Young Theodore Bridgewater

[Pondering Her Percy]

Sure it is... you're just locked into the same "one is enough" strategy that has helped kill the Vikes at the QB position for far too long. They put all their eggs in the TJ basket with no Plan B and what did it get them? They did the same thing with Ponder? Heck, they were basically doing it with Culpepper too. I understand that it would be an unconventional move to draft a QB in R1 this year but there are genuine potential benefits to such a move. Again, I'm not recommending it as their primary strategy but I think all options should be on the table. This team has been trying to find it's next franchise QB since Fran Tarkenton retired in the 1970s. I think a little unconventional thinking might be in order because that's a problem that needs to be solved. I don't care if everyone wants to believe they've already solved it by drafting Teddy or that his progress over the last two weeks somehow indicates he's the answer. He still has a lot to prove so if the Vikes are sitting there on draft day and they feel a potentially great QB is on the board, I say take him. Let him learn behind Teddy.

Steve Young spent 4 years behind Joe Montana in SF. Was that dumb on SF's part? They ended up following a Hall of Fame QB with another Hall of Fame QB and just kept right on winning. Green Bay has probably managed the same trick, although Rodgers hasn't cemented a spot in the Hall just yet. Meanwhile, the Vikes just keep stepping in the same hole.

Solve the problem. All options on the table.

Oh my goodness.....plan B can be assessed MANY different ways. It has nothing to do with me believing the "one is enough" strategy. We have Cassel which is a pretty decent backup right now. Nobody has an "elite" passer behind their starter right now. You don't draft within the first couple rounds "in case of injury". The "in case of injury" guys come in the later rounds and FA. You draft your prime time starters that fill holes in round 1.

Steve Young doesn't fit this argument at all. He was taken in the supplemental draft back when the USFL was around. Tampa Bay then signed him and he was horrible for 2 seasons in Tampa so Tampa GAVE UP ON HIM and traded him to SF for 2nd and 4th. Another reason this doesn't fit this argument at all is because SF had an AGING QB, like I mentioned in my previous comments, so that's a big reason they acquired him. Which I understand. It's not like SF drafted him in the 1st or traded the farm for him while Montana was 24 years old. So no, this situation does not apply to this argument

[Pondering Her Percy]

You guys are missing Jim's point: the Vikings need to draft another quarterback to groom for backup capabilities. Jim isn't advocating drafting a guy high to be brought in as our starter. Jeez Louise. It makes all the sense in the world to invest a 4th round pick or lower in another quarterback. It is the type of forward thinking good NFL teams do and something we should do as well.

I understand that and that's exactly what I said in my posts. You draft depth in rounds ~4-7. I WANT the Vikings to do that. I never once said I didnt. What I'm saying is you don't take a QB in round 1 to find depth or possibly replace Teddy. There is no point at all and thats the point I am making.

[Mothman]

But bottom line is, they invested their first round pick in Bridgewater. He is just getting his feet wet and showing great progress. When you invest in a QB like Bridgewater, you give him time. Not 12 games like he'll get this year. You don't just throw in the towel on him like that.

That's the problem right there: you're viewing the idea of spending another first round pick on a QB as "throwing in the towel" on Teddy Bridgewater, not as improving the overall quality of the team. It doesn't have to mean anything for Bridgewater other than a backup who could eventually be competition.

But not when you have just drafted a good rookie QB. It does nothing for this team but provide "depth".

"Depth" is incredibly important. Depth can be the difference between success and failure.

However, there are much easier/less costly ways to provide depth. A first round pick isn't a depth pick, it's a week 1-mid season starter.

No, it's a potential improvement to the overall quality of the team and ultimately, the goal is to build a team capable of winning championships.

Ok yes I agree they need to add a 3rd QB thats young and has upside but you DONT do that in the first round. You do it in rounds ~4-7.

