A message board dedicated to the discussion of Minnesota Viking Football.
https://beta1.vikingsmessageboard.com/
Good point. A few productive quick hitters to strong RAC players like Patterson and Wright could help take some heat off Bridgewater.mansquatch wrote:I will say this, I can see Sunday as the type of game where a guy like CP84 running plays similar to Percy Harvin in the 2012 SF game is a needed difference maker on offense against a highly talented defensive pass rush. That D will have to respect AP, and having to worry about CP84 might cause them to hesitate or be less likely to bring blitzes, assuming he can put up some yards on them early.
I'm not sure but I think where they don't necessarily trust him (assuming that's still the case) is on timing routes. There was also an issue last year on a play where he didn't come back to the ball aggressively enough and it got picked off (or almost picked—I forget) but I think it was primarily a concern about him being where he was supposed to be on timing plays. The Vikes never really made it clear.I've wondered if the trust issue is what keeps him off the field, but I can't settle on it because they obviously have no issues with him returning kickoffs. It might be that they don't trust him to figure out the reads, but even then you can still use the guy to run the short/quick hitting stuff where his athletic talent make him dangerous.
Agreed.For some reason, the coaches are not even willing to let him do that. It is a mystery, but the media have all but decided CP84 is a bust, so I doubt we'll get much insight until something changes.
I don't agree with it either but the link is appreciated. The author said Bridgewater's performance wasn't "Ponder-esque" and then he went on to describe exactly the type of performance we saw from Ponder on many occasions.808vikingsfan wrote:Don't agree with the article but wanted to get this thread back on track.
Teddy Bridgewater - How Stats Can Lie to You
Well, not exactly. If we take QBR (and whether or not you believe in QBR is a different story --- I have my reservations about it myself), we see that Ponder, in 38 career games, eclipsed 62 QBR (Teddy's QBR against San Diego) only 9 times. 9 times in 38 games is 24%.Mothman wrote: I don't agree with it either but the link is appreciated. The author said Bridgewater's performance wasn't "Ponder-esque" and then he went on to describe exactly the type of performance we saw from Ponder on many occasions.
Agreed 100%. Great postadmvp wrote: Well, not exactly. If we take QBR (and whether or not you believe in QBR is a different story --- I have my reservations about it myself), we see that Ponder, in 38 career games, eclipsed 62 QBR (Teddy's QBR against San Diego) only 9 times. 9 times in 38 games is 24%.
After the San Diego game, Teddy has now eclipsed that rating 9 times himself. So for Teddy, it is a rate of 9 out of 16, or 56%. Most of us would agree that Teddy did not play well yesterday; I would even call it a bad performance from him. Looking at QBR, this bad performance from Teddy was essentially equivalent to a really good performance from Ponder... the type of performance we saw less than a quarter of the time.
Ponder's best season was 2012, when he eclipsed a 62 QBR 7 times. Teddy did that 7 times last year, which was his rookie year... AND he only played 13 games.
This is turning into a longer post than I intended, so for that I apologize. The point I'm making is this:
None of us should be completely sold on Teddy yet. Anyone who is is fooling himself. But to me, the Ponder comparisons are a bit much. Teddy has at least been competent up to this point. Can he win us a game by LEADING multiple scoring drives, a la Brady, Romo, Rodgers, Manning, etc.? We don't know that yet. Maybe not. I do disagree with the article as far as the "scouting" aspect of things. There were absolutely times yesterday (and against SF) when Teddy looked very uncomfortable back there. I do not see the same "happy feet" we saw from Ponder and I do not see Teddy ditching good pockets... But I also did not see the same calmness I've come to expect from Teddy, nor the quick, sharp decisiveness you look for in a good QB. Still, I can't quite stomach a Ponder comparison..... I do not see it as either fair or accurate.
I didn't compare their careers (or even bring up the comparison between the two). I was simply pointing out that I think it's silly to write an article steadfastly refuting the idea that Bridgewater had a Ponder-esque performance on Sunday when the game he had was a LOT like some of Ponder's performances.admvp wrote:Well, not exactly. If we take QBR (and whether or not you believe in QBR is a different story --- I have my reservations about it myself), we see that Ponder, in 38 career games, eclipsed 62 QBR (Teddy's QBR against San Diego) only 9 times. 9 times in 38 games is 24%.
