Postgame thoughts

A forum for the hard core Minnesota Vikings fan. Discuss upcoming games, opponents, trades, draft or what ever is on the minds of Viking fans!

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
PurpleKoolaid
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8641
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 9:52 pm
x 28

Re: Postgame thoughts

Post by PurpleKoolaid »

Mothman wrote: The Vikings (coaches and players) have said more than once this season that deep passes are being called but the plays often don't work out. I'd be willing to bet several of the plays in this game (and other games) where the protection breaks down and Ponder scrambles were plays intended to go deep. That and the lack of deep receiving threats on the field most of the season should provide two very big clues as to why we don't see more deep passing from the Vikings.

There's no point in throwing the deep ball if it isn't open and there's no point in calling it a lot if the line can't protect the QB long enough for the play to develop.
It's really not a mystery. The receivers have struggled to get separation ALL season. The Vikings have been playing with a star (Percy Harvin) and a bunch of journeyman at WR. The OL has improved but they still struggle in pass protection. Either Simpson will step up and become the deep threat they hope he is or the Vikes simply aren't going to have much of a deep passing game this year.
You mean theres no point in throwing it deep without a QB you can count on. And wasnt Simpson supposed to be the answer to part of Ponders problems?
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: Postgame thoughts

Post by Mothman »

PurpleKoolaid wrote:You mean theres no point in throwing it deep without a QB you can count on.
If that's what I had meant, that's what I would have said.
dkoby
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1272
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 12:47 pm
x 9

Re: Postgame thoughts

Post by dkoby »

Mothman wrote: The Vikings (coaches and players) have said more than once this season that deep passes are being called but the plays often don't work out. I'd be willing to bet several of the plays in this game (and other games) where the protection breaks down and Ponder scrambles were plays intended to go deep. That and the lack of deep receiving threats on the field most of the season should provide two very big clues as to why we don't see more deep passing from the Vikings.

There's no point in throwing the deep ball if it isn't open and there's no point in calling it a lot if the line can't protect the QB long enough for the play to develop.
It's really not a mystery. The receivers have struggled to get separation ALL season. The Vikings have been playing with a star (Percy Harvin) and a bunch of journeyman at WR. The OL has improved but they still struggle in pass protection. Either Simpson will step up and become the deep threat they hope he is or the Vikes simply aren't going to have much of a deep passing game this year.

Well, here's the rub. This team is still young and does (surprisingly) play well enough to win games in this league. Problem is, they need Ponder to play at least error free, meaning do not turn over the ball. If he doesn't, the defense and special teams can keep them in the game even if he is not spectacular. Those picks were AWFUL. He needs to regroup mentally and play Trent Dilfer football untill they get him some receivers that CAN get separation. Even if it's not until next year.
One thing that I saw today, The offensive line seems to have regressed somewhat and do not play consistantly well. Couple times Ponder took 3 steps and had a linebacker in his grill pronto. One of those was on AP.
I guess I'm just disappointed in Ponders regression today. Take the sack, or throw it away, just quit making those god-awful picks. FWIW, I'm happy with the record and getting a win today. I just want to see steady growth and development from Ponder and just didn't see it today.
The Marines I have seen around the world have the cleanest bodies, the filthiest minds,the highest morale, and the lowest morals of any group of animals I have ever seen. Thank God for the United States Marine Corps.
Elenore Roosevelt. 1945
User avatar
Texas Vike
Hall of Fame Inductee
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:52 am
x 405

Re: Postgame thoughts

Post by Texas Vike »

As ugly as it was offensively, it was a pretty satisfying win defensively. Robinson was getting after it today. He and Allen are becoming mirror images as their 69 and 96 jersey numbers indicate. Smith had a great run back on that pick. Antoine played another solid game. Greenway had some nice plays too.

AD looked better than he has all year. We won despite a BRUTAL passing (AND RECEIVING and coaching) performance.