I disagree. You do it when you think the situation makes sense. There's no rulebook about when or how to do it. You wrote that a "first round pick isn't a depth pick, it's a week 1-mid season starter". Says who? Aaron Rodgers was a first round pick. Was he a week 1-mid season starter? No, he spent 3 seasons on the bench before starting and eventually becoming one of the best players in the game. I understand that the Packers had an aging veteran as their starter but why is that the only situation in which it makes sense to have a great plan B in place? If you can find one in rounds 4-7, great. If one drops into your lap in R1, don't just blow right past the opportunity. Randy Moss and Adrian Peterson are arguably the two best players the Vikings have drafted in the past 17 years and neither addressed a draft day need. The Vikes were just smart enough not to look a gift horse in the mouth and seized the opportunity to draft them. A team should always be open to seizing such opportunities, always looking to improve from top to bottom.

There is nothing wrong with having Cassel as a backup. To be honest, he is probably one of the better backups in the league. Lets remember, backup QBs are backups for a reason.

Yes, and that reason is because someone else is starting. You're implying it's because they aren't good enough to be starters or because they are seriously deficient in some way. Remember, Kurt Warner was a backup. Randall Cunningham was a backup in '98. At one point in their careers, quite a few Super Bowl-winning QBs were backups.

I'm sorry but there isn't a stud backup anywhere in the league. You just need to find a guy that can manage the game if your starter goes down and that fits Cassel.

Sure, why look at history and learn from the successful teams who didn't take that attitude when you can just settle for someone good enough to manage the game? Do you think the Cardinals wish they had a better backup QB right now?

If there is an elite SLB do you draft him to replace Barr?? No. Maybe you would draft him and try to mold him or Barr into a MLB or WLB but you don't replace the promising talent you already have.

If you think he's the best player on your board, you draft him and find a way to get him on the field.

[Mothman]

I understand that and that's exactly what I said in my posts. You draft depth in rounds ~4-7. I WANT the Vikings to do that. I never once said I didnt. What I'm saying is you don't take a QB in round 1 to find depth or possibly replace Teddy. There is no point at all and thats the point I am making.

... and that's where I think you're wrong. There IS a point and after the past decade of Vikings football, that point should be obvious: it's foolish to put all your eggs in one basket. The Vikes did that with Jackson and we just watched them do it with Ponder. They should be looking for a QB who could possibly replace Teddy because they may need a QB who can replace Teddy. Teddy may get hurt. Teddy may prove to be a disappointment. They don't have to spend a first round pick to do that but they should keep all options on the table. If opportunity knocks, be willing to answer.

I'm tired of the team's QB problems and I'm tired of watching them repeat mistakes.

... and as we go over and over the "Teddy was a first round pick" aspect of this let's remember, he was the last pick of the first round, practically a second-rounder, and while the Vikes clearly believe in his ability, they didn't believe in him enough to spend the 9th pick on him and ensure that he became a Viking, even though a QB of the future was arguably their greatest need last Spring. I'm not saying that to knock Bridgewater but let's not act like they invested a top 5 pick in him because they weren't willing to risk letting him get away.

HardcoreVikesFan, I'm not saying they need to invest a first round pick in a QB this year but I'm not completely against it either. I think they should trust their board.

[Purple bruise]

... and that's where you're wrong. There IS a point and after the past decade of Vikings football, that point should be obvious: it's foolish to put all your eggs in one basket. The Vikes did that with Jackson and we just watched them do it with Ponder. They should be looking for a QB who could possibly replace Teddy because they may need a QB who can replace Teddy. Teddy may get hurt. Teddy may prove to be a disappointment. They don't need to spend a first round pick to do that but they should keep all options on the table. If opportunity knocks, be willing to answer.

I'm tired of the team's QB problems and I'm tired of watching them repeat mistakes.

... and as we go over and over the "Teddy was a first round pick" aspect of this let's remember, he was the last pick of the first round, practically a second-rounder, and while the Vikes clearly believe in his ability, they didn't believe in him enough to spend the 9th pick on him and ensure that he became a Viking, even though a QB of the future was arguably their greatest need last Spring. I'm not saying that to knock Bridgewater but let's not act like they invested a top 5 pick in him because they weren't willing to risk letting him get away.

HardcoreVikesFan, I'm not saying they need to invest a first round pick in a QB this year but I'm not completely against it either. I think they should trust their board.

