Why I think Ponder needs to sit a game

[UltraNasty850]

I have been a Ponder supporter since we drafted him. I am leaning towards hopping OFF of the Ponder bus. He showed quite a bit of promise last year, I was hoping to see him pick up where he left off last year. It looks as if he is trying to hard and is scared. We all know what Cassel looks like as a starter, I don't think we need that in Minnesota.

While I can't wait to get off the Ponder bus, I still think he is our best option at QB this year.

This is what being a Vikes fan is all about, every single year.

SKOL!

[Mothman]

Frazier: No Thought to Benching Ponder

[yezzir]

As shotty as Ponder has played, he deserves these next 2 home games at the least. If he way under performs in those games, then I'm all for starting Cassel to see how he does.

[yezzir]

Frazier: No Thought to Benching Ponder

That kind of bothers me. No thought? For 3 years this coaching staff has coddled him to the public. I'd like if Frazier just said, "we are looking for the QB who has the best chance to win us games from here on out."

[Mothman]

That kind of bothers me. No thought? For 3 years this coaching staff has coddled him to the public. I'd like if Frazier just said, "we are looking for the QB who has the best chance to win us games from here on out."

It's pretty clear they believe that's Ponder and if I'm not mistaken, Frazier has made that clear already.

The pick 6 was bad and it took the offense most of the first half to get going in that game but by the end of that half, Ponder was playing well and in the second half, his performance did give them a chance to win. I'm glad Frazier wasn't thinking about benching him. That would just tell me he's too impatient and I saw enough of that with Childress.

Of course, even if he did think about benching Ponder, that's hardly something he would express to the media unless he planned to bench Ponder now and start Cassel next week. Why would he undermine his starting QB that way?

At some point, I think the fan and media focus needs to shift a little more toward other issues. It's not ALL about the QB and replacing ponder with Cassel seems an unlikely cure. Sure, the Vikes could be 2-0 right now if Ponder had played better in the first two games. They could also be 2-0 if their OL had played better or if their 28th ranked defense had played better. Throw the special teams in there too. They might be at least 1-1 if they could have handled Hester.

Maybe Frazier should be thinking about benching a few linebackers rather than benching his quarterback.

[yezzir]

It's pretty clear they believe that's Ponder and if I'm not mistaken, Frazier has made that clear already.

The pick 6 was bad and it took the offense most of the first half to get going in that game but by the end of that half, Ponder was playing well and in the second half, his performance did give them a chance to win. I'm glad Frazier wasn't thinking about benching him. That would just tell me he's too impatient and I saw enough of that with Childress.

Of course, even if he did think about benching Ponder, that's hardly something he would express to the media unless he planned to bench Ponder now and start Cassel next week. Why would he undermine his starting QB that way?

At some point, I think the fan and media focus needs to shift a little more toward other issues. It's not ALL about the QB and replacing ponder with Cassel seems an unlikely cure. Sure, the Vikes could be 2-0 right now if Ponder had played better in the first two games. They could also be 2-0 if their OL had played better or if their 28th ranked defense had played better. Throw the special teams in there too. They might be at least 1-1 if they could have handled Hester.

Maybe Frazier should be thinking about benching a few linebackers rather than benching his quarterback.

• It's not ALL about the QB and replacing ponder with Cassel seems an unlikely cure. Sure, the Vikes could be 2-0 right now if Ponder had played better in the first two games.

That's like saying, "Sure, my dog could have completed the obstacle course if he wasn't blind."

No team in the last 5 years has started 0-2 and made the playoffs.

It's a QB and coaching league now. And, Ponder knowing the public knows he's on thin ice could help him -- since not much else is working.

[jackal]

His accuracy is the biggest problem for me.. and the fact that he telegraphs to defenses where
he is throwing the ball at times.. You can't do that in the NFL.. The players are too fast and students
of the game.

[Mothman]

No team in the last 5 years has started 0-2 and made the playoffs.

So what? 5 years is an arbitrary cut-off point. Teams have started 0-2 and made the playoffs and they will again. All the annual stats about 0-2 starts and the playoffs amount to is an indication that the odds are stacked against a team that starts poorly. The Vikings aren't 0-2 because of Christian Ponder. They're 0-2 because the Detroit Lions team and the Chicago Bears team outplayed them.

It's a QB and coaching league now.

