Vikings Message Board.Com

The Winners and Losers of Mini-Camp Season.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap200000 ... amp-season

Winners

Teddy Bridgewater: No quarterback prospect took more slings and arrows during the buildup to the draft. No rookie quarterback quietly impressed more during offseason practices. While it's always smart to be wary of minicamp hype, the Vikings are very pleased with what they've seen out of Bridgewater thus far. He appears ahead of other rookies mentally, and offensive coordinator Norv Turner has raved about his deep ball. Bridgewater landed in an ideal situation for his development. It wouldn't be a shock if Bridgewater was the only rookie quarterback starting in Week 1.

The Winners and Losers of Mini-Camp Season.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap200000 ... amp-season

NFL fans: Steelers coach Mike Tomlin described offseason practices perfectly on Thursday.

Quote 1: "This is not football. It's football-like."

Quote 2: "You can convince yourself of anything this time of year. I'm not interested in telling the story to myself."

The next month is the only true month off of the year for NFL teams. When they return, the stories matter. It will be football again, not football-like.

This.

This is most of teddy's highlights from camp so far, figured everyone might want to take a look. please post anything you guys notice teddy is doing well or anything you notice he needs to work on.

Can Handoff (check) ... lol

Loki wrote:This is most of teddy's highlights from camp so far, figured everyone might want to take a look. please post anything you guys notice teddy is doing well or anything you notice he needs to work on.

Looking very good and thanks Teddy for not wearing your gloves on your Pro Day or you would have never made it to the Vikes

Man Thaien(sp) Number 19 ,has really made a case for a roster spot ..

Teddy Bridgewater - QB - Vikings

Coach Mike Zimmer reiterated that he's not afraid to start first-round QB Teddy Bridgewater in Week 1.

Matt Cassel took the majority of first-team reps at minicamp and will enter camp as the solid favorite to start on Opening Day. But there's going to be a real competition. "The one thing we never want to do is hold back progress here," Zimmer said. "We want to keep progressing, whether it’s playing younger guys or getting better out on the field." Zimmer was in Cincy when they started Andy Dalton as a second-round rookie.
Source: ESPN.com
http://espn.go.com/blog/minnesota-vikin ... y-young-qb

From the little I have gathered from news, and reports I wouldn't be shocked in Teddy is Starting Week 1. Sink or Swim, he will either overcome or get left behind. The biggest thing I notice about Franchise QB's is that they really don't get rattled but poor play, they shrug it off and keep going. If Teddy has confidence issues, riding the pine wont change it. He needs to just get out there and play.

Dirtyswabby wrote:From the little I have gathered from news, and reports I wouldn't be shocked in Teddy is Starting Week 1. Sink or Swim, he will either overcome or get left behind. The biggest thing I notice about Franchise QB's is that they really don't get rattled but poor play, they shrug it off and keep going. If Teddy has confidence issues, riding the pine wont change it. He needs to just get out there and play.

I would take him over Cassel starting any day

man does he look good in those highlights. he barely flicks his arm and throws darts. his head and eyes are constantly scanning the field he certainly passes the eye test so far. lets hope this translates over to the real games i have a feeling it will. but, if he does start week one i would expect many ups and downs because how many rookie qb's have really stepped in and tore up the league? i don't think big ben or russel wilson are fair comparisons, those two teams had the top ranked defenses in the league and really didn't have to do much at all just not lose games.

Watched his interview at the Rookie symposium and he said all the right things and did not get baited
into making comments on the starter role from "solomon willcotts" i think was asking the questions

Very mature for his age ... Impressive for a twitter era athlete

Vikings should use care with Bridgewater

So how does this all play out? The 2012 Seattle Seahawks might provide a good blueprint. They signed Matt Flynn to a three-year deal worth just $9 million guaranteed, giving themselves a quarterback they could play if Russell Wilson wasn't ready to start. When Wilson ultimately won the competition, the Seahawks were free to trade Flynn a year later. Only time will tell if Bridgewater turns out to be as good as Wilson has been -- he's looked sharp to this point, albeit only against defenses prohibited from hitting him -- but if he can take advantage of the situation, the Vikings have the mechanisms in place to make it work like the Seahawks did.

For Bridgewater to get on the field in September, he should have to prove he's unequivocally the best man for the job. Otherwise, with the Vikings facing a nasty early schedule, a tie should go to the veteran. It's a good, sensible construct for the rookie coach and quarterback, and with so many recent cautionary tales about the costs of quarterback foul-ups, the Vikings would be wise to take advantage of it.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/ ... ridgewater

dead_poet wrote:Vikings should use care with Bridgewater
http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/ ... ridgewater

Thanks for the link. I agree with Goessling's conclusion that Bridgewater should have to prove he's the best man for the job and that Zimmer shouldn't feel he has to rush the rookie into the lineup but overall, Goessling continued to promote some ideas in that article that I can't buy into, or at least that I think paint a view of events that's too QB-centric.

