Vikings Message Board.Com

Mothman wrote:A good, rational article (as opposed to Souhan's pandering) about Wallace and his comments:

http://espn.go.com/blog/minnesota-vikin ... -minnesota

Yes, a much better and more logical article. It looks at both Wallace and Bridgewater, not to mention the Vikings offensive system.

Souhan threw a hissy fit in his article. It should have been retitled: "In Ripping Wallace, Souhan Ignores Everyone Else's Flaws."

losperros wrote:Yes, a much better and more logical article. It looks at both Wallace and Bridgewater, not to mention the Vikings offensive system.

Souhan threw a hissy fit in his article. It should have been retitled: "In Ripping Wallace, Souhan Ignores Everyone Else's Flaws."

Mothman wrote:Rule #1 of Vikings Club: don't say or imply anything negative about Teddy Bear.

Teflon Teddy Bear!

Seriously, why is it that Bridgewater states he needs to improve his accuracy downfield but others say he has no accuracy issues? But that's Teddy for you. The guy works his tail end off and recognizes where he needs to improve, even if others hide their heads in the sand regarding his shortcomings. That's one of the reasons why I want Bridgewater to succeed.

Mothman wrote: I'm not going to be too hard on Wallace for these comments. He didn't say anything particularly bad. He was heavily criticized for his lack of production in Minnesota so I imagine his pride is wounded. However, he was also the proverbial "good soldier" and good teammate while with the Vikings. He worked hard, didn't complain and his efforts prompted Zimmer to say "“I would like him back, I love the kid, I love his heart" after the season. He's also not wrong. He does need a good, proven quarterback that throws a good deep ball. Bridgewater is neither proven nor a good deep passer (as you said).

Wallace didn't name Bridgewater in his comments so while he was probably making a little jab at TB, he was also telling the truth about what kind of QB he needs to play with to thrive.

I agree with you, Jim. I simply question the wisdom of it, as well as the timing.

Wallace has a well-earned reputation as a me-first guy who has under-produced post-Roethlisberger, and this doesn't help his image. He said the same basic thing when he left Miami, but they managed to produce an 1,100+ yard receiver last year and two others who averaged better than 16 YPC ... same quarterback. What's he going to say if he fails in B-more? Flacco's got a weak arm?

So yeah, Wallace is probably right. TB (and Norv, and the bad O-line) weren't the best for his style of play. It just seems to me like he needs to quit making excuses and produce. And his introductory news conference doesn't seem like the best place to trash your former QB, even if every word is true. Maybe be a little gracious to the organization who sought after you, traded for you, and paid you $11 million for 39 catches.

losperros wrote:Teflon Teddy Bear!

That's right.

Seriously, why is it that Bridgewater states he needs to improve his accuracy downfield but others say he has no accuracy issues? But that's Teddy for you. The guy works his tail end off and recognizes where he needs to improve, even if others hide their heads in the sand regarding his shortcomings. That's one of the reasons why I want Bridgewater to succeed.

What a tremendously classless, ball dropping piece of dung this fundament wart is.

Mothman wrote: That's right.

I'm not on Twitter, but I haven't noticed anybody on this board taking such a silly attitude or position about Teddy.

It's hard to see it as anything other than a shot ... even if it were unintentional somehow.

"I just wanted to be with a good quarterback. I feel like we go hand in hand. The things he does well, I think I do well. I feel like this was the best fit for me."

I'm a database administrator. If a member of my team went to another company and said "I just wanted to work with a good DBA" I'd take that as a personal jab.

In the article that Jim posted it reads;

That the Vikings didn't turn out to be the right fit for Wallace likely has to do with more than just the quarterback, which is why Wallace's comments shouldn't be seen as a dig at Bridgewater alone.

Except Wallace didn't say it wasn't a right fit "for a number of reasons". He said he needs a good QB. The implication is that his production was down because he didn't have one. Of course we know it wasn't just QB play that factored in. However, how does one make the leap from what Wallace actually said to him meaning something else? How do you translate "I just wanted to be with a good quarterback" to "I think this is a much better situation for me for a lot of reasons".

