Is it Ponder or the O line

[The Breeze]

1 received punts in the first 2 games, not sure how many against the browns but that is a pretty good indication of how poorly our defense is playing. i feel like the tampa 2 has a big role in our issues.

This is exactly my take. They can't get off the field in critical situations. Doesn't matter the length of the field or how many snaps they play.
The scheme is one thing, having guys that fit it is another. Right now it is so easy to complete passes over our LBs that it's almost like a checkdown play good for 7-8 yds for opposing QBs. That equates to first downs in third down situations.

And at the end of games the prevent D that allows opponents to march down the field only to throw it to an athletic TE for the TD, once they get to thered zone, is another scheme\player flaw.

Everybody likes to think Rudolph is some super special TE....but look at the TEs we've faced and how quickly they can get past defenders.
I saw that 6'7" guy for the Lions doing his goofy dance in the endzone against AZ on sunday. Game wining TD.

[Mothman]

Hmm, seemed that way.

Well, I'm sorry but I can't help how it "seemed" to you. If you want to joust at windmills, joust away. I'm not interested in defending a position you create for me, especially if I already disagree with it! I know what I wrote and it clearly didn't say "a turnover only hurts if it leads to points".

We've talked about "points directly off turnovers", what about scoring chances lost by the Vikings due to turnovers?

What about them? I'm pretty sure they fall under what we've covered already. Turnovers are killers. They're costly mistakes.

Primary reason is they aren't that good. Secondary reason is the offense and special teams are repeatedly hurting them with turnovers and bad field position

I agree.

[Raptorman]

You're examining what happens 'after' the turnover. I'm saying if they don't turn it over in the first place, those stats won't be the same. Let's take the DET game for example. Late in the 2nd Qtr, the Vikings recovered a fumble near midfield. Vikings are leading 14-6 at this point. 1st and 10 at MIN 44. Ponder completes a pass for 12, then 15 gets added on for a DET penalty. 1st and 10 at the DET 38 with 2:22 before the half (close to FG range). Next play is Ponders INT. If they don't turn it over there, Vikings most likely get at least a FG, take time off the clock, Walsh kickoffs and DET has to start at the 20 with probably about a minute or less before the half. So, without the TO, the Vikings could be up 17-6 going into halftime, possibly 21-6. Worst case scenario is Vikings only get a FG and then give up a TD in the final seconds of the half. But all of these scenarios are still better than 14-13.

We all know the defense, QB play, OL, coaching, even the running game needs to improve to have any kind of a chance this year. But I don't think it will matter much if the offense keep giving the ball away at this rate.

As long as you are dealing in what ifs. What if the Vikings line up for a FG like you say and Detroit blocks it and runs it in for a TD? Mothman is only dealing with what actually happened, not what could have happened. Because if you want to go down that road, it opens up a whole realm of possibilities. What if Loadholt holds his block and the Brown defender doesn't get to Ponder and force the fumble, and Ponder completes a TD pass at the end of the half instead of turning the ball over. See, it's a very slippery slope. There is no way of knowing what would have or could have happened if the ball was not turned over.

[Raptorman]

OK, let me just get straight to the point then.

Turn the ball over = bad.
Don't turn the ball over = good.

That's about right.

[Mothman]

You're examining what happens 'after' the turnover. I'm saying if they don't turn it over in the first place, those stats won't be the same

That's true but they could easily be similar and it certainly doesn't make the defensive stats a direct result of the turnovers. I examined what happened after the turnovers because that's where we could see what the direct result of each turnover was in the games.

Let's take the DET game for example. Late in the 2nd Qtr, the Vikings recovered a fumble near midfield. Vikings are leading 14-6 at this point. 1st and 10 at MIN 44. Ponder completes a pass for 12, then 15 gets added on for a DET penalty. 1st and 10 at the DET 38 with 2:22 before the half (close to FG range). Next play is Ponders INT. If they don't turn it over there, Vikings most likely get at least a FG, take time off the clock, Walsh kickoffs and DET has to start at the 20 with probably about a minute or less before the half. So, without the TO, the Vikings could be up 17-6 going into halftime, possibly 21-6. Worst case scenario is Vikings only get a FG and then give up a TD in the final seconds of the half. But all of these scenarios are still better than 14-13.

They're better scenarios but they don't change the defensive stats or the defense's responsibility for those stats.

