Vikings Message Board.Com

Purple Reign wrote: And you claim you don't have anything against the guy personally? I thought the whole goal of sports was to win - so if the team is winning with Ponder then why would you be against that and rather lose with someone else? The only reason that I can think of for that kind of reasoning is that you just don't want Ponder playing, regardless whether they are winning or not, and that would be personal IMO. I just can't quite wrap my mind around that logic.

I certainly can. Because he's clearly not very good, but that alone hasn't kept him out of the lineup on this screwed up team. He's not taking the Vikings or anyone else to a Super Bowl. If he's kept as the starter and he manages 6 or 7 wins every year, then it would be much better to jettison his carcass right now and go 1-15 than it would be to go through the endless agonizing frustration of watching him continue to play QB.

I think all the talk of quitting on the team or preferring to lose than Christian being the QB is a bit melodramatic. It's very obvious that everyone involved with this franchise realizes Christian Ponder is not the long term answer at QB. However, there's at least a 50-50 chance he'll still be on the roster next year, and whether it be injuries or incompetent play by those around him, he may have to start a few more games for the team. That's unfortunately the situation the Vikings are in, but it'll be temporary. There is no way that the team will go into next season with Ponder as the only viable option to start, nor will there be any mistaking him for the future of this franchise.

I can't wait for Ponder to be out of the picture here. He he a lot of issues that I think will prevent him from ever being a consistently serviceable quarterback at the professional level. Very excited for the day to come when he's not even an option on Sundays. That said, I just can't wrap my mind around ever hoping for my team to lose games. I hate losing. Would you have hoped for the Vikings to lose in the playoffs last year, had Ponder been playing? Was it better that Joe Webb was playing, were you able to bring yourself to cheer for "your team" then?

Eli wrote: I certainly can. Because he's clearly not very good, but that alone hasn't kept him out of the lineup on this screwed up team. He's not taking the Vikings or anyone else to a Super Bowl. If he's kept as the starter and he manages 6 or 7 wins every year, then it would be much better to jettison his carcass right now and go 1-15 than it would be to go through the endless agonizing frustration of watching him continue to play QB.

So you are saying you would rather we go 1-15 without Ponder rather than winning every game with Ponder? Obviously that isn't going to happen with Ponder, but that isn't what is being said. He just said he would rather lose than win with Ponder. If the team was winning with Ponder I don't think it would be so frustrating to watch him continue to play qb. Bottom line is winning - I just can't imagine anybody who would rather lose than win, regardless of who is at quarterback. I didn't see a lot of people complaining about Ponder before the season started because he won 10 games the year before and took us to the playoffs - guess he wasn't so bad when the team was winning - right?

Purple Reign wrote: So you are saying you would rather we go 1-15 without Ponder rather than winning every game with Ponder? Obviously that isn't going to happen with Ponder, but that isn't what is being said. He just said he would rather lose than win with Ponder. If the team was winning with Ponder I don't think it would be so frustrating to watch him continue to play qb. Bottom line is winning - I just can't imagine anybody who would rather lose than win, regardless of who is at quarterback.

the funniest thing about this claim that they'd rather lose without Ponder than win with him is how bad would our other QB have to be playing if benching him for Ponder resulted in winning 5-6 more games from his presence alone. Couldn't we just win those 5-6 more games with Ponder and then dump him whenever said QB actually is ready to play better football than Ponder (which is not exactly high expectations for a QB to start with). Isn't this the entire issue we had all season with starting Ponder over Cassell in the first place?

Purple Reign wrote:So you are saying you would rather we go 1-15 without Ponder rather than winning every game with Ponder? Obviously that isn't going to happen with Ponder, but that isn't what is being said.

No, it's not what is being said, because you're right, that is NOT going to happen. Ponder is a bust. Cut him, move on and take your lumps, whatever may happen. Just put a merciful end to this chapter in Vikings' history. It's like a bad taste in your mouth - spit it out, rinse, spit again.

Eli wrote: No, it's not what is being said, because you're right, that is NOT going to happen. Ponder is a bust. Cut him, move on and take your lumps, whatever may happen. Just put a merciful end to this chapter in Vikings' history. It's like a bad taste in your mouth - spit it out, rinse, spit again.

I agree 100% that Ponder is not the answer and they should get rid of him - that is not the point being debated here. But to say you would rather lose without him instead of winning with with him is a bit ridiculous IMO.

Purple Reign wrote:But to say you would rather lose without him instead of winning with with him is a bit ridiculous IMO.

It's just another way of saying "I don't give a damn what happens so long as we're rid of him." And yes, if it means losing more games in the short run, I'm OK with that. I'd rather see the Vikings go 1-15 with a QB who _might_ have a future than go 6-10 with a schlep like Ponder who clearly has none.

Eli wrote: It's just another way of saying "I don't give a damn what happens so long as we're rid of him." And yes, if it means losing more games in the short run, I'm OK with that. I'd rather see the Vikings go 1-15 with a QB who _might_ have a future than go 6-10 with a schlep like Ponder who clearly has none.

See I don't get this belief. If this QB is so bad that Christian Ponder would win us 5 more games, what would make you believe there's any hope he could be the future of the franchise? I know Ponder wasn't given the benefit of the doubt by many after his up and down rookie season.

