Vikings Message Board.Com

Purple bruise wrote:I like the way you think, sir.

But how can you be so certain TB handles pressure well, when he has never taken a regular season snap against the a #1 NFL D? As Anthony Barr said today, the NFL is way faster than college. And that's coming from a big fast freak. I just think "better safe than sorry" is the approach to take with our franchise QB-to-be.

I guess the same way that the Colts let Luck, the 49ers with Kapernick, and the Hawks with Wilson. TB has shown a lot in college and has done extremely well in the pre-season. What is there to lose, let him play and if he screws up you take him out and let Cassel play IMO[/quote]


Yeahbutt we are on a 5 game winning streak with Matt Cassel as starter. What we could lose are games, and we could lose Teddy's future success if we put him in too soon. We don't want that. I will trust our new coaches until they prove themselves untrustable, which hopefully won't be for a long time.

Purple bruise wrote:
I guess the same way that the Colts let Luck, the 49ers with Kapernick, and the Hawks with Wilson. TB has shown a lot in college and has done extremely well in the pre-season. What is there to lose, let him play and if he screws up you take him out and let Cassel play IMO

Kaepernick? He started his career as Smith's backup. He took over midseason due to injury. Nothing special about that aside from him keeping the job, which was a bit controversial from what I remember. Regardless, that situation was reactive, not proactive.

And possibly benching Bridgewater for Cassel seems foolish. Seems backwards. It's much smarter to do it how it's being done.

I wanna wait for Teddy. That just means things are going well.

And so TB started out as Cassel's back-up so what?

You conveniently left out Wilson and Luck

Purple bruise wrote:You conveniently left out Wilson and Luck

Because those examples actually fit your argument...somewhat.

Did the Colts have a reliable veteran to start instead? Regardless, Luck is so rare. He was good to go. Teddy is no Andrew Luck. Why people compare Vikings qbs to elite or soon-to-be elite qbs all the time is beyond me. And the Wilson example is a lot different, as well. And it's been discussed a lot lately.

Don't you mock other posters who pretend to know more than our coaches? Why aren't you trusting the coaches on this? It makes sense to most of us.

I'm already tired of the Teddy debate, but like Funk said, the longer it stick means the longer our offense has been performing to at least an acceptable level. It's also nice having the conversation go back to which guy is better instead of which pile of dookie has the worst stench whilst steam rises into the cold Minnesota air.

Funkytown wrote: Because those examples actually fit your argument...somewhat.

Did the Colts have a reliable veteran to start instead? Regardless, Luck is so rare. He was good to go. Teddy is no Andrew Luck. Why people compare Vikings qbs to elite or soon-to-be elite qbs all the time is beyond me.

It's easy to do when they haven't taken a snap yet. I'd like to delay any move that might make that third guy float up off the bottom of the heap, and if we pull Cassel (for winning? ) that could possibly happen.

So for now it's go Matty!

DKSweets wrote:I'm already tired of the Teddy debate, but like Funk said, the longer it stick means the longer our offense has been performing to at least an acceptable level. It's also nice having the conversation go back to which guy is better instead of which pile of dookie has the worst stench whilst steam rises into the cold Minnesota air.

Except I am wanting more than an offense that plays at an acceptable level. If you or anyone else imagine that a journeyman QB will lead this team anywhere near a championship then IMO you are sadly mistaken. If TB is the future of this team then why shouldn't he be playing right now? Cassel had a very average game and was more than fortunate to not have thrown two crucial interceptions. The defense and a spectacular run by CP was the difference in this game.
The Ram's third string QB looked as good or better to me than Cassel. Anyway, Cassel threw some very safe passes and I am delighted that the Vikes won. I am, however, beyond anxious to see what TB can do and the sooner the better.

Purple bruise wrote:If TB is the future of this team then why shouldn't he be playing right now?

Pretty sure you just answered your own question. If he is the future, shouldn't he play, in, ya know, the future?

Are you really that shocked that Cassel is starting? That was the plan all along.

Cassel had a very average game and was more than fortunate to not have thrown two crucial interceptions.

Oh yeah, those "almost interceptions" again. So...?

The defense and a spectacular run by CP was the difference in this game.

