Sweets wrote:In all seriousness, I think my point might have been misunderstood, so let me clarify what I meant: many people here saw he had a bad game. That would be hard to argue. I personally think that while it was bad, it wasn't as bad as it looked at face value (for brevity sake, read my previous posts and you'll see my reasons).

Admittedly, the "we" at the end of the post can be a bit confusing. I suppose what I meant by that is that we, as a unified fanbase, should use a bit of restraint before calling for a player to lose his job ESPECIALLY on the heels of a fantastic string of performances.

In other words, you were referring to a collective "we".

To summarize: while I think it wasn't as bad as it appeared to many people, I understand why his performance deserves criticism. I do not think it is fair for the minority to once again claim he has no future after a setback, though.

But the minority is by definition, a small percentage of the "unified fanbase" and let's face it, the fanbase is rarely unified about much at all other than cheering for the Vikings. Opinions about specific players, coaches, team issues, etc. are almost always diverse and this is a place for a diversity of opinions. Consequently, it's as fair for people to express doubts about Bridgewater's future after another poor performance as it is for people to claim it's bright after a game like the one he had against the Bears a few weeks ago.

Expecting any kind of unity about him until he himself becomes a more consistent player is probably unrealistic.

I appreciate you clarifying what you meant and I really wasn't looking for an argument. I'm still not...

Vikings' Mike Zimmer: Teddy Bridgewater 'needs to play better'

Vikings coach Mike Zimmer put it in simple terms Monday: "He needs to play better."

Zimmer said he'll speak with Bridgewater this week and added that he doesn't feel the need to treat his signal caller differently from any other player. Zimmer joked he's "pretty equal opportunity" in terms of player criticism.

"You can be pretty direct with (Bridgewater)," Zimmer said. "He understands when he screws up, too.

TSonn, this quote pertains to the discussion we had yesterday:

Bridgewater missed on a few deep passes, as well -- most notably a throw down the sideline to running back Jerick McKinnon in the first quarter when McKinnon had a couple of steps on his defender.

Zimmer said Bridgewater hit that throw every time in practice during the week before missing it in the game, a seemingly recurring theme for Minnesota's second-year quarterback.