Going on record, Teddy starts next week

@"BlackMagic7" said: Im all for Keenum to keep rolling myself. The turnovers didnt exactly bother me as Keenem continually connected through out the game. 

I think the defense should be getting a lot more eyebrows than those 2 turnovers. Thsts a seperate discussion...

The first INT put them back at their own 25 yard line. Ive seen worse punts. The 2ns INT... Keenum has to put more heat on it or stay maybe stay away from those man coverage sideline passes in the future. Not sure if it really was a bad read or if he tried more of a touch pass thinking it was an easy completion.

This team is competitive as hell. I think Spielman deserves some credit for signing a backup QB who everyone had some confidence in for once. Cassel had a road block, Hill was replaced by Bradford. I know its not really easy to keep trading for QBs, but kudos to the front office for seriously being prepared for once. We were more than prepared for Bradford's injury and Teddy's recovery. We didnt need to panic, and we've continued to grind.

.... long usual ramble. Happy to have kicked the shit outta a team on the road, off the bye. With Teddy, I'm excited to see his path to getting out there. I'll probably get goosebumps when he runs out there for the first time. I was wondering if the could do some kind of 2-5 snap rotation, where Keenum plays a large majority of the snaps yet Teddy gets a few reps in. Handoffs, passes... just a way to get him out there, get everyone comfortable, but keep moving forward without a potential overhaul to gameplanning/playcalling. ...Shurmur is calling some brilliant stuff with Keenum under center right now. We have some serious momentium; the playoffs are well in reach - Keenum is on a Pro Bowl path... crazy.

I am all for keeping Case starting even after the Rams game where e might lose.  Case might have a horrible game and I'd keep him in there for the following week to see how he responds.  That will tell you what he is as a QB.  Is this a mental "wave" of success where a misstep, or a failure will derail him?  If we lose @home against the Rams, but win the following week, Case should be starting all year barring numerous and multiple errors in two or more games.  However, he is playing extremely consistent with one or two minor errors in a single game, or two games.

I told myself I wasn't going to post for the sake of the success of our team, so forgive me if I just jinxed us.  Ever since I went away we have been doing everything a lot better.  If we lose against the Rams, I'll go away again.  

@"greediron" said:

@"Norse" said:

@"greediron" said: looks like 4 passes after the 2 INTs, for a total of 17 yards.  So the entire 4th quarter, with us needing a score after they had pulled within 8.  Granted we wanted to pound the ball, run the clock, but we needed a score.  We settled for a 53 yard FG from Forbath.  Anyone think that was a gimme?  I was nervous as could be.

So...the #Vikings threw it twice on 3rd down, up 8, game on the line 4th quarter, on the road yesterday. Keenum completed both, Vikes got a FG to put game out of reach. I love Teddy, but come on, Keenum made 2 big time throws after those picks to seal it.twitter.com/greggrosenthal…

2 big time throws?  4 passes for 17 yards.  The longest one was a swing pass to Rudolph who ran for most of the yards.  We needed a score and end up kicking a 53 yard FG.  With Forbath who isn't the strongest leg in the NFL.

Offense went into a shell.

@"golfervike" said:

WE SCORED 38 POINTS ON THE ROAD.

my goodness. offense was not to blame at all... offense went into a shell, sorry they didnt put up fifty for you, although i doubt that would have been enough to quench your thirst for teddy. 

Or just go for insults and ALL CAP straw men.

It wasn't about the points, it was about the play calling after the 2 INTs.  They didn't trust Case to throw much after that. 

@"greediron" said:

@"golfervike" said:

WE SCORED 38 POINTS ON THE ROAD.

my goodness. offense was not to blame at all... offense went into a shell, sorry they didnt put up fifty for you, although i doubt that would have been enough to quench your thirst for teddy. 

Well we were having a reasonable discussion.  Try to join it.

Or just go for insults and ALL CAP straw men.

It wasn't about the points, it was about the play calling after the 2 INTs.  They didn't trust Case to throw much after that. 

@"golfervike" said:

@"greediron" said:

@"golfervike" said:

WE SCORED 38 POINTS ON THE ROAD.

my goodness. offense was not to blame at all... offense went into a shell, sorry they didnt put up fifty for you, although i doubt that would have been enough to quench your thirst for teddy. 