The scenario you described above is full of possibilities but opportunities aren't yards or points. The offense gave the Lions on opportunity. They turned it into a long, quick scoring drive against the Vikes defense. The Vikes offense is responsible for providing the Lions with that chance but the defense gave up the points and that wasn't a given which is why I think they remain responsible for them. They could have come out after that Ponder turnover, stuffed the Lions 3 plays in a row and forced a punt too. I understand what you're saying and the impact of the turnover in that situation but what occurred after the turnover was between the Lions offense and the Vikes defense. Once the Vikes offense gave up the ball, responsibility for what happened shifted to the defense. In fact, the scenario you described illustrates the dynamic perfectly because the Vikes forced a turnover, created an opportunity and Detroit's defense stopped the Vikings from capitalizing on that opportunity by taking the ball away.

[Mothman]

That's about right.

Yes, that's right on the mark!

[PacificNorseWest]

If you want to know if it's Ponder or the OLine - ask yourself this:

If we had P. Manning/Brady/Brees as QB, with our current OLine, what would our W/L be this year?

Answer that for the truth.

There's probably like 20 teams who have asked themselve in private the same thing. Thing is, there are only 4 elite QB's in the entire NFL (Manning, Brees, Brady, Rodgers) and the remaining 28 teams go with what they have.

[radar55]

OK, let me just get straight to the point then.

Turn the ball over = bad.
Don't turn the ball over = good.

Also getting straight to the point

Stopping the opposing offense from scoring in the last minute of the game = good (2-1)
Not stopping the opposing offense from scoring in the last minute of the game = bad (0-3)

[mondry]

Getting one measly first down to run the clock and put the game away on offense = good
Another freaking 3 and out and punting the ball with enough time for your pathetic defense that you know can't stop anyone to have to try and stop someone = bad

[Raptorman]

There's probably like 20 teams who have asked themselve in private the same thing. Thing is, there are only 4 elite QB's in the entire NFL (Manning, Brees, Brady, Rodgers) and the remaining 28 teams go with what they have.

0-3 and Peyton would be in the hospital.

[Funkytown]

Getting one measly first down to run the clock and put the game away on offense = good
Another freaking 3 and out and punting the ball with enough time for your pathetic defense that you know can't stop anyone to have to try and stop someone = bad

Pretty much sums up how I feel about it.

[Reignman]

For those of you wondering why Ponder gets the blame when the defense loses the game, I present exhibit A:

Getting one measly first down to run the clock and put the game away on offense = good
Another freaking 3 and out and punting the ball with enough time for your pathetic defense that you know can't stop anyone to have to try and stop someone = bad

[Demi]

LOL!

I blame the defense for the three 3 and outs in the 4 quarter too.

[Reignman]

I blame the defense for the three 3 and outs in the 4 quarter too.

Because the defense was on the field too long so the offense got cold sitting on the bench?

[Reignman]

After re-watching the Cleveland game I don't think the O-line is as bad as Ponder is making it seem. Sure they could be better, but you're just not going to get as much time as you think, or the perfect pocket all the time in this league. While watching the game I timed every pass from snap to throw for both Hoyer and Ponder because it felt like to me like Hoyer was getting rid of the ball much quicker than Ponder. Admittedly it's just 1 game and a small sample, but it confirms what I felt.

On 57 plays, Hoyer averaged 2.38 seconds per pass.
On 49 plays, Ponder averaged 2.65 seconds per pass.

On 3 sacks, Hoyer had an average of 2.89 seconds.
On 6 sacks, Ponder had an average of 2.83 seconds (higher than his average pass).

Now on the final drive for each team. Both teams were in hurry up and needed a TD to win.

On 11 plays, Hoyer averaged 2.26 seconds per pass.
On 7 plays, Ponder averaged 2.81 seconds per pass.

Ponder was much slower and less decisive when urgency was most critical. On the 6 pass plays just before half, Ponder averaged 2.68 seconds per play. On the final 7 plays of the game he had 4 check downs, a bubble screen, and a sack. He went deep just once. On his 5 completions the ball traveled in the air a combined 12 yards (vertically).

Of the 20 fastest pass plays of the game, 15 belong to Hoyer. Of the 20 slowest plays, 13 belong to Ponder.

On his 30 completions, Hoyer averaged 2.18 SPP and the ball traveled 183 yards in the air 57.0% of his 321 yards.
On his 25 completions, Ponder averaged 2.55 SPP and the ball traveled 133 yards in the air 58.3% of his 228 yards.

And on the sack fumble just before half, the play where everyone thinks Ponder didn't have much time because Loadholt is such a load ... Ponder had 2.43 seconds before he was touched and got to at least his 2nd read (based on head movement) before the ball was knocked out. There were only 11 seconds remaining in the half and presumably you want to leave time for a FG so why wasn't a quicker play called, or why wasn't Ponder more decisive? I'm not trying to excuse Load because he did get beat but it was a situation where we needed to be quicker. On a side note, why didn't Rudolph chip Shear who was lined up wide outside of Rudolph? Yeah I know, hindsight.