After the San Diego game, Teddy has now eclipsed that rating 9 times himself. So for Teddy, it is a rate of 9 out of 16, or 56%. Most of us would agree that Teddy did not play well yesterday; I would even call it a bad performance from him. Looking at QBR, this bad performance from Teddy was essentially equivalent to a really good performance from Ponder... the type of performance we saw less than a quarter of the time.
Ponder's best season was 2012, when he eclipsed a 62 QBR 7 times. Teddy did that 7 times last year, which was his rookie year... AND he only played 13 games.
This is turning into a longer post than I intended, so for that I apologize. The point I'm making is this:
None of us should be completely sold on Teddy yet. Anyone who is is fooling himself. But to me, the Ponder comparisons are a bit much.
The same could be said about Ponder at the same point in his career.Teddy has at least been competent up to this point.
I think it's both but only to an extent. I find people get carried away with comparisons and want to deny them if they aren't darn nearly identical but there are some clear parallels between Bridgewater and Ponder. There's no reason to ignore them just because there are differences too.Can he win us a game by LEADING multiple scoring drives, a la Brady, Romo, Rodgers, Manning, etc.? We don't know that yet. Maybe not. I do disagree with the article as far as the "scouting" aspect of things. There were absolutely times yesterday (and against SF) when Teddy looked very uncomfortable back there. I do not see the same "happy feet" we saw from Ponder and I do not see Teddy ditching good pockets... But I also did not see the same calmness I've come to expect from Teddy, nor the quick, sharp decisiveness you look for in a good QB. Still, I can't quite stomach a Ponder comparison..... I do not see it as either fair or accurate.
Hmmm. I've found the opposite to be true. I feel that people often rush to make certain comparisons, overlooking clear differences that suggest otherwise. I'm not saying there aren't similarities nor am I ignoring them, but they are outweighed by the differences, in my opinion.Mothman wrote:I think it's both but only to an extent. I find people get carried away with comparisons and want to deny them if they aren't darn nearly identical but there are some clear parallels between Bridgewater and Ponder. There's no reason to ignore them just because there are differences too.
This is 100% fair.Mothman wrote:I've seen a number of performances from Bridgewater thus far that were very reminiscent of performances from Ponder (good and bad) over the same span of his career. That's not surprising. Similarities are to be expected when it comes to young QBs. People treat Ponder's name like it's a 4 letter word now but at this same point in his career, the Vikes had the same record (2-1), they were coming off an impressive win over the 49ers and Ponder was playing well and showing improvement in most areas of his game. Like Bridgwater he was being more of a game manager than a "carry the load" QB but he was playing well.
This is where I just flat out disagree with you. All due respect of course, but I think we are watching different games, haha. I see the statistical comparisons. You can give me those all day. But there are bajillions and bajillions of QBs who have started their careers the same way. I remember defending Ponder by throwing out the early-career stats of Aikman or Elway or Favre (I forget who exactly I used, haha).Mothman wrote:If you compare them statistically, Ponder actually started his second year better than Bridgewater has started 2015. I think if you watch all 6 games, they look comparable in terms of the good ol' "eye test" as well.
admvp wrote:Hmmm. I've found the opposite to be true. I feel that people often rush to make certain comparisons, overlooking clear differences that suggest otherwise.
I'm not saying there aren't similarities nor am I ignoring them, but they are outweighed by the differences, in my opinion.
Of course he went through progressions but setting that aside, saying they are "comparable" is not saying they are identical. As I said above, pointing to differences doesn't mean parallels don't exist. Bridgewater does handle himself differently in the pocket. I think, overall, he's a calmer QB and I also believe he does a better job of identifying the blitz than Ponder did. There are differences in their games but there are similarities too: a tendency to hang onto the ball too long, a tendency for mechanics to break down, for throws to be rushed under pressure, etc. They share a propensity to check the ball down, sometimes even when there are good opportunities down the field.Overall, I agree.