I'm still baffled as to why Matt Cassel, who didn't solve much last year, is now somehow the "perfect custodian" for Bridgewater or how his presence, along with Ponder's, leads to the conclusion that "Zimmer won't make a rash decision with Bridgewater, not when the Vikings are set up so well to avoid one". Are they really set up so well?

With two of the same 3 QBs on the roster this year, how are things any more stable unless one of them steps up and performs much more consistently or unless it's Bridgewater who ultimately stabilizes the position? I don't see how the conclusion logically follows from the premise here. Sure, Cassel could play well enough for Zimmer to just take his sweet time before playing Bridgewater but article after article this offseason implies that's something the Vikes can count on, that it's a given, and I don't see why. Cassel hasn't been a good, consistent, reliable QB for years.

The idea that "Quarterback instability ultimately doomed Frazier", as Goessling stated, seems like a gross oversimplification, though typical of this QB-centric era. Too many losses cost Frazier his job (I know, that's simple too) and there were a number of reasons for those losses. QB instability was one of them but that instability was a direct result of the inability of any of the QBs to establish themselves as a reliable, consistent starter. If Zimmer can't get a QB to do that, he's going to face the exact same instability issues at the position Frazier and Childress faced.

In the end, poor defense had as much to do with Frazier losing his job as QB performance, perhaps even more. As far as Zimmer and the QB situation: I think he knows Bridgewater needs to be his QB solution so he'll do what he can to make sure it works out that way.

Mothman wrote:I'm still baffled as to why Matt Cassel, who didn't solve much last year, is now somehow the "perfect custodian" for Bridgewater or how his presence, along with Ponder's, leads to the conclusion that "Zimmer won't make a rash decision with Bridgewater, not when the Vikings are set up so well to avoid one". Are they really set up so well?

No, they aren't. I think the answer rests with the fact at how poorly Ponder played over the course of his career (actual poor play as well as perceived poor play) and how much better Cassel has been in some eyes (with the gift of time and not actually going back to revisit Cassel's actual games in a Vikings uniform). Really it's the lesser of two evils and not much separates Cassel from Ponder, though as I just mentioned, some see him as considerably better due to the fact he's simply not Ponder. I think that idea gains steam the further away from 2013 we get.

With two of the same 3 QBs on the roster this year, how are things any more stable unless one of them steps up and performs much more consistently or unless it's Bridgewater who ultimately stabilizes the position? I don't see how the conclusion logically follows from the premise here. Sure, Cassel could play well enough for Zimmer to just take his sweet time before playing Bridgewater but article after article this offseason implies that's something the Vikes can count on, that it's a given, and I don't see why. Cassel hasn't been a good, consistent, reliable QB for years.

I think they're perceived being more stable because the de facto "starter", again, isn't Ponder and people believe (hard) that Bridgewater has a lot of promise. I think if you look at it as Cassel (poised to start in 2014) > Ponder (not starting) and Bridgewater > Freeman...it's a net positive. Perhaps the bar was just set so low in 2013 that any moves that doesn't involve Ponder starting can be considered more stable.

dead_poet wrote:No, they aren't. I think the answer rests with the fact at how poorly Ponder played over the course of his career (actual poor play as well as perceived poor play) and how much better Cassel has been in some eyes (with the gift of time and not actually going back to revisit Cassel's actual games in a Vikings uniform). Really it's the lesser of two evils and not much separates Cassel from Ponder, though as I just mentioned, some see him as considerably better due to the fact he's simply not Ponder. I think that idea gains steam the further away from 2013 we get.

Well said. I suspect you've hit the nail on the head with that explanation.

I think they're perceived being more stable because the de facto "starter", again, isn't Ponder and people believe (hard) that Bridgewater has a lot of promise. I think if you look at it as Cassel (poised to start in 2014) > Ponder (not starting) and Bridgewater > Freeman...it's a net positive. Perhaps the bar was just set so low in 2013 that any moves that doesn't involve Ponder starting can be considered more stable.

LOL! You may be right and I do think the overall QB situation appears improved because Freeman was a train wreck and Bridgewater, even as a rookie, should be better than that. I'm just not buying into the idea that Zimmer couldn't find himself in a situation similar to what Frazier found himself in before the first half of the 2011 season was over. I think Cassel will be better than McNabb was but it's pretty easy to imagine a scenario in which pressure is already mounting to play Bridgewater before midseason.

Of course, that doesn't exclude the possibility that Cassel could have a year like he had in NE or in 2010 with the Chiefs and that Bridgewater could spend the season on the bench.

Jim