A win is a win. Who cares how it was won? Who said it had to be pretty? Many wins are far from it. We are 1-0, regardless if it was due to strong qb play or the defense and CP...a win is a win. Are people seriously upset that we didn't win "the way that they preferred"?

Come on, did anyone honestly expect a big day for Cassel? If so, it's time to get real...and learn about the Rams D. Cassel and the Vikings played good, smart, and safe football. Why try to get fancy with it? We were in control, and admittedly played conservatively at times, but we did what we had to do to win. ...what's the problem with a 34-6 road win? ...what'd I miss?

The Ram's third string QB looked as good or better to me than Cassel. Anyway, Cassel threw some very safe passes and I am delighted that the Vikes won. I am, however, beyond anxious to see what TB can do and the sooner the better.

Well, shucks! Why is he throwing those safe passes?! Probably to avoid those "almost interceptions"!

Honestly I don't get how the Bridgewater situation is much different than the Russell Wilson situation. Both had a solid veteran that is nothing special in from of them. From what I remember Wilson didn't really separate himself from Flynn but they decided to go with him anyways.

Boon wrote: The thread is about quarterbacks, the discussion is about quarterbacks. The people discussing stuff are arguing whether or not to start bridgewater. Cassel didn't do too well sunday, regardless if we won or not. Football is a team sport, we know. That's not the point, the point is the quarterback play.

Shucks it is kinda confusing

Boon wrote: The thread is about quarterbacks, the discussion is about quarterbacks. The people discussing stuff are arguing whether or not to start bridgewater. Cassel didn't do too well sunday, regardless if we won or not. Football is a team sport, we know. That's not the point, the point is the quarterback play.

ST. LOUIS -- Coming into Sunday's game with the St. Louis Rams, Minnesota Vikings offensive coordinator Norv Turner said the presence of the Rams' disruptive pass rush wouldn't necessarily limit the Vikings' offense to a diet of short passes. In the end, the Vikings didn't try to push the ball downfield much in a 34-6 win over the Rams, and a steady reliance on the run game, coupled with the fact they were tied or ahead the entire game, meant they didn't have to take many chances.

But quarterback Matt Cassel mostly stayed upright and the Vikings threw effectively enough to win.

Cassel was sacked just once in the victory, and hit 17 of his 25 throws for 170 yards and two scores. According to ESPN Stats & Information, he tried just three throws longer than 10 yards, hitting an 18-yarder over the middle to Greg Jennings. On throws shorter than 10 yards, though, Cassel was on point, hitting 16 of his 22 attempts for 152 yards and both scores. Only one of his six incompletions was off-target, and his completion percentage of 72.7 on such throws was up more than 5 percentage points from last year.

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

So, a few deep throws would have satisfied people more? Cassel did a fine job. Regardless, he certainly didn't do badly enough to be benched for Bridgewater.

I mean, I get it, Vikings fans always want the next guy, but that doesn't mean it's smart. This Bridgewater talk seems kinda pointless as of right now.

I guess, it's unfortunate that the Vikings were playing with the lead for so long. Not enough deep passes and pretty stuff. Didn't take enough chances. Darn it.

If it is "so pointless" why do you keep arguing about it

Purple bruise wrote:If it is "so pointless" why do you keep arguing about it

Erm, to express my thoughts that discussing benching Cassel for Bridgewater at this point is a bit foolish.

Cassel is the starter for a reason. Trust the coaches. Practice what you preach. That's all I'm sayin'...

Funkytown wrote: Erm, to express my thoughts that discussing benching Cassel for Bridgewater at this point is a bit foolish.

Cassel is the starter for a reason. Trust the coaches. Practice what you preach. That's all I'm sayin'...

"practice what I preach" huh? Again and as usual, I never asked nor do I need your advice.

Purple bruise wrote:
Again and as usual, I never asked nor do I need your advice.

Poor guy. Do you feel picked on by me? I just call it like I see it. What'd you always say to Eli? "Foe me then! Foe me then!"

I didn't realize it was illegal to respond to your posts. Is it? I guess you'll have to foe me so you don't have to read my meanie-mean posts to you. I don't understand why you are so sensitive when it comes to me...but okay. Sorry. It's in your hands. You're the one always crying about my responses to you.

And I won't apologize for sticking up for Cassel.