Man this has gotten way out of hand. There are those and I am not one of them, that believe TB is on his way to stardom. I hope that he becomes a very good QB and can lead this team, but a star qb, highly unlikely. The Vikes have been QB "starved" for so long that when a qb ie. TB, makes a nice deep throw to an open Charley Johnson then wow what an amazing play Or when at the end of regulation against a very poor Jets's team, he throws a ball behind the line of scrimmage (most high school QBs could make that same throw) to a receiver who gets outstanding blocks and uses his skills to win the game on an 87 yard game winning td.. That was wonderful that they won in overtime. but really any qb in the NFL could have made that play 9 times out of 10. Had Walsh won the game in regular time TB would have ended up with just over 200 yds. passing. He was careful with his play and did not turn the ball over, that is great. In my estimation he has improved vastly as the season goes along. I hope he continues. My whole premise was/is that when a potential super star type QB comes along, with all of the things that I want in a QB, size, strength, accuracy and mobility comes a long and there is a chance to draft him then I say go for it. Most people don't agree and that is fine, this is my opinion. As far as this unnamed QB being an NFL bust I say BS!
Time will tell.

[Mothman]

Oh my goodness.....plan B can be assessed MANY different ways. It has nothing to do with me believing the "one is enough" strategy. We have Cassel which is a pretty decent backup right now. Nobody has an "elite" passer behind their starter right now. You don't draft within the first couple rounds "in case of injury". The "in case of injury" guys come in the later rounds and FA. You draft your prime time starters that fill holes in round 1.

Again... is that what GB did with Rodgers? He spent 3 years on the bench and the hole he filled during those 3 years was "backup QB".

You keep posting about this as if there's a book on team-building that must be followed. If such a book existed, every team would simply follow it step-by-step to success. There's no one "right" way to build a champion, no book of rules that has to be followed. All I'm saying is that foresight and flexibility can pay off. Unconventional thinking can pay off.

Steve Young doesn't fit this argument at all. He was taken in the supplemental draft back when the USFL was around. Tampa Bay then signed him and he was horrible for 2 seasons in Tampa so Tampa GAVE UP ON HIM and traded him to SF for 2nd and 4th. Another reason this doesn't fit this argument at all is because SF had an AGING QB, like I mentioned in my previous comments, so that's a big reason they acquired him. Which I understand. It's not like SF drafted him in the 1st or traded the farm for him while Montana was 24 years old. So no, this situation does not apply to this argument

It applies because the end result is what matters, the situation SF put themselves in, not the specific circumstances that led to that situation. Who cares if the circumstances correlate? That's inconsequential. SF had an aging QB and they groomed Young to eventually replace him. The point is: they had their talented QB ready to go when he was needed. They prepared. What's the difference between needing a QB to step in for an aging player or needing a QB to step in for an injured or failed player? In the end, a need is a need.

[Demi]

This isn't Tjoke or Bummy McBumBum. Teddy has showed more as of right now then both of them combined did in over six years. Rick blew it not trying to address the position in anyway with both of them. But now isn't the time to throw an early pick at a quarterback. Teddy has done enough that you give him the increased time to continue to improve. Cassell is more than a capable backup. But that doesn't mean you ignore the position entirely. They should still be drafting another QB for third string or practice squad who hopefully will replace Cassell as the backup and stay in that position for the long term. As well as being a trade piece if they show they can hold their own (What Washington should have done, and a few other teams when a backup did halfway decent and it seemed they had some value).

It'd be crazy to spend another pick in the top three rounds on a QB. Just as crazy as thinking they can just ignore the position entirely.

[Mothman]

This isn't Tjoke or Bummy McBumBum. Teddy has showed more as of right now then both of them combined did in over six years. Rick blew it not trying to address the position in anyway with both of them. But now isn't the time to throw an early pick at a quarterback. Teddy has done enough that you give him the increased time to continue to improve.

It's a hypothetical situation anyway but again, using an early pick on a QB doesn't mean that player would automatically have to supplant Bridgewater as the starter.

Cassell is more than a capable backup. But that doesn't mean you ignore the position entirely. They should still be drafting another QB for third string or practice squad who hopefully will replace Cassell as the backup and stay in that position for the long term. As well as being a trade piece if they show they can hold their own (What Washington should have done, and a few other teams when a backup did halfway decent and it seemed they had some value).