It was a QB and coaching league 40+ years ago too. Those have always been key ingredients to team success. Who won the first two Super Bowls? Green Bay, with Lombardi (arguably the greatest coach of all time) and with Starr at QB (another all-time great). Look at the winners since then and you'll see a lot of good coaches and good quarterbacks.

Defense still matters. Blocking and tackling are still crucial to success. It's a team game and it has always been a team game. The game has evolved and changed but it's not all about the QB or the coach.

[yezzir]

So what? 5 years is an arbitrary cut-off point. Teams have started 0-2 and made the playoffs and they will again. All the annual stats about 0-2 starts and the playoffs amount to is an indication that the odds are stacked against a team that starts poorly. The Vikings aren't 0-2 because of Christian Ponder. They're 0-2 because the Detroit Lions team and the Chicago Bears team outplayed them.
It was a QB and coaching league 40+ years ago too. Those have always been key ingredients to team success. Who won the first two Super Bowls? Green Bay, with Lombardi (arguably the greatest coach of all time) and with Starr at QB (another all-time great). Look at the winners since then and you'll see a lot of good coaches and good quarterbacks.

Defense still matters. Blocking and tackling are still crucial to success. It's a team game and it has always been a team game. The game has evolved and changed but it's not all about the QB or the coach.

I agree with most of what you say here, but you're speaking in such generals. Of course blocking is crucial. Of course defense is crucial. Obviously, you've always needed decent coaching and a decent QB to win super bowls. But now more than ever before in professional football, it is a QB/coaching league (OC included); which is exactly what we seem to be lacking at this point. There are literally examples all over the NFL within the last few years.

The Lions didn't outplay us. We killed ourselves in that game. Either team could have won/lost by 20.

The Vikings aren't 0-2 because of Christian Ponder.

That's such an easy statement to say, because he isn't the only reason. Though, he IS the biggest reason. If your QB/OC is the biggest reason for you losing, you should be on a short leash, and nobody can argue that fact.

[Mothman]

I agree with most of what you say, but you're speaking in such generals. Of course blocking is crucial. Obviously, you've always needed decent coaching and a decent QB to win super bowls. But more than ever before in professional football, it is a QB/coaching league (OC included); which is exactly what we seem to be lacking at this point.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to be so vague. I was speaking generally because my point was that I don't really believe it's a QB/coach league anymore than it has been for most of the modern era.

The Lions didn't outplay us. We killed ourselves in that game. Either team could have won/lost by 20.

In the end, the Lions won so they clearly made more plays than the Vikes. One team's giveaway is another team's takeaway, if you know what I mean. The point is that Christian Ponder didn't lose that game, the Vikings lost it. Ditto for Sunday's loss here in Chicago. There are always two teams in these games so inevitably, there are two basic, team-related perspectives. For example, you could say that Jay Cutler directing the Bears final drive and leading them to the win reinforces QB performance in a QB league but I think it would be equally valid to say the Vikings defense allowed Cutler to do that, which shows that defense matters just as much as good QB play. Would Seattle's defense have allowed the same game-winning drive? It's impossible to say but they're allowing an average of over 200 passing yards per game less than the Vikings so far this season.

Put simply, like the Lions, the Bears made more plays than the Vikes and won the game. They didn't make many more, but it was enough and all 3 phases of the game clearly played a role in the final outcome.

That's such an easy statement to say, because he isn't the only reason. Though, he IS the biggest reason.

That's an easy statement to make too but I think it's a LOT harder to back up. According to NFL.com, the Bears had 6 kickoff returns for 263 yards. They passed for 290 yards. Add in another 129 yards rushing and that's 682 yards allowed by the Vikings defense and special teams. Taking that into consideration i don't understand how anyone can say was Ponder the biggest reason the Vikings lost to the Bears.

The Vikes defense is currently ranked #28 out of 32 teams. They're 25th against the pass and 26th against the run. The Vikes, as a team, have allowed 65 points in two games. Only two teams have allowed more: Washington and the Giants. Take Sunday's pick 6 off that total and 4 teams have allowed more points than the Vikings.

Given those facts, I find it hard to understand how Christian Ponder is, unequivocally, THE biggest reason the Vikings are 0-2. I don't deny that he's A reason for that record. The turnovers have hurt. The offense has stretches in which it's been completely ineffective. However, this team has serious problems that go well beyond the QB position and they're serious enough that personally, I don't think it's even possible to to pick a singular player or reason the Vikings are 0-2. I think they're 0-2 because as a team, that's the record they've earned.

