Jim's postgame thoughts

[losperros]

An NFL team almost always needs a playmaker at QB to win a championship. It's nearly impossible to reach and win a Super Bowl despite the performance of the QB but I think a well-balanced team with a good (not great) QB can still win it all.

With a lights out RB like Adrian Peterson, the Vikings probably fit that mold. A good but not necessarily great QB and OL combined with Peterson's super human skills, especially with other talented backup RBs on the roster like Gerhardt and even Harvin to spell him when needed, would be a formidable offense. Of course, for proper balance a good defense and special teams are needed as well. I honestly don't think any of that is impossible for this team to achieve. I guess the question is how long will it take for them to get there?

[akvikingsfan]

Are we seriously comparing Ponder to Drew Brees?

Drew Brees didn't have the greatest first two years. His numbers were pretty close to what Ponder has. Also not sure if you saw the game tonight but Brees is human. He threw 5 pics.

[PurpleMustReign]

Are we seriously comparing Ponder to Drew Brees?

No, we are comparing their stats... there's a difference.

Settle down people. No one is saying he WILL be the next HOF QB. but it is almost as stupid to say he won't. Although I have my doubts about him, I'm not going to totally dismiss the notion that he could be a decent NFL QB.

[chicagopurple]

The biggest weakness on this team is the Coach. Frasier has NO experience. He shows NO creativity. There is no such thing as game time adjustments.....Musgrave is an ASSISTANT...so in the end Frasier is responsible for Musgraves performance/plan. AP is a wrecking machine and Frasier is finding every possible way to under-utilize him....yeah, Ponder had some dropped passes but overall the majority of his passes were dink and dunks. These second team receivers are not monsterous YAK machines so I am not convinced that we would have rocked the Bears if not for the drops. We havent had a first rate coach since Bid Grant for Crissakes....I am sick of ownership letting our team be a testing ground for unproven, underqualified coaches.

[mondry]

Brees threw 2 pick sixes last week and had 5 ints last night so I guess he's too old now and should retire because there isn't any other explanation for a QB to struggle. He's also a midget so that's probably it.

[mansquatch]

The Bears traded to acquire Cutler. He wasn't a free agent. Nevertheless, I see your point.

Interesting post... I definitely think they've pushed the rules too far in favor of the passing game but I think we're going to start seeing teams without elite QBs and 5000 yard passing games win more Super Bowls over the next decade.

With rare exceptions, Super Bowl winners have always had good QBs. There's more of an imbalance lately but maybe that's a consequence of several factors coming together for those teams rather than an indication that a team needs a top 5 quarterback to win it all. Looking back over the last decade or so, I see several teams that won the Super Bowl without elite QBs or with QBs who would eventually become elite but hadn't reached that level yet when they won their first Super Bowl. Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer are often cited as examples of non-elite QBs who won it all in this century but it would be a real stretch to say Tom Brady or Ben Roethlisberger were elite QBs when they won their first Super Bowls. The Steelers and Pats didn't exactly ride the arms of their QBs to Super Bowl victories in 2001 and 2005. It's been a little different lately but I see no reason why it can't swing back around. An NFL team almost always needs a playmaker at QB to win a championship. It's nearly impossible to reach and win a Super Bowl despite the performance of the QB but I think a well-balanced team with a good (not great) QB can still win it all.

If a team ever actually tanks a season to acquire a blue chip QB I hope that choice blows up in their face!

My point on the tanking a season thing was more that the NFL currently has an implicit incentive for an organization and a management structure to do something like this, give then emphasis and importance of QB play and it's correlation to winning. To be honest, I'm surprised it hasn't already happened, or maybe it has and whomever did it succeeded in a cover up. I bring this up because I think it points to a flaw in the rules of the game. (same could be said about the all the concussion garbage going around. They are going to end up taking the hitting out of football.)

I think a RB like AP has the potential to challenge the conventional wisdom of when you HAVE to pass. I get why this notion exists, but it would seem to me that it would still be in your offense's favor to make the defense respect your RB and design plays that punish them if they do not respect him, even if you are down by 3 scores, especialyl with a guy like AP pounding the rock. Also, in the case of the Vikings, they are paying him to be this guy.

IMO, since the VIkings have had AP, the offensive coordinators/coaches have mis-used him. When Favre was here they went pass happy. You can tell that Musgrave wants to throw with frequency. For whatever reason, the coaching philosophy we've seen in MN has not wanted to be that innovating running team.