It'd be crazy to spend another pick in the top three rounds on a QB. Just as crazy as thinking they can just ignore the position entirely.

Which is why spending another pick on it in any round isn't crazy. Follow the talent and draft accordingly.

[Demi]

Which is why spending another pick on it in any round isn't crazy. Follow the talent and draft accordingly.

QB is the only position, other than offensive line, that doesn't get snaps, regardless of the point of the game. This isn't spelling a HB. Bringing in a 3rd or 4th WR. An extra TE. We can't afford to spend a pick on a position that will literally never see the field. If we're draft in the mid 2nd and Jameis Winston or Mariota is the best player left on our board, there's no way you take them to be a third QB and sit on the bench behind Teddy and Cassell. That'd be madness!

Take a player at pretty much every other position and they're at least spelling the guy in front of them, there's almost no way a QB sees a single snap. My goodness, I don't recall people asking for a top pick QB with Jackson and Ponder. Heck there was talk not being interested in Luck or RGIII because we had Ponder. NOW you "draft accordingly"?

[A.D_blazing]

Any Qbs drafted in the 1st or 2nd round are expected to eventually start for their team. When was the last time an NFL team drafted in the early rounds(1st,2nd) back to back years a QB to hold a clipboard?That's a wasted draft pick!

Teddy Bridgewater is progressing, and playing better than any rookie qb. Drafting a qb in the early rounds would only send a message like "WE DON'T BELIEVE YOU CAN BE THE FRANCHISE QB".


Haters will always hate, and there's plenty on Kansasviking when it's Teddy Bridgewater.

[Mothman]

QB is the only position, other than offensive line, that doesn't get snaps, regardless of the point of the game. This isn't spelling a HB. Bringing in a 3rd or 4th WR. An extra TE. We can't afford to spend a pick on a position that will literally never see the field. If we're draft in the mid 2nd and Jameis Winston or Mariota is the best player left on our board, there's no way you take them to be a third QB and sit on the bench behind Teddy and Cassell. That'd be madness!

Take a player at pretty much every other position and they're at least spelling the guy in front of them, there's almost no way a QB sees a single snap. My goodness, I don't recall people asking for a top pick QB with Jackson and Ponder. Heck there was talk not being interested in Luck or RGIII because we had Ponder. NOW you "draft accordingly"?

What is there to be confused about? I'm simply saying the Vikes should keep an open mind, not suggesting their goal in the draft should be to snag a first round QB. I've felt the same way for years. If they had actually had a chance to draft Luck, I would have applauded them making that choice, even though Ponder was already on the roster. That's exactly the point: if the team believes they have a chance to upgrade, or to add a player to their roster they believe has too much upside to pass up, no non-existent set of rules about "how it's done" should stand in their way. It would have been foolish to pass on a prospect like Luck simply because they had drafted Ponder a year earlier, wouldn't you agree?

Well, I've been speaking about this hypothetically all along so just imagine they had a shot at Luck in this draft. Would the adjectives you and others have been applying to the idea of spending a first round pick on a QB still apply? Would it be "madness" to draft Luck? A "declaration of total incompetence"? Would there be no point because, as Pondering said, "you draft depth in rounds 4-7"?

[Mothman]

Any Qbs drafted in the 1st or 2nd round are expected to eventually start for their team. When was the last time an NFL team drafted in the early rounds(1st,2nd) back to back years a QB to hold a clipboard?That's a wasted draft pick!

Teddy Bridgewater is progressing, and playing better than any rookie qb. Drafting a qb in the early rounds would only send a message like "WE DON'T BELIEVE YOU CAN BE THE FRANCHISE QB".


Haters will always hate, and there's plenty on Kansasviking when it's Teddy Bridgewater.

It has nothing to do with "hate". It's about improving the team.

I'm done. Sometimes trying to convey even the simplest point around here is virtually impossible.