Well we were having a reasonable discussion.  Try to join it.

Or just go for insults and ALL CAP straw men.

It wasn't about the points, it was about the play calling after the 2 INTs.  They didn't trust Case to throw much after that. 

ha, straw man? im just trying to emphasize my point. and where was the insult? 

right, 38 points on the road in a tough place historically for us, those doesn't mean squat, lets focus on the 2nd half of the 4th quarter as they try to salt away a win. 

I'm all for a reasonable discussion, but i just can't find any reasonable reason in wanting to play Teddy right now, other than playing for next year, when we're in the here and now with a 7-2 and a QB who is playing really really well (for the most part). especially when Teddy was an average to below average QB when he was healthy, and not rusty, it feels like we'd be throwing away the season.

@"greediron" said:

@"golfervike" said:

@"greediron" said:

@"golfervike" said:

WE SCORED 38 POINTS ON THE ROAD.

my goodness. offense was not to blame at all... offense went into a shell, sorry they didnt put up fifty for you, although i doubt that would have been enough to quench your thirst for teddy. 

Well we were having a reasonable discussion.  Try to join it.

Or just go for insults and ALL CAP straw men.

It wasn't about the points, it was about the play calling after the 2 INTs.  They didn't trust Case to throw much after that. 

ha, straw man? im just trying to emphasize my point. and where was the insult? 

right, 38 points on the road in a tough place historically for us, those doesn't mean squat, lets focus on the 2nd half of the 4th quarter as they try to salt away a win. 

I'm all for a reasonable discussion, but i just can't find any reasonable reason in wanting to play Teddy right now, other than playing for next year, when we're in the here and now with a 7-2 and a QB who is playing really really well (for the most part). especially when Teddy was an average to below average QB when he was healthy, and not rusty, it feels like we'd be throwing away the season.

quench my thirst for Teddy? 

The problem started at the end of the 3rd quarter with his INT.  Then at the start of the 4th another.  Lets just ignore the dropped INT by Norman earlier.  And after that 2nd INT, the play calling seriously changed.  As I said, 4 passes for 17 yards in the fourth quarter.  And it wasn't just killing the clock with a multiple score lead.  We were only up by 8 and needed a score.  Yet instead of going for a 1st down, we settled for a 53 yard FG.  By Forbath.

Yes our offense lit it up for 2 and 1/2 quarters.  Case put up record numbers.  Then he shit the bed, almost gave away the game. 

The reason for wanting to play Teddy is in the hope we can make a serious run in the playoffs.  I think Case has reached his expiration date.  We need better play at QB to beat playoff teams.

@"golfervike" said:

@"greediron" said:

quench my thirst for Teddy? 

The problem started at the end of the 3rd quarter with his INT.  Then at the start of the 4th another.  Lets just ignore the dropped INT by Norman earlier.  And after that 2nd INT, the play calling seriously changed.  As I said, 4 passes for 17 yards in the fourth quarter.  And it wasn't just killing the clock with a multiple score lead.  We were only up by 8 and needed a score.  Yet instead of going for a 1st down, we settled for a 53 yard FG.  By Forbath.

Yes our offense lit it up for 2 and 1/2 quarters.  Case put up record numbers.  Then he shit the bed, almost gave away the game. 

The reason for wanting to play Teddy is in the hope we can make a serious run in the playoffs.  I think Case has reached his expiration date.  We need better play at QB to beat playoff teams.

well you're entitled to your opinion, but we have ZERO clue what Teddy will be, and i look at the totality of the game, if you think Teddy's the guy to play 4 perfect quarters and have zero blemishes, (based on your thought that he was a problem in this game despite scoring 38 points). then so be it, but he's a way bigger unknown then you're admitting, practice doesnt tell you the whole story... Sam looked AMAZING in practice the week before the bears game according to all accounts... 

@"silverjoel" said:

@"Mike Olson" said: Consider this. You pull Keenum for Teddy this week. Ok that's pretty insulting to the guy that got you to 6-2 (one win was Bradford's but really the Pittsburgh loss is tough to pin on the backup with little prep time) SO there's that. 