I have to say, the Vikings are playing the percentages. It makes for ugly play at times, but they get Ws.
thor
Veteran
Posts: 251
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2008 7:21 am
Location: Delaware

Re: Postgame thoughts

Post by thor »

Ponder was horrible. Most of his 6 INT's in the last 2 games have been his fault, and terrible throws. The Cardinals are a lot better on D than a lot of people realize, but still, there is no excuse. Stephan-Howling was rediculous. His yards after contact had to account for 90 percent of his production. It was kind of baffling to see him run on us like that. Plus Skelton had around 90 yards passing near the end of the 3rd quarter, and ended with like 260. That's disappointing. But still it's another huge win. We're 5-2 with a tough Tampa team coming in, and we're going to have to clean up our sloppy play. None the less, always love a win no matter how it happens.

SKOL!! :smilevike:
Image
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: Postgame thoughts

Post by Mothman »

dkoby wrote:Well, here's the rub. This team is still young and does (surprisingly) play well enough to win games in this league. Problem is, they need Ponder to play at least error free, meaning do not turn over the ball. If he doesn't, the defense and special teams can keep them in the game even if he is not spectacular. Those picks were AWFUL. He needs to regroup mentally and play Trent Dilfer football untill they get him some receivers that CAN get separation. Even if it's not until next year.
One thing that I saw today, The offensive line seems to have regressed somewhat and do not play consistantly well. Couple times Ponder took 3 steps and had a linebacker in his grill pronto. One of those was on AP.
I guess I'm just disappointed in Ponders regression today. Take the sack, or throw it away, just quit making those god-awful picks. FWIW, I'm happy with the record and getting a win today. I just want to see steady growth and development from Ponder and just didn't see it today.
I understand. It was a frustrating, disappointing performance from Ponder and I agree, he needs to stop making poor decisions and turning the ball over when trying to avoid pressure. To his credit, he said he was trying to throw the ball away when he was hit and threw that second INT but he could have thrown it away while running and avoided that turnover. He made the right decision but he made it too late.

I want to see steady growth and development from Ponder too but it never really works that way with young QBs. :) Their growth and development is rarely steady. Instead, it tends to go in fits and starts, with steps forward and steps back (hopefully followed by steps forward again). I think the problem Ponder has been having lately is particularly typical for a young QB: his desire to make a play is leading him to take risks he doesn't need to take. However, I don't see anything in his game that isn't correctable and I'm betting we see him take another step forward soon, possibly as early as Thursday night.

I agree that the o-line has problems, although they were facing a good defense today so the Cardinals deserve some credit for what happened. I've said from the start that I think the short passing strategy the Vikes have used this season has as much to do with the OL as it does with anything else. I just don't think their pass protection is reliable on slower developing plays.
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: Postgame thoughts

Post by Mothman »

Texas Vike wrote:As ugly as it was offensively, it was a pretty satisfying win defensively. Robinson was getting after it today. He and Allen are becoming mirror images as their 69 and 96 jersey numbers indicate. Smith had a great run back on that pick. Antoine played another solid game. Greenway had some nice plays too.

AD looked better than he has all year. We won despite a BRUTAL passing (AND RECEIVING and coaching) performance.
I'm not sure whey everyone is so down on the coaching performance today. It seems to me that coaching played a pretty substantial role in the game. There were some questionable playcalling choices but preparation and game-planning made a real difference in this win. The Vikes neutralized Larry Fitzgerald and dared the Cardinals to beat them another way, which the Cards were unable to do. They saw vulnerabilities in Arizona's usually stout run defense they thought could be exploited and sure enough, AD had his best game of the season. They had a special teams strategy designed to eliminate one of the most dangerous return men in the game and he wasn't a factor. The coaching performance wasn't perfect but I sure wouldn't call it brutal. I think it was one of the keys to victory today.
User avatar
Texas Vike
Hall of Fame Inductee
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:52 am
x 405

