80 PurplePride 84 wrote:Can we stop with this? The backup QB is always the most popular guy in town.
Joe Webb isn't the answer and is not the future of this team. After a few games of him we'll be calling for MBT, then to bring back Rosenfels and so on. He looks good out the bullpen but when teams have a week to prepare he's not very good.
Only thing I can say about Webb is at least he can make plays with his feet.
Let Ponder play out the string, good or bad and go from there.
Only the extreme optimists had this as a playoff team this year anyway.
It really doesn't matter who they play at QB. This team doesn't have a starting caliber QB on the roster. We just don't. The rest of the season will be painful, but hopefully, we can pick up a decent QB in the off-season.
At least the bright side about playing Ponder is that all his fans are seeing just how ridiculous the hype was. What a terrible pick that was relatively high in the first round. At least we got a couple of studs this year in round 1, so I guess it evens out.
Tweet: @1500ESPNJudd: Spielman's entire strategy is getting a long look at Ponder and rebuilding this team. Truth is, this season still remains about the future.
Unlikely to see Webb anytime soon according to 1500ESPN's Judd Zulgad.
joe h wrote:Pretty sure Frazier has the final and only say on who starts. Spielman's only job is to find the talent, then shut up.
Not that simple anymore. Spielman was promoted to GM last off-season. It's not fully clear the new division of labor. But my sense is Frazier is not the only one who would weigh in on such a major change as QB. Spielman buys the groceries, not Frazier.
I guess the only thing that I don't understand is how we can devote a season and a half of evaluation to Ponder, a QB who just doesn't pass the eyeball test to me. Meanwhile, at least half of you have written off Joe Webb, who has looked spectacular in his half dozen games - spectacularly inconsistent I will admit. Why doesn't Webb get the "let him get experience and get comfortable" chance that Ponder gets?
Without looking up stats and all, by recollection, I have Webb at three spectacular games in his career: Philly, Detroit, and Washington. I can only remember Ponder having one - Denver.
Last thought to "ponder" (that was unintentional - it's just the best word): which of the QB's give us a better chance to win next week? (I realize that there is some consideration for the long term...). At this stage, to win, we have to do it despite Ponder, not because of him.
John_Viveiros wrote:I guess the only thing that I don't understand is how we can devote a season and a half of evaluation to Ponder, a QB who just doesn't pass the eyeball test to me. Meanwhile, at least half of you have written off Joe Webb, who has looked spectacular in his half dozen games - spectacularly inconsistent I will admit. Why doesn't Webb get the "let him get experience and get comfortable" chance that Ponder gets?
Without looking up stats and all, by recollection, I have Webb at three spectacular games in his career: Philly, Detroit, and Washington. I can only remember Ponder having one - Denver.
I wouldn't describe all 3 of those performances as "spectacular". In fact, the only one I'd consider spectacular was last year's performance at Detroit and that's mainly because of what Webb did as a runner. That said, you've asked a fair question and I don't have a great answer.
Last thought to "ponder" (that was unintentional - it's just the best word): which of the QB's give us a better chance to win next week? (I realize that there is some consideration for the long term...). At this stage, to win, we have to do it despite Ponder, not because of him.
Next week? Probably Webb, but as you said, there are long term considerations.
80 PurplePride 84 wrote:
but I think it's stupid to give up on him before this years over. QBs take time to develop and I think the immediate success recently of guys like Ryan, Luck, Griffin, etc have fans expect results sooner.
Develop? I think it is safe to not use the word develop with check down anymore. You can use the antonym of develop. So start using words like "halt" or "repress". And seriously the SOONER the coaches admit that they made a huge fuch up by drafting this guy the better. Which means getting him off the field as soon as possible. We still have a slight shot at the playoffs. And nobody can tell me that Webb does not have a chance to take us their because he has not had the chance. Not saying he is long term answer but I would love to give him the same chance that check down has had. My hunch is he would do better cuz you really can't do any worse.
“He's like a piece of gristle. He's got a great squirt in the hole"-- Brad Childress.
John_Viveiros wrote:I guess the only thing that I don't understand is how we can devote a season and a half of evaluation to Ponder, a QB who just doesn't pass the eyeball test to me. Meanwhile, at least half of you have written off Joe Webb, who has looked spectacular in his half dozen games - spectacularly inconsistent I will admit. Why doesn't Webb get the "let him get experience and get comfortable" chance that Ponder gets?
Without looking up stats and all, by recollection, I have Webb at three spectacular games in his career: Philly, Detroit, and Washington. I can only remember Ponder having one - Denver.
Last thought to "ponder" (that was unintentional - it's just the best word): which of the QB's give us a better chance to win next week? (I realize that there is some consideration for the long term...). At this stage, to win, we have to do it despite Ponder, not because of him.
I would try Webb, if the goal is to win now, but Ponder, if the goal is to finely cure the management of looking at the Ponder as the QB of the future. In the aggregate, I'm hoping that Ponder starts -- and that the Vikings' Ponder era officially ends by the end of the season. I think we need to drive a nail in the stake of that experiment; there was too much invested in that guy for management to stop hoping about sticking that round peg (a guy with mediocre physical skills and a jittery head) in that square hole (the duties of a QB who is contending for the Lombardi Trophy), and I candidly think we need to see a bit more of Ponder being Ponder to make the brain trust realize what they're dealing with.
I do think Ponder could be a capable backup in this league, though he is not playing like one at the moment (yesterday's performance was abmyssal). But I see every reason to doubt that he will ever be THE ONE who will take this team to contending status. So we need to get him out of everyone's system now while we have the chance, otherwise, he might start playing up to his non-awful potential -- which is to lead this team to a rash of 8-8 or 9-7 seasons.
Several have suggested that Ponder would make a decent backup QB in this league. On what are you basing this? He can't complete 3 yd. passes half the time and wets his pants when he is pressured. This wouldn't change if he comes off the bench or needs to fill in for an injured starter. I wouldn't want him as a backup.
If he looks like a bust and throws like a bust, then maybe he's a bust.
soflavike wrote:Several have suggested that Ponder would make a decent backup QB in this league. On what are you basing this? He can't complete 3 yd. passes half the time and wets his pants when he is pressured. This wouldn't change if he comes off the bench or needs to fill in for an injured starter. I wouldn't want him as a backup.
If he looks like a bust and throws like a bust, then maybe he's a bust.
Or if he plays erratically like a young inexperienced QB, then maybe he is a young inexperienced QB.
soflavike wrote:Several have suggested that Ponder would make a decent backup QB in this league. On what are you basing this? He can't complete 3 yd. passes half the time and wets his pants when he is pressured. This wouldn't change if he comes off the bench or needs to fill in for an injured starter. I wouldn't want him as a backup.
If he looks like a bust and throws like a bust, then maybe he's a bust.
“He's like a piece of gristle. He's got a great squirt in the hole"-- Brad Childress.