Now if Teddy starts and he is NOT ready, then you are going back to the guy that you yanked on a short week? I don't think so. I think they will gameplan the offense for both defenses with some augmentation built in if needed. They won't be able to install a full game plan for Detroit anyway. Not sure how similar the two defenses are but I don't expect that they are going to be willing to test the waters with Teddy until after the the Detroit game. 

If they go with Teddy and he isn't ready..... They may have tanked their own season in doing so. 

Edit: Fixed my brain fart on thinking we lost to Chicago)

Why be negative about it?  I could easily say, by all reports, Bridgewater is out performing Keenum at practice.  What kind of message does that send the rest of the team, play hard practice hard and you still sit on the bench.

 This is nothing but positive.  The Vikings are 7-2 and primed to make the playoffs.  The possible franchise QB is ready to take over and somehow this is a negative.  It's not.  Let the past go, trust the coach that has brought a consistently good team back to Minnesota.

@"Mike Olson" said:

@"silverjoel" said:

@"Mike Olson" said: Consider this. You pull Keenum for Teddy this week. Ok that's pretty insulting to the guy that got you to 6-2 (one win was Bradford's but really the Pittsburgh loss is tough to pin on the backup with little prep time) SO there's that. 

Now if Teddy starts and he is NOT ready, then you are going back to the guy that you yanked on a short week? I don't think so. I think they will gameplan the offense for both defenses with some augmentation built in if needed. They won't be able to install a full game plan for Detroit anyway. Not sure how similar the two defenses are but I don't expect that they are going to be willing to test the waters with Teddy until after the the Detroit game. 

If they go with Teddy and he isn't ready..... They may have tanked their own season in doing so. 

Edit: Fixed my brain fart on thinking we lost to Chicago)

Why be negative about it?  I could easily say, by all reports, Bridgewater is out performing Keenum at practice.  What kind of message does that send the rest of the team, play hard practice hard and you still sit on the bench.

 This is nothing but positive.  The Vikings are 7-2 and primed to make the playoffs.  The possible franchise QB is ready to take over and somehow this is a negative.  It's not.  Let the past go, trust the coach that has brought a consistently good team back to Minnesota.

Negative about what? There is no positive to put in a guy that hasn't played in a season and a half at this point in the season. Far better to wait until Case shows that he is falling apart and then putting Teddy in. BTW, a former player and radio contributor that was on the sideline with us agreed with my take. And how could Teddy be put performing him in practice when Teddy isn't getting the reps to do that? You say what message does it send to the team to practice hard and then you sit on the bench... But what info do you have that Case isn't practicing hard? Indeed what kind of message does it send to the team when you have been working hard, have your team in position to take the division and probably going back to the playoffs and then having to go sit on the bench? 

Look, this would not even be a consideration if the coaching staff didn't know that Teddy was the better QB. They don't want to put him in because he has a nice smile or that he's a really nice guy who goes to kids' birthday parties. This is a debate right now between a QB who's on a roll and a better QB. And that's a legit debate. It's not an easy decision. 

I think it's one that will EVENTUALLY be decided on the side of the better QB, but WHEN? Aye, there's the rub... 

HH he isn't getting the majority of reps. That in itself should tell you where they are at. Now perhaps that changes this week and Bridgewater gets the lions share of the reps. But that isn't reality right now.  Declaring Bridgewater as the starter IMO presents a high risk towards a negative result, whereas bringing him off the bench presents a smoother road for both the player and the coach. First the player gets to play without the pressure of starting. Second the coach doesn't have to appear to be fixing something that isn't broken. If the coach makes that decision and the player comes in and plays great then it's all gravy, if not fans will wonder why they switched horses in mid-stream. Conversely if the coach waits until mid game after Keenum falters, then if Teddy does well... again gravy, if the player falters well they had to see if he could outperform where case was at AND they have cover to start him the next week. THis is where a former player agreed with me as we were discussing this issue before the game on sunday. I don't know if his opinion carries more weight or not. 