Anyway, this isn't a "defend Teddy" type of thing to me. Had he said "I just wanted work with a good group of receivers" or "I just wanted to work with a good <whatever>" ... it all comes off classless. It might have been a slip of the tongue but that doesn't change how it looks.

To me it comes off as a person throwing someone under the bus and who doesn't want to take responsibility for their share of the problem.

"I've been taking a lot of heat," Wallace responded when asked if last year's issues were a fluke. "We'll see about that. I promise, I'll get the last laugh."

fiestavike wrote:I'm not on Twitter, but I haven't noticed anybody on this board taking such a silly attitude or position about Teddy.

There's been so much of it that i don't even know how to respond to that other than by saying "There's been so much of it that i don't even know how to respond to that".

Same old crap, different thread. Doesnt it get old? Wallace was another overpaid, FA, has been receiver. Putting all the blame on anyone other then himself. It gets so tiring. Its going to be interesting to see if its worth Flacco's time to try and hit the long ball to Walllace. Wallace was such a wonderful player in Miami. I think a "It's Teddys Fault' Tee shirt might sell well here.

losperros wrote: Teflon Teddy Bear!

Seriously, why is it that Bridgewater states he needs to improve his accuracy downfield but others say he has no accuracy issues? But that's Teddy for you. The guy works his tail end off and recognizes where he needs to improve, even if others hide their heads in the sand regarding his shortcomings. That's one of the reasons why I want Bridgewater to succeed.

Who said he has no accuracy problems? Most die hard fans, even myself, know the 2 year, young QB, needs work, imo, mainly with timing.

After reading through the 2 articles on espn it made me think of the discussion that's been made about why the Viks chose TB over Carr when it seems that Carr fits Turners offense better than TB. Same could be said about keeping Jennings vs trading for Wallace. Doesn't Jennings game seem to fit the scheme and QB WAY more than Wallace? What do you guys think? Time for Norv to retire? These scenarios just doesn't make sense.

PurpleKoolaid wrote:Same old crap, different thread. Doesnt it get old? Wallace was another overpaid, FA, has been receiver. Putting all the blame on anyone other then himself. It gets so tiring. Its going to be interesting to see if its worth Flacco's time to try and hit the long ball to Walllace. Wallace was such a wonderful player in Miami. I think a "It's Teddys Fault' Tee shirt might sell well here.

See rule #1 of Vikings Club above.

autobon7 wrote:After reading through the 2 articles on espn it made me think of the discussion that's been made about why the Viks chose TB over Carr when it seems that Carr fits Turners offense better than TB. Same could be said about keeping Jennings vs trading for Wallace. Doesn't Jennings game seem to fit the scheme and QB WAY more than Wallace? What do you guys think? Time for Norv to retire? These scenarios just doesn't make sense.

You're talking about exactly the kind of thing that leads me to doubt about Spielman's team-building acumen. Ultimately, he's the guy who's supposed to make sensible choices about this stuff.

Mothman wrote: There's been so much of it that i don't even know how to respond to that other than by saying "There's been so much of it that i don't even know how to respond to that".

Its like I'm in the twilight zone. I haven't read any comments which don't recognize the need for improvement. If being optimistic about what we've seen so far indicates that those of us who like Bridgewater's game think he's flawless or have our head in the sand then I guess I'd be guilty, but since nobody is saying that, its just a lie.

autobon7 wrote:After reading through the 2 articles on espn it made me think of the discussion that's been made about why the Viks chose TB over Carr when it seems that Carr fits Turners offense better than TB. Same could be said about keeping Jennings vs trading for Wallace. Doesn't Jennings game seem to fit the scheme and QB WAY more than Wallace? What do you guys think? Time for Norv to retire? These scenarios just doesn't make sense.

Jennings fits Teddy's strengths but didn't fit Norv's scheme. Wallace fits Norv's scheme but his 1 strength didn't match up well with Teddy -AND- the O-line's weakness.

fiestavike wrote: Its like I'm in the twilight zone. I haven't read any comments which don't recognize the need for improvement. If being optimistic about what we've seen so far indicates that those of us who like Bridgewater's game think he's flawless or have our head in the sand then I guess I'd be guilty, but since nobody is saying that, its just a lie.

Yeah I dunno, weird how that stuff happens now and then.