This is where I just flat out disagree with you. All due respect of course, but I think we are watching different games, haha. I see the statistical comparisons. You can give me those all day. But there are bajillions and bajillions of QBs who have started their careers the same way. I remember defending Ponder by throwing out the early-career stats of Aikman or Elway or Favre (I forget who exactly I used, haha).
But the eye test? I don't see it. Teddy is night and day from Ponder in the pocket. The decisiveness may not be there (hopefully it will come), but he stands in... He doesn't panic. Like Ponder did. He can go through his progressions, given the chance. Ponder NEVER did that.
I think he has more promise too but again, comparing them is not saying they're the same. I certainly hope things work out better with Bridgewater than they did with Ponder but we wont know for a while.I don't know. I'm no NFL scout. I definitely consider myself an avid fan of the NFL, but when it comes to technique, I don't know a whole lot. I certainly wouldn't consider myself ignorant, either. But we'll have to agree to disagree, I suppose, because I'm not buying these comparisons. It is far too soon. To me, Teddy has a lot more promise from a technique/play-style/mental standpoint than Ponder ever did.
They haven't made it crystal clear, but there had been several comments about not being where he needs to be/when he needs to be there. Also Zimmer's remark when asked about the Hill/Patterson miscue that led to an INT. He was asked was the Patterson's mistake to which he said something like, if you were going to bet that would be the safer bet. I read that as, "he screws up a lot, so probably". Obviously we've been over this ground and disagree about how frequently he is making mistakes and about how important those mistakes are to the overall functioning of the offense.Mothman wrote:
I'm not sure but I think where they don't necessarily trust him (assuming that's still the case) is on timing routes. There was also an issue last year on a play where he didn't come back to the ball aggressively enough and it got picked off (or almost picked—I forget) but I think it was primarily a concern about him being where he was supposed to be on timing plays. The Vikes never really made it clear.
So did a lot of people but that's not the only way to interpret it and that interpretation proceeds from pre-existing assumptions. He could have just as easily meant the mistake was more likely to be on Patterson than the 13 year veteran quarterback. In the end, it just turned out to be an audible that wasn't communicated so it doesn't serve as a good example of Patterson not being where he's supposed to be due to a lack of understanding of his assignments. If he'd heard the audible, he might have been exactly where he was supposed to be on that play. We'll never know.fiestavike wrote:They haven't made it crystal clear, but there had been several comments about not being where he needs to be/when he needs to be there. Also Zimmer's remark when asked about the Hill/Patterson miscue that led to an INT. He was asked was the Patterson's mistake to which he said something like, if you were going to bet that would be the safer bet. I read that as, "he screws up a lot, so probably".
Since the mistakes and their frequency have never been made clear, I'm simply not willing to make assumptions about them.Obviously we've been over this ground and disagree about how frequently he is making mistakes and about how important those mistakes are to the overall functioning of the offense.
That may be. I think I tend to give the fact that coaches are keeping him off the field a lot more weight than you do. I read most the positive comments about hard work and improvement as basically lip service (coach speak) and the negative observations I give more credence because they confirm what is to date our single biggest piece of evidence. That almost universally well respected, successful, knowledgeable coaches, who have had extremely successful careers, feel that Adam Thielen was the better option last week.Mothman wrote:
Since the mistakes and their frequency have never been made clear, I'm simply not willing to make assumptions about them.
We don't have enough good info about this, which is why the severity of the criticism often strikes me as overkill.
fiestavike wrote:That may be. I think I tend to give the fact that coaches are keeping him off the field a lot more weight than you do.
That's quite literally confirmation bias at work.I read most the positive comments about hard work and improvement as basically lip service (coach speak) and the negative observations I give more credence because they confirm what is to date our single biggest piece of evidence.
Because he was in for 8 more plays (30 to Patterson's 22)? Again, that's confirmation bias at work. Patterson was targeted on 4 throws, Thielen on 3. Should we conclude from that information that those successful, knowledgeable coaches actually considered Patterson the better option since he had one more pass thrown his way?That almost universally well respected, successful, knowledgeable coaches, who have had extremely successful careers, feel that Adam Thielen was the better option last week.
Mothman wrote:Aargh...