Now you were the one in your opening OP that said that this would generate interesting conversation and here you are deriding my part in the conversation as negative (which is absolutely preposterous). On Teddy, I simply never have thought the guy was anything special at QB. I don't think he sucks or think he is bad in any way. I just haven't seen anything for me to think he is an above average QB. That's not negative. Honestly I put in so much time money and energy into this team... well I'd have to be one hell of a sado masochist to do that in a quest for negativity. 

@"Mike Olson" said: HH he isn't getting the majority of reps. That in itself should tell you where they are at. Now perhaps that changes this week and Bridgewater gets the lions share of the reps. But that isn't reality right now.  Declaring Bridgewater as the starter IMO presents a high risk towards a negative result, whereas bringing him off the bench presents a smoother road for both the player and the coach. First the player gets to play without the pressure of starting. Second the coach doesn't have to appear to be fixing something that isn't broken. If the coach makes that decision and the player comes in and plays great then it's all gravy, if not fans will wonder why they switched horses in mid-stream. Conversely if the coach waits until mid game after Keenum falters, then if Teddy does well... again gravy, if the player falters well they had to see if he could outperform where case was at AND they have cover to start him the next week. THis is where a former player agreed with me as we were discussing this issue before the game on sunday. I don't know if his opinion carries more weight or not. 

Now you were the one in your opening OP that said that this would generate interesting conversation and here you are deriding my part in the conversation as negative (which is absolutely preposterous). On Teddy, I simply never have thought the guy was anything special at QB. I don't think he sucks or think he is bad in any way. I just haven't seen anything for me to think he is an above average QB. That's not negative. Honestly I put in so much time money and energy into this team... well I'd have to be one hell of a sado masochist to do that in a quest for negativity. 

I don't agree with the don't fix what's not broke stance.  Put the best team on the field, that's it.  If switching to the QB that Zimmer feels gives the team the best shot and the Vikings fail, they were probably going to do that anyway (unless Bridgewater it's stinking up the place, but then they can go back to Keenum as that has already happened this year).

 You have a bias against Bridgewater, that's fine.  You're not a BikingVob about it.  Just try to judge Keenum and Bridgewater without it.  In another thread, you brought up Bridgewater's slow starts, but Keenum has done the same in this current offense.  They're pretty similar in style and any knock on one will probably apply to the other because of that.  You don't think Bridgewater brings an upside, I disagree, no big deal.  We don't have a say in it anyway.

@"MaroonBells" said: Look, this would not even be a consideration if the coaching staff didn't know that Teddy was the better QB. They don't want to put him in because he has a nice smile or that he's a really nice guy who goes to kids' birthday parties. This is a debate right now between a QB who's on a roll and a better QB. And that's a legit debate. It's not an easy decision. 

I think it's one that will EVENTUALLY be decided on the side of the better QB, but WHEN? Aye, there's the rub... 

@"greediron" said:

@"MaroonBells" said: Look, this would not even be a consideration if the coaching staff didn't know that Teddy was the better QB. They don't want to put him in because he has a nice smile or that he's a really nice guy who goes to kids' birthday parties. This is a debate right now between a QB who's on a roll and a better QB. And that's a legit debate. It's not an easy decision. 

I think it's one that will EVENTUALLY be decided on the side of the better QB, but WHEN? Aye, there's the rub... 

That pretty much sums it up.

@"Mike Olson" said: HH he isn't getting the majority of reps. That in itself should tell you where they are at. Now perhaps that changes this week and Bridgewater gets the lions share of the reps. But that isn't reality right now.  Declaring Bridgewater as the starter IMO presents a high risk towards a negative result, whereas bringing him off the bench presents a smoother road for both the player and the coach. First the player gets to play without the pressure of starting. Second the coach doesn't have to appear to be fixing something that isn't broken. If the coach makes that decision and the player comes in and plays great then it's all gravy, if not fans will wonder why they switched horses in mid-stream. Conversely if the coach waits until mid game after Keenum falters, then if Teddy does well... again gravy, if the player falters well they had to see if he could outperform where case was at AND they have cover to start him the next week. THis is where a former player agreed with me as we were discussing this issue before the game on sunday. I don't know if his opinion carries more weight or not. 