All conjecture, but interesting.

[Mothman]

My point on the tanking a season thing was more that the NFL currently has an implicit incentive for an organization and a management structure to do something like this, give then emphasis and importance of QB play and it's correlation to winning. To be honest, I'm surprised it hasn't already happened, or maybe it has and whomever did it succeeded in a cover up. I bring this up because I think it points to a flaw in the rules of the game. (same could be said about the all the concussion garbage going around. They are going to end up taking the hitting out of football.)

I understood what you were getting at and I agree: whether a team actually tanks a season to get a particular QB or not, the incentive to do so is there and that's a problem.

In Musgrave's defense, I think he was reluctant to over-use Peterson earlier in the season because Peterson was coming off such a severe injury. That said, I think he slips into a mentality where he wants to capitalize on the attention Peterson is getting from defenses and use that attention to make plays in the passing game. At times it even works (look at the success Rudolph had on a few third and short or goal line plays against Chicago) but all too often, it just reinforces the shortcomings of the Vikings passing game. I think taking advantage of defenses for focusing on Peterson is a good idea but Musgrave isn't acknowledging the limitations of his personnel to a sufficient degree. It's another case where he out-thinks himself.

[soflavike]

No, we are comparing their stats... there's a difference.

Settle down people. No one is saying he WILL be the next HOF QB. but it is almost as stupid to say he won't. Although I have my doubts about him, I'm not going to totally dismiss the notion that he could be a decent NFL QB.

I would argue that it's not "almost as stupid"... so far, there is little evidence to suggest Ponder will be a good QB and 22 games worth of mediocrity to show otherwise. He has a weak arm, no guts and poor field-vision. You can't really coach two of those and the third one is very tough to fix.

As for comparisons to Brees.... Brees may have had a couple of rough first seasons, but his fundamentals and accomplishments were far stronger coming out of college. He left Purdue with Big Ten Conference records in passing yards (11,792), touchdown passes (90, with 45 INT's), completions (1,026), and attempts (1,678). When he struggled in his first two years, he still showed some flashes of that big arm and play-making ability that he now tortures defenses with.

By contrast, at Florida State, Ponder managed half the yards (6,872), 596 completions in 965 attempts,49 TD's with 30 INT's. He was nowhere as productive as Brees in college and they both played 3 seasons. Ask any FSU fan if they think Ponder was a good 1st round pick... they all laugh. Those who watched him play every weekend in college say he was a "good" college QB, but not 1st round NFL material. He was a major reach.

To be fair, Ponder was not drafted for being a pure, natural passer with a big arm... it was hoped that he would be a smart QB with mobility, with his 35 Wonderlic, good speed and all that jazz.

But, he's not proven to be particularly smart on his feet and it seems to me that the Vikes are wasting their time and money on a kid who will be nothing more than a career backup in this league. I just don't see the upside of Christian Ponder as the Vikes' starter, but I hope I'm completely wrong because it looks like they will give him plenty of opportunity to sort things out.

[Demi]

There is no such thing as game time adjustments.....Musgrave is an ASSISTANT...so in the end Frasier is responsible for Musgraves performance/plan. AP is a wrecking machine and Frasier is finding every possible way to under-utilize him.

Musgrave is responsible for the offensive play calling. The game planning. I'm not putting Musgrave's incompetence on Frasier. Hiring him obviously, the guy had no business being an offensive coordinator, but for how he runs the offense? That's on Musgrave.

[Raptorman]

Musgrave is responsible for the offensive play calling. The game planning. I'm not putting Musgrave's incompetence on Frasier. Hiring him obviously, the guy had no business being an offensive coordinator, but for how he runs the offense? That's on Musgrave.

Peterson 20+ carries 4-0
Peterson less than 20 carries. 2-5

[PurpleMustReign]

Wow, Jim, your postgame thoughts are good conversation starters!!

[Mothman]

Wow, Jim, your postgame thoughts are good conversation starters!!

Even when I don't start the thread...

[mondry]

Even when I don't start the thread...

You're a VMB celebrity now!

[losperros]

You're a VMB celebrity now!

Ahem...what does that say about the board?

[Mothman]

Ahem...what does that say about the board?

Nothing good!