Vikings Message Board.Com

Purple Reign wrote: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.

Eli wrote: Nobody is saying that. Ponder was capable of winning games. He's not the worst QB who's ever suited up in purple, because he has looked less clueless at times and almost as though he could be a starter in the NFL. We're saying it would be better to cut our losses and go with someone else even if it means winning fewer games in the short run.

If you can't understand that, then I honestly don't give a ####.

Eli wrote:

dead_poet wrote: Please. How did McNabb do for us again? Was he old enough for you? Age does not correlate to winning. Cassel may have been the better Vikings quarterback in 2013, but that really doesn't have to do with his age as much as his "talent" (such that it is) or, perhaps more accurately, lack of talent by the other two (or one, and lack of dedication and understanding by the other).

Again, I don't care what the age is of our starter as long as he's an asset and contributing to winning. I ideally would like a guy in his early/mid 20s because, as I mentioned, I want stability at the position. I'd prefer not to trot out 35-40 year-old guys that might be good for a year or so when they're not nursing injuries and we have to, again, keep searching for another quarterback year after year due to the "old guy" either being ineffective, injured or disinterested in returning.

I don't want to wait either, but I also want sustained, long-term success over a possible (improbable) run like 2009 with a HALL OF FAME QUARTERBACK. There's a bit of a difference between "old man Brett Favre" and "old man Matt Cassel").

Purple Reign wrote: I understand what you are saying - but you are not understanding what I am saying.

Yes, somebody did say that. Here is a quote from DanAS: "But I am almost to the point where I would rather the team lose without Ponder than win with him."

What part of "win with him" don't you understand?

frosted21 wrote:Some would argue that you can't win a Super Bowl with a 'franchise' QB anymore, with how much they get paid. It handicaps the rest of your team. There was a blog post I read on it a while back, I will see if I can find it. Don't know if I buy into it, but it's an interesting topic of discussion.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

KSViking wrote:he team lose without Ponder than win with him."

I don't know exactly what the OP meant, as I can't read minds, or what others feel when they agree, but I feel like I relate to their sentiments a bit. I recall the game against the Packers where Ponder actually had a fairly good game, we won, and it put us into the playoffs last year. While I was happy that we had made it to the playoffs, I had seen enough of Ponder by then to feel that, by winning that game, we were in for at least another year or 2 of the powers that be trying to ride the Ponder train longer than had he not had that 1 or 2 good showings. After that game, the NFL analysts, the coaches, management all started saying the praises of Ponder, but I didn't share the same feelings. Then, it seemed like this whole last season, even though Cassel seemed to have been performing better, Ponder kept getting the nod. I live in Kansas City, so I saw plenty of Matt Cassel here, and I was not thrilled when the Vikings picked him up. But, watching him down here, and what I saw in his limited time in MN, I think he is/was a better option than Ponder. You also have to figure that Cassel wasn't getting all of the Starting QB reps through training camp, week in and week out like Ponder was. When he finally got the in there, then they turn around and throw Josh Freeman into the mix. It felt to me all year that while he seemed the best of the 3 below average QBs, that the team and coaches did everything in their power to show they had no confidence in him, and that he was the absolute last option regardless of performance in Pre-Season, and during the year. I think if we had went with Cassel from the first week as our starter, there is a good chance we would have won a couple more games. Still probably not made the playoffs, but had a better showing than we did. While Im not a fan of Cassel, it wouldn't bother me if he was the starter for a year or 2 as we tried to figure out a more permanant replacement option.

frosted21 wrote:Some would argue that you can't win a Super Bowl with a 'franchise' QB anymore, with how much they get paid. It handicaps the rest of your team. There was a blog post I read on it a while back, I will see if I can find it. Don't know if I buy into it, but it's an interesting topic of discussion.

Eli wrote: If that's true, then it must be especially difficult when you're paying a running back franchise quarterback money.

frosted21 wrote: I would be interested to see a comparison..I guess I'm not sure what percentage of our cap Peterson takes up compared to what percentage of their team Rodgers, Manning, Brady, Flacco, etc. take up. Like I said, not sure if it's entirely accurate but it's something I wonder about.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

frosted21 wrote: I would be interested to see a comparison..I guess I'm not sure what percentage of our cap Peterson takes up compared to what percentage of their team Rodgers, Manning, Brady, Flacco, etc. take up. Like I said, not sure if it's entirely accurate but it's something I wonder about.