Now you were the one in your opening OP that said that this would generate interesting conversation and here you are deriding my part in the conversation as negative (which is absolutely preposterous). On Teddy, I simply never have thought the guy was anything special at QB. I don't think he sucks or think he is bad in any way. I just haven't seen anything for me to think he is an above average QB. That's not negative. Honestly I put in so much time money and energy into this team... well I'd have to be one hell of a sado masochist to do that in a quest for negativity. 

I seem to remember Case getting 2/3s, Bridgewater getting
1/3 reps with the starters.  Enough for
Bridgewater to have a chance to get familiar with the playbook and receivers,
and show what he’s got to the coaches. 
If Bridgewater wasn’t neck and neck with Keenum or ahead of him, I think
Zimmer would have shut the door on this debate for the time being and said “Keenum’s
playing better right now,  we’ll be
sticking with him for the foreseeable future, and Bridgewater is working his
ass off and improving every day.”

With regards to risks to the team and our season, I think it’s
pretty balanced between sticking with Case and moving to Bridgewater.  With Case the risk is that he returns to his
normal, which you worry is not good enough to compete consistently with the big
dogs.  With Bridgewater, you are risking
that he has regressed past who he used to be due to injury and time off.  This team is stacked and it is making life
easy for our QBs.  If Bridgewater came in
and played 2014 or 2015 level of quality, that’s about equivalent to what Case
brings to the table and it’s not a risk.

With regards to risks to Zimmer, he's primarily judged on
what works, but I agree that the risk to his image is less if he continues with
Case until he has a bad game, but imagine the legacy he could cement by putting
Bridgewater in when Keenum is hot, and the team dominates the 2nd
half of the season going into the playoffs. 
That would take a hefty pair of balls.

Obviously, I don’t think you can switch now, because he
played a very solid game and you should reward that.  I also don’t think you can waffle back and
forth.  I think once you make the switch
you need to commit to it.  I think you
need to commit to one of the QBs by week 13 (4 games left).  I think this lends to just leaving Keenum in
there until he has a meh game.

@"silverjoel" said:

@"Mike Olson" said: HH he isn't getting the majority of reps. That in itself should tell you where they are at. Now perhaps that changes this week and Bridgewater gets the lions share of the reps. But that isn't reality right now.  Declaring Bridgewater as the starter IMO presents a high risk towards a negative result, whereas bringing him off the bench presents a smoother road for both the player and the coach. First the player gets to play without the pressure of starting. Second the coach doesn't have to appear to be fixing something that isn't broken. If the coach makes that decision and the player comes in and plays great then it's all gravy, if not fans will wonder why they switched horses in mid-stream. Conversely if the coach waits until mid game after Keenum falters, then if Teddy does well... again gravy, if the player falters well they had to see if he could outperform where case was at AND they have cover to start him the next week. THis is where a former player agreed with me as we were discussing this issue before the game on sunday. I don't know if his opinion carries more weight or not. 

Now you were the one in your opening OP that said that this would generate interesting conversation and here you are deriding my part in the conversation as negative (which is absolutely preposterous). On Teddy, I simply never have thought the guy was anything special at QB. I don't think he sucks or think he is bad in any way. I just haven't seen anything for me to think he is an above average QB. That's not negative. Honestly I put in so much time money and energy into this team... well I'd have to be one hell of a sado masochist to do that in a quest for negativity. 

 He isn't getting the majority of reps, that's true.  Putting Bridgewater in a game that Keenum is failing isn't better, IMHO, it's worse.  Not only are you taking away any shot of Keenum playing better and pulling out a win, but you're also putting Bridgewater in with Keenum's game plan.  The starting QB should finish the game.  

I don't agree with the don't fix what's not broke stance.  Put the best team on the field, that's it.  If switching to the QB that Zimmer feels gives the team the best shot and the Vikings fail, they were probably going to do that anyway (unless Bridgewater it's stinking up the place, but then they can go back to Keenum as that has already happened this year).

 You have a bias against Bridgewater, that's fine.  You're not a BikingVob about it.  Just try to judge Keenum and Bridgewater without it.  In another thread, you brought up Bridgewater's slow starts, but Keenum has done the same in this current offense.  They're pretty similar in style and any knock on one will probably apply to the other because of that.  You don't think Bridgewater brings an upside, I disagree, no big deal.  We don't have a say in it anyway.