Re: Postgame thoughts

Post by Texas Vike »

Mothman wrote: I'm not sure whey everyone is so down on the coaching performance today. It seems to me that coaching played a pretty substantial role in the game. There were some questionable playcalling choices but preparation and game-planning made a real difference in this win. The Vikes neutralized Larry Fitzgerald and dared the Cardinals to beat them another way, which the Cards were unable to do. They saw vulnerabilities in Arizona's usually stout run defense they thought could be exploited and sure enough, AD had his best game of the season. They had a special teams strategy designed to eliminate one of the most dangerous return men in the game and he wasn't a factor. The coaching performance wasn't perfect but I sure wouldn't call it brutal. I think it was one of the keys to victory today.

I thought the offensive game plan was poor throughout the game. (My brutal description was intended more for Ponder's performance). Musgrave/Frazier were particularly shaky at the end of the half--which resulted in Ponder's bone-headed throw--and at the end of the game when they first sent out the field goal unit, then opted to go for it on 4th down w/ 14 seconds left... they just didn't seem to have a clear idea of what they were doing in either case. Instead, everything felt panicked and rushed.

On the other hand, I agree with the points you made regarding ST strategies and neutralizing Fitz; most of AD's yards were after first contact, so I'd attribute his success more to him than the coaches.

One other thing regarding play-calling in the 2nd half bothered me: they kept throwing on first and then running AD on second, getting in 3rd and long and then punting. There was a real lack of variety in the play calling in the second half.
mondry
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8455
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 12:53 pm

Re: Postgame thoughts

Post by mondry »

Mothman wrote: I'm not sure whey everyone is so down on the coaching performance today.
I think it was a fine game for the coaches and really everybody cept ponder. There is no real way to defend his performance today, the only thing to say is hope he improves / learns from it but it's definitely not a good thing!
Juice
Pro Bowl Elite Player
Posts: 989
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 2:12 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Postgame thoughts

Post by Juice »

"They say no matter how hard you work, there's always someone, somewhere working harder than you. Guess what? I'm that someone." -Kevin Garnett
User avatar
Delaqure
Franchise Player
Posts: 420
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:53 pm

Re: Postgame thoughts

Post by Delaqure »

Well as you know I am a Ponder supporter. I like the kid. That being said he played a poor game today. It looked to me that he was trying too hard to make a play. While it is true that it seemed that he didn't have much time to leg the downfield plays development there were times he had the time but didn't make a throw. If he couldn't find anyone open he would hold the ball and hold the ball and then take off too late. He needs to work on that internal clock and get rid of the ball quicker and foe crying out loud throw it out of bounds! He needs to settle down and quite trying to force soemthing to happen.

I am hoping he and Simpson can development some chemestry. They haven't had any time to do that yet.
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: Postgame thoughts

Post by Mothman »

Juice wrote:Tom & Judd's post game thoughts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSFLdUEK ... ture=g-u-u

Good stuff. Thanks for the link.
CalVike
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3006
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 10:37 pm

Re: Postgame thoughts

Post by CalVike »

Clearly all the talk in public about his girlfriend shook Ponder up. Just a one week hiccup :)

Go Vikes!
radar55
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1160
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 11:45 am
Location: Minnesota

Re: Postgame thoughts

Post by radar55 »

CalVike wrote:Clearly all the talk in public about his girlfriend shook Ponder up. Just a one week hiccup :)

Go Vikes!
Ponder has had the hiccups for 3 weeks now......someone needs to scare the **** out of him and cure these "hiccups" before he costs us the rest of the season
User avatar
PurpleKoolaid
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8641
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 9:52 pm
x 28

Re: Postgame thoughts

Post by PurpleKoolaid »

CalVike wrote:Clearly all the talk in public about his girlfriend shook Ponder up. Just a one week hiccup :)

Go Vikes!
If by 1 week you mean 2 years, I agree :lol:
Post Reply