[PacificNorseWest]

This strategy worked for the Packers, but bombed for the Redskins. You just never know. I don't think you pick a quarterback in the first round because you have an opportunity there to improve your team in other areas of need. The Packers were afforded that luxury because Favre -- presumably -- was on his way out in a few years. They knew they needed to groom a replacement. I also think that if a guy like Jameis Winston slips past the first round because of something like these character issues, then it puts the Vikings in a situation where they should seriously think about bettering their team by doubling the odds of finding your franchise guy. If anything, the guy who doesn't win the competition eventually is traded for draft picks. That's perfect world scenario though.

There's ego in play as well. Spielman and/or Norv might have convinced themselves that Teddy is the future and are putting all those eggs in that basket and are not even thinking about wasting a pick for another quarterback. There's a lot of variables in play and some you can't even prepare for right now because there's also a lot of cause and effect that change the situation. I think smart management would be open to both situations that we're going over right now, but also for things in between (free agents or trades, perhaps). I wouldn't be opposed to either, but as the weeks go on and new information is presented or determined, then I might adjust my line of thinking to one way or the other.

Having said that: I love Teddy and have all along back to when he was at Louisville, so I'm hoping very much -- as I'm sure most here are -- that he's the one that finally pans out for the Vikings and we can put this franchise quarterback talk to bed.

[Pondering Her Percy]

Again... is that what GB did with Rodgers? He spent 3 years on the bench and the hole he filled during those 3 years was "backup QB".

You keep posting about this as if there's a book on team-building that must be followed. If such a book existed, every team would simply follow it step-by-step to success. There's no one "right" way to build a champion, no book of rules that has to be followed. All I'm saying is that foresight and flexibility can pay off. Unconventional thinking can pay off.

What GB did is a different situation for the 10th time. Favre was an aging QB that didn't have many years left there, so yes, drafting a QB was smart. We DONT have an aging QB and chances are, Teddy will be here for many more years. Bottom line is, we can't afford taking a QB there which in turn, is why its MUCH smarter to take a QB in later rounds and let them develop. In situations like GBs, its smart. In our situation, its not at all. You don't need to draft a QB early when you already have one that has shown progress and continues to develop. I understand that you're saying "keep the options open" but bottom line is, that shouldn't be an option right now. There are much easier ways to find viable backups. Period

It applies because the end result is what matters, the situation SF put themselves in, not the specific circumstances that led to that situation. Who cares if the circumstances correlate? That's inconsequential. SF had an aging QB and they groomed Young to eventually replace him. The point is: they had their talented QB ready to go when he was needed. They prepared. What's the difference between needing a QB to step in for an aging player or needing a QB to step in for an injured or failed player? In the end, a need is a need.

Exactly....an AGING QB which means this is a different situation. They also didnt draft Steve Young which also means....a different situation. There is a huge difference between a QB stepping in for an aging player compared to an injured player or even "failing" player. First of all, Teddy is not failing right now and is actually showing promise so there is one reason. Second, a QB stepping in for an aging player is usually the guy that has to take the franchise over down the road and become the starting QB. Third, stepping in for an injured player is usually temporary. They step in, Teddy comes back, and they head back to the bench. Having Cassel alone also makes it unrealistic to draft a QB early. It's not like Teddy's backup next year will be Ryan Lindley. Cassel is just fine. Actually better than most backups. So again, there is no point.

[Pondering Her Percy]

QB is the only position, other than offensive line, that doesn't get snaps, regardless of the point of the game. This isn't spelling a HB. Bringing in a 3rd or 4th WR. An extra TE. We can't afford to spend a pick on a position that will literally never see the field. If we're draft in the mid 2nd and Jameis Winston or Mariota is the best player left on our board, there's no way you take them to be a third QB and sit on the bench behind Teddy and Cassell. That'd be madness!

Take a player at pretty much every other position and they're at least spelling the guy in front of them, there's almost no way a QB sees a single snap. My goodness, I don't recall people asking for a top pick QB with Jackson and Ponder. Heck there was talk not being interested in Luck or RGIII because we had Ponder. NOW you "draft accordingly"?

Exactly. That is why I continue to see no point in even bringing this up. It makes zero sense and is about as unrealistic as it gets. I would flip if we passed up on a prime WR, OL, LB, CB, etc. for a guy that will hold a clipboard for us. If that ever happened, I would then completely change my thoughts on Spielman and probably have a strong hate for the guy.