Hopefully, they'll start earning a better one next weekend.

[indianation65]

An 0-5 start warrants a quarterback change? I'd opt for 0-3 or sooner...

...wisdom

[yezzir]

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to be so vague. I was speaking generally because my point was that I don't really believe it's a QB/coach league anymore than it has been for most of the modern era.
In the end, the Lions won so they clearly made more plays than the Vikes. One team's giveaway is another team's takeaway, if you know what I mean. The point is that Christian Ponder didn't lose that game, the Vikings lost it. Ditto for Sunday's loss here in Chicago. There are always two teams in these games so inevitably, there are two basic, team-related perspectives. For example, you could say that Jay Cutler directing the Bears final drive and leading them to the win reinforces QB performance in a QB league but I think it would be equally valid to say the Vikings defense allowed Cutler to do that, which shows that defense matters just as much as good QB play. Would Seattle's defense have allowed the same game-winning drive? It's impossible to say but they're allowing an average of over 200 passing yards per game less than the Vikings so far this season.

Put simply, like the Lions, the Bears made more plays than the Vikes and won the game. They didn't make many more, but it was enough and all 3 phases of the game clearly played a role in the final outcome.
That's an easy statement to make too but I think it's a LOT harder to back up. According to NFL.com, the Bears had 6 kickoff returns for 263 yards. They passed for 290 yards. Add in another 129 yards rushing and that's 682 yards allowed by the Vikings defense and special teams. Taking that into consideration i don't understand how anyone can say was Ponder the biggest reason the Vikings lost to the Bears.

The Vikes defense is currently ranked #28 out of 32 teams. They're 25th against the pass and 26th against the run. The Vikes, as a team, have allowed 65 points in two games. Only two teams have allowed more: Washington and the Giants. Take Sunday's pick 6 off that total and 4 teams have allowed more points than the Vikings.

Given those facts, I find it hard to understand how Christian Ponder is, unequivocally, THE biggest reason the Vikings are 0-2. I don't deny that he's A reason for that record. The turnovers have hurt. The offense has stretches in which it's been completely ineffective. However, this team has serious problems that go well beyond the QB position and they're serious enough that personally, I don't think it's even possible to to pick a singular player or reason the Vikings are 0-2. I think they're 0-2 because as a team, that's the record they've earned.

Hopefully, they'll start earning a better one next weekend.

Again, I agree with most of what you say. But, today's game is a QB/coaching league. IF those aspects suck, that usually means your defense is on the field WAY more than they should be in order for a team to be successful. Fatigue and frustration among defensive players is real.

I don't want to look up the numbers right now because I'm eating a beautiful steak, but look up how many points our defense and special teams have scored this year compared to other teams' -- and we are still 0-2. A QB/HC/OC have to be able to stay on the field and at least manage a game somewhat sufficiently. And they haven't done that. They are among the worst passing offenses in the league, hence the 0-2 record. It's a QB/OC league now.

[S197]

The only reason to sit Ponder right now is if you believe Cassel is a viable long-term solution. Otherwise you may as well see what the kid has and if he continues to underperform, you clean house next year.

[yezzir]

The only reason to sit Ponder right now is if you believe Cassel is a viable long-term solution. Otherwise you may as well see what the kid has and if he continues to underperform, you clean house next year.

Agreed. I hear analysts/local writers saying to play to Ponder's strengths, but it's like, what strengths? He can run above average, but that's about it. It's his 3rd year. The best QB experts/scouts in the country say that a starting QB with over 30 starts is more or less completely judge-able for whether or not he is the long term answer. Ponder is there right now, yet his improvement hasn't overcome his incompetence.
I say open the whole playbook and tell him, "Just let loose. Play like you have nothing to lose, and throw down the field. Play like you can make every throw."

I think Ponder deserves these 2 home games. If he plays well, then stick with him. If he continues to suck, move on.

[dead_poet]

The only reason to sit Ponder right now is if you believe Cassel is a viable long-term solution.

You'd be hard-pressed to find people that share that belief.

Otherwise you may as well see what the kid has and if he continues to underperform, you clean house next year.

Pretty much.