Breaking down the tape: Vikings @ Rams

[Mothman]

I'm thinking more hypothetical here Moth. Do they need that prolific of a passing offense or would they be better served adding talent on the OL to increase their dominance? Is AP such a special talent that you can break the traditional mold?

I don't think you can break it to that extent. They don't need a prolific, 250-300 yards per game passing attack but they need more balance and more depth. The talent level at WR can't fall off the cliff it fell off this year if Harvin has to miss time again. As SL97 said, they ahev to be able to keep defenses honest.

[mansquatch]

I agree, just hypotheszing on about the most boring work week of the year.

[VikingLord]

All I can say is that when an offense fields a guy like AD there are going to be multiple opportunities down the field for a team capable of taking advantage of those. Just look at the recent game between the 49ers and Pats. 49ers are also a run-oriented team and will pound it with Gore being a constant threat to break off big runs. Based on that, the Pats brought guys up to focus on it. The big difference between the 49ers and a team like the Vikes is the 49ers were able to take advantage of that with some nice throws against single coverage. Now some of that is the result of the 49ers having arguably better receivers, but their QB is a rookie just like Ponder and he's seeing and hitting those routes while Ponder is largely not seeing/hitting them, at least right now.

So much of QB play is confidence and preparation. Ponder has gone through a horrific stretch here and while I've been hard on the guy and would hope Spielman goes out and gets some viable competition at QB this offseason, if he can settle himself down in the pocket and get his feet set Ponder can get the job done. Hard to believe I'm saying that, but I think he's got the physical skills to succeed, and despite many of the common things bandied around as reasons why he's not succeeding, he's simply not going to get a better scenario to work with than having AD behind him. He's just not. With any luck the worm will start to turn for the guy and he'll start making plays, because if he can just be efficient the Vikes do have a chance to do some damage even this year. I can't believe I'm saying that either, but if you look at the games where Ponder has done what Frazier and Musgrave need him to do the Vikes have been in those games against even supposedly far superior teams.

[mansquatch]

I disagree with Peyton not making a difference. Manning would be able to read the defense and call plays to put his WR's and his team in better postions to succeed. With Ponder, there doesn't seem to be much adjustments on the line.

It doesn't matter if you read the defense perfectly every play and the WR doesn't make the right cut or the right route for the read. His point on Manning is exactly right. The only difference is that Manning would probably be all over these guys for this kind of crap and they'd probably listen since he is a future first ballot HOF QB.

Further proof is the early part of Manning's season this year. Their O didn't really start to click until he got his WR on the same page as he was, plus doing the things he wanted them to do. Trust is a huge part of it.

Not saying if the WR get better Ponder will suddnely by Tom Brady or anything like that. Just pointing out that if the WR do not do their part, they will make any QB look bad.

Also it is worth noting that when you are getting sub 30 passing attempt a game, any drops or bad plays will be magnified in their impact on a QB's stats. I think Mothman made the observation that Stafford was putting up the same TD/INT numbers as Ponder at one point this season, but his yardage was much higher. The difference was Stafford also had 2x as many attempts. Again, Ponder is not Stafford, but you see the point on the number passing attempts.

[Mothman]

It doesn't matter if you read the defense perfectly every play and the WR doesn't make the right cut or the right route for the read. His point on Manning is exactly right. The only difference is that Manning would probably be all over these guys for this kind of crap and they'd probably listen since he is a future first ballot HOF QB.

Further proof is the early part of Manning's season this year. Their O didn't really start to click until he got his WR on the same page as he was, plus doing the things he wanted them to do. Trust is a huge part of it.

Not saying if the WR get better Ponder will suddnely by Tom Brady or anything like that. Just pointing out that if the WR do not do their part, they will make any QB look bad.

Also it is worth noting that when you are getting sub 30 passing attempt a game, any drops or bad plays will be magnified in their impact on a QB's stats. I think Mothman made the observation that Stafford was putting up the same TD/INT numbers as Ponder at one point this season, but his yardage was much higher. The difference was Stafford also had 2x as many attempts. Again, Ponder is not Stafford, but you see the point on the number passing attempts.

Well said. A QB's stats are going to be indicative not only of his performance but of what he was asked to do within the game plan. Even with AD ripping through defenses every week, Ponder's not going to put up 250-300 yards passing and 2-3 TDs a game if he's not asked to make the throws that allow that to happen. Last week's game is a good example. The Vikes were running a ball control, move the chains offense that let Peterson serve as the big play threat. In that context, Ponder was mainly asked to make quick reads and throws, hit slants, screens, short crosses, etc. They didn't take multiple shots downfield in part because that wasn't part of the plan and frankly, they aren't very good at it.

To put it another way, when Peterson's yardage tops Ponder's it's not always because the QB had a bad game. Sometimes it's a question of opportunity. Peterson had as many carries against the Rams as Ponder had passing attempts. He had almost twice as many rushing attempts against Chicago as Ponder had passing attempts. That's not to say Ponder is always making the most of his opportunities because he isn't but to get a clear picture of what's going on, it's necessary to consider more than just bottom line yardage totals. Opportunities, game plan, etc. factor into the equation.

