Vikings Message Board.Com

dead_poet wrote: Probably won't see Teddy in '17 to help toll his contract forward to '18. Though Rick said Teddy was doing some passing drills as part of the rehab. It'll be really interesting to see if he's on the PUP the entire year, and even more interesting to see what happens in 2018 between Sam and Teddy.

If Sam and the team have a good year
I think they will keep Teddy on the pup all season.

halfgiz wrote:If Sam and the team have a good year
I think they will keep Teddy on the pup all season.

If I'm reading things correctly, he only has to be on the PUP for the first 6 weeks for his contact to toll, allowing the "5th" Year Option to carry over. I'd be lying if I didn't love the idea of Teddy being active following the week 9 bye, if he's ready.

dead_poet wrote: If I'm reading things correctly, he only has to be on the PUP for the first 6 weeks for his contact to toll, allowing the "5th" Year Option to carry over.

If that's true, it's very strange.

Where did you see/hear that info?

Vikes remain interested in Michael Floyd

http://vikingsterritory.com/2017/rumors ... hael-floyd

Mothman wrote: If that's true, it's very strange.

Where did you see/hear that info?

Ian Rapoport

https://twitter.com/JReidDraftScout/sta ... 1059406850

dead_poet wrote:Ian Rapoport

https://twitter.com/JReidDraftScout/sta ... 1059406850

Thanks.

That's not much to go on. I cant even see the question Rapoport is answering! Is that just my Twitter inexperience showing or was he asked the question privately and then the answer was posted? All the reporting I've seen on this says Bridgewater would have to be on the PUP list all season for the contract to toll. It seems odd that he could actually come off the list and conceivably play half a season but still have the contract toll as if that half season didn't count toward fulfillment of his deal. That may very well be how it works. It just seems strange.

Mothman wrote: Thanks.

That's not much to go on. I cant even see the question Rapoport is answering! Is that just my Twitter inexperience showing or was he asked the question privately and then the answer was posted? All the reporting I've seen on this says Bridgewater would have to be on the PUP list all season for the contract to toll. It seems odd that he could actually come off the list and conceivably play half a season but still have the contract toll as if that half season didn't count toward fulfillment of his deal. That may very well be how it works. It just seems strange.

Try this: https://twitter.com/NicholasJOlson/stat ... 8293014529

dead_poet wrote: Try this: https://twitter.com/NicholasJOlson/stat ... 8293014529

Thanks. The additional context is very helpful.

If those two things actually work together as described, that's sort of an odd loophole (if that's the right word for it) that's rough on a player in Bridgewater's circumstances. Even if the contract tolls at the post-week 6 mark, I would think the tolling would remain conditional on the player being unavailable for the remainder of the season. If he returned to active duty 2 weeks later it seems like the final year should still count. Maybe it doesn't work that way. Weird!

808vikingsfan wrote:2017 schedule so far

Two Monday Nights and two Thursday nights so far. Bye week in week 9. Maybe they can go 8-0 before the bye this year.

Doubtful, when they will only reach 8-8 when all is said and done.

Per Vensel, Rick said the Vikes not picking up Teddy's option doesn't mean he's not in their long-term plans. Declined to discuss what needs to happen in order for Teddy's contract to toll.

Also per Vensel, Rick said Zim had two more eye procedures in the last two weeks. Now 8 total. Yikes.

dead_poet wrote:Per Vensel, Rick said the Vikes not picking up Teddy's option doesn't mean he's not in their long-term plans.

I have mixed feelings about that, depending on what he means. If it's simply meant to be encouraging, a way of saying they aren't writing off the chance he'll play football again, that's great. If he's actually a part of their long term plans right now in a way any more substantial than "if he recovers, we'll give him a chance to carve out a role with the team again", I find that discouraging. I say that because in a practical sense, they should be planning as if he will never be a viable starter for them again. As I've said before, I don't say that to be heartless. I just think they need to be fully prepared for that outcome. Their long-term plans at QB should in no way hinge on his return to the starting job.

Also per Vensel, Rick said Zim had two more eye procedures in the last two weeks. Now 8 total. Yikes.

Yikes indeed. I hope he comes out of all this with a good vision again.

Due to the nature of TB's injury I would feel any plans on him returning to start would be akin to planning on Loadholt and Sullivan to anchor the line after their injuries.
I hope the talk is just that and they they have learned from the recent past. The Bradford signing says, to me, that is the case.
And then Teddy could beat the odds...

Nunin wrote:Due to the nature of TB's injury I would feel any plans on him returning to start would be akin to planning on Loadholt and Sullivan to anchor the line after their injuries.

Yes, that's a much more succinct way of making the point i was attempting to make above.

Zim said he's more optimistic about Teddy playing again than he originally was, though admits he still has a ways to go (in his recovery/rehab).

Looks like CJ Hamm could be our new fullback.

http://www.dailynorseman.com/2017/5/8/1 ... ck-c-j-ham