All Things Teddy-Freaking-Bridgewater

Prescott was better than Wentz than last year and for all the help Prescott had, Wentz had an elite defense and a great OL and did diddly squat once teams took away the easy throws. Dude had like 14 fumbles he was bad last year.

I said my list were guys on Bradford's tier or higher so guys like Tanehill, Dalton, Cousins etc are right on par with him. Winston and Mariota are both ahead for me because they can raise the level of the players around them and are young. I just can't downgrade a player in a team sport for his team being bad. Also those teams would definitely be much worse with Bradford at the helm. And Cam Newton is just far and away better than Bradford and frankly it isn't even close and it never will be, like ever. Dude has been good for 6 years(which is longer than Bradford can say) and won an MVP so I'd say he's "adapted" enough for long term NFL success. In fact he's already a long term NFL success.

That's the price range I had for Bradford anyways. I think the Vikings need to hope Bridgewater heals 100% cause if not like you said we're drafting another QB.

Play out the year and see how Bridgewater heals then go from there. But don't just start handing boatloads of money to Bradford just because he's competent.

Teddy doing Teddy things:

streamable.com/y51mw

I'd rather pay Bradford that money than Mike Glennon or Brock Osweiler, which would have been us had the trade not happened

Without Bradford you are rolling with Taylor Heinke for 2017, AND drafting or signing someone to back up or start over him. The minimum mark for a starter is Glennon or Osweiler this offseason, and a draft pick has less chance of being successful starting than Bradford.

Plus that meant your guy for 2016 was Hill and... someone off the scrapheap, atleast for the first half of the season, since Heinke was out. They had basically no real choice to be competitive for atleast 2 seasons outside of Bradford. There weren't really any other starting caliber QB's available at that point, and those who were would probably have been as or more expensive.

Who would you have signed this offseason in that scenario, for how much? Unfortunately teams over pay for guys like that because they have to, not because they want to. 

Barring injury, which one of those guys will be taking the snap in game one? Hoyer? Maybe? How do you think San Francisco fares in 2017? You throw out six backup quality quarterbacks as examples that a team doesn't have to overpay. And while that may still hold true...neither Sam Bradford nor Teddy Bridgewater will be starting for the Vikings in 2018 for $9 million.
If Sam Bradford is signed to an extension (which I think is a no-brainer), you're probably talking 4 years at $65-70 million. If you pick up the option on Bridgewater, he gets nearly $12-which is the basement for his next deal if he's your starter.
So, arguing over which craptatastic QB you'd rather pay $5 million to, is kind of ridiculous when you can be arguing over which slightly above average QB you want to give $15-18. Neither option precludes drafting a QB this year, but with one, you're praying your fifth-round pick is a diamond in the rough. With the other, you're pleasantly surprised when/if he becomes a solid backup whom some team pays $8 million when he becomes a free agent...