808vikingsfan wrote:Nothing can provide a complete picture. But let's say if the Vikings gave up 100 sacks, you can make a pretty accurate assumption that their protection was bad. Use the Cardinals as an example. Without even looking, I would've guessed they would be at the top of the list in sacks allowed and they are with 58 sacks, 97 qb hits. Also, I don't remember protection being a hot topic in this forum last year. There weren't separate threads bashing the line like in previous years. Yes, there's always room for improvement, but the OL has improved every year since Sully took over and IMO, had it's best performance since Birk left.
Not a complete picture but you can get some idea of improvement from last year:
Year sacks QB hits
2011 49 76
2012 32 64
Analysis from footballoutsiders.com shows the Vikings improved from #32 to #16 in pass protection.
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol2012
Nevertheless, it
was an issue and it was a significant issue at times (check out the games against Arizona, Seattle and Tampa Bay, for example) . It wasn't bad all year but there were games where it was awful, where it was a major problem and it had a seriously negative impact on the overall performance of the offense.
I'm not disagreeing that the protection was better in 2012 than it was in 2011 but I strongly disagree with the idea that protection wasn't a serious problem for Ponder.
The QB role is not just significant, it is the most significant position in all of team sports, even more so than a pitcher in BB since there are 30 pitchers on a team.
I'd argue that goalie in hockey is an equally significant position but it's an apples and oranges comparison and a different discussion.
Good QB play gives a team a higer margin of error. It doesn't force a team to play perfect the entire game. I believe this is what makes the difference. With good QB play, a team can afford to make mistakes and overcome them. It's what separates losers from SB winners. I know you don't want to hear it, but look at what Favre did to this team in 2009.Sacks are a relatively small percentage of the picture. Look at what Flacco did in the SB. Look at what Rodgers does for a mediocre Packers team. Jim Harbaugh knew it. That whole team was playing at a high level. But even he knew Smith wasn't getting his team to the SB.
I think the examples above somewhat undermine your argument that great QB play is what separates losers from SB winners. Favre certainly didn't do that for the 2009 Vikings. They still lost in the postseason. Rodgers and the Packers have been eliminated in the postseason two years in a row so clearly, great QB play hasn't been enough to even get them to another Super Bowl yet, even though their QB has arguably been the best in the league the last two seasons. The 49ers were close to reaching the Super Bowl in 2011 and lost in OT due to a botched special teams play. Kaepernick wasn't THE difference in SF reaching the Super Bowl in 2012 and failing to get there in 2011. Flacco wasn't the difference on his own either. Heck, he made a throw at the end of the 2011 AFCC game that should have put the Ravens in the Super Bowl that season but his teammate dropped it, which just further illustrates why it's not all on the QB.
I'm not suggesting that great QB play doesn't make a difference. I'm simply saying it's far from the
only difference. That's why getting the Vikes to the Super Bowl isn't and never will be "all on Ponder". Sure, with good QB play a team can afford to make some mistakes and can sometimes overcome them. You can say the same thing about good defense. However, it's a team sport and teams with great QBs lose postseason games every year because they aren't good enough as a whole. Being strong in any area can help a team make up for weaknesses in another but championships are still won by teams, not quarterbacks. That simply does not change which is why winning the Super Bowl isn't just about Ponder. It's about team improvement.
Yes, the rest of team can improve and win a game or two more than last year. They may even win a playoff game. But to get to the SB and win it, Ponder needs to play at a level that he hasn't shown yet.
I agree. I just disagree that it's all on him. I think the o-line, receivers and defense all need to play at a level we haven't seen yet as well. The running game? That's Super Bowl caliber!
However, last year's Vikes were not a championship-caliber team just missing a Super Bowl quarterback. They need to be better in quite a few areas.
You may think I'm a Ponder hater. To be honest, I really like him. I like his poise and attitude. But to think he can take us to the SB with what he's shown so far is stretching IMO. Believe it or not, Jackson made me a believer for one game when he actually carried the team without Peterson vs the Falcons. I have yet to get that feeling with Ponder.
I don't think you're a Ponder hater at all and I don't think he can take the Vikes to the Super Bowl with what he's shown so far either. He has to get better. I just keep reading posts that want to make getting to the Super Bowl ALL about that and it's not. That's all I'm saying.
Fastforward to 2012 and even a basher can see his definate improvement. Winning four crucial games, beating the Packers in a must win (posting a 120 QB rating with 3 td passes and no ints.) getting to the play-offs. 
One and one half seasons and fans like you already have written him off. 
No, it isn't and it never will be. That very idea is ridiculous. It's not all on Ponder. It's not all on Brady. It's not all on Manning. Every time those QBs line up behind center there are 21 other players on the field, most of whom influence the outcome of the each play. There's no doubt that the QB's role is significant but making the Super Bowl (or making the playoffs or just winning a game) is never, ever all on one player. Football simply does not work that way.