[mansquatch]

Frasier and Musgrave and showing that with the right personnel old school football can win in the modern NFL. Is it enough to win a superbowl? Who knows, but I suspect as much as everyone is focused on Ponder, that question really comes down to the Defense being able to keep control of an opponent. To me that is where this approach has the risk of falling apart.

Also a bad passing attack severly limits you when you are behind by more than one score. Ultimately it adds up to having a much tighter margin for error. If the Vikings can execute within that margin of error then they can win games. Whether it is possible remains to be seen.

Really nice to see after the proliferation of passing.

[Dark]

The QB can make the WR's better and the WR's can make the QB's better as well. It goes both ways. Maybe ponder would be better if we had a better recieving core, and maybe our recieving core would be better if we had a better QB. This argument about who is making who worse is absolutely irrelevant.

[S197]

That's the thing with Ponder, even if AD's performance hurts his stats, you can still glean a lot from them. Against the Rams, for instance, he didn't have a lot of yardage but he completed 70% of his passes. The general sentiment of the board was that he did okay, made some throws in tight windows, didn't turn over the ball, but nothing overly spectacular (except for his TD run). Then you have his games where he doesn't even throw for 100 yards, 3 of them so far this year. In those games it's clearly not about AD's production hurting his stats, he just played poorly. In those games he missed open receivers, made poor decision and turned the ball over.

I don't think anyone looks at stats in a vacuum nor expects the guy to throw for 300 yards when AD is performing the way he is but less than 100 yards multiple times? That's not acceptable and is indicative of his poor performance as of late.

[Mothman]

That's the thing with Ponder, even if AD's performance hurts his stats, you can still glean a lot from them. Against the Rams, for instance, he didn't have a lot of yardage but he completed 70% of his passes. The general sentiment of the board was that he did okay, made some throws in tight windows, didn't turn over the ball, but nothing overly spectacular (except for his TD run). Then you have his games where he doesn't even throw for 100 yards, 3 of them so far this year. In those games it's clearly not about AD's production hurting his stats, he just played poorly. In those games he missed open receivers, made poor decision and turned the ball over.

I don't think anyone looks at stats in a vacuum nor expects the guy to throw for 300 yards when AD is performing the way he is but less than 100 yards multiple times? That's not acceptable and is indicative of his poor performance as of late.

Here's some more information:

The 3 games in which Ponder threw for less than 100 yards were against Arizona, Seattle and Chicago (in MN).

In those games he attempted 17 (AZ), 22 (SEA) and 17 (CHI) passes. Not coincidentally, those also represent Ponder's 3 season lows in pass attempts.

Against Arizona and Seattle, Peterson had more carries than Ponder had attempts. Peterson's carry numbers for the 3 games: 23 (AZ), 17 (SEA), and 31 (CHI). He had a 150+ yards rushing in each game.

In other words, AD's production and the playcalling strategy were factors in the low passing production.

Pressure was another factor. Against Arizona and Seattle Ponder was under siege by blitzing defenses the Vikings couldn't block so although he played poorly, his stats and performance were heavily influenced by circumstances. Pressure had a lot do with the low completion percentages he had in those games. The Vikes did a better job of pass protection against Chicago and although the yardage stats weren't impressive, Ponder had a more than acceptable completion percentage of 64.7%.

I'm not making excuses here because I agree that a sub-100 yard level of production from the passing game is essentially unacceptable. I just think it's clear that those poor statistical performances aren't solely due to poor QB play.

[Demi]

The one deep pass to Wright last week comes to mind.

And the one a few feet over Simpsons head. Maybe he just needs another full offseason.

[S197]

Here's some more information:

The 3 games in which Ponder threw for less than 100 yards were against Arizona, Seattle and Chicago (in MN).

In those games he attempted 17 (AZ), 22 (SEA) and 17 (CHI) passes. Not coincidentally, those also represent Ponder's 3 season lows in pass attempts.

Against Arizona and Seattle, Peterson had more carries than Ponder had attempts. Peterson's carry numbers for the 3 games: 23 (AZ), 17 (SEA), and 31 (CHI). He had a 150+ yards rushing in each game.

In other words, AD's production and the playcalling strategy were factors in the low passing production.

Pressure was another factor. Against Arizona and Seattle Ponder was under siege by blitzing defenses the Vikings couldn't block so although he played poorly, his stats and performance were heavily influenced by circumstances. Pressure had a lot do with the low completion percentages he had in those games. The Vikes did a better job of pass protection against Chicago and although the yardage stats weren't impressive, Ponder had a more than acceptable completion percentage of 64.7%.

I'm not making excuses here because I agree that a sub-100 yard level of production from the passing game is essentially unacceptable. I just think it's clear that those poor statistical performances aren't solely due to poor QB play.

It doesn't sound like we're in disagreement at least after reading your last two sentences. Like I said, you can't look at stats in a vacuum but there's still something that you can take away from them.

[Mothman]

It doesn't sound like we're in disagreement at least after reading your last two sentences. Like I said, you can't look at stats in a vacuum but there's still something that you can take away from them.

No, I just wanted to reinforce the correlations between low attempts, low production and poor blocking.