@"Norse" said:

@"greediron" said:

@"MaroonBells" said: Look, this would not even be a consideration if the coaching staff didn't know that Teddy was the better QB. They don't want to put him in because he has a nice smile or that he's a really nice guy who goes to kids' birthday parties. This is a debate right now between a QB who's on a roll and a better QB. And that's a legit debate. It's not an easy decision. 

I think it's one that will EVENTUALLY be decided on the side of the better QB, but WHEN? Aye, there's the rub... 

That pretty much sums it up.

Only currently Keenum is the better QB.

@"Mike Olson" said:

@"silverjoel" said:

@"Mike Olson" said: HH he isn't getting the majority of reps. That in itself should tell you where they are at. Now perhaps that changes this week and Bridgewater gets the lions share of the reps. But that isn't reality right now.  Declaring Bridgewater as the starter IMO presents a high risk towards a negative result, whereas bringing him off the bench presents a smoother road for both the player and the coach. First the player gets to play without the pressure of starting. Second the coach doesn't have to appear to be fixing something that isn't broken. If the coach makes that decision and the player comes in and plays great then it's all gravy, if not fans will wonder why they switched horses in mid-stream. Conversely if the coach waits until mid game after Keenum falters, then if Teddy does well... again gravy, if the player falters well they had to see if he could outperform where case was at AND they have cover to start him the next week. THis is where a former player agreed with me as we were discussing this issue before the game on sunday. I don't know if his opinion carries more weight or not. 

Now you were the one in your opening OP that said that this would generate interesting conversation and here you are deriding my part in the conversation as negative (which is absolutely preposterous). On Teddy, I simply never have thought the guy was anything special at QB. I don't think he sucks or think he is bad in any way. I just haven't seen anything for me to think he is an above average QB. That's not negative. Honestly I put in so much time money and energy into this team... well I'd have to be one hell of a sado masochist to do that in a quest for negativity. 

 He isn't getting the majority of reps, that's true.  Putting Bridgewater in a game that Keenum is failing isn't better, IMHO, it's worse.  Not only are you taking away any shot of Keenum playing better and pulling out a win, but you're also putting Bridgewater in with Keenum's game plan.  The starting QB should finish the game.  

I don't agree with the don't fix what's not broke stance.  Put the best team on the field, that's it.  If switching to the QB that Zimmer feels gives the team the best shot and the Vikings fail, they were probably going to do that anyway (unless Bridgewater it's stinking up the place, but then they can go back to Keenum as that has already happened this year).

 You have a bias against Bridgewater, that's fine.  You're not a BikingVob about it.  Just try to judge Keenum and Bridgewater without it.  In another thread, you brought up Bridgewater's slow starts, but Keenum has done the same in this current offense.  They're pretty similar in style and any knock on one will probably apply to the other because of that.  You don't think Bridgewater brings an upside, I disagree, no big deal.  We don't have a say in it anyway.

In case's starts he has produced totals of :
Tampa Bay 34Detroit 7Packers 23Ravens 24Browns 33Redskins 38

Not a whole lot of room for slow starts other than the Detroit game. 

@"greediron" said:

@"Norse" said:

@"greediron" said:

@"MaroonBells" said: Look, this would not even be a consideration if the coaching staff didn't know that Teddy was the better QB. They don't want to put him in because he has a nice smile or that he's a really nice guy who goes to kids' birthday parties. This is a debate right now between a QB who's on a roll and a better QB. And that's a legit debate. It's not an easy decision. 

I think it's one that will EVENTUALLY be decided on the side of the better QB, but WHEN? Aye, there's the rub... 

That pretty much sums it up.

Only currently Keenum is the better QB.

Sez who?  If that was true, I highly doubt Zimmer would be entertaining the idea of a switch.  There is only one reason to make a switch at this point in the season.  Well 2, but 1 would be the QB is sucking and season is lost.  The only reason that fits for us is that one QB is significantly better and gives the team a better chance at making a run.

@"silverjoel" said:  Yes, I understand Keenum didn't really pay the first half against Chi.