And if said QB needs time to develop, why couldn't he do so while Ponder wins us those games? Why should we have to sit through miserable play at QB that is costing our team wins when we can start the better short term option and win more, and give the future franchise guy a chance when he actually deserves it and out plays Ponder? I mean, that's not exactly asking much of a QB to earn a starting role, outplaying Christian Ponder. Is this not the reason everyone wanted Cassel to start in the first place this year? Because he was clearly the better QB?

I understand why people want Ponder gone, I do too. But if the situation plays itself out where Ponder IS on the roster next year and happens to be the best QB on the roster, why would you rather lose games with someone else? It just doesn't make sense, there's nothing that says starting Ponder next season because he's the best QB at the time means that we are obligated to stick with him as the future of the franchise

I see getting rid of Ponder as the same as a team getting rid of older players for the sake of getting younger. You don't worry so much if they're better than who will replace them. You know that they have no upside so you release them now, and then fill their slot with someone else. You do the same thing when you're stuck with a complete bust like Ponder. He shouldn't even be brought into training camp.

I hope we go after either Ryan Mallet or Kirk Cousins, maybe with the extra 3rd round pick we have.

Mothman wrote: It frustrates me too because I'm another fan who has been saying for years that the team needs to explore every option to solve their QB issues.

You're right, Barkley is so young that trading for him wouldn't be that different from drafting a QB. It's really more a question of availability, cost, value, etc. I wonder what kind of grade the Vikes had him in the first place.

It is all up to the Eagles if they would. And Barkley is the guy I want, but there are several around the league that are similar. I would kick the tires on Mallot in New England, Nassib NY Giants, Osweiler is somewhat intriguing but he"s 6"7", would we really want a pelican playing behind center?

Another novel idea: Ask Bud for a little advice, Pete Carrol does. I have never heard of Speilman doing this (Would we hear about it?), yet I heard of Carrol doing it with Wilson..

PurpleHalo wrote:It is all up to the Eagles if they would. And Barkley is the guy I want, but there are several around the league that are similar. I would kick the tires on Mallot in New England, Nassib NY Giants, Osweiler is somewhat intriguing but he"s 6"7", would we really want a pelican playing behind center?

Sure! He could stash the football in his beak ... the ultimate play action fake!

I wouldn't want Mallet for more than a late round pick, if that. He's looked erratic in his preseason appearances and the Pats have a 36 year old starting QB. Brady's still an excellent player and he rarely misses games but if that team would be willing to give up on Mallet and trade him for anything less than a 3rd round pick, it would make me question why he's available in the first place.

Nassib's a possibility but again, I have to wonder what it would cost to get him and if he'd even be available. I'm not sure there's that much to be gained by trading for a QB drafted last year over just drafting one this year so with players like Barkley and Nassib, the price would have to be favorable.

Another novel idea: Ask Bud for a little advice, Pete Carrol does. I have never heard of Speilman doing this (Would we hear about it?), yet I heard of Carrol doing it with Wilson..

I seem to remember reading that Frazier did it. If Spielman did, we wouldn't necessarily hear about it. I don't know how much Bud Grant keeps up with college prospects and current NFL players anyway. the Vikings have an entire scouting department to help Spielman with that stuff. I'm not saying it wouldn't be a good idea to ask for Bud's thoughts and advice. The man was a great coach. However, he's been out of football for over 25 years...

saint33 wrote:See I don't get this belief. If this QB is so bad that Christian Ponder would win us 5 more games, what would make you believe there's any hope he could be the future of the franchise? I know Ponder wasn't given the benefit of the doubt by many after his up and down rookie season.

And if said QB needs time to develop, why couldn't he do so while Ponder wins us those games? Why should we have to sit through miserable play at QB that is costing our team wins when we can start the better short term option and win more, and give the future franchise guy a chance when he actually deserves it and out plays Ponder? I mean, that's not exactly asking much of a QB to earn a starting role, outplaying Christian Ponder. Is this not the reason everyone wanted Cassel to start in the first place this year? Because he was clearly the better QB?

I understand why people want Ponder gone, I do too. But if the situation plays itself out where Ponder IS on the roster next year and happens to be the best QB on the roster, why would you rather lose games with someone else? It just doesn't make sense, there's nothing that says starting Ponder next season because he's the best QB at the time means that we are obligated to stick with him as the future of the franchise

No, there's not but it's pretty clear that for a lot of people, the kind of rational thinking you displayed above went out the window a long time ago when it comes to Ponder. I assume, as Dan said, it's because of what Ponder symbolizes to them. He's certainly done nothing off the field to engender the kind of revulsion regularly expressed for him on this board. On the field, he's been inconsistent, bad more often than good, but not incompetent and occasionally, even impressive.

Your post, and particularly your last paragraph, sums up the way I feel about the situation.

Heaven help the next young QB to play for the Vikings if he doesn't impress early and often.

Eli wrote: It's just another way of saying "I don't give a damn what happens so long as we're rid of him." And yes, if it means losing more games in the short run, I'm OK with that. I'd rather see the Vikings go 1-15 with a QB who _might_ have a future than go 6-10 with a schlep like Ponder who clearly has none.

You are still missing the point. Going 6-10 is not winning, that is still losing. This whole conversation was based on wanting to lose without Ponder instead of WINING with him (I'm not saying we will win with him - but IF that happened). So if I had a crystal ball and told you we would go 12-4 next year with Ponder or 4-12 without Ponder, are you saying you would still rather lose and go 4-12? If you are, then I'm calling bs as no true fan would choose losing over winning just because of who is at qb.