dead_poet wrote:I just disagree with the assumption Teddy wasn't very good after two seasons.
Well, it's an observation, not an assumption. I reached that conclusion based on careful observation of his game, both on coaches film and in person. I'm certainly no expert but it's not just an opinion I arrived at casually.
Given the league-worst pass-blocking in the infancy of his career I was impressed with the progression. I can't help but think that if you watched Bradford in his first two years (or, heck, maybe a handful of QBs) that you'd have the same thought and discounted them as well!
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.
2nd-year Bradford was NOT the Bradford we saw in 2016. I don't see how Teddy's career arc/improvement couldn't have taken a similar path. This obsession with instant success from the hardest position on the field is mind-blowing. I can't believe you think another rookie/2nd year guy would've performed significantly better in the same situation.
I don't have an "obsession with instant success" but I found his overall performance underwhelming and I absolutely think there are other rookies/second year players who could have performed better in the same situation. 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? Bridgewater delivered some pretty crummy performances in his 2 seasons, some of them in big games. 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.
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 guess you just get two years now to prove your worth, circumstances be damned.
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.